![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 74. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 27, 2004, at 15:13:54
In reply to --again-Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on November 27, 2004, at 14:44:03
> > > You can also call a poultry farm.. I did.
> >
> > I've been to many poultry farms over the years...chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, exotics. No force-feeding. It's just not necessary, unless you want the bird to get that fat liver thing happening.
> >
> > Lar
>
>
> I don't think too many factory broiler chicken
> farms are places that you'd end up in, many don't even let people in, however according
> to ... soilassociation.org.uk/web/sa: A link I accessed last night but cannot access today quote: *The study by CWF found that broiler chickens are force fed so they grow faster,
> live in extremely cramped conditions and lack any exercise*
>
> According to my phone call to find out local
> broiler chicken feeding methods 4/5 use force feeding.
>
> According to P.E.T.A magazine December 1995 (mine)
> Farm rescued chickens had to be re-taught how to eat because they had become accustomed only to forced feeding.Broiler chicken farms hire chicken catchers. Seven to a crate (to be loaded on a truck). Been there, done that. I do know what equipment is present, as chickens are in different stages of growth in different areas of the same farms. The chickens (and turkeys, too) are not force-fed, no matter how many PETA articles suggest otherwise. They are fed ad libitum, from centralized feeders. The confined birds may have no clue that food comes from anything other than one of those mechanized troughs, so they may not have any idea how to peck and scratch outdoors, but that's quite a different issue.
Anyway, I've wasted enough energy on this.
Lar
Posted by MCK on November 27, 2004, at 17:18:09
In reply to Re: --again-Larry Hoover » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on November 27, 2004, at 15:13:54
As the daughter of a poultry farmer, (and now a vegetarian) I'm quite surprised that you could make such an assertion, unless you've worked on a poultry farm very recently for a good long time!
Sadly, force feeding is used, not always, (with Turkeys it is usually) but you bet it is! When those chickens and turkeys need to be fattened up in a hurry for market there is no other way. Stomach injuries ocurr but more common are tears to the neck and throat.
My father doesn't like to do this, and neither do most of the "farmers" he knows, but in order to keep the price down and make a living he feels he has no other choice, drastic changes have happened in farming even in the last few years.
Even chicken catching as you referred to is not the same in most places. The chickens are usually just grabbed by their feet straight out of a crate and don't need to be caught, they didn't have anywhere to go!
Some have been forced in one place so long their feet have grown over the wire at the bottom of the cage--they "can't" eat out of a trough.Groups like P.E.T.A don't haveto exaggerate the abuses that happen in farming unfortunately, I wish they did. I've learned that one can always assume the worst is true. I'm not criticizing all farmers, I believe they are victims too, and many times it's the hired workers who through carelessness or cruelty cause much needless suffering.
You mentioned no matter how many Peta articles say so it's not true that poultry is force fed.
Well maybe you won't believe this farmers daughter either, but it doesn't change the unfortunate facts.
I'm not speaking for all farms or all farmers. I'm speaking about poultry factory farms,
which may at one time resembled a friendly family farm, but do so no more.
Posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 0:00:44
In reply to Unfortunatley -Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 27, 2004, at 17:18:09
It's not rare for pate to contain the livers of gavage/tube force fed chickens, though the label may not always indicate it it's not a secret.
The rest of the chicken is used for market.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 28, 2004, at 10:45:21
In reply to Unfortunatley -Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 27, 2004, at 17:18:09
> As the daughter of a poultry farmer, (and now a vegetarian) I'm quite surprised that you could make such an assertion, unless you've worked on a poultry farm very recently for a good long time!
Broiler farming, where I come from, is a very automated process. Efficiencies are measured in tenths of a percent of feed conversion. The birds are not confined until being trasported, having been held in open sheds on deep litter. There is no opportunity for gavage. Poor converters of feed are culled, not force-fed. That's too labour intensive, with diminished return for an already poor converter of feed. I hate to make it look like an economics issue, but that's the nature of the game. The birds are only kept for 6-8 weeks, the shed is cleaned, and a new batch of chicks is brought in.
