Reminds me of the story of the investigative journalist during the Seoul Olympics, at a market stall selling puppies.

Investigative journalist: "Are these dogs for pets or food?"

Enterprising stall-holder: "Both!"

But seriously, I'm more concerned about the suffering of vegetables, because they have less chance to get away. A carrot when pulled from the ground gives off an audible sob. It's true that it's audible only by other carrots, but that's only because HUMANS DON'T CARE TO HEAR IT!

Chiwawa was bred for food, the aztecs took them along on missions one dog / day.

Careful here 579:

...Seems true the chiwawa was more revered by the Aztecs as a religious icon than it was as a staple food. It is believed, only the lower classes of Aztecs ate dogs; now that seems to run a parallel to the modern day phenomena of the animal trust, in their attempts to align the eating of meat as a plebeian bent.

...Also, the other parallel to the academically aligned “human rights” activists, are the academically aligned “animal rights” activists. Seems to me a more important question to be asked is are they, as a group, one and the same? If so, as I suspect they are, what is the true agenda? Dare I suggest, as part of a conspiracy theory, the agenda is to save all animals from slaughter.

...If correct, then does the truth of the theory lead to an outright attack on all farming of animals for the purpose of food? Evidence suggests, this radical grouping is mutating.

Dan the "dogged" man...

Demystifying slaughtering practices sounds like a good idea to me.

I remember one year being in Bangladesh during Eid ul-Fitr, the celebration at the end of Ramadan where it's traditional for wealthy families to slaughter an animal and share the meat with their poorer neighbours. People would buy their bull which had been specially bred for the purpose, and have it tethered outside their house. At the specified time they would perform the slaughtering themselves, by digging a hole in the ground for the blood to run into, tying the bull's legs together and gently lowering it onto its side, and slitting its throat with a large curved knife while saying a quick prayer. The bull would twitch and struggle a little while silently taking its last breaths, and would then be butchered on the spot, leaving only its entrails in the street to be collected I'm not sure how. The whole process struck me as such a peaceful and dignified way to go that I almost felt like lining up for my turn. Unfortunately I don't imagine my own death will be nearly so joyous and comfortable, nor so useful.

I like eating meat, and I've never come across a convincing argument to suggest that there's anything wrong with killing animals as long as it's done more or less humanely. And I think it would be a really good thing if there was more publicity of the way slaughter occurs, because then people like Monica Merkes wouldn't be able to make blanket accusations that meat eaters were mindlessly supporting cruelty to animals.

Deary me, this article just shows me how some city people are
totally losing touch with the real world.

As it happens, just yesterday I delivered a load of lambs to the
meatworks. They had never even had their tails docked. All they
had done so far was enjoy nature, the sunshine, the abundant pasture
and the scenery. Perhaps the author should actually go to a meatworks
to see what happens when they walk down the line. No screams, no
fear, sheep follow one another, its part of their nature.

Its all over in a split second. Unlike what we do to humans. We
stick them in a home, then wait and watch until they gasp their
last breathe, struggeling for days, weeks, months even.

Death is never pleasant Monika, but let me tell you, my lambs had
it far far easier then you or other people will have it.

Sorry I haven't been around for a while but I haven't seen anything worth commenting on. Unlike some others that comment on everything but never offer a soultion. (it's not their job)

Monika Merkes, another Bleeding Heart Vegie. "Plaintif screams & crys for help from poor little innocent pets being dragged to the place of murder." Her insinuations are enough to make me sick. What a load of Codds Wollop.

Meat's meat. It doesn't matter where it comes from. It's all edible. Farmed or pet, It's all the same. In Nature everything gets eaten by something eventually. Such is the way of the natural world. As someone once said, "Sometimes we root for the deer & sometimes we root for the Cheetah."

As for the advocated of Electrical Stunning. Monika I suggest you stick your ear on an electric fence for a few seconds. Just to find out if it does, or doesn't hurt. In the pursuit of research of course. Slitting the throat without stunning is kinder. The animal just goes to sleep.

In the early 70s I was at shepparton abattoirs when the Judis sheep got the chop by mistake, Every working day for years, this sheep led the others to the stunning box. The normal practice was to let the lead sheep through, she knew where the door was and the central lawn, but this day she demised. Within fifteen minutes all 500 workers new what had happened.

What we eat is socialised into us basically unconsciously.

My kids could happily drink goats milk from goat farmer down the road, if not told it was goats milk. They didn't appear to notice any difference in taste, but would feel sick, if they discovered what they had drunk, & refuse any more.

When I was breeding cattle & horses, running in the same paddock together, I came to the conclusion that we should be eating horse. Apart from thoroughbreds, it was very obvious that 9 month old horses were better grown, plumper, & would be better eating than the same age cattle they were running with.

Although this was obviously the case, I very much doubt I could have eaten a chunk of horse. The beef delicious.

Yes Hasbeen, the horses could live off much more marginal country too.

Another example of our strange prejudice is the idea that eating sheep is perfectly normal, but eating goats is weird, when they are virtually the same species.

The Author lives on a different planet. The fact is some people may not like the idea of killing to eat. But most of us would kill if we needed to, in fact most citiy folk ave a parent or grand parent from a time when most people did in Australia. The Author should come out to the country where the real people live and see that it still happens. Or go to most no western countries and see everyone else do it.

The latte set in the inner cities realy have lost touch with the real world. Hell even a hindu lady that works with me has Aussie veggies ie KFC.

The consumtion of animals is growing at exponential rates - not just for food, but for the by-products: Fish bladders in the beer brewing process; meat fats in make-up; etc etc. It is not the eating of meat for survival needs that anyone need object to, it is the turning of meat into a consumer product that is only as valuable as its profit margin. There is no humane killing of an animal, once it is objectified and turned into an object for money making. This is not about a right to eat meat, this is about respect for life forms - and not reducing them to human- centric materialism.

gotta get rid of all those sheep who flacuate regularly causing the climate to change. How else are we going to save the planet.

Hear hear, Monika.
I chose to become a vegetarian after sending 2 of my old free range pigs to the abattoir. Due to an 'arrangement' between the butcher (an old and valued customer) and the abattoir, the back fatters were left without food or water for 48 hours before killing; despite the practice being illegal.
Obviously, neither the butcher or his customers wanted to pay for excess fat.
At some point, thinking humans should decide how “humanity” is measured. Is it merely by our ability to reason, or our ability to empathise -even with the animals we prey on- that makes us Human?
This isn't just about City versus Country, or whether or not some people have milk in their coffee. Just as nurses have a certain notoriety for not being compassionate, so too do farmers, for pretty much the same reason. Getting too involved can only expose one to pain.
In virtually all hunter societies traditions existed honouring prey animals; thanking the prey for their sacrifice so the hunter and his family might live. This compassion is rather more difficult when the animals are bred and raised for just one purpose.
Only in farming societies are animals reduced to mere commodities, before and after they die.
Perhaps this is the essence of the current “99%” protests; the feeling that the 1% see the rest of us as no more than financial commodities, to be exploited where ever possible and placated whenever necessary, but never to be treated with any real empathy.
Indeed, there seems to be a growing consensus that to become one of the 1%, you basically need to be a sociopath.

Jayb, you may well be right when you say just slitting the throat is the most humain option.

I have cut myself perhaps as many as 200 times during my 34 years, some requiring as many as 10'stitches.

I recon there would only have been a handful of these that actually hurt, and these were only when you cut a large surface area, like taking a scallop off the end of your finger, as the pain is as a result in the number of nerve endings that are cut, not the deepness or size of the cut it's self.

In fact, I would suggest that branding is more painful as it damages a larger number of nerve endings.

It is also suggested that an animal killed with a sharp arrow (that doesn't strike bone) is more human and less painful and stressful than a gun shot.

The footage seen on the ABC was a natural reaction from any animal and it may not have been a reaction to pain, but rather, the nerves responding, a bit like a headless chook.

Perhaps the most humain solution would be a gas.

Not sure, but in any case these animals would not have been born if not for the food chain.

*Only in farming societies are animals reduced to mere commodities, before and after they die*

Actually not so, Grim. Most of the livestock farmers that I know,
have quite a close bond with their animals. They are certainly not
doing it for the money, more like the lifestyle which includes that
bond.

But farming teaches you all sorts of things. You learn to accept
birth and death as part of the natural cycle of life. You are
forced to accept reality, when say drought hits, or you go broke.

I've seen farmers try to feed livestock through droughts, the
feed cost virtually sent them broke. Farming can be so pleasant,
but it can also be incredibly tough. Getting the gun out to shoot
your own livestock, because its the only realistic option, is one
of the hardest things I've had to do. I know few farmers who don't
find it tough. Some can't bring themselves to it, I've seen their
farms blow away and their livestock suffer, because they could no
longer afford the feed and went into depression.

