I work at a slaughterhouse. AMA! (self.vegan)
vegan
1 ups - 0 downs = 1 votes
As title says, I work at a slaughterhouse (although here we usually refer to them as abattoirs/meat processing facility). The one I work at only processes lamb and it exports the product all around the world. AMA you are interested in!
126 comments submitted at 03:46:48 on Dec 5, 2014 by extremeftw
Where do you get your protein?
From those delicious chickens mainly. Not a big red meat fan myself.
I'm gonna be blunt with this. How do you, in your head, justify killing a sentient being for money? Does it not upset you to take their life?
It doesn't upset me because I see it is a necessary evil. I justify this based on a few reasons, namely that meat eating is a very ingrained part of most societies in the world hence animals must be processed somewhere. Also, since world hunger is such an issue, I don't think it is logical to try to discard a significant supplier of food (even though growing certain crops may be more efficient, you have to be realistic and realise that not all people will tolerate a purely vegetarian diet.)
The point to be made is that no one likes to kill the animals, but it is something that has to be done and I would rather it be done at a slaughterhouse as they have many, many regulations to ensure that there is no needless suffering inflicted upon the animals.
But it's not necessary at all. You should know more than anyone the huge amount of food that has to be fed to animals to fatten them up for meat. 70% of the grain and cereals grown in america are fed to livestock. How is meat, then, a significant supplier of food?
I mean necessary in a realistic sense. Obviously, the 7 billion people of this planet won't all undertake a vegetarian diet hence a meat processing industry is necessary.
Do you also think ivory is necessary? Killing elephants just for their tusks, because of the ivory industry?
That's a great question, ignorant people think of it as medicine.
Since the ivory tusks produced from poaching elephants does not provide a product which is necessary to survival (i.e. food) but rather is instead used in a disingenuous manner under the guise of its non-existent medicinal properties, no I do not think it's necessary. Also consider that elephant poaching is horrifically barbaric and inhumane to the animal and that there is zero regulation and oversight of the poaching industry.
People think that the ivory is necessary just like people misguidedly think meat is necessary.
The argument you just made is precisely why no one here will have any appreciation for your positions. Just as you see ivory as being used in a "disingenuous manner" for "non-existent medicinal properties" we see the cruel, horrifically barbaric slaughter of any animal for food purposes to be equally disingenuous. The only motive at the bottom of it is personal pleasure (taste, familiarity, convenience, etc) it is not necessary for people to consume animals.
Fair enough.
>the cruel, horrifically barbaric slaughter
I do take issue with that statement though. The slaughtering process is not barbaric, rather it is quite humane.
Quite a broad brush you got there.
I mean that in the context of my particular workplace. Obviously, I know that some meat processing facilities in other countries can be dreadful.
I bet the lambs feel differently
Considering they are unconscious at the time of killing, I doubt it.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word necessary.
I mean necessary in a realistic sense. Obviously, the 7 billion people of this planet won't all undertake a vegetarian diet hence a meat processing industry is necessary.
What makes you so sure that humans are so ignorant?
Manufacture of illegal drugs doesn't upset me because I see it a necessary evil. I justify this based on a few reasons, namely that drug trade is a very ingrained part of most societies in the world hence the drugs must be produced somewhere. Also, since world poverty is such an issue, I don't think it is logical to try to discard a significant source of income (even though you can make money by other means, you have to be realistic and realize that not all people will tolerate a drug-free society.)
The point to be made is that no one likes to trade drugs, but it is something that has to be done and I would rather it be done at my clandestine meth lab as it has many, many regulations to ensure purity and quality control.
^ Literally the same thing as what you said. I still don't understand how this justifies you personally participating in the industry. Ultimately we are only responsible for our own actions.
Yeah, this isn't going to go well in this subreddit.
I see no reason for it to go poorly. I am not looking to start abusing people for their dietary choices, rather to have an interesting discussion on this topic.
I understand. But you literally oppose what we stand for. A clash is inevitable.
You guys downvoting literally every single one of his replies doesn't help. It's not a disagree button, holy shit.
I'm not downvoting! I'm upvoting to try to balance his downvotes.. I agree with you.
I'm not saying you did personally, just that the majority are. Upvotes are for things to add to the discussion, even if you disagree with it, so I'm glad at least you understand that.
