More chicken cruelty

[Bank of Dad]

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/hatchery/

Stick to veggies???

[Catersun]

or have your own small laying flock and brood your own chicks... It's called Animal Husbandry.

btw??? what the hilary does this even have to do with life around the farm or horses? sounds more like propaganda to me...

[ex-racer owner]

You know, I just saw this earlier today. Mentioned it to my BO, as she maintains a herd of beef cows, a herd of sheep, and a flock of laying chickens. She wasn't aware of this either, but she did ask why there were chicks being born? If the purpose of these chickens is to produce eggs for human consumption, then how are they getting fertilized and allowed to become hatched chicks?

I think I will start buying her free range chicken eggs. She charges me the same as what I pay at the "Eagle". :yes:

[Laurierace]

They are being born to lay more eggs.

[JLMet]

And that's the reason I have my own chickens. They are spoiled to no end and the eggs they produce are wonderful. They came from a local farm and while I'm sure not all of their practices are good, the hens I got will always have a wonderful home. It's a sad world sometimes.

[tle]

btw??? what the hilary does this even have to do with life around the farm or horses? sounds more like propaganda to me...

Ditto

[Bluey]

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/hatchery/

Stick to veggies???

I would not even look at something posted by those rabid animal rights groups.
You know they are going to take something that may or not be real and give it their own spin to get more donations.
You may not realize this, but some day they will do the same with what you do with your horses.
Anyone can find some reason you are abusing them, in ther eyes.
I would not give such people the time of the day.

Maybe this is not the best use of bandwidth on a horse forum, or leave it for an OT day?

[tkhawk]

Well I will always eat chicken and eggs. But the idea of new born chicks being crushed alive in a grinder, just does not sit right with me. OTOH I am not familiar with large scale chicken farming here-are there other ways to put down those chicks apart from grinding them alive? What do other big farms do???

[BramblewoodAcres]

If people have a problem with the egg producing industry killing the male chicks there is a solution...stop buying eggs produced by the big factory egg producers. When you buy those cheap, factory raised eggs YOU are supporting the practices of those factories, including the ones that are less than humane.

Buy your eggs from backyard farmers. If there is reduced demand for factory eggs, there will be reduced demand for laying hens and ultimately, fewer males killed.

I raise my own chickens for eggs and meat. We eat the roosters. I have three roosters that are my breeding stock roosters, the males that are hatched are raised to broiler weight and butchered for my freezer.

[fivehorses]

I suppose this video doesn't really surprise me.

Since I buy baby chicks, and you can get either straight run or sexed, I always wondered what happened to the males, if these hatcheries sell the females. Now I know.

I watch these videos, and think that they are important. People need to know where and how their food comes to them.
Today, most people buy a package or a frozen package of their 'food'.

I am not so worried about these groups coming after me, but support their undercover activities to bring testimony to the public, to hopefully put pressure on the industry to be more humane.

Afterall, why do you think Temple Grandin is hired by McD and KFC...to ensure slaughter is as stress free as possible to appease the public.
If we didn't have this kind of testimony and pressure, we'd all happily be munching on our food, never thinking of the thanks and gratitude to the animal for giving us this food as well as demanding humane methods to slaughter.

I appreciate their work, and the risk they take to expose inhumane conditions.

Oh, and I bet the macerated male chicks are what we see in labels as chicken by product. yum

[fivehorses]

I disagree...factory laying hens never see a rooster in their life to produce eggs!
These chicks are purposely produced to sell to the factories(who need hens) as well as to small farmers who want hens to produce eggs.

Back in the day, the males would be raised and slaughtered for their meat. Not today...easier to macerate them as these hatcheries do and sell their meat as a by product.

I do agree with more and more people not producing their own food, we see increased factory farming methods.
But, hatcheries are in business to sell baby female chicks, not eggs.

[JSwan]

I'm sure the notion of chicks being tossed into a machine like that seems horrendous.

But it is a quick death - though I'd support any research or studies that would improve any method of killing an animal.

When the USDA depopulates a flock (due to an outbreak of disease), all the animals are tossed into woodchippers. Alive. Seems odd because I'd think that would result in a lot of spray which might spread disease. But hey - can't argue with the USDA.;) Killing animals in large numbers is just going to be ugly no matter how humane it is.

Anyway - I'm a hypocrite because I order straight run and eat the males. I raise them free range and then kill them in my backyard. Out of sight of "investigators" or out of reach of any animal welfare controls mandated by government. At least with a large facility there are some controls, some checks and balances. The "backyard" may not be innocent of cruelty either. The public just doesn't see it. So.... hypocrites can't point fingers so I won't.

[BramblewoodAcres]

I disagree...factory laying hens never see a rooster in their life to produce eggs!
These chicks are purposely produced to sell to the factories(who need hens) as well as to small farmers who want hens to produce eggs.

Back in the day, the males would be raised and slaughtered for their meat. Not today...easier to macerate them as these hatcheries do and sell their meat as a by product.

I do agree with more and more people not producing their own food, we see increased factory farming methods.
But, hatcheries are in business to sell baby female chicks, not eggs.

It always cracks me up when I hear people say hens NEED roosters to lay eggs. They are actually much happier without the roosters around and lay better when they aren't constantly harassed by an over-zealous rooster.

You are right, the hatcheries produce hens for egg production, but many of those hatcheries are OWNED by the egg producing factories to produce those hens. People who are disgusted by the way the male chicks become"chicken by-product" would most likely be just as disgusted by the way the chicken they buy at the grocery store goes from animal to neatly packaged meat product. It's not always humane.

[kookicat]

I'm sure the notion of chicks being tossed into a machine like that seems horrendous.

But it is a quick death - though I'd support any research or studies that would improve any method of killing an animal.

When the USDA depopulates a flock (due to an outbreak of disease), all the animals are tossed into woodchippers. Alive. Seems odd because I'd think that would result in a lot of spray which might spread disease. But hey - can't argue with the USDA.;) Killing animals in large numbers is just going to be ugly no matter how humane it is.

Anyway - I'm a hypocrite because I order straight run and eat the males. I raise them free range and then kill them in my backyard. Out of sight of "investigators" or out of reach of any animal welfare controls mandated by government. At least with a large facility there are some controls, some checks and balances. The "backyard" may not be innocent of cruelty either. The public just doesn't see it. So.... hypocrites can't point fingers so I won't.

That is very true. I know when we had foot and mouth over here, the stories and pictures shown were not nice.

[Daydream Believer]

I already buy local eggs. Wow..that is revolting and sickening to see those little chicks just thrown into a grinder alive. Granted they have no idea what fate awaits them and their suffering is short but... My God...what a callous disregard for life and the ending of it and the welfare of those chicks. Surely adding one step in the process to stun them so they don't feel pain/fear before being ground up would not hurt their damn profit margins all that much?

[Bluey]

If people have a problem with the egg producing industry killing the male chicks there is a solution...stop buying eggs produced by the big factory egg producers. When you buy those cheap, factory raised eggs YOU are supporting the practices of those factories, including the ones that are less than humane.

Buy your eggs from backyard farmers. If there is reduced demand for factory eggs, there will be reduced demand for laying hens and ultimately, fewer males killed.

I raise my own chickens for eggs and meat. We eat the roosters. I have three roosters that are my breeding stock roosters, the males that are hatched are raised to broiler weight and butchered for my freezer.

Ok, if we want to continue in this vein, maybe you ought to read this article and understand why we need factory farming, along with smaller farmers as they can produce, all of them, as we really can't feed today's millions without it all.
This is about our food, but is also food for your brain::)

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals

[SkipHiLad4me]

Ok, if we want to continue in this vein, maybe you ought to read this article and understand why we need factory farming, along with smaller farmers as they can produce, all of them, as we really can't feed today's millions without it all.
This is about our food, but is also food for your brain::)

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals

What Bluey said :yes: This is a very well written article.

[Threebars]

Wasn't there a thread on finding LOCAL farmers/produce? Instead of hand wringing about the inevitable cruelty, why not give resources to support those and help sustain those that are making positive changes?

Better to light a single candle than to cry in the dark.

[Justmyluck]

Okay I'm gonna clarify while Male chicks are desposed of. They can not be used as meat birds because the egg laying type and the meat bird are of completely different genetics. It would not be worth pumping corn into a laying bird because the do not deposit muscle or fat the way a meat bird would. It is a waste of money.

Secondly they are not used to breed because, the genetics for the laying birds is a completely different industry then that of the egg layers, and is known as the purebred industry. Roosters are specifically bred to pass on certain genes to the birds, these genetics come from years and years and generations and genrations of selecting for specific genes (such as number of eggs layed in a year). They select the best hens and best roosters to produce a top quality roosters. These roosters are bred to everyday hens. So the gene pool of the baby boy chicks is esentailly tainted with regular chicken genes. The females produced are also less that optimum quality but with each generation they get better. Your are going to waste generations of males when you have already developed what you believe quality in the Purebred sector.

In the animal instrusty is believed that the way you change a breed is though changing the genetics of your male. Subpar males are disposed of because they offer nothing to the species.

Straight from the animal science students mouth....

So if you dont disposed of them... what do you do with the millions of male laying chickens?

[JSwan]

eatwild.com

http://www.buylocalvirginia.org/


But please talk with the individual farmer and even stop by and see what they do. A lot of this stuff sounds all peachy keen, rosy and many folks have visions of happy animals frolicking in verdant pastures.

I kill my chickens more humanely than the guy up the road - he ties them to a chain link fence and kills them right in front of each other. But he kills enough to make the hefty insurance premium worthwhile. I said the heck with that and just slaughter for home use. (perfectly legal - but his operation is perfectly legal too)

Just sayin' -don't be so sure things are rosy on the other end of the spectrum.

Like - the person you buy your eggs from - if she buys female chicks from a hatchery - that hatchery is tossing unwanted males in the same machine.

Also, please understand that a lot of this is driven by consumer demand. The OLD way of doing things was to raise livestock suited to your environment, and with qualities favored by people. A utility breed. Animals raised to do well with what was available locally, produced a hide/hair suited to its environment, etc.

BUT - here's the rub. Those breeds aren't what folks want nowadays. People want big juicy tender chicken breasts. They want dark meat the isn't rubbery.

Basically - we want a pig that is made entirely out of bacon, a steer made entirely out of NY strip, a chicken made entirely out of white meat.

Folks - it doesn't work that way. I've had that conversation with customers. "Why don't I get more (insert name of cut)? Answer - because the animal isn't made out of (insert name of cut). Reply - well - I want more (insert name of cut). Me - can't do it. So they go back to the grocery store - where they can buy all the NY strip they want.

Same with eggs. Everyone wants big gigantic eggs - all the same size and that never look different. same same same.

chickens don't do that. Not naturally. Egg size differs breed to breed, and there are variations in production based on the time of the year. Color and consistency will differ depending upon what the animal eats.

So - commercial production is geared towards - sameness, consistency, reliable product. Only way to get that is from species bred to produce that. Sameness.

Small scale production is geared towards - diversity. Difficult or impossible to get reliable, consistent product and it is much much more expensive.

You get that from using the breeds we used to use. Utility breeds.

So - the choice is yours. Not an easy choice - small scale production is very expensive.

[Bluey]

Yes, I was wondering if they would not make acceptable friers and of course would be crossbred offspring, not always purebred, as the females were, so as to bring their best as egg producers.

Thanks for the explanation.
We still don't have any one good way to dispose of them, do we, just like we don't in the horse slaughter debates, death being very dead.:no:

I would never think to tell my doctor how better run his office, even if I have to wait long some times, or tell the supermarket how to order their supplies, if I don't find something I wanted.

I do wonder why everyone and their dog wants to tell farmers how to farm?
People don't ask questions and weight the answers, they accuse directly, most times from some information they garner from groups that live off the donations brought by incensing the public.:(
There seems to be a whole industry that doesn't do anything but fight agriculture and what is worse, they do it with the donations of gullible people and are to boot tax exempt!

[tkhawk]

I don't cook, so I probably eat factory farmed animals close to 100% . But just curious if this is standard practice across the industry ? I was just curious if this is something only this company does or everybody does the same and are there better methods .

[JSwan]

Well - think about the feed ratio.

Cornish crosses bred for commercial meat production reach fryer/broiler size at what. 8 weeks? 9 weeks?

Answer would seem to be to raise proper meat birds from a utility breed.

Holy Moly - my cockerels are several months old and not quite ready for butchering. They free range - but they still get feed. And because they free range - they are MUCH tougher than the grocery store birds. You have to cook them differently - just like grass fed beef.

There is no way in God's creation I could sell them anywhere CLOSE to what you can buy in the store for that Cornish cross.

It's simple math.

I'm not justifying one method of production over the other - I happen to believe that small scale diversified farming is best. But - I recognize it for what it is - and it means no fresh fruit in winter. Accepting less, a more modest standard of living, and being more self reliant.

I would like everyone to live that way - but I do not have the right to demand it. Seems the fashion these days is for big big big and lots of it whenever you want.

Another little problem with the vegetarian approach is that farmers have to protect the crops - and they do it with guns, poisons and traps.

No one is completely free of personal responsibility - unless you grow your own food. And then - watch out. Spending all summer in the kitchen chopping and canning isn't as romantic as you think. And the first time you find the deer have destroyed your garden you'll reach for a shotgun! :lol:

[Justmyluck]

I don't cook, so I probably eat factory farmed animals close to 100% . But just curious if this is standard practice across the industry ? I was just curious if this is something only this company does or everybody does the same and are there better methods .

I dont know if a 'grinder' is an industry practice I know that they are essentially disposed of in one way of another.

Like another poster said by buying from local farmer you are basically supporting the same thing. They dont do anything different with the stock that doesnt 'produce money'. The only way you know that you will be eating kind of sort of 'cruelity free' products is to grow them yourself. However chopping a head off a chicken is no less cruel then tossing one into a grinder. I think people feel worse about the demise of the chicks is because they are 'yellow fluffy babies'.

Also if you produce your chicken yourself it will be almost no where near the quality of the product you buy in the store. Roosters and other non-castrated animals, and animals castrated after puberty have the problem of excess testosterone that can make the meat have an odd taste to it. Which is why many animals are developed to grow so fast and are slaughtered in the juvinile portion of thier growth curve.

Use of muscles also makes the meat tougher. The younger the animal slaughtered the less use of thier muscles.


NOTE: Also if my spelling is horrible please excuse it, I currently have a non functioning spell check and my spelling has never been great.

[Auventera Two]

I have my own hens, who free range and live the lives of queens. :eek: Scratch in the grass, fluff in the dirt, run the horse out of his grain bucket, nap in the sun, lay an egg, chase some bugs, take another nap, take a dirt bath, eat the flies off some horse poop, fluff in the dirt, beat the crap out of an errant cat, take a nap, settle onto the roost pole for the evening, wake up at dawn and repeat..........

I can't remember the last time I ate or bought chicken. I am about 90% vegeterian. I don't go crazy about not eating meat, and will eat it if I'm a guest at someone's house, but when I grocery shop, it rarely occurs to me to go to the meat department and buy something. If I purchase a pizza, its a vegeterian variety. I eat the veggie subs at Subway. I guess its just a way of life. You get used to it, and don't even think about it anymore after awhile.

[Wayside]

I can't remember the last time I ate or bought chicken. I am about 90% vegeterian. I don't go crazy about not eating meat, and will eat it if I'm a guest at someone's house, but when I grocery shop, it rarely occurs to me to go to the meat department and buy something.

This reminds me of a funny story. My husband is a "meat and potato" kind of guy, but before I married, I almost never bought meat. Not on principle, I've never been vegetarian, but that's just my personal preference.

Anyhow, it went something like this: One day I was at the grocery store checking out,and the clerk started freaking out about something in my cart. Pretty sure it was the Jiffy cornbread muffin mix.

"You can't eat this!" she tells me frantically. Huh? What?

"Has it been recalled?" I ask her.

"No, no," she says. "It has beef tallow in it!".

"So... What's wrong with beef tallow? Why can't I eat this muffin mix?"

"Because you're a vegetarian!" she proclaims, obviously exasperated by my apparent denseness :lol:

I calmly reassured her that despite of the lack of meat anywhere else in my cart, I was not, in fact, a vegetarian, and I could live with myself for eating the muffin mix. :lol:

[BramblewoodAcres]

Ok, if we want to continue in this vein, maybe you ought to read this article and understand why we need factory farming, along with smaller farmers as they can produce, all of them, as we really can't feed today's millions without it all.
This is about our food, but is also food for your brain::)

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals

Hey, you're welcome to eat all the unhealthy, factory-farmed meat you can stuff down. I'll raise my own, thanks!

[Huntertwo]

Absolutely effing disgusting vile human beings... :mad: This is exactly the reason I'm a vegetarian.

Didn't Saddam also dispose and torture people by throwing them into meat grinders?

[Bluey]

Hey, you're welcome to eat all the unhealthy, factory-farmed meat you can stuff down. I'll raise my own, thanks!

Just be glad you have a choice, thanks to that conventional agriculture you so despise.:yes:

[poltroon]

I couldn't get the video to load, but the header is just so over the top. "The egg industry's littlest victims!"

