*I have never seen a mutitude of "markdown" prices in any of the supermarket meat sections at any time,and believe me I have looked*

Cuphandle, have you ever looked to see how much of the meat in the
cabinets is still there on the use by date? As I generally shop
every week to ten days, I check every time and most of it still has
at least a week of shelf life to go. Just the free range chicken,
they seem to have a problem with in my store.

As to your conspiracy theory about insurance companies paying, I bet
you they don't pay! Insurance companies are not that silly.

If you want value for money meat, it pays to buy roasts and slice
them up yourself. You can buy legs of lamb on special for 6.99,
yet diced lamb costs 15$. The same applies to the others, as
people cook less roasts these days, wanting convenience and a few
minutes of cooking only.

As to supermarket profits, we know the base figures. Last time
I looked, Woolies were making about 4c in the $, Coles about 2-3c
in each $ of turnover, as Woolies are more efficient at what they
do. Costs are the problem for supermarkets. All those people
employed, wages, super, workers comp, admin, etc. Gross margins
are about 30-35% on average, 90% of that goes on costs to run the
stores. Perishables are often a bit higher, as alot of veggies etc
have to be thrown out.

Just called into Woolies on my way back into town and picked up a couple of 'reduced' in price free range chickens - and its only saturday afternoon!

I think Cuphandle you choose not to look? You are looking for a dark answer and its just not there in my opinion. BTW, I am from a very small country town.

You have been told a couple of times now what happens to the meat but it seems you are not taking any notice.

Hi all
Cuphandle, we HAVE digressed, but I think some of the comment here has been useful.

PALE - I'm still at a bit of a loss about your comment about no-one supporting the PALE/HKM/AFIC submission to the RRAT enquiry into the National Animal Welfare Bill. Why would they? Comment was sought about the proposed National Animal Welfare Bill, not the submissions made to it, and that's what everyone did - they addressed the various sections of the Bill as they saw them. I just don't know what you were expecting, because it was obviously not a forum for animal advocacy groups to discuss specific slaughter methods and the like and express support for one submission or another, or organization (at the time the submissions were not available publicly anyway). Its scope was wider than that.

I have said repeatedly that I am not a member of any animal advocacy group, and that is still the case. I simply quoted the material that is available from their websites because you say that they do not support a carcass trade - clearly they do. Certainly given the amount of money PETA has to devote to animal issues, I'd suggest that a lot of people DO listen to them. I have absolutely no idea why anyone from PETA would have hung up phones on people from PALE. Possibly they didn't want to be seen to be aligned with the HKM cause (i.e. appearing to endorse/encourage particular slaughtering companies - I can understand that). Unfortunately, PALE has possibly aligned itself too closely with that organization in terms of credibility as an "animal welfare group"; it seems to be constantly promoting it and they seem to have common office bearers. Perhaps Andrew Bartlett felt the same way, with Animals Australia being the definitive group in the country anyway - who knows? Did you ask him? If you recall, I did suggest that these electronic petitions are next to worthless for parliamentary purposes.

PF, I'll discuss your comment a bit later (space limitations)

Cheers
Nicky.

Hi Nicky, I think this is what you're after:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

The actual study was on a pay per view site so I have taken a usually reputable news interpretation as my source. Did a quick calculation and I was wrong about the number of vegetarians saying they ate fish/chicken. It was 27%.

Hi Rojo
Thanks so much for that - it was interesting reading. I think some people who regard themselves as being vegetarian think it means just red meat, and others think fish are not excluded. I don't know where those views come from, but I guess Yabby will be able to enlighten us.

PF - I think I might know the person to whom you refer - if it is who I think it is, she most certainly cares about the animals, or she would not expose herself to the risks that she does for her film and photographs. Her work is regarded as invaluable. I suspect that in the course of what she does, she sees such terrible things that she possibly finds it hard to articulate them. Alternatively, perhaps she finds it advantageous to her work to present a different persona to farmers!

Cheers
Nicky

rojo - I deal with a few vet students and a lot of them become instant vegetarians when their studies start to reveal the realities of life to them. Interestingly, quite a few arrive armed with their tins of tuna and salmon!

Maybe if they had to treat fish they might realise that that is what is crammed in those little seamingly non offensive tins.

I wonder how many remain vegetarian after the shock of their rude awakening has faded.

Nicky - it is still my opinion that she used the animals for her own agenda and if given the chance to do something for the pigs she photographs, she wouldnt bother because it would not result in the outcome SHE wants. Her interests are put first.