This doesn't really add much discussion though. I don't understand what he has to offer here. I imagine most people who are vegan understands what goes on in a slaughterhouse, whether they claim to be "humane" or not.
>I am not looking to start abusing people for their dietary choices
You've already been antagonistic and arrogant, considering that you know the community you're talking to.
I've seen nothing in anything you've written that demonstrates any "insider" insight into slaughterhouses - just a lot of status quo, ill-thought-out defensive-omnivore justifications. I reserve my doubt that you work at one. And even granted that you do, there is really nothing I want to ask you.
If you ever want to ask us anything, feel free.
> You've already been antagonistic and arrogant, considering that you know the community you're talking to.
Care to provide an example of where I have been "antagonistic and arrogant"?
>I reserve my doubt that you work at one
I don't know what possible motivations I could have to lie about this.
Antagonistic:
> From those delicious chickens mainly
I don't doubt that you think chickens are delicious. Anyone with common decency would see how this is disrespectful to a community of people who feel that "delicious" chicken had a right to live.
Arrogant:
>In terms of pure efficiency of resources, no it isn't smart. But in the real world...
References to "the real world", as if to suggest that we don't live in "the real world." That's incredibly dismissive. We get that most people eat meat, and that convincing more to stop doing it is an uphill battle. We're on the front lines of that battle, many of us.
>I don't know what possible motivations I could have to lie about this.
I don't know what possible motivations possess the trolling omnivores who drop by here to inflame, but nonetheless, they come.
I'm not saying you're a troll, necessarily. I'm just saying, this sub gets it a lot.
I honestly have no problem with an earnest attempt to open a discussion about meat and slaughterhouses, but I think there's a burden on you to show a heightened degree of respect for the beliefs of the community you have chosen to engage.
>I don't doubt that you think chickens are delicious. Anyone with common decency would see how this is disrespectful to a community of people who feel that "delicious" chicken had a right to live.
My apologies if it offended.
>References to "the real world", as if to suggest that we don't live in "the real world." That's incredibly dismissive. We get that most people eat meat, and that convincing more to stop doing it is an uphill battle. We're on the front lines of that battle, many of us.
I wasn't trying to make it seem like you live in a fantasy world, rather I was making the point that you can't always use idealistic views as a base to shape the world, you must be realistic.
It's completely realistic that the world will have to become vegan. It's simply unsustainable for 7 billion to eat meat. That's not the vegans making that up, there are scientists around the world saying this has to be the way of the future.
Why is it not realistic that the world become vegan? Stubbornness and ignorance are the only things standing in the way.
Right? It's not realistic, because of people like OP saying "It's not realistic".
Given the amount of money being invested today into plant-based proteins, the tune of this conversation is going to be very different within a decade or two (barring complete societal collapse due to environmental damage caused by real-world things.)
Alright, I'll ask you something you probably came here to answer. Please describe for me the life of the lambs you slaughter, as far as you know, including how long they live, what they are fed, and how they are killed. Thanks.
Since we don't actually raise the animals, I can't give you information on how they are treated before they arrive at the facility (what they are fed and whatnot).
Once they arrive at the facility, they are usually processed within a few hours (sometimes they can stay overnight). Firstly, they are transported from the transporting vehicle to a holding area (which is pretty generous with the amount of space for each lamb, they aren't packed extremely closely to the point where they are fearful.) Then, they move from the holding area up a curved ramp into what's called the kill floor (the ramp is curved to make sure they aren't aware of what is ahead so they don't get scared).
At the kill floor, there are two people involved in the actual process of killing the animal. The first person uses a bolt gun to stun the animal unconscious. The second person uses a knife to sever the carotid artery in the throat (this is done to comply with the halal process, which is taken extremely seriously). The animal is then hooked up and the processing part begins.
If you have any further questions, I would be happy to answer.
I think I'm good, thanks for the info.
No problem.
Which job do you perform?
I work as a in the 'cutting room'. Generally, I assist with the process of how the various parts of the animal are dealt with from cutting to packaging.
So you're not actually involved in the process of killing the animals? It is possible that you believe your position absolves you from any moral responsibility because you’re butchering an animal that’s already dead?
Possibly. But since I am well aware of what occurs on the kill floor (I do work there on occasion, mostly in overtime), that means I am not ignorant of what has happened to the animal that I am processing which means I do not subconsciously absolve myself of the moral responsibility of my workplace.
Do you see animals as the sentient individuals they are or rather as biological automatons without emotions?
I actually love animals and definitely don't see them as "biological automatons without emotions".
> I actually love animals
So you work with killing the things you love, should your family be worried? I jest. I jest.
What effect does it have on your psychological well-being to work with killing sentient beings that you love?
If you had the opportunity to change professions, would you?
Is there a reason that you choose to participate in a problematic system rather than work against it aside from the apathy of believing that people will never go vegetarian/vegan completely?
How do you feel about the studies coming out showing that vegetarianism and veganism and a departure from traditional meat eating will be one of the only ways to help mitigate human-driven climate change?
>So you work with killing the things you love, should your family be worried? I jest. I jest.
:P.
>What effect does it have on your psychological well-being to work with killing sentient beings that you love?
It doesn't harm me psychologically because I know that my facility does everything within its power to make the process as humane as possible. Since I believe the existence of the meat processing industry is necessary (although I know you will disagree, you can refer to my other posts to see the reasoning), I believe that the best we can do is simply to ensure the animal does not needlessly suffer.
>If you had the opportunity to change professions, would you?
I am only working here temporarily for a few months before I move off to Uni. This is not a long-term career for me.
>Is there a reason that you choose to participate in a problematic system rather than work against it aside from the apathy of believing that people will never go vegetarian/vegan completely?
I disagree that it is a problematic system, at least in my country.
>How do you feel about the studies coming out showing that vegetarianism and veganism and a departure from traditional meat eating will be one of the only ways to help mitigate human-driven climate change?
I feel they are very valuable studies and should be explored.
Wouldn't not slaughtering them be more humane?
> It doesn't harm me psychologically because I know that my facility does everything within its power to make the process as humane as possible. Since I believe the existence of the meat processing industry is necessary (although I know you will disagree, you can refer to my other posts to see the reasoning), I believe that the best we can do is simply to ensure the animal does not needlessly suffer.
I did see your other resposes on it, and while I disagree with you, which you already know, I understand how people feel that way.
>I am only working here temporarily for a few months before I move off to Uni. This is not a long-term career for me.
That is probably a very good thing. A lot of people working in a slaughter house environment tend to eventually develop issues. Substance abuse is fairly common in a lot of nations among slaughter house workers and the turnover tend to be high. I hope you will not suffer any problems as a result of working there.
May I ask your age bracket? 17 - 21 or 21 - 25 or above?
>I disagree that it is a problematic system, at least in my country.
And you have every right to disagree with that. And I will in turn ask if you know where these animals are coming from and if they are from a factory farm environment or a more free-range evironment?
>I feel they are very valuable studies and should be explored.
:) As do I.
> May I ask your age bracket? 17 - 21 or 21 - 25 or above?
17-21.
>And you have every right to disagree with that. And I will in turn ask if you know where these animals are coming from and if they are from a factory farm environment or a more free-range evironment?
Since the processing plant is located in a rural area, the animals that come here are all from the surrounding farmlands and paddocks.
> 17-21.
Now I feel old. XD
>Since the processing plant is located in a rural area, the animals that come here are all from the surrounding farmlands and paddocks.
Would this be land around there be completely unsuited for growing things such as oats and soy, or perhaps even orchards? Is it land that tends towards arid and could be better off being reclaimed by native species?
Sorry if I am asking too many questions. I am just curious. :)
>Would this be land around there be completely unsuited for growing things such as oats and soy, or perhaps even orchards? Is it land that tends towards arid and could be better off being reclaimed by native species?
Hmm, I am not an expert in agriculture so I can't say for certain. I do know of people that have farms out there that grow crops (I used to work on a farm that grew organic fruit and vegetables actually). It can be pretty arid out here.
Organic foods don't really grow well in arid areas...
It was mainly arid during the very long drought that we had a few years ago.
I think most people here will find it incomprehensible that you could "love" animals and slice their throats open, hang them upside down, and then begin skinning them, etc.
At best, maybe you love some animals. Could you do what you do to dogs? Humans (in an obviously hypothetical situation where human meat was legal and eaten)?
>I think most people here will find it incomprehensible that you could "love" animals and slice their throats open, hang them upside down, and then begin skinning them, etc.
