Well, I have been in chicken houses growing for the largest poultry company in the world and have never seen this in a broiler house. It sounds a more like a laying house, but I have not seen one that crowded.
As far as debeaking, seeing a group of chickens peck another to death is not pretty…
I’m not defending agribusiness, but, believe me, if they could handle stress-induced mortality with cheap drugs, they would. The only drugs we administered were anitbiotics.(The feed is treated at the mill with various chemicals)
An “indescribable” smell indicates a poorly-ventilated operation. The strong amonia smell is as hard on the flock as it is on the producer.
If the fans stop, you have several options.
Most larger operations have generators.
2.Open all the curtains.
There’s no easy quote from the article to demonstrate the problems with electrical stunning; you’ll need to read the article, with its accounts of chickens being boiled alive, to find that out.
It helps, before you call someone a lunatic, to educate yourself.
Forty years ago, you would’ve been calling them communists, and a hundred years ago, you would’ve been calling them anarchists, and five hundred years ago, you would’ve been calling them Satanists. If being rude to someone over supper constitutes terrorism, then the word is so ridiculously devoid of meaning that we should drop it from our vocabulary.
In a thread full of absurdities, this one takes the cake.
I certainly don’t advocate rudeness over dinner or throwing red paint on fur wearers. But Jeezum Crow, lighten up on the hysterical rhetoric already! Call them judgemental fanatics. Call them self-righteous punks. Call them holier-than-thou assholes. Call the paint-throwers vandals.
But if you blow your wad over red paint, you’ve got nothing left for nail bombs, for anthrax, for snipers, for hijackers.
It continually amazes me how normally rational people on the Straight Dope go bonkers when PETA’s name is mentioned. Something about their particular brand of self-righteous smarminess seems to drive people over the edge into an inexplicably rabid fury, makes people feel comfortable spouting all sorts of ignorant falsehoods and hyperboles about them.
I fully agree with you that conditions in Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations are deplorable, and furthermore, they wreak havoc on the environment. I refuse to buy meat from an animal that’s been stuffed with corn, antibiotics and hormones. Its a cruel life for the cow, and its bad for my health. My main concern though, is that the cow or chicken or pig’s life on this planet has been halfway decent…not that its last 10 minutes on earth is gentle.
I don’t think wolves are cruel. I think they’re wolves. Performing in an essential rolem just like we should. With the industrialized meat-raising methods commonly used in the western world, I think we’ve abused our natural role, however.
I’ve spent lots of time in Rockingham and Augusta Counties in Virginia looking at poultry operations. The most mild way I can respond to your “facts” is, that’s not how its done here. These counties produce millions and millions of broilers, turkeys and pullets annually, and not one of the operations I’ve seen are battery cages. They’re all deep-litter.
I’ve only seen one layer operation, and all the chickens there had beaks. They had conveyer belts removing the manure, chutes for the eggs. Beak trimming is important in higher density operations to keep the birds from <gulp> cannibalism, amongst other things. They’re trimmed, not removed. Even some pet birds get their beaks trimmed! They are not “starved to death” to force molting (a natural process): inputs are decreased, light is changed. Research continues into the short and long term affects of trimming. I gather the data show that yes, it’s painful in the short term, and it is not in the long term. Probably beats being pecked to death by your neighbor, though.
Antibiotics prevent disease, suffering, and increase contentedness and profitability of your chickens. What’s the problem here? I thought you were against animal suffering?
Heat is a substantial contributor to mortality. That’s why many (most?) producers have backup generators in warmer climes.
The smell? Well, it smells like ammonia. Not so bad. Your average chicken has the intelligence of a wilted turnip, and they don’t seem to mind. Indeed, even in ranged operations with roosts, they happily return to the coop every night and smell it. The smell may be offensive to you, but I really don’t think the chickens mind.
Chickens nowadays have never had it better in terms of life, nutrition, freedom from disease, and general welfare. A happy animal is a productive (and profitable) one! With that in mind, a lot of research is going on to improve the welfare of poultry, and thus profitibility.
There is no such thing as a wild cow. The cattle we keep today are, by millenia of breeding, utterly unsuited to life in the wild, and is completely dependent upon the care given by the farmer and vet. As far as calves go, most indeed are bucolically roaming pastures with mommy. It’s called a “cow and calf” operation, and that’s how we get new heifers, steers and bulls.
Furthermore, a cow is never a clean creature. Even in pasture, these creatures are nothing if not filthy. They happily step in poop, poop on themselves, poop on each other, wallow in mud, and have a grand old time.
As for the calves kept confined, I, too question the morality of keeping a mammal that restrained. Some farmers are ranging their veal to address this very issue. But as one farmer told me, “Know what you want to do all day if you are a cow? Sit around and eat.” Maybe he was right. If you look at the ranged veal calves, you can always find them at one spot in the paddock: Grouped together right in front of the trough or sitting and chewing.
No, we shouldn’t be cruel, and, we try not to be. Largerly, we succeed. Can we and should we improve? Certainly. But let’s start by understanding the reality of raising livestock, not by some idealized notion of wild cows and chickens, and questionable descriptions about how these operations are actually run.
Best,
Dev
Just one thing. Wolves are NOT Cruel. Cruelty is a human trait. Its the enjoyment of malicious and intentional harm to another creature. Wolves kill to eat. if They dont eat, they die. they dont kill wild cows just for sport, thats a human recreation. I eat cow carcass because its good eats. Thats the only reason why I joined PETA.
Who are you to decide what is crule in the sheme of things? If this “cruelty” you speak of had been snuffed out, there would be no predators. Some, we have a bunch of herbivors…with no population control. They eventually eat themselves out of their food source and STARVE to death.
The big thing is, that by your definition, existance is cruel. Diseases, cancer, heart attacks, mental illness, accidental deaths. All of these things will exists even if every being on the planet became a vegitarian. Animals (and plants) would still die in horrible ways. Such is nature…and that’s how it will always be.
I eat veal. I wear leather. I eat meat. My kid uses dyed chicken feathers for art projects. I patronize fast-food establishments. I do all of these things and more without guilt.
Oh and PS- I was pissed off yesterday (dealt with a plumber) and should not have used the derogatory “some Jethro at the plant” to describe a worker in a poultry processing plant. It was unfair and lame, and I apologize for it.
Let’s be clear on the meanings of words, hmmm? I would never have called such people communists, since their behavior in no way relates to a now discredited economic system. Anarchists deny all forms of government, while the people I described deny the right of other people to differ from them in some narrow category. Satanists are believers in Satan, and in practices, such as animal sacrifice, of which I’m sure anmial rights activists would take a dim view.
Sorry I lumped rudeness (uncivil behavior) over dinner with throwing paint on people. The merely rude are probably not terrorists. They are fanatics. They need a lesson in manners, but, okay, they’re not terrorists. Hyperbole is sometimes more trouble than it’s worth.
As for those who throw paint on people, calling them terrorists isn’t much of a stretch. Assaulting people with paint may not equal nail bombs, but it’s still the act of a terrorist, defined by my dictionary as one who uses “force or threats to demoralize, intimidate and subjugate…” Terrorist acts don’t always kill. Attacking a person with paint is an assault intended to demoralize, intimidate and subjugate, and is an act of terrorism.
I realize this has been a little off the OP, and I apologize to Captain Amazing for the hijack. As to the OP, whether or not PETA members would patronize KFC has little to do with the boycott. They would like others to shun the chain until certain policies have been changed to their satisfaction. To the extent that they can get KFC’s usual customer base to look at what they think are wrongs against animals, their boycott might be effective. In any case, boycott is a legitimate method, and doesn’t involve intimidation unless PETA members try to block entrances to KFC restaurants or start throwing fake chicken blood on patrons. Then, I still insist, it would become a type of terrorism.
Exactly what I’m asking for: my point was that you’re calling rude dinner guests terrorists not because they’re remotely like terrorists, but because it’s the insult du jour. Communist, anarchist, Satanist all used to be the insult du jour.
Apology accepted – all though the “probably” in your second sentence doesn’t belong, and I think you know it. My bigger objection, however, is your lumping rudeness over dinner in with mass murder.
Technically you’re right on the denotation, but you’re screwing up the connotation six ways from Sunday.
Terrorism is currently just about the worst crime you can accuse someone of. If you trivialize the crime by lumping in vandalism with mass-murder, you dilute the accusation’s power even as you try (disingenuously, I think) to exaggerate the crime of paintthrowing.
Paintthrowing is a relatively minor crime in the grand scheme of things: I’d argue it’s less severe than drag racing, simple battery, sexual assault, breaking-and-entering, or any number of other crimes. You could just as easily call it “vandalism”. By choosing to call it “terrorism,” you’re elevating it to something far worse than it actually is. Should the War on Terrorism, a war we’ve declared against all terrorists, extend to paint-throwers? What about to kids who spraypaint “Fuck the Police!” on walls? Where does the silliness end?
Once more, in case anyone missed it: I’m not defending paintthrowing here. I’m just condemning a simplistic hyperbole that, without any qualification, lumps paintthrowing and mass murder into one category.
Yes, I agree. I was just responding to ouisey’s statement that herbivores are eaten alive in the wild. I aplogize for the poor word choice in using “cruel.”
I’m glad to hear that. Unfortunately, not all operations are like those in Rockingham and Augusta Counties, Virginia. Some operations are much like I described.
The smell from the Buckeye Egg Farm in Ohio was appalling. I’ve heard that it could be smelled from miles away. The chickens may not have cared, but those humans in the surrounding community sure did, as did the EPA.
I don’t, for one instant, believe that the antibiotics are used to ease “animal suffering.” They’re used to controll illnesses brought on by the conditions that they are kept in.
I used to raise chickens myself. Not one of them ever needed anitbiotics. None of them ever tried to cannibalize their fellow birds, because they had plenty of room. Chickens only do that when they are kept in cramped conditions.
I don’t know. It seems to me that chickens on a farm in a large coop, allowed to free-roam during the day have it a bit better than the chickens whose feet never touch the earth.
A happy chicken may be a productive chicken, but in a lot of the plants I’ve read about, a sad, non-productive chicken is a dead chicken. Let’s be honest: chickens are cheap. You can buy fertilized eggs for next to nothing. Some plants find it more profitable to keep the chickens in the conditions I described, and when the birds stop producing, kill them and get another. Perhaps research is ongoing in how to keep a chicken happy, but it’ll be a lot more expensive, and simply put, many plants wouldn’t want to invest that kind of money into something so disposable.
Yes, I know this. But the ancestor of the cow lived a life much like the large herbivores which are still wild: buffalo, for instance.
On smaller farms, yes, you’re right. But in huge milk-producing farms, the calves are taken away, because they’ll drink up all of the profits.
A wild herbivore moves on to different pastures when the one it’s been feeding in becomes befouled, or it has eaten all of the tastiest grasses. Cows today are kept in one location, much smaller than a herbivore’s natural range.
Yes, herbivores tend to group together, but a veal calf cannot *move. * A free range calf can at least stretch its legs.
I don’t advocate that anyone become a vegetarian. I love a big, juicy steak as much as the next person.
You’re right, life is cruel. Nature is cruel. Okay by me, because that’s the natural order of things. I want the wolves to eat, too. But our way isn’t necessarily the natural order of things. We breed dependant, helpless creatures to feed ourselves, which is fine: we’re human, and we like our food where it’s convenient to get it. The only thing that I would like is that the food-animals be kept in a decently comfortable environment and killed quickly and cleanly. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to humanely provide for the animals we are going to eat.
I’m not a green activist, nor do I belong to PETA. I disagree with many of their positions. I don’t wear fur, but I’d never criticize someone who does. I don’t think my stance in asking for good conditions for animals and a quick death are all that unreasonable.
QUOTE]Just one thing. Wolves are NOT Cruel. Cruelty is a human trait. Its the enjoyment of malicious and intentional harm to another creature. Wolves kill to eat. if They dont eat, they die. they dont kill wild cows just for sport, thats a human recreation.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree. I was just responding to ouisey’s statement that herbivores are eaten alive in the wild. I applogize for the poor word choice in using “cruel.”
I’m glad to hear that. Unfortunately, not all operations are like those in Rockingham and Augusta Counties, Virginia. Some operations are much like I described.
The smell from the Buckeye Egg Farm in Ohio was appalling. I’ve heard that it could be smelled from miles away. The chickens may not have cared, but those humans in the surrounding community sure did, as did the EPA.
I don’t, for one instant, believe that the antibiotics are used to ease “animal suffering.” They’re used to controll illnesses brought on by the conditions that they are kept in.
I used to raise chickens myself. Not one of them ever needed anitbiotics. None of them ever tried to cannibalize their fellow birds, because they had plenty of room. Chickens only do that when they are kept in cramped conditions.
I don’t know. It seems to me that chickens on a farm in a large coop, allowed to free-roam during the day have it a bit better than the chickens whose feet never touch the earth.
A happy chicken may be a productive chicken, but in a lot of the plants I’ve read about, a sad, non-productive chicken is a dead chicken. Let’s be honest: chickens are cheap. You can buy fertilized eggs for next to nothing. Some plants find it more profitable to keep the chickens in the conditions I described, and when the birds stop producing, kill them and get another. Perhaps research is ongoing in how to keep a chicken happy, but it’ll be a lot more expensive, and simply put, many plants wouldn’t want to invest that kind of money into something so disposable.
Yes, I know this. But the ancestor of the cow lived a life much like the large herbivores which are still wild: buffalo, for instance.
On smaller farms, yes, you’re right. But in huge milk-producing farms, the calves are taken away, because they’ll drink up all of the profits.
A wild herbivore moves on to different pastures when the one it’s been feeding in becomes befouled, or it has eaten all of the tastiest grasses. Cows today are kept in one location, much smaller than a herbivore’s natural range.
Yes, herbivores tend to group together, but a veal calf cannot *move. * A free range calf can at least stretch its legs.
I don’t advocate that anyone become a vegetarian. I love a big, juicy steak as much as the next person.
You’re right, life is cruel. Nature is cruel. Okay by me, because that’s the natural order of things. I want the wolves to eat, too. But our way isn’t necessarily the natural order of things. We breed dependant, helpless creatures to feed ourselves, which is fine: we’re human, and we like our food where it’s convenient to get it. The only thing that I would like is that the food-animals be kept in a decently comfortable environment and killed quickly and cleanly. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to humanely provide for the animals we are going to eat.
I’m not a green activist, nor do I belong to PETA. I disagree with many of their positions. I don’t wear fur, but I’d never criticize someone who does. I don’t think my stance in asking for good conditions for animals and a quick death are all that unreasonable.
Here in Australia, KFC doesn’t raise and slaughter its own chickens anymore than McDonalds raises its own cows
The contracts suppliers sign here with fast food chains give those chains extensive rights to conduct random checks on the conditions under which the produce they are buying (whether it’s wheat for the bread rolls or chickens for the fryer) are being produced and prepared for sale - these checks are in addition to those which are made under law by various government departments dealing with health, animal welfare, and agriculture. You can pretty much bet that if the head office of any fast food chain here received a letter saying that one of their suppliers was treating the stock inhumanely, someone from HQ would invoke their right to inspect the conditions of the farm involved. Fast food chains are ruthlessly protective of their image and will go to a lot of trouble and expense to ensure it isn’t tarnished.
Har! Spoken like a true west Texan. However, it was a sad day when Chester’s closed their Alpine store. Except that I’d rather have driven to the Ft. Stockton KFC, anyway…
Nonetheless, “Chester Fried Chicken” is a reference that I never expected to see here.
I already separated the rude dinner guest from the paint thrower. I agree that the former is merely rude. As to lumping even the paint throwers with mass murderers, I find it hard to believe that you actually make that association. Who is engaging in hyperbole now? There are different kinds of terrorists. My point was that certain elements of PETA use intimidation rather than reason as a tactic to get what they want. Ask your local sheriff, just the threat of violence may legally be called “making a terrorist threat.” Yet I don’t think the sheriff is confused about what kind of terrorism is being described.
I don’t agree. The correct connotation is drawn from context. You didn’t really believe I was equating paint throwers with murderers, did you? Assholes they certainly are, but murderers? I don’t think I said, nor even intimated, any such thing.
Breaking into a house and breaking up the furniture is vandalism. Painting hate messages on the walls elevates the crime to trerrorism. The two actions are similar, but the intent is completely different. Parading in front of a furrier’s store with signs denouncing the use of animal pelts is legitimate protest. Throwing paint on the store’s patrons is an assault, an intimidation intended to demoralize and terrorize. The person with the sign is a demonstrator. The person who actually assaults others is a terrorist by definition. Again, mass murder has nothing to do with it. Call the term a metaphor if you like, but it is ligitimate, in my opinion. We know by now that you don’t share that opinion, and that’s okay.
I never thought you were a wild-eyed fanatic, Daniel,. We just disagree on the ligitimacy of certain words in certain contexts. I’m sorry to have offended your sensibilities, but I’ll probably go on using “terrorist” to describe those who want to force their ideas on others by intimidation. I’m just a mule that way, which is not to say that I’m actually a furry, long-eared creature known for its stubbornness.
I think if you ask 100 people for an example of terrorism, 100 of them will name an act involving mass murder. I think if you watch the news and tally the uses of the word “terrorism” or “terrorist,” you’ll find greater than 95% of the time, the word is used in reference to mass murder.
Let’s look at some cites:
In FEMA’s Fact Sheet on terrorism, the following crimes and tools of terrorism are mentioned:
Explosives; Kidnappings; hijackings; arson; shootings; Bomb Threats; Chemical Agents; Biological Agents. (Chemical agents are poisonous gases, liquids or solids that have toxic effects on people, animals or plants," not paint).
The Department of Homeland Security promises to protect us from terrorism. They focus on WMD, but also add in agricultural terrorism. They don’t mention paint anywhere.
I maintain that you’ve got the connotation of the word all wrong. Terrorism is so closely linked to murder that most people, on hearing you describe anyone as a terrorist, will believe you’re calling them a murderer. This is hyperbole. The word “vandal” applies much better: the denotation is correct, and the connotation is correct as well. If you want, put the word “political” in front of “vandal,” and you’ve got a perfectly serviceable term that won’t conflate paint throwing with anthrax mailing.
If killing things just for sport counts as “cruelty”, then you must lump wolverines in with humans. Although wolverines are carnivorous predators, from time to time they have been observed in the wild hunting and killing prey but not so much as trying to eat their prey afterwards. In these circumstances, the wolverine is hunting and killing just for the sake of the kill alone.
And this doesn’t even touch on such activities as the ritual cannibalism engaged in by warring tribes of chimpanzees.