Renewable Revolution

Freedom & Democracy => Who CAN you trust? => Topic started by: AGelbert on February 22, 2015, 10:06:53 pm

Title: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on February 22, 2015, 10:06:53 pm
Here is a sign that some things ARE improving. Every now and then you jokingly bring up the subject of eating veal (with some fancy gourmet descriptive the rich folks like) name. I hope you realize that is highly offensive to some people. For the last century (at least ), male calves who don't win the breeding lottery have had their movements and diets restricted :emthdown: to produce the gourmet delicacies you are so fond of.

That is changing. I consider that a good sign.  :emthup: You might not because the calves are still getting slaughtered so what's the big deal? The big deal is that they do not suffer while they are alive. I consider that a big deal, don't you?

Many veal farmers have started improving conditions in their veal farms.[13][14] The American Veal Association has announced their plan to phase out the use of crates by 2017  :emthup:, which is often the main focus of controversy in veal farming.[15]

Criticism of veal crates revolves around the fact that the veal calves are highly restricted in movement; have unsuitable flooring; spend their entire lives indoors; experience prolonged sensory, social, and exploratory deprivation; and are more susceptible to high amounts of stress and disease.[12]
The life of a young male calf slated to be Veal is no picnic.  (

According to the Veal Quality Assurance Program, the Veal Issues Management Program industry fact sheet, and the Ontario Veal Association, individual housing systems are important for disease control and in reducing the possibility of physical injury. Furthermore, they state it also allows for veal farmers to provide more personal attention to veal calves.[9][10]

Alternative agricultural practices for using male dairy calves include raising bob veal (slaughter at two or three days old),[16] raising calves as "red veal" without the severity of dietary restrictions needed to create pale meat (resulting in fewer antibiotic treatments and lower calf mortality),[17] and as dairy beef.[18]

In 2008-2009 the demand for free-raised veal rose rapidly.[14][19]

Differentiation between veal, calf, and beef carcasses is made primarily on the basis of the
color of the lean, although such factors as texture of the lean; character of the fat; color, shape,
size, and ossification of the bones and cartilages; and the general contour of the carcass are also
given consideration.

Typical veal carcasses have a grayish pink color of lean that is very smooth and velvety in texture and they also have a slightly soft, pliable character of fat and marrow, and very red rib bones.

By contrast, typical calf carcasses have a grayish red color of lean, a flakier type of fat, and somewhat wider rib bones with less pronounced evidences of red color.

The EXPENSIVE veal was a calf with restricted diet and severely restricted movements. I.E. a MISERABLE CALF.  Please remember that when you fork up  $26.99 per pound for THIN CUT (Cut from the leg in a thin cut) Veal. I don't eat veal but I drink milk so I may be just as guilty as you. The dairy and the veal industry are partners in doing what they do.   (

We have to eat. But we have no excuse for torturing the animals we eat before they are slaughtered. No crates for calves means a bit less evil, does it not?


Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2015, 06:59:24 pm

Agelbert:By the way. how is the latest goat family doing? I have often wondered if goats, like cows, have to be kept pregnant in order to give milk except when their kids are nursing.   (

The goats are fine. Our two oldest does, ages 7 and 6, each had triplets two months ago. Their kids are pretty well weaned now and we're preparing to begin milking.

Yes, like cows, goats cannot give milk until they have kidded. Then, depending on their age, how many sets of kids they have had, and their genes, they can sometimes be milked for a year or more before their milk production drops off to where it isn't worth the effort to milk them anymore.

And when they are giving milk to the kids, is there enough for you to make cheese without hurting the kid milk supply?


It partly depends on how many kids they have. Kinder goats, the breed we raise, have been know to bear up to six kids in one kidding (!), but even with quads or quints, the breeder may have to bottle feed kids that aren't getting their fair share of milk.

 As for hurting the kids' milk supply, breeders handle the situation in various ways, but what we do is wean the kids to the point where they can subsist on hay, forage, and a little grain, and then we begin milking.  (  Can't wait too long to start though or the does begin to dry up.

I recently read that when human fertile females are exposed by wolf pups (or dog pups) to the Oxytocin pheromone, they start producing milk. I wonder if that has been tried.