To suggest that these people treat their livestock as mere commodities,
is showing your ignorance.

While it is possible to get complete nutrition from vegetables only, an article I read in Time magazine a decade ago indicated that there were on average measurable differences in height and mental acuity between those that ate meat (even a small amount) and those that didn't. However, the vegetarian children mostly caught up by adult hood.

This may be because a balanced vegetarian diet for children is difficult, and was inconsistently applied, but as with other fads such as holistic medicine I regard vegetarianism as yet another new age fad selfishly applied by parents.

rehctub: a bit like a headless chook.

The corrrect way to kill a chook was to grab the legs, pull them goes straight out. A quick chop with the Cane Knife & it is all over. Except the other kids had to chase the headless chook all over the yard. If you just held the body, the chook would pull it's head up & you couldn't get a clean hit & dad would give you a swift kick up the Cloaca.

rehctub: the pain is as a result in the number of nerve endings that are cut, not the deepness or size of the cut it's self.

You are correct. Some people think that cutting the throat is like in the Movies where it's cut from ear to ear. That is not what happens. The knife is thrust in a particulatr place on the neck where all the artries come together. These are cut by the knife. The cut in the skin is only about 75 mm. Very few nerve endings are cut.

What may be cut are the big nerves which sever the pathway to the brain & therefore numb. The amimal passes out & dies from loss of blood.

What happens next is, The spinal cord is cut & a lawyer cane is pushed down the spineal cord to make the nerves fire. This causes the beast to kick & pump the remaining blood out of it's body. The beast doesn't feel this as the pathway to the brain has been severed. Anyway the beast is already dead. Basic anatomy.

A short list of things I have eaten; Chook, Duck, Turkey, Pigeon, Emu, Flying fox, Brolga. Cattle, Buffalo, Horse, Deer, Possom, Echidna, Cat, Dog, Monkey. Native Rat, Turtle, Shark, Fish. There are a few more but that's enough for now. Oh! Vegies. I love my Vegies. ;-)

“ Most of the livestock farmers that I know, have quite a close bond with their animals.”
With how many animals, Yabby? A hundred? A thousand? 5 thousand?
In times past, it was common for dairy farmers of small (a few hundred or less) herds to name each milker, and keep records of each animal. Today, since most small farmers have been forced off the land, it is more common for the beasts to be allocated a number -much like humans.
The first step to 'commoditisation'.
I have yet to hear of any farmers giving a thousand head of beef steers names.
In fact, it was a strict rule on our farm that animals with names were safe. (names like “T bone” and “lamb chop” didn't count.)
Are you suggesting that mulesing doesn't happen, Yabby? Or that farmers with a “close bond” with their animals skin them alive out of love and affection? Ditto branding, disbudding and dehorning.
One can't help but wonder if Yabby would recognise a “close bond” if one came up and bit him on the ass...ets.
After 20 years as a sawmiller and livestock breeder in the (predominantly timber and dairy) Wauchope district, I also know a fair number of farmers. Small acre dairy farmers have obviously far greater scope for forming attachments with their animals, but they're the ones being forced off the land. Even in those circles, my attitudes to animals was considered a little 'cracked'.
After all they are “only” animals (most common rejoinder).
Yes, such farmers do have to make tough decisions; cutting out underperforming stock can be tough, but I for one have never had a problem putting a beast out of it's misery. Nor did I have much of a problem killing an animal for the table, so long as they never knew what hit them; although I can't say I ever enjoyed it. Killing one of my daughters' dogs because it wouldn't stop attacking livestock was far harder.
The article was largely about how we kill animals, rather than 'why' or 'if'.

The fact is, many of the things modern society requires us to do can be dehumanising. Any activity which requires one to bottle or compartmentalise their emotions erodes one's humanity, and can be quite stressful to more sensitive types.
Of course, virtually all adults have been dehumanised to some extent, that's just “growing up”, as they say. It's interesting that the most dehumanised are the last to see it in themselves, we all tend to use ourselves as a template for what is 'normal'.
Don't we, Yabby.
I think a large part of the dehumanising process is losing the ability of objective personal introspection; probably because if we look too closely, we may find things about ourselves that in an earlier, more 'naïve' time in our lives, we may not have approved of.
Butch (sorry, I can't be bothered trying to spell it backwards) and Jayb, I'm inclined to agree. Bleeding is probably as humane (painless) a way to kill a beast as any; I have no objections to eating Roo either, if it's a clean headshot to an unwary animal.
Stressing out an animal, whether by running it down or by sending it to an abattoir, not only is bad for the animal but also bad for the meat. It's also -long term- bad for the farmer.
Children can witness their parents being dehumanised, and as a result, end up sharing the experience.
The one great moral advantage to capitalism is that we all get to vote with our wallets. If we don't approve of an industry, we have the right -if not the duty- not to support that industry.
I love meat. There is no more salivating smell than frying bacon. But I refuse to support an industry -even one I have been a part of- that is deliberately inhuman purely for the sake of the Most Holy Dollar.

Havn't eaten beef for 7 years, chicken and roo only. Since marbling of beef took over, you can not get rid of the fat. The only thing that is good for is a hart attack. Never discard a bit of good road kill.

God I'd love to send all these fools out into the bush for a month, totally unaided, with a gun & a knife.

At the end of it, any who survived would have relearned what human is, rather than some idealised sanitized version. What we see in the city centers, where some kids actually believe milk comes pre bottled off a tree, is the result of lives so far removed from reality, that they would not recognise it, if it bit them on the bum.

If anything is going to destroy the planet, it will be these over educated, over refined twits, who have become totally removed from their roots. Talk about a waste of space.

*Any activity which requires one to bottle or compartmentalise their emotions erodes one's humanity, and can be quite stressful to more sensitive types.*

I would have thought Grim, that being human means the ability to
think and to feel. Even better, to think about what we feel and why.
According to you, only the emotionally engulfed are human. I would
have to dispute that. Widsom does not come from simply following
your feelings. Try reading Daniel Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence",
if you want to understand it further.

There are good reasons why we give both people and livestock a number,
rather then a name. Its far easier and practical. Being human
means being smart enough to understand that. If for instance, I had
to order a couple of thousand eartags with everyones name on it,
apart from having to think of all those names, it would be a logistical
nightmare to get the names to the tagmaker and for him
to produce them. Right now he simply runs the tagmaker 1-2000.

Being human means doing things smarter. The latest dairies are completely
automated. Cows can wander in when they please, they are
fed according to their needs, whilst being milked, all automatically.

That means that farmers can focus on sick animals, livestock nutrition,
pasture management and all the rest. All very human
and farmers can have a close bond with their animals, for they
have more time.

Your problem Grim, seems to be more one of coping with a changing
world. Well you are not alone, its common amongst old fellas.

At least us humans are caring toward our animals, at least until they are on the plate , then they get knocked around a bit. If some want to eat grass , so be it. Not everybody is like that, we need meat to make our brain grow. We are not like animals, ripping the rear end out of an other animal, while it is still alive. It comes down to education, or the lack of it. Get some animal handling experience, become a chicken drover, and get to know how animals behave.

I'm sure you know it all 579, breed a lot have you?

My old stallion still calls & comes at the trot when he sees me, although he's been retired from breeding & show jumping for about 8 years now. His mother is a bit lazier, she comes, but only at a walk. She never was one to spend more energy than necessary. He gave her a hell of a time as a foal.

I'm only here now, so these last 2 of our horses can have a comfortable retirement, after all they gave us heaps of pleasure for many years. Do you think 8 acres each should do them?

Perhaps you could come over some time & teach me how to handle them, always have liked learning new skills.

I have no idea what you are saying, stubbyes and typewriters are not a good mix.

The worst thing they done to beef was marbling, and that was to suite the japanese market. In the 70's the japanese wanted chilled beef. That was a tenderizing process, the meat was cryovac packed then kept at one degree c for six weeks, before being containerized and sent to Japan. Somewhere along the way, the container had been left without being injected with liquid nitrogen to keep the temperature right. When the doors were opened in Japan it ran out the door.
Now you can not separate the fat from the meat, and not as healthy as it used to be. Chicken is ok as long as it doesn't glow in the dark. Pork is not good at all.

Goodonya Yabby, contributing much sanity to this discussion.

Farmers practice animal husbandry, and those who don't, or don't do it well, don't last very long in the business. With vaccinations, worm and parasite treatments (internal and external), supplements, treatment for various infections, assistance in birthing, sire and dam selection, and pasture and grazing management, water quality maintenance and fencing, you can't help but feel at times that you're doing it all for the animals. And, that is the reality. You have to de-horn or risk others losing an eye, or worse, or injury to yourself. Animals have to be managed quietly and calmly, or you just make a rod for your own back.

