C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Manure,Odor, & $$$$
I go along with the saying “Smells like money to me.”
I go along with the saying “Smells like money to me.”
- Status
M
Marfran
Guest
Marfran;5059346:
Challenging is good! Makes people think–do research!I’m not aware that these posts are about challenging one another.
Masai has two optional spellings from what I can see.One “a” or two.Your pick.
It’s off-topic, but adult men men converting to Judaism undergo circumcision as well.Different ceremony & settings for the procedure, but same idea.There’s nothing inhumane re. circumcision.I think it’s a good idea & something Christ underwent Himself.But that’s a whole 'nother kettle of beans.
The subject was the nutritional value of milk.Not whether it made the consumer more sensitive or humane.The Vikings were a pretty tough bunch, too.
The only sites I can see that promote the idea that milk consumption results in calcium being “leached” from human bones are vegan/health food sites.
Stay away from Wikipedia.Not very reliable.
You brought up the Maasi tribe–I looked them up–quickly–I admit. I can do further research. You chose them as an example of a people who drink milk and are heathly. My question is–what store do they purchase their milk from and what brand do they drink?
Real question–I’m not trying to be funny (though sometimes I do try to make attempts at being funny). We are discussing the ethics of mass food production–and how does this apply this tribe?
You brought this tribe to the table. I found info that they practiced this cruel circumcision. I found this to be an interesting corollary to the discussion–the *cruel *part, not the fact that the procedure is a circumcision. I am surprised that this does not disturb you–the details of their cruelty to humans. So you have the same feelings about humans, as animals? Their pain, discomfort, stress, irrelevant? Closely related kettle of beans.
Osteoporosis is not a disease of inadequate calcium. It results when the break down of bone exceeds the build up. Our bones are constantly breaking down and building up. We replace our entire skeletons about every 15 years. What you do today affects your bones down the road quite aways.
Please look up how bone functions. How calcium must be released from the bones to digest components. How animal fats, phosphates, salt, high molecular calcium in our foods affects the process of the breaking down of bone.
Countries that consume the most dairy have the highest occurence of osteoporosis. There is numerous data and stats (Harvard, etc.) unrelated to vegan web sites.
I have personally had some extensive bone mapping tests. When I gave up dairy my bones, ironically improved drastically. I was able to avoid taking medication for my bones by simply switching my diet and cutting out the dairy.
I am now off to do research on the Vikings!!! If I don’t come back someone please go out and look for me!
I love you Cracker Mom! There I said it!!! Challenging each other brings a lot of new components to the table! Maybe we can all work this thing out! after all!!!
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Cracker Mom;5060876:
part, not the fact that the procedure is a circumcision. I am surprised that this does not disturb you–the details of their cruelty to humans. So you have the same feelings about humans, as animals? Their pain, discomfort, stress, irrelevant? Closely related kettle of beans.
Osteoporosis is not a disease of inadequate calcium. It results when the break down of bone exceeds the build up. Our bones are constantly breaking down and building up. We replace our entire skeletons about every 15 years. What you do today affects your bones down the road quite aways.
Please look up how bone functions. How calcium must be released from the bones to digest components. How animal fats, phosphates, salt, high molecular calcium in our foods affects the process of the breaking down of bone.
Countries that consume the most dairy have the highest occurence of osteoporosis. There is numerous data and stats (Harvard, etc.) unrelated to vegan web sites.
I have personally had some extensive bone mapping tests. When I gave up dairy my bones, ironically improved drastically. I was able to avoid taking medication for my bones by simply switching my diet and cutting out the dairy.
I am now off to do research on the Vikings!!! If I don’t come back someone please go out and look for me!
I love you Cracker Mom! There I said it!!! Challenging each other brings a lot of new components to the table! Maybe we can all work this thing out! after all!!!
Harvard is one of the sites I looked at.Nothing about milk consumption “leaching” calcium from our bones.
The thread is re. the “Ethics” of food production.I’m not aware it is limited to “mass food production.”
I don’t see anything cruel about the Masai in regards to their circumcision/initiation ceremonies.Many cultures do similar things to prepare young men for the harshness of the real world, to be warriors/members of the tribe.We still have boot camps for the military.Military colleges/high schools have hazing for freshman. As a woman I don’t necessarily get it, but men seem to accept this as a passage into manhood.
But this is truly off-topic.
I’ve really yet to see anything in these posts that constitutes cruelty or “un-ethical” practices in food production.Now if you want to talk about salmonella-tainted peanut butter…
I’m much more concerned about health risks to human beings from poorly run facilities.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Manure,Odor, & $$$$
I go along with the saying “Smells like money to me.”
I agree 100%. In fact, the smell of cow manure does not offend me at all. I actually kind of like the smell of the corrals. But I will admit that the fermented grain smell in feed lots is exceedingly unattractive to me. Perhaps if I operated a feed lot, I would find it much more agreeable. But I don’t.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
If large scale food production is so bad, what is the true solution? How will the organic/free range people be able to feed the country/world w/ their methods? The very nature of organic/free range food production limits production to a level that would not sustain the current population.