I don't know about using oxytocin for contraception and artificial inducement of lactation, but an obstetrician once told me that, back in the old days, to encourage contractions, a woman in labor was sometimes given someone else's infant to nurse.

This is because the act of breastfeeding would cause the expectant mother to produce oxytocin, which in turn causes contractions. Post-partum, nursing also encourages contractions that enable delivery of the placenta.

( (
Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2015, 10:07:27 pm

JD said:

The questions you ask basically are ones of technical feasibility.

That is not the most important issue.
I never said it was. You just jumped up and made that incorrect assumption.

If you are doing sustainable animal husbandry, every calorie that goes into milk production is a calorie that can not be expended on other requirements.
  This is mechanistic reductionist thinking on your part.   Knarf addressed that issue effectively by weaning the kids with a suitable, nutritional substitute that does NOT hurt the kid OR the female goat. The lactating period is a little longer but not enough for you to make such and "unsustainable" big deal out of it.
So it is really more of a budgetary question, how much can you extract from the system before it falls apart?
More mechanistic reductionist thinking. Goat milking is DESIGNED to perpetuate the viability of the goat milking human and the goats as well, not to "EXPLOIT THE SYSTEM" to the point of collapse! That is predatory capitalist thinking. I thought you had been weaned of that garbage by this forum. MKing sees EVERYTHING that way. I was convinced it was different for you.  :(

If you are using artificial stimulants, the answer is not much unless you use artificial supports, like antibiotics.
Oxytocin is a hormone. The fact that we can make it does not change that. We make insulin. Is that "artificial" too? (

Dairy animals go dry for a reason.  They need a period to rest and recover.  Breeds that have been selected for hyper levels of production tend to have very short lifespans because they literally wear themselves out.
With all due respect, JD, this is the kind of comment, that you make from time to time, that really pisses me off. You know me. You know I have a general idea of what mammary glands are, when they are used, why they are used and how they can me misused. If you are talking to a **** ignoramus, this is the kind of comment that is in order. I thought you had a higher opinion of my data base. :(

You and I have had communication difficulties since I met you. FWIW, I will try to explain my position to you on this animal husbandry thing in general and milking them in particular.

I hear ya. I am as concerned about sustainability and proper, humane, husbandry as you. I think what Knarf is doing qualifies as sustainable, don't you?

The cows, on the other hand, have their male calves taken from them for VEAL for the rich at about $28.00 a pound!  :emthdown:  :( The agony those cows go through and the grieving has been documented.   :(

That is one hell of a difference!

As to your energy outlook on sustainability, I think it is a bit cold blooded.  :emthdown: Animal husbandry is, admittedly, an EVIL practice in this country. However, unlike many permaculturists out there, I DO NOT agree with all their calorie calculations about this and that not being sustainable. That is Baloney.

The problem is the WAY the animals are treated, how they are fed, and WHAT IS DONE with their urine and feces. If all this was done CORRECTLY, we would have MORE and healthier ORGANIC crops with MORE domestic food animals, PERIOD. And NO antibiotics would be needed either!

I've read the numbers, JD. I DO NOT buy them. HUGE herds of ruminants roamed this land before Homo SAPS were killing them off. THEY are NECESSARY for a viable biosphere. All the Baloney about how farm animals are "unsustainable" is just that!

What is UNSUSTAINABLE is the "PROFIT" from jamming animals into factory style environments that breed disease so some big meat corporation can buy off the government inspectors.

The MOMENT those animals are treated properly, the LAND where they graze, urine and defecate begins to recover. But the profits of the ranchers goes down in proportion to the humane and sustainable treatment of the animals.

As to Oxytocin being an "artificial" substance that violated permaculture principles, you are wrong. Yes, we can make oxytocin in the lab, but both animals and humans MAKE IT NATURALLY.

I know all about mastitis and other deleterious effects of forcing mammary glands to pump milk too often. Perhaps it would be better to eliminate milk altogether.

But THAT is no guarantee that the animals will have better and/or LONGER lives, as you surmise. In fact, more cows will head for the slaughter EARLIER. I don't consider that progress, do you? 