A relationship is inevitable, and, after all that care, you don't put up with livestock handlers being rough or abusive of your stock. Livestock raising is as humane as you can make it, and our meat is monitored from paddock to plate, with effective checks and assurances all the way through.

This article is just a beat-up, and would be better aimed at poaching practices and exploitation in the Third World.

579,

Most Aussie beef in our supermarkets and butcher shops is grass fed, and the bulk of feedlot fattened marbled beef is exported. I even suspect that most of our best beef, marbled or otherwise, is exported. The only marbled beef I have seen was some Wagyu in a specialist butchery.

Back again.
Good post Saltepetre, I agree entirely with your sentiments.
So how do you account for 88% (over 20 million sheep) of Austalia's merino flock being mulesed?
On reflection, I even agree that Yabby's posts were 'sane'. I'm sure the Freuds would have been delighted with the examples he offered; first the classic 'denial' syndrome: notice even when directly confronted he refuses to mention mulesing. He also exhibits other classic defence strategies: intellectualisation and rationalisation.
Fact: More than 20 million sheep have had the skin cut off their hindquarters, while they were still alive.
Again, on reflection, perhaps I was wrong about upbraiding Yabby for his claims of a “close bond”. Looking back, I'm sure my mother would have claimed to have had a close bond to her children, despite being firmly of the traditions of 'spare the rod, and spoil the child', and 'cruel to be kind'.
Strangely, her children felt considerably less of a close bond to our mother.
Do you think those 20 million plus sheep felt a 'close bond' to those who mutilated them? Sympathy and empathy; there is a great difference between feeling for someone (or thing) and understanding how someone (or thing) feels.
Of course, many if not most would have been “operated” on by contractors, rather than the farmers themselves, which really puts those farmers in much the same boat as those animal lovers who only eat meat plastic wrapped; people who contract out their killing and mutilating are just as culpable as the actual killers by law and by ethical code.
I have also been to abattoirs to deliver my beasts, and I don't recall ever seeing animals skipping gaily down the runs, keen to meet their maker. Most animals start getting stressed before they are loaded onto the truck, and either stay that way or fall into a state of emotional shock until they die. Not only bad for the animal, but also bad for the meat; innumerable studies have demonstrated animal stress significantly reduces tenderness.
Do you think abattoir workers form a 'close bond' to the animals?

It really isn't necessary to resort to quoting pop psychology to address this issue. The phenomenon I was referring to in earlier posts is simply callousness. The relationship between the words “Callus” -a toughening of the skin in response to repetitive injury- and “Callous” -a similar response to emotional injury- has been established in the English language and psyche since at least the 14th century. The concept has been recognised since before the time of Plato. Anyone who would deny the existence of this very common phenomenon must be living in Lala land.
And anyone who would deny skinning an animal while it was still alive is an extremely callous act is... At least as callous as the perpetrator.
Callousness, and the dehumanising effect thereof, is always a matter of degree, so one certainly does not have to be 'emotionally engulfed'. Rather, one needs to be emotionally engaged. Callousness is a defence against a problem. Once this defence has been successfully engaged, the callous person no longer sees any need to actually fix the problem, since for him it no longer is a problem.
IOW, insensitive people lack the sensitivity to realise they're insensitive. Again, this is a matter of degree, and we are all at one time or another insensitive, often in very specific areas; just as we only grow calluses where they are specifically needed.
Here is a great essay on this subject, and how it applies in the marketplace and our modern society:

http://ashokalab.org/empathy

Grim,

Good post, and thanks for the link - interesting discussion of empathy, also relevant to another article on this forum titled "Extinguishing Conscience".

I agree with you that mulesing is barbaric, and if I had sheep I couldn't allow it, and would have to stick to the old regime of fly-strike prevention/treatment.

As livestock producers (and occasional hunters - in my case of feral dogs/dingo-crosses) we can't help facing some realities which may not be all that comfortable - as having to put a beast down, which unfortunately is not that uncommon. When you have live ones, you will have dead ones - ticks, calving paralysis, pestivurus, BEF, coccidiosis, theileriosis, etc, even blackleg, tetanus or leptospirosis if we don't vaccinate accordingly.

