Home

Most read stories

New comments

  • The more atheists tell me that pigs have more value than human babies (born or unborn), the more pigs I'm going to eat. Bring on the crates!! We've ...

    Read more...

     
  • The "hot air" is the paper by McGee, not in organic farming. Please see the response of IFOAM - Organics International at www.foam.bio.

    Read more...

     
  • I just ate a pork chop. Yummy. And i grew up on a farm and we put pigs in crates. Of course they can lie down in there. But lose sows often lie on their ...

    Read more...

Most recent stories

  • Translating Food Technology: Why do farmers use so much atrazine?

    Why do farmers use so much atrazine?

    When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a 500-page draft report in June arguing the nation's second most popular weed killer poses risk to aquatic plants, fish and wildlife, farmer groups across the nation criticized the agency's call for increased limits on use of that pesticide, atrazine. The U.S. Corn Growers argue EPA's new recommendations are excessively cautionary, are based on science even the agency's own advisors argue is flawed, and contradict more than 7,000 previous scientific studies that have found atrazine safe. According to Decatur farmer and Corn Growers President Larry Mussack, the new EPA usage limits would cut average field application rates down to one cup per acre, a level that would make it virtually useless in controlling weeds in a large portion of the Corn Belt. EPA would thus effectively eliminate the pesticide from the market.

    Right now, farmers apply an estimated 36,000 tons of the chemical in about 200 different registered products every year to kill and control weeds in corn, sorghum and other crops. Why do farmers like Mussack use so much atrazine?

    • Despite being used for almost 60 years in the United States, atrazine remains one of the most reliable herbicides on the market, especially in killing weeds that are resistant to other herbicides. Excessive weed populations in a crop like corn compete with the crop for water, nutrients and sunlight and can directly reduce the amount of crop harvested from a given amount of land.
    • It is cost-effective, particularly for conservation tillage, or fields that don't get the full plowing traditionally used in order to help protect the soil and water. Farmers can't just stop using weed-killers, so because atrazine is used on most of the country's corn acres, removing it from the market or severely limiting its use would mean changing to other, probably more expensive, alternatives. That means costs for farmers and food buyers would increase. A 2012 study reported by University of Chicago economists predicted farming without atrazine would add up to $59 per acre in productivity losses or additional production costs. While $59 per acre may not strike you as much, in a business that lives or dies on tight margins—just like retail grocers—that inavailability of atrazine could make the difference between making a profit or taking a loss. In some cases it could make a crop nonviable: A 2007 economic analysis in Kansas found that without atrazine, growing grain sorghum would be economically impossible.
    • It's versatile. Farmers would likely have to resort to more complicated herbicide mixtures because some of the alternative products don't control as wide a variety of weeds that atrazine does, at least not as effectively. The one atrazine product would have to be replaced by two or more different products to get the same weed control.

    • Atrazine has actualy allowed farmers to use less chemicals, because of that effective versatility. Banning atrazine will not lead to less herbicide use; it will likely lead to more, and more use of chemicals with even higher potential to impact the environment than atrazine.

    • In the bigger picture, use of atrazine actually improves the nation's water quality. Chemical weed killers like atrazine make no-till agriculture practical, and no-till farming dramatically lessens the amount of soil that washes away during storms, carrying the nutrients and sediments that clog streams and lakes. Estimates say no-till agriculture reduces soil erosion by as much as 90 percent when compared to heavy tillage. No-till farming practices made possible by herbicide use also create habitat for wildlife. One of the alternatives to atrazine, were it to be banned, would be to return to mechanical tilling. A 2013 study in Wisconsin, where state law limits atrazine use in some specific areas in order to protect against the possibility of groundwater contamination, limiting the use of atrazine caused farmers to begin plowing up formerly minimally or no-tilled acres, which can be assumed to increase soil erosion.
    • They view the reasons to stop using atrazine as based on alarmism. Evidence some environmental advocates see as clearly pointing out a need to stop using atrazine on farms, farmers and ag scientists see as taking a leap that low doses EPA found in water and soil somehow add up beyond the impact research studies have actually demonstrated. EPA's draft report has already been met with calls for an outright ban, arguing the fact the chemical can make its way into the nation's waters means it has to be banned, which is the rationale Europe used to ban its use. That kind of all-or-none thinking about pesticide residues, as longtime critic Dennis Avery put it almost 20 years ago, is an example of the "modern world waging a bizarre new war against its own success." Modern agriculture, he says, which has prevented famine, reduced cancer, saved soil and preserved wildlife habitat equal to more than 15 million square miles, is being attacked for doing so by using technology like atrazine to make that miracle possible. "Conservation tillage is the most powerful weapon against soil erosion that farmers have ever found," he wrote. "The weed killers permit them to quit plowing, and keep their soil in place with cover crops and crop residue. Without conservation tillage the world will face a huge topsoil crisis in the 21st century. With it, we have the most sustainable farming in 10,000 years."

    The Nebraska Corn Growers is urging farmers and other stakeholders to enter public comments on EPA's proposal. If you'd like to tell the retail grocer's side of the story, you have until Aug. 5 to comment on the proposal.

    {jcomments on}

  • Navigating the New Food Movement: What are they really selling at the farmers market?

    What are farmers markets really selling

    The farmers market, laments the Washington Post recently, just isn't what it used to be. The more than 8,000 such markets across the country were supposed to be public spaces where, as the Post says, average consumers could make "an investment in the future of local and sustainable agriculture." Farmers Markets were meant to fill in the "food desert" holes in the food-distribution chain. They would, in the words of former Undersecretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan just four short years ago, take up the slack where full-service groceries like yours had abandoned serving the local citizenry, often the poor and minorities.

    Turns out that's not the way it's working. Instead, as Virginia farmer Zach Lester complains to the Post, "[Customers] arrive for a bite or some booze, maybe a pizza at Red Zebra or a bottle of gin from One Eight Distilling.

    “A lot of people that walk through markets are not shopping," he says. "They’re there to meet. They’re there to socialize.”

    It shouldn't come as a surprise.

    Farmers markets may be about politics inside USDA and within regional "food policy councils," but for shoppers, they, along with the wider notion of "community supported agriculture" are really about a yearning to rediscover pastoral and local values they can't find in supermarkets, writes University of Wyoming marketing professor Melea Press.

    Community supported agriculture, Press writes, enlist the same classic ideas about American pastoralism that, first, drove urbanites into the suburbs in the 1950s and then tempted them back to the land in the '60s and '70s. CSA and the farmers market share several traits of a longing for pastoralism with those trends:

    • They promise an escape from the "noise, filth and moral degradation" of the city.
    • They give shoppers a chance to be part of a small and manageable community in a big, impersonal world
    • They give shoppers the chance to draw closer to nature— even, ironically, as they shop.
    • They give them a sense of certainty about their food in an increasingly uncertain world by meeting the producer face-to-face.
    • They indulge their sense of moral superiority.

    Farmers markets, as a part of the whole concept of "community supported agriculture," according to University of Wisconsin professor Craig Thompson, are built to focus consumers not on the food it delivers, but the experience of being involved in it.

    Think about it this way, Thompson writes: If you set out to purposely design a food system that offered only limited selection, at limited times of the year, at higher prices, determined largely by what the producer had to sell rather than what the customer wanted, pushing items you often aren't familiar with and don't know how to use, you couldn't do better than a community supported agriculture program.