As long as we DO get milk from animals, If we can get them to lactate, like HUMAN FEMALES DO, from exposure to oxytocin, that beats the HELL out of inseminating them, getting them pregnant, and then ripping their calves away from them for veal cutlets!

Here's an article on 11 effects of Oxytocin does in humans. I think several Diners could use a heavy dose of it now and then.  (


Oxytocin crystallizes emotional memories
A November study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences supported researchers' theory that oxytocin would amplify men's early memories of their mothers. In a group of 31 men, those who inhaled a synthetic version of the hormone found the hormone intensified fond memories of their mothers if their relationships had been positive. Those whose ties with their mom's had frayed downgraded their opinions after inhaling oxytocin, the study showed.


Oxytocin solidifies relationships
Comparing urine levels of oxytocin and a related hormone called vasopressin in biological and adoptive children who lived in Russian and Romanian orphanages, researchers found that oxytocin rose in biological children after having contact with their mothers. The study, published in 2005 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that oxytocin levels remained static in the adoptive children in the same situation, suggesting a physiological basis for why some adoptive children have difficulty forming secure relationships.


Oxytocin facilitates childbirth and breastfeeding
In its best understood role, oxytocin is released in large amounts during labor, intensifying the uterine contractions that open the cervix and allow the baby to pass through the birth canal. Physicians have been using synthetic oxytocin, also known by its brand name Pitocin, to induce or augment labor since the early 1900s. After birth, the hormone continues to stimulate uterine contractions that discourage hemorrhaging, and more is released when the nipples are stimulated during suckling, promoting the letdown of milk into the nipples. (
Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on March 18, 2015, 08:58:02 pm
Thanks, AG, for explaining your position.  Yes, we have had our difficulties in communications, which is kind of ironic, because I think of all the regular Diners, you are the one who I agree with the most.  That seems to really accentuate the differences, though.  I think it's partially because I leave a lot of stuff out, and we have different ways of connecting the dots.

One thing I definitely do disagree with you on is what is "artificial".  It's not just a matter of origin.  Oxytocin and insulin may be chemically identical to what is produced by the body, but introducing them into the body is still what I consider "artificial stimulation".  Not that I am necessarily opposed to it, mind you; my wife was on insulin during her last trimester, and I had no problem with that.  But I am wary of designing systems that use them on a routine basis.

What I didn't understand until you explained it in your last post was how you were thinking of this as a substitute for getting dairy animals pregnant to produce milk.  Now, I'm pretty sure that oxytocin by itself will be insufficient to induce lactation, but with a careful mix of other hormones like progesterone, it might be possible, and it is an intriguing idea.

One thing I was unclear in explaining is that I was not talking about ecosystem calories, which can vary widely, I was talking about metabolic calories for the individual animal, which, when food is not limited, depend on its ability to process its food, which is fairly strictly limited if it is to remain in a healthy range.  However, this actually works for the idea of getting an animal to produce milk without getting pregnant, because all the calories that are not put into growing the new baby can go into producing milk.

I'm sorry about the comments where I seem to be talking down to you, AG, but in an open forum, unless I name someone specifically, I try not to address my comments just to one person, I do try to explain things to the lowest level that would likely be reading a post.

Thank you for your kind reply. I understand your concerns and agree with all of them.

I go off on a rant from time to time because of this whole mindset that we have been saddled with by "science" (see milk production and cow slaughter system rant below) because it is such a logical strait jacket.  (
As you will agree, there is far more (not just a little bit more) to nutrition and health in all life forms than energy capturing cause and effect. The joy of a free range animal that can raise its young without separation, less chemicals of all sorts and a healthier soil underfoot as a result, is something SPIRITUAL, not something that can be measured in calories.

Science refuses to go there. All they can do is come up with "observations" like "music makes cows produce more milk". This is so pitifully limited in thought and logic as to be laughable if it wasn't so overtly cold blooded and cruel.  :(   (

This rant is NOT addressed to you, JD.; It is addressed to ALL humanity, including myself. I post it as a warning that our proper path REQUIRES an ethical posture on absolutely every industry we engage in BECAUSE, not doing so DESTROYS empathy in Homo SAPS. We will destroy ourselves, along with a large part of the biosphere, if we do not make ethical behavior MANDATORY in everything we do. We MUST always look at the WHOLE PICTURE.

