Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.satanism,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Eating animal products (was: Satan as a Composite Entity/Being?)

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>Showing what goes on in
>the meat industry would never make it on television. How different is
>it really? It's too close to home. It would make us 'the bad guys',
>but we are. We just don't want to know it.


· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.

Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.satanism, misc.rural, alt.food.vegan, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default Eating animal products (was: Satan as a CompositeEntity/Being?)

On Jan 28, 10:33*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >Showing what goes on in
> >the meat industry would never make it on television. *How different is
> >it really? *It's too close to home. *It would make us 'the bad guys',
> >but we are. *We just don't want to know it.

>
> * · Because there are so many different situations
> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
> cruelty or abuse at all.
>
> * * Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
> groups of animals in the same way.
> * * Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
> groups in the same way. ·




david "death" harrison
david devil harrison
david horrible harrison
david hell harrison

is the boss with the bad sauce
is the lice with the spice
is the disease if-you-please
is the slime of the time
is the unchanged tampon
is the unsplendid splinter

david "death" harrison
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.satanism, misc.rural, alt.food.vegan, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default Eating animal products (was: Satan as a CompositeEntity/Being?)

On Jan 29, 4:56 pm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
> wrote:
> [crap]


Shut the **** up, you impotent queer.

You don't know ****-all about boxing, either.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.satanism, misc.rural, alt.food.vegan, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Eating animal products (was: Satan as a CompositeEntity/Being?)

On Jan 28, 9:33 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >Showing what goes on in
> >the meat industry would never make it on television. How different is
> >it really? It's too close to home. It would make us 'the bad guys',
> >but we are. We just don't want to know it.

>
> · Because there are so many different situations
> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
> cruelty or abuse at all.
>
> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
> groups of animals in the same way.
> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
> groups in the same way. ·



Hey, I agree with you in some of your points, that there're
significant differences between different productions. However, how do
we determine who of them have a better live or a worst live. According
to who or what the animals have or not have a pleasant life. I
believe that there's no "perfect" production system where animals
don't have any stress at all. But I also believe that we tend to
"humanize" animals needs. For example, if we talk about space and we
compare two different reproductive herds of sows where one is hosed in
big pens, with other sows and plenty space to move; and the other herd
is housed in individual crates, lined up all through the barn, and
with huge move limitations, it would be easy to think that the second
group is having a horrible live experience. But it is right here when
we are humanizing their needs by thinking in that way, because if we
measure the levels of cortisol in the sows of both groups (knowing
that cortisol is the major substance released by the pigs in stress
situations) we can see no difference in the level of stress between
both groups. Even if their stressors are different, they actually live
in the same level of stress. So, what or who can tell us which group
has the better live?
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.satanism, misc.rural, alt.food.vegan, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Eating animal products (was: Satan as a CompositeEntity/Being?)

On Jan 28, 9:33 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >Showing what goes on in
> >the meat industry would never make it on television. How different is
> >it really? It's too close to home. It would make us 'the bad guys',
> >but we are. We just don't want to know it.

>
> · Because there are so many different situations
> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
> cruelty or abuse at all.
>
> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
> groups of animals in the same way.
> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
> groups in the same way. ·


Hey, I agree with you in some of your points, that there're
significant differences between different productions. However, how do
we determine who of them have a better live or a worst live. According
to who or what the animals have or not have a pleasant life. I
believe that there's no "perfect" production system where animals
don't have any stress at all. But I also believe that we tend to
"humanize" animals needs. For example, if we talk about space and we
compare two different reproductive herds of sows where one is hosed in
big pens, with other sows and plenty space to move; and the other herd
is housed in individual crates, lined up all through the barn, and
with huge move limitations, it would be easy to think that the second
group is having a horrible live experience. But it is right here when
we are humanizing their needs by thinking in that way, because if we
measure the levels of cortisol in the sows of both groups (knowing
that cortisol is the major substance released by the pigs in stress
situations) we can see no difference in the level of stress between
both groups. Even if their stressors are different, they actually live
in the same level of stress. So, what or who can tell us which group
has the better live?


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.satanism,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Eating animal products (was: Satan as a Composite Entity/Being?)

> wrote in message ...
On Jan 28, 9:33 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >Showing what goes on in
> >the meat industry would never make it on television. How different is
> >it really? It's too close to home. It would make us 'the bad guys',
> >but we are. We just don't want to know it.

>
> · Because there are so many different situations
> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
> cruelty or abuse at all.
>
> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
> groups of animals in the same way.
> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
> groups in the same way. ·
>
>Hey, I agree with you in some of your points, that there're
>significant differences between different productions. However, how do
>we determine who of them have a better live or a worst live. According
>to who or what the animals have or not have a pleasant life. I
>believe that there's no "perfect" production system where animals
>don't have any stress at all. But I also believe that we tend to
>"humanize" animals needs. For example, if we talk about space and we
>compare two different reproductive herds of sows where one is hosed in
>big pens, with other sows and plenty space to move; and the other herd
>is housed in individual crates, lined up all through the barn, and
>with huge move limitations, it would be easy to think that the second
>group is having a horrible live experience. But it is right here when
>we are humanizing their needs by thinking in that way, because if we
>measure the levels of cortisol in the sows of both groups (knowing
>that cortisol is the major substance released by the pigs in stress
>situations) we can see no difference in the level of stress between
>both groups. Even if their stressors are different, they actually live
>in the same level of stress. So, what or who can tell us which group
>has the better live?


'Abstract
American Journal of Veterinary Research
September 2005, Vol. 66, No. 9, Pages 1630-1638
doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.1630

Evaluation of well-being, productivity, and longevity of pregnant
sows housed in groups in pens with an electronic sow feeder or
separately in gestation stalls

Leena Anil , BVSc, PhD Sukumarannair S. Anil , MVSc, PhD
John Deen , DVM, PhD Samuel K. Baidoo , PhD Jonathan E.
Wheaton , PhD

Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108. (Anil, Anil, Deen); Southern
Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Waseca,
MN 56093. (Baidoo); College of Veterinary Medicine, and the
Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, University
of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108. (Wheaton)

Objective-To compare well-being, performance, and longevity
of gestating sows housed in stalls or in pens with an electronic
sow feeder (ESF).

Animals-382 pregnant sows of parities 1 through 6.

Procedure-Sows were housed in separate stalls (n = 176) or
group pens (206) with an ESF. Well-being of sows was assessed
at various time points in terms of injuries, salivary cortisol
concentration, and behavior in a novel arena or to a novel object.
Farrowing performance and longevity of sows were also assessed.

Results-Total injury scores (TIS) of sows in pens were
significantly higher at initial introduction and mixing. In stall-housed
sows, TIS was significantly higher during late gestation. The TIS
and cortisol concentration were significantly lower in stall-housed
sows, compared with values for sows in pens. As parity increased,
the likelihood of higher median TIS decreased significantly in
pen-housed sows and increased significantly in stall-housed sows.
The TIS of sows in pens was negatively correlated with body
weight and backfat thickness, whereas these correlations were
positive in stall-housed sows. Farrowing performance and results
for novel arena or objects did not differ. Proportion of sows
removed was significantly higher for pens than for stalls; lameness
was the major reason for removal for both systems.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Stalls impose space
restrictions for larger sows, resulting in injuries during late
gestation. Interventions are needed to minimize aggression during
initial introduction and mixing and at the ESF in pens to reduce
severe injuries or lameness of gestating sows.
(Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1630-1638)

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs...r.2005.66.1630

'Scientists and Experts on Gestation Crates and Sow Welfare

Abstract

In a letter to the editor published in the Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, Dr. Brenda K. Forsythe summed
up the question of the use of gestation crates and its impact on
the health and welfare of sows. She wrote:

"The premise is that housing intelligent, sentient beings for
months in a space too small to turn around in constitutes cruelty,
and I would have to agree. Most veterinarians decry the
warehousing of small animals in puppy mill operations, so tell
me how is the extreme confinement of other sentient animals
any more acceptable to the veterinary community?

There is an abundance of scientific literature demonstrating the
adverse effects of gestation crate confinement on porcine well-
being. Crated pigs develop a significant chronic stress response
manifested by increased cortisol concentrations, compared with
gilts housed in turnaround stalls. The well-being of stall-housed
sows is compromised, compared with group-housed sows, on
several indicators of welfare including behavioral stereotypes,
aggression, and body weight."(1)

Compiled below are statements by leading welfare scientists and
experts who confirm that confining pregnant sows in gestation
crates causes significant welfare problems.

Dr. Bernard E. Rollin

"Having visited, and extensively studied, examples of all
contemporary systems utilized in confinement agriculture - be it
poultry, veal, cattle, or swine - I can unhesitatingly affirm that
sow stalls, or gestation crates, are the most egregious example
of the application of industrial methods to animal production.
While all of these systems are violative of animals' physical and
psychological nature - what I call telos, following Aristotle -
when one vectors into one's reckoning porcine intelligence,
behavioral complexity under natural conditions, and severity of
truncation of natural behaviors in these stalls, including even
simple postural adjustment, gestation crates come to the forefront
as the worst of a bad lot. I have personally witnessed ordinary
people's response to their first experience of these crates, and
have seen eminent academics emerge from a sow barn
unabashedly in tears. I have also seen an open pen system for
sows literally side by side with a stall system, and watched the
extraordinary differences in the behavior of the sows. While
those animals in the stalls exhibited fear, skittishness, a
reluctance to approach humans, and what can only be called
a mad facial expression, those in the open pens were friendly,
inquisitive, and exploratory (even to the extent of one sow
starting to eat my necktie while I was still wearing it)."(2)

Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission

"When sows are put into a very small pen, they indicate by their
behavioural responses that they find the confinement aversive.
If given the opportunity, they leave the confined space and they
usually resist attempts to make them return to that place."(3)

"Stereotypies such as bar-biting, sham-chewing, drinker-pressing,
head-weaving, repeated patterns of nosing in a trough and tongue-
rolling have been reported by many authors as occurring in many
sows confined in stalls or tethers."(4)

"Stereotypies are a characteristic behaviour of sows confined in
a small space, typically in stalls or tethers, with little complexity
in their environment and little possibility for the sow to regulate
her interactions with all aspects of her environment."(5)

"Farmers often comment that their stall-housed or tethered sows
are lying for much of the day. Since the extent of the inactivity
and unresponsiveness indicates abnormal behaviour, the sows
may well be depressed in the clinical sense and poor welfare is
indicated. Some sows show this abnormal behaviour as an
alternative to stereotypies and there are brain correlates of both
of these types of abnormal behaviour."(6)

"Another consequence of lack of exercise in stall-housed and
tethered sows is that they use their cardiovascular system less.
This is significant in the situation where many pigs which die
during transport are diagnosed as having cardiovascular
problems."(7)

"Recommendation: Since overall welfare appears to be better
when sows are not confined throughout gestation, sows
should preferably be kept in groups."(8)

Sows in groups "have more exercise, more control over their
environment, more opportunity for normal social interactions
and better potential for the provision of opportunities to root
or manipulate materials....As a consequence, group housed
sows show less abnormality of bone and muscle development,
much less abnormal behaviour, less likelihood of extreme
physiological responses, less of the urinary tract infections
associated with inactivity, and better cardiovascular fitness."(9)

American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on the
Housing of Pregnant Sows
...................'
http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/r...on_crates.html


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.satanism,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Eating animal products (was: Satan as a Composite Entity/Being?)

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:06:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>On Jan 28, 9:33 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>> >Showing what goes on in
>> >the meat industry would never make it on television. How different is
>> >it really? It's too close to home. It would make us 'the bad guys',
>> >but we are. We just don't want to know it.

>>
>> · Because there are so many different situations
>> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>> cruelty or abuse at all.
>>
>> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
>> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
>> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
>> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
>> groups of animals in the same way.
>> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
>> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
>> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
>> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
>> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
>> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
>> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
>> groups in the same way. ·

>
>
>Hey, I agree with you in some of your points, that there're
>significant differences between different productions. However, how do
>we determine who of them have a better live or a worst live. According
>to who or what the animals have or not have a pleasant life. I
>believe that there's no "perfect" production system where animals
>don't have any stress at all. But I also believe that we tend to
>"humanize" animals needs. For example, if we talk about space and we
>compare two different reproductive herds of sows where one is hosed in
>big pens, with other sows and plenty space to move; and the other herd
>is housed in individual crates, lined up all through the barn, and
>with huge move limitations, it would be easy to think that the second
>group is having a horrible live experience. But it is right here when
>we are humanizing their needs by thinking in that way, because if we
>measure the levels of cortisol in the sows of both groups (knowing
>that cortisol is the major substance released by the pigs in stress
>situations) we can see no difference in the level of stress between
>both groups. Even if their stressors are different, they actually live
>in the same level of stress. So, what or who can tell us which group
>has the better live?


We could start by considering whether or not it's likely that
some method could be overly restrictive. If we decide that it
can, and that one of the things which could make it that way
would be the inability to turn around and the crates do prevent
that, then we would see that the crates are overly restrictive.
But then again if they are just kept in farrowing crates for a
breif period after giving birth, until the pigs are big enough
that it doesn't crush them and rip their guts out etc when their
mother to steps on them, then it seems the crate is a good
thing even if overly restrictive to the mother, because it saves
a lot of pigs from agony and death. The good of the many
outweighs the good of the one, or whatever.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.satanism,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default Eating animal products

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:06:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>> On Jan 28, 9:33 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>> Showing what goes on in
>>>> the meat industry would never make it on television. How different is
>>>> it really? It's too close to home. It would make us 'the bad guys',
>>>> but we are. We just don't want to know it.
>>> · Because there are so many different situations
>>> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>>> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>>> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>>> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>>> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>>> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>>> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>>> cruelty or abuse at all.
>>>
>>> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
>>> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
>>> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
>>> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
>>> groups of animals in the same way.
>>> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
>>> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
>>> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
>>> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
>>> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
>>> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
>>> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
>>> groups in the same way. ·

>>
>> Hey, I agree with you in some of your points, that there're
>> significant differences between different productions. However, how do
>> we determine who of them have a better live or a worst live. According
>> to who or what the animals have or not have a pleasant life. I
>> believe that there's no "perfect" production system where animals
>> don't have any stress at all. But I also believe that we tend to
>> "humanize" animals needs. For example, if we talk about space and we
>> compare two different reproductive herds of sows where one is hosed in
>> big pens, with other sows and plenty space to move; and the other herd
>> is housed in individual crates, lined up all through the barn, and
>> with huge move limitations, it would be easy to think that the second
>> group is having a horrible live experience. But it is right here when
>> we are humanizing their needs by thinking in that way, because if we
>> measure the levels of cortisol in the sows of both groups (knowing
>> that cortisol is the major substance released by the pigs in stress
>> situations) we can see no difference in the level of stress between
>> both groups. Even if their stressors are different, they actually live
>> in the same level of stress. So, what or who can tell us which group
>> has the better live?

>
> We could start by considering whether or not it's likely that
> some method could be overly restrictive.


****wit, you can't talk on this topic at all. You're
uneducated and STUPID. You're not a thinker; never
were. You're a bullshitting cracker who breeds and
fights dogs and cocks. You have no credibility on
anything.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eating animal products (was: Satan as a Composite Entity/Being?) dh@. Vegan 51 27-02-2008 05:20 AM
Eating animal products (was: Satan as a Composite Entity/Being?) dh@. Vegan 2 28-01-2008 07:58 PM
Eating animal products (was: Satan as a Composite Entity/Being?) dh@. Vegan 1 28-01-2008 05:34 PM
Mars (UK) Will Start Using Animal Products in Some Candy rst General Cooking 0 17-05-2007 03:23 AM
Proofs of LORD Almighty GOD: Pastorio died on April Fool's day, diabetic FR is now satan's sockpuppet, and satan tries to keep type-2 diabetics from being cured. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD General Cooking 37 12-05-2007 02:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"