I personally am not the person who kills the animal. That role is reserved to a Muslim person in order to comply with the halal process.
>At best, maybe you love some animals. Could you do what you do to dogs? Humans (in an obviously hypothetical situation where human meat was legal and eaten)?
I don't have any fundamental problems with processing dogs, provided that it is done in a manner which is equally as humane as it is to the lambs and sheep that we currently process (although since a dog doesn't produce as much product as say a sheep or a pig, I don't think there is much chance of them being mass processed in my region). As for humans, no of course not; there are very, very few societies that consider cannibalism and murder of people to be acceptable, not to mention it would violate numerous international laws and treaties.
No, you didn't answer my question. I said, legality aside, would you work in a human abattoir? IF it were legal, and if people commonly ate human, would you not see a problem with this? If say a certain class of people were bred and raised to be food in a similar manner as animals are currently?
Like children or the mentally disabled, same intelligence as many animals our societies eat.
I somewhat reject the fundamental substance of your question. When you say " IF it were legal, and if people commonly ate human", it kind of just disregards any logical point I can make because a world which would treat human abattoirs as normal would be so arcane and unintuitive that I can't possibly answer your question to an acceptable degree. My best answer would be "I don't know and I can't possibly know".
That's a cop-out answer if I ever saw one.
You can imagine it. Just try.
A world where a specific class of humans is bred to be very low intelligence, as u/PumpkinMomma suggested, so that they don't realize what's happening to them. They have the intelligence of a 6-month old baby. They poop, pee, eat, and sleep. They're bred away from where the average person ever sees them, like meat animals today, in factories and houses. They're kept in different conditions--but are mostly "free range" like chickens crowded on the floor of a large chicken farm. They're provided the same food, water, and medical care as most farm animals (which is to say the least amount of medical care necessary for them to make it to slaughter). They usually don't get to see the sun, but they're supplemented with vitamin D. Again, they're too dumb to know that this is suffering, but they do get stressed from being so crowded, like farm animals today. Then, they're shipped off in cramped trucks, like farm animals today, and they ride the same slaughter train your lambs do, with the hill at the end so they don't see what's coming and don't get scared, because let's face it--most animals, even the dumb ones, know what death is. Then they're stunned pneumatically so they're unconscious and their carotid arteries are slit, they're hung upside down and sent to be processed... Because the humans are so unintelligent that they can't possibly know what's really happening to them, and they're cared for, and they're killed "humanely," their basically indistinguishable from farm animals today, aside from the fact that they are genetically human. So, the humans in the rest of the world think these are justifiable reasons to do this, plus they're tasty. The world is otherwise indistinguishable from this one.
Humans by virtue of being human are given different legal and moral status to animals. This alone makes the point completely moot about human abattoirs being somehow comparable to animal abattoirs.
Your argument is invalid. You realize you could replace "human" with "white people" and "animals" with "black people" and sound like an Antebellum Confederate speaking? As unthinkable as you think it is that humans might ever be eaten because of some vague notion of moral status, Confederates thought it was equally unintelligible to consider black people as moral equals, and yet look where we are today. The point is not moot.
Again, you are using examples of how human rights have changed as a method to apply the same reasoning to animals. It doesn't work that way. The issue of segregationist policies cannot be used as an analogy for animal rights because humans by virtue have a different status applied to them.
Those different legal and moral status are assigned to humans by humans and vary over time. Just as humans throughout history deemed certain races subhuman and worthy only to be enslaved and used merely as objects and commodities. There is no reason the thought experiment is any more ludicrous than what human animals have done to other human animals throughout time.
Wow... most people at least have a problem with "processing" dogs...
You're honestly telling me that you would be okay with someone killing your puppy as long as it was done "humanely"?
WTF does that even mean?
I would say it at least shows a little less speciesism in-between species other than humans. To see all non-human animals as more equal regardless of if they are raised to be pets or raised to be food is a little less disconnected than most... obviously with a conclusion in a direction most vegans would see as wrong, but less disconnected none the less.
I think it's kind of psychotic that you can raise somebody and love them and care for them and then slaughter them.
Absolutely. But it is less disconnected from reality. Knowing that the difference between a pig and a dog is only in superficial definitions is better than thinking that because a pig is raised for food it is all of a sudden less of an individual than a dog who is raised for pets.