That picture has a portion that science CANNOT EVER MEASURE. Ethical behavior is far more important than the mechanistic reductionist bean counting so favored by scientists.

They have it exactly backwards. I have fought (mostly myself) on this most of my life. I LIKE to reduce "systems" to a nice manageable bit of addition and subtraction. That is WRONG. And it is wrong because it always excludes the main issue of the overall cause and effect of what we do and don't do in regard to vital intangibles that science has never been able to measure. The Native Americans have it right with the 7th Generation cause and effect decision making calculus. We do not.
( Production and Cow Slaughter System Rant (

Domestic cows can live to 20 years, however those raised for dairy rarely live that long, as the average cow is removed from the dairy herd around age four and marketed for beef.[9][11] In 2009, approximately 19% of the US beef supply came from cull dairy cows: cows that can no longer be seen as an economic asset to the dairy farm.[12] These animals may be sold due to reproductive problems or common diseases of milk cows such as mastitis and lameness.[11]

PLEASE, note the word "May" in the above quote. The reason for using the word "may" in a sentence is to ensure one does not assume too much about the stated reasons for this or that. IOW, these animals are sold for slaughter based on mechanistic reductionist BEAN COUNTING, period. And the next quote is the prize of cold blooded scientific doubletalk:

Cow longevity is strongly correlated with production levels.[17] Lower production cows live longer than high production cows, but may be less profitable. Cows no longer wanted for milk production are sent to slaughter.

So WTF does "increased longevity" mean when a Homo SAP dairy farmer will send you to SLAUGHTER SOONER if you put out "UNECONOMICAL" amounts of milk, HUH!!!?

But never fear, our mechanistic reductionist bean counting mother **** scientists have come up with a "natural" way to partially overcome "inefficiencies" in the "system".

Another factor affecting milk production is the stress to which the cow is faced to. Psychologists at the University of Leicester, UK, analyzed the musical preference of milk cows and found out that music actually influences the dairy cow's lactation. Calming music can improve milk yield, probably because it reduces stress and relaxes the cows in much the same way as it relaxes humans. [18]

You see, our wonderful dairy farmers must make those ECONOMICALLY SOUND decisions to slaughter a cow. There LOGIC is as follows:
Over 90% of all cows are slaughtered for 4 main reasons: Infertility, Mastitis, Lameness and "low" production (below around  below 12 to 15 litres of milk per day).

How long does dairy CASH cow live LAST? Let us ask our wonderful scientists who analyze the "system":

Dairy cows may continue to be economically productive for many lactations. In most cases, 10 lactations are possible. The chances of problems arising which may lead to a cow being culled are high, however; the average herd life of US Holstein is today fewer than 3 lactations. ( (

Well then, BRING ON the Lutalyse, Cystorelin, Estrumate, Estroplan,Factrel, Prostamate, Fertagyl, Insynch, and Ovacyst and recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST)! Don't forget the pesticdes! Every manufacturer of these chemicals is MAKING A PROFIT TOO! That's all part of the study of the "system" of milk production.  (

Do these human BRAIN FARTING BEAN COUNTERS EVER stop to add and **** subtract?
HELLO? Human females CAN lactate for SEVERAL YEARS with no loss in longevity. In fact, that's what they used to DO before we got "civilized". In fact, that KEPT human teeth from erupting, for YEARS. I have read of present day tribes where a child will lactate for almost a DECADE! Do you think that decreases momma's life span? I don't. I can give you chapter and verse about how human females have more diseases than ever from our "civilized" society.

But let's talk cash cow CFS.

1. Cows live on the LAND. Therefore, the LAND is part of the total financtial picture. It is a HUGE **** MISTAKE to exclude land and crop production from the "milk production" system.

2. Our so-called "profitable system" of cow milk production and routine slaughter of "inefficient" cows EXCLUDES the COST to society, the cows and the dairy farmer of manufacturing all the **** chemicals from hormones to pesticides NEEDED to keep this artificial clusterfuck going.

