Can you articulate for me your resolution to what appears to me to be an irresolvable conflict: on the one hand, firmly believing in the welfare of animals and, on the other hand, electing to eat them.
Electively killing an animal is fundamentally incompatible with caring for it as a living thing -- as non-property; something which has the right to live it's life independent of any human's design for it. Without forgoing your intent to eat it, the best welfare you can give an animal is the treatment of property, as a valued investment. Given that you opt for these animals to be killed anyway, your call for their improved treatment is, I expect, designed first to benefit yourself and your own mental and emotional state. It has only the secondary effect of improving the animals' lives.
Um, yeah, whatever. It's your conflict; why do you expect me to resolve it for you?
You can go into complicated justifications or simply believe that the animal should, while alive, be humanely treated. And that it should be killed quickly and as painlessly as possible.
