Posted by Larry Hoover on November 29, 2004, at 8:39:55
In reply to My last words on the subject- Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on November 28, 2004, at 19:44:38
> > Broiler farming, where I come from, is a very automated process. Efficiencies are measured in tenths of a percent of feed conversion. The birds are not confined until being trasported, having been held in open sheds on deep litter. There is no opportunity for gavage. Poor converters of feed are culled, not force-fed.
>
> That's not typical.My experience is not worthy of respect?
My experience is in full accord with the articles available at:
http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/poultry/extensio.htm> > I did not mean to imply that it never happened.
>
> It certainly came across that way, you corrected two people, neither of whom stated that it always happened, you denied the validity of two written
> articles, stating that you wanted to make sure the facts were correct.In two succeeding posts from myself, this is what I said:
"I don't believe you've got the details correct. Foie gras is produced by force-feeding of ducks or geese. But it hardly makes sense to burst the animals' stomachs, though I guess that might happen."
> www.peacockspoultryfarm.com/html/amish.htm
>
>
> www.paws.org/kids/teens/factory_farming.html -"There's nothing on either site to show that turkeys or chickens are force-fed."
> Your knowledge was to be accepted as superior because you'd been to a few farms, and that you couldn't find anything on Google.
No my distinction was between evidence and rhetoric. Anyone can say something on Internet, and I found identical text strings suggesting that burst stomachs occurred on sites widely scattered on the net. Not one gave any evidence of this allegation. When I found necropsy evidence, it did not mention that. I dislike hyperbole, exaggeration, propaganda. It's unnecessary. The truth is enough.
Here is a good factual article:
http://www.nofoiegras.org/FGscience_report.htmFrom an anatomical viewpoint, it is not even possible to put a force-feeding tube into a bird's stomach. The food is forced into a distensible (expandable) portion of the esophagus called the crop. Putting too much feed into the crop can choke the bird, and that does happen, and does kill them. Also, mechanical injury to the esophagus is frequent. I reiterate: The practise is abhorrent.
I saw a number of references that European foie gras producers have their geese come running when they see the funnel. I didn't report that because it was rhetoric. Someone's words. But there are different stories from different places. Why should we give greater weight to the stories you select than to ones from the Dordogne region of France?
> You aren't going to find peer reviewed journal articles about the ethics of chicken farming.
Actually, you do find those.
> You may find some on how to fatten chickens more quickly, or on disease. As for your having been to a few farms, it's like a childless person saying you've visited a few families and now you know all about raising children.
You don't know my knowledge and experience.
> > I cannot imagine the process is commonplace.
>
> You not being able to imagine it, does not make it fact. Check out the market for chicken tube feeders.I did. Not a single hit in Google for "chicken tube feeder".
The argument I was attempting to make was not that I could not imagine the process, but that it makes no economic sense to devote that much hands-on effort to fatten a single bird that goes for a fraction of a dollar per lb. carcass weight. Prime duck liver foie gras might go for $75/lb. Chicken or turkey carcass for 0.35?
If you read e.g. http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c446-w.html, you'll see a reference to a labour input of 4-6 *minutes* per 1,000 broilers per day. Reducing labour inputs is what makes modern factory farming a reality in the first place. What you're suggesting is the exact opposite, labour intensification.
> > The birds I'm talking about are not confined in any respect (other than by the shed walls), except for transport to slaughter.
>
> You haven't been to Tysons obviously.No, I haven't. That doesn't make me naive. Tyson's procedures may well need regulatory oversight. Perhaps farm reform is a necessity in the United States, I don't know. But that doesn't mean everybody else does things as you have seen.
> > Are you talking about laying hens?
>
> No I'm talking about Broiler chickens in fattening crates, what we were talking about.We don't use fattening crates, so we weren't talking about the same thing.
> How long has it been since you've seen a factory farm?
A few years, now. I can tell from looking at them (they're all around where I live), they're still the same as before. These are non-confinement facilities.
>>> ***I've learned that one can always assume the worst is true.***
This is the statement to which I addressed my concerns. I'll paste in the sequence to restore it.
> > The exceptional cases ought not to be used to taint the reputations of the remainder.
>
> Oh Good Heavens, even people who don't give a whit know that mass market chickens are not raised humanely.A separate argument to the one I enjoined.
> What you originally felt you needed to correct was the idea that chickens are not always force fed, turkeys usually are. You said "No matter how many P.E.T.A articles said so It doesn't happen"
It must be a dirty little secret, because neither PETA nor Google have anything but anecdote. I have already presented my opinion that anecdote is not evidence. I am not dismissing PETA, I am dismissing the "said so".
> It doesn't happen because you say it doesn't happen. That's all you have so far. I brought up what I know to be true, having lived it and you still are saying it doesn't happen. So much for the facts.
I said, quite explicitly, that I believe you. I literally said, "I believe you." What I don't believe is that is generalizable.
> It's not a big deal to me, as far as cruelty to chickens go, force feeding is really quite minor, I was trying to provide correct information, because you had corrected two people who did not need correcting.
I didn't correct them. I said there was no evidence.
> As it is, this is turning into a he said she said, which is not what I'd intended. Obviously you will believe what you want, but please don't claim that it's because you want to provide the facts.
I am only interested in evidence. Conclusions, in my world, flow from evidence. Passion and belief may empower the quest for evidence, but they may not supplant evidence.
> I too am aware it's a matter of economics, and I believe that many have had to sacrifice their dreams to make living. I've seen the pain personally, you have no right to make such a judgement.
This is where your lack of knowledge about me leaves you in a bind. I know how hard the work is. That's why I didn't choose to do it. But I didn't make an academic decision. I made a practical one. I determined that I did not wish to have a job responsibility that had 24 hours a day, seven days a week aspects. I tried it on for size, and it didn't fit. Before I was going to commit to going to formally study agricultural science at university, I wanted to know if the vocation was one I could carry out.
> >, strange as that may seem. That's how we do it hereabouts, based on my personal knowledge.
>
> Obviously they are not large chicken factories.That is neither obvious, nor correct.
> > > You mentioned no matter how many Peta articles say so it's not true that poultry is force fed.
> >
> > Our divergence in belief is an issue of frequency, not of absolute existence of the practise. I believe it is far less common than it is alleged to be.
> >
>
> Then perhaps you shouldn't have said "It doesn't happen" after the other poster said it doesn't always happen.Forgive my semantic slip. In the context of my complete dialogue, my intent was clear.
> >
> > The factory farms I've been to don't resemble what you describe, in any respect.
>
> It's interesting that you would frequent factory chicken farms, not being a farmer or a farmworker.Not currently so, no. I've always had an interest, wanting to be a farmer throughout my childhood and adolescence. I've kept current with the literature, and worked on farms. I know enough to know that there are bad farmers, certainly. Think of puppy mills vs. ethical breeders of popular dogs. It is not appropriate to vilify ethical breeders because of the puppy mills.
> And as for the post about chicken pate, it's not always labelled chicken pate, that was my point.
Then that is fraud. Again, a separate and irrelevant issue.
> It can still command top dollar as fois gras to the unseasoned palate.
I fear you have been exposed to the puppy mill version of farming. Is that possible?
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:420601
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041122/msgs/421763.html