3. OUTbreeding all the cows to more genetically diverse and less specialized (for milk volume) will produce MUCH more long lived cows.

4. Longer lived cows with LESS milk production will be more profitable for society, the cows and the dairy/crop farmer because the entire biosphere math, which is NOT presently done, will be done.

5. This bean counting CRAP that refuses to address the pain, sorrow and empathy deadening, soul killing, mechanistic reductionist thinking that turns the farmer (and the rest of us) into accesories to biosphere destruction in the quest for "profit" is just one more path to our extinction.

6. The LAND NEEDS animals of all types. Ruminants are NOT destructive of land, as the mechanistic reductionist MORON SCIENTISTS believe. The biosphere is a system that REQUIRES animals to PRESERVE the soil that plants of all sizes live in. But the wisdom of that MATH can only be appreciated if the observer is bound by biosphere preserving ETHICS as the only real profit.

The issue here is NOT milk production, it is biosphere harmony for the perpetuation of LIFE.
That includes measuring costs PROPERLY. Science is NOT doing that! Unethical treatment of animals for PROFIT, at the end of the day, is a justification for unethical treatment of Homo SAPS.

The ASSHOLES who want to cubbyhole this "system" and that "system" so they can IGNORE ethical issues and reduce everything to a bean counting exercise are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Mechanistic reductionism isn't just unspiritual, evil and soul destroying, it's unprofitable to the only "system" that counts. That SYSTEM is the BIOSPHERE. It's high **** time we stopped playing fast and loose with logic so we can justify our greed.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for Homo SAPdom to get its head out of its mechanistic reductionist ass.

Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on March 18, 2015, 09:01:10 pm
Excellent rant, AG.  I agree with all of it, as it applies to the mainstream dairy industry.

I did want to give a bit of perspective from the sustainable ag viewpoint.  One of the big points they make at Project Grass is that in raising livestock sustainably, you are primarily harvesting sunlight :icon_sunny:.  The grass is of course your primary tool, and your livestock then become your main laborers.  That puts a whole different perspective on when you need to replace them, as opposed to the mainstream view of dairy animals as "milk factories" that you shovel feed into and get milk out of.  Because animals grazing are replacing tractors and such raising fodder, that's a lot of costs that you are saving, in money, energy, and environmental damage.

As an interesting aside, in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they did a study and figured out that the most energy-efficient dairy had just 9 cows.

As far as the ethics go, I like them simple:
1. Take care of the biosphere
2. Take care of people
3. Give more than you take
4. Be open to change


Cuba has been doing the biosphere math pretty well so their numbers are probably pretty good.

The only thing I would add to the ethics is that they are absolutely mandatory. Not following them should be punishable by fines, imprisonment or both. Fire up the drones! We've got some supervising to do!  (

Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on June 25, 2015, 08:15:43 pm
What’s Happening to Hens in Barns Across America?  (

Topic: Health and Wellness   

Earlier this week HSUS released undercover footage from Hillandale Farms, an egg producer who supplies eggs to Costco. The footage shows images of hens jammed so tightly into cages that they have no room to move, often have to stand on one another, and sometimes even stand on top of dead or injured birds. Their bodies have feather loss and painful-looking skin infections.  You can see dead hens on the floor and piled into bins. 

Hillandale responded by bringing in outside inspectors to assess the situation and releasing a statement indicating this was an isolated incident.  Late yesterday, Costco announced that it would keep Hillandale eggs on their shelves, believing that the incident truly was a one-time issue.

Undercover footage too often leads to finger pointing in multiple directions. Who’s to blame?  The worker?  The farmer?  The corporate buyer?  Is it a widespread problem? An isolated incident? Did the animal advocates get it all wrong?  It’s an all-too-familiar scene that reignites a larger question of how the animals that produce our food are being treated.  Even if the severity of the problem at Hillandale was truly isolated, we must ask the question: what’s going on in all the other barns across America?

Roughly 95 percent of all eggs produced in the United States come from conventional egg farms. This system was developed decades ago, with a focus on producing large quantities of food at a cost consumers can afford.  To do so, hens are kept in battery cages, which means a lot of hens fit into a little space. In short, operation costs are low and output is high.  Essentially, a standard business model.  These are systems designed for efficiency, not animal welfare.  Farmers, as well as their corporate buyers, don’t intend to harm laying hens.  But efficiency unintentionally results in severely compromising the welfare of hens.

The times have changed. Today we have a better understanding of animals as sentient beings, and while there are minimal laws that regulate care for animals used in food production in the US, the science and, let’s face it, ethics should guide the way. ( 

Conventional egg farming, which uses 280 million (280 MILLION!!!) hens annually, keeps six to eight hens in one cage for their entire life.  If you’re thinking that those must be pretty big cages, I have some bad news: they’re not.  These battery cages are so small that each hen has the space equivalent of an iPad.  :( On top of that, most barns hold 250,000 to 500,000 hens per barn. Rows of cages are stacked one on top of the other, keeping hens confined so tightly that they cannot even spread their wings, let alone fly.  Dust bathing, perching, and nesting, all natural behaviors of hens, are considered a luxury. It’s not hard to understand the kind of stress this environment causes for animals.

We have to change this reality.  Cheap and efficient food production can no longer be the answer when we have the proof that alternatives work just as well. Cage-free, free-range, and organic egg facilities can be used to produce enough eggs efficiently while also valuing the welfare of birds. While the cost of these eggs is currently higher than conventional eggs, as more and more producers switch to cage-free production methods, the cost will come down.

While the recent video shows some of the worst conditions experienced by hens, the fact remains that in the majority of barns across America, hens are confined to similar or only slightly better conditions. This should no longer be a conversation about efficiency alone, but about supporting and building systems that prioritize animal welfare, too.  As consumers, we have the responsibility to speak up for hens; and as a business, Costco has an opportunity to show leadership by making hen welfare a priority for their business.

This blog post originally appeared in The DoDo.

By  Kara A. Mergl, U.S. Manager of Corporate Engagement

Kara is currently the US Manager for Corporate Engagement at World Animal Protection where she consults with businesses on their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies. She holds a MS in Social Policy and a Master of Social Work from the University of Pennsylvania, as well as a BA from Moravian College in Psychology and Art History.
Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on August 03, 2015, 09:51:48 pm
Goat Cheese Farmers Give it All Up to Make Vegan Cheese Instead

by Abigail Geer
August 2, 2015
5:30 pm

After 20 years as award winning goat cheese farmers, Carol and Julian Pearce have decided to give it all up and make vegan cheese instead.

Still in the transition phase from farm to sanctuary, these two compassionate farmers decided that there was simply no way they could continue to justify bringing more life into the world while there were so many being mistreated and murdered, and in desperate need of a new home.

The No Kill Goat Cheese Farm

Having always identified themselves as being animal lovers and compassionate carers, their goat cheese business was a ‘no kill’ farm, where the animals were not slaughtered after their production days were over, but instead would live out the rest of their natural life on the farm.

As well as the no kill farm, the couple had already been taking in abused and abandoned goats, pigs, cows, horses, chickens, ducks and dogs for many years, and this is what ultimately led to the decision to halt their profitable farm business, in order to pursue an altogether more ethical cheese making venture.

Although many people are under the impression that small scale farming is not cruel or inhumane, this story highlights the fact that even a ‘no kill’ farm is not without its ethical problems. Apart from the fact that the animals are still being exploited for their milk (which was only ever intended to be drunk by their own kids), the farm is bringing more and more animals into the world in order to create that milk.

As hard as any farmer may try to care for their animals, the industry is inherently flawed from a moral standpoint as the animals are always being treated as commodities, with their bodies being exploited for our own gain. The Pearce’s statement about their decision to turn their farm vegan echoed this point by saying, “We did the best we could for our animals while still producing cheese, but then we realized ~ a vegan farm will allow us to do even better.”

The Animal Friendly Cheese

These two resourceful farmers are converting their 20 years of goat cheese making experience into vegan cheese making, in an effort to adapt and utilize their skills and find additional funding for their new 501(c)(3) non-profit rescue organization, The Sanctuary at Soledad Goats.

