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 get paid not to grow crops?

    Why do farmers get paid not to grow crops?

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in early May that Nebraska comes in third nationwide in the amount of farm-ground acreage the government pays farmers to leave unplanted and idle. Behind only Iowa and Washington in the program, this state will idle almost 775,000 acres total, an area roughly 1.5 times the size of all of Lancaster County.

    To some, it has raised the perennial question: Why does the government pay farmers to not grow crops?

    As is often the case, Internet mythology about food and farming has overshadowed some of the fact. The U.S. farm program began during the Great Depression of the 1930s as a limited safety net to help support the income of farmers who were being driven from the land by the thousands. In its early and following years, it did provide some forms of "set asides," in which farmers were subsidized to reduce the supply of crops in order to help make them more scarce and thus hold their prices up. And some vestiges of that supply-control mentality does exist even today, most notably in voluntary programs in which farmers of various commodities either pool funds to buy out other farmers to keep supplies down or voluntarily restrict production per farm.

    However, with the passage of the most recent federal Farm Bill, in 2014, the U.S. government—for the most part—got out of the business of paying farmers directly to support crop prices on the whole. Instead, the farm program transitioned to the goals of turning the regulation of ag commodity prices back over to the market to determine price through supply and demand, and then making aid available to help farm owners adjust to that market, most notably in the form of subsidized insurance against crop losses in bad years.

    The only real remaining government program that still pays farmers not to plant is the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program. The more than 30-year-old program pays landowners an annual rent over a contract period of from 10 to 15 years to leave land the government considers environmentally sensitive out of crop production. It also makes cost-sharing funds available to help landowners pay for conservation improvements like planting grasses and trees and protecting streams and rivers. The United States currently enrolls about 23.4 million acres in CRP—down from its high of about 36 million acres 10 years ago and nearly the maximum the government will be allowed to pay for by 2018, according to the Farm Bill.

    The government's goal in paying farmers an average of about $94 per acre in Nebraska is to return that environmentally vulnerable ground, which in many cases shouldn't have been plowed in the first place, to a more natural state by replanting land cover that was removed during normal cropping. In the process, the CRP hopes to improve water quality, prevent soil erosion and restore wildlife habitat. And in some cases, CRP is still recognized to play a smaller, but still important, role in giving farmers a source of income for protecting those acres and discouraging them from selling them for non-ag uses like housing developments and golf courses.

    Are taxpayers getting their money's worth?

    Nationwide, the CRP has been credited with reducing soil erosion by nearly 224 million tons a year, or about 6.8 tons per acre enrolled. By reducing erosion of that soil which often carries excess nutrients that can cause problems in nearby waters, the CRP has also significantly improved those waters. Research estimates it has cut the amount of the polluting nutrient nitrate by 90 percent, sediment and herbicide by 50 percent and phosphorous by as much as 30 percent in some farm regions. Also, by converting row cropland into native grasslands and trees, CRP has given nesting cover, wintering habitat, and plant and insect feed to numerous wildlife species.

    A 2012 review by a pair of Oregon State rural social scientists of the CRP's selected economic benefits estimated enrolling an acre of land in the CRP improved the value of that acre by an estimated $58 per year, in 2011 dollars. Naturally, most of that value accrues to the owner of the land. However, annual benefits from the reduced soil erosion and increased recreational opportunities amounted to another roughly $49 per acre. The researchers cited studies estimating that only about 10 percent of that $49 goes back into the pocket of the landowner, with the remaining 90 percent accruing to society as a whole. They suggest those figures demonstrate that, although the performance of the CRP could be improved, the average national CRP rental cost of $52 per acre in 2011 provides benefits that outweigh its costs to taxpayers.

    {jcomments on}

  • Navigating the New Food Movement: DOH! Now we know who's to blame for fat kids

    Is Bart to blame for childhood obesity?

    Why you little! Researchers from University of Minnesota asked about 2,100 kids averaging 14 years old to name their three favorite TV shows. They then coded three episodes each of the 25 most popular shows, looking for food-related content, including perceived healthiness of the food, its portion size, whether the character ate at the dinner table or in front of the TV and other social contexts.

    They found Bart, Stewie and crew are bad, bad influences in the food arena:

    • Nine out of 10 episodes contained some eating, with an average of 5.3 incidents per show. Of those, almost half were depictions of snacks.
    • Snacks were significantly more likely than meals to be “mostly unhealthy," with almost seven in 10 being bad for you, compared to only about one in five for breakfast, lunch or dinner. Healthfulness was based on food balance, along with the consumption of fruit, vegetables, lean proteins, cheese and yogurt.
    • For foods shown being eaten by a character, the coders noted whether the portion was considered excessive, based on whether food was heaping over the plate or the character helped himself to multiple servings. Only 10 percent of snacks were such heaping portions, which didn't significantly differ from the 8 percent of meals.
    • Snacking was signicantly more likely to be done in a couch-potato setting, with 25 percent of snacks eaten in front of the tube, compared to only 4 percent for meals.
    • Kids, poor and overweight characters were significantly more likely to eat snacks in the shows. (A character’s weight status was coded as overweight if the character had excess body fat, such as an obvious pot belly.)
    • Sitcoms and shows rated for a youth audience were significantly more likely to portray snacking than shows aimed at an adult audience.

    "Although snacking behaviors on television shows may seem innocuous," the Minnesota team granted, they cite "extensive research" claiming on-screen behaviors create behaviorial social norms that continual viewers can come to see as typical or expected.

    Does this cartoon make me look fat?According to a 2015 report, adolescents now spend an average of 17 hours per week watching television. Research on smoking, early sexual activity and violence has identified links between viewing entertainment media content and enacting these behaviors. Given enough TV viewing, the Minnesota researchers argue, youth can come to eventually form “pseudofriendships” with television characters and look to them as role models. The strength of their influence may depend how similarly they identify with the character in terms of sex, race or attributes like body type, which makes the unhealthy eating by significantly more of those types of characters in their content analysis particularly important.

    They suggest their research points out the fact that the lion's share of media research linked to the obesity epidemic that focuses only on food advertising may be missing the more important programming cues in between the commercials.

    {jcomments on}

  • Foresight on Food Politics: Behind the objection over Humane Society farmers

    Is the Humane Society of the United States a friend of farming, or foe?

    Promises by former Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman in 2010 to "kick their butt out of Nebraska" notwithstanding, the Washington, D.C., animal-rights group Humane Society of the United States is back in the state, and back big. And its appearance is building some friction between farmers here.

    HSUS chose Lincoln to announce in early May it was forming a national agriculture advisory council, to create an umbrella group for its 11 similar state agriculture advisory councils. Small boards of farmers from within the state whose members "share the principles" of the organization, the state councils are made up of "farmers, producers and agriculture professionals who believe in compassionate, responsible farming," according to the society. The councils are centered in midwestern farm states where HSUS has attempted to influence legislation and place ballot initiatives to force changes in animal agriculture over the last decade.

    HSUS' new national council will be headed by Litchfield organic farmer Kevin Fulton, who said through an HSUS press release, "We are fully committed to working with The HSUS to improve the welfare of farm animals in a way that benefits not only the animals, but the family farmer, the consumer and our environment.”

    “I think a lot of us [farmers] have common ground and common values with the organization,” Fulton told WNAX radio in Yankton.

    But Fulton's fellow farmers in Nebraska are skeptical.

    "Our coalition was formed actually to combat the Humane Society of the United States and organizations like [it]," said Ansley Mick, Executive Director of We Support Agriculture, a Nebraska coalition of the livestock-producer groups in the state. "Most growers would agree they represent the No. 1 threat to animal agriculture in Nebraska and, frankly, in the U.S." With $135.5 million in revenue and $214 million in assets, HSUS has very deep pockets, Mick told Nebraska Rural Radio Network, and they have shadowy ties to misinformation campaigns about animal agriculture and more radical animal-rights groups, including those that create inflammatory "undercover" cruelty videos aimed at giving animal production a black eye.

    "We've been telling people all along this is not the organization you think it is. Their actual goal here is to end animal agriculture. Their forming councils like this sort of solidifies our argument."

    Not so, says the Nebraska state director for HSUS, Jocelyn Nickerson. "I want to set the record straight," she writes in a letter to the Lincoln Journal Star. " The Humane Society of the United States wants more traditional farmers on the land, not fewer." Nickerson argues the "industrial factory farming processors" have caused a 96 percent drop in the number of Nebraska pig farms in the last 50 years.

    "Maybe it's time for a different approach—one that puts our farmers, our communities, the land, the environment and the concerns of our customers first for a change," she writes.

    But the new conciliation likely marks only a change in strategy for the long-time advocate for reducing consumption of meat, milk, eggs, leather, commercially bred pets and other products of animal agriculture. When controversial HSUS head Wayne Pacelle last publicly appeared in Nebraska in 2013, he signaled a similar change in direction for the organization, from pushing legislation to end objectionable farming practices like the use of gestation crates that pig farmers typically use to manage pregnant animals toward high-visibility PR shaming campaigns to force big food manufacturers and retailers to do it for them. "[Legislation] is entirely unnecessary,” he assured the Lincoln Journal Star at the time, “because the market atmosphere has overtaken gestation crate issues.”

    Despite an absence of any meaningful research that demonstrates real consumer demand for an end to the practice—except that research created by the association in order to support its mission—retailers do appear to be proving Pacelle correct: The market may be changing to favor the HSUS position that many mainline farm organizations continue to see as simply the first shot in further restrictions on agriculture. Agriculture interests consider such "market driven" tactics as simply another means by which HSUS hopes to make animal farming so financially burdensome as to make it ultimately unsustainable in present form.

    Groups like Nebraska's We Support Agriculture argue that despite what HSUS and Pacelle say, they see collaboration by retailers and fringe farm groups like the Nebraska Farmers Union as an unhealthy alliance that will ultimately damage the financial viability of Nebraska's food system, not just for the large farms Nickerson and HSUS in general currently uses as a whipping boy, but for small farms and other chain members, as well.

    If the HSUS is really intent on working with farmers," writes a San Antonio lawyer who advocates for animal-use freedom in horse issues, Randy Janssen, in a Facebook post, "the first thing it should do is get rid of [avowed vegan HSUS spokesmen Pacelle and Paul Shapiro]. These men destroy any credibility the HSUS has with meat producers. Then the HSUS should disavow Meatless Monday. If the HSUS does not, then it truly is just a vegan cult that wants to shut down animal production in the US."

  • Competitive Commodity Insights: Time to get your grill on!

    It's time for summer grilling. Here's a commodity outlook

    Just ahead of the kickoff to this year's summer grilling season, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published red-meat and poultry production forecasts for 2017 predicting production of all animal protein components is expected to increase next year vs. this year. Overall, total red meat production should rise 3.3 percent, total poultry will grow 2.5 percent, and the total for both categories combined should rise 2.9 percent.

    All meat production is expected to rise

    Beef

    Now's the time to take advantage of beef featuring through June and July. USDA reports cattle prices are moving lower and supplies of cattle remain large. Given a larger 2015 calf crop and expectations of increases in the 2016 calf crop, the number of cattle going into feedlots in preparation for market in 2016 and early 2017 are expected to be higher. Those larger slaughter-cattle supplies and higher average carcass weights add up to more beef production for 2017—4 percent more than 2016, at a forecast 25.8 billion pounds. Those increasing beef supplies have kept wholesale beef prices under pressure. Weak demand for ground beef products and the popular middle-meat grilling items amid expanding weekly beef production remain a negative force. USDA reports the Choice cutout price for the week ending May 6 was $205.72 per hundred pounds, down $9.79 from the previous week and $50.89 lower than last year. The Select cutout was reported at $196.49 per hundred, down $9.82 from the previous week and $48.40 below last year. The current fundamentals of the beef complex are the exact opposite of this time last year, with lower prices and higher production.

    Beef price trends

     

    Pork

    Larger hog supplies will drive 2017 pork production almost 3 percent above volumes in 2016, according to USDA. Retail pork prices are likely to be lower as a result. They will be pressured by larger animal-protein supplies, not only of pork products, but of meats that compete with pork; beef and poultry production are also expected to increase in 2017. The ERS retail pork composite is expected to average in the mid-$3 region next year, down about 4 percent from the retail composite forecast for 2016. The wholesale value of January-to-April production averaged $76.20 per hundred pounds, almost 5 percent more than in the same period a year ago. In effect, this year, the wholesale market valued roughly the same volume of pork 5 percent higher than a year ago, suggesting that wholesale demand increased.

    Pork price trends

     

    Chicken

    First-quarter broiler production was slightly below forecast, and outlying forecasts were left unchanged. Broiler stock forecasts were reduced on lower-than-expected data, and whole-broiler price forecasts were raised slightly on stronger price trends. USDA reports April wholesale prices for broiler meat were mostly trending up, led by leg quarters, but they remained relatively low. The national composite price for whole birds at wholesale reached its seasonal low during February and has increased fairly consistently since then. With a relatively strong increase in prices during April and May, the whole-broiler price forecast was raised for the rest of 2016, with an annual average of $0.86 to $0.90 per pound. The 2017 price was forecast to average $0.84 to $0.91 per pound, as expected growth in exports partly offsets the effects of increased production.

    Poultry price trends

     

    Lamb

    First-quarter Choice slaughter lamb price was $133.33 per hundred pounds, almost $14 lower than the same time last year. Prices are expected to continue to remain below year-earlier levels for the rest of 2016, primarily due to the expected increase in the supply of lamb on the market. Second-quarter commercial production is also forecast at 38 million pounds. Both the first and second quarter commercial lamb production was below last year’s 39 million pounds when Easter and Passover occurred around the same time in the second quarter. However, overall 2016 production is expected to be slightly higher than last year.

    {jcomments on}

  • Meet your Farmers: Or, at least, wave to some as you go by

    "Seeing Nebraska at 12 miles an hour is a lot better than seeing Nebraska at 65 miles per hour," says Coordinator Donelle Moormeier in this 2014 video of the annual Tractor Relay Across Nebraska. Truer words were never spoken, but the relay also offers a great chance to see your Nebraska farmers in a little slower motion, as they make the drive in antique-tractor relays from Beatrice to Scottsbluff over eight days, starting June 4.

     

    Click on this link to see a full iternary for the route. The relay is a charitable event aimed at helping the American Legion raise funds for Operation Comfort Warriors, a program dedicated to meeting the needs of wounded, injured or ill military personnel by providing them with comfort items not usually supplied by the government.

    {jcomments on}

  • On the Lighter Side: This may qualify as the most chilling storm-chaser video yet

    Of all the storm-chaser videos of tornadoes that the preponderance of portable media has wrought, this terrifying 5.5 minutes shot just over the state line near Wray, Colo,. in early May could be the most breathtaking. Open up your video player to full screen and watch it in high-definition to experience the full effect!

    {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   

 
-6 #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
 
 
+6 #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
 
 
-6 #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
 
 
-7 #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
 
 
+7 #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