8 films that will make almost anyone consider veganism

If you're already vegan or vegetarian, you have probably heard of or seen many documentaries and other films about animal rights. For that reason, in this list I've included some more obscure films that are equally as effective. I encourage everybody to share these informative documentaries with everybody they know, because there's a good chance that at least one of them will leave an impression. For those with a heart for animals and respect for life, it's impossible to not be affected by the information and/or visuals presented in these films. For those with attention spans on the shorter side, I've also included some shorter, but effective, YouTube clips.

1. Earthlings (2005)

This film is a graphic, disturbing and heart-wrenching journey through hell on earth. It's often described as the most terrifying and sickening horror film ever made - but it's not scary like Saw or The Exorcist. It's scary because all of the violence, cruelty and suffering shown in the film is completely real. These atrocities happen all day, every day, in every country in the world. This film, despite how much we want to look away, pushes us to view reality in its rawest form.

Everybody needs to watch Earthlings, especially those who are not already vegan. For all those people who think cows don't have to die for milk, and that egg production isn't cruel, and that animal farming isn't that bad, tell them to watch Earthlings. Only then will they know the whole truth.

Earthlings is renowned for turning many people vegan - even those who couldn't manage to get through the first ten minutes of it. That's how powerful this film is.

Earthlings is available on Netflix or the Earthlings website.

Many of these films explore how we can work together to put an end to factory farming

2. Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret (2014)

For those who aren't yet ready to see the graphic violence shown in Earthlings, Cowspiracy may be a better option. Instead of focusing on the ethical problems associated with meat, dairy and egg production, it focuses on logic and fact. People who want (or need) to know about the environmental problems associated with animal agriculture should watch this film.

The key word in this film is sustainability. With the help of members of various environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the Natural Resources Defence Council and the Rainforest Action Network, we learn about the impact of animal agriculture on our environment.

Watch the trailer on YouTube or see the full film on Netflix.

3. Forks Over Knives (2011)

While Earthlings focuses on animal rights and Cowspiracy focuses on sustainability, Forks Over Knives focuses on the dietary aspect of veganism, highlighting the lifestyle's many health benefits. Forks Over Knives includes commentary from biochemical professors and nutritionists who believe many common diseases are strongly connected to animal product consumption. The film links the rise of coronary heart disease, obesity and cancer with the western world's increasing consumption of processed animal-based foods.

Forks Over Knives is not a strictly vegan film, but it does encourage a plant-based diet. You may want to avoid this option if you are more interested in the moral aspect of the vegan lifestyle.

Visit the Forks Over Knives website here.

4. Lucent - Australian Pig Farming: The Inside Story (2014)

This film is for those who argue that animal cruelty is rampant only in less "developed" countries. Instead, Lucent reveals that animal cruelty is apparent even in one of the world's most liveable nations.

Lucent, commonly referred to as "the Australian Earthlings", is a documentary highlighting the horrific treatment of pigs in the farming industry. It includes hand-held and hidden camera footage. It is brutal and violent, but it is real, and we can help put an end to it all.

Lucent is available to watch for free on YouTube.

5. Make It Possible (2012)

For those without an hour or two to spare, Make It Possible is a much shorter, 11-minute option highlighting the horrors of factory farming and encouraging viewers to help end the suffering endured by farm animals around the world.

An initiative of Animals Australia, the film urges viewers to sign its accompanying pledge, which includes four options. You may pledge to stop eating meat, to donate to the cause, to eat fewer animal products, or to stop supporting factory farms.

The Make It Possible campaign has seen support from several Australian celebrities, including Missy Higgins, Judith Lucy, Santo Cilauro, Mick Molloy and Rove McManus.

If you're looking to educate people who say they're not ready to give up meat just yet, this documentary may be the better option, as it supports the idea of taking 'baby steps' to eventually wipe out factory farming altogether.

You can find the Make It Possible website and watch the video here.

6. Gestation Crate Pigs, Locked Up In Hell (2015)

Gestation Crate Pigs, Locked Up In Hell is a clay-animated YouTube video created by then 13-year-old film maker, Kyle Kelleher. Since appearing on YouTube in January 2015, the film has amassed over 206,000 views and 3,680 likes. Despite being animated, it is graphically unsettling, and sends a message that is difficult to ignore.

Kyle narrates throughout the animated sequence, detailing the horrific life of a gestation crate pig from birth to death. It focuses on ensuring people know the truth behind what's on their plate.

This film is a good option for people who can't stomach real blood and violence, but still need to see an accurate depiction of what really goes on behind the scenes.

Watch it on YouTube here.



7. Vegucated (2011)

Vegucated focuses on all aspects of veganism; from the environmental, to the ethical, to the dietary. The documentary follows the lives of three meat- and cheese-loving New Yorkers who agree to adopt a vegan diet for six weeks. The results are interesting and inspiring.

In the film, the participants visit an abandoned slaughterhouse, where they are exposed to the reality of intensive animal farming in the United States. On top of this, the participants choose to broaden their knowledge further by visiting a factory farm in current operation - not surprisingly, what they see drives them to fight for animal rights.

Dr Joel Fuhrman, an American physician, and Professor T. Colin Campbell, an American biochemist, offer their knowledge to viewers, discussing the benefits of a plant-based, whole-foods diet.

You can digitally rent or buy Vegucated here, or see it for free on YouTube.

8. Speciesism: The Movie (2013)

Specisiesm: The Movie, as hinted by its title, focuses on the concept of speciesism; which, according to Wikipedia, involves the assignment or different values or rights to individuals on the basis of their species. The term was coined in 1970 by animal rights advocate Richard D. Ryder.

Political activists and prominent animal rights activists (including Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, Temple Grandin and Steven Best) come together in this film to tell the world why they're fighting - a unique take not usually seen in other animal rights documentaries.

The creators of Specisism: The Movie promise you'll never see animals (or humans) in the same way after seeing the film.

Check out the film's website here, or watch the trailer on YouTube.

**

Thank you for reading this list - I hope it has helped you find the best resources to aid you in your fight against animal exploitation.

Could you slit an animal's throat?

It's a harsh question. A horrible question. And while I apologise to anybody who is upset by this question, it needs to be asked.

To get meat, we must kill. It's a concept most people understand - but unfortunately, it's a concept very few people will acknowledge. For many people, it is easier to ignore the truth about meat than to make an effort to change. Many people will eat meat, several times a day, without a second thought. But what if they had to slaughter the animal? What if they had to choose their victim? Would that make any difference at all?