With the tagline “our cheese rescues animals,” the couple is hoping that their newfound love for vegan cheese making will help to spread the message about cruelty free cheese and help them to rescue more animals from the exploitation of the farm industry at the same time.

A Model for All Farms to Follow

Skeptics of change always come up with reasons why things have to remain the way they are, even when the current system of farming is leading to the exploitation, confinement, suffering and death of billions of animals every year.

As Grace Hopper said, “The most dangerous phrase in the language is ‘we’ve always done it this way.” (

Stories like this one offer hope and provide proof that it is indeed possible for us to change our ways and to find more compassionate alternatives. There are many options for animal farmers wishing to give up their current exploitative practices in favor of kinder ones, whether it’s switching from goat cheese to vegan cheese, or from pig farming to vegetable farming, we can create a better future for animals.     (
Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2016, 09:58:58 pm
What Happens to Your Body When You Eat a McDonald’s Hamburger? ???



By Dr. Mercola

When talking about fast food giants, nothing can be bigger – and more infamous – than McDonald's. Those two "golden arches" sign are so abundant and so well-known all over the world, that some toddlers can even recognize it even before they are able to speak full sentences.

In 2014, over 36,258 McDonald's restaurants operate worldwide,1 serving over 69 million people every day. From its humble beginnings in the 1940s, the brand has now grown to be a multi-billion dollar company with an estimated value of over $85 billion.

And the fast food's most popular menu item? The burgers.

According to The Fiscal Times, McDonald's sells 75 burgers every second.2 That amounts to over 2.36 billion burgers per year – roughly the equivalent of eating a million cows.3

For many people, nothing seems wrong with eating a McDonald's hamburger. After all, it looks and tastes the same as other burger patties, and the added convenience makes it a much sought-after meal for busy people, those who are on-the-go, or those who simply do not have time to cook food at home.

But considering just how much burger patties are sold per day, haven't you ever wondered just how McDonald's hamburgers are made and, more importantly, what they're made of?

Even more disturbing are the reports of McDonald's burgers that do not decompose or rot for weeks, months, or even years after they've been cooked.  :P


McDonald's Beef Comes from Factory Farms   (

Even if it is true that McDonald's burgers do not contain preservatives or additives (which I seriously doubt), this does not excuse the fact that McDonald's meat actually comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Not only are cows and other livestock in these factory farms made to live in unsanitary and inhumane conditions, but they are also given antibiotics and growth hormones to make them grow faster and more resistant to disease. In fact, nearly 25 million pounds of antibiotics are administered to livestock in the US every year.

These antibiotics, along with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, are transferred to you every time you eat CAFO meat – and sometimes even through the animal manure used as crop fertilizer. Two million Americans become infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria every year, causing at least 23,000 deaths.11

What's worse, antibiotic-resistant disease is not the only danger brought on by CAFOs. Excessive exposure to antibiotics and regularly eating antibiotic-laced CAFO meats also harms your gastrointestinal health, predisposing you to virtually any disease.

But it's not just the hamburger meat(   that's really problematic...

Here's Why McDonald's Bun Stays Mold-Free for Years  :P

McDonald's patty's long life may be because of its sodium content, but what about the bun? Bread typically stays fresh for several days, but have you ever heard of one that stays mold-free for years? Yet that's exactly what happened with the McDonald's bun.

I believe that this is because McDonald's bun is lightyears away from freshly baked bread you make at home – in fact, it is a "bread-like" concoction that bears no actual resemblance to natural bread (except for its appearance, obviously). Just take a look at the ingredients used in McDonald's buns:

"Enriched Bleached Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Yeast, Soybean Oil, Contains 2% or Less: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Leavening (Calcium Sulfate, Ammonium Sulfate), May Contain One or More Dough Conditioners (Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, DATEM, Ascorbic Acid, Azodicarbonamide, Mono and Diglycerides, Monocalcium Phosphate, Enzymes, Calcium Peroxide), Calcium Propionate (Preservative)."

These ingredients should clearly offer clues as to why the burgers stay blemish-free and "fresh" for years. But what's more alarming is that they can also open your eyes to the potential health ramifications you may experience if you eat a McDonald's hamburger. For example, calcium sulfate, also known as plaster of Paris, can possibly cause digestive problems. Meanwhile, ammonium sulfate is known to cause nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea due to gastrointestinal irritation.

Full article: (
Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2016, 04:36:11 pm

Panera Bread  ( makes industry-leading commitment to improve welfare of chickens   (

December 20 2016

Panera is one of the first major restaurant brands in the United States to announce an animal welfare commitment of this magnitude for broiler chickens.

World Animal Protection welcomes the commitment made by national bakery/café chain Panera Bread to improve the welfare of the chickens farmed for meat, known as broiler chickens, in its supply chain. Panera’s commitment includes critical and much-needed animal welfare measures, including using slower-growing chicken breeds, providing birds with more space, and offering improved living environments with natural lighting and enrichments for chickens.

“We applaud Panera Bread for this industry-leading commitment to give chickens better lives,” says Priscilla Ma, U.S. Executive Director of World Animal Protection. “We’re honored to have had the opportunity to work with the company in identifying opportunities to improve animal welfare practices, and the steps Panera is taking will have a significant positive impact for chickens. We echo Panera’s call to the wider food industry to work together to bring about sustainable change that chickens need and consumers want.”

Panera is one of the first major restaurant brands in the United States to announce an animal welfare commitment of this magnitude for broiler chickens. Pret A Manger, Compass Group USA, Aramark, and Perdue Foods, the country’s fourth-largest national poultry producer, have also announced commitments this year to improve the welfare of broiler chickens.

On average, sixty billion meat chickens are raised for global consumption each year. An estimated two-thirds of these animals (40 billion) live in overcrowded sheds or cages with little or no natural light or fresh air, unable to perform many natural behaviors, such as foraging, perching, and dustbathing. Many chickens will experience painful conditions including lameness (difficulty walking) and suffer overworked hearts and lungs as a result of an unnatural growth rate, and wounds like skin sores and burns from spending too long in wet, poorly managed litter. By committing to practical improvements that directly address these severe animal welfare problems, food companies can transform the welfare of the chickens in their supply chain.

Through our Change for chickens campaign, we are calling on food retailers, including KFC, to improve the welfare of the billions of chickens farmed for meat around the world. We are calling for:

•The use of chicken breeds that grow at a slower, more natural rate

•More living space for chickens

•More enrichments for chickens to engage with and explore, such as perches and hay bales

•The introduction of natural light in sheds

“Panera is implementing the far-reaching change for chickens that we’re hoping for from the food industry at large,” adds Ma. “Through the cage-free egg movement, consumers have shown that animal welfare is important to them in their purchasing decisions, and today’s businesses must take this into account. Importantly, Panera has also committed to reporting publicly on its progress in implementing its animal welfare commitments, and we look forward to following the company’s progress.”
Title: Re: Treatment of Domestic Animals Raised for Food
Post by: AGelbert on March 29, 2018, 08:22:05 pm

Why we're turning our attention 🧐 to helping pigs 🐷 🐖

March 12 2018

There are approximately 1.4 billion pigs in the world, and the majority of those pigs don't have lives worth living. 😟

Full article: ( (
Post by: AGelbert on December 09, 2019, 12:00:31 am


By Andy Greenberg,

December 7, 2019 | RESIST!

a piglet on a grate at Circle Four Farms in Utah


In the living room of his house in Berkeley, Hsiung sits me down on a stool and puts an Oculus VR headset on my head, along with a pair of over-ear headphones. Hsiung’s two dogs, one rescued from a dog meat farm in Yulin, China, and the other from a Chicago dogfighting ring, laze on the couch in front of me, warily keeping their distance from the strange cyborg creature that’s invaded their home.

A few seconds later, Hsiung—now a virtual Hsiung, standing in front of me in the dark of a Utah desert night, not the physical one I’d just been talking to—is showing me a dumpster whose floor is lined with dead piglets, the bloody carcass of a full-grown pig thrown face down on top of them. I’m now watching Operation Deathstar.

Full gripping, poignant ✨ article 👍👍👍 with pictures: