trailer park resident Karen Winter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> Animals on concrete.
>
>> It has benefits.
>
> Only to the producer.

Also to the livestock. Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and
disinfect and provide a more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc.

>> 1. Easier to clean and disinfect.
>
> Which would not be necessary if the animals were not overcrowded.

They're not overcrowded. It would still be necessary for sanitation and
hygiene.

>> 2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
>> environmentally-friendly.
>
> Which would not be an issue if the vast numbers of animals
> kept in an area did not create waste far beyond the amount
> which can be disposed of in ecologically appropriate ways.

It's "ecologically appropriate" to wash down a floor whether one or
one-thousand birds have been raised on it.

> Traditional farms

The images I linked to ARE traditional farms. You have romantic, idyllic
notions that may prevail in communities with lots of New Age-y airheads
(SF bay area, Santa Fe) but are far from reality.

> used animal waste as fertilizer for their
> crops.

That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm.

> It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
> farms create massive environmental pollution.

Not universally, and not to the scale of environmental degradation which
has already occurred in monoculture cropping (especially considering
erosion).

>>> Believe me,
>
>> No. **** no.
>
>>> they only take their own self-serving pictures in the best possible
>>> light.
>
>> One of those pics was taken on vacation (Israeli farm:
>> http://tinyurl.com/arxlb). A couple other were from ag departments,
>> iirc, and one from a feed company. Those pics show the norm. Why don't
>> you take a trip to a turkey farm, Bob, and see for yourself?
>
> Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information

You mean DISinformation.

> on modern
> turkey "farms" and the health problems created by producers.

Farm Sanctuary aren't farmers or poultry experts, they're animal rights
activists. Their websites are filled with distortions and exaggerations,
and they make no attempt to provide objective, balanced information.

<...>
> They cannot even breed by themselves,
> because their breasts are too big.

Turkeys have been bred to produce meat (especially the much preferred
white meat) quickly. Turkeys are one of the poultry species with a
penis; they're not bred so that their genitals are proportional to their
breast size, but well-endowed toms conceivably (no pun intended) would
have a greater chance of passing on genes for such a trait if they
reproduced. It's irrelevant because turkeys go to slaughter long before
they reach sexual maturity. Birds go to slaughter between 14-20 weeks;
they become sexually mature in a year.

http://www.eatturkey.com/consumer/raising/raise.html
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/pfs16C.htm

> Any animal which must be
> routinely inseminated artificially is not a "real" animal,

Bullshit.

> and would die out in one generation if they were not kept
> going by human intervention.

Unproven assertion. Domestic turkeys are artificially inseminated
because they're slaughtered before they reach sexual maturity.

>> Wild turkeys are somewhat
>> different, but consumers want more breast meat than wild turkeys have.
>
> That does not justify what producers have done to them.

Yes, it does.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> those two farmers slaughtered all their
>> sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?
>
> "Look what you made me do." No one over two years old should
> find that a convincing argument.

Leftists are like to make meaningless gestures, but seldom consider any
unintended consequences of their specious positions. The amendment in
question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The amendment's
consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results, but rather the
opposite. That's the case when vegans recommend people abstain meat and
instead consume grains, beans, tofu, and various protein isolates made
from soy and grains even though the consequences of such changes cause
more animals to die. Thus, I'm not suprised that you, Karen, would care
more about the meaningless gesture made in passing that particular
amendment than you care about its actual results. You're *only*
concerned with intent, not results.