People can be psychotic in the colloquial sense and still be pretty switched on.
Unfortunately...
I have another question: why did you post here? I mean, I hear your reason about how infrequently vegans get to ask slaughterhouse workers anything, but how or why did it occur to you, "I should go see if the vegans have any questions?" Does working at your job have you thinking about veganism, or do you know a vegan in real life that asked you questions, so you thought you'd come here? I'm sure you're not the only slaughterhouse worker on Reddit, but I'm sure the thought doesn't occur to most to come here.
Eh, just finished work 2 hours ago for the weekend and I was feeling in a chatty mood. That's really all there is to it. I do not know a vegan in real-life (have come across a few vegetarians though).
But still no interest in understanding us?
Discussion is usually the first step to understanding.
But no questions?
I don't really need to ask questions currently since the questions asked to me give me insights into veganism. If there is something I desperately want to know the answer to, I will ask.
I don't really think this is a good representation of why we do what we do... Just why we think you shouldn't do what you do.
It would be strange if I was the one asking questions in an AMA, no?
We really have nothing to learn from you... you could learn a lot from us.
That's a bit of a hypocritical thing to say from someone who called me ignorant.
Also, we encounter people every day that hold your opinions. Why do you think we have anything to learn from you, shouldn't you be asking us questions?
There is no harm in a friendly discussion, no? Anyway, perhaps people in this subreddit may not have had the opportunity to ask questions to someone who has worked in this industry.
Could be a waste of time.
You really have no questions for us?
Sorry, I am literally typing as fast as I can just to try to answer everyone's questions first. Everytime I refresh my page I have at least 5 more comments to respond to.
What are you hoping to accomplish here?
Why do you think it is okay to take a life of a sentient being when there is no need to?
>when there is no need to?
There are currently 805 million malnourished people in the world. Do you really think removing a significant supplier of food would help that number be reduced?
Do you really think that feeding all the food to animals instead of people is smart?
Go read something about trophic levels and then we can continue our conversation.
In terms of pure efficiency of resources, no it isn't smart. But in the real world you can't possibly expect ~7 billion people to all undertake a vegetarian diet.
Why? Because they're ignorant? Choosing to be stubborn?
For a variety of reasons. Mainly, because people around the world enjoy eating meat products. Also because meat has been apart of their cultures for thousands of years. Some are also probably ignorant of climate change and resource allocation all together and therefore don't really care about possible benefits of veganism.
Eating meat was part of my culture, but it was wrong so I gave it up.
We should educate people, not just let them destroy our environment with their ignorance.
In many cultures though (especially in Middle Eastern and Asian regions, which are primary markets for our slaughterhouse) the consumption of meat is a lot more ingrained from say the United States, so people are less likely to question the ethics of the industry. So, it makes it unlikely that you will be able to "educate people, not just let them destroy our environment with their ignorance."
I don't think this is true. Isn't Israel turning into a huge vegan state?
Sure, but a variety of other countries in the Middle East aren't particularly as progressive as Israel is towards veganism (at least to my knowledge).
Are you suggesting that Middle Eastern and Asian people aren't capable of being educated?
No, but rather that their cultural background would impede efforts to reform something as integral as dietary habits.
Is your lamb going to these malnourished people? Do you think lamb makes up a big portion of the diets (limited as they may be) of malnourished people?
It is a waste of resources to eat meat. If everyone in the world ate vegan (and agriculture was not diverted for feed to animals, who waste it), there would be more than enough food for everyone. Meat availability isn't the issue.
In fact, even with meat, there's already enough food in the world to feed everyone, it's just that so much is wasted, so... I don't see how your profession is helping in anyway.
>Is your lamb going to these malnourished people? Do you think lamb makes up a big portion of the diets (limited as they may be) of malnourished people?
Considering a large bulk of our product is exported to the Middle East and Asia, there would be a sizeable amount of product eventually going to people who are malnourished. I don't know how much of their diets is composed of lamb; I would imagine it would differ from culture to culture and would vary based on factors like cost.
>It is a waste of resources to eat meat. If everyone in the world ate vegan (and agriculture was not diverted for feed to animals, who waste it), there would be more than enough food for everyone. Meat availability isn't the issue.
