opinions

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
At this point in human development, with the rate that population is growing on the planet, it's just not a viable option for feeding people economically.

Have you actually spent any time in livestock ag?

My parents farm rotates crops and every 4 years they plant a cover crop that restores nitrogen to the soils, and bulks it up with other nutrients. To control the cover crop, they use livestock to graze it. They also eat that livestock. Their methods are better on the agriculture land, it helps repair the damage that intensive crop production does create (any way of generating food does damage.) From the animals they raise, they use everything.

In Kentucky, I know a farmer that pasture raises livestock on rocky sites....ones where crops can't be grown. In Raleigh, theres an entire community of folks that raise chickens in their backyards for egg production. Somehow I think thier chickens are generally well cared for and providing for food that wouldn't be used otherwise.

And if we in the developed world all did our part to take responsibility for raising our own food, there would be less stress on the system, but I'm pretty sure that I am one of the very few people in my school that raises a significant portion of my own vegetables.

If you are concerned about things like feeding the world, what are you personally doing to ensure that you are putting as little extra burden on the food providing communities? Are you going beyond not eating meat and criticizing those that do? Or do you stop at the point that it becomes inconvenient? Please don't think that crop agriculture is easy on the land or is viable everywhere, it certainly isn't. And saddly, as we continue to be destructive to our environs and place high demands on limited areas, we will collapse the most fertile areas of crop generation...and unlike livestock, it is harder to grow crops in areas that aren't already suitable for those crops (ie some crops won't grow in rocky or alkaline or clay soils, but I can find an animal that can graze all of those areas.)
 
For the people who are vegetarian because they don't like "factory farming" but still consume dairy/eggs... how do you justify the dairy/eggs? If you don't mind the living conditions for these animals and simply disagree with slaughter, what do you think about the byproduct animals that come out of those industries?

It was the above questions that made me personally decide that I needed to either go vegan or go back to eating meat if I didn't want to be a hypocrite.
 
I think that people underestimate animals. ... I believe that animals have more emotions then people believe. It is impossible to know what a dog is thinking because we cannot communicate with them so if you are not completely sure then why assume they don't have feelings?

Here is how I see it:

-Human are animals. Very highly evolved animals.
-Emotions are electrical impulses in our brain.
- The basic functioning of all animal brains is the same. (yeah I know someone will complain that they are different, but they are the same on very very basic levels)

How can so many people believe that animals are SOOOOO different than us and it is "wrong" to put human emotions into animals. I feel like sadness, happiness, jealousy, anger, confusion and other emotions are all just wired into our brain as basic primitive sequences of neuron firings. Why can they not be wired the same in a dogs brain or in a hawks? I believe the big difference is how we interpret and act on those emotions. Animals may not be able to understand 100% of what they are feeling and may not know what to do about it, but they still feel it.

I personally believe a lot of this concern about making animals so different mentally is that a lot of people don't like to admit that we are animals ourselves. People that believe that god made humans in his image and that we are so special may not like knowing how similar their dog is to themselves. We are all just animals and why can't all animals feel the same?


Yes... this topic could be dragged into creationism vs. evolution...

You're welcome. 😀
 
It depends on what you sub it with. There are plenty of non-meat things out there that are farrrr worse for your health than meats. It really is a matter of what kind of meat/non-meat you eat, and how that meat/non-meat is prepared. You can be a very healthy meat eater you know...

I went veg for 6 years or so and my health went to ****. It's because I replaced my meat with cheese and carbs (most of which were deep fried). Healthy vegetarian foods was really disgusting to me, whereas healthy meat foods were perfectly fine. So I went from a healthy meat diet to very bad meat-free diet.

Very, very true.

I tried vegan for about 9 months when I was younger. I didn't have any money at the time and couldn't afford to eat properly at all. I lost about 20 lbs and a whole bunch of muscle.

But, with a bit of planning and a bit of knowledge, it's pretty easy to do vegetarian on a budget and stay healthy.

Also, totally right about the chicken hormones. I was wrong there. What the hell do they do to them to make them grotesque? Is it just breeding and food?
 
For the people who are vegetarian because they don't like "factory farming" but still consume dairy/eggs... how do you justify the dairy/eggs? If you don't mind the living conditions for these animals and simply disagree with slaughter, what do you think about the byproduct animals that come out of those industries?

It was the above questions that made me personally decide that I needed to either go vegan or go back to eating meat if I didn't want to be a hypocrite.

There are a lot of family dairy farms around me and I like to buy the brand that uses their milk. Whenever possible I get eggs from local farmers with a few free-range chickens.

I'm not out to change the world and I can live with myself being a hypocrite in this case. 😀 I am not a typical vegetarian.




And for the record, this thread is MURDERING my homework right now.
 
Here is how I see it:

-Human are animals. Very highly evolved animals.
-Emotions are electrical impulses in our brain.
- The basic functioning of all animal brains is the same. (yeah I know someone will complain that they are different, but they are the same on very very basic levels)

How can so many people believe that animals are SOOOOO different than us and it is "wrong" to put human emotions into animals. I feel like sadness, happiness, jealousy, anger, confusion and other emotions are all just wired into our brain as basic primitive sequences of neuron firings. Why can they not be wired the same in a dogs brain or in a hawks? I believe the big difference is how we interpret and act on those emotions. Animals may not be able to understand 100% of what they are feeling and may not know what to do about it, but they still feel it.

I personally believe a lot of this concern about making animals so different mentally is that a lot of people don't like to admit that we are animals ourselves. People that believe that god made humans in his image and that we are so special may not like knowing how similar their dog is to themselves. We are all just animals and why can't all animals feel the same?


Yes... this topic could be dragged into creationism vs. evolution...

You're welcome. 😀

Yes I think you said it better then I could. I feel like animals have a way of communicating with each other that humans can never fully understand. There is no reason to assume that a abused dog can't feel saddness, or a dog in a shelter loneliness. People are just another type of animal in my opinion.
 
I'm all good with us as animals, and I don't agree that animals have no sense of the future or time or emotion.

I just don't think as animals that it is unnatural for omnivores to eat meat.

I also don't follow the god principle. Then again, as I said earlier, I don't think all animals are created equal, even within a particular species.
 
Ok, as a Zoology major, I feel the need to speak up here. I didn't read through the whole thread, so this may have been addressed, but several people mentioned that they did not agree with keeping animals in zoos, and if they had their way, zoos would be eliminated.

At least in the United States (and I would think most developed nations), the #1 priority of zoos is NOT entertainment - it is EDUCATION! Zoos try very hard to make the animals' lives as comfortable and natural to the wild as possible. They also provide people the chance to experience and connect with animals that they may never see in the wild. They provide kids with the chance to learn about animals, and maybe think about becoming future veterinarians themselves one day.

From an animal welfare standpoint, the enclosures are designed to mimic conditions in the wild, enrichment must be provided to the animals to prevent stereotypic behavior (pacing back and forth, a sign of boredom), and most enclosures also have hidden areas where the animals can go if they want some alone time so they can take a break from being watched by visitors. And zoos in the AZA (american zoological association) also have breeding programs so that we can perpetuate or revive species that have been decimated in the wild by human interference (american bison, here's lookin at you kid!).

On the other hand, I don't agree with having animals in circuses. Traveling is stressful on any animal, let alone constant traveling that circuses endure. Plus, they're not given any space where they can just be themselves, and there's no educational component to the animals' performances. You don't come out knowing any more about elephants than you did when you went in. Sure, you saw one standing on a stepstool, big deal. I for one would much rather see an elephant grazing on the savannah than performing in a tent, thank you.
 
Ok, as a Zoology major, I feel the need to speak up here. I didn't read through the whole thread, so this may have been addressed, but several people mentioned that they did not agree with keeping animals in zoos, and if they had their way, zoos would be eliminated.

At least in the United States (and I would think most developed nations), the #1 priority of zoos is NOT entertainment - it is EDUCATION! Zoos try very hard to make the animals' lives as comfortable and natural to the wild as possible. They also provide people the chance to experience and connect with animals that they may never see in the wild. They provide kids with the chance to learn about animals, and maybe think about becoming future veterinarians themselves one day.

From an animal welfare standpoint, the enclosures are designed to mimic conditions in the wild, enrichment must be provided to the animals to prevent stereotypic behavior (pacing back and forth, a sign of boredom), and most enclosures also have hidden areas where the animals can go if they want some alone time so they can take a break from being watched by visitors. And zoos in the AZA (american zoological association) also have breeding programs so that we can perpetuate or revive species that have been decimated in the wild by human interference (american bison, here's lookin at you kid!).

On the other hand, I don't agree with having animals in circuses. Traveling is stressful on any animal, let alone constant traveling that circuses endure. Plus, they're not given any space where they can just be themselves, and there's no educational component to the animals' performances. You don't come out knowing any more about elephants than you did when you went in. Sure, you saw one standing on a stepstool, big deal. I for one would much rather see an elephant grazing on the savannah than performing in a tent, thank you.

I thought you might be interested in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Underworld-Inside-Americas-Species/dp/1891620282

It's a little dry, but gets the point across well.
 
Pertaining to the OP: there's a huuuuuuuge range of people in vet school so though you might be towards the left tail end of the spectrum, but it's not like it'll be you vs. everyone else. there are the people in my class that i find borderline cruel to animals, and those that are pretty far in the animal rights realm. there's a place for everyone.

It's not like people go around to everyone else and go "Hi my name is _____. This is how I feel about ____ and _____ and _____. What do you think?". Kinda like religion and views on abortion, etc... Having incompatible beliefs doesn't mean you can't get along with others. Problems only come along when you're obnoxious with your beliefs and impose them on others, or judge others based on their beliefs. Unless you're just a foul individual, you'll definitely find people you click with (and those people may or may not share your beliefs).


man... all this talk of popcorn with bacon butter is making me really hungry
 
People call Texas A&M just 'Texas', which is the antipodal of correct! Texas is our rival!! 😡😀

lol people do that with Michigan State too! it's Michigan STATE, not MICHIGAN! Michigan refers to University of Michigan, which is the school from hell a.k.a. our rivals. Refer to "Michigan State" as "Michigan" within 20 miles of East Lansing and prepare to burn at the stake.:laugh:
 
Have you actually spent any time in livestock ag?

My parents farm rotates crops and every 4 years they plant a cover crop that restores nitrogen to the soils, and bulks it up with other nutrients. To control the cover crop, they use livestock to graze it. They also eat that livestock. Their methods are better on the agriculture land, it helps repair the damage that intensive crop production does create (any way of generating food does damage.) From the animals they raise, they use everything.

In Kentucky, I know a farmer that pasture raises livestock on rocky sites....ones where crops can't be grown. In Raleigh, theres an entire community of folks that raise chickens in their backyards for egg production. Somehow I think thier chickens are generally well cared for and providing for food that wouldn't be used otherwise.

And if we in the developed world all did our part to take responsibility for raising our own food, there would be less stress on the system, but I'm pretty sure that I am one of the very few people in my school that raises a significant portion of my own vegetables.

If you are concerned about things like feeding the world, what are you personally doing to ensure that you are putting as little extra burden on the food providing communities? Are you going beyond not eating meat and criticizing those that do? Or do you stop at the point that it becomes inconvenient? Please don't think that crop agriculture is easy on the land or is viable everywhere, it certainly isn't. And saddly, as we continue to be destructive to our environs and place high demands on limited areas, we will collapse the most fertile areas of crop generation...and unlike livestock, it is harder to grow crops in areas that aren't already suitable for those crops (ie some crops won't grow in rocky or alkaline or clay soils, but I can find an animal that can graze all of those areas.)

You should try using the words 'I' and 'my' less.

I understand that you have a personal experience that completely explains every situation being discussed on the entire forum, but your personal experience isn't typical for rest of the world.

Farming isn't small scale anymore, like it is at your parents house. I understand that's your experience, but it isn't typical. Cows in factory farms aren't grazing to return nutrients to the soil. They're sitting in pens while millions of tons of corn are trucked in to feed them. Their waste doesn't return to the fields that produce their food. It sits in retention pools.

>80% of the corn grown in the US is eaten by livestock, and the payoff isn't equal to the investment. It's trophic levels from bio 101.

None of the vegetarians in this topic are trying to save the world from hunger. I think it's safe to say we're just trying to reduce the impact we each have in a way that isn't extreme. It would be easier for all of us to just shut up and order the hamburger, but I think there's a place for an ethical stand on this issue that doesn't need to be characterized as juvenile.
 
I'm not out to change the world and I can live with myself being a hypocrite in this case. 😀 I am not a typical vegetarian.

oh, right on! everyone has the right to choose whatever they're comfortable with, and i didn't mean that every vegetarian is hypocritical. that was mostly directed only at myself. i looooved meat before i went veggie, and i just increased my dairy/egg intake when i went veggie. i realized that based on the reasons why i personally went vegetarian, i wasn't being any more ethical consuming dairy/eggs. i wasn't replacing my meat with non-animal protein. i was just switching to a different source that was not any better than the original.

it sounds like you've given this a lot of thought and made choices that you were happy with. there's a lot of virtue in accepting that certain things you do are harmful, and minimizing it.

i just know a lot of people who haven't given it much thought. it bugs me when people go around talking about how immoral it is to eat meat, all the while gorging on eggs from "factory farmed" or even better, "free-range/organic (factory farms)" chicken. it makes me want to scream "so it's wrong of me to consume my chicken nuggets... but it's ok of you to contribute to the massacre of day old chicks?" good times.

disclaimer: i was a militant animal welfarist once upon a time too. for some things it was totally called for, like backyard breeders and such. but what i learned over time was that there's soooo much i don't know about the stuff i was criticizing. even though i thought i researched thoroughly, it turned out that i wasn't researching the correct literature (and i think this happens much more often than we'd like to think). then i chilled out a bit and decided that there are so many shades of gray when it comes to ethics, that at the very least, i can't be worrying about other people.
 
You should try using the words 'I' and 'my' less.

I understand that you have a personal experience that completely explains every situation being discussed on the entire forum, but your personal experience isn't typical for rest of the world.

Farming isn't small scale anymore, like it is at your parents house. I understand that's your experience, but it isn't typical. Cows in factory farms aren't grazing to return nutrients to the soil. They're sitting in pens while millions of tons of corn are trucked in to feed them. Their waste doesn't return to the fields that produce their food. It sits in retention pools.

>80% of the corn grown in the US is eaten by livestock, and the payoff isn't equal to the investment. It's trophic levels from bio 101.

None of the vegetarians in this topic are trying to save the world from hunger. I think it's safe to say we're just trying to reduce the impact we each have in a way that isn't extreme. It would be easier for all of us to just shut up and order the hamburger, but I think there's a place for an ethical stand on this issue that doesn't need to be characterized as juvenile.


Actually, 97% of farms are still family owned.

Also, you make it clear you know nothing about the livestock industry, so you probably shouldn't make assumptions. "Cows in factory farms" makes no sense.

To give an example of my parent's ranch-cows are born out on the range. They spend the first ~9-10 months of their lives with their mothers on hay or on grass in pasture, then are weaned, and send to a feedlot. At the feedlot the STEERS and sometimes HEIFERS get a 60-90% concentrate feed for finishing, in a gradual step up ration, for no more than two months, usually less. They make get an implant for a short time to improve gain, depends on the feedlot. An implant that provides less hormones than many foods we eat daily.

So where are these "factory farms" that they eat corn their whole lives on?
 
At least in the United States (and I would think most developed nations), the #1 priority of zoos is NOT entertainment - it is EDUCATION! Zoos try very hard to make the animals' lives as comfortable and natural to the wild as possible. They also provide people the chance to experience and connect with animals that they may never see in the wild. They provide kids with the chance to learn about animals, and maybe think about becoming future veterinarians themselves one day.

From an animal welfare standpoint, the enclosures are designed to mimic conditions in the wild, enrichment must be provided to the animals to prevent stereotypic behavior (pacing back and forth, a sign of boredom), and most enclosures also have hidden areas where the animals can go if they want some alone time so they can take a break from being watched by visitors. And zoos in the AZA (american zoological association) also have breeding programs so that we can perpetuate or revive species that have been decimated in the wild by human interference (american bison, here's lookin at you kid!).

For one- you can say that all zoos are in it for the education. I am sorry but no. All I can see through zoos is how much profit they can make out of the animals. If there was no profit there would be no zoo. There may be specific people in working for the zoos that are interested in conservation but most of the higher ups, they are interested in money.

Secondly- yes the cages are designed to mimic the animals natural surrounding. But it will never be the same and in most cases not even be close to the same. When I look at an animal in an enclosure that many people would consider large, to me its not at all. These animals naturally roam for miles and miles. And the animals that don't pick a specific nitch that they feel comfortable in. Can a zoo mimic that? nope.

There are many private breeding programs for endangered species. If there were no zoos, I believe these programs would grow and take over the endangered breeding.
 
Actually, 97% of farms are still family owned.

Also, you make it clear you know nothing about the livestock industry, so you probably shouldn't make assumptions. "Cows in factory farms" makes no sense.

To give an example of my parent's ranch-cows are born out on the range. They spend the first ~9-10 months of their lives with their mothers on hay or on grass in pasture, then are weaned, and send to a feedlot. At the feedlot the STEERS and sometimes HEIFERS get a 60-90% concentrate feed for finishing, in a gradual step up ration, for no more than two months, usually less. They make get an implant for a short time to improve gain, depends on the feedlot. An implant that provides less hormones than many foods we eat daily.

So where are these "factory farms" that they eat corn their whole lives on?

"factory farms' = 'industrial slaughterhouses and feed lots.'

or the actual definition:

factory farm:
"a farm in which animals are bred and fattened using modern industrial methods."

I feel like it was almost impossible to not glean that from the original paragraph, but you managed it.

And if you think 97% of those facilities are family owned, you're out of your mind.

"In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens. In 1967, there were one million pig farms in America; as of 2002, there were 114,000, with 80 million pigs (out of 95 million) killed each year on factory farms as of 2002, according to the U.S. National Pork Producers Council.According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way."

But I'd love to see your data. Also the data for 97% of any kind of farms being family owned. The highest estimate I found was 75%.
 
For one- you can say that all zoos are in it for the education. I am sorry but no. All I can see through zoos is how much profit they can make out of the animals. If there was no profit there would be no zoo. There may be specific people in working for the zoos that are interested in conservation but most of the higher ups, they are interested in money.

I may not be a zoo person, but I do know that zoos and aquariums are not lucrative money-makers.

I also would like to point out that while it is certainly fun to kill angels and unicorns, I do think that we could all cut the sarcasm a little.
(If this thread was more boring, I could actually get work done!)
 
"factory farms' = 'industrial slaughterhouses and feed lots.'

or the actual definition:

factory farm:
"a farm in which animals are bred and fattened using modern industrial methods."

I feel like it was almost impossible to not glean that from the original paragraph, but you managed it.

And if you think 97% of those facilities are family owned, you're out of your mind.

But I'd love to see your data. Also the data for 97% of any kind of farms being family owned. The highest estimate I found was 75%.

A lot of farms have contracts with companies, like pork producers, who raise pigs owned by a company. The farm itself would still be "family owned" even if they are raising someone else's animal by "industrial methods".

A farm =/= slaughterhouse. Not sure why that is in your definition, since a slaughterhouse and farm are most definitely two separate entities.
 
I may not be a zoo person, but I do know that zoos and aquariums are not lucrative money-makers.

I also would like to point out that while it is certainly fun to kill angels and unicorns, I do think that we could all cut the sarcasm a little.
(If this thread was more boring, I could actually get work done!)

Oh really? You know this. And how is that?
 
A lot of farms have contracts with companies, like pork producers, who raise pigs owned by a company. The farm itself would still be "family owned" even if they are raising someone else's animal by "industrial methods".

A farm =/= slaughterhouse. Not sure why that is in your definition, since a slaughterhouse and farm are most definitely two separate entities.

Is your point that these facilities don't exist, and don't monopolize the meat industry?

Or are you taking minor issue with my phrasing when you know exactly what I'm referring to?
 
To give an example of my parent's ranch-cows are born out on the range. They spend the first ~9-10 months of their lives with their mothers on hay or on grass in pasture, then are weaned, and send to a feedlot. At the feedlot the STEERS and sometimes HEIFERS get a 60-90% concentrate feed for finishing, in a gradual step up ration, for no more than two months, usually less. They make get an implant for a short time to improve gain, depends on the feedlot. An implant that provides less hormones than many foods we eat daily.

The early part of their life sounds pretty cool. Could you please elaborate about the conditions of the feed lots? I don't know if it will help with any arguments but I am just ignorant of the process and very curious.
 
Is your point that these facilities don't exist, and don't monopolize the meat industry?

Or are you taking minor issue with my phrasing when you know exactly what I'm referring to?

The animals don't live at the slaughterhouse, and they live at a feedlot for much less time then they live in a 500 acre pasture...you seem confused on this, so I thought I'd clarify.

And yes, the feedlots are owned by major corporations. The animals are sold to them by farmers and ranchers. Its how they make a living. The feedlot in no way "raises the animal", it just finishes it. What exactly do you think all those ranches in fly-over country are doing with all that land-beef cattle come from family owned farms....calves aren't born in feedlots

I'll admit I don't have the source right now, but that number was actually just given to me by the AVMA when I was at their student legislative fly-in in DC last weekend while discussing ag issues. I'll find my binder of notes from that event and see if they list a source.

Not that your wikipedia lookup of factory farms was any less impressive of course. Oh wait....look what I found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_owned_farm
 
Lissarae killed another angel tonight.

I had two chicken wraps. Somewhere, two unicorns have died.

That is funny! I have never heard that before. I guess I haven't been around any vegetarians or vegans. Is that really what they tell their children?

This is a great thread! Keep them coming :corny:
 
I understand that you have a personal experience that completely explains every situation being discussed on the entire forum, but your personal experience isn't typical for rest of the world.

Let's try you then. You apparently lack experience or knowledge but have plenty of commentary. The experiences I have aren't restricted to my personal upbringing; some folks investigate the situations that upset them rather than reading articles and tossing around random numbers. There are folks that talk, there are folks that do,and there are folks that BS. There are several vegetarians on here that do and accept their own standards for themselves without imposing their values on others or trying to belittle folks who disagree with them. You go out of your way to belittle anyone that disagrees with you, throwing out a great round of inaccuracies. If you really want to compare knowledge and experience in this arena, lets start talking about what conferences, seminars, programs, farms (factory, family, and otherwise), rallies, etc that we have attended...how much actual hands on research you have done. You are correct, I do use my experience and my background and my research because I'd rather do my own legwork than throw out random comments.

Farming isn't small scale anymore, like it is at your parents house. I understand that's your experience, but it isn't typical. Cows in factory farms aren't grazing to return nutrients to the soil. They're sitting in pens while millions of tons of corn are trucked in to feed them. Their waste doesn't return to the fields that produce their food. It sits in retention pools.

Define small scale? You do realize that YOU (see, we are sticking to this you part, since you object to my or I) have no idea what farm my parents operate. You don't know if they are part of a large farm cooperative or if they are independent. You have no way of knowing if they own a couple of hectares or a couple of square miles of land. Yet YOU presume to have any concept of what I know about their farm and/or the farms of others. You don't even know if they have industrialized poultry sheds on the property or not. But of course YOU know how limited my knowledge is. 🙄 Have you been to a factory farm? have you seen retention pools (they are actually more common on small to medium farms than on industrial productions sites.)

You do realize that the 80% includes silage? You do, of course, understand what silage is, and that the majority of a corn plant can become silage, which I don't think we can really digest (I could be wrong on that, haven't done extensive research on it.) Maybe we should ban beer since 20% of the american rice crop goes to that, and there is certainly 0 need for beer. Yes, some corn grain is used, but even really large dairies are still using silage extensively because it is cheap and gives the roughage that bovines need.

None of the vegetarians in this topic are trying to save the world from hunger. I think it's safe to say we're just trying to reduce the impact we each have in a way that isn't extreme. It would be easier for all of us to just shut up and order the hamburger, but I think there's a place for an ethical stand on this issue that doesn't need to be characterized as juvenile.

Again, I don't care what you eat. I do care when you throw inaccuracies that you read in a magazine, or on a website around with very little understanding of the industries that you are denigrating. I could care less if the only think you ever eat is the dandelion greens you gather off your yard (actually, I'd be rather impressed by that.)

I already said, I'm not fond of some parts of industrial farming. I believe as veterinary professionals, we can have a very solid impact on agriculture, but that only works if we are willing to understand those industries from the view point within those industries. I don't think it is juvenile to not eat meat; I think it is juvenile to make snide comments to folks that point out inaccuracies or overzealous generalities in your statements.
 
Oh really? You know this. And how is that?

Only 5 USDA recognized zoos in the USA are self supporting as of 2006 (and self-supporting includes grants, donations, etc.) The rest are heavily subsidized, or are private entities (like big cat rescues) that don't qualify as USDA zoos and do not have open admissions periods.

I know this because I worked as an education curator for 5 years, attend at least one AZA conference each year, and did a year of international research in conservation education (including zoos, parks, and research centers.)
 
I also would like to point out that while it is certainly fun to kill angels and unicorns, I do think that we could all cut the sarcasm a little.
(If this thread was more boring, I could actually get work done!)

I have a feeling that without sarcasm this thread could get pretty heated pretty quick. (Well, more heated than it is already)
 
All of them?

20080229143718.png

OMG, I just spit milk all over. You owe me a new keyboard, CT.

LetItSnow puts aside the popcorn and orders up a Big Mac. No, make that two.
 
Summation of the thread.
:bang::beat:



Oh and angels:
Angel.jpg
 
I know that we (educated people) all use wikipedia at some time to look up a quick definition, but looking at the "Factory Farming" page I am reminded of why the PhD's that taught us all don't like it. There is an amazing lack of quality citations. Yes there are a number citations there, but most of them are opinionated books or websites. I am having a hard time finding any references to journal articles, much less peer reviewed articles.
 
Also, most people on this thread need to read this article
-A vegan visits a feedlot.

I have an exam to be studying for


http://www.precisionnutrition.com/cattle-feedlot-visit


Thanks! Very imformative 👍

One thing that surprised me: in another thread some food-animal people were claiming that meat animals are sometimes given a longer life than our domestic animals. I figure they mean the female dairy cows who are slaughtered after their prime. These cows are all about one-two years old, right?
 
Mmmm, bacon angels. Good with pancakes.

How dare you. I hear angels are raised in crowded angel pens. And they clip their wings.

Pass the syrup.

Angels we have boiled on high
Sweetly cooking o'er the flame
And my stomach doth reply
Grumbling in its joyous gain

Gloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorious ... is the crunchy halo....
Gloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorious ... is the crunchy halo....
 
Let's try you then.

I would quote that, but it made my eyes bleed.

The sarcasm and the snark is here to make the discussion entertaining and to get people reading and involved. It's also a part of what I write because there are about 4 threads about individual fear of confrontation and lack of confidence. A dose of arguing is good for confidence.

As pissed as any of you folks may be at me, I think it's safe to say we've at least been entertained by this thread. And we've either refined our own ideas or learned new things.

I'm a city boy, and I have huge amounts to learn about agriculture and farming as it relates to animals. I think that would be plain to figure from the location of the topic in a pre-vet forum.

But the fact that you know more about the daily minutiae of farm life doesn't make the meat-based American dietary standard healthy. And it doesn't counter the fact that a large share of the meat we eat comes from those large industrial processing facilities, however you'd like to term them.

If you think that's the best we can do in terms of sustainability and public health, I'd like to hear why.
 
Rugbychick summed it up better, but yeah, I'm taking issue with a MAJOR issue in your phrasing.
 
Rugbychick summed it up better, but yeah, I'm taking issue with a MAJOR issue in your phrasing.

Sorry to hear it.

I'm typing this on a laptop in a diner, with a text book in front of me.

If someone wants to spring for a research assistant and a copy-editor, I'll try and make each one of my posts mean everything to everyone.
 
How dare you. I hear angels are raised in crowded angel pens. And they clip their wings.

Pass the syrup.

Angels we have boiled on high
Sweetly cooking o'er the flame
And my stomach doth reply
Grumbling in its joyous gain

Gloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorious ... is the crunchy halo....
Gloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorious ... is the crunchy halo....



I love you and you are my new idol. Pass that syrup over here, will you? I prefer my syrup to be Grade B, Organic Vermont Maple. I wouldn't want to hurt the trees or anything.
 
Only 5 USDA recognized zoos in the USA are self supporting as of 2006 (and self-supporting includes grants, donations, etc.) The rest are heavily subsidized, or are private entities (like big cat rescues) that don't qualify as USDA zoos and do not have open admissions periods.

I know this because I worked as an education curator for 5 years, attend at least one AZA conference each year, and did a year of international research in conservation education (including zoos, parks, and research centers.)

Government funded zoos are more in it for the profit then any other zoo. They are funded as an INVESTMENT. They hope that the revenue generated through tourist attraction will eventually outweigh the investment. They are not funded to save the animals. If someone was not expecting there to be a profit, there would be no zoos. If they were in it to save endangered species there would be no common species.

I worked at a rescue for a while ( I am not going to say which one) but we had over 200 residents that could not be released back into the wild. Of these residents a enormous amount of the animals came from zoos. The people running the place even said it was sad because there was no paper work or anything on them- the zoos just didn't want them and dropped them off.

Zoos are in it for the money. The animals and the endangered breeding are second.
 
Farming isn't small scale anymore, like it is at your parents house. I understand that's your experience, but it isn't typical. Cows in factory farms aren't grazing to return nutrients to the soil. They're sitting in pens while millions of tons of corn are trucked in to feed them. Their waste doesn't return to the fields that produce their food. It sits in retention pools.
What do you think they do with it when the pond fills up.

Newsflash: they sell it to the corn farmers producing the feed. So, it's like the waste *is* returning to the fields that produce their food.

I respect your right to be a vegetarian, and I think it's a healthy choice for many people. Please research your facts.
 
Newsflash: they sell it to the corn farmers producing the feed. So, it's like the waste *is* returning to the fields that produce their food.

After it sits, breeding bacteria, releasing hydrogen sulfide, and polluting the surrounding land and water for however long before it's reused ... I'm sure someone can tell me exactly how long in minutes, hours, days and weeks.

If you feel like thats the best we can do, again, I'd like to hear why you think that.
 
I love you and you are my new idol. Pass that syrup over here, will you? I prefer my syrup to be Grade B, Organic Vermont Maple. I wouldn't want to hurt the trees or anything.

As an entomologist I feel obligated to let you know that organic food products generally have more insecty bits of goodness in them. Think of it as extra protein.👍

For your entertainment and edification (slightly sidetracking), FDA FOOD DEFECT GUIDELINES! 😱
http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecom...on/guidancedocuments/sanitation/ucm056174.htm
 
In regards to the parts of this thread since my last post...

TL;DR

Haha. My head is reeling just looking at it.

I had chicken nuggets for dinner... what would those be?

...should I even ask? :laugh:
 
As an entomologist I feel obligated to let you know that organic food products generally have more insecty bits of goodness in them. Think of it as extra protein.👍

For your entertainment and edification (slightly sidetracking), FDA FOOD DEFECT GUIDELINES! 😱
http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecom...on/guidancedocuments/sanitation/ucm056174.htm


Perfect, a new source of protein. Or should I say, "the other white meat?"
Mmm, yummy. Love me some crunchy bug legs in the morning, right along side my angel wings and unicorn horns.
 
After it sits, breeding bacteria, releasing hydrogen sulfide, and polluting the surrounding land and water for however long before it's reused ... I'm sure someone can tell me exactly how long in minutes, hours, days and weeks.

If you feel like thats the best we can do, again, I'd like to hear why you think that.
If it polluted the surrounding land and water, the farmer would have his brains (and business) fined out of him by the EPA to clean it up with haz mat teams over several months. NONE of it is allowed to get out. Any CAFO has to have proof that they not only have a spill-proof waste retention system, but that they have (I believe) 2 back-ups/spill-overs in case something were to happen to the original retention system. Many farmers are now growing algae and/or bacteria in their retention pools that consume much of the waste gases. Operations have a helluva time getting into areas because residents are (rightly) worried about smells, pests, and pollution. All operations, but ESPECIALLY CAFOs have to provide documentation of their plan to deal with all of these issues.

Please research moar.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to save myself from hunger right now. Someone pass me an angel leg.

How dare you. I hear angels are raised in crowded angel pens. And they clip their wings.

Pass the syrup.

Angels we have boiled on high
Sweetly cooking o'er the flame
And my stomach doth reply
Grumbling in its joyous gain

Gloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorious ... is the crunchy halo....
Gloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorious ... is the crunchy halo....


I just wanted to let you two know.....You are appreciated. :biglove:
 
Top Bottom