> Sadly, force feeding is used, not always, (with Turkeys it is usually) but you bet it is! When those chickens and turkeys need to be fattened up in a hurry for market there is no other way. Stomach injuries ocurr but more common are tears to the neck and throat.
I did not mean to imply that it never happened. I can only imagine what economic pressures might make such a labour-intensive process worthwhile when carcass weight/lipid content is the issue. Foie gras is a high-value product, but even those producers take cost-cutting measures to an extreme (the whole animal welfare argument, well-founded), to maintain profitability. I want to reiterate. I do not support the practise. It is abhorrent.
> My father doesn't like to do this, and neither do most of the "farmers" he knows, but in order to keep the price down and make a living he feels he has no other choice, drastic changes have happened in farming even in the last few years.
I cannot imagine the process is commonplace. That's where we are going to have to accept our differences. The age-old practise of gavage or force-feeding was developed to mimic a natural process in migratory waterfowl. Just before initiating the migratory flight, the birds would habitually gorge themselves, increasing the fat content of the breast (in particular), and the liver. This was a genetic adaptation which permitted extended flight periods. This adaptation is seen in ducks and geese, the same birds still used for foie gras production.
Chickens and turkeys and other domestic fowl are non-migratory. They are susceptible to fatty infiltration of the liver, as are all animals (including ourselves), but they do not have the same magnitude of response as do migratory waterfowl.
> Even chicken catching as you referred to is not the same in most places. The chickens are usually just grabbed by their feet straight out of a crate and don't need to be caught, they didn't have anywhere to go!
The birds I'm talking about are not confined in any respect (other than by the shed walls), except for transport to slaughter.
> Some have been forced in one place so long their feet have grown over the wire at the bottom of the cage--they "can't" eat out of a trough.
Are you talking about laying hens?
> Groups like P.E.T.A don't haveto exaggerate the abuses that happen in farming unfortunately, I wish they did. I've learned that one can always assume the worst is true.Oh dear. Some people are murderers. Because I'm a people, am I a murderer?
There are farmers who ought not to be farmers. The exceptional cases ought not to be used to taint the reputations of the remainder.
I'm on a first name basis with my butcher. I've been on the kill floor. I know what he does for me, and I eat the meat he processes, in full knowledge of what he has contracted to do on my behalf. I have no illusions about what I am consuming.
> I'm not criticizing all farmers, I believe they are victims too,
I think you are doing so.
> and many times it's the hired workers who through carelessness or cruelty cause much needless suffering.
I don't recommend chicken catching as a career move. Have you ever tried holding seven chickens at one time, and trying to get them into a plastic crate without any getting away? You can only manage it by not exciting the birds, strange as that may seem. That's how we do it hereabouts, based on my personal knowledge.
> You mentioned no matter how many Peta articles say so it's not true that poultry is force fed.
Our divergence in belief is an issue of frequency, not of absolute existence of the practise. I believe it is far less common than it is alleged to be.
> Well maybe you won't believe this farmers daughter either, but it doesn't change the unfortunate facts.
I believe you.
> I'm not speaking for all farms or all farmers. I'm speaking about poultry factory farms,
> which may at one time resembled a friendly family farm, but do so no more.The factory farms I've been to don't resemble what you describe, in any respect.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 28, 2004, at 10:51:15
In reply to I neglected to mention- Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 0:00:44
> It's not rare for pate to contain the livers of gavage/tube force fed chickens, though the label may not always indicate it it's not a secret.
> The rest of the chicken is used for market.I think you're stretching. Chicken liver is used to reduce cost, as it is inexpensive, a by-product of meat production. If you're going to go to the trouble of gavage, why would you do it to a chicken, rather than to a duck or a goose, which command top dollar?