And in a perfect world there would be no wars. In a perfect there would be no crime. It isn't a perfect world, sometimes you have to be realistic and accept that the most idealistic of views won't materialise. The world has ~7 billion people in it, not everyone is willing to tolerate a vegetarian diet, as it is not a perfect world.
>In fact, even with meat, there's already enough food in the world to feed everyone, it's just that so much is wasted, so... I don't see how your profession is helping in anyway.
Not the slaughterhouses fault that meat is being wasted, because I can assure you that we make every effort humanly possible to ensure that every single part of the animal is used in a meaningful way.
>And in a perfect world there would be wars. In a perfect would there would be no crime. It isn't a perfect world, sometimes you have to be realistic and accept that the most idealistic of views won't materialise. The world has ~7 billion people in it, not everyone is willing to tolerate a vegetarian diet, as it is not a perfect world.
Fair argument, I suppose, but please don't confuse your profession with anything that's helpful or necessary. Vegans have gone from 1% of the population to 2% of the population in the US in just the 6 years I've been vegan. It's not many, but at the rate of 120 kg of meat per person in the US, that 1% increase saves 36 million pounds of meat per year, just in the US, and that's not counting dairy or eggs. So, yes, even you stopping what you're doing and going vegan could make a difference, and move us closer to this ideal world you speak of.
The people eating your lamb in the middle east and Asia are not malnourished, they are the affluent ones who can afford imported meat. In no way are you helping malnourished people and you should stop deluding yourself. Why would your company slaughter animals to redistribute to poor people in foreign countries? It doesn't make ANY financial or business sense. As someone who is currently in the middle east (and just traveled to a third world country in Asia) I can tell you for certain, your lamb is not making its way to hungry, malnourished people.
I don't personally know the specifics about how our particular company distributes its product in foreign countries, so I will concede that I don't have the required expertise to address your point.
There are also many malnourished people in north america and surprisingly, many are obese. Being malnourished doesn't actually mean starving kids in Africa, it means not getting all the nutrients required. Because many obese people don't eat enough good food to cover the nutrients required, they too are malnourished. Just an FYI.
I do think your heart is in the right place, but vegans are in general, exceptionally well educated in the topics of global food shortages, and world hunger. Simply because we have to be, as we are constantly defending our choices. One very valid arguement for the vegan diet, is that if we took the crops we feed to livestock and redistribute it to the hungry, we could end world hunger. That can be backed up with evidence and facts. So it takes a pretty shitty human to argue against wanting to help their fellow man out of poverty. Hence, we are educated on the matter as it's a bulletproof argument in our arsenal.
They're malnourished but they can afford to import meat produced by high paying American jobs? Do you realize how dumb that sounds?
Also, the world isn't perfect, so why give a fuck? That's a really brave and progressive outlook.
>They're malnourished but they can afford to import meat produced by high paying American jobs? Do you realize how dumb that sounds?
Not all cuts of the animal are expensive. Considering various distributors within Asia and the Middle-East buy the product in bulk, the individual cost of each item is quite low.
>Also, the world isn't perfect, so why give a fuck? That's a really brave and progressive outlook.
That's an exaggeration of what I said. All I am saying is that since there is no possible chance of converting everyone in the world to be a vegan (surely you agree with that) that the existence of this industry is necessitated.
Paying to ship it overseas would make it more expensive than other food sources available to them. You are joking yourself if you think this meat is going to poor malnourished people. It is going to rich people.
No, I believe that someday everyone short of Eskimos will be vegan. It is absolutely not necessary to kill.
Do you really believe the 805million malnourished people have access to lamb? If you stopped slaughtering lambs, guess what. There will still be 805million malnourished people. The lambs you kill are not making their way to malnourished people. Fact.
He really does believe that their lambs are going to feed dying people even though financially that makes no sense at all.
Why not grow more food for people and not animals?
I'm sure a person that's starving would have no issue with eating vegetarian if it was that or nothing.
Vegetarian food can be grown for the malnourished people in tandem with animals. They do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Raising animals wastes a huge amount of food and water that should be going to people.
If it really were possible to feed the world while raising both crops for humans and livestock, then we wouldn't have millions of people starving.
It takes over ten pounds of food to make just one pound of beef. Nine pounds of grain wasted just for a few steaks.
Calorie-wise, this is just a dumb argument.