[cogman10]

I grew up similarly and it's part of the reason I've cut back on my meat.

Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.

And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]

[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t...

[merpnderp]

I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this? Because around here feedlots are only for finishing cattle and typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.

[throwup238]

> I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this?

Nobody does that, it’d be way too expensive. People here on HN have absolutely zero knowledge of how industrial cattle farming operates and have some really bizarre beliefs about the process. Largely because their only experience with it is the supermarket meat section and passing those massive stinky feedlots along the CA I5.

For everyone else: After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption. These are usually steps done by different companies altogether. The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food. It converts tons of grassland to usable farmland, and that pasture makes up 2/3 of the total agricultural land in the US.

[Sightline]

I agree with everything you said except:

>"The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food."

FYI: 36% of corn is grown just to feed cattle/livestock. I'm trying to breed chickens that are less dependent on commercial foods, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic.

Also if anybody is interested in reading about how cattle are raised just read the USDA's page on it: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/...

[throwup238]

That's also very misleading because the vast majority of the corn we feed cows isn't fed to them fresh. It's distillers grains, an industrial waste from ethanol production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillers_grains

It's a cheap type of corn [1] only grown on marginal farmland that is one step above pasture land.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dent_corn

[adolph]

I'm not here to police tone, but it sounded like you were disagreeing with the parent comment but your factual claims do not appear to disagree.

>> typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.

> After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption.

The only difference is the introduction of "sent to “background” on pasture" which arguably is not different from "happy lives as calves on a ranch" given different interpretations of calf to distinguish between baby and adolescent cattle.

[throwup238]

Thanks, edited for clarity.

[rmbyrro]

wow, one year in jail just for trespassing or taking a photo and doing absolutely no damage.

I wonder how much it costs to buy a legislature house. Can't we crowfund buying it to make "modern" farming illegal?

[giantg2]

"wow, one year in jail just for trespassing"

Many western states have much stricter views on property rights and trespassing than the coasts. The penalties are generally higher even if not dealing with this specific scenario. Even regular ID trespassing law can carry 6mo-1y jail time depending on the circumstances, etc.

One often overlooked thing that isn't particularly applicable in this case is the biosecurity aspect involved in agricultural trespassing. Even trespassing in agricultural areas without taking pictures can carry higher penalties in many states.

[whimsicalism]

in other states, these penalties only exist for slaughterhouses, if you broke into a Beyond meat factory and filmed you wouldn’t be eligible for same penalties

[giantg2]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most of the agricultural trespassing, disruption, etc laws don't just apply to slaughterhouses, but also include the farms and such. Many states have general secret recording that apply to nearly all scenarios if you're referring to recording. If you're talking about just trespass, if you "broke" into a beyond meat facility you would in fact face similar penalties in other western states with similar property rights culture. I believe even the ID law would result in 6-12mo maximum jail if you broke into the factory (might even qualify as burglary with higher penalties depending on specifics).

[whimsicalism]

Utah at least specifically only protected things like slaughterhouses. I am not familiar.

The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.

[giantg2]

I think both depend on which state.

Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).

[HeyLaughingBoy]

> if you broke into a Beyond meat factory you wouldn’t be eligible

You're saying that there wouldn't be penalties for breaking and entering?

[whimsicalism]

You would not have as high penalties if it wasn’t an animal facility and you were filming.

[giantg2]

Do you have the law on that? It seems your example in Utah would be class B misdemeanors for trespass in either scenario. I didn't see any law specifically about recording slaughterhouses.

[toolz]

I personally empathize more with the concerns of poor humans than I do mistreated animals and increasing food costs seems likely to increase their pain. I'll gladly wait for technology to improve the lives of animals, but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively.

[smileysteve]

Your conclusions are all wrong.

Beef is incredibly expensive in terms of costs of food, land, and water -- and in high density situations - rapid disease spread (and post consumption disease spread via cancer, metabolic, and heart disease)

By promoting sustainable diets, mostly vegetarian with optional beef splurges

- food costs decrease

- food transport costs decrease

- disease caused by diets decrease

[vlovich123]

Enforcing ignorance is the answer?

> but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively

What about the activists who are motivated by a genuine belief that this is wrong and believe it's their life's work to raise awareness of the issue? Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?

[giantg2]

"Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?"

Seems to be the combined wishes of the constituents. Same theory applies to most topics. You can see this in how different states poll on firearms (or abortion, etc) and the types of laws they have on that topic. As an extreme example, the same person can carry the same gun in two different states and be lawful in one and committing a felony in another without causing any damage simply because the values and beliefs expressed by the populations results in different laws. They might even qualify to carry lawfully in both states but are missing a piece of paper confirming it. That's how the laws works - break it and suffer consequences. Maybe it's worth it depeding on your moral convictions. Don't like it, then change the law. In the case of agricultural tresspass, the law is not likely to change in ID based on the current views of the population there.

[vlovich123]

In a representative democracy, the will of the population isn't so directly represented in the laws that are held. Given the role money and lobbying have in politics, there's no way to conclude that any given law has the broad support of the people vs "this isn't important enough for me to get worked up over vs issues that are more immediately pressing to me" or even "powerful economic powers are acting to sway the opinion of the general population". There's even [1] which adds credence to the idea that laws are passed by the will of the wealthy, not by the will of the constituents. Also immoral laws can be passed when the people in power are immoral. Immoral people can gain power through alternate ways than following the will of the constituents.

More importantly, we have ideals and principles that supersede the will of the public. Arguably the most sacred ideal in America is the First Amendment with respect to protections about speech & this is pretty adjacent in that the law is criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best. Laws like this are not dissimilar to passing a law protecting employers from employees trying to document unsafe working conditions.

So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments, not borne out in practice because of how power & money intermix, & invalidated by the idea that we have principles that supersede the wishes of those constituents.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

[giantg2]

"Given the role money and lobbying have in politics, there's no way to conclude that any given law has the broad support of the people"

That's why I mentioned polling and gave generally verifiable examples.

Yes, money can sway the legislature or even the views of constituents. And yes, most topics have a large number of people who don't care because they don't know or the topic doesn't affect them. However, polling and other research can show how the population views the topic pertaining to the law and the culture in general.

"criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best."

This is factually incorrect. The speech portion of this would be the sharing of the picture. The part that is criminalized is trespassing and recording to get that picture. The civil part would be stuff like libel or slander.

"So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments"

I never said it was a pure expression. You can clearly see that property rights are a part of the culture of most western states. Yes, those laws were influenced by the wealthy over generations, but it's now become part of the culture.

[KittenInABox]

Improving the lives of animals directly improves the lives of humans. Who do you think is eating them? Feeding them? Building their shelters and living near them? Slaughtering them and butchering them? Animal welfare is a public health issue. People have caught bird flu and died!

[WarOnPrivacy]

> instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue.

This kind of corp-captured government is one more reason I'm certain we're in the 1910s again.

I'm finding it easier to count the exceptions to that. (they had appropriate housing, we have fewer labor-related deaths).

source: am an annoying genealogist

[hollywood_court]

So that's the 'small government' I see so many folks talking about online.

[walthamstow]

Money is speech, but photos are not apparently

[earth-adventure]

A picture is worth a thousand words, so the voice of the industry would become too expensive (bribes, oh excuse me, lobbying and consulting) if the public can use pictures. Hence, pictures are forbidden.

[tengbretson]

You should read the linked law. You may find it reasonable.

[walthamstow]

Unless my understanding of 'misrepresentation' is incorrect, and I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, but I find the law to outlaw basic journalism, including and especially the below section which seems to specifically outlaw undercover journalism. What's reasonable about that?

> (c) Obtains employment with an agricultural production facility by force, threat, or misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the facility’s operations, livestock, crops, owners, personnel, equipment, buildings, premises, business interests or customers;

[tengbretson]

If the definition of undercover journalism is simply lying about ones identity in order to publish secrets with the intent to cause injury to another party, then yes, absolutely, I'm in favor of outlawing it, and a 1 year max seems generous.

[DoughnutHole]

Divulging someone's secrets isn't intrinsically unethical. If I reveal the secret that you've murdered someone that's not a secret that you ever had any right to keep.

Likewise these "secrets" aren't something valuable like an algorithm that's in the interest of society to protect. The secret is their monstrous and unethical practices which lower their sales when their prospective consumers learn about them. Keeping it secret doesn't protect competition, it just hides something from consumers that would allow them to make a more informed choice.

Muckraker journalism like this is one of the main reasons the US has regulations for things like food safety and working conditions. Should a journalist go to jail for revealing that a slaughterhouse is hiring 8 year olds, or that there is a mass contamination of a food product that the company still intends to sell? Those can be "secrets" too.

[mschuster91]

There's a difference between publishing actual secrets and publishing evidence of someone breaking the law.

We're seeing with Boeing what happens when law-breaking is swept under the rug for too long.

[m3047]

I think what they're saying there is "I was just taking pictures... noooo, you will break my camera!!! you evil brute!" when you say GTFO is no defense.

Not saying there aren't weird laws. Check the notions of boxed squares (miles) and airspace. Some of these need addressing at the federal level.

[barbazoo]

> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.

And then being shoved into a truck, shipped who knows how many thousand miles to a butchering facility that does it for 3c cheaper and then end up in a line with all your peers to be killed in a horribly industrialized way.

When I lived in central Europe there was a story about pigs or cows, I don't remember, being shipped to Morocco for butchering, imagine that!

People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.

> And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]

Same in Canada. Very disappointing.

[maleldil]

> People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.

No, because most people wouldn't care.

[bequanna]

I agree with you--feedlots are disgusting and cruel.

However, cattle do not spend their "entire lives" at a feedlot. Usually only the last few months (or less) before slaughter. Prior to that, that majority of cattle live in very open and pleasant conditions.