The fact is, aside from horses and dogs, 90% male farm animals are pretty much only useful for meat. Does it matter if they're meat as day old chicks or as 8 week fryers (the cornish crosses gain weight quickly, but in general you can't expect them to live too much longer - they eat themselves to death) or as coq au vin? I really don't know.

There are breeds that can be used for eggs and meat, but they're not the commercially used breeds. And, to provide that chicken to you, shrink-wrapped and processed and delivered, at a retail price of $6.00 is frankly amazing. Honestly, it frightens me a little.

They could raise those roosters for meat, but they won't grow like your mega $6 chicken did. They'd probably get only $4 or $5 for it, for the same cost of production.

Next door, there is some fabulous grass-fed beef sharing fields with egrets and great blue herons and deer and all sorts of wildlife. Across the street is a vineyard of similar acreage where 7' fences and assorted countermeasures keep as many animals out as possible. Honestly, I think the cattle are easier on the earth.

Eating is an ugly business, no question.

[SuperSTB]

I have my own laying hens. They produce about 1/2 dozen eggs a day. They were bought from a local woman who hatches her own and I'll get more from her next spring. Nothing like fresh eggs from spoiled hens...

It's actually good for people to see these "video footage" because quite frankly people just don't *know*. If they know than they can decide for themselves if they wish to support it or not. Many people could watch that video and be okay with it.

What I can't stand is when people " oh it's just more garbage put out by fanatics" well... it's actual video footage. It's edited to focus on an agenda but it's still footage taken. Each viewer is fully capable and will form their own opinion regardless of agenda behind the group posting it.

Factory/commercial farming is not a necessity. The goal of such farming is not to feed the masses, it's to produce food as cheaply as possible. The key word is PRODUCE, not sell. We often get confused with that little part. With transparency in the practices of commercial farming spread to the consumer- the consumer will be more empowered to make informed decisions on whether to support it or not.

We also tend to waste food of enormous scale in this country. Start producing your own and you begin to understand that fact. It is not feasible for everyone to produce some or all of the food they consume but *knowing* about such commercial farming practices may also help our society gain a better understanding of this waste as well.

So bottom line is... you might abhore the fanatic animal rights groups... but the big picture is the information on farming practices should and NEEDS to be told to the consumer. The fanatic groups will come and go... and when they 'expose' something, they themselves become exposed which is also a pretty good deal :)

[SuperSTB]

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals

That dribble should get thrown out just as fast as the dribble from the animal rights fanatics. ;)

[Bluey]

That dribble should get thrown out just as fast as the dribble from the animal rights fanatics. ;)

You think so?
Here is another take, maybe that will bring more perspective to the topic:

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=152537

[JSwan]

A little dose of reality of "small farms and their happy chickens".

I found a beautiful Buff Orpington cockerel in the coop today. Dead.

I don't know what happened to him - all of them have been very active, healthy birds. I went in to collect eggs and found him in a corner. No wounds, no evidence of seizures, nothing.

He just died - and there was no "undercover" crew there to film it.

The happy little animals in their green pastures can be every bit a lie as the "horrors of the factory farm" videos.

Just try to keep things in perspective folks.

[Thomas_1]

Just ensure you understand how their reared and if it bothers you then just choose free range.

[Daydream Believer]

I just have to ask those of you who are offended by the Animal Rights position in the video...do you have a problem with throwing living, breathing, conscious chicks into a shredder? Do you think it is a humane way to dispose of the unwanted chicks? Do you have a problem with people throwing them around like trash causing injury to them?

Perspective is one thing...animals die to feed us...I have no problem with that...but we are talking about a HUGE scale of killing here daily. I honestly don't have a problem with killing the chicks...or the idea of killing the roosters...but I have a huge issue with putting them conscious and aware through a shredder and tossing them around like garbage. Their disposal could be done with some respect for them as living creatures and not just as an inanimate object to be recycled.

If those were foals they were tossing into shredders alive you would all be up in arms and calling for humane treatment like that one poor horse whose foot fell off. How's that for perspective? Perhaps a little bit of hypocrisy?;)

[Bluey]

I just have to ask those of you who are offended by the Animal Rights position in the video...do you have a problem with throwing living, breathing, conscious chicks into a shredder? Do you think it is a humane way to dispose of the unwanted chicks? Do you have a problem with people throwing them around like trash causing injury to them?

Perspective is one thing...animals die to feed us...I have no problem with that...but we are talking about a HUGE scale of killing here daily. I honestly don't have a problem with killing the chicks...or the idea of killing the roosters...but I have a huge issue with putting them conscious and aware through a shredder and tossing them around like garbage. Their disposal could be done with some respect for them as living creatures and not just as an inanimate object to be recycled.

If those were foals they were tossing into shredders alive you would all be up in arms and calling for humane treatment like that one poor horse whose foot fell off. How's that for perspective? Perhaps a little bit of hypocrisy?;)

You are right.
Those people need to be more pc and first catch each one and wring their necks by hand, like grandmas used to do.

Now, I wonder if that in the end doesn't take longer and so stresses the poor chicks even more?:(

[Wayside]

Do you think it is a humane way to dispose of the unwanted chicks?

I think that's the real question. It seems barbaric, but according to the AVMA, it's immediate if the equipment is proprly maintained.

MACERATION
Maceration, via use of a specially designed mechanical apparatus having rotating blades or projections, causes immediate fragmentation and death of day-old poultry and embryonated eggs. A review217 of the use of commercially available macerators for euthanasia of chicks, poults, and pipped eggs indicates that death by maceration in day-old poultry occurs immediately with minimal pain and distress. Maceration is an alternative to the use of carbon dioxide for euthanasia of day-old poultry. Maceration is believed to be equivalent to cervical dislocation and cranial compression as to time element, and is considered to be an acceptable means of euthanasia for newly hatched poultry by the Federation of Animal Science Societies,220 Agriculture Canada,221 World Organization for Animal Health (OIE),222 and European Union.223
Advantages—(1) Death is almost instantaneous. (2) The method is safe for workers. (3) Large numbers of animals can be killed quickly.
Disadvantages—(1) Special equipment is required.
(2) Macerated tissues may present biosecurity risks.
Recommendations—Maceration requires special equipment that must be kept in excellent working order. Chicks must be delivered to the macerator in a way and at a rate that prevents a backlog of chicks at the point of entry into the macerator and without causing injury, suffocation, or avoidable distress to the chicks before maceration.

From http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf

[Daydream Believer]

Wow...just wow...I still think it's barbaric and disgusting. I also think if it was calves or foals being ground to bits like that, they might be singing a different tune.

I also differ with the AVMA's position on horse slaughter and the use of the captive bolt in those circumstances as "euthanasia" so I guess I should not be surprised to see their position on "appropriate" methods of killing chicks.

[Justmyluck]

Wow...just wow...I still think it's barbaric and disgusting. I also think if it was calves or foals being ground to bits like that, they might be singing a different tune.

I also differ with the AVMA's position on horse slaughter and the use of the captive bolt in those circumstances as "euthanasia" so I guess I should not be surprised to see their position on "appropriate" methods of killing chicks.


Well arent we quite lucky that large grinders would cost a fortune so it isnt cost effective to dispose of horses or cattle in that way.

[S1969]

Ok, if we want to continue in this vein, maybe you ought to read this article and understand why we need factory farming, along with smaller farmers as they can produce, all of them, as we really can't feed today's millions without it all.
This is about our food, but is also food for your brain::)

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals

Talk about a biased piece. Lots of things to discuss in that piece, that's for sure.

This argument is very biased, and possibly quite misrepresented: Finally, consumers benefit from cheap food. If you think they don’t, just remember the headlines after food prices began increasing in 2007 and 2008, including the study by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations announcing that 50 million additional people are now hungry because of increasing food prices. Only “industrial farming” can possibly meet the demands of an increasing population and increased demand for food as a result of growing incomes.

What/Where are the industrial farms being referred to here? Don't tell me that great big egg-producing factory is keeping the world's population fed. How many of the 50 million hungry people actually live here in the U.S., and how much of the industrially-farmed food produced in the U.S. goes overseas to feed the hungry masses? I'm not saying that it doesn't, but it's riduculous to refer to a giant hog CAFO in Indiana, for example, in the same breath as 10 million starving people in Africa & India, unless Hormel is selling those hams to feed starving them.

Personally, I think the continued reference to "we couldn't feed everyone if it weren't for CAFOs and synthetic fertilizers" argument needs to be reexamined. Even this author states In his book, Pollan quotes geographer Vaclav Smil to the effect that 40 percent of the people alive today would not be alive without the ability to artificially synthesize nitrogen. But in his directive on food policy, Pollan damns agriculture's dependence on fossil fuels, and urges the president to encourage agriculture to move away from expensive and declining supplies of natural gas toward the unlimited sunshine that supported life, and agriculture, as recently as the 1940s.

The fact that we *can* produce enough food to enable this sort of increase in the world's population *IF* we use fossil fuel to develop synthetic fertilizers is not a GOOD thing! It isn't an argument of "we NEED CAFOs to feed our population" as much as it is an argument of "due to our ability to produce food SO cheaply with fertilizers and industrialization, we've enabled our population to grow exponentially!" :eek:

I don't have a huge problem with the use of synthetic fertilizers to actually grow FOOD, but I do have a problem with using them to grow FEED -- corn farmers growing genetically modified corn saturated in synthetic nitrogen so that we can produce meat so cheaply everyone can afford to eat it 3 times a day, or eggs for $.69/dozen (or buy one, get one free at Easter!) :no:

Or ingredients for foods that offer little or nutrition -- e.g. corn farmers growing genetically modified corn saturated in synthetic nitrogen to make high-fructose corn syrup (among other various food additives) so we can have cheap access to Tongue-Tattoo Fruit Rollups (because Fruit Rollups are not FUN enough without being able to make an edible tattoo on your tongue?!) not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of other products made with HFCS. [Forgive me, I spent a day at the water park with my kids last week and I saw enough obese children (and adults) in bathing suits to last a lifetime.:no:]

I'm not sure that increases in prices for food in the U.S. would actually be a bad thing.

[SuperSTB]

Talk about a biased piece. Lots of things to discuss in that piece, that's for sure.

This argument is very biased, and possibly quite misrepresented: Finally, consumers benefit from cheap food. If you think they don’t, just remember the headlines after food prices began increasing in 2007 and 2008, including the study by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations announcing that 50 million additional people are now hungry because of increasing food prices. Only “industrial farming” can possibly meet the demands of an increasing population and increased demand for food as a result of growing incomes.

What/Where are the industrial farms being referred to here? Don't tell me that great big egg-producing factory is keeping the world's population fed. How many of the 50 million hungry people actually live here in the U.S., and how much of the industrially-farmed food produced in the U.S. goes overseas to feed the hungry masses? I'm not saying that it doesn't, but it's riduculous to refer to a giant hog CAFO in Indiana, for example, in the same breath as 10 million starving people in Africa & India, unless Hormel is selling those hams to feed starving them.

Personally, I think the continued reference to "we couldn't feed everyone if it weren't for CAFOs and synthetic fertilizers" argument needs to be reexamined. Even this author states In his book, Pollan quotes geographer Vaclav Smil to the effect that 40 percent of the people alive today would not be alive without the ability to artificially synthesize nitrogen. But in his directive on food policy, Pollan damns agriculture's dependence on fossil fuels, and urges the president to encourage agriculture to move away from expensive and declining supplies of natural gas toward the unlimited sunshine that supported life, and agriculture, as recently as the 1940s.

The fact that we *can* produce enough food to enable this sort of increase in the world's population *IF* we use fossil fuel to develop synthetic fertilizers is not a GOOD thing! It isn't an argument of "we NEED CAFOs to feed our population" as much as it is an argument of "due to our ability to produce food SO cheaply with fertilizers and industrialization, we've enabled our population to grow exponentially!" :eek:

I don't have a huge problem with the use of synthetic fertilizers to actually grow FOOD, but I do have a problem with using them to grow FEED -- corn farmers growing genetically modified corn saturated in synthetic nitrogen so that we can produce meat so cheaply everyone can afford to eat it 3 times a day, or eggs for $.69/dozen (or buy one, get one free at Easter!) :no:

Or ingredients for foods that offer little or nutrition -- e.g. corn farmers growing genetically modified corn saturated in synthetic nitrogen to make high-fructose corn syrup (among other various food additives) so we can have cheap access to Tongue-Tattoo Fruit Rollups (because Fruit Rollups are FUN enough without being able to make an edible tattoo on your tongue!) not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of other products made with HFCS. [Forgive me, I spent a day at the water park with my kids last week and I saw enough obese children (and adults) in bathing suits to last a lifetime.:no:]

I'm not sure that increases in prices for food in the U.S. would actually be a bad thing.

Excellent post! We take for granted cheap food and cheap food isn't necessarily good food as you point out. We OVER consume and over consume basically crap food. I'm guilty of it and I need to change my habits.

It's easy to drive up to McD's and get the double cheeseburger meal w/ fries. Do I really need it? No. I need food obviously and it's certainly cheap food made available courtesy of commercial farming and the restaurant industry.

I guess my point is we- as a society- do not appreciate our food. So much so that we can't look beyond the cheap fast food or the buy one get one sales at the supermarket which inevitable fosters waste and gluttony. If people understand that the egg sale at the supermarket (buy one doz.get one) means that many more male chicks going through the shredder- they'd have a better appreciation for what they are consuming and/or wasting.

Commercial farmers- are not to blame for the gluttony. It goes straight back to the consumer. Which stresses my point... if the consumer KNOWS they are more empowered to change.

[S1969]

Commercial farmers- are not to blame for the gluttony. It goes straight back to the consumer. Which stresses my point... if the consumer KNOWS they are more empowered to change.

Well, consumers certainly play their part, but don't discount the food manufacturers, distributors, and the marketing firms they hire -- they share the blame AND the profits!

[Bluey]

All I will point out to you critics is that you are the result of this agriculture, warts and all, that has permitted our society to thrive, freeing so many people from drudge work and so be able to do so much more with our lives, since today so few can feed us all and have left over for our balance of trade, that would be in sad shape without agricultural products.

We have some of the most aboundant, safe, secure and varied food in the world and some can't see that forest for a few trees here or there that need pruning.

You can complain the same about any other in our lives, that kids have to spend so many years behind school desks and how many are abused by teachers.
That hospitals infect their patients and nursing homes abuse and kill their clients.

We can bash all in this world, if we want to keep finding fault, but we should be a little bit humble.
Some time we should sit back and realize that things are the way the are for a reason, that most of them work fine as they are, that some need addressing and better ways found and many are working on that, but that we are very lucky that we are where we are and double lucky that for many here, it was by a mere chance of birth.

Someone said once that it is in bad taste to bash farmers with a full belly.;)

[Bob Kane]

Someone said once that it is in bad taste to bash farmers with a full belly.;)

Thanks Bluey.

Is it even possible to buy a dressed capon or roster commercially anymore?

[Justmyluck]

All I will point out to you critics is that you are the result of this agriculture, warts and all, that has permitted our society to thrive, freeing so many people from drudge work and so be able to do so much more with our lives, since today so few can feed us all and have left over for our balance of trade, that would be in sad shape without agricultural products.

We have some of the most aboundant, safe, secure and varied food in the world and some can't see that forest for a few trees here or there that need pruning.

You can complain the same about any other in our lives, that kids have to spend so many years behind school desks and how many are abused by teachers.
That hospitals infect their patients and nursing homes abuse and kill their clients.

We can bash all in this world, if we want to keep finding fault, but we should be a little bit humble.
Some time we should sit back and realize that things are the way the are for a reason, that most of them work fine as they are, that some need addressing and better ways found and many are working on that, but that we are very lucky that we are where we are and double lucky that for many here, it was by a mere chance of birth.

Someone said once that it is in bad taste to bash farmers with a full belly.;)

I actually wrote a paper on this I wonder if there is a way that I could post it?

[Grataan]

Ok, if we want to continue in this vein, maybe you ought to read this article and understand why we need factory farming, along with smaller farmers as they can produce, all of them, as we really can't feed today's millions without it all.
This is about our food, but is also food for your brain::)

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectualsTotally agree with Bluey here.

Doesn't bother me one bit. It's a sudden death, how else would you have them die? But I do respect those who choose to raise their chickens in a different manner-but if you are going to preach about "cruelty" with one side of your mouth and enjoy the fruits of it with the other, then shame on you.

[Bluey]

I think that some people don't know much about some in our lives and it is a shock when they find out how the world really runs.

I expect those in arms about the chicks not having a use for us and needing to be killed were in shock about that as much as about the manner it is done there.
It is shocking to know how much of the world works, from what doctors do to patients in the ER, that is brutal at times, to so many nursing home residents needing to be restrained, either chemically or with straps to beds and chairs, to those chicks being a living, breathing little cute chick being disposed of in a grinder.

We want to be the superior ethical being, all of us, but the world doesn't work like that.
We are imposing some values to how we want the world to be and we are imperfect in the way we go about it, reality keeps interfering.

Most of us are working for a better world for all, one where we can live using the least foot print and doing what is right.
That is part of being human.
The devil, as always in any topic we care to bring forth, especially those fuzzy ones as ethical concerns, is in the details.

