View Single Post
  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

> trailer park resident Karen Winter wrote:


Good catch, Usual; I didn't check the headers earlier.


>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>
>>>> 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.