Animal Cruelty

[PLFXpert 0]

The original conversation did lead to the natural benefits of a healthier and/or organic diet. I think the evidence presented by freeflybella and others was quite good in demonstrating why exactly such choices are healthier options.

Again, (I feel like a broken record) as I previously stated my goal was not to change the minds of all; just one. And I did that. This thread is a success, imo.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[freeflybella 0]

There are so many facets to this issue.

Health for humans, health for animals, living and dying conditions for animals, transport for animals, impact on the environment in general, impact on the environment at a local level...

There isn't a single check in the 'pro' box aside from money. And that money isn't going to Farmer Brown. It's going to Chairmen and CEOs.

Reduce the demand for meat overall but increase the demand for locally and humanely raised products and the farmers make the money.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

I know! I loved cheese, too!

I used to think if there was a way I could ensure where the cheese came from and who made it - I'd go back to eating it. But I found once I stopped eating it, my asthma went away and my skin cleared up.

Who knew?

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

But I found once I stopped eating it, my asthma went away and my skin cleared up.

I've always had clear skin and do now; it's tough to say during the few years I didn't whether it was due to my unhealthy diet or birth control as I started & quit both around the same time.

But, I completely agree, nonetheless. I think diet has SO much to do w/ anti-aging & the appearance of skin, hair & nails. I love the look of fresh, gorgeous skin & hair and that makes it SO easy to forget about cheese fries.

P.S. Awesome previous post to the one I just quoted. I couldn't have said it better myself!

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

Speaking of environment here is something for you to chew on.

I plant some of my crops with minimum tillage and some more no-till. I would like to someday plant all my crops this way. The beneifits are, far less erosian, and much reduced fuel consumtian, as well as less ware and tear on machinery. This could never be accomplished in an organic system. The reason is simple organic farming relies mainly on mechanical weed controle. This means disturbing the soil and opening it up to erosian, as well as using machinery which is expensive to buy and use. These reasons open up organic agriculture to some serious questions as to it's real environmental benifits.

Lets look back say 30 years. Most of the cropland in the US was plowed every year to plant a crop. Then it was worked down to prepare a seed bed. After that the crop was planted and then some type of chemical weed control was used. Thouse chemicals weren't always efective and had rather liberal labeling recomendations. After that most crops were cultivated to rid them of the remaning weeds, this often happened several times untill the crop was big enough to shade the ground and keep the weeds in check. All this time the soil was left unprotected to the weather causing erosian from the rain and wind. (remember the dust boll) At the same time the soil was also loosing it's organic matter do to being exposed to the sun and heat of the day as well as the air being constantly introduced into it by tillage.

Today plows are seldom seen on farms and erosian has been reduced dramaticly. This has been accomplished by the use of chemical herbicides and geneticly modified crops. The chemicals used today have very low levels of active ingrediants and are very effective. An example is how we used to use 4lbs of attrizine to reduce weeds in corn as well as cultivating it and never having weed free corn. Today we have products that use only 1/3 of an ounce per acre and realy do work so cultivating isn't necesary. All this saves fuel, time, and machinery, as well as helping to produce larger crops with less fertilizer since what is used isn't washing or blowing away and keeping more organic matter in the soil.

Just something for you to think about.

[BillyVance 34]

How about these pictures... bet PETA would have a field day with them!


Oh go put a sock in it! What could they do in a far east country?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[quack 0]

Quote

There are so many facets to this issue.

Health for humans, health for animals, living and dying conditions for animals, transport for animals, impact on the environment in general, impact on the environment at a local level...

There isn't a single check in the 'pro' box aside from money. And that money isn't going to Farmer Brown. It's going to Chairmen and CEOs.

Reduce the demand for meat overall but increase the demand for locally and humanely raised products and the farmers make the money.

