
Since our Work in Progress show in January, my project – Farming the Unconscious – has received a fair bit of online attention, especially after a rather scandalous article was published on Wired.co.uk.
It has subsequently appeared on numerous other sites, from extremeskins.com – the official message board of the Washington Redskins – to GlobalMeatNews.com. The ensuing commentary and tweeting has been as ferocious as it is plentiful, with words like, ‘Shocking’, ‘Creepy’, ‘Disturbing’ and ‘wtf!’ appearing most frequently.

As the project moves forward and becomes architectural, it will seek to quell such public outrage through education and transparency. It is imperative that the consumer of the 21st century is an informed consumer, and that as a maket actor they understand the significance of their market actions.
The Centre for Unconscious Farming will offer a level of transparency and openness that should be demanded of all manufactures of consumables.

Here is the full transcript of my interview with Wired.co.uk, as I don’t believe the article accurately represented the tone of the project and its intensions.
1. Where did you get the idea?
My research into the current paradigm of meat consumption brought to light a number of issues, and two, in particular have influenced the project.
Firstly, the livestock industries are responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions, around 40% more than the entirety of the transport sector. This is worrying because the demand for meat is increasing worldwide and is set to double by 2050, with 40% of this increase predicted to be in the poultry industry.
So I propose consolidation and densification of the industry, bringing production closer to consumption.
Secondly, the welfare provided in the existing dominant systems – including, free-range in my opinion – is wholly inadequate. This led me to ask the seemingly paradoxical question: How might we achieve this necessary increase in the density of production whilst also addressing the issue of welfare?
Desensitisation is my answer.

2. Your proposed solution seems fairly shocking, but how does it compare to existing mass production processes?
I think it is often difficult to tell the difference between what something ‘is’ and how something feels. The emotional gut reaction that we feel when we see something ‘repulsive’ or ‘frightening’, is a response that has evolved in order to help us avoid things that may cause us harm – like blood, or shit or just the unfamiliar.
The realities of the existing systems of production are just as shocking, but they are hidden behind the sentimental guise of tradition farming scenes that we as consumers hold in our minds and see on our food packaging.
I filmed this video of the slaughter of chickens at an organic chicken farm. At this farm they practice a superb method of husbandry and although the slaughter is humane, it is still ‘shocking’.
There are numerous differences between the current dominant production systems and the one I am proposing, but the fundamental difference is the removal of suffering. Whether what I am proposing is an appropriate means to achieve the removal of suffering is open to interpretation. In reality this should be decided at the level of the individual consumer, at the counter, handing over their money and ‘voting’ for their system of preference.

3. How does this proposed idea compare with other “in vitro” meats?
I guess the intentions are the same – the synthesis of animal protein without the suffering – but as far as I am aware, in vitro technology is still very much in its infancy and they are yet to be able to synthesise blood vessels which are necessary in the creation of three dimensional pieces of meat. It will be interesting to watch how much of the animal they will have to rebuild before production becomes commercially viable.

4. What would be the biggest challenge in getting to the point where this could become a reality?
It would obviously need conventional scientific trials and I imagine the start up costs for a system of this complexity may be prohibitive.
Hopefully this would be mitigated by the productivity of the system, which I estimate could achieve a density of 11.7 chickens/m3 as opposed to 3.2 chickens/m3, which is achieved in a conventional broiler house. The cost/benefit analysis has yet to be calculated.
Furthermore, there is widespread public distrust in technologically ‘designed’ food and this system would need address this phobia if it were to become a reality.

5. Is this just the Matrix for chickens?
The similarities are patent although in The Matrix the dominant species were kind enough to provide the sub-species with a alternate reality, which was far better than the their ‘real’ post-apocalyptic world. This was a lovely gesture by ‘The Machines’, but the chickens in this system will not be privy to such luxuries and will reside in oblivion.
Read More