High Cost Of Cheap Chicken...

[pinegrovedave]

Hello, baby! ^^ :D

Hey there yourself pretty lady. :)

 

[juniper]

Im so glad i dont eat that shit anymore ! Id rathger spend my money on good food than pay for a dr. because i was a sheepfuck eating frankenfood and all the pain that entails.. Ad that to the low cost of frankenfoods .lol. Could cost your life ! Frankenfood is a allopathic drs BFF . ;)

When I hear or read words like "allopathic", "frankenfoods", or a modified version of "sheeple", this signals that I should stop listening. Fake science and tinfoil hats won't help anything.

Life, facts, hard realities govern the economics of meat production. In an ideal world, our population density would be low enough and enough people would be engaged in low-intensity, entirely sustainable, highly-efficient farming practices that everyone could eat 100% organic meat, dairy, eggs, etc. for every meal. It would be fresh, local, cheap, and minimally processed. But we do not live in that world, unfortunately. We are saddled with feeding the teeming masses, and that means we have to cut corners.

As of this moment, we are overpopulated several times over, if we are talking about our ability to feed everyone high-quality food in a sustainable fashion, using only ethical farming practices. People generally don't like this statement because of the implications of what should be done about it.

Its kind of what pushed me into growing out own cannabis as well. My SO & sick friend just always got garbage from from clubs and clinics around Los Angeles even if you bought half a dozen "top shelf" zips you get home and you got a lot of medicore stuff that just should of been blasted with the trim.

You bought 6 ounces and none of them were any good? Idk dude, sounds like sour grapes on your part.

 

[diamond2.0]

Heres some chicken news.

Perdue blames its chicken farmers for inhumane conditions, loses customers in the process
Saturday, February 21, 2015 by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer
Tags: Perdue, chicken farmers, inhumane conditions

(NaturalNews) Over 8 billion chickens are raised for meat annually in the United States. Some are raised inhumanely in factory farms, providing cheap meat. Other chicken producers pledge to raise chickens in free-range, humane conditions. At the supermarket, the labels on the bags of chicken may read "natural" or "cage-free," but these labels aren't telling the whole story, in the case of one company.

The third largest chicken producer in the country, Perdue, claims to be one of the most ethical chicken producers in the US, with the USDA verifying that their chickens are "humanely raised."
Perdue states on their website, "To give consumers the assurance they are looking for about how the chicken they are eating was raised, fed and processed, we worked directly with the USDA to create verification programs to address these areas."

"The result? Perdue became the first poultry company to receive the USDA Process Verified Seal."

Whistleblower exposes Perdue's disguised inhumane chicken-raising operation
According to one farmer and whistleblower, Mr. Craig Watts, all the fancy USDA verification and "natural" labeling is just for show. Watts is a contractor for Perdue farms and works up close with the chickens Perdue sends to him. A 22-year-old veteran in the business, Watts knew how horrible the conditions were for the birds. He decided to blow the whistle on Perdue. He called in a notable farm animal welfare organization, Compassion in World Farming, to help shine a light on the conditions.

What they documented in this video changed everything, pointing out the conditions.

Perdue's "humanely raised" birds are bred to get so big so fast that they can hardly stand on their own two feet in the last week of their lives. The birds are forced to reach market weight in just 42 days compared to the slow natural growth of traditional breeds, which takes 80 - 120 days. The video captures the birds being hardly able to breathe because of this.

These supposedly free-range animals are also contained in overcrowded warehouses that deprive the birds of natural light and fresh air. These large sheds hold over 30,000 birds in one place. The tiny amount of space per bird makes their legs weak due to lack of exercise. Many can't even walk and suffer because of this.

The birds are trapped in place their entire life on a bed of feces-ridden litter that is rarely even changed between flocks. At the end of the market cycle, the birds can be seen panting, immobilized in their own waste.

Perdue blames the whistle blower and all their contractors for the inhumane conditions, loses business in the process
Americans despise factory-farmed chickens, but what they really don't want is a government safety agency like the USDA putting their stamp of approval on the operation and calling it "humane" and "cage-free."

When whistleblower Watts turned his video footage over to the Center for Food Integrity for official review, he received backlash.

CFI re-framed the video and blamed Watts for poor management. The mainstream media followed the narrative, taking the blame off Perdue farms and the USDA and instead blamed the whistleblower and the other farmers.

What's interesting is that Watts has been in the business for 22 years and has even been awarded by Perdue as a top producer.

It looked like Perdue was going to be let off the hook and no changes were going to be made to their chicken production process or deceptive labeling practices.

That's when one consumer posted this on Perdue's Facebook page: "Nice retaliation against a farmer who wants his unhealthy chickens to see the light of day. I will never buy Perdue again."

The comment stirred Perdue management. Within weeks, Watts was visited six times by Perdue management. Over 22,000 emails were sent from concerned consumers to supermarkets across the country asking for better treatment of chickens.

As Perdue lost thousands of customers, they learned one thing: Trying to silence farmers who want to reform the industry will only backfire. Blaming and suppressing farmers who want to do better for America is no way to win American's trust.

Perdue and Kroger settled lawsuits in October 2014, agreeing to remove the "humanely raised" labels from their Harvestland and Simple Truth chicken brands.

Sources:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com

http://www.perdue.com

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/048707_Perdue_chicken_farmers_inhumane_conditions.html#ixzz3SUo5vOJq

 

[diamond2.0]

So Juniper , how do expect people to take anything you say as reality with you living vicariously through a cartoon charactor ? This ones for you baby !
lol.

 

[chickenman]

When I hear or read words like "allopathic", "frankenfoods", or a modified version of "sheeple", this signals that I should stop listening. Fake science and tinfoil hats won't help anything.

Life, facts, hard realities govern the economics of meat production. In an ideal world, our population density would be low enough and enough people would be engaged in low-intensity, entirely sustainable, highly-efficient farming practices that everyone could eat 100% organic meat, dairy, eggs, etc. for every meal. It would be fresh, local, cheap, and minimally processed. But we do not live in that world, unfortunately. We are saddled with feeding the teeming masses, and that means we have to cut corners.

As of this moment, we are overpopulated several times over, if we are talking about our ability to feed everyone high-quality food in a sustainable fashion, using only ethical farming practices. People generally don't like this statement because of the implications of what should be done about it.

May wish to research further...
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-if-done-right-scientists-claim-9913651.html

From the article...

Organic farming is much more productive than previously thought, according to a new analysis of agricultural studies that challenges the conventional “biased” view that pesticide-free agriculture cannot feed the world.
The study says that organic yields were only 19.2 per cent lower, on average, than those from conventional crops and that this gap could be reduced to just eight per cent if the pesticide-free crops were rotated more frequently.
Furthermore, in some crops - especially leguminous plants such as beans, peas and lentils - there were no significant differences in yields, the researchers from the University of California, Berkeley found.
“In terms of comparing productivity among the two techniques, this paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture,” said Claire Kremen, professor of environmental science, policy and management at Berkeley.
The study comes amid rising concerns that intense farming practices are damaging the environment, with the widespread use of nerve agent pesticides frequently blamed for declining populations of bees and other pollinators. Meanwhile, fertilisers are producing smaller and smaller increases in yields because they are now so effective they are difficult to improve upon.
“With global food needs predicted to greatly increase in the next 50 years, it’s critical to look more closely at organic farming because, aside from the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, the ability of synthetic fertilizers to increase crop yields has been declining,” said Prof Kremen.
The researchers based their findings on a meta-analysis of 115 studies – a dataset three times greater than any previous such paper – comparing organic and conventional agriculture.
In addition to finding a smaller – 19.2 per cent – productivity difference between the two than previously calculated, the researchers also found that optimising organic productivity through different techniques could further reduce the gap.
Multi-cropping, or growing several crops together on the same field, would cut the yield difference to nine per cent, with crop rotation reducing the gap to eight per cent.
The study, published in the journal Royal Society B, suggested that the gaps could be even smaller than they have calculated because existing studies were “often biased in favour of conventional agriculture”.
“Our study suggests that through appropriate investment in agroecological research to improve organic management and in breeding cultivars for organic farming systems, the yield gap could be reduced or even eliminated for some crops or regions,” said the study’s lead author, Lauren Ponisio, a graduate student in environmental science, policy and management.
The researchers suggest that organic farming can be a very competitive alternative to industrial agriculture when it comes to food production.
“It’s important to remember that our current agricultural system produces far more food than is needed to provide for everyone on the planet,” said Prof Kremen.
“Eradicating world hunger requires increasing the access to food, not simply the production. Also, increasing the proportion of agriculture that uses sustainable, organic methods of farming is not a choice, it’s a necessity. We simply can’t continue to produce food far into the future without taking care of our soils, water and biodiversity,” she added.

 

[Bulldog11]

So John Kempf @ American Eco Agriculture has talked about the cleanliness of products today, and believes in the next 20 years these practices will change in it's entirety. He says that instead of a standard procedure on how to prepare food, and making people stick to this procedure to ensure harmful bacteria free foods. Soon technology will allow a scanner to scan each and every piece of meat/produce and will determine if the food is safe or not. Doesn't matter if the food was prepared in a kitchen sink, if it passes the scanner, then it's safe, period.

What do you think about this @chickenman? Would a portable scanner like this work in your operation? Would it be safer?

 

[chickenman]

So John Kempf @ American Eco Agriculture has talked about the cleanliness of products today, and believes in the next 20 years these practices will change in it's entirety. He says that instead of a standard procedure on how to prepare food, and making people stick to this procedure to ensure harmful bacteria free foods. Soon technology will allow a scanner to scan each and every piece of meat/produce and will determine if the food is safe or not. Doesn't matter if the food was prepared in a kitchen sink, if it passes the scanner, then it's safe, period.

What do you think about this @chickenman? Would a portable scanner like this work in your operation? Would it be safer?

No need really.
We process in small batches, killed and chilled in less than 10 minutes, little chance of issues. we milk goats with machine, sealed sanitized containers instantly cooled, raw all the way for 14 years never had any issues.
Maybe good for others but we are so small scale no issues, if it ain't broke why fix it???
again may be good for other farms..

 

[Bulldog11]

Thanks for the input. Your the first meat farmer I have been able to ask. I agree with what you said, sounds like it would be more effective in a large scale farm. Thanks.

Wish I had the scanner for my three day old Chinese in the fridge, lol.

 

[diamond2.0]

Hey Chickenman , If i was out at some kind of family event. "only kind i do now " ,let me tell you , I would surely enjoy eating your chicken !

 

[juniper]

May wish to research further...
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-if-done-right-scientists-claim-9913651.html
The study says that organic yields were only 19.2 per cent lower, on average, than those from conventional crops and that this gap could be reduced to just eight per cent if the pesticide-free crops were rotated more frequently.
Furthermore, in some crops - especially leguminous plants such as beans, peas and lentils - there were no significant differences in yields, the researchers from the University of California, Berkeley found.
Meanwhile, fertilisers are producing smaller and smaller increases in yields because they are now so effective they are difficult to improve upon.
“It’s important to remember that our current agricultural system produces far more food than is needed to provide for everyone on the planet,” said Prof Kremen.
“Eradicating world hunger requires increasing the access to food, not simply the production. Also, increasing the proportion of agriculture that uses sustainable, organic methods of farming is not a choice, it’s a necessity. We simply can’t continue to produce food far into the future without taking care of our soils, water and biodiversity,” she added.

1. 20% lower yields is a large amount. I am not sure why they are framing it as such. Theoretically, it could be under 10% lower if crops are rotated more frequently? Where I'm from, the heart of Big Ag country, crops are rotated annually.

2. So...we should stop using conventional methods because they're...too effective? And we aren't seeing massive increases in yield year after year?

3. We produce enough CALORIES to feed everyone on earth. The nutritive quality of that food is another matter. You cannot live on just wheat, rice, and corn in the long term. Human development requires a significant amount of animal fat and protein. The return on the caloric investment to feed these animals is low, however. A pound of beef is going to require hundreds of gallons of fresh water and about a dozen pounds of feed. Multply this by a several billion people and you have serious issues.

You ever drive through the Midwest? It's corn and soybean fields, as far as you can see, in all directions, for hundreds of miles. All this food feeds animals. None of that is eaten by people. Well, the oil and sugar by-products, but the vast majority feeds cows, pigs, and chickens.

 

[diamond2.0]

Cant forget about our Kosher brothers too . i've watched whistleblower documentary on a kosher beef plant back east. The main place that does it if i remember right and it wasnt close to Kosher. Looking into thier chicken wouldnt be a bad idea either !

 

[chickenman]

Lots of land wasted growing corn to feed cattle when cows are not meant to be fed corn or beans.. Cows are meant to eat grass so the production of petro based ag. like corn that is modified, sprayed, soy beans modified, sprayed, way dependent on chemicals, fast growing livestock, no time to develop naturally, antibiotics used..Not sustainable In the long run..
IMO. Plow up that corn allow cows to graze naturally..Less dependent on petro chemicals.
Cows eat, weed, and feed...
Interesting Doc I saw on PBS other night will see if I can find....

 

[ccWTF]

Ahhh!!! just finished off one of those $4.99 Ready Made 5lbers from Costco. I wish theyd cook it a little longer tho.
I get 4 meals plus nice leftover mix for the dog.

 

[juniper]

Lots of land wasted growing corn to feed cattle when cows are not meant to be fed corn or beans.. Cows are meant to eat grass so the production of petro based ag. like corn that is modified, sprayed, soy beans modified, sprayed, way dependent on chemicals, fast growing livestock, no time to develop naturally, antibiotics used..Not sustainable In the long run..
IMO. Plow up that corn allow cows to graze naturally..Less dependent on petro chemicals.
Cows eat, weed, and feed...
Interesting Doc I saw on PBS other night will see if I can find....

Cows are supposed to follow a grass-based diet. But, 100% grass fed pastured beef requires significantly more time to harvest, while decreasing carcass yields. This all adds to cost, though perhaps economies of scale can bring that down a bit. Feeding cows grain based diets will eventually kill them, actually, if we didn't first. But when the consumer sees a $4 lb. of ground beef and the $10 organic one next to it, it's an easy choice for most consumers.

But, that's literally JUST COWS, as far as grass is concerned. You can't feed chickens only hay and grass, though they'd be happy to pick through it for bugs... I'd be willing to bet 90%+ or more of commercial chicken feed is grain. Pigs same way; grass don't make ham, either.

If we switched to organic methods 100% overnight, there'd be widespread famine 3 months later. If we implemented them slowly, food costs would rise
in relative fashion until there was widespread famine anyway.

I totally agree with you; organic methods should be integrated whenever possible. I thought it was very interesting that legume crops yield similarly to conventional methods, where I'm from 1/2 the arable land is put to the plow for soybeans. It would be great to switch to more sustainable methods for that.

But, the overall logistics of feeding the entire world high-quality, nutritionally complete food consistently is a massive endeavor, and as it stands, we have too many to feed in a totally sustainable matter, with current resources and technology.

Large scale insect and algae farming show great promise. The energy input to harvest ratios are so much better than cows or corn. They do not require arable land. Algae can use seawater, not fresh water. Insects produce high quality protein, algae can produce oils. They can be fed waste products, etc.

 

[fishwhistle]

Thanks for the input. Your the first meat farmer I have been able to ask. I agree with what you said, sounds like it would be more effective in a large scale farm. Thanks.

Wish I had the scanner for my three day old Chinese in the fridge, lol.

My 3 day old spaghetti carbonnara was delicious for lunch,lol.