Personally, I think that the world provides us with so many renewable natural resources, it is the way the world runs and it is ok to use them.
If it is a virus killing it's host, or parts of the chicken industry disposing of those chicks it has a use only chopped, or any other example we may care to dig up, I think it is ok for all of us alive to take advantage of what we have, in whatever way we find to do so.

Being humans, we have some standards we superimpose to those processes than that virus doesn't has, but in the end, we are doing exactly the same, making do with what we have, manupulating our environment to our advantage and that process is not without consequences to ourselves and others.

Each one of us has to decide where we can help make that process the least costly to all in the ways we have evolved to understand the world around us and where we just have to go along with the ways the world work and hope some day we can transform matter at will and that needing to kill others directly for our needs will be behind us.
I think that, since we are not there yet, it is ok for us to still be part of the world that we inhabit and bred, raise and kill for our needs the animals we use, one more natural, renewable resource humans learned to use very early in our evolution.

It always needs to be said that of course we don't want any abuse to happen, which was one concern here and that was put to rest by the standards imposed for those processes by regulations, that evidently are followed there already.
We may not like the idea of grinding those chicks, but it is, for now, the best possible solution with the least stress and pain for those chicks, just as it is to tie some nursing home patients to their chairs, or putting a chest tube in an accident victim you can't sedate, or the many animals that end up as road kill in our highways, as unpalatable as those realities are.

We need to remember that there is no action without consequences and if we want to be very picky, we should think that just by being alive we are already taking up space and resources from others and that it is ok.

We can choose not to participate by not eating meats and even fight the rights of others to eat meat, forgetting that we humans really need some meat to thrive, but as long as we still live in a society that is paving the world over, I think it is delusional to pat ourselves on the back for it, like some do.

I don't see anyone going back to living in a cave and walking to find berries for sustenance, watching over their shoulders so as not to become the next meal of a predator or bashed over the head by a neighbor wanting to defend that berry patch.
Remember, we can post our outrage about those chicks on COTH just because of the world we live in, that gives us the free time to post and the computers to do so with and yes, those ground chicks are part of it all.

In the grand scheme of things, we should be thankfull for what we have, warts and all.

[S1969]

Each one of us has to decide where we can help make that process the least costly to all in the ways we have evolved to understand the world around us and where we just have to go along with the ways the world work and hope some day we can transform matter at will and that needing to kill others directly for our needs will be behind us.

Why do we have make that process the least costly to all? Americans spend less of their disposable income on food than any other industrialized country, because we produce food so cheaply here in this country. But we do not eat better and we are not healthier. Are you sure it's really in our best interest to make FOOD PRODUCTION as inexpensive as possible? Quite honestly, considering it's what we EAT we'd want it to be as GOOD as possible, not as CHEAP!

Every time we get into one of these discussions, you tell us we should be thankful for farmers, not to criticize farmers on a full stomach, etc. Honestly, people criticize every type of professional, and farmers should be no exception - I'm glad I'm not a doctor, or a lawyer either! Having a healthy discussion & debate about where our FOOD comes from shouldn't be a conversation limited only to those people who call themselves "farmers." It would be nice if the "farmers" wanted to discuss ways that we could improve our food production systems over the next 2-3 generations rather than just defend why we should be happy we're not starving. :rolleyes:

[Bluey]

Why do we have make that process the least costly to all? Americans spend less of their disposable income on food than any other industrialized country, because we produce food so cheaply here in this country. But we do not eat better and we are not healthier. Are you sure it's really in our best interest to make FOOD PRODUCTION as inexpensive as possible? Quite honestly, considering it's what we EAT we'd want it to be as GOOD as possible, not as CHEAP!

Every time we get into one of these discussions, you tell us we should be thankful for farmers, not to criticize farmers on a full stomach, etc. Honestly, people criticize every type of professional, and farmers should be no exception - I'm glad I'm not a doctor, or a lawyer either! Having a healthy discussion & debate about where our FOOD comes from shouldn't be a conversation limited only to those people who call themselves "farmers." It would be nice if the "farmers" wanted to discuss ways that we could improve our food production systems over the next 2-3 generations rather than just defend why we should be happy we're not starving. :rolleyes:

No, I was speaking in general terms, just meant the way we use ALL resources, not just farming.

I agree, farmers should be just as accountable as anyone else, but not being bashed without merit, as no one else should either, that is my point.

Did you not read that article by that farmer I posted first?
Do you think that farmers are not doing the best they can, as fast as they can, as soon as the information is out there?
Reread and tell me he is coasting on some old ideas and not being enviromentally and socially aware how what he does impacts everythign else.
Farming is a business, not someone walking behind a mule any more.
Not that the one behind the mule didn't know more about the land, crops and livestock than most anyone sitting behind a desk, that has never seen a plow, does today.

And yes, you may disagree, but we are still eating well and thanks to that in general healthier than most anyone in this world, if you compare apples to apples, as my second link shows you.
Of course there are some problems with how people choose food to eat, but to blame only on food that people are obese is laughable.
Most people today live as couch potatoes and that is why many are obese, not because they have junk food available.
Statistically, we seem to have many more health problems because people are living much, much longer.
A good trade off, I think, to live almost twice as long as most lived over a short century ago, even if it means for some that more diseases will show up then, eventually.

There was last week an article in Time magazine right out of an animal rights site, don't know how that one got past their editor, unless the magazine is really becoming more of a trendy, opinion magazine, not any more a news magazine.
That is what I was saying in another post, that we seem to see only the warts, not all that is also right, that of course is a considerably larger part of the story.
Yes, hospitals have a rate of infections, but they are saving lives every day.
Nursing homes tie some patients, but they are keeping them safe this way.
Those are the attacks that are unfounded and misleading when that is all we hear, only telling one part of the story, as this thread started, from one such source.

I think is objectionable that, any more, it seems that we can't speak about anything without bringing up out of context accusations.
Carry on, seems that such is what makes the world go 'round any more.:(

[JSwan]

You know - I'm really surprised at the amount of bashing. For some reason, Americans have turned into an extremely vindictive, unreasonable and downright hysterical people.

I've no love for Monsanto or Cargill - but it seems very few of you people have ANY idea what it is like to produce the food you think is so perfect and wonderful.

Where are you now? The first time there is a bobble in the economy ALL of you run right back to the grocery store. All the small farmers you swore to support, all the crops you promised to buy at the market - what happened?

I tell you what happened - you couldn't afford the prices. Or you chose not too.

Try and THINK. Be objective. How many of you can REALLY afford to spend the time and money required to fully participate and support local agriculture?

The answer is - few of you. Oh, you'll harp about the horrors of factory farming, but you don't actually KNOW how food is produced on the small farm. You don't KNOW anything about agriculture, animal science/husbandry.

It just sounds more appealing so it becomes fashionable.

The truth is - it's not that much different. Again - I dislike A LOT of things about industrial agriculture, and I'd prefer if everyone bought local food. I think it's better for all of us.

But few to no people have that level of commitment to local agriculture. And even then - if that farmer can't sell his livestock to locals - what do you think happens? They are sold at auction and end up at a finishing lot.

Cheap food isn't McDonalds. Cheap food means that you can buy fresh vegetables in January. Cheap food means that a family of 4 living on food stamps don't have kids with rickets.

Essentially - that's what cheap food really means. The excesses? That's your choice. No one is force feeding anyone Twinkies or Big Mac's.

But if you have a dinner party and want to serve strawberry shortcake - and it's February - you'll run to the Piggly Wiggly and buy strawberries from Mexico.

What would you do if there were no fresh fruits and veggies in the winter? THAT'S the reality of small farming. A crop failure means NO bread or feed for livestock.

Folks - don't believe everything in the media. I dislike excesses but let's face it - no one REALLY wants to live like our grandparents did. Not really. It's not romantic and it was a hard life.

[S1969]

I agree, farmers should be just as accountable as anyone else, but not being bashed without merit, as no one else should either, that is my point.

I agree


Did you not read that article by that farmer I posted first?
Do you think that farmers are not doing the best they can, as fast as they can, as soon as the information is out there?
Reread and tell me he is coasting on some old ideas and not being enviromentally and socially aware how what he does impacts everythign else.

I read both articles, and the Time magazine article. I never said farmers are not doing the best they can. In fact, most of my arguments are that the farmers are not to blame, but the mass-production of food in the U.S. Farmers can only produce what people buy, and unfortunately, due to a lot of government regulations, most farmers can't afford to sell directly to consumers (even if they wanted), so they have few choices.

And yes, you may disagree, but we are still eating well and thanks to that in general healthier than most anyone in this world, if you compare apples to apples, as my second link shows you.

I'd like to see statistics showing that Americans are generally healthier than citizens of other developed countries. And it's not surprising that there are more food outbreaks in 3rd world countries. I'm sure no one would have argued this point.


I think is objectionable that, any more, it seems that we can't speak about anything without bringing up out of context accusations.
Carry on, seems that such is what makes the world go 'round any more.:(

It seems that any articles or discussions that don't support industrial/CAFO farming are considered context accusations, I don't understand why. I think there is truth on both sides. I've never said farming is bad, farmers are bad, I just refuse to believe CAFO farming is the only way. Personally, I think I've always stated that I'd most like gov't regulations to be relaxed so that smaller farmers could compete with the larger farms, and let consumers make their own choices.

[S1969]

Try and THINK. Be objective. How many of you can REALLY afford to spend the time and money required to fully participate and support local agriculture?

The answer is - few of you. Oh, you'll harp about the horrors of factory farming, but you don't actually KNOW how food is produced on the small farm. You don't KNOW anything about agriculture, animal science/husbandry.
Folks - don't believe everything in the media.

I dislike excesses but let's face it - no one REALLY wants to live like our grandparents did. Not really. It's not romantic and it was a hard life.

I really hope you're not talking about me. I do know a lot about how food is produced on the small scale, even though I don't do it myself, because I read and talk to the farmers that I buy from, my father grew up on a dairy farm...I don't know *everything* of course...but that doesn't mean I don't KNOW anything. I support local agriculture by buying from local farmers all year round, but I also shop at a grocery store. I've never said our food production should be idyllic and organic. There are a lot of choices between the hippie-dippie organic sprout farmer and the CAFO hog farm. It is about choices, though, and sadly a lot of people would rather have expensive clothes and iPhones rather than eat good food.

[Bluey]

---"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluey
And yes, you may disagree, but we are still eating well and thanks to that in general healthier than most anyone in this world, if you compare apples to apples, as my second link shows you."---



---"I'd like to see statistics showing that Americans are generally healthier than citizens of other developed countries. And it's not surprising that there are more food outbreaks in 3rd world countries. I'm sure no one would have argued this point."---



Yes, I see your point there, but I did say "most of the world", not the developing countries.
We are still eating better than most of the developing countries, with a few exceptions.
We should not believe the press when it tells us all of us in the USA are eating Twinkies and drinking pops.

There are some concerns today and it is that we are doing a very poor job of educating, so many kids and so adults later don't have any basic understanding of the hard sciences and so are not knowledgeable consumers, not realizing how food may help or hinder their health, witness all the supplements and odd stuff people fall for, for themselves and their horses.
Here is more on that, that you may or not agree with, but it touches several important points in these discussions.
This is serious stuff and it has been going on for decades now:

http://deltafarmpress.com/news/laws-column-0821/

[MSP]

First off, they are working on a way of producing female eggs by injecting hormone into the egg. The hope is to produce only females and reduce the amount of males that need to be killed.

I don't think commercial farming is bad. I think the use of battery cages in layers and even the "cage-free" locked in a house layer operations are not necessary. You can produce large numbers of eggs in a humane way or an inhumane way. It is an industry choice and I think they need to change.

Here is one farm that raises eggs same as many of us do, free range on pasture but at a commercial level. I have heard there are farms like this in the USA and I can't see why they all aren't like this.

http://www.freerangepoultry.com/index.html

Please don't even try to tell me they don't have the land for it. It is MS #1 industry and the chicken farms have plenty of land.

[jubilee43]

This is an interesting thread. As someone who grew up on a commercial egg farm, I did notice that the workers were swinging those chicks around before throwing them which would effectively break their necks.(yes, I know this) As for the huge profit we "factory farmers" were making- it came down to a nickel ($.05)per dozen eggs. Woohoo! That margin made it impossible to make a living without a million birds by the eighties.
Margins are very different for farmers now then they were in the 50's and 60's when smaller animal numbers made a good living possible. Increasing costs have made many "family farms" expand to the point where people now consider them "factory farms", but the bank told them what they had to do to stay in business. If any other business expands and hires more employees- that is a sign of a successful endeavor- if a farm does that- OMG- its becoming a factory farm. The animals have numbers instead of names...how awful. If more people were only a generation away from farming, people's view of the world would be different.jmho

[Daydream Believer]

This is an interesting thread. As someone who grew up on a commercial egg farm, I did notice that the workers were swinging those chicks around before throwing them which would effectively break their necks.(yes, I know this)

Yes but did you notice how many little chicks were sitting up on the belt leading to the shredder looking around? There might have been some killed by the rough handling but not all of them..not even close. It wouldn't take much to humanely kill the chicks before shredding them but it might add a second or so per chick to the processing and eat up profit margins. Can't have that...money is much more important than animal welfare. :no:

[Trixie]

Try and THINK. Be objective. How many of you can REALLY afford to spend the time and money required to fully participate and support local agriculture?

The answer is - few of you. Oh, you'll harp about the horrors of factory farming, but you don't actually KNOW how food is produced on the small farm. You don't KNOW anything about agriculture, animal science/husbandry.
Folks - don't believe everything in the media.

I dislike excesses but let's face it - no one REALLY wants to live like our grandparents did. Not really. It's not romantic and it was a hard life.

We can all start by making a few changes and doing what we can and are comfortable with. For me, it’s unrealistic to NEVER go to a grocery store. I live and work around Washington DC, and try to ride as much as I can. Therefore, unfortunately, I sometimes wind up buying convenience foods. However, I’ll continue to do the best I can to educate myself so that I can make better choices, choices that I am more comfortable with.

I’ve been a vegetarian since I was 9. I’m not a rabid vegetarian – I don’t give a damn if OTHERS choose to eat meat, I’ll pick up a steak for Mr. Trixie. But I don’t. That’s my personal choice and one that I’m comfortable with.

We garden on our small acreage, and ETBW taught me how to can this year. We’ve put up quite a few cans of farmer’s market produce for the winter. I keep a couple of chickens and know that they’re happy birds. This winter’s project will be learning to make my own cheese with milk from local dairies.

However, I do think that if each person takes the time, as you said, to THINK and educate themselves, it’ll chip away at the volume of folks buying strawberries in January. Heck, I went to the grocery the other day and lo and behold… found “Local Mangos”! In Virginia. Small font told me that they were, in fact, from Mexico.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Rj1ew_GG3Dw/SnmctcGblnI/AAAAAAAAAHA/t2sVoL0kPDQ/s1600-h/IMG_1771sm.jpg

Starting small (with your family) does make some difference.

[Laurierace]

I do admit this is one area where I prefer to be kept in the dark. To face the reality head on is just more than I can bear. My rule is I don't eat anything that looks like what it looked like when its alive or anything I have to disect. Like only boneless chicken wings and crab cakes not whole crabs. Not something I am proud of but one can only have so many windmills to slay and I chose horse rescue as my focus. I fully believe that what little meat I do eat was created right there in that styrofoam tray.
That said, I do pay extra for free range eggs and buy organic milk from the local farmers. Better than nothing.

[danceronice]

Yes but did you notice how many little chicks were sitting up on the belt leading to the shredder looking around? There might have been some killed by the rough handling but not all of them..not even close. It wouldn't take much to humanely kill the chicks before shredding them but it might add a second or so per chick to the processing and eat up profit margins. Can't have that...money is much more important than animal welfare. :no:

Did you read the AMVA statement posted earlier? Maceration IS fast and humane. The next-best thing is apparently gassing, which is suffocating them.

Remember, the chicks have absolutely no idea what is coming and do not know what dying is. They aren't sitting there thinking something bad is going to happen (if they're thinking at all.)

Not directed at DB, but at the general argument that food producing allowing population growth is a bad thing--so those who make that argument are all what we call in the zoo trade "permanently contracepted", I hope? Because if human reproduction is bad, it's bad for everyone to do it, and the enlightened ones should lead by example.

It would be nice if everyone producing eggs, for example, did what the freerangepoultry.com growers did--but until they can all do it for $1.39 I pay for supermarket eggs, I'm not going to buy them. Simple math--I have other things I'd rather spend money on than more expensive eggs, I want to eat eggs, therefore I buy the cheap ones. Same for beef. When the prices come down, I'll reconsider, or if I feel like blowing extra money just to feel good about myself, I'll go out of my way to buy local, but time is money and money is money and both are not unlimited resources. The bits that become byproducts are in the cans I give my cats, anyway.

[tkhawk]

All I will point out to you critics is that you are the result of this agriculture, warts and all, that has permitted our society to thrive, freeing so many people from drudge work and so be able to do so much more with our lives, since today so few can feed us all and have left over for our balance of trade, that would be in sad shape without agricultural products.

