Gestation crates at Smithfield foods

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by GGG

Actually we would have a larger world carry capacity if we reduced meat comsumption. Land currently being used for Corn and other cattle feed could be used to produce food for humans. THere is definately marginal land that can be most efficiently used for grazing but the conversion rate of plant calories to animal calories is something between 5 and 15 to 1.

This may be, but with the growing movement towards ORGANIC vegetables, from the last information I saw (documentary, or online video I can't recall), the world could not support a vegetarian diet. This may not be incorrect, but without the use of modern pesticides etc, we could not support the earth's population.

On the other side of the coin, we aren't really supporting the earth's population right now either. Although it would supposedly be a larger portion of the population that would go hungry...

Meh, I'm too lazy to look up the info on where I saw that sooo..

Either way, I've been trying to eat less meat these days. If I could eventually turn that into being a vegetarian, then great, but extremely unlikely.

I think thats the big problem, we eat too much meat. It doesn't need to be a part of every meal.

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

what do you mean still? i have never said anything of the sort.

what i am saying is that mcdonald's buys it's beef from producers who maintain CAFO's (concentrated animal feeding operation). it doesn't matter if these CAFO's are from brazil or alberta. these feedlots expose the animals to enormous concentrations of excrement, crowding and poor diet. animals in feedlots are there for the sole purpose to expose them to a fatty diet which enhances the marbling in the meat. the excrement from the feedlots, and the hormones & antibiotics that go with it, are absorbed into the groundwater and aquafers.

did you know that 1 cow produces 120lbs of excrement a day, which is the equivalent to approx. 20 people. so a cow heard of 55,000 produces as much crap as the city of calgary. but, the feedlots are not required by law to treat any of their waste, but calgary is, due to clean water acts. these feedlots are massive polluters on massive scales.

western feedlots has 3 feedlots in southern alberta, with a capacity of 100,000 head. that's as much untreated sewage as 2,000,000 people!

Source? I have a tough time believing a cow dumps 10-15% of its body weight/day.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

did you know that 1 cow produces 120lbs of excrement a day, which is the equivalent to approx. 20 people.

This seems like something of an exaggeration to me. The googles tell me that an Angus cow averages ~1200 pounds. They crap out 10% of their body weight every day? How much food do they eat?

As for the "approx. 20 people" number -- the average person doesn't take a six-pound dump every day. I hope.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Trojan97

Source? I have a tough time believing a cow dumps 10-15% of its body weight/day.

i'm pulling numbers out from this video by michael pollan. i have a hard time believing he's misrepresenting the numbers. (go to 8:30 for cow manure)

[fundmark19]

I may sounds like a heartless person but I don't care about their conditions. They are born and raised to be my food. How ever the means are that they are born and raised before becoming my meat is up to the "farmer". If I want to buy fresh meat I will go slaughter a cow and get a butcher to cut up everything for me. For everything else I will buy probably the cheapest and continue to do so.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

I may sounds like a heartless person

Well, as a matter of fact....

I do believe that it is heartless to allow creatures to live in pain and suffering. If you can live with yourself not giving a d*mn about animals suffering, good for you, I guess. But there is the proven correlation between those that trivially dismiss animal suffering and those that are willing to trivially dismiss human suffering.

I've heard similar arguments about sweat shops. "What the h*ll do I care if 7 year old kids are making my shirts? So long as they are cheap!" I mean, that philosophy worked for Gordon Gecko. It doesn't work for me.

[fundmark19]

Ya but animals aren't humans. If aliens decided to breed humans as a food source and forced them to be in small confined spaces based on the fact that they will slaughter and eat them afterwords I would be ok with that as well. These are not free animals being forced into small cages and being forced to eat and sit there. These animals were born for sole purpose of becoming food. That I am ok with. someone who takes a tiger from the wild thats endangered and puts it into a small cage in their house I am not ok with. I guess it is kind of hard to try and explain

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

These animals were born for sole purpose of becoming food. That I am ok with.

animals are not born for the sole purpose of becoming our food. some humans have decided to use the lives of these animals as a food source, but that does not mean their sole existence is to become food.

are humans born for the sole purpose of working the 9-5 job their whole life?

[fundmark19]

I am pretty sure the animals born at these "farms" sole purpose is to become food. They don't look at a new litter of babie animals and go "you can be free..you are going to be a pet...you are going to slaughter house..you are going to be a movie star" Do you hate fish hatcheries as well? Or turtle farms because there are 1000's of turtles in a small area even though they are there to help the species recover

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

I am pretty sure the animals born at these "farms" sole purpose is to become food. They don't look at a new litter of babie animals and go "you can be free..you are going to be a pet...you are going to slaughter house..you are going to be a movie star" Do you hate fish hatcheries as well? Or turtle farms because there are 1000's of turtles in a small area even though they are there to help the species recover

a wild pig, in it's natural habitat, is the purpose of a pig. not what we have manipulated them into.

turtle farms are not how you help a species recover. well, it's what society accepts as the right way, but it's not going to solve much. the real way to help a turtle population recover would be to stop polluting or destroying it's native habitat.

splitting hairs is not going to get us very far in this type of argument. as a human, we must all be responsible for the stewardship of the animals and the earth that we care for, not abusing the power we have gained them.

[fundmark19]

But we are not eating wild pig! That is the difference. We are eating human made geneticly altered pigs who would not survive in the wild. Would you rather these pigs be on their own and die before humans have a chance to eat them while being demented in the wild or have millions of humans save the pigs all the stress of not being able to run properly and cook a delicious bacon and egg breakfest.


**Plus have you seen what wild pigs did/doing to australia? Do you really want us to release these beasts into the environment and kill everything? If pigs don't have remorse for the actions they cause why should we have any towards eating them***

[Jake]

Originally Posted by GGG

Actually we would have a larger world carry capacity if we reduced meat comsumption. Land currently being used for Corn and other cattle feed could be used to produce food for humans. THere is definately marginal land that can be most efficiently used for grazing but the conversion rate of plant calories to animal calories is something between 5 and 15 to 1.

Land is not yet a limited resource in Canada.

Your first sentence of "Actually we would have a larger world carry capacity if we reduced meat consumption" is not correct. You cannot deny that efficient meat production has increased the carrying capacity of the world, even if it "could" be replaced by something you see as more efficient (but that is debatable also). That is just the way it is.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

But we are not eating wild pig! That is the difference. We are eating human made geneticly altered pigs who would not survive in the wild. Would you rather these pigs be on their own and die before humans have a chance to eat them while being demented in the wild or have millions of humans save the pigs all the stress of not being able to run properly and cook a delicious bacon and egg breakfest.


**Plus have you seen what wild pigs did/doing to australia? Do you really want us to release these beasts into the environment and kill everything? If pigs don't have remorse for the actions they cause why should we have any towards eating them***

if you can't see why this type of food production is wrong, then that is your choice. keep buying your cheap, hormoned, antiboiticized meat, and enjoy all the health benefits that come from it, your kids will thank you for inheriting the unnecessary side effects.

[Huntingwhale]

Tonight, I am going to eat my delicious pork loin and I am going to enjoy it like never before!

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Jake

Land is not yet a limited resource in Canada.

Your first sentence of "Actually we would have a larger world carry capacity if we reduced meat consumption" is not correct. You cannot deny that efficient meat production has increased the carrying capacity of the world, even if it "could" be replaced by something you see as more efficient (but that is debatable also). That is just the way it is.

we would have a larger world carry capacity if we simply stopped growing so much corn and soy, and rehabiltated that land for real food production.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Tonight, I am going to eat my delicious pork loin and I am going to enjoy it like never before!

good for you, pork is very tasty.

[fundmark19]

Just like we inherited all the heath benefits from parents smoking drinking or being around places that had smoking while we were all being born? I like how you did not reference why wild pigs are not good for us.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

If pigs don't have remorse for the actions they cause why should we have any towards eating them***

Male bottlenose dolphins rape female dolphins. Therefore rape is good.

Come on... what kind of reasoning is that. Humans have the capacity to reason and thus the responsibility to do so. We can understand pain and suffering. Actually, I think the ability to HAVE compassion is what separates us from the animals. Though, compassion has been seen to be shown in several animals such as elephants, and completely lacking in some humans, so out goes that theory.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

I am pretty sure the animals born at these "farms" sole purpose is to become food.

And some kids in Asia are born to be sold into slavery, thus making it right that they suffer. I don't understand the argument put forth that because they were bred for food, that it is okay for them live out their entire lives in torturous conditions.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

Just like we inherited all the heath benefits from parents smoking drinking or being around places that had smoking while we were all being born? I like how you did not reference why wild pigs are not good for us.

yes. for over 10,000 years our bodies have grown accustomed to a particular diet. over the past few decades, with the increased exposure to industrial food, our bodies just can't cope with a rapid change in the type of food we eat. hormones and antibiotics from meat production, can't be broken down quickly or at all by our bodies.

here is an exert from an article at sustainabletable.org

"What's in the Beef?

According to the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health, the use of six natural and artificial growth hormones in beef production poses a potential risk to human health.iii These six hormones include three which are naturally occurring—Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone—and three which are synthetic—Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol.



The Committee also questioned whether hormone residues in the meat of "growth enhanced" animals and can disrupt human hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interfering with the reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer.iv
Children, pregnant women and the unborn are thought to be most susceptible to these negative health effects. Hormone residues in beef have been implicated in the early onset of puberty in girls, which could put them at greater risk of developing breast and other forms of cancer. The European Union’s Committee reported that as of 1999, no comprehensive studies had been conducted to determine whether hormone residues in meat can be cancer-causing.v


Scientists are also concerned about the environmental impacts of hormone residues in cow manure. Growth promoting hormones not only remain in the meat we consume, but they also pass through the cattle and are excreted in their manure. When manure from factory farms enters the surrounding environment, these hormones can contaminate surface and groundwater. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to hormone residues. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the gender and reproductive capacity of fish, throwing off the natural cycle.vi


Despite international scientific concern, the United States and Canadavii continue to allow growth promoting hormones in cattle.viii The European Union, however, does not allow the use of hormones in cattle production, has prohibited the import of hormone-treated beef since 1988, and has banned all beef imports from the US. The ban has been challenged by the US at the World Trade Organization and debate still rages between the US and the EU over its validity.ix"