However, we all have to eat, and part of our diet is meat and seafood, including lobsters (if we're so lucky). It is natural for most I think to feel pangs seeing, let alone selecting, a live fish, crab or lobster from a display tank, and I wouldn't feel right about selecting one, but that's really pretty squeamish on my part. Reality is reality. If we can't accept that then we have to become vegitarian.

But, there can be no excuse for avoidable and unnessary cruelty, so it's good to see painless euthenasia being employed in preparing those poor seafood, and in world's best practice being employed in abattoirs. (Have you seen what some Chinese restaurants do with fish, serving them fried but still alive - pretty disgusting - and reminds one of some cultures eating the brains of a still-alive stunned monkey. Ugghh.)

In the end result, some of us have to be brave and do what needs to be done to feed people, and we need to do this with the least stress to animals and livestock. I'm sorry they have to go to slaughter at all, but that is life. The best we can do is to keep stress to a minimum for all concerned, ourselves included.

Grim, I certainly did not dodge the mulesing question. Given post
limits, I simply did not respond to your every complaint, but I will do it now.

Yes, mulesing is not pleasant, farmers who run merinos don't do it
for fun. I remind you however that most baby boys were circumcised
and lived to tell he tale. No, they wern't given pain relief either.

The fact remains that flystrike remains the number 1 killer of sheep
in Australia and its a slow and painfull death. I recently read
that in the East, with last year's wet summer, chemicals simply
stopped working and something like 5% of the merino flock died of
flystrike.

So whilst those who don't mules might have good intentions, they could
in fact land up causing their livetock a great deal of suffering.
Today most switched on farmers use Trisolfen when they mules their
lambs.

Some of us are far more advanced then all this. I stopped growing
wool years ago. I developed a composite meat breed that nees no
shearing, crutching etc and is largely unaffected by blowflies.

This year I did not even tail them, there was no reason to. Not
even a ring, as ram lambs grow much faster then wether lambs. They
got an eartag and a vaccine. I was compelled to earmark them, but
with any luck the WA Govt is about to change the compulsory legislation on that.

If you learn the basics of low stress stock handling, then sheep
are certainly not stressed by going to a meatworks. Stress affects
glycogen levels and with today's nutrition we ensure that muscle
glycogen is high, at the time of trucking. Add carcass electrical
stimulation to avoid cold shortening and every carcass is as tender
as the next. Clearly you are commenting from the cheap seats and
don't really know much about what is happening in today's livestock
industry.

“Clearly you are commenting from the cheap seats and
don't really know much about what is happening in today's livestock
industry.”
It's interesting that you introduced Goleman to the conversation, Yabby.
Would you describe your posts as “negotiating for a win-win” or confrontational and patronising?
“Emotionally intelligent”, Yabby?
I'm gratified to note that where you were defending your entire industry in your earlier posts, you are now reduced to just defending yourself.
I'd call that a win.
But then, I'm not a devotee of Goleman.
November 2011:
http://www.flyboss.org.au/more-information/recent-news/nonmulesing-network-newsletter-28-11-2011.php

This is cute; October 2011:
http://newmerino.com.au/wp/news-and-opinions/supply-issues/wool-declaration-mistakes-innocent/

“If you learn the basics of low stress stock handling, then sheep
are certainly not stressed by going to a meatworks. Stress affects
glycogen levels and with today's nutrition we ensure that muscle
glycogen is high, at the time of trucking.”

So basically, you're arguing that the only way to guage stress is by checking glycogen levels, which you artificially boost prior to the stressful event through “nutrition”.
Yes, very empathic. I'm sure the sheep actually loved going for an afternoon drive.
Probably thought they were going to a picnic.

Grim, I'd say that my posts are educational. All that we have
seen so far from you, is somebody who wears his heart on his sleeve
and calls it "being human" and somebody who frankly does not know
much about modern livestock production but criticises it.

I certainly don't defend my whole industry. There are switched on
farmers and less switched on farmers, just like in every other
occupation. You OTOH seem to want to condem the whole industry.
I merely point out your many mistakes.

We certainly don't boost glycogen levels by artificial means, but
by very natural means. We feed them appropriately, with natural
food like oats.

If you knew anything at all about the modern composite breeds, you'd
know that they are alot smarter then merinos and if they don't want to
get on a truck, they won't, no matter how many dogs or threats you
make. With low stress stock handling, we let the animal itself decide to
get on the truck, when it decides that it wants to. All
very different to what you understand by stock handling.