Lar
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 28, 2004, at 14:01:22
In reply to If it died accidently - then I think we can eat it (nm), posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 22:32:20
Does this mean you drive around in the country at night aiming to run down stray cows?
Or are you talking strickly Road Kill Stew? ;-)
Emmy
Posted by verne on November 28, 2004, at 16:02:52
In reply to Re: If it died accidently - then I think we can eat it » alexandra_k, posted by TofuEmmy on November 28, 2004, at 14:01:22
Does this mean that if our plane crashes in the Andes Mountains we can eat our fellow passengers who didn't survive the accident? And is defrosted, cooked enough?
verne
Posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 19:44:38
In reply to Re: Unfortunatley -Larry Hoover » MCK, posted by Larry Hoover on November 28, 2004, at 10:45:21
> > As the daughter of a poultry farmer, (and now a vegetarian) I'm quite surprised that you could make such an assertion, unless you've worked on a poultry farm very recently for a good long time!
>
> Broiler farming, where I come from, is a very automated process. Efficiencies are measured in tenths of a percent of feed conversion. The birds are not confined until being trasported, having been held in open sheds on deep litter. There is no opportunity for gavage. Poor converters of feed are culled, not force-fed.That's not typical. The birds are generally kept in fattening cages for 3-4 weeks. The close proximity breeds illness, one bird gets sick they all get sick. Force feeding of antibiotics with food is frequent, with a life span that short,it's proportionate to a large amount of time.
> > Sadly, force feeding is used, not always, (with Turkeys it is usually) but you bet it is! When those chickens and turkeys need to be fattened up in a hurry for market there is no other way. Stomach injuries ocurr but more common are tears to the neck and throat.
>
> I did not mean to imply that it never happened.It certainly came across that way, you corrected two people, neither of whom stated that it always happened, you denied the validity of two written
articles, stating that you wanted to make sure the facts were correct. Your knowledge was to be accepted as superior because you'd been to a few farms, and that you couldn't find anything on Google. You aren't going to find peer reviewed journal articles about the ethics of chicken farming. You may find some on how to fatten chickens more quickly, or on disease. As for your having been to a few farms, it's like a childless person saying you've visited a few families and now you know all about raising children.>
> > My father doesn't like to do this, and neither do most of the "farmers" he knows, but in order to keep the price down and make a living he feels he has no other choice, drastic changes have happened in farming even in the last few years.
>
> I cannot imagine the process is commonplace.You not being able to imagine it, does not make it fact. Check out the market for chicken tube feeders.
> > Even chicken catching as you referred to is not the same in most places. The chickens are usually just grabbed by their feet straight out of a crate and don't need to be caught, they didn't have anywhere to go!
>
> The birds I'm talking about are not confined in any respect (other than by the shed walls), except for transport to slaughter.You haven't been to Tysons obviously.
>
> > Some have been forced in one place so long their feet have grown over the wire at the bottom of the cage--they "can't" eat out of a trough.
>
> Are you talking about laying hens?No I'm talking about Broiler chickens in fattening crates, what we were talking about.
How long has it been since you've seen a factory farm?
>
> > Groups like P.E.T.A don't haveto exaggerate the abuses that happen in farming unfortunately, I wish they did. I've learned that one can always assume the worst is true.
>
> Oh dear. Some people are murderers. Because I'm a people, am I a murderer?
>No, but one can assume, that most people in prison for murder are murderers. You had stated you wanted the facts straight. I suspect there is more at stake here than that. You obviously haven't done specific recent research and are talking about some farms somewhere that are not large suppliers of chicken.
What you originally felt you needed to correct was the idea that chickens are not always force fed, turkeys usually are. You said "No matter how many P.E.T.A articles said so It doesn't happen"
It doesn't happen because you say it doesn't happen. That's all you have so far. I brought up what I know to be true, having lived it and you still are saying it doesn't happen. So much for the facts.
It's not a big deal to me, as far as cruelty to chickens go, force feeding is really quite minor, I was trying to provide correct information, because you had corrected two people who did not need correcting.
As it is, this is turning into a he said she said, which is not what I'd intended. Obviously you will believe what you want, but please don't claim that it's because you want to provide the facts.
The exceptional cases ought not to be used to taint the reputations of the remainder.
Oh Good Heavens, even people who don't give a whit know that mass market chickens are not raised humanely.
> > I'm not criticizing all farmers, I believe they are victims too,
>
> I think you are doing so.Again, what you think does not make it fact,
I too am aware it's a matter of economics, and I believe that many have had to sacrifice their dreams to make living. I've seen the pain personally, you have no right to make such a judgement.
> > and many times it's the hired workers who through carelessness or cruelty cause much needless suffering.
>
>, strange as that may seem. That's how we do it hereabouts, based on my personal knowledge.Obviously they are not large chicken factories.
>
> > You mentioned no matter how many Peta articles say so it's not true that poultry is force fed.
>
> Our divergence in belief is an issue of frequency, not of absolute existence of the practise. I believe it is far less common than it is alleged to be.
>Then perhaps you shouldn't have said "It doesn't happen" after the other poster said it doesn't always happen.
>
> The factory farms I've been to don't resemble what you describe, in any respect.It's interesting that you would frequent factory chicken farms, not being a farmer or a farmworker.
And as for the post about chicken pate, it's not always labelled chicken pate, that was my point.
It can still command top dollar as fois gras to the unseasoned palate.
Posted by verne on November 28, 2004, at 20:29:59
In reply to My last words on the subject- Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 19:44:38
MCK,
You have changed how I think about poultry and the industry. I believe you. You've been there and speak from experience. Thank you.
Scientists are usually beyond me but let me hazard that Larry Hoover is exceptionally compassionate. He may come across as coldly factual or scientific at first blush but he's truly caring.
Larry has a compulsion, no offense intended, to let no scientific fact go unrewarded. Not only that, he's a fact tracker and will bring every fact to justice. "Who are these guys?"
Both you and Larry have such insight into this and I appreciate both.
thanks,
verne
Posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2004, at 23:44:32
In reply to My last words on the subject- Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 19:44:38
Hiya. Nope, I don't think it is okay to kill intentionally, but if it died accidently then I guess it is better than it going to waste.
In the case of people, I don't really have a problem with that either...
The main argument I have heard about why we should respect the dead (by not interfearing with them, eating them etc etc) is that if we allow people to do whatever they want with dead people then before we know it people will do whatever they want with almost dead people etc etc usual slippery slope argument...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2004, at 23:49:16
In reply to TofuEmmy and Verne, posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2004, at 23:44:32
I address this to you guys especially, though I guess its to everyone really.
I was wrong about my office mate saying chickens were force fed - he was talking about ducks. That was simply my mistake.
I appreciate your eye for the facts Larry Hoover
I am much like you when I see people saying things I believe to be wrong
Though I have to say that you typically have a better grasp of the facts than I do
And you probably make much more of a conscious effort than I do to check...I did a google after you challenged me, and couldn't find anything myself either.
So I guess Gabbix's discovery is news to us all.
Sorry to create such a debate / discussion...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2004, at 23:55:21
In reply to Fruitarians, posted by Poetess on November 27, 2004, at 11:57:08
I have heard of them.
Now from memory (so this may well be dodgey!)...They (or at least some of them) do not pick fruit off the tree becuase they believe that this would / may cause pain to the tree. They wait until it falls. I wondered whether it may be okay to shake the trunk a little, to kind of help out - but apparantly it is not.
I have heard of some (maybe monks) who brush the path in front of them to make sure they do not tread on ants or any other small insects.
I think that the motivations are largely spiritual.
I guess I believe that if it has a nervous system it can feel pain and so we shouldn't hurt it if possible. I don't think brushing the path is very practical for my daily life though. I guess I figure that plants don't feel pain because they don't have a nervous system.
I won't maintain that it isn't possible for something without a nervous system to feel pain.
I just don't think that it is actually the case.Please don't press me on this...
Actually, I am sure I'll be up to whatever tomorrow... :-)
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 29, 2004, at 0:34:29
In reply to Larry Hoover and Gabbix, posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2004, at 23:49:16
I think much of the debate is simply due to farming practises varying from area to area.
After a few more phone calls (I got more curious!)
I discovered that Eastern Suppliers in Canada don't force feed chickens, though it's not everyday practise unless the chickens are sick anywhere (In Canada) If it varies that much within Canada, I can imagine how it varies from country to country.I may be vegetarian but now I'm really sick of chicken!
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 29, 2004, at 0:36:05
In reply to Re: Fruitarians » Poetess, posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2004, at 23:55:21
> I wondered whether it may be okay to shake the trunk a little, to kind of help out : )
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2004, at 1:10:42
In reply to My last words on the subject- Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 19:44:38
> > I'm not criticizing all farmers
>
> I think you are doing so.
>
> Lar> You haven't been to Tysons obviously.
>
> You had stated you wanted the facts straight. I suspect there is more at stake here than that. You obviously haven't done specific recent research and are talking about some farms somewhere that are not large suppliers of chicken.
>
> you had corrected two people who did not need correcting.
>
> Obviously you will believe what you want
>
> MCKPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down or jump to conclusions about others.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Poetess on November 29, 2004, at 2:37:37
In reply to Re: Fruitarians » Poetess, posted by alexandra_k on November 28, 2004, at 23:55:21
Hi alexandra,
>I wondered whether it may be okay to shake the trunk a little, to kind of help out - but apparantly it is not.
I have also heard this. I wonder if any fruitarian of this type ever hug a tree really, really hard, hoping that some fruit will fall. If I were in their shoes, I might try this :)
> I have heard of some (maybe monks) who brush the path in front of them to make sure they do not tread on ants or any other small insects.
I don't brush the ground myself. I do not, however wear platform shoes. I suspect that this inadvertently helps out the bugs :)
> I think that the motivations are largely spiritual.I am really hoping that this is true. I have run into too many people over the course of my life with whom "political correctness" is more important than spiritual connection and true compassion.
> I won't maintain that it isn't possible for something without a nervous system to feel pain.
> I just don't think that it is actually the case.I don't think anyone really knows. I tend to assume that plants may feel something, but I appreciate them and I kinda feel like they understand. I try to buy local organic/ sustainable, when I can. For me, being healthy is the only way I can more than function in life. Dietary needs not being met helps no one, including plants.
> Please don't press me on this...
> Actually, I am sure I'll be up to whatever tomorrow... :-)Not to worry. I don't even like pressing clothing :)
Poetess
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 29, 2004, at 8:39:55
In reply to My last words on the subject- Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 19:44:38
> > Broiler farming, where I come from, is a very automated process. Efficiencies are measured in tenths of a percent of feed conversion. The birds are not confined until being trasported, having been held in open sheds on deep litter. There is no opportunity for gavage. Poor converters of feed are culled, not force-fed.
>
> That's not typical.My experience is not worthy of respect?
My experience is in full accord with the articles available at:
http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/poultry/extensio.htm> > I did not mean to imply that it never happened.
>
> It certainly came across that way, you corrected two people, neither of whom stated that it always happened, you denied the validity of two written
> articles, stating that you wanted to make sure the facts were correct.In two succeeding posts from myself, this is what I said:
"I don't believe you've got the details correct. Foie gras is produced by force-feeding of ducks or geese. But it hardly makes sense to burst the animals' stomachs, though I guess that might happen."