We have some of the most aboundant, safe, secure and varied food in the world and some can't see that forest for a few trees here or there that need pruning.

You can complain the same about any other in our lives, that kids have to spend so many years behind school desks and how many are abused by teachers.
That hospitals infect their patients and nursing homes abuse and kill their clients.

We can bash all in this world, if we want to keep finding fault, but we should be a little bit humble.
Some time we should sit back and realize that things are the way the are for a reason, that most of them work fine as they are, that some need addressing and better ways found and many are working on that, but that we are very lucky that we are where we are and double lucky that for many here, it was by a mere chance of birth.

Someone said once that it is in bad taste to bash farmers with a full belly.;)

I think it is not so much as complaining , as taking stock of where we are.

Every animal has its own life, social structure and its own way of being. I was lucky enough to grow up in a developing country to see them free and the cruel nature of the cycle of life too-both human and animal. Yes we have evolved immensely past that, where we get any fruit or vegetable or meat, any time of the year and at pretty much the same price.

I doubt anybody, including myself, wan't to go back to the old way of life. In the old days there, pregnant woman -including my grandma-worked almost till labour and a day later , were back in the fields. They used to tie a huge garment with ropes, swing it around a tree branch and leave the baby there while the moms worked-it was hot there so was nice in the shade.Today everyhting is different. Chickens and pigs and such can be cooped up in cages for life-depending on the farm. It has evolved away from a way of life to a specialized proffession- profit centers and cost centers. Whereas before, they lived and in the end became food-now they live only to become food-there is a difference. Humans are not that far behind. From living together in families and communities, we work in corporations and as one who works in one-are really no different than a factory farm animal. Nobody looks at you as a human being- just a personel number or a cost center -existing merely to do the task at hand.In return you get money and if they can find another way to do it cheaper in another country or a machine to do it-you are discarded-doesn't matter if you have been there a couple of decades.

Yes we have security, stability, order , but also dull, monotonous boring lives. like a zoo animal in a cage - it has security and food at all times-but absolutely no life at all. While no one wants to be a caveman or a gazelle terrified of going to the pond to drink each day, because you don't know where the lion is hiding, but it looks like we have swung to the other extreme from there. What the solution is, who knows-but maybe that is the nature of things-swinging from one end of spectrum to another and back!

[danceronice]

From living together in families and communities, we work in corporations and as one who works in one-are really no different than a factory farm animal. Nobody looks at you as a human being- just a personel number or a cost center -existing merely to do the task at hand.In return you get money and if they can find another way to do it cheaper in another country or a machine to do it-you are discarded-doesn't matter if you have been there a couple of decades.

Or one could view that most humans in the western world can chose where to live, who to work for, demand benefits from their employers or the government, do not have to work until they drop dead, are not chattel of a landlord, and do not have to work from dawn until dusk and still possibly starve or be turned out or if they're lucky enough to own property, lose it to one bad crop or one lost factory job or one death of a parent or spouse and subsequent loss of income. We can move across entire continents and not have to cut off all contact with family and friends or worry that the new neighbors are not going to be all that welcoming of a stranger in their "community". If you work for a corportation, they are not at liberty to shove you in any working condition they desire, hire twelve-year-olds to crawl around dangerous machines, or let sewage run on the slaughterhouse floors. If they do, they have consequences.

Unless one wants to make a (very legitimate) argument about some agricultural producers and their use of illegals brought over by coyotes, there are no slaves. There are no indentured servants. There are indeed many, many ways out of the "slums" for people willing to take them. In the US and Canada, at least, even the "poor" only go hungry in the sense they can't go out and buy a steak--they aren't sitting with a bowl in a refugee camp in the desert making do on a bag of UN rice. There are "poor" with televisions, cars, and publically-funded health care.

Not saying that modern times are perfect, but let's not get TOO rose-colored glasses about family, community, and how wonderful the past was. Up until pretty recently, unless you were wealthy beyond most moderns' ability to comprehend (adjusted for inflation) life was at best pretty dull and more or less determined from birth and at worst very short, very brutal, and very unpleasant.

As for comparisons to zoo animals, in your average zoo the ones that require enrichment have more to think about every day than your average public-school student. (That's basically all animals who either need more than food and a place to live to be content, like most of the herps and/or those that aren't going to be far more stressed by enrichment than being left alone, like many of the passerine birds in free-flight exhibits who REALLY don't want to have to do more than find their food.) The only thing they DON'T have to worry about is where their next meal is coming from or whether they're going to BE someone's next meal.

[MSP]

You are what you eat! The difference in quality of the $1.39 a dozen eggs and the pasture raised eggs can be significant.

I can't produce enough eggs to satisfy the demand and I have decided not to expand. I simply sell my extra eggs. My hens produce all year long with out any change in the number of eggs. Many people want humane raised food and many people prefer fresh local food and neither have any problem paying $3 a dozen for them. I was very glad to find that commercial operations could do the same thing.

When you start have health problems, rather than popping pills, look at your diet and what you are eating. I think when compared to the price of health care, quality food is cheap!

BTW, organic doesn't mean it was raised humanely. It refers to what the animals are fed or injected with. Cage free means they aren't in battery cages but they can still be in cramped conditions and fed non organic food. Range free means they get outside but there is no requirement of space per bird so they may only have access to small runs, dirt not pasture.

Pasture raised organically fed is the key to a better quality egg!

[tkhawk]

Not saying that modern times are perfect, but let's not get TOO rose-colored glasses about family, community, and how wonderful the past was. Up until pretty recently, unless you were wealthy beyond most moderns' ability to comprehend (adjusted for inflation) life was at best pretty dull and more or less determined from birth and at worst very short, very brutal, and very unpleasant.

l.

If you read my full post, you would see that I said, I am not in favour of going back to the old ways. Like my grandma who worked until the day she had my mother and was back in the fields the day after. All the animals there were at least considered beings. Which is very different from the AR stuff. you still ate them and used them-just accepted they had a life and yes you took care of them and still ate them or used them in ploughs/carts/for milk etc. But they managed to have a life. Not so the ones in the current factory set up-just a number-they exist merely for converting protien.

I work in a big corporation in a dead end field-software. So have been doing my business for a while and it is now succesfull. I am planning on moving away from my main job soon. Which is good. To me, how you feel is quite important too-your experience of life. But I don't know,this whole corporate thing just reminds me of being in a factory farm. You have your little cage/cubicle, you get fed regularly(salary) and as long as you serve your purpose you get to stay. the only difference is if you are sick of it, you can walk away and an animal can't. There is a big difference between this and the other.

Not all developing countries are filled with slaves and indentured servants either.

Now, I still eat factory farmed food and I still work in a corporation. But one does ponder these things before deciding to make a move. There are benefits to these-major benefits-but it comes with a price too. Nothing is free.

[Bluey]

You are what you eat! The difference in quality of the $1.39 a dozen eggs and the pasture raised eggs can be significant.

I can't produce enough eggs to satisfy the demand and I have decided not to expand. I simply sell my extra eggs. My hens produce all year long with out any change in the number of eggs. Many people want humane raised food and many people prefer fresh local food and neither have any problem paying $3 a dozen for them. I was very glad to find that commercial operations could do the same thing.

When you start have health problems, rather than popping pills, look at your diet and what you are eating. I think when compared to the price of health care, quality food is cheap!

BTW, organic doesn't mean it was raised humanely. It refers to what the animals are fed or injected with. Cage free means they aren't in battery cages but they can still be in cramped conditions and fed non organic food. Range free means they get outside but there is no requirement of space per bird so they may only have access to small runs, dirt not pasture.

Pasture raised organically fed is the key to a better quality egg!


You are right, as this article explains:

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-calcook1-2009jul01%2C0%2C2885942.story

And here is more to ponder:

http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100242535&GT1=31036

[Wayside]

First off, they are working on a way of producing female eggs by injecting hormone into the egg. The hope is to produce only females and reduce the amount of males that need to be killed.

Interesting!

Wonder how many people will object to eggs from "hormonally altered" hens or something like that if this comes to pass. :lol:

[JSwan]

However, I’ll continue to do the best I can to educate myself so that I can make better choices, choices that I am more comfortable with.


Starting small (with your family) does make some difference.


That's reasonable, Trixie. I try and do the same, even though I'm no longer a vegetarian.

[Mozart]

Yes but did you notice how many little chicks were sitting up on the belt leading to the shredder looking around? There might have been some killed by the rough handling but not all of them..not even close. It wouldn't take much to humanely kill the chicks before shredding them but it might add a second or so per chick to the processing and eat up profit margins. Can't have that...money is much more important than animal welfare. :no:

Yes, I like to think I am a pretty practical person but how much longer would it take to quickly take a chick's head in one hand and its body in another and give a quick jerk before tossing it in the grinder? Honestly, if you are already picking it up to check the sex, it would take less than a second to kill it before tossing it. You could probably even do it with one hand. I realize seconds add up but public opinion is not powerless and "goodwill" is worth something too.

I don't have chickens (yet) so I don't know, but I imagine buying chicks sexed is cheaper than unsexed?

[Auventera Two]

I don't have chickens (yet) so I don't know, but I imagine buying chicks sexed is cheaper than unsexed?

Depends. We've always bought from Murray McMurray, and sometimes straight run (unsexed) are more expensive than females, and sometimes not. I guess it depends on the breed.

[Beverley]

But the idea of new born chicks being crushed alive in a grinder, just does not sit right with me.

Just passing through...I agree with J Swan. We are too quick to react to something that 'sounds' awful without processing what, precisely, the level of pain and suffering is, if any. Give me hard science that helps the animals, please, not emotional propaganda that mostly just saves uninformed humans from the 'ick' factor.

[ReSomething]

The hatchery we used offers male chicks at a low low price. According to my DH the price for 200 is not much greater than that for 20. We just put 14 of our cockerels in the freezer.

Maceration certainly sounds revolting, but how many of you have considered what happens to chicks shipped long distances in the backs of overheated or near zero trucks? I used to routinely dread opening one specific trailer that had been on the road for two days, knowing that I might find containers full of limp chicks, and I used to spend extra time in the climate controlled building shifting boxes to get them to ambient temperature as fast as possible - not all my co-workers cared to bother with that.
Next time you order you might consider how far the hatchery is from your home before you get that "great price".

[tkhawk]

Just passing through...I agree with J Swan. We are too quick to react to something that 'sounds' awful without processing what, precisely, the level of pain and suffering is, if any. Give me hard science that helps the animals, please, not emotional propaganda that mostly just saves uninformed humans from the 'ick' factor.


Well when you have no frame of referance, there is nothing wrong in being revolted by something that sound gruesome. It is human nature. What you do after that, is upto you. To me, since this seemed to be widely reported, I was just curious to find out if this is standard in the industry or if this company is the only one doing it. If it is standard, then why is this company being singled out? If among all options this is the most painless-so be it. But hard science actually means being curious and doing your research, admitting you don't know and finding out?? Of course scientists have a lot of other stuff-cool gadgets and tools and formulas and stuff. But it does sound revolting and if there is science behind why they do this, then they can come out and say-here among all the options, this is the least painful and it looks macabre, but here is what the other options actually do to the chicks and here is why we do this to the chicks. But instead of that, the company just said that they would look into it and act like they were not even aware of it , which does make you go hmm...

[Equestryn]

While I don't really know what to say, I will say that I buy my eggs locally from farmers who have raised several generations of hens. I donate my stall cleanings to a local organic farmer who in turn gives me a discount at her store. I grow Okra, cucumbers and corn in small raised gardes (also fueled by stall cleanings). I admit I do frequent the fast food chains because it's easy but I'm starting to make a switch to a more organic lifestyle. I like knowing where my food comes from. Since I'm new at it, my produce isn't always the best tasting but I'm sure I'll figure it out. When it comes to meat products, I'm buying venison (or hunting it myself) and chicken from local hunters/chicken farmers. I prefer venison to any other meat anyway.

That's my two cents. This has been a VERY enlightening and eye opening thread. Thank you to you all for your opinions!!

[Bluey]

Well when you have no frame of referance, there is nothing wrong in being revolted by something that sound gruesome. It is human nature. What you do after that, is upto you. To me, since this seemed to be widely reported, I was just curious to find out if this is standard in the industry or if this company is the only one doing it. If it is standard, then why is this company being singled out? If among all options this is the most painless-so be it. But hard science actually means being curious and doing your research, admitting you don't know and finding out?? Of course scientists have a lot of other stuff-cool gadgets and tools and formulas and stuff. But it does sound revolting and if there is science behind why they do this, then they can come out and say-here among all the options, this is the least painful and it looks macabre, but here is what the other options actually do to the chicks and here is why we do this to the chicks. But instead of that, the company just said that they would look into it and act like they were not even aware of it , which does make you go hmm...

Not exactly, here is another way to tell that same chicken story, that was part of an agenda, not any mercy for those poor chicks:

http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?ts=nl2&pgID=675&ed_id=6032

Seems that the videos were made out of someone not following regulations, so as it look as bad and shocking as they could make it look.
Sounds similar to the CA dairy cows being abused by someone when the inspectors were not around.

Remember, those same people wielding a hidden video camera can tape what you do, say, longing a horse and edit it so it only shows the few seconds when you may have raised your hand and shooed that horse on and repeat it again and again as they say you are abusing the horse.

[SevenDogs]

So, Bluey, we should assume that this agricultural publication is going to be completely unbiased? Please! Both sides have motivation that leads them to put a certain spin on things.

I have been hesitant to join this thread, but the "holier than thou, don't even think about questioning the farmers" BS is just that -- BS! I have a hard time believing that these companies don't know EXACTLY what is going on in their factories and if they truly don't know, they should be fired for "not watching the store".

If there is truly nothing wrong with what they are doing (and maybe this is a legitimate way to dispose of these chicks -- don't think so, but not willing to make an absolute statement), then there should be no need for undercover video taping. Stand behind your process and put it out there.

Many farmers work very hard and deserve our respect because the EARN it, not because they think they can demand it. Questions should be asked of everyone (yup Bluey, that include farmers, doctors, nursing homes, attorneys and anyone else). Things should be examined and we should be constantly asking ourselves if we can do things better, more humanely, etc.

Sorry Bluey and others, I do think questions should be raised -- of all of us and you ranting on a public BB does nothing but make me think we should be asking MORE questions.

[Bluey]

---"...and you ranting on a public BB does nothing but make me think we should be asking MORE questions. "---


I don't think anyone is ranting at all.
We are having a civilized debate and bringing different concerns to the table.
I have said myself that all should be up to being called on what everyone does, that is a given.
What is not right is to take things out of context, as this video evidently does and so many do today in the media, to further their personal agendas.

No one is ranting, just calmly explaining that there are other sides to the story, as already explained, grinding those chicks is standard and has been deemed humane and acceptable, even if, as so much in life, I gave enough examples already, the gruesome process gives pause.

The media has a terrific influence today, with a sitting duck audience to brainwash and journalistic ethics made abusing that power taboo.
That doesn't seem to be so any more today::no:

http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=6046&ts=nl2

---"After all, as Walsh said this week, some journalists are now given the freedom to produce stories with the angles they prefer, rather than provide objective and balanced reporting."---

I think they should warn up front that news today are infomercials.

[JSwan]

Many farmers work very hard and deserve our respect because the EARN it, not because they think they can demand it. Questions should be asked of everyone (yup Bluey, that include farmers, doctors, nursing homes, attorneys and anyone else). Things should be examined and we should be constantly asking ourselves if we can do things better, more humanely, etc.



I agree, I think it's always important to ask questions. In my mind, one question that we should always ask ourselves is this.

"But is it progress?"

Yes, it's progress. Our knowledge of animal husbandry/animal science has made enormous leaps forward. We have laws and regulations in place that address humane transport, requirements for water, veterinary care, humane slaughter, nutrition, housing, etc. The laws are broken.... yes. But there ARE laws. The big manure lagoons may be unappealing and gross, but there was a time when all that was dumped directly into the water. Now - it's treated as if it was human sewage - basically treatment plants. So - it is progress.

But that progress comes at a cost. It comes as a cost in many ways, some of which people have pointed out. My personal concerns have less to do with animal welfare, and more to do with loss of genetic diversity, corporate control and loss of choice, destruction of rural communities, urban sprawl, etc. Animal welfare is crucial, of course. But there is MUCH more to it than that.

The "small farm" myth that is now being bandied about by activists IS a myth. Since most of us are now so far removed from agriculture, it's natural to believe that the "small farm" is an idyllic paradise full of happy fat animals that just leap onto our plate for us.

That's not true either, as many small farmers can attest to. And those small little farms just let their runoff go right into the water - environmental destruction is still happening, though it's simply more difficult to trace the source of contamination. With big farms - it's easy. Follow the plume.

In terms of animal welfare, I think there comes a point where the corporate approach to agriculture does result in the animal being treated very very well - but is also nothing more than x pounds of product. So it's really not that much different than growing meat in a vat.

From the consumers perspective, you're really just getting a monoculture, identical product that tastes the same in NY and LA. The American palate has been dulled by..... sameness.