    The irony, according to Thompson, is that those very disadvantages of farmers markets compared to supermarkets are the strengths that draw shoppers to be there. Shopping through community supported agriculture is a form of austere "ethical consumerism." Ethical consumerism tells consumers they can use their dollars to make a difference in terms of sustainability and social justice—or, more cynically, hide their status-consciousness in social-responsible pretense. But he believes both of those interpretations of ethical consumerism miss the mark in defining farmers markets. His in-depth interviews of farmers and customers suggest it's the very inconveniences and aggravations of community supported agriculture that "enchant" the experience with shoppers. In stark contrast to ‘Disneyfied’ and ‘McDonaldized’ consumption that's prepackaged, microwaved and forced, shopping the farmers market disrupts and exeptionalizes the traditional food-shopping experience and, by extension, the morality of the consumer.

    {jcomments on}

     

  • Foresight on Food Politics: Would Trump's wall really bankrupt America's dairies?

    Would Trump's Mexican immigrant policy break the nation's dairy farms?

    Bloomberg Politics reports in early June several sources within the nation's dairy industry are fearful that presumed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's promise to build an immigration-tight wall between Mexico and the southern United States would cause the nation's milk-producing farms in particular to suffer.

    Trump’s immigration stance “scares the hell out me,” Wisconsin farmer and president of the state's Dairy Business Association Gordon Speirs told Bloomberg.

    The fact our state is better known for beef cattle masks the reality that some 55,000 dairy cows generate more than 100 million gallons of milk and roughly $275 million a year in economic activity. How vulnerable would those Nebraska dairies be to a potential loss of migrant labor? A 2015 study by Texas A&M pointed how reliant the dairy industry is on immigrant labor, which is often here off the books:

    • On U.S. dairies as a whole, of the estimated 150,418 workers employed in 2013, immigrant labor made up 51 percent of all dairy labor. Dairies that hire immigrant labor produce 79 percent of the U.S. milk.
    • Additionally, other researchers have found that, according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics estimates from 2001 and 2002, about half of all immigrant agricultural workers in the United States are unauthorized.
    • Eliminating immigrant labor would reduce the U.S. dairy herd by 2.1 million cows, cut milk production by 48.4 billion pounds and the number of farms by 7,011.
    • Retail milk prices would increase by an estimated 90.4 percent.
    • Eliminating immigrant labor on dairy farms would reduce U.S. economic output by $32.1 billion and reduce employment by 208,208 jobs. Approximately 64 percent of the losses noted above would occur in input supply sectors and services provided to U.S. dairy farms.

    In addition to those direct losses, indirect productivity losses also can be assumed. Although dairy farm workers on average are paid well above minimum wage--one study showed average annual equivalent compensation of $34,443--and dairy farms that hire immigrant labor pay higher average wages than farms that do not hire immigrants, the reality that those illegal immigrant workers often work in the shadows causes productivity losses. One study, reported by Farmer Goes to Market here, suggested farm employers often avoid issues caused by facing a worker deportation, by refraining from promoting immigrant workers into more advanced and publicly visible positions. They also typically refrain from training and granting responsibilities to unauthorized immigrant workers or promote them to positions that require them to have insurance for fear they might lose that investment if the workers were arrested for immigration violations.

    Whether Trump's plan to wall off Mexican immigration comes to fruition or not, the labor outlook for America's farms doesn't look good, according to an analysis by University of California Davis, titled The End of Farm Labor Abundance. In it, the ag economists suggest demographic data from rural Mexico shows the same shift out of farm work that occurred in U.S. labor history is well underway in Mexico. At the same time, demand for agricultural labor in Mexico is also rising. That means U.S. agriculture will compete with Mexican farms for a dwindling supply of farm labor. The decline in foreign labor available to man U.S. farms will ultimately drive them to find ways to save labor and switch to less labor-intensive crops and technologies--all as they pay higher costs.

    {jcomments}

  • Competitive Commodity Insights: What's with wheat?

    What ever happened to the wheat shortage?

    As little as two short months ago, USDA was reporting farmers nationwide were devoting the fewest number of acres to wheat in decades. The agency expected all wheat plantings, including all varieties, to total only 49.6 million acres, down a surprising 9 percent from 2015 and the lowest acreage since 1970. Driven by any number of factors, including the farm-program dictates, relative crop prices and higher demand for corn heightened by ethanol usage, this former grand-daddy of High Plains crops was being slowly driven out of the average farmer's crop mix. Anticipating possible resulting shortages, the commodity futures price for wheat shot up, as buyers hedged against the possibility that tight supplies resulting from such low plantings would cause prices later in the year to explode.

    These developments came fresh on the minds of commodity traders remembering just six years ago, when Russian drought and worries about a global shortage of the grain revived fears of a repeat of 2008, when low supplies of the grain led to riots in several countries, pusing prices up at their fastest rate in half a century.

    Given the smaller area planted to wheat, U.S. wheat production was expected to fall this year, as was the world's production through 2017. The spring forecast from the International Grains Councilpredicted world wheat production for 2016 and 2017 to be down 3 percent from a record 734 million metric tons in 2015 and 2016.

    Now, fast-forward to July 4, considered the traditional start of the wheat harvest in Nebraska, and the state's farmers are awash in the grain.

    The Agriculture Department estimates the average yield for the new crop of winter wheat in the United States is now projected to be record high at 50.5 million bushels. Production is projected at 1.506 billion bushels despite an 8-percent year-to-year decline in area harvested. The improved outlook for winter wheat lifts aggregate wheat production for 2016/17 to 2,077 million bushels, an increase of nearly 80 million bushels from the May projection and an increase of 25 million bushels over the 2015/16 crop. The Nebraska Wheat Board thinks this year's harvest should be a good one. Initial outlooks show it many be better than in the last few years, but they don't want to expect too much before the numbers start coming in. Increased export prospects in the European Union and Russia this month also reflect changes in those countries’ wheat output. The projected increase in world wheat production is slightly higher than consumption growth, leaving record-level stocks virtually unchanged.

    The bottom line is farmers are again reacting to the highs and lows of the commodities markets in supplying the food chain, and wheat is perrenially unattractive. The all-wheat season average price for 2015/16 as of June remains at $4.90 per bushel. June is the first month in the wheat marketing year and thus the 2016/17 wheat marketing year is officially underway. The preliminary price reported in last month’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates is lowered by 10 cents this month to a midpoint of $4 per bushel. Prices on the low and high end of the range are $3.60 and $4.40 per bushel, respectively. Wheat prices have not been projected this low since the 2005/06 marketing year; at present the market value of the 2016/17 crop is nearly 2 billion less than for 2015/16.

    As Montana wheat farmer Jim Mertens tells the onlinge magazine Narratively, that $4.50 per bushel he's sold his wheat crop for the last two years is a bit less than he was selling it for in high school back in the 1970s.

    Meanwhile, a new feature-length Austrailain documentary featuring Virginia farmer Joel Salatin and food activist Vandana Shiva doesn't stand to help spur demand for wheat-based products. The film, What's with Wheat?, paints demon wheat as the underlying cause of numerous ills, from diabetes to leaky gut syndrome to celiac disease and gluten intolerance to industrial agriculture’s vices.

    {jcomments on}

  • Meet your Farmers: Dan Hughes

    Meet Dan Hughes, a Nebraska wheat producer, member of the Nebraska Wheat Board and state senator. 

    Hughes said his uncle’s political pursuits and his parents’ community service—including his father’s more than 30 years of service on the Venango school board—set examples that helped put him on a path to the Unicameral.

    In the agricultural community, Hughes said, helping neighbors and friends is a way of life, and serving on organizations such as the Nebraska Wheat Board and the Nebraska Farm Bureau is how he gives back to the agriculture industry. Serving as a state senator continues that effort.

    “I get a lot of enjoyment helping my fellow farmer,” he said. “I just like being busy. I’m not happy unless I have about six balls in the air at the same time.”

    {jcommentson}

  • On the Lighter Side: Jim Gaffigan on the oddities of holiday food traditions

    Food-friendly comic Jim Gaffigan pays tribute to Independence Day by taking a whirlwind tour through the over-eating oddities of American holiday traditions. Eat up!