I know, personally, that I could never intentionally slaughter or harm another living creature. And, to be consistent in my morals, I choose not to pay for other people to kill animals for me. That, plain and simply, is why I'm vegan.

"I know there are many people out there who aren't vegan, and yet they too would never harm an animal. Most people have kind, compassionate hearts. Most people don't want to hurt anyone."

But I know there are many people out there who aren't vegan, and yet they too would never harm an animal. Most people have kind, compassionate hearts. Most people don't want to hurt anyone. Morals and ethics are deeply ingrained in our culture, and one of our strongest morals is the idea that killing is wrong. So for many people, given the task of slitting a living animal's throat, they would turn away in horror and disgust. They couldn't go through with it. Many people refuse to even watch videos of this kind of behaviour.

So that's why I ask this question.

Could you take a knife, slice an animal's neck, watch he or she bleed out and die, slice his or her body to pieces, cook these pieces and eat them?

Could you?

Just reading these words sickens me. And I know many other people would feel the same. These words are uncomfortable and unsettling.

So why do we allow it to happen, on a huge scale - a scale of billions, every single day? Why do we pay money to keep this horrific industry afloat?

I believe that moral consistency is very important. I believe that if we think killing is wrong, we should not pay for it to happen.

I believe that moral consistency is very important. I believe that if we think killing is wrong, we should not pay for it to happen. It is a very simple concept, and it is why I have never wanted to eat meat.

Of course, I should address one thing. There are people out there who would happily slit an animal's throat and eat its body. Those people are not the target of this article. I am not going to waste time with somebody who simply doesn't care. But many people are kind and compassionate towards animals. Many people care a lot. All they need is a guiding hand. That's what I am offering with this article.

The reality of slaughterhouses 

If you're doubting whether or not these animals are killed by such gruesome means, I invite you to read this page. It contains accounts of actual slaughterhouse activities written by actual slaughterhouse workers.

Bill Haw, CEO of Kansas City's National Farms writes this:

Well, the slaughterhouse is not a pretty thing. I mean, it's a necessary process. It's a highly efficient process. But it's not now, nor never will be, a very pretty thing. Animals come there to die, to be eviscerated, to be decapitated, to be de-hided -- and all of those are violent, bloody and difficult things to watch. So your first and foremost impression of at least the initial stages of the packing house are a very violent, very dehumanizing sort of thing.

But the fact is, we are meat eaters, most of us. And it's a highly efficient way and a reasonably humane way. The animals are rendered unconscious before any of this happens. I think there's a concern for humane treatment of the animals. But the process itself is a violent and unpleasant sort of thing. ...

What he says is both true and false. The violence he describes, however shocking, is accurate. In saying this, he also justifies his actions through claiming that slaughtering animals is necessary and humane. The first is a matter of fact, and the second of opinion. It is a fact that humans do not need to eat animals to thrive and survive. There are millions of healthy vegans and vegetarians proving that every day. Secondly, if we describe humane as "having or showing compassion or benevolence", then Bill Haw must be wrong, because there is nothing compassionate or benevolent about killing without good reason.

And what's more, Bill Haw describes the dehumanisation of slaughterhouse workers. This is a horrible thing to subject a person to - the loss of their sense of self, of humanity. Slaughterhouses are bad not only for the animals, but for all involved in the horrible process, humans included.

Moral consistency is important

Is it natural for humans to eat meat? Some say yes, some say no. It's arguable. Some say we should make logical rather than emotional decisions, but our entire human lives are based around emotion. What's not arguable is that human society is a society based on morals. Nearly every day, we make decisions based on their ethicality. We live by a system of what's right and wrong, and if we choose to disobey this system, we end up in jail, or are shunned by our fellow humans.

There are two major issues to which humans are strongly opposed: killing and abuse. Needless killing and abuse both go against society's morals - so much so that committing these acts could land you on death row (another issue that is subject to moral debate). We are intelligent creatures able to understand when killing is okay and when it's not. In self-defence, killing is usually justified. If a bear is attempting to rip you limb-from-limb, it's okay to fight back. If a human is trying to kidnap you, it's okay to fight back. But if a human is casually walking by, minding their own business, not harming anybody, it's not okay to kill them. And if a bear is prowling through the forest, seeking shelter or food, it's not okay to kill it. And it's not okay to harm or abuse the beast. What are you doing in the bear's territory, anyway?

"I am morally opposed to necessary killing, and so I will not pay for necessary killing to happen. I will not give my money to an industry that needlessly kills, regardless of how "humanely" the killing is done."

These are the morals we live by. So why should things change when cows, pigs, sheep, and other commodified animals enter the picture? To reiterate what I said earlier: I am morally opposed to necessary killing, and so I will not pay for necessary killing to happen. I will not give my money to an industry that needlessly kills, regardless of how "humanely" the killing is done.

Death is death, life is life, and morals are morals. I shouldn't ignore my morals and push them to the back of my mind, out of sight and out of thought, to justify doing something that's convenient or traditional. I hope you, or whoever you share this article with, take this idea into consideration the next time you or they give money to a slaughterhouse.

If you are interested in veganism, I have many useful resources on my blog: here, here, here and here. You could also check out Veganuary, a project encouraging people to try veganism in the new year. Thanks for reading.

 

The real reason why vegans don't support horse racing

Warning: This article contains distressing and mildly graphic images of abused horses.

Lots of people have different reasons why they think horse racing is wrong. They may disagree with the horses' welfare standards - maybe they want to get rid of whips, or jumps racing, or harnesses. Others may squirm at the thought of a dead horse, like the two horses who were killed last year while racing in the Melbourne Cup. Others want horses to roam freely in soft paddocks at the end of their careers - they don't want horses to be killed and made into pet-food, as many are. These are all valid reasons to oppose horse racing, but they all distract us from the real issue here. The bottom line. The underlying reason why most vegans are so against horse racing.

Exploitation is the key word. In fact, this could be simplified even further: use. Veganism, in its simplest form, is about rejecting animal commodification. We don't use them for food, we don't use them to make clothing or furniture, and, to keep in line with this philosophy, we don't use them for entertainment. That's the basics, and that's the real reason why horse racing isn't vegan.

"Veganism, in its simplest form, is about rejecting animal commodification. We don't use them for food, we don't use them to make clothing or furniture, and, to keep in line with this philosophy, we don't use them for entertainment."

Many proponents of horse racing will talk about how well the animals are treated, how much they are worth, how much their trainers love them, and how they will live out their post-racing lives in peace. In some cases, this may well be true. I am sure there are many racehorses who are cared for. I'm sure there are many jockeys who feel love for the horses they race. But, even if the horses are treated like royalty, they are still being used for human entertainment. They are made to race, and have no choice in the matter. Humans use and exploit these animals for their own enjoyment, a concept that completely goes against the vegan philosophy. Horses do not exist for humans to ride.