But that sameness is valued in other areas of our lives. Clothes, homes, furniture... sameness. So the food is the same. Beige.



I do think we should always pay attention to things and question - but I also understand what Bluey is saying. Informed, educated criticism is not what Bluey is talking about. Or at least I hope not.

It is the criticism of the poorly informed, highly emotional person or group that doesn't understand the issues, but screams and points fingers.

That's not useful. It's really not.

I would like to see us step back from what I think is the edge of a cliff. But that cannot happen if opponents of industrial agriculture don't really and truly educate themselves - and I'm sorry but AR groups don't rely on facts and reason.

[Bluey]

I think all this is moot question, because we are very close to be able to make the processes we already have, that make most any basic product seem whatever we want it to taste and chew like, the meat in a vat some mentioned, or broccoli, if that is what you wish to have.
We just don't have the process refined enough to go commercial yet, but some are trying very hard to get there.

Then it won't matter if you are vegetarian or not, because the basic blob your food will be made of will have all the necessary nutrients for you and no animals will have to be born, raised and milked or slaughtered.
That blob can be made in the shape, flavor and whatever you like it to be.:)
Real food will be something very few ever get to taste and we probably won't like it.;)
Farmers will produce whatever is needed for that original blob, at least until we can make blobs out of practically thin air.

Brave new world is a coming.:yes:

The fly in the ointment is, will we get there before we kill each other?

Another question, will they still let us have horses?:eek:

[wendy]

you ever actually seen inside a "commercial egg factory?" those chicks that got ground up were the lucky ones. There is no excuse for treating animals the way factory farms do. Death is never pretty but it's better than prolonged torture. I can buy free-range produced eggs anywhere these days for $3 or so per dozen while the torture camp products are half that price yet people drinking $6 cups of coffee chose the torture camp products.

[tkhawk]

I think all this is moot question, because we are very close to be able to make the processes we already have, that make most any basic product seem whatever we want it to taste and chew like, the meat in a vat some mentioned, or broccoli, if that is what you wish to have.
We just don't have the process refined enough to go commercial yet, but some are trying very hard to get there.

Then it won't matter if you are vegetarian or not, because the basic blob your food will be made of will have all the necessary nutrients for you and no animals will have to be born, raised and milked or slaughtered.
That blob can be made in the shape, flavor and whatever you like it to be.:)
Real food will be something very few ever get to taste and we probably won't like it.;)
Farmers will produce whatever is needed for that original blob, at least until we can make blobs out of practically thin air.

Brave new world is a coming.:yes:

The fly in the ointment is, will we get there before we kill each other?

Another question, will they still let us have horses?:eek:


This day might not be very far off. If you look at it, a plant is a rather primitive life form when compared to us. Yet it is totally self sufficuent. It absorbs all the nutrients it needs from the soil as well as water. Plants also know how to use light/solar energy. They also "breathe" CO2.

Humans have copied every natural function and mechanised it. Submarines do the same thing that whales and dolphins do, planes do the thing birds do and so on. We can even control the climate in an enclosed space. Technology is just so far ahead. Some day we may just figure out how plants make nutrients/food from the soil and light and may just be able to create a mechanical process that simulates that and create our own food. We have done that with every other process.

Yeah about horses! Hope someone doesn't come up with a robot horse or some such!!:lol:

[S1969]

but until they can all do it for $1.39 I pay for supermarket eggs, I'm not going to buy them. Simple math--I have other things I'd rather spend money on than more expensive eggs, I want to eat eggs, therefore I buy the cheap ones.

How many eggs do you eat that you can't spend more than $0.12 per egg? If you ate 3 eggs and two pieces of toast for breakfast it would probably cost you about $0.50. What did you plan on spending that money on instead?

Food isn't that expensive, even locally grown food. But again, it's the choices we make. I'm happy to pay $3.00/dozen for eggs from chickens that are allowed go walk around outside, eat grass and slugs and worms; their eggs are better for us anyway.

[Bluey]

---"Yeah about horses! Hope someone doesn't come up with a robot horse or some such!! "---



Like this one?:lol:

http://www.equicizer.com/images/equicizer.com/default.aspx?contentName=Home%20Page&news=1/

[tkhawk]

:lol::lol: I guess I spoke too soon!:lol:

[Bluey]

:lol::lol: I guess I spoke too soon!:lol:


That is the ultimate ecologically friendly horse.
You don't have to feed it those expensive grains and hays and you don't need to keep cleaning after that verytable mountain of horse apples.
No emissions of any kind, not even gas and no vet bills, although you may have to change a bearing here and there eventually, if you really ride that horse a lot.

Did you notice the jokey with the red and white silks, matching the blinders on the mechanical horse, at the start of the video a few minutes into it, that had PINNED ears?:lol:

You know, he is definitely showing some problem, maybe a sore wheel...

[Ajierene]

How many eggs do you eat that you can't spend more than $0.12 per egg? If you ate 3 eggs and two pieces of toast for breakfast it would probably cost you about $0.50. What did you plan on spending that money on instead?

Food isn't that expensive, even locally grown food. But again, it's the choices we make. I'm happy to pay $3.00/dozen for eggs from chickens that are allowed go walk around outside, eat grass and slugs and worms; their eggs are better for us anyway.

That's twice as much for organic! Let's compare that to my normal shopping routine and assume similar for organic foods - because it is a similar mark up, and if you buy organic eggs, why stop there?

dozen eggs - grocery, 1.50 organic, 3.00
Qt Milk - grocery, 1.00 organic 2.00
cheese 1/2 lb- grocery 2.50 organic 4.00
meat 1/2lb - grocery 2.50 organic 4.00
bread - grocery 1.50 organic 2.50

Total grocery 8.00 organic 15.50

So...I save 7.50 on just these items, by not buying organic. Add in other needs, ground beef, juice, fruits and vegetables, etc. and you have a huge difference in price.

Now, lets see - say you make 10.00/hr, that's 400 per week and 1600 per month. Take taxes out and you take home 1200. Per month: Rent (on the LOW end) is 500, car payment is 150, gas is say 50, car insurance is 50, electricity is about 30, telephone service is about 30, lets assume heat and water are included in rent. so, total minimal payments is $810/month. You have 390 left over to: pay for cable, pay for internet, pay for clothes, and pay for food. Let alone horse expenses.

These numbers are taken from roughly what I made and what I paid when I was in college. The rent at that efficiency apartment went up to about 750 a month - the starting pay where I worked in college has stayed the same and they are even more interested in hiring only full time employees.

Horse board in my area starts at 200/month and averages 350/month.

This is the reality of what the average American faces. The numbers will vary, but the truth is people have very little 'play' money and if it comes down to going to that one football game a season or buying organic - mental health is just as important as physical health - they are going to the game.

They should not be ostracized or looked down for it. It just is the way it is. I could barely afford my one horse that I paid minimal board for, let alone lessons or showing. And that was with buying the cheapest food around - which is how I also grew up, so I was not missing the taste of organic.

[poltroon]

That's twice as much for organic! Let's compare that to my normal shopping routine and assume similar for organic foods - because it is a similar mark up, and if you buy organic eggs, why stop there?

It's not a blanket factor of two. The cost varies with the cost of production. Sometimes, organic produce is even the exact same price. And local food (which is not necessarily organic) is another option. It too can often be the exact same price.

Eggs happen to be double because commercial eggs are very cheap. On the other hand, even at $3, a dozen eggs are still cheap, and there are very distinct and measurable differences between pasture raised $3 eggs and $1.39 eggs. Buy what you want. Only you can decide if the difference in flavor and nutrition and the more metaphysical questions have that extra value to you.

Plenty of people decide to buy artisan bread and then Kraft Mac & Cheese (one of DH's favorite meals(!)). It's all in your personal priorities.

I wouldn't necessarily buy organic eggs, personally. Pasture raised, yes.

Then again, I have chickens, so I don't buy eggs at all any more.

[S1969]

That's twice as much for organic! Let's compare that to my normal shopping routine and assume similar for organic foods - because it is a similar mark up, and if you buy organic eggs, why stop there?

You don't necessary have to buy organic to make better food choices. I'm not sure any *organic* foods you buy at the grocery store are much different than non-organic. Organic does not mean more humane, or more nutritious.

And personally, I'd give all struggling college students a free-pass on buying groceries. When I was in college, I didn't have a car. Anything and everything I needed had to be within walking distance, and my first few jobs were no different. Although I didn't really make enough money to buy meat so that made that easier.

I think the average American wastes something like 15% of their food purchases, and the cost of convenience foods nearly always exceeds the basic ingredients. If people made those two choices it would be a huge difference in their monthly bills. Cooking isn't hard! I'm amazed at the number of people who say "I can't cook anything!" How ridiculous! But even though Americans waste food and buy prepackaged convenience foods by the ton, they also still have the money for eating out a LOT, beer, designer clothes, electronics, music, cars, horses...etc. If we compare ourselves to other industrialized countries, we spend less on food.

[MSP]

If you like cheap food you need to read this

http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/05/politics-of-the-plate-the-price-is-wrong


...
“Cheap food is a problem. We are going to have to wake up to that fact,” said Dr. Hans Herren, president of the Millennium Institute, an Arlington, VA–based organization that promotes sustainability in developing countries.

I can almost hear the howls of outrage at such a comment, but after listening to other attendees at the conference, I came to the conclusion that Herren’s blunt assessment was as honest as it was heretical.

“In the United States we now pay half as much for food as a percentage of our income as we did 50 years ago,” said Karen Christensen, the global produce buyer for Whole Foods Market. “Achieving sustainability will mean that prices will have to go up.”

Tired jokes about “Whole Paycheck Market” aside, Christensen has a valid point, particularly when you take into account the true costs of all of the “cheap” food in today’s supermarket. “In this country our food would be 20 percent more expensive—and that’s a conservative figure—if the externalized costs were added back in,” said Dr. Frederick Kirschenmann, senior fellow at the Leopold Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University. He was referring to agricultural subsidies, tax breaks, and the cost of cleaning up environmental damage resulting from the production of “cheap” food. They have to be paid for by somebody.

...



We have artificially low food prices ... so what happens when the dam breaks?

[Bluey]

You don't necessary have to buy organic to make better food choices. I'm not sure any *organic* foods you buy at the grocery store are much different than non-organic. Organic does not mean more humane, or more nutritious.

And personally, I'd give all struggling college students a free-pass on buying groceries. When I was in college, I didn't have a car. Anything and everything I needed had to be within walking distance, and my first few jobs were no different. Although I didn't really make enough money to buy meat so that made that easier.

I think the average American wastes something like 15% of their food purchases, and the cost of convenience foods nearly always exceeds the basic ingredients. If people made those two choices it would be a huge difference in their monthly bills. Cooking isn't hard! I'm amazed at the number of people who say "I can't cook anything!" How ridiculous! But even though Americans waste food and buy prepackaged convenience foods by the ton, they also still have the money for eating out a LOT, beer, designer clothes, electronics, music, cars, horses...etc. If we compare ourselves to other industrialized countries, we spend less on food.

People choose to spend their money as they wish, you should not think you can tell them how to, it is their money.

I don't know what you do for a living, but maybe those many people eating out, buying designer clothes, electronics, etc. are making YOUR job possible?
They sure are making MANY jobs possible, thanks to not having to spend so much money on food.
They get to do all that other that provides others with jobs, that by the way are also subsidized, as all business are, thru their tax deductions and other ways.
Some farming is subsidized, but by far not all, thru price controls and farm programs.
So are many other industries.

[Ajierene]

You don't necessary have to buy organic to make better food choices. I'm not sure any *organic* foods you buy at the grocery store are much different than non-organic. Organic does not mean more humane, or more nutritious.

And personally, I'd give all struggling college students a free-pass on buying groceries. When I was in college, I didn't have a car. Anything and everything I needed had to be within walking distance, and my first few jobs were no different. Although I didn't really make enough money to buy meat so that made that easier.

What about my mom? When I was in college, she made less money than me. She was forced into early retirement a few years ago and now make even less.

There are a LOT of people in situations like this, which is why places like Walmart exist.

The average income for a male is about $45K, for a woman, about $35K, the median for a household is about $25K. There are people out there that can afford organic without blinking an eye that don't - there are a ton more than cannot. Twice as much for organic is about right in my area and even more so in the cities.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?-geo_id=01000US&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_GCTP14_US9&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U

[Huntertwo]

Quote:
Advantages—(1) Death is almost instantaneous. (2) The method is safe for workers. (3) Large numbers of animals can be killed quickly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that this macabre death is still what is convenient for the human, not what is in the best interest of the animal.

Death is *almost* instantaneous? That doesn't sound too convincing...:no:

[Huntertwo]

You know - I'm really surprised at the amount of bashing. For some reason, Americans have turned into an extremely vindictive, unreasonable and downright hysterical people.

The answer is - few of you. Oh, you'll harp about the horrors of factory farming, but you don't actually KNOW how food is produced on the small farm. You don't KNOW anything about agriculture, animal science/husbandry.

It just sounds more appealing so it becomes fashionable.



JSwan,
Why is it when someone has a different opinion than yours they are the ones who don't know crap about anything. They are the ones who must be wrong, they are the ones who are hysterical, unreasonable. Have you ever thought perhaps it is you who is unreasonable?

How do you know that we, the others with a different opinion, don't know anything about agriculture, how food is produced on the small farms. Plenty of posters on here described their small farms.

Why do you think it is only you who knows what happens in the real world on a series of discussion on here. And I just don't mean this thread.:rolleyes:

Geez...give it a break already. Some of us do know who to think and reason and are entitled to opinions.

[Bluey]

JSwan,
Why is it when someone has a different opinion than yours they are the ones who don't know crap about anything. They are the ones who must be wrong, they are the ones who are hysterical, unreasonable. Have you ever thought perhaps it is you who is unreasonable?

How do you know that we, the others with a different opinion, don't know anything about agriculture, how food is produced on the small farms. Plenty of posters on here described their small farms.

Why do you think it is only you who knows what happens in the real world on a series of discussion on here. And I just don't mean this thread.:rolleyes:

Geez...give it a break already. Some of us do know who to think and reason and are entitled to opinions.

We know who really knows about farming just like we know who really knows about horses, by the way they say what they say and by what they say.:yes:

Many don't even know what they don't know and it shows, they are so far off the mark with their proclamations.:no:
Just as if I was to try to tell an engineer how he should be building a bridge and why I think so.:eek:
Very absurd that would be and clearly it would show how little I know about structural engineering.:p

[S1969]

There are a LOT of people in situations like this

And lots that aren't.

which is why places like Walmart exist.

Walmart exists to make billions of dollars.

[S1969]

People choose to spend their money as they wish, you should not think you can tell them how to, it is their money.

I don't really care how people spend their money, but anyone who owns a horse (or owns a Wii, or eats out 3 times a week, etc.) can't honestly say they *can't* afford to spend more on food. They choose not to. That's ok, I don't have a problem with it. Just own up to it. Sort of like when my kids say "it broke" instead of "I broke it."

[Daydream Believer]

Did you read the AMVA statement posted earlier? Maceration IS fast and humane. The next-best thing is apparently gassing, which is suffocating them.

Remember, the chicks have absolutely no idea what is coming and do not know what dying is. They aren't sitting there thinking something bad is going to happen (if they're thinking at all.)



I have zero confidence in the AVMA and their guidelines. They are in the pocket of the food/meat producing industry and get lots of money to say nice things like that on their website. I also know that they state that death by captive bolt in an assembly line slaughterhouse is "humane euthanasia" for a horse also. Yeh right.

Like I said...if that was puppies, kittens, foals (animals we think of as "pets") going into the macerator, would you still sing that tune? They wouldn't know what was coming either...but does that really matter?

[Bluey]

I have zero confidence in the AVMA and their guidelines. They are in the pocket of the food/meat producing industry and get lots of money to say nice things like that on their website. I also know that they state that death by captive bolt in an assembly line slaughterhouse is "humane euthanasia" for a horse also. Yeh right.

Like I said...if that was puppies, kittens, foals (animals we think of as "pets") going into the macerator, would you still sing that tune? They wouldn't know what was coming either...but does that really matter?

But they are not puppies, kittens or foals, they are one day old chicks.
About like the controversy of cutting tails on a day old puppy, when it doesn't has enough awareness to be an issue.

I do think that killiing them is a public relations nightmare for that industry, once the general public gets those slanted stories, where they don't tell the whole of why it is and why it is so and that it is ok, as far as the chicks is concern, hard as it is for us humans not involved in those decisions to accept emotionally.

Maybe they will eventually figure a way to only have female chicks of those characteristics, so they won't have to dispose of those unwanted male chicks and the controversy will go away.:yes:

Jeez, this is sounding like the abortion debate.:rolleyes:
Some people doing what they feel they have to do and others jumping on them, when it is not their problem.

[Daydream Believer]

But they are not puppies, kittens or foals, they are one day old chicks.
About like the controversy of cutting tails on a day old puppy, when it doesn't has enough awareness to be an issue.



So it's Ok since it's not an animal you think of a cute and cuddly? I thought so...especially coming from you.

Have you ever been present for the tail docking of puppies? I have. I helped the vet do my last litter of JRT's at my home. They screamed and cried and whimpered and struggled...and then when it was done, they whimpered some more. It was horrible..and I was in tears when it was done. They most certainly are aware enough to feel pain and fear at a few days old. I'm sure those chicks do too. Surely a chick is not as "high" an animal on the intelligence scale as a dog but surely they still should be treated with some respect from their executioners? :confused:

BTW...I will never dock another puppy's tail ever again. :no: Absolutely needless suffering to make a fashion statement. I still regret doing that.

[Wanderluster]

Daydream- I have been through numerous tail docking not great but not horrible, my son's circumcision on the other hand.... UGH, no pain killers,no sedation. So yeah we subject humans to some things for "fashion". ;)

[Daydream Believer]

Daydream- I have been through numerous tail docking not great but not horrible, my son's circumcision on the other hand.... UGH, no pain killers,no sedation. So yeah we subject humans to some things for "fashion". ;)

Yes, circumcision without pain killers is pretty awful from what I hear...and unnecessary. I guess you can call the shots since it is your child...but do you think it was worse for you to witness since it was your child screaming in pain and not just a puppy crying? I could not imagine it would be easy to stand back and watch that done to a baby...especially my own. The tail docking was horrible enough.

My point really was to point out to Bluey that young animals do feel pain as do young humans..as you noted. I'm sure that pain and fear is not remembered for long by either.... but does that make it "ok" to subject them to such pain? I guess in the end it is our own conscience that has to be our guide since they are helpless to what we choose to do to them.

[Wayside]

I have zero confidence in the AVMA and their guidelines. They are in the pocket of the food/meat producing industry and get lots of money to say nice things like that on their website. I also know that they state that death by captive bolt in an assembly line slaughterhouse is "humane euthanasia" for a horse also. Yeh right.

Like I said...if that was puppies, kittens, foals (animals we think of as "pets") going into the macerator, would you still sing that tune? They wouldn't know what was coming either...but does that really matter?

I think the real issue if it was puppies/kittens/foals is that it would be much more difficult to cause instant death with a macerator because of the size of the animal.

[SevenDogs]

We know who really knows about farming just like we know who really knows about horses, by the way they say what they say and by what they say.:yes:

Many don't even know what they don't know and it shows, they are so far off the mark with their proclamations.:no:
Just as if I was to try to tell an engineer how he should be building a bridge and why I think so.:eek:
Very absurd that would be and clearly it would show how little I know about structural engineering.:p

Wow Bluey! You have got quite a big ego!

According to you, you (and your self proclaimed "we's") are the only people who know anything about farming and if anyone asks a question or, god forbid, challenges you, they are just stupid people who couldn't possibly know anything and are just led by the nose by the big media/AR groups. Give me a break! That's such a tactic of desperate people.

You claim that you want an honest debate but your only tactic is to dismiss anyone that disagrees with you or challenges you in any way. Maybe if you took the time to consider other opinions, your might just find out they have a point.

Huntertwo: Your post was right on the mark.

[Beverley]

Wow Bluey! You have got quite a big ego!



Bluey has never come across as particularly egotistical to me. The point was valid- people who have never set foot on a farm are quite vocal about how things 'should' be- and yet have no practical knowledge about how things on the farm 'really' are.

You wrote:
"Maybe if you took the time to consider other opinions, your might just find out they have a point."

I'll just observe that that is very much a two way street. People who really care to find out the truth know that it lies somewhere in the middle, and keeping an open mind is absolutely essential. Unfortunately, in my experience, too many people are swayed by doctored videos or unreliable third hand information.

[SevenDogs]

Bluey has never come across as particularly egotistical to me. The point was valid- people who have never set foot on a farm are quite vocal about how things 'should' be- and yet have no practical knowledge about how things on the farm 'really' are.

You wrote:
"Maybe if you took the time to consider other opinions, your might just find out they have a point."

I'll just observe that that is very much a two way street. People who really care to find out the truth know that it lies somewhere in the middle, and keeping an open mind is absolutely essential. Unfortunately, in my experience, too many people are swayed by doctored videos or unreliable third hand information.

Touche' perhaps, but equally unfortunate are people who are so set in their ways that they can not handle anyone challenging them and they automatically assume they MUST (by virtue of them disagreeing) be someone who can't think for themselves and is just "swayed" by bias media outlets and AR groups. I think you are absolutely correct that the truth almost always lies in the middle and that means BOTH sides have to have open minds.

When one takes the position that everyone who disagrees with them does not deserve to have an opinion (and "we know who you are by the way that you post"), that is egotistical in my mind. Further, comparing farming with structural engineering is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

I hardly think that only those people who are actively farming can have a valid opinion on the humane treatment of farm animals, and that's what we are talking about on this thread. In fact, I think it is healthy to bring opinions from OUTSIDE the industry, rather than rely solely on those relying on said practices to make their businesses profitable. Only then can you actually hope to find middle ground and the best possible answers to a difficult problem.

Is it reasonable to dispose of unwanted chicks in the manner depicted in the video or not (which, by the way, did not look "doctored" in any way to me)? Not exactly the same technical knowledge needed to know whether or not a building or bridge can withstand an earthquake. Any reasonably intelligent human being can weigh in on such an ethical questions and have valid opinions, thoughts, and even conflicts. Acting as though someone has to be actively raising chickens to have a valid opinion is absurd and, yes, egotistical.

[tkhawk]

JSwan,
Why is it when someone has a different opinion than yours they are the ones who don't know crap about anything. They are the ones who must be wrong, they are the ones who are hysterical, unreasonable. Have you ever thought perhaps it is you who is unreasonable?

How do you know that we, the others with a different opinion, don't know anything about agriculture, how food is produced on the small farms. Plenty of posters on here described their small farms.

Why do you think it is only you who knows what happens in the real world on a series of discussion on here. And I just don't mean this thread.:rolleyes:

Geez...give it a break already. Some of us do know who to think and reason and are entitled to opinions.

Ok since we are getting personal here, of all the posters in this board you shouldn't be accusing someone of being unreasonable!;)

.

When one takes the position that everyone who disagrees with them too stupid to think for themselves (and "we know who you are by the way that you post"), that is egotistical in my mind. Comparing farming with structural engineering is a bit of a stretch. I hardly think that only those people who are actively farming can have a valid opinion on humane farming operations, and that's what we are talking about on this thread. Is it reasonable to dispose of unwanted chicks in the manner depicted in the video or not? Not exactly the same technical knowledge needed to know whether or not a building or bridge can withstand an earthquake.

I think I understand where Bluey is coming from. Now to me the thought of shoving those chicks into a grinder alive is abhorrent. But I grew up in India and bought my meat fresh. Hundreds, maybe thousands of times, I have gone to the butcher to buy chicken or goat. With chicken usually the butcher there has a few coops with maybe 10-20 birds. You point and he gets it, slaughters it , right in full view of the others . Then after dumping in hot water and removing feathers, we get the pieces. The customers just sits there and wait and chat about the weather or other mundane subjects. Unfortunately it is the way it is done there. I understand that may be cruel and torture to others.

Factory farming does have its benefits for the customer. Cheap and reliable food source and safe too. But I really don't know what is done here. While grinding chicks alive is horrible, what other method is there to deal with such a large volume? That is what I wanted to find out-is it this company only or an industry wide practice. If so, are there no other alternatives? Also while the chicks are ground up alive, was there any research to see if they feel any pain, minimize any ill effects-are there no other methods?

I do understand the male issue. When I was growing up, cows in India were the prime domestic animal and most were close to their cows-just like horses here. In those days bullocks(oxen) were very valuable. There was no electricity, so one or two milking cow was enough for a family. But oxen were used for everything, ploughs, carts, irrigation(pulling water from the well into the fields) The attached link is actually a song -kinda like a dream sequence-in real life you don't get the pretty woman:winkgrin:. The farmers used this rig-it shows up after the first 10 seconds to water their entire field -up to 10 acres -from a central well .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o51_IRTOPEs

As you can imagine, the effort would be immense. My grandfather used to do it at night for six to eight hours each night to water the fields-because less evaporation of water and the less heat exhaustion. So oxen were very valuable and people would be very happy if the cow had a male calf.But once electricity, tractors, buses came oxen just became a complete waste. So now everybody just sells male calves after they are weaned-everybody knows they end up in slaughter, but everybody just ignores it-it is like they didn't sell to slaughter-they sold it to someone-so they are ok!:winkgrin:

My point is farming has undergone huge, huge changes. Both my sides of the family were farmers and I was just surprised when I came here about the scale and the easy availability of food in all seasons and pretty much the same price. So yes when folks like some the AR folks with no exposure come screaming, someone like Bluey who has been it all her life almost will find it rather amusing. I think that is what she is referring to-I think? Even me , the thought of these sweet little chicks being crushed alive seems abhorent. But unlike a lot of city slickers, I grew up sitting in a butcher shop , selecting my chicken and watching its throat slit, thrashing about and then took its meat back home-all the while chatting with fellow customers like it was the most normal thing. I understand someone could look at me like a barbaric savage too. So you know I am just curious if this grinding process is normal and if there is a less instantaneous and less painful way to handle this?

[Huntertwo]

Ok since we are getting personal here, of all the posters in this board you shouldn't be accusing someone of being unreasonable!;)



Hmmm, my guess is that this is political? ;) I'm only assuming because we don't share the same political views, I am unreasonable? :lol::lol::lol:

Hopefully we have an off topic day since it is a holiday weekend. :yes:

[Bluey]

Wow Bluey! You have got quite a big ego!

According to you, you (and your self proclaimed "we's") are the only people who know anything about farming and if anyone asks a question or, god forbid, challenges you, they are just stupid people who couldn't possibly know anything and are just led by the nose by the big media/AR groups. Give me a break! That's such a tactic of desperate people.

You claim that you want an honest debate but your only tactic is to dismiss anyone that disagrees with you or challenges you in any way. Maybe if you took the time to consider other opinions, your might just find out they have a point.

Huntertwo: Your post was right on the mark.

Look, someone asked a very proper question and I gave an answer as I see it, pure logic, we know because it shows.
No ego involved, although I did try to make light of it with my example, but the joke fell flat and some got insulted by the truth of the matter, that some are talking about what they don't know and telling those that are doing the job how they should do it.

As someone pointed out, commenting on any and all around us is fine, I too tell others that there may be a better way, even if I don't really know why they are doing what they are doing, but I don't do it YELLING at them and calling them names.

I too was cringing at the idea of disposing those chicks like that, as I thought had made it clear.
In the cattle industry, we keep hearing that we can defend what we do, but that the poultry industry is harder to defend, because of, well, I know now, things like these, where to the unknowing public, which I am one, some of their practices seem wrong, as this one here.

Then, I know enough about how things work to understand, when this video was shown, that either someone was again misunderstanding a perfectly good practice and using it for their agenda, or it was an outright fabrication, that such was not done and if so, someone was being very stupid to do it against regulations, as a short cut.

Well, as it happens, it seems to be part of the chicken industry, acceptable to those that regulate such things and, as the AVMA said, a quick way to dispatch thousands of chicks with the least stress and pain possible.
They also mentioned gassing.:eek:
That was deemed not good for animal control shelters, so why chicks?
Guess that gassing would maybe have had less of an impact as being more pc than grinding.:no:

The reality is that, the old saying, we can't make ethical omelettes without breaking some eggs can apply here, pun intended.
We want a thriving chicken and egg industry to provide us with a product and all the jobs and economic activity derived directly from it and supporting that industry.
That industry has some ways it find to do that is to have those lines of egg layers and so many male chicks as a product of it without any use for it.
Until a better way is found and it seems they are trying very hard to do so, they have to dispose of those chicks.
That plays in the hands of animal groups like that one that made the video.

Well, it seems that the plant was working according to regulations, macerating one day old chicks being appropiate for the situation and they are trying hard to do something about it already.

No matter what we do, as I have already tried to explain time and again, with examples in hospitals and nursing homes and most anything we do in life, there are times where we make trade offs, can't help it as a living being, as all life displaces other life, if it is by our civilization, including at this stage of the chicken industry macerating one day old chicks, or all the other miriads of ways we, as much as we make lives, we take lives too.

I agree, again, that it was shocking to hear that this does happen, it is worrysome that they can't yet find a better solution and I am sure that, for many reasons, they are trying hard to do so.

And yes, I do think that even those that don't know much about farming should comment and complain.
I do think they should understand that they don't know and not accuse without learning all the facts first or, like those that put that video out, don't explain why it is done, that it is a regulated and acceptable practice and, rather than question it, they use the video for shock value to further their animal rights agenda.

Just remember, those are the people that will also come after OUR use of horses.:eek:
To them, for us to use horses is as objectionable as macerating one day old chicks.:no:

[Daydream Believer]

I think the real issue if it was puppies/kittens/foals is that it would be much more difficult to cause instant death with a macerator because of the size of the animal.

Couldn't they just use a larger macerator? One big enough for the species at hand. Remember...the AVMA is only saying it's "nearly" instant or something like that. Surely there is some banging and spinning around in that nasty thing for a few moments before death occurs by dismemberment or crushing.

I still think it's horrible to put a living conscious animal into something like that. I think it's really hard for a person to objectively measure the amount of pain or suffering by a death like that. It's not like anyone can volunteer to go through it and report back to us.

[Bluey]

Couldn't they just use a larger macerator? One big enough for the species at hand. Remember...the AVMA is only saying it's "nearly" instant or something like that. Surely there is some banging and spinning around in that nasty thing for a few moments before death occurs by dismemberment or crushing.

I still think it's horrible to put a living conscious animal into something like that. I think it's really hard for a person to objectively measure the amount of pain or suffering by a death like that. It's not like anyone can volunteer to go through it and report back to us.

Probably like the difference of using a captive bolt in a slaughterhouse or a vet giving a shot.
I have seen both and to the horses, there was no difference.
He dropped from the captive bolt quicker than with a shot, but not enough to say which was was "less painful" to the horse in those split seconds.
I doubt that the horse knew either way, losing conscience instantaneously one way, a few seconds later the other.
To the one watching, the injection seems much less violent.

Macerating or I guess gassing was the alternative mentioned, I wonder if they ran tests to determine what is best?
Generally, they do tests, before regulating something.:yes:

I still say it would be best if they get the sexing down so they won't have all those male chicks to kill.:no:
That will be at the base of the questioning as much as the method, that was shown there just for shocking value.

[Wayside]

Couldn't they just use a larger macerator? One big enough for the species at hand. Remember...the AVMA is only saying it's "nearly" instant or something like that. Surely there is some banging and spinning around in that nasty thing for a few moments before death occurs by dismemberment or crushing.

I still think it's horrible to put a living conscious animal into something like that. I think it's really hard for a person to objectively measure the amount of pain or suffering by a death like that. It's not like anyone can volunteer to go through it and report back to us.

The logistics of a larger macerator are much more problematic. Though I'm no engineer, I'd imagine that it would take an incredible amount of power to acheive the kind of speed with the required blade sizes to make it a quick death. Possible, I'd imagine so, but I doubt it would be practical. Just as cervical dislocation also becomes more difficult in a larger animal.

And I agree, it seems like it would be difficult to study, but I'm guessing they can get a pretty good idea of the speed, even if the feelings are problematic to measure.

I'm curious what you propose as an alternative? And since you disagree with the AVMA's guidelines on euthanasia, by what standards would you have us evaluate euthanasia to determine whether or not it's humane?

[Wayside]

Macerating or I guess gassing was the alternative mentioned, I wonder if they ran tests to determine what is best?
Generally, they do tests, before regulating something.:yes:

From the little snips of research I read, it sounds like one of the problems with gassing was that it can be difficult to tell if small animals have actually been killed as opposed to being rendered unconscious. So it's recommended by some articles that even if you gas them, you still run them through a macerator, or otherwise follow up with another method of euthanasia so they don't wake up in the freezer or under a pile of their dead buddies.

[Daydream Believer]

I'm curious what you propose as an alternative?

And since you disagree with the AVMA's guidelines on euthanasia, by what standards would you have us evaluate euthanasia to determine whether or not it's humane?

I'm not a scientist or a vet admittedly but how hard would it be to stun those chicks first with an electric shock in that conveyor? Or as one person suggested...take an extra second and break their necks manually? Hell they have a nasty machine that debeaks them...literally hangs them from their beaks one by one...how hard would it be to have a machine that breaks their necks before they go into that shredder?

For euthanasia standards...how about some common sense and basic respect for the animals? Anyone with any common sense could see that rendering the chicks senseless or unsconcious before "macerating" them would be more humane. God forbid that it might cost the damn company a bit of profit to do it or it might raise the price of eggs by a penny each or something. My God...at what point is "cheap" food worth the price in suffering of the animals?

I said way back in the beginning that I have no issue with the idea of killing unwanted male chicks but I have issue with the method they are using and I think the AVMA is full of crap.

[Mozart]

I posted this before. The worker is already picking the chick up to check the sex. Before tossing in macerator grasp chick with left hand, quick jerk, cervical dislocation. How long could that take? A second? How much strength would it take to dislocate the neck of a newborn chick? Come on.....

[JSwan]

JSwan,
Why is it when someone has a different opinion than yours they are the ones who don't know crap about anything.

Because they usually don't.

I do respect different opinions, and I'm one of the "small farmers" you refer to.

I just don't believe everything I read in the paper or on TV. I don't believe The World According to Cargill and Monsanto, either.

I've been very reasonable, and I always try to be. I can see both sides of the argument and acknowledge that each has good and bad points.

If there is a better way to do something, we should consider doing it. But that type of thinking is what has brought us to this point - industrial farming. Mass production. Because it is "better". More efficient. Economical. More profitable.

And we've all gotten used to cheap food. I guess the question is - are you willing to lower your standard of living and deal with the reality of what it would be like to eliminate industrial agriculture?

No. You probably wouldn't. And most Americans wouldn't.

Because farming isn't "pretty". Whether it's row crops or animal crops. It's not pretty, it smells, it's not consistent, and we went back to the small farm model exclusively, an environmental disaster.

And how many of you want a slaughterhouse near you? Because truthfully, folks love this "small farm" stuff until the reality of it threatens their view or their property value.

ETA - And my politics aren't relevant and are also not up for discussion.

[JSwan]

I posted this before. The worker is already picking the chick up to check the sex. Before tossing in macerator grasp chick with left hand, quick jerk, cervical dislocation. How long could that take? A second? How much strength would it take to dislocate the neck of a newborn chick? Come on.....

I do not know the answer to your question, but I could guess.

I wonder if it could be that the act of a human killing an animal must be supervised by a USDA inspector.

Allowing that process to occur by machine would be more efficient and not trigger the same supervision/inspection requirements.

You're right - an animal that tiny.. well.... it is literally a quick flick. However, one mistake and the chick might suffer for several minutes before ending up in the machine.

But I admit that is a guess.

[Vitriolic]

It always cracks me up when I hear people say hens NEED roosters to lay eggs. They are actually much happier without the roosters around and lay better when they aren't constantly harassed by an over-zealous rooster.


I just explain that the chicken ovulates like we do, only more often, bigger, and outside her body. ;)

I am a wee bit sorry I got a rooster, lovely as he is and mannerly too as he does annoy my chickens. He is a gorgeous red fellow called Secretariat, but I only got him 2 hens. He now has 14 lovely children, but I would recommend others buy fertilized eggs to hatch, or baby chicks rather than go this route. It has been a long spell with no eggs since I let my chicken set and be mommies. :D I am an aspiring farmer. I am not sure how I am going to "process" the ones I will eat. If you haven't guessed, I am a bit of a wimp when it comes to that.

[Bluey]

I just explain that the chicken ovulates like we do, only more often, bigger, and outside her body. ;)

I am a wee bit sorry I got a rooster, lovely as he is and mannerly too as he does annoy my chickens. He is a gorgeous red fellow called Secretariat, but I only got him 2 hens. He now has 14 lovely children, but I would recommend others buy fertilized eggs to hatch, or baby chicks rather than go this route. It has been a long spell with no eggs since I let my chicken set and be mommies. :D I am an aspiring farmer. I am not sure how I am going to "process" the ones I will eat. If you haven't guessed, I am a bit of a wimp when it comes to that.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I am laughing, but it is not funny.

I never killed a chicken, someone always did, Grandma did the last chickens I cared for and no one else wanted to do the killing either, rather pay for their chicken at the grocery store, cleaned and packaged, or even better, already cooked.;)

Once Grandma was getting to old for the killing, we let a neighbor have the last chickens for their freezer, but they had to come get them and we didn't have any more chickens.

Now, I can shoot a dying calf or a horse with a badly broken leg, have done that, but a healthy chicken I have been caring for, or a happy deer or antilope, that watch me drive by every day checking cattle, I am not that hungry.
That doesn't mean I won't enjoy eating them.:D

I do understand that life is fleeting and some die and others benefit from it.
That is something that animal rights people don't seem to understand.
A coyote doesn't mind if the one day old chick he caught is slowly dying in his jaws, or a hawk if it is still alive when it finally lands with it and gently pecks to get to the better morsels.:(

We need to keep reminding ourselves that we generally do a better, cleaner and more compassionate killing job that happens in nature, even if there is not much natural to our slaughtering, like macerating those day old chicks.
And no, that doesn't excuse any if there was abuse there.:no:

[Huntertwo]

Couldn't they just use a larger macerator? One big enough for the species at hand. Remember...the AVMA is only saying it's "nearly" instant or something like that. Surely there is some banging and spinning around in that nasty thing for a few moments before death occurs by dismemberment or crushing.

I still think it's horrible to put a living conscious animal into something like that. I think it's really hard for a person to objectively measure the amount of pain or suffering by a death like that. It's not like anyone can volunteer to go through it and report back to us.

Exactly... I don't believe for a second that death is instantaneous. :(

As another poster suggested, the workers are already handling the chicks to sex them. Why not just snap the neck and make it quick?

It's all about money.

[Bluey]

Exactly... I don't believe for a second that death is instantaneous. :(

As another poster suggested, the workers are already handling the chicks to sex them. Why not just snap the neck and make it quick?

It's all about money.

You think people here would have reacted to that video any different if he had been wringing their necks first?
If just one was still flopping with a wrung neck, chickens are known to do that without heads, that would have been just as damning.

It is not about every detail of what happens, it is about incensing people with the general idea that "raising animals is wrong and this is why", without explanations or any intent to put what is happening in perspective.:no:
Those kinds of videos are propaganda and we should expect it.
What is sad is when magazines like Time jump on the propaganda bandwagon.:eek:

[Daydream Believer]

You think people here would have reacted to that video any different if he had been wringing their necks first?

No I would not have reacted as I did as I'd know that the chick was killed quickly and humanely. Now I'm not average joe consumer but I still think it a lot less disgusting to see chicks with their necks broken quickly than little chicks being ground to bits alive.



What is sad is when magazines like Time jump on the propaganda bandwagon.:eek:

Did it ever occur to you that you are the one buying into propaganda and not everyone else? I read that Time article and I think it was about time people know the true price of modern agriculture and cheap food.

[hessy35]

I'm sure the notion of chicks being tossed into a machine like that seems horrendous.

But it is a quick death - though I'd support any research or studies that would improve any method of killing an animal.

When the USDA depopulates a flock (due to an outbreak of disease), all the animals are tossed into woodchippers. Alive. Seems odd because I'd think that would result in a lot of spray which might spread disease. But hey - can't argue with the USDA.;) Killing animals in large numbers is just going to be ugly no matter how humane it is.

Anyway - I'm a hypocrite because I order straight run and eat the males. I raise them free range and then kill them in my backyard. Out of sight of "investigators" or out of reach of any animal welfare controls mandated by government. At least with a large facility there are some controls, some checks and balances. The "backyard" may not be innocent of cruelty either. The public just doesn't see it. So.... hypocrites can't point fingers so I won't.


Once again you crack me up!! ..lmao...

[Bluey]

No I would not have reacted as I did as I'd know that the chick was killed quickly and humanely. Now I'm not average joe consumer but I still think it a lot less disgusting to see chicks with their necks broken quickly than little chicks being ground to bits alive.




Did it ever occur to you that you are the one buying into propaganda and not everyone else? I read that Time article and I think it was about time people know the true price of modern agriculture and cheap food.

So you want me to tell you all that the Time article had wrong, not only questionable, but clearly wrong?
He knew it also, because the people he asked in the cattle industry had given him the real story, too much of what he mentions is just plainly not so, other he infers, when it is not, but he choose to ignore it.

Too long for an explanation here, but that was yellow journalism, a hatched job and you and evidently many fell for it.
Sad that journalism is not accountable to facts any more.:no:
Here is a critique of that article:

http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/0904-time-magazine-yellow-journalism/

You will do well not to dismiss it because of it's source.
Why? Because that same kind of radical animal rights propaganda is already used against our use of horses.
United we have a chance, one at the time, we are easy "pickins".

[JSwan]

Once again you crack me up!! ..lmao...

Well really - :lol: So they don't go into the machine as day old chicks - but folks do raise them and eat them!

Is that really any better? Well... I think it is because they get to run around and eat bugs and take naps under bushes and trees and have nice grubby dust baths and the roosters crow night and day and won't shut up and no one is debeaked or anything. Plus - they do a great job scattering manure.

We set everything up so that it's very quick - they don't see each other, they're calm and quiet. Very sanitary, very quiet.

But I think if someone videotaped it some of y'all would get mighty upset, even if you were meat eaters.

If there is an outbreak of disease, the USDA does depopulate that way. Just like in the movie Fargo. Stick 'em all in the chipper. That's just peachy.

[MSP]

Don't recall if this was posted yet, it was released yesterday.

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/18483/welfare-abuses-alleged-at-layer-hatchery

Welfare Abuses Alleged at Layer Hatchery
US - Vegan group, Mercy for Animals, has videotape evidence of an alleged animal welfare issues at a hatchery in Iowa. Male chicks were destroyed in a manner the group finds unacceptable.


Hy-Line North America said it has launched an investigation into alleged animal welfare abuses captured on a videotape by a vegan organization at the company's Spencer, Iowa, egg hatchery, reports Meatingplace.

Chicago-based Mercy for Animals apparently caught the footage over a two-week period in May and June. The organization sent the tape to the Associated Press, which first reported the incident Tuesday morning.

Hy-Line issued a statement saying the company has initiated a probe into the allegations. However, the company noted that more immediate disclosure by the vegan group would have helped its investigation.

"Following our investigation, if any violation of our animal welfare policies is found, the employee or employees involved will be disciplined per company policy, up to and including termination," the company told Meatingplace.

A Mercy for Animals employee reportedly got a job at the plant and shot the video with a hidden camera and microphone. The tape, AP reported, shows a Hy-Line worker picking male chicks off a conveyor belt and dropping them alive into a mascerator.

Additional footage, according to AP, shows a chick dying on the plant floor after falling from a sorting machine. Another live chick is shown lying on the floor after being scalded by a wash cycle, the narrator reportedly explains.

Hy-Line concedes the video "appears to show an inappropriate action and violation of our animal welfare policies," apparently in regard to the chicks on the floor.

However, the company explained that killing male chicks in a mascerator is "instantaneous euthanasia," supported by veterinarians and scientists to be the quickest, most humane method of killing unwanted male chicks.

"Hy-Line International and Hy-Line North America, LLC's number one priority is the care and safety of our birds and our employees," the company said to Meatingplace.

The industry euthanises some 200 million male chicks per year.

"There is, unfortunately, no way to breed eggs that only produce female hens," Mitch Head, spokesman for the United Egg Producers, was quoted as saying by AP. "If someone has a need for 200 million male chicks, we're happy to provide them to anyone who wants them. But we can find no market, no need."

Meanwhile, Mercy for Animals plans to ask the nation's 50 largest supermarket chains to put on their eggs labels that state: "Warning: Male chicks are ground-up alive by the egg industry."

Mr Head, according to AP, dismissed such a proposal as "almost a joke" because the group is not a credible authority and has a clear agenda. "This is a group which espouses no egg consumption by anyone so that is clearly their motive," he is quoted as saying.



Any one want to raise some free broilers, take them up on the offer. So what if they don't fatten up as well as a broiler breed would. Good for stews, slow cookers and pot pie!

[Daydream Believer]

Bluey...the article wasn't against agriculture or eating animals but it was a well written article explaining the true costs of modern agriculture in the damage to our environment, our own health, and even the overuse of antibiotics in the raising of animals in confinement...leading to more antibiotic resistance and more health risks to people. I don't see how making improvements in making agriculture more sustainable, healthy to people and animals, more humane, and environmentally friendly are going to lead to us having our horses taken from us. You are totally missing the point in your paranoia.

Did you even read the article?

[Daydream Believer]

Interesting that HyLine calls it "instantaneous" euthanasia and the AVMA says "almost" instantaneous. Perhaps a bit of a discrepancy in the party line? Again, it would not hurt them to add a process to kill or stun the chicks prior to grinding them up alive....at least not in any way but monetarily.

[Bluey]

Bluey...the article wasn't against agriculture or eating animals but it was a well written article explaining the true costs of modern agriculture in the damage to our environment, our own health, and even the overuse of antibiotics in the raising of animals in confinement...leading to more antibiotic resistance and more health risks to people. I don't see how making improvements in making agriculture more sustainable, healthy to people and animals, more humane, and environmentally friendly are going to lead to us having our horses taken from us. You are totally missing the point in your paranoia.

Did you even read the article?

Yes, I did and it was about much more than that and much of what he said as fact is not so and he knew it, but choose to write it anyway, as that last link explains.
I am not the only paranoid one.;)
I thought you posted that you read it.:confused:

[Bluey]

Interesting that HyLine calls it "instantaneous" euthanasia and the AVMA says "almost" instantaneous. Perhaps a bit of a discrepancy in the party line? Again, it would not hurt them to add a process to kill or stun the chicks prior to grinding them up alive....at least not in any way but monetarily.

As I think I already explained, that they did other first, not just chuck the chicks in the macerator, I don't think that would have changed how those groups presented the story.:no:

[Daydream Believer]

I thought you posted that you read it.:confused:

I did read it...it's sitting on the table in front of me now. I suspect we have two very different minds and personal values and will likely never see eye to eye on much if anything. ;)

[JSwan]

[QUOTE=Daydream Believer;4353053Perhaps a bit of a discrepancy in the party line? [/QUOTE]

Maybe it's like being a little pregnant. ;)

[Bluey]

I did read it...it's sitting on the table in front of me now. I suspect we have two very different minds and personal values and will likely never see eye to eye on much if anything. ;)

This has nothing to do with seeing eye to eye, but facts that he twisted and so are misleading, to further his animal rights tenents.
Too bad that those that don't know about raising cattle don't have enough good judgement to see thru it and will take his word as the way things are, when a little bit of research on their own would help educate them of what is right and what is false in what he writes.
I guess that you didn't read the link I posted.;)

As for values, mine demand that, if you are bashing something, you use your opinions and clearly state that is what they are and when stating something as facts, pick those you can stand behind, not twist them into what you want others to think.
As that article said, he is hurting himself and Time magazine more with that dishonesty then if he had stayed with what he can show to be the truth.

[Daydream Believer]

This has nothing to do with seeing eye to eye, but facts that he twisted and so are misleading, to further his animal rights tenents.

I guess that you didn't read the link I posted.;)

No it has everything to do with our ethics and our backgrounds. Where you see "twisted facts," I see common sense and the evidence of my own eyes when I drive past the hog and chicken farms in this area. I did not read your link but I doubt you've read the Omnivore's Dilemma yet either have you? ;)

[Daydream Believer]

Maybe it's like being a little pregnant. ;)

:lol::lol::lol:

[Bluey]

No it has everything to do with our ethics and our backgrounds. Where you see "twisted facts," I see common sense and the evidence of my own eyes when I drive past the hog and chicken farms in this area. I did not read your link but I doubt you've read the Omnivore's Dilemma yet either have you? ;)

Yes, we do have different values, don't we.:no:

[Daydream Believer]

Cheer up Bluey. It would be awfully boring if we all believed and did the same things wouldn't it?

[grayarabpony]

Gee I hope when it's my time to go I go by shredder, since it's supposed to be painless and all. :rolleyes:

[MSP]

So you want me to tell you all that the Time article had wrong, not only questionable, but clearly wrong?
He knew it also, because the people he asked in the cattle industry had given him the real story, too much of what he mentions is just plainly not so, other he infers, when it is not, but he choose to ignore it.

Too long for an explanation here, but that was yellow journalism, a hatched job and you and evidently many fell for it.
Sad that journalism is not accountable to facts any more.:no:
Here is a critique of that article:

http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/0904-time-magazine-yellow-journalism/

You will do well not to dismiss it because of it's source.
Why? Because that same kind of radical animal rights propaganda is already used against our use of horses.
United we have a chance, one at the time, we are easy "pickins".

I am afraid you will have to go into some detail or at least a general list of what was a lie and what was a half truth because the Beef Magazine article doesn't. Just saying it isn't true isn't enough. How hard can it be to state a few things that were untrue.

I think there are solutions to all the problems that the story list but that doesn't mean the problems don't exist. When it comes to animals, food and health care I have no politics. I want facts and solutions.

What in that Time story was a lie? You are refering to this http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-5,00.html ?

[S1969]

So you want me to tell you all that the Time article had wrong, not only questionable, but clearly wrong?
He knew it also, because the people he asked in the cattle industry had given him the real story, too much of what he mentions is just plainly not so, other he infers, when it is not, but he choose to ignore it.

Too long for an explanation here, but that was yellow journalism, a hatched job and you and evidently many fell for it.
Sad that journalism is not accountable to facts any more.:no:
Here is a critique of that article:

http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/0904-time-magazine-yellow-journalism/

You will do well not to dismiss it because of it's source.
Why? Because that same kind of radical animal rights propaganda is already used against our use of horses.
United we have a chance, one at the time, we are easy "pickins".

Maybe I need to read this again, but I didn't see where it actually said anything. :confused: I mean, it says: The story is literally so full of half-truths and full-out falsehoods that it’s almost laughable if it weren’t for the fact that it will be read by millions of people this week and TIME, of course, did a great disservice to its readers and the cause of truth by printing this largely fictional piece as actual news but doesn't actually say WHICH parts of the story are "full-out falsehoods". :confused:

So it's not actually a critique, it's just criticism without backup.

Just because it doesn't go into all the great things about industrial/CAFO agriculture doesn't make it untrue. He's not writing a 10th grade paper about the grocery store. What is untrue or seriously misrepresented in the article?

ETA: Wow, I posted the exact same thing as MSP!

[MSP]

Interesting that HyLine calls it "instantaneous" euthanasia and the AVMA says "almost" instantaneous. Perhaps a bit of a discrepancy in the party line? Again, it would not hurt them to add a process to kill or stun the chicks prior to grinding them up alive....at least not in any way but monetarily.

CAK is being recommended for broiler processing and it might be a good solution for chicks as well. Some restaurant chains are giving purchasing preference to suppliers that use CAK for process, perhaps this will spread to the layer industry as well. Maybe the AVMA can bless it and make it so. ;)

Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK) is a method for slaughtering animals such as chickens by placing the animals in a container in which the atmosphere lacks oxygen and is made up of argon and/or nitrogen and/or CO2, causing the animals to lose consciousness. Argon and nitrogen are important components of a painless gassing process which seem to cause no pain (nor do they in humans), and for this reason many consider it more humane than other methods of killing.[1][2]

Portable units are available. Controlled atmosphere stunning has been used both within processing plants and on-farm for euthanizing poultry. One portable unit type that costs $2,500 can be pushed down the aisles of a barn, with 200–250 hens per load being placed inside a CO2 enriched chamber. Hens are unconscious within 20 seconds of being in the chamber.[2]


As a side note...

PETA, as a stock holder of Tyson, has submitted a shareholder resolution encouraging the use of CAK.

[Bluey]

Maybe I need to read this again, but I didn't see where it actually said anything. :confused: I mean, it says: The story is literally so full of half-truths and full-out falsehoods that it’s almost laughable if it weren’t for the fact that it will be read by millions of people this week and TIME, of course, did a great disservice to its readers and the cause of truth by printing this largely fictional piece as actual news but doesn't actually say WHICH parts of the story are "full-out falsehoods". :confused:

So it's not actually a critique, it's just criticism without backup.

Just because it doesn't go into all the great things about industrial/CAFO agriculture doesn't make it untrue. He's not writing a 10th grade paper about the grocery store. What is untrue or seriously misrepresented in the article?

ETA: Wow, I posted the exact same thing as MSP!



Out of the mouth of the horse, the inteview where that reporter stated thus, you can go listen yourself to that fellow saying that he knew he was just telling his side of the story.
Then why does he make it sound like a true, factual journalistic piece, where people that don't know better believe what he said?

---"Walsh's admittedly slanted coverage.
In interviews he has granted since the article's publication, Walsh has said he was by no means attempting to provide balanced, objective coverage.

Indeed, Walsh explained that TIME magazine has taken on a new form of journalism in which the publication's "being part of the conversation" is served by offering readers only one point of view.

To hear Walsh's comments on this style of news coverage, go to http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Audio--Bryan-Walsh-Of-TIME-On-AgriTalk/2009-08-31/Article.aspx?oid=831847&fid=VN-HOT_TOPICS for his interview with AgriTalk."---

There it is, you believe what he said is factual at your own risk to not get the whole story.;)

Anyone can slant stories to read the way they want, but that is not what journalism is supposed to be and definitively not what reality is, more like fiction and he should have stated so up front.:p

[jetsmom]

So you want me to tell you all that the Time article had wrong, not only questionable, but clearly wrong?
He knew it also, because the people he asked in the cattle industry had given him the real story, too much of what he mentions is just plainly not so, other he infers, when it is not, but he choose to ignore it.

Too long for an explanation here, but that was yellow journalism, a hatched job and you and evidently many fell for it.
Sad that journalism is not accountable to facts any more.:no:
Here is a critique of that article:

http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/0904-time-magazine-yellow-journalism/

You will do well not to dismiss it because of it's source.
Why? Because that same kind of radical animal rights propaganda is already used against our use of horses.
United we have a chance, one at the time, we are easy "pickins".



Bluey, why is it that you post biased links like activistcash and the one above and expect us to read them and not "dismiss them because of the source", but you admit you refuse to look at anything that "might" be something that makes the horse slaughter process (auction/transport/kill box) look bad. Even the 906 pages released as part of the FOIA from Beltex by the USDA was called "propoganda" and you refused to look at it?
And claim that the video of dairy cows being abused in Cal was fake/set up and refuse to look at it.
If you think that those of us that aren't actively farming aren't qualified to comment on what is humane because we aren't knowlegeable about the process, then I tend to think that people that refuse to "see" the abuses are also not qualified to comment on whether something is humane or not, as they aren't SEEING the inhumane side of things. Can't very well argue something (or argue FOR something being humane) if you refuse to look at the other side's evidence to the contrary. (And you can't say the FOIA docs were biased/from a biased source).

[Bluey]

Are you aware that for the past 25 or so years shelters, that were using CAK, were ordered to not do that any more, deemed not good enough?
Not long ago, the last hold up of CAK shelter in the area finally gave up the fight to prove it was at least as easy on the dogs and cats and and went to chemical euthanasia.

Most shelters today have to euthanize by needle, which is much harder on the stress of the dogs and the workers in charge of it, but the general public threw a fit when someone "exposed" the use of CAK in shelters.
Just as with this story in this thread, there was no need to expose it, it was customary and accepted by the regulators as proper way of killing chicks.

[Bluey]

Bluey, why is it that you post biased links like activistcash and the one above and expect us to read them and not "dismiss them because of the source",

Because what that group say is not biased and made up, but real and supported by facts, unlike what the animal rights groups put out.
If it was not, do you think that the HSUS, with their herd of lawyers, would not have been all over them with lawsuits?

but you admit you refuse to look at anything that "might" be something that makes the horse slaughter process (auction/transport/kill box) look bad. Even the 906 pages released as part of the FOIA from Beltex by the USDA was called "propoganda" and you refused to look at it?

I never said it was propaganda, I said some used it out of context as propaganda.
I provided examples of the same regulators in restaurants always having many things they cite them for, just as the inspectors in the slaughter plants did.
It is the inspector's jobs to find things and the management's to correct it and that little detail was ommited in the articles that were presented along with those documents.
Lack of context, that is what I was objecting to in the presentation of those documents and made that clear.
I guess that was ignored and soon forgotten, all some remember is that I had some fuzzy objection to those documents.:rolleyes:

And claim that the video of dairy cows being abused in Cal was fake/set up and refuse to look at it.

I saw the video many times on TV, it was hard to miss, it was in all the news for long time.
Please, don't tell me that you also forgot the little detail that the fellows didn't have any reason other than someone paying them to do that, against regulations, when the inspectors were not there and were fired over that and went to court for animal abuse?
The process at work there, I would say, even if we will never learn why they put their jobs at risk and did something that dumb.:confused:

If you think that those of us that aren't actively farming aren't qualified to comment on what is humane because we aren't knowlegeable about the process, then I tend to think that people that refuse to "see" the abuses are also not qualified to comment on whether something is humane or not, as they aren't SEEING the inhumane side of things. Can't very well argue something (or argue FOR something being humane) if you refuse to look at the other side's evidence to the contrary.

That is a big leap, from explaining that those were isolated incident, that happen against all regulations and when the inspectors were gone for a little, to saying it is ok, let them abuse cows.
It would be like a video of some trainer beating a horse and then saying that is how all trainers go about it.:no:

(And you can't say the FOIA docs were biased/from a biased source).

I will refuse to sit back and let someone with an agenda of destroying our use of animals keep branding all that use them as abusers and second class citizens just for owning or using animals, with lies and out of context stories.

All here that have dogs and horses and all other kinds of animals you care for better don't get to complacent either, because you are a target also, even if you can't feel the heat of the fire yet.
Your rights to have animals are burning right along with those that are the direct target now.

[jetsmom]

I will refuse to sit back and let someone with an agenda of destroying our use of animals keep branding all that use them as abusers and second class citizens just for owning or using animals, with lies and out of context stories.

All here that have dogs and horses and all other kinds of animals you care for better don't get to complacent either, because you are a target also, even if you can't feel the heat of the fire yet.
Your rights to have animals are burning right along with those that are the direct target now.

The employees in the cow videos never said that anyone paid them to do that, as far as I know. You're the onnly one I've heard ever say that. Did I miss something somewhere during the investigation? Do you have a link to something proving that?

So HAVE you read the 906 pages of FOIA docs, in spite of saying on another thread that you refuse to?

[S1969]

You can go listen yourself to that fellow saying that he knew he was just telling his side of the story.
Then why does he make it sound like a true, factual journalistic piece, where people that don't know better believe what he said?

---"Walsh's admittedly slanted coverage.
In interviews he has granted since the article's publication, Walsh has said he was by no means attempting to provide balanced, objective coverage.

Indeed, Walsh explained that TIME magazine has taken on a new form of journalism in which the publication's "being part of the conversation" is served by offering readers only one point of view.

To hear Walsh's comments on this style of news coverage, go to http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Audio--Bryan-Walsh-Of-TIME-On-AgriTalk/2009-08-31/Article.aspx?oid=831847&fid=VN-HOT_TOPICS for his interview with AgriTalk."---

There it is, you believe what he said is factual at your own risk to not get the whole story.;)

Anyone can slant stories to read the way they want, but that is not what journalism is supposed to be and definitively not what reality is, more like fiction and he should have stated so up front.:p

I did listen to it, it didn't say much of anything. No one said "XYZ is untrue", the interviewer said things like "why didn't you report about advances in biotechnology that *might* result in crops that require less fertilizer" and he basically said "because that's NOT what this story is about." (Not to mention, I don't think they've been developed yet anyway.....)

Again, this isn't a 10th grade English paper or essay on the various way you could raise animals for meat. That hardly makes it "not reality" or "more like fiction". I'm still waiting for the "half-truths" and "full out falsehoods". :confused:

[Bluey]

The employees in the cow videos never said that anyone paid them to do that, as far as I know. You're the onnly one I've heard ever say that. Did I miss something somewhere during the investigation? Do you have a link to something proving that?

So HAVE you read the 906 pages of FOIA docs, in spite of saying on another thread that you refuse to?

I did start to read them, realized what they were and didn't need to read further, any more than I need to read all the inspectors reports on every restaurant I go eat.;)
Have you read them all? If so, well, the plants are closed, so why bring that up at all?:confused:

I really don't know where you are coming from with all these accusations over old threads, but I hope I have answered them to your satisfaction.:)

Now, on to the chicks, do you really think that if the fellow had been throwing them into a gas chamber the video would not have been made and with the same message?

[MSP]

Are you aware that for the past 25 or so years shelters, that were using CAK, were ordered to not do that any more, deemed not good enough?
Not long ago, the last hold up of CAK shelter in the area finally gave up the fight to prove it was at least as easy on the dogs and cats and and went to chemical euthanasia.

Most shelters today have to euthanize by needle, which is much harder on the stress of the dogs and the workers in charge of it, but the general public threw a fit when someone "exposed" the use of CAK in shelters.
Just as with this story in this thread, there was no need to expose it, it was customary and accepted by the regulators as proper way of killing chicks.

It is used to render the birds unconscious before they are slaughtered. It isn't a form of euthanasia.

So the birds are not aware of being grabbed from cages, hung upside down, electrocuted, throat cut and dipped in scalding water while conscious. I think it is the least we can do!

[Bluey]

It is used to render the birds unconscious before they are slaughtered. It isn't a form of euthanasia.

So the birds are not aware of being grabbed from cages, hung upside down, electrocuted, throat cut and dipped in scalding water while conscious. I think it is the least we can do!

Why do they need to electrocute them, if they are already unconscious when their throats are slit?:confused:

[sisu27]

I might obtain an alter...."BlueyToo" maybe and post in a totally holier than though, entirely predictable fashion. Just for fun.

FWIW I am a big supporter of both circumcision (htf does one spell that?) and tail docking. Cropped ears too. And neutering. As with much of this thread, I don't want to actually do the dirty work but I do like the end result.

[Bluey]

I might obtain an alter...."BlueyToo" maybe and post in a totally holier than though, entirely predictable fashion. Just for fun.

FWIW I am a big supporter of both circumcision (htf does one spell that?) and tail docking. Cropped ears too. And neutering. As with much of this thread, I don't want to actually do the dirty work but I do like the end result.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you also say a prayer and cry when you pull oh so cruelly a carrot out of the ground, to add to your vegetarian diet?:cry:

Or maybe you fast then and make an offering to the horse goods, that crunch it down without remorse, the ingrates.

Did you ever read Ionesco and Beckett?;)

http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm

That is what some of these debates seem to be.

[SevenDogs]

Bluey: When you don't have anything else to say, you always go for the "Look out -- they are coming for you and your horses!" as if you think that will scare us all into not asking any questions. Give me a break -- that tactic might work on some simpler folks, but it won't keep me from asking questions and looking for better ways.

Are there fanatical organizations on BOTH sides of the argument?..... yup, but as Beverley pointed out, the truth generally lies in the middle and the truth won't be found by sticking our heads in the sand or by lying quivering in fear that "The Man" is coming for us next.

Seriously, you strike me as too smart to believe that argument yourself, but if you do, you might want to take off your tin foil hat now -- it won't prevent anyone from coming for you.

[Bluey]

Bluey: When you don't have anything else to say, you always go for the "Look out -- they are coming for you and your horses!" as if you think that will scare us all into not asking any questions. Give me a break -- that tactic might work on some simpler folks, but it won't keep me from asking questions and looking for better ways.

Are there fanatical organizations on BOTH sides of the argument?..... yup, but as Beverley pointed out, the truth generally lies in the middle and the truth won't be found by sticking our heads in the sand or by lying quivering in fear that "The Man" is coming for us next.

Seriously, you strike me as too smart to believe that argument yourself, but if you do, you might want to take off your tin foil hat now -- it won't prevent anyone from coming for you.

A generation ago, a fellow that worked for those animal rights groups, briefly, told me this situation we have now would come to pass.
I thought then, well, maybe, maybe not, but yes, they grew and grew and they are exactly where he told me they would be.

In another generation, you may also say, well, I doubted there was much to all that, but...

Your choice to be aware and watch what happens, knowing more of what is driving our world, or dismiss all this out of hand as paranoia.

I assume you are not involved in any kind of dog showing, are you?
There, the knowledge in these matters is a little more in depth for all, the fight already in the open and harder to dismiss, as it is obviously in animal agriculture.

Much of the horse industry is still coasting along happily.

[MSP]

Why do they need to electrocute them, if they are already unconscious when their throats are slit?:confused:


I listed the process in order. Bird grabbed from cage, hung and then electrically stunned, throats cut and bled out and finally scalded.

It is the most common way used by commercial operations of stunning the bird. Usually a electrical water bath is use. The affect can vary because so many variables can affect the current. Some times as few as 60% of birds are desensitized. It is not meant to kill the bird. At the proper current it should have the affect of an epileptic seizer.

Bird can regain consciousness and if they struggle can miss the throat cut and then be scalded while aware. The point is to substitute the electrical bath with CAK. It has to be done correctly also but if the bird is out before it is hung that would certainly be more humane.



http://www.pjbs.org/ijps/fin990.pdf

[sisu27]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you also say a prayer and cry when you pull oh so cruelly a carrot out of the ground, to add to your vegetarian diet?:cry:

Or maybe you fast then and make an offering to the horse goods, that crunch it down without remorse, the ingrates.

Did you ever read Ionesco and Beckett?;)

http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm

That is what some of these debates seem to be.

Much is lost with the absence of inflection and facial expression...

I am not a vegetarian, I have lots of leather, I love a good filet more than just about anything and I was totally serious about most of that post! Seriously, I have Dobies....I like them with all their extra bits removed.

I didn't even read most of the thread....just being a PITA ;)

Carry on.

[SevenDogs]

I assume you are not involved in any kind of dog showing, are you?
There, the knowledge in these matters is a little more in depth for all, the fight already in the open and harder to dismiss, as it is obviously in animal agriculture.


So, now we need to be into showing dogs AND be active farmers to weigh in on ethical treatment of farm animals? Maybe you should put the tin foil hat back on, Bluey.....

... and for what it's worth... no, I don't show dogs and I don't exactly hold the AKC and other similar organizations in high esteem!

[Bluey]

Much is lost with the absence of inflection and facial expression...

I am not a vegetarian, I have lots of leather, I love a good filet more than just about anything and I was totally serious about most of that post! Seriously, I have Dobies....I like them with all their extra bits removed.

I didn't even read most of the thread....just being a PITA ;)

Carry on.

I know.;)

We are speaking to more than the few that contribute, each of us with whatever dribble we may add to the knowledge base.:)

I hope some readers are getting their brain engaged and next time they read or watch something presented as a given, they will rememeber these questions posed here and so be able to use critical thinking, not just keep taking the brain washing images seen and words read we are bombarded with each day of our lives for granted.

Someone said humans are the laughing animal.
I wonder some times if we are not the animal to be laughed at.:yes: