LETTER: Meat and dairy just as beneficial as any other diet
|
Print
E-mail
It is in producer’s best interest to have healthy and happy animals. Food production animals are provided food, water and protection 24/7. File Photo: Josh Harrell/Iowa State Daily
I have no problem with people who don’t eat meat because they don’t like the taste. I do have a problem when people defend their choice by saying that animals are treated poorly.
Anyone who has spent time on an animal operation knows how much producers care about their animals. It’s in their best interest to have healthy, happy animals that will maximize production. Most producers spend more time with their animals than they do with their families.
We also need to look at what would happen if we banned eating meat, which is what groups like PETA would like to accomplish. Food production animals are provided food, water and protection and wouldn’t be able to survive in the wild today. To the people who say cattle and pigs should be set free to roam, because they were once wild? I hope you won’t mind giving up your dogs and cats, because they were wild too.
As for the ISU Vegan Club’s 10 reasons to “go veg,” there are several incorrect statements that I would like to address.
1.“Meat is almost always contaminated with E. coli.”
E. coli is a bacteria that lives in the intestines of animals. If meat gets contaminated it is during slaughter, just like fruits and veggies that get contaminated with salmonella during harvest. The bacteria is killed if meat is prepared correctly, and according to the CDC only 23 people out of every 100,000 in the US get infected with E. coli each year from all sources.
2. “Animals you eat are often fed the remains of mad cow-infected animals.”
“Mad cow disease” is the cattle form of a group of relatively new diseases caused by abnormal proteins, called prions. The outbreak in Britain in the 1990s was caused by contaminated meat and bone that was ground up and fed to cattle. In response to the outbreak, the United States banned the feeding of animal by-products to cattle in 1997. Cattle by-products can be fed to pigs, but there is no evidence that “Mad cow” can be transmitted to pigs. The United States has only had 3 cases of “Mad cow disease,” and one of those animals was imported from Canada. Only 3 people in the US have ever gotten the human form of the disease, and 2 of the 3 acquired it while living in Britain. Cattle are randomly tested during the slaughter process. The abnormal protein is only in the brain and spinal cord tissue, which are both removed during slaughter.
3. “Slaughterhouses send animals through the line still alive.”
It’s true that animals are alive before they are slaughtered. Animals are restrained, then stunned. This renders them unconscious so they don’t feel pain or exhibit reflexes. The animal has to be deemed unconscious before the slaughter process can continue. The animal is then bled out quickly, well before they regain consciousness. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has many regulations for the slaughter of animals. FSIS personnel must be present at all times if the facility is operating, and these personnel perform animal-by-animal inspection of all carcasses and ensure proper sanitation is being maintained.
4. “More than half of all water used in the US goes to the meat industry.”
The US Geological Society’s Summary of Water Use in 2000 stated that combined water use for livestock, aquaculture, and mining accounted for 3 percent of all water use, while irrigation for crops accounted for 34 percent. Even if all crops grown with irrigation water were fed to animals, those numbers combined wouldn’t account for more than half of the United State’s water use.
5. “Chickens have their beaks burned off.”
Shortly after a chick hatches the sharp point on its beak is blunted. This is done to decrease injury by pecking other chickens, similar to why we dehorn cattle. It is for the chicken’s protection. Stress levels are comparable to cutting the umbilical cord of a newborn.
6. “Huge amounts of grain are used to feed animals that could be used to feed humans.”
I can’t argue this one much; food that isn’t eaten by one animal can be eaten by another. But, any industries use grains to produce a product. Ethanol production in 2007 used 14 percent of our corn crop, and that number is expected to climb to 30 percent by 2010. When we take into account the fuel used to plant, harvest, and transport the corn used for ethanol, one gallon of fossil fuel is used to produce 1.3 gallons of ethanol. At least animal production creates food that humans can eat.
7. “Vegan diets lower your risk for diseases.”
A low fat and cholesterol diet lowers our risk for certain diseases. A vegan diet is also not without risk. People eating a strict vegan diet are also more likely to get osteoporosis, rickets, and even anemia. Animal products are high in calcium, vitamin D, B vitamins, iron, and protein that would be deficient in an all vegan diet. Total calorie intake can also pose a problem. Children who follow a vegan diet have also had slower growth than those that eat animal products, and vegan women who are pregnant need to take iron and vitamin supplements. Poorly planned vegan diets can result in infant malnutrition and fatalities.
The inaccuracy of these “facts” shows that our own Vegetarian/Vegan Club is no better than PETA or the Humane Society. They all conjure up numbers and stories at their own discretion and portray them as fact. I hope people can think for themselves and see that meat and dairy products, when part of a complete diet, can be just as healthy and beneficial as any other diet.
Drew Magstadt
Sophomore
Veterinary Medicine
Comments
You have to remember that WE BREED these animals and they would not exist if we did not breed them. We are not saying we should turn every farm animal in this country loose. Or at least I am not. Maybe some people are. But that would be crazy.
We are saying we should stop making them to eat. I have never once in my life seen a wild cow/chicken/lamb whatever. We make every single one of them. We should stop.
Your idea that we are somehow benevolent caretakers of these animals is just plain weird. You act as if we just happen to find millions of cows running around on the streets each year and are so kind as to provide them with food, water and shelter. That's exactly the opposite! We only feed them and put a roof over their heads so they don't die so we can eat them. In addition, we are so concerned with the bottom line that we often provide them with only the bare minimum of care. Look at gestation cages, for example. That's hardly providing shelter, it's more of a cruel disservice to the animals. Same with battery cages. But you want to say "Hey chicken, at least I am putting a roof over your head! Forget that you can't turn around and are only allowed to sleep a few hours a day!" It doesn't make sense. That chicken wouldn't be there if it weren't for you, and it would be much better off that way for the chicken to just not exist in the first place.
In addition, you note that the debeaking practices/dehorning practices etc. are for the animals' safety. But their beaks/horns are only a problem in the unnatural environment in which we keep them, in which they are extremely stressed out and thus prone to inflicting harm on each other. If we weren't stressing them out with unnatural living conditions and transportation, these things wouldn't be necessary. Again, you seem to think these procedures are a service to the animals. They are only a service to the animals to prevent the bad situation they are in from getting worse. We could provide a better service by instead taking them out of the bad situation.
When we create these animals we have a responsibility to provide for them, and, I would argue, provide the best care possible. Open your mind, my friend – these animals would not exist if it weren't for us. Acting like we are doing them a service by confining them, performing surgical procedures without anesthesia, transporting and then killing them only makes sense if that kind of life is better than what they had before we came along to "help" them. But they wouldn't exist if it weren't for us. As their creators, we owe them a little better than what we currently give.
I agree with Drew in that the Vegan club at ISU is misinformed about how livestock is raised in this country. So, in reply to McNames, I want to remind her that these animals are bred for production, they are PRODUCTION animals. We raise dairy cows to produce milk for your cereal, butter for your bread, and cheese for your sandwiches, etc. We raise beef for the consumer, for use in school lunches and in the markets abroad. We raise pork and poultry for consumption as well, and even harvest heart valves from pigs for use in humans. These production animals are in fact, essential in order to feed the exponentially-increasing population of the world.
We use these “unnatural environments” for efficiency, and to make the best, safest product we can produce. Gestation crates are designed to protect the pigs from hurting each other, to ensure proper nutrition, and to prevent transmission of disease. Farrowing crates are designed to protect the piglets from getting crushed. And, so on….
The checks and balances systems and their strict regulations within the agricultural industry are in place, and our food producers work hard to deliver a safe, cost-efficient product to the world; A world that consumes and demands this important part of a rounded, nutritious diet, meat.
People have been taking care of animals for thousands of years, and the notion that being a part of this is weird – is well…weird. I hardly think Mr. Magstadt views cattlemen as a large animal substitute for the local animal shelter, rounding up stray cows to put in his feedlot. You’re correct in stating that farmers provide animals with food, shelter, and other necessities so we can eat them – it’s their business. And because it’s a business they are also compelled to practice techniques which allow them to produce more and to do so more efficiently– science has shown that providing the bare minimum isn’t one of these techniques. In dairy production for example, cow comfort is a huge issue and farmers do everything they can to improve it. Why would they do that? It cost money to do that, doesn’t it?…it also keeps your herd healthy and helps them to produce more milk, and that means more revenue. It shouldn’t need to be mentioned, but if you’re goal is have an animal grow or produce things like milk and eggs – you have to do more than meet minimal maintenance requirements (and that includes care).
Animal agriculture isn’t a new concept, but we are continually trying to use science and technology to come up with better ways to raise and take care of animals. If the best thing for the animals and food safety was to just put up a fence and let the animals roam free – then that’s what farmers would do, it'd be cheap. Given what we know and with the technology we have at this point in time other things are better though. Farrowing crates might seem cruel for the sow that isn’t able to move a lot – but it probably seems pretty great if you’re the piglet who isn’t crushed to death by your own mother.
It's always easy to look at downside and completely ignore all the positives.
The title is very appropriate today.
1 - I'd suggest a complete reading of Sophie's column.
2 - Good point. We've managed to do a pretty good job at BSE control here.
3 - If by "restrained" you mean "are hanging by their feet from a conveyor belt, still fully alive and conscious, as they slowly approach the point where they are", and if by "stunned" you mean "have a metal slug the size of a pencil shot pneumatically into their brain," then yes, restrained and stunned would be an accurate description.
www.tamucc.edu/...
4 - Yes, technically. However, an important note on interpreting that study is that it only shows use when water is withdrawn for a use - so only the quantity of water actually withdrawn from aquifer for irrigation is included in agricultural production, not the total amount used by crops. That study also showed that 48% of water use is by thermoelectric power plants - overwhelmingly for cooling purposes. After going through a cooling tower, that water is rereleased. So, while it's true to state that water is used for these purposes, it's not really the same as water consumed. So, if you'll grant that, discounting most of the thermoelectric power use shows that irrigation makes up about 62% of water consumption and livestock use makes up about 3%. Since roughly 70-80% of agricultural land use in the US goes towards the meat industry, we have a little over 46% of water consumption goes to growing animal feed and 3% goes to animals themselves. So even if you use the 34% figure as representing all crop use of water, the 50% estimate is fairly accurate, if you agree with their premises.
5 - And debeaking is necessary because forcing huge numbers of chickens to live together in a tiny space... causes them to go insane, peck each other to death, and eat each other. Humane!
David and Colin, you both completely seem to miss the point - as Megan said, the issues for which we use debeaking and farrowing crates and so on, as she said, "are only a problem in the unnatural environment in which we keep them."
And no, the reason most farmers don't raise free-range meat isn't that factory farming is better for the animals. Free range requires a huge amount of space in comparison; you can raise FAR more livestock if they're being held like this:
www.all-creatures.org/...
So, it's more profitable to cram them into tiny spaces. If you really think it's for quality, crack a free-range egg on a skillet next to a factory-farm egg. The difference is as clear as night and day.
6 - Apples to oranges. Or rather, apples to gasoline. The question of whether food should be used to make fuel is well worth a debate (elsewhere). But meat production uses food to make about a tenth as much food as you had before. In terms of total output, it's equivalent to throwing 90% of your food away.
7 - The original statement was not about vegan diets specifically. These are all somewhat valid arguments about vegan diets; it's true that vegan diets can carry a risk of malnutrition if you aren't careful about what you eat. This, however, can be true of ANY diet. The main point is that not eating meat leads to, well, "a 27 percent lower incidence of stroke, a 42 percent lower stroke mortality, a 27 percent lower cardiovascular disease mortality and a 15 percent lower all-cause mortality." Small amounts of meat can be a good way to get those vital nutrients you mention, but isn't the only way. Average Americans eat FAR more meat than it is healthy to consume, which was the entire point. While eliminating ALL meat consumption probably isn't necessary for health benefits, the health benefits it provides are significant.
First off this issue should be viewed as a choice a person makes whether or not to eat meat. If you do or do not want to consume meat that is fine. If you want to talk about welfare of production animals that is a whole other topic and one that I will actually listen to. If I have someone lecturing me on how bad meat is for me to eat (peta/whoever) all I have to do is point the finger to common practice things with adverse side effects such as: the use or alcohol, cigarettes, or even getting behind the wheel of a car. It’s a choice to eat meat and the people who do should not be lectured for doing so. It's America, (i.e. a country based on like freedom and liberty) so move on. This is a common case of Animal Rights activists going to EXTREMES to reveal qualms they have with food animal production by taking advantage of the everyday ignorant American, enlisting celebrities to help get the message across, and using ridiculous/faulty information. Whether it’s talking about the amount of methane by a cow (ridiculous) or grouping producers into groups of cold hearted men and women whose sole purpose is to ruin the lives of animals, PETA and Animal Rights Activists have made their cause into more of an Aesop's fable rather than a presentation of facts and truth.
Now to preface my viewpoint, I also am a veterinary student who believes that there has been some oversight by producers in today's agriculture. There are practices that need to be revamped to become up to date with animal welfare needs and I am all for that. However, as I delve into articles pining for increased animal welfare, I always seem to be turned off by the first whiff on inaccurate information/made up "truths" that are in the publication. The fact is this. There must be a middle ground to agree on. Never, EVER has someone in a heated debate such as one like this (as evidenced by the snail’s pace our government takes to get things done) has one side made a point which has resounded to the point of eliminating the other's standpoint and views. In other words, "Meat Lovers" cannot reveal some fact or figure that will just cause every vegetarian/vegan to rush to the nearest McDonalds and eat 10 quarter pounders. The same goes for the other side of the coin. What we need to focus on is more of a solution to some of the concerns being brought forth being that animal agriculture will continue to become more and more visible to public. Animal Welfare has snowballed into a topic of who can find/makeup the most ridiculous statistic has the advantage, and what really needs to happen is to focus on solving things rather than sit on the sidelines and complain.
To comment on the benevolent care takers comment from a discussion post from Miss McNamanus, let me reference an awesome show on the discovery channel, Planet Earth. Female penguins have an extremely strong urge to mother. In a colony of penguins inevitably some have twins. The mother must choose between one of the twins for the father to look after when she is gone away to hunt for food. One baby chick is then cast away. While some have twins, there are also many that lose their chicks from complications/natural selection(weather, predators, disease, etc.) Having lost a child and still having the strong urge to care for a baby, these mothers will find the nearest orphaned penguin and aggressively compete for who gets to mother this young chick. In the struggle to claim the chick, the group of mothers tramples the young chick. Here's my take. The mother's expressing that need to care for a child can resonate within all of us. It is a trait that is humanizing as we see ourselves in that penguin. That is an amazing trait and other animals could take a page from their book. Now the component that puts the "animal" into animals occurs when they do not possess the ability of higher thought (which humans, well most humans do) and crush the baby penguin. This shows while animals such as our beloved pets or farm animals have human like traits, they are in the end still animals and need to be cared for. That is one of our purpose on this earth is to preserve and care for the animal kingdom. NOW JUST HOLD ON A SECOND. Before you go and write some response about cows, birds, dogs trampling each other and how ridiculous my point is as it doesn't correlate to every species blah blah... I made this point to illustrate that animals DO need to be cared for by humans. HOW WE CARE FOR THEM is up for improvement, and discussion. Not whether we care for them or not. That is a must.
In the end I am wishing for only one thing. People to discuss the issue of Animal Welfare without name calling, ridiculous/misleading facts, attacks at people’s choices/beliefs, and for people to actually bring up solutions to these issues once they are introduced. As a society we could all benefit from people just remaining level headed and sticking to the facts. If I didn’t want to stick to the facts I would just turn on the TV or read Dr. Seuss.
First off a few points, because although I agree with Zach that eventually we need to make a compromise it's the facts that exist that will determine the line of that compromise.
1) Fun fact on wild cows: San Diego Zoo's Animal Bytes: Wild Cattle And yes there are wild pigs, chickens, and even sheep. I'm a bit confused in the argument against production animals. From what I've seen so far we are fully in agreement that these animals would not survive in a natural environment (ie: wild) so we could safely assume by this argument these animals are unnatural. Why on earth would we advocate a natural experience for an animal that isn’t natural. For the record I already get the heat I will take on this one, but please understand that I’m pointing out an error in some assumptions of what these animals would thrive on and not an error in overall logic of what you advocate.
2) Secondly I think we need to get numbers exact. Rounding 37% up to 50% while makes you point more sustainable does not accurately reflect these. With logic like this I'm basically 50 years old not 29 and that wouldn't be practical. I'm not sure where you get your figures, but a study from Cornell and used by FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization sponsored by the United Nations) states that ~50% of the US's and 40% of the world's grain is used for animal production. You still have a point in your argument for water use the numbers drop a bit more.
3) Humans are naturally omnivorous. We are arguing for us to let animals live a natural life, yet this strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. Sure I understand the logic that we have a moral choice to make or an ethical choice. As history has proven most ethical debates don’t go so well when one side has to be right. Compromise might have a chance in this debate provided we can separate our emotions from the facts on issues we might not know everything about.
It boils down to in the foreseeable future not just here, but overseas there will be people that will consume meat as a part of their diet. No amount of protest, laws, or attacks will change this however it’s how we go about resolving the two viewpoints. I advocate in favor of science over emotion. If we can provide studies that show animals are comfortable no matter the emotional opinion you have to the sight. (Ex: wannaveg.com/... Yes it’s from a vegan site, but note the fuzzy production building background.) And we as producers and processors have to be open to humane methods of handling and processing. You point out the chicken slaughter, but ignore some of the conveyor lines or gas induced coma methods employed by many plants. As stated previously nearly all the producers care about the well being of their animals and if approached with scientific methods they will be more than willing to give you time and an open mind, however it’s all to often they get ultimatums on issues based on emotion and it causes producers to close down completely to what you have to say.
And for those interested in more info on what is being done to improve animal handling, welfare, and health. I’d urge you to peruse these sites.
Pork Checkoff - For Producers - PQA Plus - History
Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Mr. Wilcox makes several good points in his response. This isn't an agricultural producers issue or an animal rights group issue, nor is it strictly a science issue. The answer to our question about caring for animals must come from all sides. Believe it or not, a good producer has an excellent idea of how to properly provide for his livestock, probably much better than those who are not around these animals everyday and really have no formal training in livestock stewardship. In all reality, there is no fundamental difference between the shepherd who tended his flock in Biblical readings and today's livestock producer. Both depend on their animals to maintain their livelihood and both need them to be as productive as possible. And just as the Biblical shepherd’s, it's the modern day stewards responsibility to provide proper nutrition and care. As a livestock producer myself, I cannot stand to see video’s like those released by PETA late last fall. Those practices are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The reality of it is that 97% of livestock producers do use best management practices and don’t act in that manner. Still, that’s too many. It’s our job to police our own industry and keep producers like those in the PETA videos and the recent documentary aired on HBO from being around.
But consumers also need to play a part in this decision. Ultimately, there are two reasons a livestock producer is successful. 1) They have a product to sell. I’ve addressed that aspect. 2) They have a market for their product. If the consumer doesn’t like what we do, I don’t have to agree with them, but in the end the consumer is always right. That’s the nature of business in developed and wealthy nations, and that’s how it will always be. So yes, there still is a market for meat in America, and I think for the most part producers have done an excellent job in meeting the consumer’s demands. You could ask a homeless man who just had a free meal from the Salvation Army if he cares where his pork chop sandwich came from and I bet he’d tell you he doesn’t as long as he has a pork chop sandwich. Probably same with the parents that lost their job last week when the companies they worked for went bankrupt, or the starving child in Darfur. Providing the world with quality sources of protein doesn’t negate our obligation to provide the best care for our livestock though. Human’s do like meat, we’re omnivores by nature (omnivores are species of animals that eat tissue from both plants and other species of animals), and obviously we can’t argue with nature, as Miss McNames has stated. In America we have a unique ability to produce quality protein sources such as meat cheaper than anyone in the world while also being able to give these animals the highest quality of care and meet our consumer’s needs. Yet consumer’s demands change and all animal agriculture must change with it. We must also continue to study animal welfare and implement practices that look after the wellbeing of the livestock we raise. Just because we are the most efficient at what we do also does not mean we are not obligated to make a little less if it’s in the best interest of the animal.
I’d like to address falsehood’s I’ve read in some of these posts. Miss McNames states that we breed these animals for food, which is true. But she states they would not be around if we didn’t breed them for that purpose, which is false. Animals breed; it’s what they do to survive as a species. Deer populations are overwhelming in some areas. I walked my dog around the block in the morning and I saw 30 rabbits. Even wild pig populations cause issues (California wild pig population far larger than imagined). So yes, these populations would have been around and most likely much more of a health issue if we had not domesticated them.
Also, does the animal really prefer to be in the wild or in a finishing building, feed lot or gestation stall? I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know, and if someone did I’d be more than willing to listen. Studies have shown contradictory results to these questions. If my professor asked me whether I wanted to be sitting in class or outside working, I’d choose outside. But if I had the choice to hunt for every meal, not knowing if I was going to eat everyday or not, or go to Hy-Vee and pick up a pork chop and green beans for supper, I’d probably choose the later. My stress level would probably be lower in both categories as well. That’s how we have to decide what’s best for the animal. I know firsthand that if a sow gets out of a barn and she has the opportunity to run away to freedom, she’ll be laying by the door ready to go back inside the barn. But that’s just my experience.
In addition, Mr. Rundle states the negatives of meat in the diet. Eating a pound of meat everyday is too much to consume, I will not argue that. But studies have also shown that diets high in soy and some vegetables are also very high in estrogen. A 3 oz serving of beef contains 1.89 nanograms of estrogen. So when I go out for supper and get the 12 oz prime rib, I’m taking in around 7.56 nanograms of estrogen. I go home and don’t feel like ovulating too much. But the salad I had with my meal had nearly 1,200 nanograms, the slice of cabbage that was serve as a garnish with my steak had around 2,000 nanograms, and the tablespoon of soy oil that was used to fry my sautéed mushrooms and onions had roughly 28,000 nanograms. Consider that a birth control pill has around 34,000 nanograms of estrogen and I wonder why women who choose the pill don’t just have two tablespoons of soy oil a day and call it good. Luckily, soy products have ever been reported to have caused abnormal estrous activity, but they may cause other, more sever health risks. High levels of estrogen may contribute to cancers, especially breast cancers, and a study I unfortunately cannot reference but heard about this summer while listening to NPR showed those that choose a vegan diet may have a shorter life expectancy due to this issue. But is it the estrogen, the meat, or the fact that we as American’s consume way too much sugar (like that Mountain Dew your drinking), way too much cholesterol (like that fried onion ring or okra sitting on your plate because it’s not just meat that’s fried), and don’t get out an exercise nearly enough.
I’d also like to know why she believes these animals are treated so unfairly. Is it because of the information she had seen in a PETA brochure or a Humane Society documentary, or is it because she’s been to a farm and has seen firsthand how animals are treated? Too many assumptions are made about our livestock care practices without actually viewing them first hand. I’d like to ask everyone to actually visit a farm and see what goes on before you decide what side of the issue you’re on. Think for yourself. Form your own opinion. Don’t just believe what the Vegan club, PETA or even I tell you to. Mr. Wilcox is right when he states that all groups are providing propaganda to prove a point. Therefore, be original, make an informed decision for yourself.
Drew Magstadt, what a convincing smackdown of vegetarian propaganda. Kudos!
As for those who think domestic animals would be better set free, do you really think a feral life is superior to a domestic life for animals? When you object to the humane slaughter practices of domestic meat processors, how exactly do you think animals die in the wild? Do you think they retire and go to wild animal old age homes where they pass away in their sleep? A wild animal spends most of its life in fear for its life, running away from other animals who are trying to kill it and eat it. When a wild animal slows down, it is caught by predators and torn to pieces, often alive. How exactly is that preferable to the relatively comfortable life domestic livestock lives?
If there are any PETA members here, we sure haven't heard it. Nor has anyone advocated the banning of meat products, nor is anyone telling other people what they can and can't eat. Constantly comparing the people you're debating to a radical fringe is not only disingenuous, it's a logical fallacy.
Zach Wilcox - absolutely, this is about personal choices about eating meat and personal reasons for those choices. Specifically, this letter to the editor was an attack on other people's choices and reasons not to eat meat. There were no lectures. Sophie wasn't telling anyone what to do.
I must also take issue with some of the things you claimed. You say you want to simply "stick to the facts" and accuse others in general of using false or misleading facts, but offer no critique of any specific facts used and offer no facts of your own. You also complain of name-calling, but throughout this entire discussion, there hasn't been any. The closest thing would be your own attempts to conflate all vegetarians with PETA and militant Animal Rights activists.
Also, while I would agree that modern domesticated production animals can't be released into the wild, you seem to imply with your penguin example that you feel ALL animals require human stewardship to survive. This is pretty silly - animals survived in the wild for millions of years before we were here.
As far as actual animal welfare is concerned, no tremendous upheavals like release of all domesticated animals are necessary. Raising free-range animals would allow for much more humane conditions than factory farms. Free-range meat, eggs, etc. are also much higher quality. The trade-off, of course, is price - CAFOs exist because they're a cheap way to produce large quantities of meat.
Lucas - That wasn't "rounding." Irrigation made up 34% (and livestock operations 1.5%) of all water withdrawals made for any purpose. That includes water used for cooling power plants, which gets released back into the supply. So I removed that use of water when considering actual water consumption. Since the total amount for that "water consumption" figure was less than the "water use" figure, irrigation was a substantially larger percentage.
Thanks for the statistic on grain going to animal feed! That would have been the correct percentage of the irrigation component to use, then, making water consumption going towards animal production closer to 34%.
However, I'd note that while the 80% figure of arable land used for animal production really is accurate. In addition to the 50% of cropland that goes towards animal feed, the total amount of land used for grazing in the US actually exceeds total US cropland. (see ERS/USDA Data - Major Land Uses ) It's a phenomenal amount of space that goes towards fueling the industry - and since it takes at best ten times as much food going in as feed for each unit of meat we get back out, it means that we're essentially throwing away 45% of all the grain we produce.
(By the way, I briefly browsed the sites you mentioned - first off, the industry itelf isn't exactly an unbiased observer. Secondly, most of what they're talking about is nothing other than empty fluff statements like "...beef producers have two expectations: that animals are treated humanely and that every step is taken to produce safe beef." They never define humane treatment or address animals' living coniditons; just things they have to do to maintain a profit, like ensuring that disease doesn't spread through the flock.)
Mr. Schneider: Personally, I don't have anything against small-scale (non-feedlot) animal production. No one here has been advocating against having barns, etc. But take your example again, applied to factory farming techniques - if we put a chicken in a tiny battery cage designed to limit mobility, and then put that cage in a field and opened the entrance, do you really think it would remain in its cage?
For reference: upload.wikimedia.org/...
As for the estrogen-like compounds in plants, the comparisons aren't really that simple. They're not the same as the human versions, all people naturally produce some level of estrogens in their system anyway, and studies have not established any conclusive link between phytoestrogens and cancer:
Phytoestrogens and Breast Cancer
Some studies have even shown the possibility of phytoestrogen consumption inhibiting breast cancer. Really, we don't know. I couldn't find the NPR program you mentioned, unfortunately, but the data I did find didn't seem to substantiate it. And in case you're wondering, phytoestrogens don't have an impact on male reproductive health, so that's not a concern:
Clinical Science (2001) 100, 613-618 - J. H. Mitchell and o...
Steve Gregg - In respect to traditional farming or free-range livestock, I'd agree. However, would you describe spending your entire existence in a tiny cage jammed full of other people as comfortable? We are talking about an environment in which the chickens go insane and attempt to kill and eat each other, remember. That's factory farming for you.
Will Says: "first off, the industry itelf isn't exactly an unbiased observer."
Thank you.
I think there are two groups of people here.
One one hand, you have the animal rights people who will contest that we commit heinous crimes against animals and that we put them in an unnatural world. Ms. McNames, what "natural" world do you live in? Are you really so disconnected with reality to realize that almost everything we do is a burden on the world we live in? Do you not drive a car, use plastics, and so on?
On the other hand, you have the producers who also use their "science" and "facts" to support their point of view. Referencing the pork board as a source of unbiased information is an insult. Claiming that all animals need human care to flourish is also a lot of nonsense. But, also remember that these people do their job to provide a product that people want to purchase. Its unfair to attack producers who are doing their job to earn a living; just like it would be unfair to attack a gas station owner for causing global warming.
Where is “truth?” Most certainly it exists somewhere on the continuum between these two groups. But in the mean time, lets invest in some big time review of the literature and facts. Please, spare us all from the 7th grade strategy of writing a research paper: using the first google hit to roundly defeat the opposing party.
Mr. Rundle, I can't say I'm able to answer your question regarding the chicken. I have no experience with them, nor do I suspect you do either. I could give my opinion and what I think the chicken would do, but that's all it would be, an opinion not based on factual evidence or sound research and observation. So I guess I'd expect the chicken to walk out of their cage. Sure, all animals are somewhat curious and would probably want to explore. But I would also believe that chicken probably wouldn't stray too far from the cage, and as soon as it became frightened, tired, or hungry it would return to it. Just as my sow would return to the front door of our sow housing facility (barn, whatever you'd like to call it to be more "aesthetically" pleasing) in which she is housed, these animals know where the feed is and where they can be safe from predators. I’m sure you’ll argue me that these birds are driven crazy by their cages, which cause them to attack each other and peck themselves to death. What you’re failing to understand is chicken’s by nature are naturally cannibalistic creatures, and is not limited to a specific type of housing system. (www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/...) Although certain types can make cannibalism more of an issue than others, proper care and management can prevent these problems. The United Egg Producers have invested large amounts of money and research into determining the proper housing methods to maximize hen welfare and efficiency, because they are concerned about the animals themselves as well as their public image. I’m sure the picture you posted was a facility you’ve toured and seen firsthand. It’s great you actually went out and did your research, made an informed decision. Or did you just pull up the first picture you found on google search, as Mr. Brewer stated?
I think you’ve made the point clear in your response to me that anyone can conduct a study and manipulate results to say what they want said. Whether it is how estrogen levels affect the probability of cancer or the level of meat it is safe to consume in a day, there are always going to be contradictory studies produced. While I’m not saying eating large amount of meat each day is healthy, it’s certainly been proven it’s not; eating meat in proper proportions is certainly healthy and does not mean you’re going to die an early death or develop heart issues. I think it’s unfair to play on people’s fears in such a way, and both sides are guilty.
Mr. Rundle, it’s not feasible to believe everything can be grown organically and “naturally” (by the way, I dare you to read the label of the next package of “natural” Tyson’s chicken you buy. I wonder what “solutions added” are?). We would not be able to grow enough food to feed the world and the costs would be astronomical. Sorry, not everyone has the budget you do to pay for organic goods in the store. I’d like you to tell the family living from pay check to pay check that and see what you get in response. The food produced in America is the safest food in the world, hands down. What we really should be worried about is the goods we bring in from other countries that have not been as rigorously inspected and regulated as it is here in America. Consider yourselves lucky.
You’re also right that more land is used for pasture and grazing in the US than it is for cropland. Let’s look at the breakdown. The southern plains, mountain, northern plains, and pacific regions of the US account for 92% of the pasture/range land in our country. If you’re familiar with the geological features of those parts of the US, we could call that good land management and conservation. The soil in most of these regions is not fertile to grow crops, very dry, prone to flash floods when rain does occur, or hard to work. Ever heard of the Dust Bowl? Therefore, this land is best kept in pasture where there is consistent vegetation in place to keep soil from eroding. I know firsthand that proper grazing practices are used by ranchers in the west to maximize the land that is available. Sure we could get rid of all of the cattle (and the million feral horses) and try raising your organic products there if you’d like, but you’d have to increase your water use for raising crops for human consumption due to irrigation. Then try telling Southern California, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix or all of the small towns in between they don’t get drinking water because of the need to irrigate.
Mr. Rundle,
I think I can safely say that I will not change your mind on this matter, and you can probably see that you won’t change mine. That was not the intent of my original letter in response to Ms. Prell’s article. My letter was not meant, as you say, as “an attack on other people's choices and reasons not to eat meat.” I really don’t know how anyone who read my letter can say that it was an attack. My goal was to address some of the inaccuracies in her letter, most of which came from the ISU Vegan Club website. I think everyone should be presented actual FACTS about animal agriculture and allowed to make their own decisions. The vegan club was not using facts to promote their side of the argument, only statements they blatantly lied about or didn’t bother to prove. My response merely addressed those statements, and attempted to provide data to back up my claims.
I also did not mean to lump all vegan/vegetarians in with PETA and other extreme animal rights groups. I only mentioned them together because both animal rights groups and vegans can be classified as being anti-animal agriculture. I think we can both agree on this. PETA is a group that is only interested in the shock value of their efforts (they actually suggested replacing dairy cattle with lactating women to supply our milk), and I do not think that all vegetarians are supporters of PETA.
I do respectfully disagree with a few of the comments you have posted.
1)That is exactly what I meant by restrained and stunned. The animals as positioned in a way that makes it easier to render them unconscious. They do need to be positioned this way while they are alive. They are stunned by various methods, including the captive bolt gun method which you described. The metal end of the bolt gun is fired into the brain of the animal, immediately causing unconsciousness. The bolt enters the skull and then retreats, and doesn’t stay in the animal (thus the term captive). Studies have shown this way to be the quickest, most pain-free way of producing unconsciousness. You must remember that these are very large animals. Most cattle are slaughtered between 1100 and 1500 pounds. We cannot expect to handle livestock the same way we handle dogs and cats. The entire process of slaughtering an animal is supervised by food inspectors to ensure the animal does not suffer and that the carcass is safe. Unless you can propose a viable alternative (please refrain from the obvious “just don’t eat animals” comment) that is safe for both the animal and the workers, this is how animal slaughter will continue.
2) I don’t think picking and choosing your water use numbers really helps your argument. You also say, “only the quantity of water actually withdrawn from aquifer for irrigation is included in agricultural production, not the total amount used by crops.” I assume that you mean we also need to include rainwater. This is absurd. That rainfall would have been used by that plant whether or not it was ever eaten by an animal. This is like saying animals are responsible for wasting the sunlight that is absorbed by plants they eat, which taking away from our solar power capabilities.
I am glad that you figured out that even when we take out thermoelectric usage, “water consumption going towards animal production closer to 34%.” (your words) This proves that the data used by the vegan club is completely made up. It was nice to see how Lucas Funk used actual numbers to support his opinion. Also, Zach Wilcox was completely correct when he said that anti-animal agriculture groups use incorrect information to sway people opinions. This was pretty much proven by the false info posted in Ms. Prell’s article and the corresponding info in my letter.
3) Your comments about the use of arable land are flawed, plain and simple. Most of the best land in the country, including most of Iowa, is used to grow crops because it is suitable and efficient. Most of the land that cattle graze is poorer quality land that is not as good for growing corn, soybeans, etc. My family uses pastures that would never be used for crop production, either because of poor soil conditions or the fact that using equipment on this land would be nearly impossible. Look at Montana, Wyoming, and the western part of Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota: this is poor quality land that no one in their right mind would try to farm, yet you try to pass it off as “arable.” Grazing animals on this land is a way of utilizing these areas that otherwise would be barren. It also allows us to use less grain to feed our animals.
To put this into perspective, Iowa has some of the best soil for corn in the country. Iowa farmers routinely get high yields with little fertilizer and irrigation input. In the panhandle of Texas, farmers also grow corn on land that you deem “arable.” Every field is irrigated and heavily fertilized, but they do get much higher yields (over 200 bushels/acre). Their input costs are through the roof. Is this what you want done with are of our “arable” land? I know I enjoy affordable food, and food prices would skyrocket if all farmers had that type of input involved.
4) You have used the comment that chickens go insane, peck each other to death, and eat each other: where is this info coming from? I remind you that sharp beaks and horns came about as an evolutionary mechanism of defense. Thus these animals developed them out of necessity in nature. We remove these structures to provide a safer environment for them.
Also, why is it that you say animals are cared for poorly and actually worse off, then when management practices like dehorning are practiced you can’t give the industry credit for making that animals life better? You keep saying we need to provide better for our animals but when we do you only criticize us. And for your information, almost all beef cattle are raised free-range. Our cattle are on pasture for 7 months out of the year. The other 5 months they are being provided food and shelter that they would not be guaranteed otherwise. But I suppose you will just say that we only provide these things to animals because we are worried about a profit. True, producers make a living through selling animals that become food. As a function of our business, animals are provided for and taken care of. They are vaccinated, dewormed, and given medical attention when needed, all things they otherwise would not get. Cattle that have trouble giving birth are helped by the producer or a veterinarian. This may come as a surprise, but cattle would reproduce in the wild and even have trouble giving birth. These cattle would not receive help and would likely die. Production animals have better, safer lives as a function of the business: for you to not accept this fact is only because of your feelings that we should not eat animals.
You also say, free range animal products are higher quality. Ask anyone who has had both grass feed beef and corn fed beef: this is highly debateable. Confinement animals (pigs, chickens) are kept that way to control disease transmission. Yes, it is also a way to raise more animals cheaper, but it is also a business. You need to put your feelings about meat eating aside for a second and consider the business part. Producers pay money for vaccines and vet work. They don’t have to, but they realize that spending a little money is best for them and the animal.
5) You say “meat production uses food to make about a tenth as much food as you had before. In terms of total output, it's equivalent to throwing 90% of your food away.” You site no hard data in this statement, so I have no idea where that comes from. Cattle in feedlots convert feed to pounds of gain in a 6-6.7:1 ratio. Feedlot lambs convert feed at a 3-5:1 ratio. Pigs and chickens convert feed even better, usually at a 2-3:1 ratio. These numbers were gathered from multiple veterinary school websites (cattle numbers were from FAQs: We just sold our fat calves. I was figuring ADG and f...). So your numbers are simply wrong. Sorry.
6) Finally, you also wrote this: “If we put a chicken in a tiny battery cage designed to limit mobility, and then put that cage in a field and opened the entrance, do you really think it would remain in its cage?” I admit, it probably wouldn’t stay in the cage, but I ask you this: How long do you think that chicken would survive in the wild, and would its eventual death be even close to how we slaughter them?
Oh yeah, I clicked on the link for phytoestrogens and breast cancer, that was supposed to show your point about no link between them. The first paragraph of the website states “higher exposure to estrogens over a lifetime is linked with increased breast cancer risk.” Might want to check your sources a little closer.
My regret of writing this article was that I did not have enough time to sit down and formulate a paper as such. It was intended to be a short comment regarding the ongoing discussion that ballooned into a post that lead me to skip the first hour of my anatomy lab. Unfortunately I did not have time to reflect on my message and it was not intended to group vegetarians with animal rights activists and extremest organizations. On the contrary I feel that most vegetarians are misrepresented by organizations such as PETA. Unfortunately, my real bone to pick is with statements like "Humane Education coupled with a Vegan school lunch will end school shootings, wars, solve the healthcare crisis and heal/save the earth."
Websites such as 404 Not Found and Vegan School 101 use cartoons, anger-laden comments, name calling, and propaganda to get their point across.
I seemingly just wanted organizations to quit preying on the consumer's ignorance and for the consumer's themselves to make their own educated ideas based on personal experience rather than the crap you can read with an internet connection. To echo Peter, I would like to be the second to congratulate you Mr. Rundle for going out and observing with your own eyes the injustices being done and commenting on them. Unfortunately not everyone is like you and they just turn to internet to websites like those previously mentioned.
Pointing fingers and placing blame has never/will never be a progressive way to solve an issue.
To comment on the purpose of this letter being an attack? If you would just sit back and digest the fact that this letter was a response...yes that's it, a response to false propaganda from a organization. Seemingly false propaganda is what has started this debate. It is truly foolish to dissect one viewpoint of an issue without re-evaluating the other. If you truly are behind the propaganda that originally reported on that spurred this article then I pity your ignorance.
In no way shape or form am I trying to tie any one who chooses to not eat meat in with the likes of extremist animal rights activists. My first post along with my second is to plead with people to make their own educated decisions and present them as such. My continuous regret is that there is not more time in my days in which I could become better educated in current events/issues. Hopefully sir, its also one of yours.
First off I’d like to thank Mr. Magstadt for making many key points with his last post. His points on feed efficiency and accounting for rain in terms of water use are thoughts I echo.
The argument of water is so nuanced that in this discussion forum very little progress can be made in which numbers to use as it would take dozens of posts to come to agreements on definitions before we could even begin to do the math. My simple premise on grain use numbers was meant to imply that whatever number we deem acceptable as an estimate of agricultural use of water must be halved as only half the grain production in the USA is actually utilized in livestock production. Of course we should probably take into account which grains are most irrigated as vegetables for human consumption account for a large portion of California’s irrigated land (www.dfg.ca.gov/...) Granted my data is almost 20 years old now so you’ll have to judge for yourself as to which way this trend is moving.
However beyond that the main point I wanted to focus on was the issue brought up by Mr. Rundle and Mr. Brewer. How can producers be the force that polices itself without being biased. While I’d like to point out that my initial reaction is to rage against a perceived attack on the morals and ethics of producers many of whom you don’t know, but I do understand your point. How can you trust an industry when you inherently disagree with their principles? I’ll state first off that I’ll focus on the pork industry as I know this aspect better than I do the cattle side of it.
1) The Pork check-off is completely funded by pork producers. About 40 cents per 100 dollars of pork value is siphoned off to help producers market their products. The check-off’s mission statement include not only increasing sales of pork, but “meeting the challenges of responsible 21st century pork production". This isn’t something you see in most businesses today. I think many Wall Street companies (one branch of AIG) should have had the US economies best interest at heart and not just their own if they wanted to have long term (although lower profits per year) success.
2) The creation of PQA and PQA-plus although funded by the Check-off is not solely in the hands of the Check-off. The FDA, EPA, and the FSIS are all involved and have regulations in place that PQA matches or surpasses. All observation of farm practices are conducted by PQA “advisors”. These advisors are generally veterinarians and university affiliated agriculture personnel. You’ll have to let me know if these consultants are inadequate. I think having people that are unaffiliated with the production sites, yet have knowledge of production would be far superior evaluators than someone missing this background information.
Call the first statement “fluff” if you will, but it’s a proactive statement by an industry which is something to be lauded. I agree, and am pretty sure I’ve never said the pork industry is without biased, but they have gone out of their way to eliminate biased in PQA by bringing in assessors from outside not hiring in house. I only use it as a reference of what is being done from a practical stand point. The other side is welcome to present it's plan in ensuring animal welfare as I'm believe that having two points from which to debate and reach a compromise would be a better alternative than the plan and the soapbox we currently have. And although I agree with Mr. Brewer that the compromise is somewhere in the middle as I’ve stated in my first post, I do not agree with disregarding any argument as elementary or lacking in sustenance simply because it doesn’t conform to my opinions of how things should be done. I think the first step in making progress is to at the least accept that everyone has an opinion (right or wrong) and moving from there with rational thought and discussion because I can promise that the long winded reviews of research and literature will not agree as the researchers themselves are not always without biased.
Peter,
I think you misunderstand. I am not saying these entire species would not exist, I am referring to the individual animals used for meat and other products. If left to breed on their own in the wild both the number of these animals and our obligations toward them would be different (there wouldn't be millions of them, for example)
I am saying that any animal we bring into the world on purpose as we do meat animals or companion animals are our responsibility.
Megan,
I don't think I or anyone has stated that we don't have a responsibility to care for and look after these animals to the best of our abilities. I’m glad we can agree on this. I think I’ve argued that we do look after these animals and their welfare to the best of our abilities. I'm pretty sure I've stated that those involved in our industry that use questionable practices and fail to provide proper stewardship to livestock should not be raising these animals. I’m curious of where you get these notions that we mistreat and abuse our animals. Have you been to a farm or ranch lately? If so, and you are concerned about the practices they use, I'd be more than happy to go and visit these facilities with you to see these atrocities myself. If not I'd advise you to visit one and make your decisions based on what you see happening, not what is presented to you on the internet, magazine, or television. If you have questions, get a professionals opinion by consulting a veterinarian or animal welfare specialist at the veterinary college. You can even look many of the guidelines up on the internet, if that is your preferred means of communication with the world, at the American Veterinary Medical Association website. That should give you the basis by which we raise our livestock today. If you have questions regarding sow housing and gestation, check out the University of Minnesota’s research into sow housing options (www.extension.umn.edu/...). Obviously this is only one report and you can probably find research saying what you’d like to propose as well, I’m not saying it’s not out there. But let’s make sure we take into account our sources and their credibility.
I’m not afraid to admit that I’m not qualified to say what would happen to these animals if we allowed them to breed naturally in the wild. I just don’t know. Pigs and chickens could die off rather quickly because they lack the ability to forage for themselves and provide defense, making them easier targets for prey. Cow populations could turn into those like deer because of lack of a natural predator in our state. This could lead to increases in disease among ruminants and possibly effect human health issues. Though these may be worse case scenarios, I’m not an animal ecologist and I doubt you are either, therefore I don’t think we can make assumptions about this issue. I can say we’ve bred these animals out of their natural form, and they rely on us for many things. Thousands of years of domestication can do this to any species. I think we must be cognizant of the actions we propose before we decide to act on them.
Good article, Drew! I'm glad to see someone else here who has some knowledge about commercial livestock and, from your last point, basic knowledge of nutrition.
It's unfortunate that a lot of people see these diets (and others) as being a healthy alternative. However, to most human beings, all diets seem like a giant mess in terms of what is and isn't healthy; and, of course, a diet that will meet their needs. So, how can you blame them?
I think that one day a clear(er?) definition of a healthy diet will enter into mainstream Western culture; and, it will not be of the vegan type. One of these diets has only begun to place a toe hold in our society, mostly within the world of elite athletes; however, a small number of people far from the athletic world have turned heads and all have experienced great results.
Alas, in a society where the Omega-6 to Omega-3 fat ratio is 10:1, a large and appalling ratio, will we ever learn to eat a balanced diet!?
Look at the very sources you cite, Mr. Schneider. While chicken cannibalism does occur even in nature, all of these conditions dispose a flock to cannibalism:
In light of this, yes, I think it's perfectly fair to say that factory farm conditions cause outbreaks of cannibalism in chickens. Human-raised chicken flocks of all types do, really, since group size is a factor.
Incidentally, where did you get that study? Is it one you personally use? Did you contact the author firsthand? I would assume not, since you said you don't have personal experience with chickens... and I can't help but notice that it shows up pretty quickly on Google. Either Googling is a perfectly valid way to find studies OR it is childish and unacceptable, Mr. Schneider, not both.
I don't think I made my point clear last time - while actual estrogen has been linked to growth of breast cancer tumors, the phytoestrogens found in plants have not. They are not the same chemical compound. While they do emulate estrogen in some ways, there is no conclusive evidence on any possible link between phytoestrogens and cancer. The problem isn't that I am "manipulating data", the problem is that the data hasn't been collected. We don't know.
First you criticize me for using a metaphor that wasn't backed up with experimental evidence, then you don't present any data on this, accuse me of intellectual dishonesty just for offering data to support my claims, offer your own data for other topics in direct contradiction to your dismissal of citing sources. I don't know what you DO expect from me, but I'm not going to deal with this crap.
As for your sustainability examples - I'm advocating for people eating far LESS meat, remember? We were talking about vegetarianism originally... since 50% of all the grain we produce goes to eating meat, and since meat only provides a 10% energy return on the food used to feed it, food would actually be much more readily available if vegetarianism or near-vegetarianism was the norm. Since you're talking in drastic scale, I'll make a similar example: if no meat was produced at all, 45% of our farmland would be freed up. Small-scale free-range meat consumption would be feasible and cheap - low grain prices and a huge drop in demand for farmland/grazing land would mean that free-range products wouldn't carry a hefty price tag.
The actual issue that you should have brought up, instead of the horror-story drought situations and such, is that this would be an ENORMOUS blow to farmers. Food prices would plummet. Again, though, we're talking in unrealistic "whole-nation-converts" hypotheses, so this is only a hypothetical concern, just as the benefits are also hypothetical and unrealistic.
Drew Magstadt,
Good! I'm not trying to convert you all to hardcore veganism or anything either. I don't know why people keep saying things like this about themselves and assuming the opposite is true for me.
I'm sorry about that, I really should've added some more context. When I said that, I was replying to another commenter who said:
and so on. This amused me to no end, since this entire thread has basically been "your diet is unhealthy and make animals worse off!" "no, YOUR diet is unhealthy and makes animals worse off!" Saying that one side is "lecturing" or telling people what to do, or trying to take away their American choices - that's RIDICULOUS. I was attempting to poke fun at his point by turning it around before explicitly addressing it. I'm sorry my attempt at humor fell flat; I don't think you were unamerican or anything!
Thanks for that. I certainly understand why PETA comes to mind when you think of people opposed to meat production. As you mention though, they hold ludicrous extremist views - so comparing people to them is, in terms of taste if not scale, like comparing all Christians to Fred Phelps. It's a cheap and undeserved shot that dismisses people as wackos instead of addressing their argument. So, I hope you can understand my earlier ire on this, and thanks for your withdrawal.
1 - That's definitely true. In fact, the original quote to which you responded, your response, and my attack on your response were all technically accurate descriptions. I do admit that my description of the stunning was egregious, and apologize for that. Your own description was, in contrast, so... sanitized. It seemed concealing, though I'm sure not intentionally so. We probably had the exact opposite reaction here.
So again, I apologize for my sarcastic riposte. However, keep in mind that the procedure you describe is not the universal standard. Poultry is not subject to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. They are shackled to a conveyor belt, hanging upside-down by their feet alive, and the methods used for stunning them are much less effective. 10-40% of broiler chickens, for example, are not actually desensitized by the shock - they are immobilized, but conscious. (source)
2 - Ugh. Again, I was merely trying to make a point that there is a difference between the data provided in that study and the percent of water consumed that is consumed as a result of meat production. But yes, if it makes you feel better, I'll stop defending their questionable numbers.
3 - You're right that the land use data I used was messed up, mainly because I stupidly attempted to use "percent of agricultural land used (directly or inderectly) for animal production" as "percent of water used for irrigation that is used for animal production." (Heh). As you point out, those are NOT the same. Dumb mistake on my part there.
Of course, when you actually talk land usage and not water usage, we see that 50% of cropland used for grains and about 23% of all other land used for grazing goes towards meat production. The total productivity of that land, in terms of food energy, is the same as that of 5% of the farmland used for grains. Obviously we couldn't use all the pasture land to grow crops efficiently, but land itself is a valuable, limited commodity, and that's a VAST amount of space being used up in an extremely inefficient means of food production.
4 - (see the beginning of this post, where I was talking about this to Mr. Schneider)
I don't credit the industry for "positive" influences like debeaking because, well, I don't see debeaking as a positive influence. The industry's own practices drastically increase the incidence of cannibalism in chickens, so when the industry then debeaks chickens to make up for it, it's not making chicken's lives better than they would've been "in the wild," it's only cancelling out the stresses we introduced through their captivity. And the debeaking process is far from painless - as that same article points out, chicken's beaks are full of nerve endings. They compare it to a human hand. (I continue to cite Mr. Schneider's sources, by the way, in the hope that at least he can't criticize me for using the same sources he cites. I don't expect that to work wither, but at least if it doesn't I can call him out on it.)
And that's it for tonight, I'll have to pick up later. Sorry - got a lot on my plate.
Mr. Rundle,
I’m actually glad you pulled up that information from the link I posted. Those are all great points that poultry producers should be aware of to minimize the harmful effects of cannibalism and feather pecking. A good producer should take into consideration all of those predisposing factors if he/she wants to have a health, high producing product. The United Egg Producers have done a great job in setting standards and developing certification programs to ensure poultry producers are aware of any factors that could cause poor animal welfare. One question I tussle with is why would poultry producers create situations where animals would die? Why would they crowd chickens into cages or barns causing cannibalistic or feather pecking situations after they’ve bought the chickens, knowing full well 10% of them would die from poor welfare? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to save the money they spent by not buying that 10%, creating more room and not have the high death loss? I know from my experience in swine that overcrowding causes poorer performing animals with my health problems, and that’s why it shouldn’t be practiced. I couldn’t imagine this would be any different from the poultry industry. But then again I’m not an expert. If you’ve been to a farm raising poultry that has these types of practices, would you let me know about it so I can go visit it and ask them myself? I’d be curious to see what they have to tell me.
You’re also right that de-beaking is a poor welfare practice. It is one that is not endorsed by the United Egg Producers or other governing bodies in the poultry industry. They have become very concerned about both the public’s perception of the practice, and more importantly, the animal welfare aspect and the wellbeing of the chickens. In fact, it’s rarely, if at all, practiced any more by poultry producers. According to animal welfare specialist Dr. Suzanne Millman at the College of Veterinary Medicine here at ISU, de-beaking has been replaced by a practice known as beak trimming. This practice should be done at less than 10 days of age, as mandated by the United Egg Producers, but preferably before 7. The earlier the practice can be done means less trauma and nerve damage for the chicks. So yes, there is some pain involved. But according to Dr. Millman, the pain that is involved by beak trimming all of the chicks is far less than the pain felt by the chickens that are cannibalized and/or feather pecked. In order to help the chick’s recovery from the operation, producers prepare the birds by increasing levels of electrolytes and vitamins in their diet beforehand. Additionally, research has been conducted to find the best means by which to do the beak trimming. Studies show that using infrared technology is the best method from a welfare standpoint, and the industry is moving toward that practice. The industry would love to do away with the practice all together if it could. Any time an animal experience a traumatic event it will go off of feed and water, decreasing the animal’s growth rate. But the benefits from trimming beaks from a welfare and economic standpoint outweigh the production lost from doing the procedure. Otherwise, why would poultry producers want to inflict pain and decrease production?
I also wondered how practices such as cage confinement compared to free-range methods when it came to feather pecking and associated behaviors. Dr. Millman provided me with a wealth of information on the topic. From her own firsthand experience, she noted that free-range chickens also present these types of behaviors. Research has actually shown that small groups of chickens raised in cages have lower incidences of feather pecking than those reared in barns and free-range situations. The European Union had previously banned the use of cages for raising chickens, but has reversed course after seeing the results and began looking for a modified cage that would be a better option. Current research is being done at Purdue University to select for genetic lines that show fewer incidences of feather pecking behaviors. Other research is being directed at chick rearing activities and their effect on these behaviors. Obviously, the industry is concerned about poultry welfare. I’m not saying one way is better than the other per say, I’m simply stating that any one of them can be successful while still providing an optimal environment for welfare.
As far as sources of information goes, no, I don’t have a problem with doing a Google search. In fact, the internet is a great place to have easy access to pertinent and factual information. In addition there is also garbage that litters it and isn’t proper for basing a valid, well-thought, and knowledgeable argument on. I feel that literature from an educational institution such as the University of Nebraska or the University of Minnesota can be considered sound, factual information, much more than, say, Wikimedia. I won’t dispute your information gathered from government sources, it’s credible. But my main issue was the photo you posted. Have you been into a poultry facility and seen deplorable acts and inhumane living conditions? That’s all I’m asking. Have you had a firsthand experience in which to draw your own conclusion? I simply want people to make up their minds from quality, sound, and reliable information.
I don’t feel that I’ve attacked you on the health issues surrounding estrogen like you seem to be implying. I simply wanted to mention that there are health concerns with any diet, and that we need to realize what we’re putting in our bodies. Still, we do have the choice to eat a pound of meat a day if we’d like, just as we have the choice to vegetables as well. As I said in an earlier post “I think you’ve made the point clear in your response to me that anyone can conduct a study and manipulate results to say what they want said.” I’m sorry if this seemed as though I was attacking you on the issue. I was merely trying to show that there can be information presented for both sides of an argument. What factors we include in these studies has a large influence on what these studies say. As you stated, any diet can be unhealthy. A diet including the recommended servings of meat in them can be as healthy as a vegetarian diet that includes the proper nutritional needs. Factors like exercise also play a huge role in our health. I’m not a human nutritionist, I think I’ll leave that to Mr. Fisel, but I’d just like to make sure it’s understood that anything in moderation can be healthy.
I’m still unsure on your math. If Mr. Magstadt posts that cattle convert feed to pounds of meat at a 7:1 ratio, lambs at a 5:1 ratio, and hogs at a 3:1 ratio, not to mention chickens which are much better than all other species, then I don’t see anywhere that it’s a 10:1 ratio of feed to meat production. I might very well have misinterpreted what you’re trying to say, so if I did just let me know and I can try to correct it. Meanwhile, I feel that this is a good topic to consult a professional on, so I will try to gather information to enlighten us all.
By the way, I’m not trying to frighten anyone about the drought situations occurring in America either. It’s real and it will affect us all.
Another note. I have absolutely nothing against vegetarians. I have many friends who are, and I respect their decision to live their life the way they want. I hope no one had that impression after what I’ve said on this and previous posts, and I apologize if I did. The reason I feel so adamant about this editorial is the fact that all too often misconceptions are put out there and believed by those who really don’t know the truth. That’s why I’ve advocated seeing both sides of an argument and making informed decisions for themselves. If, after all the facts are weighed and it’s time to make a decision, people don’t agree with what I say I can live with that. We can agree to disagree. I simply want to sort out the truth from the inaccurate data.
I believe this article started and has always attempted to be about the use of accurate information to make well thought-out and informed decisions about animal welfare. This was why I was very surprised when you brought information about poultry slaughter in Mexico when discussing this issue. I'm more than willing to discuss slaughter issues here in the US, but we as a nation have very little control on the regulation of slaughter in other countries. I driving reason there is discussion on whether or not to resume horse slaughter in the US as Mexican practices of horse slaughter are much more controversial in regards to animal welfare and that is where the horses are going (or Canada) now that we have a ban on it. Whether intentional or not it is the use of information like this in an argument that bothers so many from the production animal side.