    {jcomments on}

Translating Food Technology: Why Would Pig Farmers Insist on Using 'Gestation Crates?'

Why do pig farmers use gestation crates?The last 45 days have seen a line of announcements by food retailers and quick-service restaurant chains that they would soon begin to deman their pork suppliers phase out the use of "gestation crates," individual stalls in which pregnant and newly delivered sows are housed. Spurred by criticism from animal rights groups that the practice is cruel, Smithfield Foods, the country's largest pork farm, first announced in 2007 it would gradually abandon the practice over a 10-year period. Animal-rights groups have lobbied heavily against the practice, often successfully. Ballot initiatives banning sow stalls have passed in many states, and threat of action has led to voluntary agreements to cease their use in other states and Canada. Although Smithfield had earlier backed off on its promise because it was facing financial hardship, Smithfield President and CEO Larry Pope said the company’s hog operations had converted housing for 30 percent of its sow herd and was now back on track to meet the 2017 goal.

Since March, Wendy's, Burger King, Safeway, Sonic, Denny's, McDonalds, Cracker Barrel and Kroger have all released statements in conjunction with the Washington-based animal-rights group Humane Society of the United States announcing they plan to pressure pork suppliers to abandon the practice.

“Kroger believes that a gestation crate-free environment is more humane and that the pork industry should work toward gestation crate-free housing,” said that company in a press release co-authored in early June with HSUS.

“Kroger’s has taken a very important step for animal welfare in declaring that the pork industry must find an exit strategy for its use of gestation crates,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of  HSUS.

Faced with the continual barrage of negative media fanned by HSUS and other animal-rights advocates, grocers and their customers may rightly ask, if so many people believe the practice of crating pigs is inhumane, why do most farmers still use them?

1. It makes indoor housing practical. First, many critics are correct when they say sow stalls are a result of the indoor housing pig farmers evolved toward in the 1970s and 1980s. However, their criticism doesn’t necessarily mean indoor housing is a bad thing—most farmers moved their pigs indoors because they believed it benefited the animals, as well as the caretakers. Indoor housing made sense because it protected both animals and farmers from weather, predators, parasites, and also because it made animal performance both better and more predictable (Pigs left outdoors typically use about a quarter of the feed they eat just to keep warm in winter, for example.)

Once farmers moved pregnant sows indoors, though, they found the traditional group housing for pregnant sows that sufficed in mud barnyards didn’t work well indoors. So they turned to individual housing as the practical solution.

2. It protects individuals from the animal's natural aggression. Why didn't that group housing work for sows housed indoors? Like people who push and crowd to get on a bus where only a few seats are empty, yet will be relaxed and courteous when they know seats are available, sows will fight, wound, and even kill one another when they think their access to feed is at risk. When farmers move 350- to 550-pound bred sows--which are only normally fed a set amount of feed once daily to control their weight--into indoor group pens, sows begin to anticipate the feed delivery, understand there will only be a set amount to go around, and begin to fight for the lion’s share of it. As a result, weaker sows will be injured, as well as be starved of their allotted feed portion. At the same time, the "boss" sows will eat too much, making them overly fat, which will eventually harm their ability to give birth to and feed a healthy set of baby pigs.

By instead training sows to eat in individual stalls before putting them into groups, farmers are in effect training them that fighting doesn’t earn them any additional feed. Each individual is ensured the correct amount of feed and the ability to eat it in peace and safety.

3. It improves the farmer's ability to manage individual animals. It would be disingenuous not to recognize that individually confining animals does also improve the farmer’s ability to manage them, by making it easier and quicker to give them medications, check their condition, and perform other tasks. However, the additional expense of crating sows (it is more expensive to build individual crates than group-housing pens) likely couldn’t justify those management concerns; the predominant reason is to prevent group fighting. Stalling is a trade-off between full mobility and reassurance of feed.

It works, but is it right?

So the question becomes, is it right or wrong to force these trade-offs on an animal? The late Dr. Stan Curtis, who spent his career at University of Illinois studying questions of how animals think and the effect of modern envorinments on them, believed it was. Before his death last year, Curtis was vocally critical of today’s animal behaviorists who conclude that assessing an animal’s well-being based on the animal’s “feelings” was a valid method of assessing the cruelty of practices like gestation crates.

“As long as we can’t yet measure how a pig feels, let alone measure the depth of any such feeling—which everyone agrees we can’t do—we can only speculate, surmise, analogize and anthropomorphize,” Curtis said. In other words, according to Curtis, what humans feel when they see a sow in a crate speaks only to how that human would feel were that human confined in a crate. It says nothing about how the sow feels. Farming decisions can’t be based on those human feelings. “What we cannot do is know, set thresholds, define limits or draw lines. How then is it reasonable to expect producers to manage pigs on that basis?”

To Curtis and those who follow his thinking, the only accurate measure we have of whether the animal is suffering in a crate is what he called the “Performance Axiom:” The best single set of measurable—and manageable—indicators of an animal’s state of being will be how well it produces and reproduces compared to its predicted potential. “When bodily resources become limited because a pig is in a situation requiring extraordinary adaptation, productive processes will be the first to decrease. We can measure that. Reproductive functions will be next. We can measure that. Maintenance processes, which ensure survival, last. These observed reductions in measurable performance traits are the earliest, most sensitive indicators that a pig’s well-being has been disturbed—much more sensitive than behavioral patterns that may indirectly signify some emotional reaction,” he said.

And the research shows that although both group housing and individual crating have advantages and disadvantages, sows peform as well or better in crates than they do in stalls, as long as both systems are managed well. Paul Sundberg, a veterinarian and vice-president of science and research for the National Pork Board, summed it up well in a Washington Post article. “The key to sow welfare isn't whether they are kept in individual crates or group housing,” he said, “but whether the system used is well managed. "[S]cience tells us that [a sow] doesn't even seem to know that she can't turn ... She wants to eat and feel safe, and she can do that very well in individual stalls."

What do you think about the issue? Leave a comment and get some discussion started with your fellow grocers.

Comments   

 
-7 #23 Harry 2015-12-05 17:46
The more atheists tell me that pigs have more value than human babies (born or unborn), the more pigs I'm going to eat. Bring on the crates!! We've become a sick German 1939esque culture when we value hotdogs over human babies.
Quote
 
 
-3 #22 I. M. Carnivore 2015-07-26 02:53
I just ate a pork chop. Yummy. And i grew up on a farm and we put pigs in crates. Of course they can lie down in there. But lose sows often lie on their piglets, crushing or sufficating them. A nasty way to die. The sow is only in there unti the piglets are weaned. We used to raise em in fields. They would be sick and eat other sows babies and fight and injure each other and in a bad winter freeze to death once in a while. So we felt like we were treating them much better when we got em inside. We liked our pigs and treated em well. But one thing we couldnt abide was to watch someone cut a head of lettuce of at the neck, chop it up and eat it raw. Now that is cruel!
Quote
 
 
+7 #21 Max 2015-04-01 23:08
No, dismissing animal feelings because we "do not know" is unjust. But just for the record, surmounting evidence illustrates that animals have feelings. Our instincts allow us to feel sorry for animals when we see that pain is inflicted upon them. Precautions must be made if we are unsure.

Aggression can be easily managed in small group housing. Isolation is cruel. Extreme confinement is cruel. You cannot justify forcing an animal into a space in which he/she is unable to turn around or walk forward or backward.

That is agony for any animal that is even slightly sentient. And pigs are very intelligent.

"Farming decisions can’t be based on those human feelings. “What we cannot do is know... or draw lines. How then is it reasonable to expect producers to manage pigs on that basis?” It is quite reasonable to expect producers to manage pigs as beings with feelings.
Quote
 
 
-7 #20 Justin 2015-03-10 05:21
>>The fact that the sows bite the crates shows they are in deep distress

You are correct. The fact that they are biting the crates does show distress. However, it is not mental distress, it is dietary distress. Biting metal bars is a common habit among pigs who are deficient in key nutrients. In their mind, they think they can make up for that deficiency by getting minerals, such as iron which they can taste, out of the metal. Any knowledgeable farmer knows that that habit is a sign of a nutritional deficiency. So by properly managing the diet of the sows, the action of biting the crates can be eliminated.
Quote
 
 
-8 #19 Larry Elias 2015-01-23 16:37
Thanks for your insightful and educational articles. Farmers and producers who make a career out of working with animals have a much better understanding of the animals than those who think of animals as "morally significant individuals with rights."
Quote
 
 
-1 #18 Jessica Howe 2015-01-21 00:00
The fact that the sows bite the crates shows they are in deep distress
Quote
 
 
+2 #17 Nancy Poznak 2015-01-13 18:10
The problem starts with making an animal a commodity; it's worth is reduced to its' financial worth. The entire system of animal agriculture is based upon making animals into commodities. The moment and animal becomes a commodity it loses its freedom and is ultimately put into harm's way. Methods of raising pigs which allow them some freedom of movement do exist, and can be cost-effective. However, atrocities are still committed against pigs (an all commercial animals): castration, tail docking, ear punctures - all with no pain relief. Piglets not performing well are brutally killed. How do you get a pig out of the gestation crate when sending to slaughter? Do you tickle her belly? Do you gently find ways to hoist her up because she cannot walk after being imprisoned for months, or years? For those who consider it "normal and acceptable' to kill animals for food, would YOU be able to slit the animal's throat, watch the blood and life leave their body, look into its eyes and still feel this process 'normal and acceptable'?
Quote
 
 
+1 #16 Jean 2015-01-08 18:09
my parents in law fed pigs in their village many years ago. It's not a big room, but definitely they can turn and walk for a few steps. Look at the environment now, to make more money, what did people do to pig, chickens,cows. A lot of people talked about food safety, but the root of all the the problem is human's moral standard dropped so quickly in this few decades, it's not only the problems of the farmer. That is the issue of the whole world I believe. eve rybody need to improve yourself from the inner, that the way to change the world.
Quote
 
 
+8 #15 M. Graham 2014-12-25 13:28
Gestation crates are unbelievably inhumane. Imagine yourself living in a crate so small that you cannot even turn around, and being continually impregnated. Pigs are incredibly smart and sensitive animals. These are LIVING BEINGS we are talking about here. This is about nothing but profit. Period. Factory "farm" pig "farmers" can spin all the narratives they want to try to excuse this abomination against creation, but the bottom line is that this treatment of God's creatures is nothing but evil. And for those of you who support this abomination against innocent creatures, and believe in God, you're really kidding yourselves if you think you are not going to pay for this. If Americans had even the smallest bit of a conscience, they would simply boycott the entire industry. But we are a nation of people so bereft of any moral compass, and so sold to the god of profit, that we will lie ourselves into the inferno rather than face the truth of our own complicity in this inconceivable violence against living beings, whose cries in the vacuum of our collective deafness go unheard.
Quote
 
 
+8 #14 Nancy S Poznak 2014-12-03 03:04
The intelligence of pigs is well-documented by scientists who study them. They are now known to be among the top four most intelligent nonhuman species. Read this article: http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/pigheaded-smart-swine/ - not that you need to as you are most likely aware of how smart they are. I have seen many pictures and videos of sows in gestation crates. They obviously suffer. One does not have to be a veterinarian or farmer to see this. Only an idiot would deny the fact they suffer. The reason sows' aggression becomes a problem is because they have been placed into a completely unnatural environment. Pig farming must change and become far more kind to the pigs if it wants to stay in business.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh