Karen Winter wrote:
>>>> Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and disinfect and provide a
>>>> more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc.
>
>>> They also create leg and foot problems, up to and including
>>> crippling, if animals are kept on them continually.
>
>> Turkeys -- sticking to the issue at hand
>
> You didn't specify only turkeys.

What's in those pics? What have we been discussing -- inability to screw
because they're bred for breast meat?

>> -- live 14-20 weeks,
>
> No

Yes. They live 14-20 weeks.

>> which, generally speaking, isn't long enough for them to become crippled.
>
> Some of them manage to do so, however.

Typically only the ones stolen by "liberation" nitwits.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> No, they have plenty of room.
>
> Ipse dixit. Not from the pictures.

The pictures all showed plenty of room for movement, and, contrary to
the AR propaganda, they all were supporting their own weight. Go back
and look at them again, Karen. Pay close attention to the one from
Israel and note the bare floor in the bottom of the pic.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> and small-scale farmers
>
>> Most farms aren't small-scale.
>
> That is a major part of the problem.

I don't consider it a problem, at least in general terms (I've addressed
specific instances already, such as when farming operations are located
adjacent to sensitive habitat, etc.).

> There simply are
> too many animals for the number of people to care for
> properly, let alone humanely.

Ipse dixit. The birds in the pics I linked appeared clean and healthy.

>> You can bitch and moan about the "good old days" all you want, but
>> that won't change the fact that consumers benefit immensely when
>> agriculture, like any other successful industry, benefits from
>> economies of scale.
>
> That doesn't help the animals, however. When they are regarded
> as no more than economic units, they suffer badly.

Non sequitur and ipse dixit. Producers comprehend the links between
healthy animals and profits.

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/ext...afety/cow.html
http://www.grandin.com/meat/hand.stu...e.quality.html
http://www.lmacmarkets.ca/handling.htm

Etc.

> The cost
> to the animals far outweighs the limited benefit to consumers of
> slightly lower prices for a luxury product.

You understand nothing about economics or livestock production. See the
links above. I found over 27,000 links relating to profitability of
healthier livestock.

http://grandin.com/welfare/economic.html

<...>
>> Ipse dixit. You're painting with a very broad brush. Most intensive
>> farming operations don't create "massive environmental pollution" and,
>> increasingly, operators are adopting abatement measures to
>> significantly reduce the amount of effluents discharged into regional
>> waterways.
>
> How nice. From what I've read,

You mean leftwing propaganda from people who cling to Jeffersonian
agrarian ideals and Utopian delusions.
http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/c...ArticleID=1749

> I don't believe your claim.

http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/.../breakout.html
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/default.htm

Etc.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> Even the small organic farmers from whom you make your token purchases
>> are "agribusiness"
>
> Not as the term is generally used.

You mean by leftwing extremists like you.

> They are farmers.

They are agri(cultural)business(es). Agribusiness.

<...>
> Yes, they have an agenda,

Established.

>> No, I don't support that viewpoint. Your argument is a non sequitur.
>> Turkeys don't breed naturally because they go to slaughter long before
>> they're sexually mature. They're not bred to have willies in
>> proportion to the rest of their anatomy.
>
> Exactly. Both inhumane and unethical.

Turkey genitalia size isn't evidence of inhumane or unethical treatment
of turkeys.

>>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
>>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
>>> such as reproduction.
>
>> Why not?
>
> If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you.

You can't answer the question. You have to accept the fact that they're
bred for meat, not for shagging.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>> The amendment in question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The
>>>> amendment's consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results,
>
>>> Presumably, it has prevented other (legal) factory-farm pig
>>> production starting up.
>
>> Your presumption is baseless. There's no evidence farmers wanted to
>> move operations into Florida in the first place.
>
> Well, now they can't if they did want to, which is a plus for the
> potential victims.

There are no "potential victims," so the amendment was an empty,
meaningless gesture.

> Let's hope the example of Florida shows other
> states what they can do when their people care about abused animals.

The amendment did nothing to address animal cruelty in Florida. It was
an empty, meaningless gesture by empty, meaningless people.