One horrifying consequence of using animals as commodities (image from www.horseracingkills.com)

This information is especially relevant now, on the day of the Melbourne Cup. It's a day of celebration and gambling, as many Australians take a day off from work to dress up, spend money, and hope to win something back. Many see Melbourne Cup day as an important aspect of Australian culture. But it's time to shift our thinking. Most of us don't think about why we use horses. We just accept it as 'normal'. Some of us may worry if a horse falls and hurts themselves, or if a horse dies in the race. We may start to think about race safety standards. Of course, issues like this are important. But, the way I see it, we desperately need to focus on the underlying problem. Why do we think we should have the right to use animals in this way? Why do we think we should have the right to own and use animals, to ride them, and to profit from the whole affair?

"Why do we think we should have the right to own and use animals, to ride them, and to profit from the whole affair?"

We would never use humans in this way. Of course, humans race, and many enjoy it - but it would be considered abuse to force a human to race against their will. It is sickening to think of an event in which 'lesser' humans are forced to race while the more privileged humans bet on the outcome. This kind of behaviour would never be accepted in today's world. So why do we impose this fate upon non-human animals? Why is it any different?

Horses cannot express their desire to race. They cannot tell us if they feel tired, or if they don't feel like running, or if they never want to race again. They are voiceless. This is why animal activists must speak out for the animals, encouraging all horse-racers, gamblers and fans to think about whether or not the party is really worth it.

If we treated horses with the respect they deserve, this tragedy could have been avoided (image from www.horseracingkills.com)

If you'd like to show your support for horses, please donate to the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses or any other horse-protection charity of your choice. Many ex-Melbourne Cup attendees have chosen to donate the money they would have once used to bet on a horse. With our support, we can hope that, one day very soon, horses will live lives free from human exploitation. My point is not to downplay the importance of ensuring that horses don't suffer or die - I want only to highlight the underlying issue, the cause of it all: the idea that animals are commodities. If we care about animals, and want them to live full lives, we must accept that they do not belong to us. We must give them the freedom they deserve.

 

Should Vegans Use Animal Tested Products?

The basic definition of veganism is pretty straight forward. We avoid eating or using animal products because we don't want them to suffer. We don't agree with their exploitation. But there are some caveats - some issues that don't quite fit within this basic definition. What about palm oil, for example? It's not an animal product, so technically it's vegan, but its production can cause animal suffering. Or, for the purpose of this article, what about animal tested products? If they don't contain animal-based ingredients, animal tested products are technically vegan, but they're definitely not ethical. And there are many different types of animal products to consider: cosmetics, medicine, household cleaners, soaps and toothpastes... where should vegans draw the line?

Let's start with cosmetics. From what I've heard, seen, and read, it's obvious that many people are against animal testing for cosmetic purposes. The PETA campaigns featuring tortured bunnies, cats and monkeys are shared far and wide. Most cosmetics brands will clearly label their packaging to illustrate their "against animal testing" status. Even the most popular makeup brands, such as Maybelline (once notorious for using animal testing) now advertise themselves as adamantly against this cruel practice. But there's more to it than this - things you wouldn't immediately notice - things that are hidden pretty deep.

When questioned about their stance on animal testing, Maybelline's representatives will state that they're totally against it unless there is a legal requirement set in place. The exact phrasing is as follows: exception could only be made if regulatory authorities demanded it for safety or regulatory purposes. We can't know exactly what this means, but it does sound suspicious. Some have suggested that Maybelline may outsource its product testing to countries where regulatory authorities demand animal testing. Caveats like this must be taken into consideration when discussing this complex ethical issue.

"Essentially, avoiding animal tested cosmetics isn't too difficult, and it's something vegans should definitely strive to do."

Essentially, avoiding animal tested cosmetics isn't too difficult, and it's something vegans should definitely strive to do. Veganism is about avoiding animal exploitation, and testing on animals purely to create cosmetic products is a really horrible form of exploitation. So, let's avoid supporting this practice by only purchasing products clearly labelled as "cruelty-free".

Animal tested household cleaners, soaps and toothpastes are also fairly easy to avoid. Finding these items in a cruelty-free form isn't as easy as finding cruelty-free cosmetics, since they're usually not clearly labelled as such, but it isn't difficult. There are plenty of expansive lists of cruelty-free cleaners, soaps and toothpastes listed online. This list from PETA may be useful.

It's terrible that these innocent creatures are forced to suffer - but what if there are no alternatives?

Even with lists like PETA's available, there are still come caveats. I did some research and found that some people have challenged the authenticity of PETA's cruelty-free list. Apparently, the only requirement for a company to appear on the list is to sign an agreement with PETA stating that they don't test. But, according to this article by Cruelty Free Kitty, these companies may have suppliers that do test on animals. Make sure to read the article to find out more, and check out the rest of the site for more info on how to find genuinely cruelty-free products. Vegans should take this information into consideration when making purchases.

Now let's move on to animal tested medicine - one of the most controversial subjects surrounding veganism. As it stands, animal testing is mandatory for medication. The general consensus is that it's a "necessary evil" because no suitable alternatives are currently available. To make matters worse, medicine isn't something vegans can choose to avoid - sometimes we need it. Sometimes we'll die without it.

I could go into detail about animal testing for medicinal purposes, but I'm not a chemist or a scientist. I don't know enough about the subject. If you want to read more about why medicinal animal testing is so widespread, you can read about it here.

"According to the FDA, 'There are still many areas where animal testing is necessary and non-animal testing is not yet a scientifically valid and available option.'"

In essence, medicine must be tested before it can be used on humans, or all sorts of legal troubles could arise. People could be killed. Testing has to happen, and unfortunately, animals are the innocent victims. According to the FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration), "There are still many areas where animal testing is necessary and non-animal testing is not yet a scientifically valid and available option." This is very unfortunate, but as far as I know, there isn't much vegans can do about it right now. We just have to wait until the right scientific advancements are made.

Some medicines also contain animal products (i.e. lactose in contraceptive pills), and this falls into the same category. Until there are better options available, there's not much we can do. We can try our best to stay healthy and use natural medicine as much as possible, but some people have health issues that require medication, and in my opinion, they shouldn't be made to feel guilty for using animal tested medication. If they really need to take it, they're still vegan. Veganism isn't about being perfect, it's about doing the best you can.

To sum up, I think vegans should do their best to avoid using animal tested products, especially with non-necessary items like cosmetics, dyes, and other beauty products. There are lots of cruelty-free cosmetic products available on the market, which makes things easy for the us. The same goes for household cleaning products and toothpaste - there are a lot of cruelty-free varieties available. If you have access to these products, definitely choose them over animal-tested options. If you're not lucky enough to have access, don't feel guilty, just keep doing the best you can.

In terms of medicine, I don't think you should have your vegan club membership revoked for using medication that keeps you alive and healthy, regardless of whether or not it's tested. Your life is important. Trust me, you can do a lot more for the animals when you're alive and healthy than when you're sick or dead! So keep taking that medication, and don't feel guilty. In the meantime, let's hope for better alternatives, spread awareness, and help fund scientific research to abolish animal testing for good.

 

Tumblr User Says "Vegans Should Eat Honey"

I don't know much about honey production. I don't know much about honey at all, because it's never really been included in my diet. I don't eat honey for two reasons: one, because it's an animal product, and I'm against the use of animal products; and two, because it tastes absolutely disgusting. I've never enjoyed eating honey.

What I do know is that, in general, honey isn't considered vegan. Avoiding animal products is a very important part of the vegan lifestyle, and honey, by definition, is an animal product. In that sense, it's not vegan and vegans shouldn't consume it.

But sometimes we have to look deeper. We have to think logically and practically about how to stop harming animals. Is it possible that honey production could be saving the bees rather than hurting them?

That's what Tumblr user itslitt3red (who is, according to their Tumblr page, vegan) has suggested. Here's a screenshot of the post in question, if you're interested:

If you can't read the text in the screenshot, here's a transcript:

"As I'm sure most people know by now, bees are disappearing at alarming rates. Simply put, our entire species could not survive without them. This is due to a syndrome called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

Many vegans opt to use agave nectar instead of honey, because agave nectar is plant based. BUt harvesting of agave nectar is threatening the existence of two other endangered species: Mexican long-nosed bats (who live strictly off of nectars - primarily agave nectar) and the Jaguarundi (a solitary feline who basically looks like a love child between a jungle cat and a ferret). Approximately 113,126 acres of these animals' habitat were destroyed from 1991 to 2000, and more has been destroyed since.

On the other hand, beekeepers are essential to increasing bee population. They monitor the bees' health and help protect them from dangerous parasites and pesticides that are suspected to cause CCD. In addition, well-kept bees never need to use the amount of honey they produce; honey is made by the bees to consume only when there is not enough food for them outside the hive. In the care of a good beekeeper, this will only happen during the winter months, and the keeper will leave enough honey for the bees to thrive until it's spring again.

It's best to buy local, organic honey if at all possible. Local beekeepers will not use dangerous factory-farming methods, and it helps maintain your local bee population! If you want to help bees in a more active way than buying local honey, you can plant a bee garden or even become a small-scale beekeeper! (I don't have a link for this, it's best to check out local resources. Maybe even ask the person selling honey at your farmer's market!)"

It's a long piece of text, but it's worth reading. I found the arguments in this post interesting, but I wasn't really sure what to think because I know very little about honey production and beekeeping. This post outlines a variety of possible benefits of beekeeping but doesn't touch on any possible drawbacks. That's why I enlisted my Facebook page's audience to find out more.

My Facebook audience gave their educated opinions on this issue and I compiled their comments. In this post, I'll give a summary of opinions from both sides of the fence, allowing you to make your own decision about whether or not vegans should eat honey.

The responses from my Facebook audience were divided - some agreed entirely, some disagreed entirely, and some both agreed and disagreed with aspects of itslittl3red's post.

Those who disagreed with itslittl3red offered a variety of different arguments. The most popular comment, offered by Cem, said that veganism is about rejecting the commodity status of animals. In Cem's eyes, this is an standard of veganism that shouldn't be compromised under any circumstances. To quote them directly: "Sustainability is not a vegan concern since it's only about ethics." 

Several other commenters appeared to agree with Cem's arguments. Debby, for example, noted that vegans don't use or harm animals unless it's necessary - honey bees included. Samuel offered a similar yet harsher argument, stating that bees are raped, gassed and killed in honey production.

Chelsea offers an interesting perspective: "Honey bees are not native to the U.S. anyway, and they compete with native pollinators (who are up to 2-3 times more efficient at pollinating), which is one more reason why the honey industry shouldn't be supported." To back up this claim, Chelsea cited this link,

Another reply to my Facebook post offered an opposing perspective. Cheyenne, who buys raw, local honey from a beekeeper, has no ethical hangups with this form of honey production. Cheyenne supports a local beekeeper and is happy with the way they treat their bees. This contrasts with Cem's argument which suggested that honey should never be used, regardless of how well the bees are treated.

"All things considered, honey is not vegan - at least not by definition."

Jane, who misses the taste of honey but doesn't eat it, sees honey as what it fundamentally is: bee vomit! Jane has a hive in their garden, but won't take any honey from the hive for one main reason. To quote Jane: "The bees aren't making it for me." Jane's comment reiterates what Cem said about rejecting the commodity status of animals (I should add veganism, as defined by Wikipedia, is indeed about rejecting the commodity status of animals - but is there more to it than this?).

Another commenter, Rhiannon, thinks itslitt3red has some valid points. They suggest a Netflix documentary called Vanishing of the Bees (2009), which details the sudden disappearance of honey bees from beehives around the world. According to this documentary, CCD (or Colony Collapse Disorder, the same disorder mentioned in itslittl3red's post) is noted as a primary cause of this disappearance, and pesticide use is said to contribute to CCD. According to itslitt3red's post, beekeepers help protect honey bees from these pesticides (in turn combating CCD).

All things considered, honey is not vegan - at least not by definition. In the most general terms, veganism is about rejecting the commodity status of animals and avoiding the use of animal products. In this sense, using honey goes against the 'rules of veganism'. On the other hand, it's important to think outside the box. It's a similar concept to my article about food wastage - there are other things that harm animals besides animal product use. Deforestation, habitat removal and pollution are some common examples. In my opinion, you should take all of this into account before you decide whether or not to use honey.

P.S: A big 'thank you' to everyone who responded to my Facebook post - I really appreciate your efforts!

A Vegan Moral Dilemma: Should We Eat Non-Vegan Food If It'll Otherwise Be Thrown Away?

I work in hospitality, at a non-vegan restaurant, so I spend a lot of time around non-vegan products. Of course, I'd rather be working with vegan food, but since I'm studying full-time and there aren't many jobs going around, I don't have much choice.

