Animal cruelty
- Thread starter razz
- Start date
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
Leopold, are you sure?
"We are proud to offer Free-Roaming eggs which come from chickens that are kept in a open, cage-free hen house. These eggs are unique also in that the feed is completely all-natural, with no added hormones, animal fats or animal by-products. The chickens are free to run loose around the hen house. We offer these eggs to the consumer in a 100% recycled paper egg carton."
So either they're outright lying about their housing conditions, they've changed (which I doubt), or you're mistaken/lying.
if they really do that, it sounds like a humane place.
The pictures are outdated and some do look like they're crowded... but I guess you really can't expect them to give them 50 feet a chicken now can you?
"We are proud to offer Free-Roaming eggs which come from chickens that are kept in a open, cage-free hen house. These eggs are unique also in that the feed is completely all-natural, with no added hormones, animal fats or animal by-products. The chickens are free to run loose around the hen house. We offer these eggs to the consumer in a 100% recycled paper egg carton."
So either they're outright lying about their housing conditions, they've changed (which I doubt), or you're mistaken/lying.
if they really do that, it sounds like a humane place.
The pictures are outdated and some do look like they're crowded... but I guess you really can't expect them to give them 50 feet a chicken now can you?
i worked there about 10 to 15 years agoTheAlphaWolf said:Leopold, are you sure?
"We are proud to offer Free-Roaming eggs which come from chickens that are kept in a open, cage-free hen house. These eggs are unique also in that the feed is completely all-natural, with no added hormones, animal fats or animal by-products. The chickens are free to run loose around the hen house. We offer these eggs to the consumer in a 100% recycled paper egg carton."
So either they're outright lying about their housing conditions, they've changed (which I doubt), or you're mistaken/lying.
if they really do that, it sounds like a humane place.
The pictures are outdated and some do look like they're crowded... but I guess you really can't expect them to give them 50 feet a chicken now can you?
when i worked there the conditions were as i described
rose acres is the parent company
i worked at jen-acres
they also have farms in jackson county, one of them being cort acres
jen acres is about 10 minutes from where i live
it wouldn't be too much trouble to get an update
i seriously doubt if they let millions of birds run loose in the houses
if you are unfamiliar with the size of the operation it's hard to understand
why they would not let the birds "free roam"
we are not talking about a small time operation
rose acre farms provides eggs for the entire united states
i will go and check at jen acres about the "free roaming" chickens
To original post:
I believe he has the right to do whatever he wants. Consequences are left up to everyone else. I veleive that he has the right to kill you too and me.
Im no christian, but in the words of Jeebus: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Personally, Id beat the guy with the shovel
I believe he has the right to do whatever he wants. Consequences are left up to everyone else. I veleive that he has the right to kill you too and me.
Im no christian, but in the words of Jeebus: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Personally, Id beat the guy with the shovel
alpha
here is some more info on rose acres
http://www.daytondailynews.com/project/content/project/farm/1201followingfood.html
Rose Acre Farms has 16 million laying hens — second-most in the country — but its business goes well beyond production.
At the company's Cort Acres farm in southern Indiana, 2.2 million chickens in 34 hen houses lay about 1.5 million eggs a day.
The eggs are processed — cleaned, sorted by size and put in cartons — before leaving the farm in semi-trailers. Each trailer is capable of hauling up to 314,000 eggs to distributors or directly to warehouses of supermarket chains such as Kroger and Aldi.
Cort Acres' newest egg separating machine alone can process more than 1.5 million eggs during a 9 1/2-hour shift.
remember, the above applies to cort acres
rose acres also has 3 other chicken farms in the area
so as you can see the claim that chickens "free roam"
is really hard for me to beleive
like i said i'll check it out tomorrow.
if we take the above figures we can see that cort acres alone
ships approx. 12 semi loads of eggs a day
here is some more info on rose acres
http://www.daytondailynews.com/project/content/project/farm/1201followingfood.html
Rose Acre Farms has 16 million laying hens — second-most in the country — but its business goes well beyond production.
At the company's Cort Acres farm in southern Indiana, 2.2 million chickens in 34 hen houses lay about 1.5 million eggs a day.
The eggs are processed — cleaned, sorted by size and put in cartons — before leaving the farm in semi-trailers. Each trailer is capable of hauling up to 314,000 eggs to distributors or directly to warehouses of supermarket chains such as Kroger and Aldi.
Cort Acres' newest egg separating machine alone can process more than 1.5 million eggs during a 9 1/2-hour shift.
remember, the above applies to cort acres
rose acres also has 3 other chicken farms in the area
so as you can see the claim that chickens "free roam"
is really hard for me to beleive
like i said i'll check it out tomorrow.
if we take the above figures we can see that cort acres alone
ships approx. 12 semi loads of eggs a day
Last edited:
how many people here can live without the aid of factory mass production of food?, could most of you live happily int he wild and hunt your own animals all of the time and be happy doing it yourself, be honest?
and about animal cruelty i dont like mass farming and i dont support it, but i dont complain about it that much because its going to be there regardless of what i say,
but the real question here im asking is this i guess, i wont hide my motives, how many people complain about animal cruelty and say its wrong to farm like that, and still eat fast food like Mc donalds burger king KFC etc, or still purchase meat from supermarkets or butchers, or still participate in the upkeep of the industry?,
peace.
and about animal cruelty i dont like mass farming and i dont support it, but i dont complain about it that much because its going to be there regardless of what i say,
but the real question here im asking is this i guess, i wont hide my motives, how many people complain about animal cruelty and say its wrong to farm like that, and still eat fast food like Mc donalds burger king KFC etc, or still purchase meat from supermarkets or butchers, or still participate in the upkeep of the industry?,
peace.
James R said:
Ummm, yeah... I'd like to see the official statistics on that. Anyway, I agree that the 'living' conditions of our food animals are generally inexcusable. Eating meat is, however, not. Animals eating other animals is as 'natural' as mating, sleeping, and breathing. The only arguments against it are inventions of humans with advanced technology who like to anthropomorphize bunnies, mice, and bears, etc. Our food animals should have free range until the day of their culling. And in addition, the population of the world should be reduced by a factor of 10 or more so that the burden on other species would be reduced drastically.
You seem very militant about it James. Interesting.
EmptyForceOfChi said:
Me, unfortunately.
BTW, Empty. You're very pretty (I assume you avatar is you?).
superluminal said:
no,
im a guy, and the avatar/picture is of my wife, but im prettyer, well buddha might think so anyways, (joking buddha keep your bra on)
peace.
Sorry about that fella! And I seriously doubt that you're prettier...
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
damn, that's a lot of chickens.
It's hard for me to believe too!
Well, you never know. Getting other people informed CAN make a difference. First a small one, then a big one. That's how things change. People don't just suddenly realize things are bad, people around them have to point it out and stuff...
Well, I don't buy my own groceries.. so that's part of why I do eat mostly chicken, but I don't eat chicken very often either. I'm planning on becoming a vegetarian once I buy my own groceries
I don't know about that, but if everyone turned vegetarian tomorrow, we could definately end world hunger. Farming plants is much more efficient than farming animals. It takes up less space, less resources, etc. Think about it... to keep animas you need a lot of space. You need the actual housing, the waste management stuff, AND you also need the space for growing the food the animals eat.
I DID mention it before didn't I? well, if I didn't, I agree... I'm not so much against EATING meat, it's how it's treated before that I hate.
superluminal said:
its no problem,
and i dont know it depends who is looking, beauty is in the eye of the beholder,
i personally think she is better looking, but she thinks i am better looking, so its all subjective,
peace,
superluminal:
No need, but check for yourself if you like. Here's enough to get you started.
1. All meat animals need to be fed.
2. To produce 1 kilogram of meat requires that the animal eat 10 kilograms of grain or other vegetarian food which humans could eat directly.
3. In fact, humans do not eat that food directly. Grains for human consumption are grown separately from grains for animal consumption.
Therefore, to produce meat from, say, cows, you need three fields on your farm. One field where the cows live. One to grow the cow food. And one to grow vegetable food for humans. Eliminate the cows and you could use all three fields for growing vegetarian food for humans.
That's a start. You need to realise that by eating meat you perpetuate those living conditions, however. Animals are bred solely for food. The great majority of those animals simply would not exist if people stopped eating meat.
The "natural = good = right" argument doesn't work. Many things are arguably "natural", but we do not allow them because we are enlightened human beings who try to act ethically. "Every man for himself" may be natural, but we have laws restricting violence. Sex with minors may be "natural", but we restrict it. Breeding until all the available resources are used up may be "natural", but we are starting to recognise the environment as worthy of protection from ourselves in many ways.
In any case, humans these days eat far more meat than they would have "naturally" as hunter-gatherers. So, if you're arguing for naturalism, you should be arguing for reduced consumption of meat, at the very least.
On the contrary, anthropomorphic arguments do not come into the equation at all. It is not necessary that animals be "the same" as humans to be worthy of protection - see my posts to Quarkmoon. It doesn't matter if they are "not as smart" as us. We ought to act ethically regardless. The very fact that we have power over them ought to lead us to carefully consider their rights, rather than simply abusing that power because we can.
Apply the same arguments to slavery, and see where that gets you. Slavery is "right" because slaves aren't "proper" humans, like the rest of us. They are "lower", and therefore we can do what we like with them.
This is a statement of animal welfare as opposed to animal rights. Your position is "The bottom line is we can do what we like with animals, because they are property, but we should try to treat them 'humanely' up until when we slaughter them for our enjoyment."
That's better than nothing, but why not go all the way?
Why cull at all if it is unnecessary?
I think the carrying capacity of our planet is probably ok for our current population, if we did things right, but I admit I'm not certain about that.
Only as militant as I am on a number of moral issues.
It annoys me when people try to defend the indefensible, and do so just because it backs up their own selfish interests or desires. I hope that a little education can make a difference.
People are very apathetic. Many just don't bother looking into the moral implications of their own behaviour. But others, after becoming aware of the issues, instead of confronting them, they instead try to rationalise their behaviour. Deep down, they know what they are doing is wrong, by they never confront that in any real sense.
Look at this debate. People keep raising the same rationalisations over and over again. Then, when they run out of arguments they attempt to start a personal argument in order to distract from the issue. In the end, they simply disappear, and pretend to themselves that the discussion never happened. Some even come back 6 months later, having apparently forgotten all previous discussion. And you know what? I think they even believe their own propaganda.
People seldom change their minds when backed into a corner. But a few might, perhaps several months or years down the track, when they forget the heat of the moment and actually think rationally. That is what I hope for in threads like this.
With regard to this particular debate, ask yourself: if the meat-eaters here really think eating meat is necessary and/or good, why do they feel they must defend their practices? Why so defensive and irrational in their arguments?
No need, but check for yourself if you like. Here's enough to get you started.
1. All meat animals need to be fed.
2. To produce 1 kilogram of meat requires that the animal eat 10 kilograms of grain or other vegetarian food which humans could eat directly.
3. In fact, humans do not eat that food directly. Grains for human consumption are grown separately from grains for animal consumption.
Therefore, to produce meat from, say, cows, you need three fields on your farm. One field where the cows live. One to grow the cow food. And one to grow vegetable food for humans. Eliminate the cows and you could use all three fields for growing vegetarian food for humans.
That's a start. You need to realise that by eating meat you perpetuate those living conditions, however. Animals are bred solely for food. The great majority of those animals simply would not exist if people stopped eating meat.
The "natural = good = right" argument doesn't work. Many things are arguably "natural", but we do not allow them because we are enlightened human beings who try to act ethically. "Every man for himself" may be natural, but we have laws restricting violence. Sex with minors may be "natural", but we restrict it. Breeding until all the available resources are used up may be "natural", but we are starting to recognise the environment as worthy of protection from ourselves in many ways.
In any case, humans these days eat far more meat than they would have "naturally" as hunter-gatherers. So, if you're arguing for naturalism, you should be arguing for reduced consumption of meat, at the very least.
On the contrary, anthropomorphic arguments do not come into the equation at all. It is not necessary that animals be "the same" as humans to be worthy of protection - see my posts to Quarkmoon. It doesn't matter if they are "not as smart" as us. We ought to act ethically regardless. The very fact that we have power over them ought to lead us to carefully consider their rights, rather than simply abusing that power because we can.
Apply the same arguments to slavery, and see where that gets you. Slavery is "right" because slaves aren't "proper" humans, like the rest of us. They are "lower", and therefore we can do what we like with them.
This is a statement of animal welfare as opposed to animal rights. Your position is "The bottom line is we can do what we like with animals, because they are property, but we should try to treat them 'humanely' up until when we slaughter them for our enjoyment."
That's better than nothing, but why not go all the way?
Why cull at all if it is unnecessary?
I think the carrying capacity of our planet is probably ok for our current population, if we did things right, but I admit I'm not certain about that.
Only as militant as I am on a number of moral issues.
It annoys me when people try to defend the indefensible, and do so just because it backs up their own selfish interests or desires. I hope that a little education can make a difference.
People are very apathetic. Many just don't bother looking into the moral implications of their own behaviour. But others, after becoming aware of the issues, instead of confronting them, they instead try to rationalise their behaviour. Deep down, they know what they are doing is wrong, by they never confront that in any real sense.
Look at this debate. People keep raising the same rationalisations over and over again. Then, when they run out of arguments they attempt to start a personal argument in order to distract from the issue. In the end, they simply disappear, and pretend to themselves that the discussion never happened. Some even come back 6 months later, having apparently forgotten all previous discussion. And you know what? I think they even believe their own propaganda.
People seldom change their minds when backed into a corner. But a few might, perhaps several months or years down the track, when they forget the heat of the moment and actually think rationally. That is what I hope for in threads like this.
With regard to this particular debate, ask yourself: if the meat-eaters here really think eating meat is necessary and/or good, why do they feel they must defend their practices? Why so defensive and irrational in their arguments?
EmptyForceofChi:
Probably not many people. But we're talking about whether factory farming of animals is necessary. For example, I have very few problems with the large-scale farming of wheat.
That's not true. The meat industry relies completely on meat consumers. No demand would mean no supply.
Well, obviously vegetarians don't eat McDonald's burgers, KFC etc. If they did, they wouldn't be vegetarians.
My partner often complains about people who say "I'm vegetarian... but I eat chicken and fish!" Chicken and fish are animals, and are meat. If you eat chicken but not beef, maybe you're figure-conscious, or on a health kick or something, but you're not vegetarian - and you shouldn't claim to be one.
Probably not many people. But we're talking about whether factory farming of animals is necessary. For example, I have very few problems with the large-scale farming of wheat.
That's not true. The meat industry relies completely on meat consumers. No demand would mean no supply.
Well, obviously vegetarians don't eat McDonald's burgers, KFC etc. If they did, they wouldn't be vegetarians.
My partner often complains about people who say "I'm vegetarian... but I eat chicken and fish!" Chicken and fish are animals, and are meat. If you eat chicken but not beef, maybe you're figure-conscious, or on a health kick or something, but you're not vegetarian - and you shouldn't claim to be one.