Selfsufficientish.com

We're going to have to put down Halfpint, the runt of Doris's litter. I managed to revive him when he was farrowed, he's done well despite being a third the size of his litter mates, and he's coped with a large testicular hernia.

However, he's now developed a rapidly spreading lump below his right eye. It's not an abscess or infection, but a hard, aggressive growth.

So, I'm about to do the rounds of the farmers to see if one of them can come over and shoot him for us. I can't get a shotgun licence unfortunately or I'd do it myself.

But this a reality of keeping livestock that many people don't consider, which is why I thought I'd mention it. We're not upset as it's a pragmatic and practical animal welfare decision, but it's disappointing given the hurdles he's overcome.

And it will be quick and clean.

More details on the hows and why for the less squeamish on the blog.

it's a shame, but it happens.

Stonehead wrote: I can't get a shotgun licence unfortunately or I'd do it myself.

.

is that cos the powers that be consider you subversive and a threat to national security stoney

shame about half pint.

cheers, paul

Ahh come the revolution....

Sorry to hear about halfpint, sounds a very agressive tumour best not to let him suffer.

kind thoughts
Deb

Sorry to hear about that stony. We have also had to make such decisions and it never gets any easier, particularly if they have been a fighter. It is still a necessary part of animal husbandry though that, as you say, does need to be considered.

Nature is a powerful force... it wasn't meant to be.

sorry about halfpint... it's the heart-ache of naming would be too much for me

Annpan wrote: it's the heart-ache of naming would be too much for me

I've never understood that sort of sentimentality. Whether we name them or not, when their time is up, their time is up. It's a pity when it's a young animal that hasn't had a long, useful or productive life, but it's much better that it's put down than have a miserable life of suffering.

The farmer who shot him for us was a bit upset - he has no problem with shooting old ewes and the like, but he found it hard to shoot a youngster. It's one of the reasons I prefer to do it myself — not everyone is as pragmatic as me.

Of course, some people (particular urbanites) see that as being uncaring, but it's not. I care about our animals and that sometimes means the best thing to do is to put them down ASAP. I don't hold with keeping a sick animal on for days, even weeks, when there's little or no hope for it. To me, that's far more uncaring of the animal's needs then putting them down immediately.

I'm with you on that one Stonehead - there is no need to cause undue suffering.

Our 11 year old named our weaners last spring (Badger and Bacon - don't ask me ).

We have all taken it in turns to feed them over last summer and autumn, including all our urbanite visitors from the UK, some veggies amongst them.

They all expressed more sentimentality than our ever so pragmatic child - who just pointed out the benefits - bacon, sausages, chorizo, cured hams, dried hams, pork chop, pork fillets etc etc etc, and how good these things taste whether the animal had a name or not, knowing it had a good life adds something to the quality of the meat.

The kills went very smoothly in November and now the hanging room and freezers are chock full.

I 100% agree that it is best to put an animal out of it's misery - I believe there should be a similar option for humans.

I am the most pragmatic person I know...

I just wouldn't name the animals, sorry, but I believe it makes one more emotionally attached.
Surely it is the same reason that prisoners and the like are sometimes know by numbers and not real names. I am also sure that there is a rehabilitation excersize that involve telling criminals the name of their victims.
Now I am not saying it is the same thing, but I am possitive that you have a bigger emotional attatchment to something once it has a name.That is not to say that you wouldn't make the same choice, but it would be more challanging. (for me it would be anyway)

That's my personal beliefs, if other people don't have the same problems, each to there own.

Perhaps by naming and creating a greater degree of emotional attactment, you truly give the animal a good life before slaughter?

Perhaps the naming motivates you to go out in all weathers to see to the livestock with a smile and a pat and scratch - rather than just throwing food and water at them and running off back inside?

Yes, you're probably right...

theabsinthefairy wrote: Perhaps the naming motivates you to go out in all weathers to see to the livestock with a smile and a pat and scratch - rather than just throwing food and water at them and running off back inside?

Oh, I'm quite capable of swearing at my goats and running back inside - names or no names!

"Stonehead¨ I don't hold with keeping a sick animal on for days, even weeks, when there's little or no hope for it. To me, that's far more uncaring of the animal's needs then putting them down immediately.


Sorry about Halfpint, but I agree with you Stonehead, treat your livestock with care ,respect and compassion.