Until you work in the food industry (speaking from personal experience), you really have no idea just how much food gets thrown away. It's ridiculous, and it's very wasteful. My workplace, for example, throws away around seventy baked goods every morning, because we can't sell anything prepared the day before. The food is still completely edible.

By law, we're not allowed to give the food to homeless shelters. That's what I wanted to do at first, and I was really disappointed when I found out we can't. It's physically painful to have to throw all of that perfectly edible food away when there are so many starving people in the world - not to mention all of the cows and chickens who gave their lives only for this food to end up in a dumpster.

Lately, I've started to think a lot about wastefulness. If a non-vegan food product is just going to be thrown away, wouldn't it be better if someone ate it? And, if no-one is around to eat it except you... should you eat it? Would that mean you're not vegan anymore?

"If a non-vegan food product is just going to be thrown away, wouldn't it be better if someone ate it? And, if no-one is around to eat it except you... should you eat it? Would that mean you're not vegan anymore?"

The same applies to other non-vegan products, such as wool blankets and leather shoes. If you've owned these products all your life, and they've already been paid for, is there any sense in throwing them away once you become vegan? Does it make any difference if you wear them or not?

Wastefulness is an enormous issue in today's world, and its effect on the environment has been described as catastrophic. To me, veganism goes beyond denying the commodity status of animals - it also extends to the environment and other humans. To me, it's a philosophy of all-around compassion and care. That's why I think it's important for vegans to think deeply about their own environmental impact and consider ways to reduce it. I ask myself: why should I buy more food, creating demand for more production, when there's plenty that's already been made going to waste? 

I've noticed two main perspectives on this issue, and I'm still not entirely sure where I stand, but my opinion does tend to lean towards one side. On one hand, most vegans think it's morally wrong to be wasteful. We shouldn't throw anything away when it could be used by somebody.

On the other hand, vegans also believe it's morally wrong to use and exploit animals for our own benefit. This applies to eating and wearing animal products, as well as using them in any other way. When we use animal products (especially in front of other people), we actively promote the idea that it's okay to use animals for our own benefit. This is one of the most common arguments I've seen coming from people who think it's better to throw a non-vegan product away than to eat it. Others think human usage is just as bad as human wastage, i.e. humans have no right to use animal products, therefore it's just as bad for them to use them as it is for them to throw them away.

What's worse: using a non-vegan product, or letting it go to landfill?

So, who is correct? Is using animal products worse than throwing them away, or is it the other way round? Is there any middle ground, or is it a black-or-white question?

Personally, I haven't found my side of the fence yet, but I do tend to lean towards the idea that wastage is very, very bad; and, because of this, it's better to use an animal product than to waste it. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to use the product other than consuming it yourself. If there's a way to give the product back to animals, or to someone who really needs it, I think it's best to choose that option.

"[Some] vegans don't like wastefulness, but to them, animal product use is just as bad."

Of course, other vegans will disagree with me. Other vegans don't like wastefulness, but to them, animal product use is just as bad. They have every right to this opinion and I can totally understand their point of view.

My veganism is based around the concept of supply and demand. Whether we eat an animal product or throw it away, the result will be the same. The animal has already suffered and their product has already been paid for. If you eat the otherwise wasted animal product, you won't be giving money to the animal product industries. In that sense, it'll make no difference at all. So, in essence, to decide whether or not to eat the product, you must take your personal moral boundaries into account.

In terms of eating meat that'll otherwise go to waste, I don't think I could do it. Meat is disgusting to me and the two occasions I accidentally ate it resulted in persistent vomiting. To me, flesh isn't food. I won't put my body through harm to avoid wastage, but I'd probably be okay with something containing small amounts of dairy, egg, honey, wool, and so on. Maybe. As I said, I'm not really sure yet.

Animal products - better here, or in your stomach?

I can understand where opponents of this idea are coming from. If we use an animal product in front of another person, regardless of our waste avoidance, we might give the impression that it's okay to use animals. This, obviously, isn't an ideology vegans want to promote. But what if no one else is around to see you use the product? Personally, I'm not certain how I feel about that, and I'll need to do some more research.

So, in summary, I think I'd rather use an animal product than let it go to waste, but I'm going to keep researching the issue until I'm 100% certain of what's right. I might change my mind. I should add that all of this is only my opinion, and it doesn't reflect on the beliefs of all vegans. Choose your own path and decide what's right for you (as long as you don't judge other vegans who think differently: remember, we're all in this together!)

Do Vegans Kill More Animals Than Meat-Eaters Do?

In November last year, popular news and entertainment website IFL Science posted a very controversial article. If you're a member of any online vegan groups, you've probably seen it shared around. Even if you're not - you've probably seen it anyway. It's a very popular article.

Although it was posted many months ago, the article still continues to do the rounds on social media. It'll disappear for a month or two, come back for a week, and disappear again. It seems we vegans can't avoid it. Some people love to share any anti-vegan 'propaganda' they can get their hands on.

Here's the article in question.

It's all quite silly, really, considering the article has been debunked numerous times. Scroll down to the comments section and you'll find a whole lot of well thought-out responses defending the veg* lifestyle and refuting the article's incorrect assumptions and claims.

If you don't want to gravitate over to IFL Science to take a look at what the article's all about, I'll summarise the main ideas here.

According to Mike Archer, the author of the article:

• Vegans and vegetarians are responsible for more animal deaths than non-veg* folk
• The article is probably applicable only to Australian vegans and vegetarians (since the author is Australian, he focuses on Australian farming practices) Note: I'm also from Australia
• Compared with meat production, wheat and grain production kills 25 times more animals per kilo of usable protein
• Wheat and grain production causes more environmental damage
• The wheat and grain industry is crueller than the meat industry
• All of this is caused by native vegetation felling
• Most cattle slaughtered in Australia feed solely on pasture
• In the grain industry, large numbers of mice are poisoned to combat regular mouse plagues

The main problem with Mike Archer's article is its title. Even if the content of his article was one-hundred percent factually correct, the title still wouldn't work, since the author incorrectly assumes that vegans and vegetarians automatically consume more wheat and grain than meat-eaters do. He assumes that wheat and grain is the main source of protein for vegans and vegetarians. For many of us, this simply isn't true.

"Vegans and vegetarians, if possible, will grow their own crops instead of supporting large-scale agriculture."

But that's not the only problem. There are many more.

I don't want to delve too deeply into the scientific side of this issue on my own. I don't want to try and tackle a problem I don't know enough about. I'm not an expert on farming practices, so I wouldn't want to offer my audience too many of my own opinions on this subject. They may not be factually correct. Instead, I will summarise and expand upon a few other arguments I've found online. 

'Isaac', a commenter on IFL Science's website, provides a thorough argument against Mike Archer's claims. Here's a summary of his comment:

• Vegans and vegetarians encourage and support the implementation of better farming methods
• The food used to raise farm animals could instead be used to feed much of the world's human population
• There's no evidence to show that new land has been cultivated in order to serve the growing number of vegans and vegetarians
• Vegans will buy their food from sustainable sources as much as possible
• Vegans and vegetarians, if possible, will grow their own crops instead of supporting large-scale agriculture

Isaac's points make a lot of sense. As he states, most vegans are environmentalists, and will gladly do their bit to support sustainable farming. Many of us have our own veggie gardens. Many of us try to buy our fruits, vegetables, grains and wheat from local, smaller-scale farms. 

'Isit', another commenter on IFL Science's website, further discusses my point about the connection - or lack of - between the content of Mike Archer's article and vegan/vegetarian diets.

Isit successfully sums up their own argument with one sentence: "I planted an apple tree, and ate its fruits. How many mice were killed?"

Are vegans and vegetarians responsible for mouse death on a massive scale?

The answer to Isit's question, of course, is none, so long as all necessary "mouse-safety" precautions are taken (which isn't a difficult task). Through this question, Isit quickly and succinctly debunks at least part of Mike Archer's argument. In general, growing plants - when done properly and carefully - doesn't kill animals. At least not on a significant scale. Non-local, mass production of wheat and grain products isn't the only way to farm plants. There are other options that don't result in death.

"Meat production as we know it will always result in death. At present, there is no way to get animal meat without slaughtering an animal."

On the other hand, meat production as we know it will always result in death. At present, there is no way to get animal meat without slaughtering an animal. To expand on this point, meat production as well know it will also always result in a larger amount of plant and water consumption (since the animals must be sustained for a certain period of time before they can be slaughtered).

So, to answer my opening question: No. Vegans don't kill more animals than meat-eaters, but I suppose most of you knew that already. If anyone ever tries to use IFL Science's article in an attempt to dismiss your veganism, show them this article (or Bite Size Vegan's video on the topic - found here - which is awesome; or Your Vegan Fallacy Is's page all about it - found here). We need to stand up against this rampant spread of misinformation and let the world know just how beneficial veganism really is.

Should Vegans Support Non-Vegan Companies?

In the past, I've experienced some backlash towards my posts about eating vegan at non-vegan restaurants, how to eat vegan at popular fast-food chains, and when talking about buying from non-vegan companies in general. This is a very controversial topic within the vegan community, and we all have very different views on the subject, so all I can do is provide my personal opinion. Whether you agree or disagree, remember we've all got the same goal in mind - to make the world a better place for animals.

I'll start off by saying that I do buy food from non-vegan companies. Many other vegans do the same. I try my best to avoid especially heinous companies, but I certainly don't limit myself purely to buying from one hundred per cent cruelty-free companies. I'm lucky enough to have access to some vegan brands, although most are much more expensive than standard brands. Other vegans (such as those living in rural areas or countries where vegans are scarce) aren't so lucky.

"Veganism is very personal. We all have different ideas and values about what is and what isn't acceptable within the confines of veganism, but we can acknowledge, at least, that we all share a common goal."

Veganism is very personal. We all have different ideas and values about what is and what isn't acceptable within the confines of veganism, but we can acknowledge, at least, that we all share a common goal. How we go about achieving this goal is up to the individual, and depends completely on their personal circumstances.

For example, some vegans see palm oil as a vegan ingredient, some don't. Some vegans support people who choose to eat eggs from their backyard chickens. Some vegans use a whole lot of supplements, some refuse to take any at all. Some vegans only eat raw or unprocessed food, some vegans gorge themselves on junk. I have my own opinions on all of these subjects, but I'm also happy to accept that other vegans' opinions may differ. Our brains are all wired differently - we can't expect all people to hold the same views, especially since these ideals are mostly subjective and aren't based on facts. The baseline of veganism is rooted in fact (unwarranted animal use causes animal suffering), but several related concepts that stem from veganism are rooted in belief and opinion.

Let's get back to the main subject here. Is it acceptable for vegans to support non-vegan companies? Would doing so somehow make us 'less' vegan, or would it mean that we don't care about animals as much as other vegans do? The short answer is no. At least not in my opinion.

Here's the common justification for buying vegan food from non-vegan companies: doing so encourages said company to produce more vegan products. It all comes down to supply and demand. The more vegan products we buy from any company, the more they'll have to produce. If we encourage people to steer away from their non-vegan products, they'll produce non-vegan products on a smaller scale. This is good news for the animals.

As mainstream companies begin to offer vegan options, the concept of veganism is introduced to the masses. It makes vegan food cheaper, more accessible, and more popular. This is all good news. We don't want veganism labelled as unusual, difficult and obscure; we want it to be seen as 'normal'. If 'normal' companies offer more and more vegan options, veganism will gradually ease its way towards that same label.

"We should be supporting ethical, cruelty-free companies as much as possible, since they're going out of their way to make sure the highest moral standards are met. The thing is - we want all companies to take this path as soon as possible."

I understand why some people choose only to buy from vegan companies. This is also a good move to make. We should be supporting ethical, cruelty-free companies as much as possible, since they're going out of their way to make sure the highest moral standards are met. The thing is - we want all companies to take this path as soon as possible. That's why we should support any effort an otherwise non-vegan company makes to avoid cruelty.

Some of this produce might come from non-vegan companies. Does this mean we shouldn't buy it?

Plus, the ideal of solely supporting vegan companies is unachievable and unrealistic for many. Any time we buy from a mainstream food chain such as Coles or Woolworths, we're supporting a non-vegan company. Even if we buy fresh produce straight from a farm, there's no guarantee those farms are completely cruelty-free. We can try our best, but the only definite way to avoid supporting non-vegan companies is to grow all of our own food from scratch. Because of time constraints, money, weather, gardening ability, and a whole bunch of other factors; growing one's own food is impossible for many.

As vegans living in a non-vegan society, sometimes we simply must make the most of what we have. Essentially, what we have is an abundance of non-vegan companies just waiting for our help. Through only buying their vegan products, we can encourage these companies to improve their practices. Vote with your wallet and make a change!

"The 'rules' of veganism aren't governed by one particular 

individual, but by the vegan community as a whole."

It's important to remember that not all vegans follow the exact same ideals and philosophies, as mentioned earlier in this post. While some may say that supporting non-vegan companies goes against the vegan way of life, others disagree - which essentially denounces that belief, as the 'rules' of veganism aren't governed by one particular individual, but by the vegan community as a whole.

Veganism and Religion: What's the Connection?

I'm not a religious person and never have been. I don't identify with any particular religion. I'm open to the possibility of the existence of a higher being, but it's not something I think about too often. From what I've seen and read, many vegans follow a similar philosophy, or reject the existence of a God or deity entirely. So why are vegans so commonly aligned with religious groups?

Many people like to compare veganism to religion, alluding to some strong connection between the two concepts. Some extremists refer to veganism as a kind of religious cult. These ideas probably arise from the similarities between veganism and religion, of which there are quite a few.

"Many people like to compare veganism to religion, alluding to some strong connection between the two concepts."

I'm going to answer a few questions on the subject, based entirely around my own opinion.

Is veganism like a religion? If so, is that good or bad? Are there enough similarities between the two movements to form a strong connection? What exactly are the similarities and differences?

First, we should look at why people compare veganism to religion. In almost all cases, I'm certain their motives are negative. They generally see religious folk as annoying, preachy and arrogant. So, when they compare us to these people, they must see us in the same way. This is likely because of ignorance, misinterpretation of the vegan message, or too much experience with the select few genuinely preachy, annoying vegans.

They compare us to religious folk because they want to insult us. This is usually a result of guilt - vegans "force" people to think about the source of what's on their plate (something they really don't want to do) and so they take to insulting us in an attempt to make themselves feel better.

Despite this, there are some positive facets of religion that are also found within the vegan movement. One example is the the collective bond between members. Many vegans feel an almost automatic connection with each other and are able to form strong relationships based around their common moral beliefs. We have websites, social groups and forums dedicated entirely to the vegan movement in which members can support each other. Many religious groups do the same.

Religion is also largely built on a strong foundation of morals and ethics. Religious groups tend to follow a strict set of rules revolving around what they believe is right and good, just as vegans do. Although the moral beliefs of religious groups and vegans are very different, both groups are equally as passionate about upholding these beliefs.

"Since religious groups and vegans are so passionate about their beliefs, they're both renowned for encouraging others to join their movement."

Since religious groups and vegans are so passionate about their beliefs, they're both renowned for encouraging others to join their movement. When religious groups encourage others to join them, this is often seen as 'preaching' or 'agenda-pushing'. Since religion is so personal and subjective, and since there are so many branches of it, it's understandable that religious 'preaching' isn't taken lightly. Veganism, on the other hand, is based largely around facts rather than opinions or subjective beliefs. Vegans can agree that our collective goal is to make the world a better place for animals; while religious groups hold hugely different beliefs and goals.

When religious groups seek out new members, they may have malicious intentions (such as with some extremist groups). Vegans, on the other hand, always have positive intentions when encouraging new people to join the movement. After all, as more people join, more animals (and the environment) will benefit.

Religion isn't always about compassion, while veganism always is

While veganism has its roots in spreading messages of good health and compassion; some religious groups have a much less positive reputation. Some groups - such as the Westboro Baptist Church - are known for spreading aggressive, hateful messages. This is where one of the main differences between religion and veganism lies. Vegans always have positive intentions, while religious-folk occasionally do not.

The main difference between veganism and religion is that veganism is rooted in scientific fact. There's no doubt that animals must die for humans to eat meat. There's no doubt that cows must be impregnated and male calves are often sold or killed for humans to drink milk. There's no doubt that factory farmed male chicks will be killed soon after birth, or that farmed animals almost always live in horrific conditions. Religion, as mentioned earlier, is instead based entirely around subjective belief and personal experience. We can't be certain that God exists, but we can be as certain as humanly possible that animals suffer, and that meat-eating is connected to animal suffering.

"While religion can be positive and beneficial for many people, and while many vegans are indeed religious, the two subjects are not directly related in any way."

All of this considered, we can conclude that veganism does have some trivial similarities to religion, but the differences greatly outweigh them. When non-vegans compare veganism to religion, they're almost always doing so out of guilt, ignorance, anger, or all three. The connection doesn't actually exist. While religion can be positive and beneficial for many people, and while many vegans are indeed religious, the two subjects are not directly related in any way; except, for some, on a personal level.

Opinion: Should Vegans Feed Their Cats Meat?

One of the largest ongoing debates within the vegan community regards the question of whether or not vegans should feed meat to their feline companions. There are a plethora of arguments originating from both sides of the field, so it can be extremely difficult to know what (or who) to believe. Opponents of a plant-based diet for cats argue that cats are obligate carnivores, meaning meat consumption is essential for their health. Proponents of the idea argue that cats can live healthily on a plant-based diet, and that synthetic taurine (an essential dietary requirement for cat health - found naturally in animal products) can be used in place of standard taurine.

I am by no means an expert in the field of feline health, nor have I conducted any extensive research on the subject. Several followers of my blog, however, have suggested that I tackle the issue of vegan cats; so I will do my best to provide an informed opinion.

It's a matter of necessity

To determine whether or not it's morally acceptable for vegans to feed meat to cats, we must take the matter of necessity into account. At the very least, we can be one-hundred percent certain that meat consumption is not necessary for human health. Necessity forms the very basis of veganism - that is, unnecessary killing goes against our moral code. If, however, it is necessary for cats to eat meat, this wouldn't break the vegan moral code, as necessary killing (such as when lions hunt their prey) is acceptable.

Of course, whether or not it's necessary for cats to eat meat is a much debated topic. Since I'm not formally educated on the subject, I choose to sit on the fence - although I tend to lean towards the belief that meat is essential for cat health, as all other members of the feline family (tigers, lions, leopards) are famously carnivorous.

To sum up:

• If meat-eating is essential for feline health, it does not break vegan code
• The general consensus seems to be that cats are obligate carnivores, therefore they must eat meat

Cats are typically seen as carnivorous animals

Cat food comes from factory farms

This is an understandable concern to have. The majority of store-bought cat food is produced through incredibly inhumane, unethical and horrific practices. As vegans, we are overwhelmingly opposed to this kind of behaviour, which is a significant part of the reason why we don't purchase meat, dairy or eggs. However, can we except ourselves from this rule if we are buying meat for a cat rather than for ourselves?

At least to some degree, I don't think so. If we choose to feed animal products to our cats, we should try our very best to source the animal products from more "reputable" businesses. It can be difficult to think of any meat-producing business as reputable or ethical, but it's at least true that some are much better than others. I think the best choice is to source cat food from local fisherman rather than from large-scale factory farms or corporations.