As bbarrick has continuously pointed out, large scale food producers (specifically of animals) do not benefit from mal-treating their animals. Mal-treated animals do not flourish, grow, produce, etc in a cost-effective manner. Farming (large or small scale) is a way to provide for one’s family, so cost-effectiveness is utterly important (pardon the pun). Regulations have been put into place at slaughterhouses to reduce and hopefully eliminate in-humane practices involved w/ slaughtering. That is what needs to be further pursued, not demonizing farmers (large or small scale) for their livelihoods.
Humans are different than animals in numerous ways. We’ve got higher intellect and rationalization that allows us to bend other animals to our will. When is the last time you saw a cow command a mouse (or other ‘lesser’ animal) to produce grains of corn for it? I agree that humane practices should be used, but what many anti-farming people refuse to see is that inhumane farm treatment is the exception not the rule.
Humans developed a taste for milk probably back in the nomadic days when water was not readily available, but a nursing animal was convenient. Many Arab tribes highly prize mare’s milk b/c of the scarcity of water and the nutritional benefits of mare’s milk over water. Thes tribesmen will give their horses the last drops of water available, and be able to consume less of their milk than they would have needed water (volume to volume). Milk not only hydrates, but it also provides calories, minerals, vitamins, and tastes good. Plus, milk (straight from the animal as in history) does not have the danger of be contaminated w/ various harmful bacteria & such as ground water can be. Even in the days before evil humans ruined everything, contamination of drinking water occurred due to natural causes. Let’s see, which option should our ancestors have chosen, death by drinking contaminated water or life by ‘pirating’ milk from another species? Doesn’t seem like too difficult of a choice to me.
As Ridgerunner stated, most ‘factory farm’ animals are treated so well, they outproduce their free range/organic counterparts. I personally know of examples of horses that are treated so well in their ‘tiny, cramped, stalls’ that they refuse to leave. The doors can be left open, but they’ll remain inside. Not because they’re forced to or b/c they’re scared of the outside, but b/c they are highly comfortable in their surroundings w/ every luxury. Many farms offer animals better housing, food, and water availability than they could have if they were free-range. Farming enclosures prevent predation from tearing apart valued members of the herd. Farming enclosures provide shelter during all weather. Farming enclosures provide ample food on a regular basis. Farming enclosures offer close proximity to others of the same species. Farming enclosures protect the young from overzealous mothers & herdmates. Farming enclosures allow close observation for various illnesses & treatment. Genetic manipulation (both molecular & breeding) has provided farmers with healthier more productive animals. Healthier animals are better for human consumption as well as happier themselves. All in all, I’d say many animals are better off on a farm for their life (no matter how short) than they would be in the wild.
Before you start casting stones at the factory farming industry, perhaps it would be beneficial to have an actual solution as well as an unbiased view on so-called factory farms. Without either, you are casting your pearls b/4 swine - in other words - wasting your breath & your intellect.
As bbarrick has continuously pointed out, large scale food producers (specifically of animals) do not benefit from mal-treating their animals. Mal-treated animals do not flourish, grow, produce, etc in a cost-effective manner. Farming (large or small scale) is a way to provide for one’s family, so cost-effectiveness is utterly important (pardon the pun). Regulations have been put into place at slaughterhouses to reduce and hopefully eliminate in-humane practices involved w/ slaughtering. That is what needs to be further pursued, not demonizing farmers (large or small scale) for their livelihoods.
Humans are different than animals in numerous ways. We’ve got higher intellect and rationalization that allows us to bend other animals to our will. When is the last time you saw a cow command a mouse (or other ‘lesser’ animal) to produce grains of corn for it? I agree that humane practices should be used, but what many anti-farming people refuse to see is that inhumane farm treatment is the exception not the rule.
Humans developed a taste for milk probably back in the nomadic days when water was not readily available, but a nursing animal was convenient. Many Arab tribes highly prize mare’s milk b/c of the scarcity of water and the nutritional benefits of mare’s milk over water. Thes tribesmen will give their horses the last drops of water available, and be able to consume less of their milk than they would have needed water (volume to volume). Milk not only hydrates, but it also provides calories, minerals, vitamins, and tastes good. Plus, milk (straight from the animal as in history) does not have the danger of be contaminated w/ various harmful bacteria & such as ground water can be. Even in the days before evil humans ruined everything, contamination of drinking water occurred due to natural causes. Let’s see, which option should our ancestors have chosen, death by drinking contaminated water or life by ‘pirating’ milk from another species? Doesn’t seem like too difficult of a choice to me.
As Ridgerunner stated, most ‘factory farm’ animals are treated so well, they outproduce their free range/organic counterparts. I personally know of examples of horses that are treated so well in their ‘tiny, cramped, stalls’ that they refuse to leave. The doors can be left open, but they’ll remain inside. Not because they’re forced to or b/c they’re scared of the outside, but b/c they are highly comfortable in their surroundings w/ every luxury. Many farms offer animals better housing, food, and water availability than they could have if they were free-range. Farming enclosures prevent predation from tearing apart valued members of the herd. Farming enclosures provide shelter during all weather. Farming enclosures provide ample food on a regular basis. Farming enclosures offer close proximity to others of the same species. Farming enclosures protect the young from overzealous mothers & herdmates. Farming enclosures allow close observation for various illnesses & treatment. Genetic manipulation (both molecular & breeding) has provided farmers with healthier more productive animals. Healthier animals are better for human consumption as well as happier themselves. All in all, I’d say many animals are better off on a farm for their life (no matter how short) than they would be in the wild.
Before you start casting stones at the factory farming industry, perhaps it would be beneficial to have an actual solution as well as an unbiased view on so-called factory farms. Without either, you are casting your pearls b/4 swine - in other words - wasting your breath & your intellect.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Yeah, I wonder: what are the ethics of imposing a simplistic, fairy-tale understanding of farming upon the livestock industry when there are hungry consumers trying to feed their families in a failing economy?
M
Marfran
Guest
I just want to point out that these animals would not exist in the wild, in the numbers of today. We purposefully breed these large amounts of animals, and by mechanical means.
M
Marfran
Guest
And we now still can not drink the water in this modern day and age?
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
By which mechanical means?
Artificial insemination? And…?The idea is to breed large “amounts” so we have more to eat.And none of our domestic livestock have much resemblance to the wild breeds they originated from.They haven’t ever existed in the wild in their present forms, anyway.Even feral hogs revert back to a tougher, more primitive critter after a few generations.
M
Marfran
Guest
I did not interpret that SAIR was casting any stones in the original first post. He perceives a problem, as do many others. There have been news exposes on mainstream television on this topic–he is not the first to want to explore it.
California recently passed some laws addressing cage size, animals per cage, etc. Apparently the state of California saw a problem and took some steps.
I think part of the formula for an *actual solution *is, first of all–awareness of a problem. If a problem is realized–then it can be addressed.
What do you preceive to be the problem? Misinformation? Flawed information? A trend toward other diets that do not utilize animal products?
If all the players are above board–if these situations are mythical and do not exist–then why do you, and the other farmers here, bother in this discussion?
I would think that the contributors here, representing the farming community, would be very gracious and very glad to open their doors, so to speak.
If there is just one farm that is the problem–wouldn’t the respectable, conscientious farmers be upset that that farm, in the name of mass production, is casting a stain, or a situation that creates public outcry that negatively reflects on the entire group?
I think that farmers are biased to their products, as are all others biased to what helps them to earn a living. If someone has a perception of your product that you feel is false–do you just say–no your’re wrong–go away–don’t bring it up? If public sentiment is affecting this indusrty in ways that are not helpful to the survival of the industry–then how should the participants in this industry react? What can you do to shine the spotlight where it needs to go?
If someone perceives a problem, do you shove them aside, and say no it isn’t true. Or do you invite them in and show them?
I commend all those here who are doing just that.
I am off to visit some Vikings…
M
Marfran
Guest
Cracker Mom: I love you but you took this entirely out of context. BIOLOGYBRAIN said that the animals would have a better life on the farm than if they were turned out into the wild. I pointed out that these large amounts of animals are breed purposefully, in large numbers and that they are not found in the wild this way.By which mechanical means?
The idea is to breed large “amounts” so we have more to eat.And none of our domestic livestock have much resemblance to the wild breeds they originated from.They haven’t ever existed in the wild in their present forms, anyway.Even feral hogs revert back to a tougher, more primitive critter after a few generations.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Just out of curiosity:Is English your first language?
M
Marfran
Guest
And this is why, I hope, that we are all putting our heads together here. Putting our heads together–not butting them together.
So where this exists, would the good farmers not want to see that it is addressed? If you take care of the bad apple…
M
Marfran
Guest
I don’t get the joke.
This is the original quote that I responded to from BIOLOGYBRAIN:
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
It wasn’t meant to be a joke or to be disrespectful.There’s a kind of language disconnect in your responses to posts that made me wonder if it was a translation issue.
M
Marfran
Guest
That’s probably because I am working hard to respond kindly, without sniping, (chosing the words carefully), as some people tend to fall into–which can be easy when you are talking to a computer. We all have to realize that there are real human beings behind all these keystrokes. I also do not want to go off like a textbook. When you write in textbook mode, people often yawn. (No offense to anyone who has this style. Just a heads-up.)It wasn’t meant to be a joke or to be disrespectful.There’s a kind of language disconnect in your responses to posts that made me wonder if it was a translation issue.
I also do have an issue with *quoting *here. Sometimes I only want to quote this sentence or this paragraph, and not the whole entire entry.
BIOLOGYBRAIN (and I really do love that name), said that farm animals live better lives on the farm than they would in the wild. My response was that they would *not *be found in the wild in these large numbers, or found in the wild at all, and I did not understand the point of her statement. (Even though I love her name!)
Cracker Mom: You are so preventing me from visiting the Vikings today. I am English.
M
Marfran
Guest
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
M
Marfran
Guest
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
- Status