I'm going to take your post as an honest inquiry, instead of the Animal Rights drivel that it appears to be.
You asked in another post if it was thought that you would make a go of being a farmer. With this type of attitude, I dont see how -- unless all you want is a few pets that don't even pay for their own feed.
The harvesting and culling of livestock is a major part of farming! Those farmers who refuse to cull their herds eventually end up reducing the quality of their herd and they create a load of problems for themselves by not culling out the undesirables. And without the slaughter of cattle for meat, where would you sell your calves? Only a fool would think that every calf born had a "higher purpose" than gracing someone's dinner table.
There is nothing at all wrong with forming attachments to particular animals, or even "retiring" particular animals -- it's real hard to let go of that 18 year old cow that's given you 17 calves and is the "boss" cow. On the other hand, you'll go out of business if you try to keep an aged herd as the animals will become infirm and reproduction will come to a halt.
The Animal Rights movement is trying to turn the whole population against animal use and into vegetarians -- they really must hate themselves, and the human race in general, to want our extinction that badly! It's a proven fact, albeit overlooked, that human reproduction, as well as muscle growth and repair, cannot take place in the absence of ANIMAL protein!
We're told that we can acquire all of our necessary nutrients from plant sources, what they don't tell you is that these nutrients are NOT in a form that humans can absorb. We need an intermediary species to convert those plant nutrients into a form that we can use -- cattle are most efficiient at that conversion. The beef animal is very efficient at converting plant materials into meat. The milk cow is one of the most efficient food-producing animals on earth, producing a food (milk and milk products) that is ideal for human consumption out of nothing but grass or hay and a little grain.
(I am an advocate of RAW milk, but even pasturized milk is better than no milk)
As for fur, there is nothing at all wrong with the harvest of renewable resources -- fur is MUCH warmer and MUCH MORE environmentally friendly than synthetic fabrics. Fur/hides from food producing animals are a by-product that it would be irresponsible not to use. Wild harvest of furbearers does a valuable service by preventing the overpopulation of these species. Farm-raising and harvesting of furs IS accomplished in a humane manner.
All of these animals that are kept/raised for human use are not mistreated. People who mistreat their animals don't stay in business long. Animals that are mistreated don't perform.
If a beef cow isn't cared for properly, she won't produce calves or will raise poor, sickly calves. If a milk cow isn't happy and contented, she won't let her milk down (or won't produce any at all). If furbearers aren't housed and cared for properly, their fur is worthless.
I believe that this "anti-animal use" thinking comes from too large of a segment of our population living in the city and having no contact whatsoever with food production. Too many little kids growing up thinking that food "grows" in the grocery store.
Ann B