To sum up:

• Mainstream, store-bought cat food is sourced from inhumane and unethical factory farms
• Cat food should be sourced from more reputable businesses if possible
• Try buying from local fisherman or butchers

Should we only adopt herbivorous animals?

In order to avoid this problem all together, vegans could simply choose not to adopt cats, and to only adopt herbivorous or omnivorous animals that can healthily subsist on a plant-based diet. Unfortunately, this option has its downfalls. Thousands of cats are dropped in shelters each and every day; and many of which will be immediately killed. Through adopting these helpless animals, we save lives. In order to save the lives of these animals, however, we (if cats need meat to survive) must support the killing of other animals (mainly fish, to feed the cats). It's a difficult and confusing choice to make.

If we adopt cats and feed them meat, animals will die. If we don't adopt cats at all, animals will die. If we adopt cats and feed them plant-based food fortified with taurine, are we really doing what's best for them? Or will it harm - and eventually kill - them in the long run?

To sum up:

• Vegans could choose to only adopt herbivorous animals
• If we choose not to adopt cats at all, thousands will die in shelters
• If we feed cats plant-based diets, their health may suffer
• It's difficult and confusing to know the right thing to do

In conclusion...

Since there are so many conflicting opinions and arguments regarding the issue of cats eating meat, it can be extremely difficult to figure out what's right. In this case, I think it all comes down to a matter of personal choice. Do what feels right to you. If you have cats and believe meat is necessary for their health, that's fine - it doesn't make you any less vegan. Just try your best to avoid purchasing cat food sourced from factory farms. If you have cats and choose not to feed them meat - that's your choice as well, and it doesn't make you any less vegan - but please make sure your decision is based on a lot of research, and that you're certain you're doing what's right for your feline friend. If you choose only to adopt herbivorous animals - such as rabbits, mice and rats - that's fine too.

5 Beautiful Friendships Between Humans and Non-Humans

Sometimes, the bond between humans and animals goes far beyond the conventional relationship of a man and his dog. Although kittens, puppies, bunnies and birds make excellent companions, the list doesn't stop there. For some, the comfort of a loving friendship with a pig, a cow or a chicken is just as wonderful, unforgettable and unbreakable. Farm animals are highly intelligent, loyal and loving - just as much as the dogs and cats we know so well.

Here are some examples of beautiful friendships between humans and non-humans. These animals exist as unmistakable proof that all life deserves love.




Esther the Wonder Pig and her dads

Esther is one inspirational pig. Alone, she helped her human companions not only to discover veganism, but also to open up their very own sanctuary for rescued farm animals. Originally thought to be a 'mini pig', Esther shocked her companions as she continued to grow to an enormous size! She has a strong social media presence and, with her beautiful smile and loving disposition, Esther the Wonder Pig has influenced people around the world to become vegan.

The unbreakable bond between Esther and her dads is often expressed through warm cuddles and heartwarming smiles, as demonstrated in the photo below. Esther also has an amiable relationship with her feline and canine companions - they're all just as enthusiastic about cuddles as her human friends!

Esther with her loving family

"The unbreakable bond between Esther and her dads is often expressed through warm cuddles and heartwarming smiles."

Gevan and Sharon

Gevan is a beautiful highland heifer with fur of ginger and spun gold. Her companion, Sharon, is the highly dedicated and loving owner-operator of C-A-L-F Sanctuary. Gevan is one of many beloved rescues. Together, the two make an inseparable pair. Gevan's name, an anagram of vegan, is fitting - she's a compassionate and loving girl who adores the company of her human and non-human companions.

Sharon first discovered Gevan alone in a field and was heart-wrenched with sadness and despair. She promised she'd do whatever she could to help the poor girl - and that she did. Sharon saved Gevan from a life of loneliness and suffering, and the adorable, fluffy cow is clearly grateful. Every time Sharon visits Gevan in her field, she raises her head in anticipation, and she gazes longingly after her friend every time she leaves.

Sharon and Gevan

Milkshake and Beth

Milkshake, a 544kg cow, spent almost the entirety of her life cruelly confined within a pen no wider than three metres long and three metres wide from only two weeks of age. Unlike the majority of these wonderful animals, Milkshake was lucky - she was rescued by the Grace Foundation, an organisation dedicated to saving the lives of abused and neglected farm animals.

Beth DiCaprio and Milkshake have an enviable friendship built on a strong foundation of love, trust and gratitude. Milkshake is eternally grateful for Beth's gentle care - she is known for following her all around the ranch! In a YouTube video by the Grace Foundation, Milkshake can be seen jovially skipping along, never straying far from her beloved caretaker and friend.

"Beth DiCaprio and Milkshake have an enviable friendship built on a strong foundation of love, trust and gratitude."

Beth and Milkshake

Opie and Gene

Opie was a treasured member of the Farm Sanctuary family for 18 years. Over twenty years ago, in 1990, Opie was saved from a short lifetime of commodification and suffering. When Gene Baur found Opie left for dead, shivering in the wintry breeze, he chose to save the innocent baby's life. Opie was treated by a veterinarian and went on to make a full recovery. Opie's peaceful spirit radiated around the sanctuary, bringing joy to all - especially Gene.

The time of Opie's passing was difficult for Gene, but his lasting impact and memories he left behind will live on forever. Their friendship remains strong despite Opie's absence in the living world. The love shared between these two kindred spirits is demonstrated perfectly in the image below.

Gene and Opie share a memorable moment

Hank and Jenn

Hank, a 15-pound broiler rooster, was loved by all at Catskill Farm Sanctuary. His calming demeanor and loving attitude was infectious, and all who met him fell in love. Hank's love, however, was directed primarily towards one woman - Jenn Mackey, Catskill's Animal Care Coordinator.

Although Hank is no longer with us, his relationship with Jenn Mackey lives on through memories, photos and beautiful words. Every morning, Jenn would warmly greet the majestic bird, and he would call back every time without fail. Hank would softly bury his head in Jenn's arms, or rest his head on her chest and wrap his feathery wings protectively around her.

Here's a wonderful quote from Jenn:

"Hank has taught me so much more than any book or study ever could about the emotional capacity of chickens. I can't really find the words to express how much I love him."

Despite common belief, farm animals are just as capable of love and complex emotion as any other animal on Earth - including humans. As demonstrated in the above photographs, the friendships formed between humans and farm animals can be just as strong as the relationship you may have with your feline or canine companion. Cats, dogs, chickens, cows, humans, sheep, pigs and all the rest are all deserving of respect, freedom and love. 

And how can we give these innocent, benevolent beings the happiness they deserve?

The answer's simple - by going vegan.

s