> www.peacockspoultryfarm.com/html/amish.htm
>
>
> www.paws.org/kids/teens/factory_farming.html -"There's nothing on either site to show that turkeys or chickens are force-fed."
> Your knowledge was to be accepted as superior because you'd been to a few farms, and that you couldn't find anything on Google.
No my distinction was between evidence and rhetoric. Anyone can say something on Internet, and I found identical text strings suggesting that burst stomachs occurred on sites widely scattered on the net. Not one gave any evidence of this allegation. When I found necropsy evidence, it did not mention that. I dislike hyperbole, exaggeration, propaganda. It's unnecessary. The truth is enough.
Here is a good factual article:
http://www.nofoiegras.org/FGscience_report.htmFrom an anatomical viewpoint, it is not even possible to put a force-feeding tube into a bird's stomach. The food is forced into a distensible (expandable) portion of the esophagus called the crop. Putting too much feed into the crop can choke the bird, and that does happen, and does kill them. Also, mechanical injury to the esophagus is frequent. I reiterate: The practise is abhorrent.
I saw a number of references that European foie gras producers have their geese come running when they see the funnel. I didn't report that because it was rhetoric. Someone's words. But there are different stories from different places. Why should we give greater weight to the stories you select than to ones from the Dordogne region of France?
> You aren't going to find peer reviewed journal articles about the ethics of chicken farming.
Actually, you do find those.
> You may find some on how to fatten chickens more quickly, or on disease. As for your having been to a few farms, it's like a childless person saying you've visited a few families and now you know all about raising children.
You don't know my knowledge and experience.
> > I cannot imagine the process is commonplace.
>
> You not being able to imagine it, does not make it fact. Check out the market for chicken tube feeders.I did. Not a single hit in Google for "chicken tube feeder".
The argument I was attempting to make was not that I could not imagine the process, but that it makes no economic sense to devote that much hands-on effort to fatten a single bird that goes for a fraction of a dollar per lb. carcass weight. Prime duck liver foie gras might go for $75/lb. Chicken or turkey carcass for 0.35?
If you read e.g. http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c446-w.html, you'll see a reference to a labour input of 4-6 *minutes* per 1,000 broilers per day. Reducing labour inputs is what makes modern factory farming a reality in the first place. What you're suggesting is the exact opposite, labour intensification.
> > The birds I'm talking about are not confined in any respect (other than by the shed walls), except for transport to slaughter.
>
> You haven't been to Tysons obviously.No, I haven't. That doesn't make me naive. Tyson's procedures may well need regulatory oversight. Perhaps farm reform is a necessity in the United States, I don't know. But that doesn't mean everybody else does things as you have seen.
> > Are you talking about laying hens?
>
> No I'm talking about Broiler chickens in fattening crates, what we were talking about.We don't use fattening crates, so we weren't talking about the same thing.
> How long has it been since you've seen a factory farm?
A few years, now. I can tell from looking at them (they're all around where I live), they're still the same as before. These are non-confinement facilities.
>>> ***I've learned that one can always assume the worst is true.***
This is the statement to which I addressed my concerns. I'll paste in the sequence to restore it.
> > The exceptional cases ought not to be used to taint the reputations of the remainder.
>
> Oh Good Heavens, even people who don't give a whit know that mass market chickens are not raised humanely.A separate argument to the one I enjoined.
> What you originally felt you needed to correct was the idea that chickens are not always force fed, turkeys usually are. You said "No matter how many P.E.T.A articles said so It doesn't happen"
It must be a dirty little secret, because neither PETA nor Google have anything but anecdote. I have already presented my opinion that anecdote is not evidence. I am not dismissing PETA, I am dismissing the "said so".
> It doesn't happen because you say it doesn't happen. That's all you have so far. I brought up what I know to be true, having lived it and you still are saying it doesn't happen. So much for the facts.
I said, quite explicitly, that I believe you. I literally said, "I believe you." What I don't believe is that is generalizable.
> It's not a big deal to me, as far as cruelty to chickens go, force feeding is really quite minor, I was trying to provide correct information, because you had corrected two people who did not need correcting.
I didn't correct them. I said there was no evidence.
> As it is, this is turning into a he said she said, which is not what I'd intended. Obviously you will believe what you want, but please don't claim that it's because you want to provide the facts.
I am only interested in evidence. Conclusions, in my world, flow from evidence. Passion and belief may empower the quest for evidence, but they may not supplant evidence.
> I too am aware it's a matter of economics, and I believe that many have had to sacrifice their dreams to make living. I've seen the pain personally, you have no right to make such a judgement.
This is where your lack of knowledge about me leaves you in a bind. I know how hard the work is. That's why I didn't choose to do it. But I didn't make an academic decision. I made a practical one. I determined that I did not wish to have a job responsibility that had 24 hours a day, seven days a week aspects. I tried it on for size, and it didn't fit. Before I was going to commit to going to formally study agricultural science at university, I wanted to know if the vocation was one I could carry out.
> >, strange as that may seem. That's how we do it hereabouts, based on my personal knowledge.
>
> Obviously they are not large chicken factories.That is neither obvious, nor correct.
> > > You mentioned no matter how many Peta articles say so it's not true that poultry is force fed.
> >
> > Our divergence in belief is an issue of frequency, not of absolute existence of the practise. I believe it is far less common than it is alleged to be.
> >
>
> Then perhaps you shouldn't have said "It doesn't happen" after the other poster said it doesn't always happen.Forgive my semantic slip. In the context of my complete dialogue, my intent was clear.
> >
> > The factory farms I've been to don't resemble what you describe, in any respect.
>
> It's interesting that you would frequent factory chicken farms, not being a farmer or a farmworker.Not currently so, no. I've always had an interest, wanting to be a farmer throughout my childhood and adolescence. I've kept current with the literature, and worked on farms. I know enough to know that there are bad farmers, certainly. Think of puppy mills vs. ethical breeders of popular dogs. It is not appropriate to vilify ethical breeders because of the puppy mills.
> And as for the post about chicken pate, it's not always labelled chicken pate, that was my point.
Then that is fraud. Again, a separate and irrelevant issue.
> It can still command top dollar as fois gras to the unseasoned palate.
I fear you have been exposed to the puppy mill version of farming. Is that possible?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 29, 2004, at 8:41:48
In reply to Please, Not last Word, posted by verne on November 28, 2004, at 20:29:59
Posted by GeishaGirl on November 29, 2004, at 11:33:11
In reply to Any vegans out there?, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 17:40:22
Hi,
I have a new screen name now (used to be "Poetess")
May seem strange, but I agree with a lot of what everyone has said. I'll try to explain.
I believe much of what PETA says. A conclusion that I have come to- from talking to current and former PETA memebers and reading their stuff- is that they are a group of people that care very much about the welfare of animals. I am a vegan, so this is very important for me.
However, I also find that what I perceive as their militancy (which I completely understand, people aren't listening) seems to me to effect how the facts are *presented* (not what the facts are). I believe that forced feeding still exists in some factory farms, but on what scale I question. With the introduction of "special feed" and hormones to fatten up chickens, I really wonder how prevalent forced feeding is to fatten up chickens. It seems to me it would be easier and cheaper to feed them weird food and pump them up with extra hormones. This is also appalling to me. I'm not sure this method is any nicer than forced feeding.
I have also perceived other things that are questionable spins, in my mind . I know that how I present things to the world can depend on how emotionally impacted by things . PETA is a voice for the unheard. They have brought to light some very important issues. They are still human beings, though.
I believe (Lar, I believe you briefly mentioned this) that what I have heard about applies to the U.S. I have no idea what factory farms in general are like abroad. I abhor the idea of factory farms in general, but I know that (for me) believing exactly what happens here also happens abroad is a mistake. The U.S. is very different from many countries. Also, in some countries there are still quite a few family farms.
Because of my sensitivities, I would love to see all meat producing farms vanish. But, I need to see things wholistically. From my perspective, people treat others badly (including animals) because of some kind of trauma. I feel if this goes unrecognized, nothing will ever be accomplished to help both humans and animals.
Just some thoughts. Feel free to respond, but I'm *not* trying to start a heated debate.
Peace.
GG
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 29, 2004, at 17:28:22
In reply to My last words on the subject- Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 19:44:38
I appreciate your input. I'm not stuck on the idea one way or the other. I knew nothing about it until two days ago when I made the mistake of reading Turkeys for Chickens and did a casual follow up. I think I know more now then I ever wanted to!
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 29, 2004, at 17:29:29
In reply to PETA, Factory Farming, etc., posted by GeishaGirl on November 29, 2004, at 11:33:11
I like your insight into things Geisha girl, and
the way you write. It's nice to meet you.
Posted by ghost on November 29, 2004, at 22:29:05
In reply to Any vegans out there?, posted by alexandra_k on November 26, 2004, at 17:40:22
silk soymilk is pretty decent, if you get the flavored stuff. if you're cooking, the plain is also good. (the unsweetened is only for the hardcore soy lover.)
boca foods are pretty good "meat substitutes," really resembling what they're supposed to be.
some vegans go so far as to avoid refined sugar, since animal bone char is used for filtration of impurities. (none remains in the sugar when it's finished, however.) sugar in the raw is safe, though.
there's also a powdered egg substitute out there that works pretty well for cooking. ener-g, i think is the brand. i've made some good cakes and cookies with it.
there are even vegan gravy mixes. (the "low fat" gravies are generally vegan, actually. pillsbury has a mix that's not bad.) being able to have mashed potatoes and gravy makes me feel less abnormal for my diet sometimes. :)
Posted by ghost on November 29, 2004, at 22:30:16
In reply to Re: If it died accidently..., posted by verne on November 28, 2004, at 16:02:52
> Does this mean that if our plane crashes in the Andes Mountains we can eat our fellow passengers who didn't survive the accident? And is defrosted, cooked enough?
yes. i think it does.
Posted by GeishaGirl on December 1, 2004, at 7:43:38
In reply to Re: PETA, Factory Farming, etc. » GeishaGirl, posted by Gabbix2 on November 29, 2004, at 17:29:29
Thanx! Nice to meet you, as well.
> I like your insight into things Geisha girl, and
> the way you write. It's nice to meet you.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 1, 2004, at 18:06:14
In reply to Re: PETA, Factory Farming, etc. » Gabbix2, posted by GeishaGirl on December 1, 2004, at 7:43:38
Not bad, actually :-)
I think I am on to day 5 today!
Only one little slip up... I ate one (tiny) spring roll on Sunday night. Two mouthfuls. I completely forgot I had to watch what I ate and now I am fairly hacked off that when there is catering there aren't clearly marked labels regarding whether something is vegetarian and or vegan if that is the case. I mean, you might miss out on somehting yummy (or indeed sampling anything at all) just becasue you couldn't eat it becasue you didn't know whether it was vegetarian / vegan or not. I do not know what was in the spring roll. It didn't taste meaty, but then a lot of meat doesn't particularly :-) so I just don't know. What actually happens is that you have to refrain from rather a lot, and depending on the caterers, almost everything.
Grumble grumble
change the world...Are there different senses of the word 'vegan' or something??? Everytime I go out with Teo he asks what they have that is vegan and they say. He then asks for the ingredients. You would not believe how many of them then say 'cheese'. Yeah ok my city isn't the height of sophistication. But ya can get a soy latte and so forth...
Grumble grumble...
Can meat withdrawal make ya grumpy?
Or is it just that I am becoming more aware?
Perhaps they are related...
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.