To play Devil's advocate on this, it could also be that the reason there is nothing besides money in the 'pro' category is because others' views on the issues are polar opposites of the 'con' supporters, and nothing will change their minds. That's OK, as long as the other point of view is given it's due (which the OP has done), but then there can be much apathy from the 'pros' who really don't see a problem. Many issues like this do not have black and white answers. It is very easy to find a lot of reasons against something if a person is against it based on their own principles, which is fine. Looking at both sides can be an eye-opener as well.

There are many who support factory farming, so long as reasonable conditions are being met. Sure, the reason people are in business is to make money. I'm focusing on the animal cruelty issue. The producers care about their product. It pays to have a healthy product at the auction, and health includes day-to-day living. While there are producers who will jam animals in substandard conditions, most are not like that. But like anything, it only takes one video to taint the entire industry, similar to a handful of LA Policemen making a name for themselves in 1992. OK, maybe a bad example, but it's what sprang to mind.

With respect to living conditions, the animals have to be given the minimum accepted space to live in, and the requirements are not arbitrary. Much thought and research has been put into these conditions. I don't know if anyone looked at Temple Grandin's work that I posted earlier, but here[url] it is again. To use a human comparison, it's akin to military barracks or university dorm rooms. They have about one square foot more than the accepted standards. No one but the student usually complains about these living conditions, but then, they are humans, not food animals, and have fewer advocates.

The argument for animal rights is not about equating them to human rights. It's about what is decent and respectful to an animal that is going to end up as a meal.

Those that accept these farming practices do so because they look at the food animals as just that: food animals. I don't believe there is an intention to be cruel, similar to many hunters who shoot to kill, not to maim. There is a respect for the animal and not a dismissive attitude toward their welfare.

But you have to understand, mental illness is like cholesterol. There is the good kind and the bad. Without the good kind- less flavor to life. - Serge A. Storms

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

While there are producers who will jam animals in substandard conditions, most are not like that.

I respectfully disagree. It is not "one video" as you say that puts the industry to shame. There is ample documented evidence of these "sub-standard" (which I think is a VERY kind way of putting it) conditions in numerous facilities.

Quote

I'm focusing on the animal cruelty issue.

That is also my focus. I realize the conversation turned organic as well, but I'm not here to argue for 100% organic farming. I like organic. I try to buy organic, but that is not my cause. Furthermore, I've not done the proper research to make an argument for organic farming. I have, however, done extensive research into animal welfare issues & conditions and how to make positive changes in that regard.

Quote

Those that accept these farming practices do so because they look at the food animals as just that: food animals. I don't believe there is an intention to be cruel, similar to many hunters who shoot to kill, not to maim. There is a respect for the animal and not a dismissive attitude toward their welfare.

I disagree. It is my nature to always give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. It can be particularly difficult at times, as human nature can be both moving & inspirational as well as horrifying & evil and sometimes the line is fine.

Unfortunately on this particular subject, again the evidence toward the latter is clear. The animals are not viewed as "food animals" but rather a lucrative commodity. It's very interesting, too, the way people distinguish their apathy from cats & dogs to "food animals". I've said this before; if dogs tasted like pork would we raise them for food? And if we did would we treat them as we treat a pig? A pig has an equal or greater measured level of intelligence, pain & social skills/desires as a dog. I'm guessing many would feel much more sympathetic to the plight of a dog if it were to become a "food animal". It won't; so people don't pay much mind to such a comparison b/c well, most just wouldn't do that to a dog. But, a pig is OK.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Shawndiver 0]

"Lucrative commodity" is the key phrase here. If there was a booming demand for dog as a food animal in the USA as there is in asia, then you would see dogs treated like pigs (or worse).

_________________

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If there was a booming demand for dog as a food animal in the USA as there is in asia, then you would see dogs treated like pigs (or worse).

Wasn't uncommon at all in the Phillipines to see the local kids carrying knives, chasing a dog down the street.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freeflybella 0]

Well said!

And not to confuse the issue any futher, but you're right about these animals not being seen as animals (food or otherwise) but as a commodity. In fact, not a single cow, pig or chicken that is raised for food is a naturally occuring animal. They have been bred and cross bred to enhance their various moneymaking attributes.

The problem is, they have not had their nervous systems bred out. They are still sentient beings with instincts. They still suffer. But they are not seen as life forms that deserve respect.

However they're working on it.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

If there was a booming demand for dog as a food animal in the USA as there is in asia, then you would see dogs treated like pigs (or worse).

Wasn't uncommon at all in the Phillipines to see the local kids carrying knives, chasing a dog down the street.

Hey, dog is not so bad. Tried it in Olongapo after a few (possibly more) bottles of San Miguel. To this day, I still have to fight back the urge to hump a leg or two. Monkey on a stick ain't bad neither. Balute (eggs with legs) is also a tasty treat once you get it past your nose.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[bch7773 0]

I don't think its been medically proven that organically raised foods are better for you. You can talk about "less chemicals" all you want, I won't beleive any of it until I see PROOF that its healthier. remember how everyone 100 years ago all thought that malaria was caused by bad air?

and you have to remember, some genetically modified food is a real miracle... ever heard of golden rice? thousands of people will be healthier because of a genetic modification.

but I do agree, that some animals should be raised more humanely. Its pretty disgusting to look at some of the photos. I wonder what the actual cost the consumer would have to pay in order to get humanely raised food. $1 per pound? or $10 per pound?

MB 3528, RB 1182

[PLFXpert 0]

Once again:

Quote

I'm focusing on the animal cruelty issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is also my focus. I realize the conversation turned organic as well, but I'm not here to argue for 100% organic farming. I like organic. I try to buy organic, but that is not my cause. Furthermore, I've not done the proper research to make an argument for organic farming. I have, however, done extensive research into animal welfare issues & conditions and how to make positive changes in that regard.

As you said:

Quote

I don't think its been medically proven that organically raised foods are better for you.

On what I have read, I believe it has been proven in many cases, but certainly is not all-inclusive. I would never venture to say there are no benefits to some genetic modifications. Unlike you, however, I need to be convinced the modification is healthy, not the other way around.

It's important to note the chemicals you referred to are not the same as genetic modification.

Quote

but I do agree, that some animals should be raised more humanely. Its pretty disgusting to look at some of the photos.

Indeed.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 2,434]

>I don't think its been medically proven that organically raised foods are better for you.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 October 2006, 18:00 CDT
Human Antibiotic Resistance is Studied

U.S. researchers say they've determined the use of antibiotics as a livestock growth stimulator increases the risk of human antibiotic resistance.

Dr. Edward Belongia of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Foundation and colleagues examined poultry exposure as a risk factor for antibiotic resistance to Enterococcus faecium, a gut bacterium that's increasingly becoming the cause of hospital infections.

A drug combination called quinupristin-dalfopristin, also known as Synercid, is used to treat serious E. faecium infections resistant to the first-choice antibiotic. Synercid is related to virginiamycin, an antibiotic that has long been used as a growth promoter in U.S. livestock but is banned in Europe.

The scientists isolated E. faecium in stool samples from 105 newly hospitalized patients and 65 healthy vegetarians, as well as in 77 samples of conventional retail poultry and 23 antibiotic-free poultry meat samples.

Laboratory tests showed the bacteria from patients and vegetarians had no pre-existing resistance to Synercid. Resistance was rare among antibiotic-free poultry but a majority of bacterial isolates from conventional poultry samples were resistant.

The study is detailed in the Nov. 1 issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, and is available online.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think its been medically proven that organically raised foods are better for you. You can talk about "less chemicals" all you want, I won't beleive any of it until I see PROOF that its healthier. remember how everyone 100 years ago all thought that malaria was caused by bad air?

You can prove tht many commonly used chemicals are very bad for us, and for ecosystems.

the more nebulous question - organic versus a careful use of non hazardous chemicals - is harder to prove, and a bit of a dodge anyway with the defintions.

[tomvailco 0]

Quote

Not me, turkey killed my brother in 'Nam. I want him to suffer before we stuff him.

hahahahaha!