In article >,
"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote:

> On 5/30/2007 12:24 PM, dh@. wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
> >
> > And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> > the animals themselves should also always be given
> > much consideration.
>
> That doesn't mean anything. All you mean is that you want the animals
> to exist.

Who left the asylum open?
The endocrine system changes the texture of the flesh from terrified and
brutalized animals, and CAFOs are bad for man and beast. E. coli
serotype O157:H7 is attributed to CAFOs. as well as MRSAs
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15kristof.html>
Cattle aren't designed to eat grains, they are supposed to eat grass.
More than 6 months in a CAFO and cattle would die from ulcers. So what
we end up with is the flesh of a terrified, sick animal, who has been
used to breed antibiotic resistant bacteria, on our plate. I would think
anyone could see that this is not a good idea.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene