|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 10:48:57 AM
|
|
|
stampinlady
Posts: 1572
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Northern IL
Status: offline
|
I'm far from a PETA person, but I do believe we are to do whats right when it comes to how we treat our animals. I caught a few minutes of Oprah the other day and they were disussing whether or not Free Range was better than keeping our "food supply" in cages all their lives. I don't have any links about it, but it made me sad to see all those chickens in cages with hardly any room to spread their wings. Pregant pigs are also kept in very tights pens, apparently for safeys sake, but ... . I know it costs more to buy free range anything. Is it all about money or something else?
_____________________________
Deb
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 11:34:14 AM
|
|
|
BarryLee
Posts: 27
Joined: 9/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Well, I am definitely not an expert in this area, but it would seem that yields would be the main issue.
Modern agricultural and livestock techniques focus on maximum yield per animal or acre of land. Now, one could assume that this has a lot to do with profits and I am certain that is correct. However, I believe we have fewer farms feeding more people than we did fifty years ago, so yields are important.
So, to answer your question I am not certain that free range techniques would be adequate to meet our overall food needs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 12:25:58 PM
|
|
|
Mrs.X
Posts: 2933
Joined: 7/7/2005
From: Newberg, OR
Status: offline
|
Free range does seem much nicer for the animals, but I agree with BarryLee, not sure if there is enough land for all of us to eat free range animals.
_____________________________
-Stina
From Sweet Grass to the Packin' House
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. -Proverbs 15:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 12:42:22 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarryLee
So, to answer your question I am not certain that free range techniques would be adequate to meet our overall food needs.
Seems like a very legitimate question. Modern agricultural techniques seem to be required in these days to generate enough food for all. It's probably worth exploring the degree to which some of those techniques actually help us - for example do the use of antibiotics in farm animals really make us better off, or are we just creating strains of mutant bacteria that are chemically resistant?
There's probably room to modify many of our practices, but whether or not you could get all the way to "free range" is open for debate.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 1:01:21 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7828
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm far from a PETA person, but I do believe we are to do whats right when it comes to how we treat our animals. I caught a few minutes of Oprah the other day and they were disussing whether or not Free Range was better than keeping our "food supply" in cages all their lives. I don't have any links about it, but it made me sad to see all those chickens in cages with hardly any room to spread their wings. Pregant pigs are also kept in very tights pens, apparently for safeys sake, but ... . I know it costs more to buy free range anything. Is it all about money or something else?
I think it is primarily about the money, at least from the perspective of the American consumer. I mean how much more per pound would you be willing to pay for chicken to know they were raised as free range chickens - 20, 30, 40%?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 1:01:58 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I'm far from a PETA person, but I do believe we are to do whats right when it comes to how we treat our animals. I caught a few minutes of Oprah the other day and they were disussing whether or not Free Range was better than keeping our "food supply" in cages all their lives. I don't have any links about it, but it made me sad to see all those chickens in cages with hardly any room to spread their wings. Pregant pigs are also kept in very tights pens, apparently for safeys sake, but ... . I know it costs more to buy free range anything. Is it all about money or something else?
I think it is primarily about the money, at least from the perspective of the American consumer. I mean how much more per pound would you be willing to pay for chicken to know they were raised as free range chickens - 20, 30, 40%?
'xactly.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 1:09:20 PM
|
|
|
LCannon
Posts: 1249
Joined: 2/22/2007
From: Lebanon, OR
Status: offline
|
The 'free range' movement is largely an emotional one. Largely, except the 'organic range' that propagates itself from infant to slaughter(there's few farm 'animal' retirement homes)the 'free range' notion is more accurately called 'cage free'. Animals are still penned and fed basically the same feed and allow same 'freedom' to interact(or abuse)others. However, the 'industrial production' of large amounts of animals requires massive antibiotics, disinfection and waste(manure removal)and disposal.
< Message edited by LCannon -- 10/15/2008 1:17:41 PM >
_____________________________
"I pray that You dispose of my health, my sickness,
my life and my death for Your Glory."(Blaise Pascal)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 1:16:25 PM
|
|
|
eaglelady11
Posts: 351
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
I wonder when God created the animals if he put them in cages? or did he let them roam free? I don't think it was God's will for animals to be caged up and think it's cruel and it's just for economic reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 2:13:49 PM
|
|
|
BarryLee
Posts: 27
Joined: 9/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Yes, man’s unethical desire for Buffalo wings has almost eliminated the great herds that once freely roamed the Great Plains.
However, fear not because after the election the wonderful US Congress will begin distributing a new food stuff know as Soylent Green wafers. This will solve all our food problems and a few more…
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 2:23:05 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 4259
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
I'm not an expert, but...I have read extensively on this and grew up in the country.
Using the example of chickens crammed into cages...God gave chickens natural instincts for their survival and growth. Chickens natually peck their food, gather their babies around them and live in a type of community with other chickens.
When crammed into cages, they end up pecking one another for space and never getting it...ultimately forcing their caretakers to clip off the tips of their beaks. This prevents them from being able to eat normally, etc. but it does allow them to be crammed into a cage without room to turn around for their entire life. Ya know...so we can cut down on the cost of eggs from $1.89 to $1.49 for eggs.
We've taken what God definitely created to roam or gather in herds or whatever and decided that we can do it better. So "we" put them in cages, boxes and organized them in neat little rows for our convenience and profit.
When are you most stunned in nature? When viewing the untouched wilderness and it's beauty directly from God's hand....or viewing a neatly organized and detailed man-made landscape? It's like comparing Disneyworld to the Grand Canyon.
Now, I'm NOT saying that animals are more important than people, etc. but God put us in charge of the garden and what will we say when He asks about that? We needed to make more money, so we shot up our food with drugs, poisoned our milk, tortured and abused smaller animals for profit...ya know cause we're superior and all that?
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 2:38:48 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7828
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I wonder when God created the animals if he put them in cages? or did he let them roam free? I don't think it was God's will for animals to be caged up and think it's cruel and it's just for economic reasons.
Perhaps. Do you purchase chicken?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 2:38:58 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1428
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Mmm.
Let's talk practicality here. I'm talking from the standpoint of someone who grew up on a farm, and someone whose uncle and grandfather are free range ranchers (my grandfather is a cattle breeder, my uncle does an actual officially "free range" business of both beef and chickens).
The animals are caged regardless. For a cow, "free range" means you have a larger fence. You can't just let cows wander around. They're stupid pretty much. They'll end up on the freeway and kill people. You'll never find them again. So, you move them from fenced pasture to fenced pasture.
For chickens, "free range" usually means that you have this large cage and you move it around a given field. Chickens are way stupider than cows, and far less able to defend themselves (chicken defense mostly involves running, flapping, and squawking a lot in random directions. People can chase them down on foot easily, nevermind a dog or other predator). If you actually let a chicken live "free range", it would die in a very short time period because it wouldn't be able to find water and a random dog, coyote, fox, skunk, etc, would eat it.
The domesticated animals we have right now are a far cry from the animals God created to live in the wild. These animals have been bred for generations to be dependent on humans for food, water, and shelter from predators and the elements, just as we're dependent on them for a food source. There has never been a time when flocks of wild chickens strutted proudly across the great prairies.
Frankly, us humans would not do so hot in a "free range" scenario either. We'd either freeze or starve to death. Watch Survivor sometime... want to live like that? Would your dog or cat be happier if you kicked them out and made them "free range"?
That's not even talking about the economic practicalities. It takes a lot of room to have a "free range" animal. It's a lot more work, too. So, it's a lot more expensive, especially on a per-pound basis, both from what it costs to do and because free range animals do not gain weight on the same scale as animals in "average" conditions do (because they have to work harder for their food).
Yes, there are things that can be done to make animals more comfortable, and it would certainly be good to take those into consideration when taking care of animals, but in general, really, most domesticated animals are quite happy to sit around being fed and watered while protected from predators and the elements.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 2:46:58 PM
|
|
|
BarryLee
Posts: 27
Joined: 9/26/2005
Status: offline
|
First, let me say that I do not believe the way man handles animal issues and the environment in general is what God originally intended. The truth of the matter is that Man sinned and we messed it all up, so now we have to deal with it.
As I mentioned earlier I do not believe the total difference between free range foods and traditional techniques is purely economic. I am not certain that we can feed a US population of 305 million plus people on free range and organic gardening techniques. Regardless of what we may want to do we have to face the realities that exist.
Now, I suppose we could stop eating eggs, poultry, beef and animal products in general. We could simply eat fruits and vegetables. I mean after all we would probably be healthier in the long run anyway. So we simply go out and turn more of the little natural land we have into farm land destroying the natural ecosystems that exist and the native flora and fauna. Then we can plant all the vegetables we want, but remember we have to plant twice what we really need since we are using organic gardening techniques and a large percentage will die.
Bottom line there is no room for animal abuse or disregard for our natural resources. I believe to do so would be a sin in the eyes of the Lord. However, we have tough choices to make and I know we sometimes miss the mark, but bottom line we have to provide healthy, adequate and affordable food supplies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 2:48:51 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 4259
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
I'm not sure, but I might have given a wrong impression of what we commonly refer to as free-range. I am well aware that free range doesn't mean just turning domesticated animals out into the wild. And neither do those who use "free range" as a marketing ploy for goods. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that some oversight isn't needed for these animals care.
However, compared to what most cows and/or chickens deal with - a large cage or pasture is humane...how they currently live is not.
Altering these animals for convenience or profit should not be acceptable to us as caretakers.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 2:54:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7828
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
For chickens, "free range" usually means that you have this large cage and you move it around a given field. Chickens are way stupider than cows, and far less able to defend themselves (chicken defense mostly involves running, flapping, and squawking a lot in random directions. People can chase them down on foot easily, nevermind a dog or other predator). If you actually let a chicken live "free range", it would die in a very short time period because it wouldn't be able to find water and a random dog, coyote, fox, skunk, etc, would eat it.
The domesticated animals we have right now are a far cry from the animals God created to live in the wild. These animals have been bred for generations to be dependent on humans for food, water, and shelter from predators and the elements, just as we're dependent on them for a food source. There has never been a time when flocks of wild chickens strutted proudly across the great prairies.
Frankly, us humans would not do so hot in a "free range" scenario either. We'd either freeze or starve to death. Watch Survivor sometime... want to live like that? Would your dog or cat be happier if you kicked them out and made them "free range"?
And my question is, how happy do I want my foods life to have been? I mean, what do I feel better about - the fact that a very happy chicken who enjoyed life lost that happy life and is now sitting on my table waiting to be consumed, or that a chicken who was very unhappy, perhaps even depressed, was relieved of his life so that he might serve the higher purpose of feeding me and mine?
I have to admit I am leaning toward the latter.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 3:10:13 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 4259
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
it's not about unhappiness
it's about abuse
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 3:15:58 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1428
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Altering these animals for convenience or profit should not be acceptable to us as caretakers.
Frankly it was too late for that a few thousand years ago. The animals have already been thoroughly altered. That's what "domesticated" means.
So, should we try to be humane in raising animals? Yes, as much as possible... but having raised animals myself, I am quite convinced that a chicken in a reasonably sized sheltered cage who gets food and water whenever they want it without having to work for it is happier than a chicken running around trying to catch its own food and find its own water and shelter and avoid being eaten by predators. Free range chickens don't have to worry as much about predators but they still have to catch their own food.
We let our chickens run around if they wanted because we had room for it (we weren't really chicken farmers) but believe me, they were very happy to stay in close proximity to their coop, where the food was, where the water was, and where they were safe, even if it wasn't terribly spacious and would get downright cramped when it was getting close to butchering time. On nice days, they'd be all back in their coop at dark to be shut up against predators. On cold days or wet days or even somewhat windy days, they weren't even interested in leaving the coop, crowded or not.
I'm sure we can find a happy medium that's comfortable for the animals (big enough cages and all they can eat and drink) without being economically prohibitive. It might not be as glorious a concept as the thought of the noble and free chicken clucking mightily on the wide prairies, and it's certainly not "free range", but I'm pretty sure the chickens would be happier about it. Or at least as close to the complex emotional state that comprises what we think of as "happy" as a chicken can come. My personal opinion is that most chickens have two basic emotional states: freaked out, and not freaked out.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 3:39:10 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7828
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
it's not about unhappiness
it's about abuse
Perhaps, but isn't raising an animal for the sole purpose of being eaten by any definition abuse?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 3:41:27 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7828
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm sure we can find a happy medium that's comfortable for the animals (big enough cages and all they can eat and drink) without being economically prohibitive. It might not be as glorious a concept as the thought of the noble and free chicken clucking mightily on the wide prairies, and it's certainly not "free range", but I'm pretty sure the chickens would be happier about it. Or at least as close to the complex emotional state that comprises what we think of as "happy" as a chicken can come. My personal opinion is that most chickens have two basic emotional states: freaked out, and not freaked out.
It reminds me of domestic turkeys (which may make chickens look like geniuses) who, when they see a hawk (or a plane they think that looks like a hawk) will run into the corner of an enclosure and smother each other to death.
I assume they are brighter in the wild.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 3:45:29 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 10522
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
I'm of the opinion that as with most things, balance is a good thing. We are charged with caring for the earth. On the other hand, is there only one way to care for creation ("free range"). I would argue no.
I grew up on a farm as well although I admit to knowing next to nothing about chickens. However, from other things we raised, I do know that what sounds "good" and what sounds "cruel" isn't always the case. We had cows and sheep (for a short time). I remember when the sheep were having their lambs, we had to put the mama's and their babies in very small stalls that were separate from the rest of the sheep. Why? Was it because we were being cruel to them by confining them in a small space? No, it's because sheep are the dumbest creature on the planet earth and the mama's would forget they had babies and not care for them. By putting them in a small pen early on, the lambs were protected during delivery and after birth and had a much higher rate of survival. From the outside looking it, it may seem "wrong", but when you know the facts, you learn that there are reasons some things are done certain ways.
Going back to the other side of the issue however, I believe there are some people and practices that are cruel. In Scripture, we see shepherds cared for their flocks. I believe as stewards of this earth, we are to care for our herds as well. That doesn't mean they have to be free-range. But that does mean that it is possible to be poor shepherds of what God has entrusted to us. 
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Resume Quotations: "Reason for leaving last job: The owner gave new meaning to the word 'paranoia.' I prefer to elaborate privately."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 3:47:57 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 4259
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
I'm sure we can find a happy medium that's comfortable for the animals (big enough cages and all they can eat and drink) without being economically prohibitive. It might not be as glorious a concept as the thought of the noble and free chicken clucking mightily on the wide prairies, and it's certainly not "free range", but I'm pretty sure the chickens would be happier about it. Or at least as close to the complex emotional state that comprises what we think of as "happy" as a chicken can come. My personal opinion is that most chickens have two basic emotional states: freaked out, and not freaked out.
Nobody has or is suggesting this 
It's the obvious abuse of the animals that is wrong.
Unless this post is a subtle way of agreeing with the abuse of animals just because they end up as our food.
quote:
We let our chickens run around if they wanted because we had room for it (we weren't really chicken farmers) but believe me, they were very happy to stay in close proximity to their coop, where the food was, where the water was, and where they were safe, even if it wasn't terribly spacious and would get downright cramped when it was getting close to butchering time. On nice days, they'd be all back in their coop at dark to be shut up against predators. On cold days or wet days or even somewhat windy days, they weren't even interested in leaving the coop, crowded or not.
and you're talking about a real chicken coop...not the copy paper siz box that passes for a coop to many commercial farmers with 6 or 7 chickens shoved in there.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 3:52:01 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 4259
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
it's not about unhappiness
it's about abuse
Perhaps, but isn't raising an animal for the sole purpose of being eaten by any definition abuse?
No
and unless you have actually seen the abuse or investigated it for yourself...the farm life most of us experienced is not what we're (at least I'm not) talking about...normal care for animals having babies, or being sick or keeping them safe has NOTHING to do with the abuse I keep referring to.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 3:58:14 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7828
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
and unless you have actually seen the abuse or investigated it for yourself...the farm life most of us experienced is not what we're (at least I'm not) talking about...normal care for animals having babies, or being sick or keeping them safe has NOTHING to do with the abuse I keep referring to.
Well I am pretty familiar with livestock practices since I majored in biology at Iowa State where copious amounts of animal science classes are de rigueur; the thing I am not seeing here is a clearly delineated definition of 'abuse' in regards to raising animals for food. I mean clearly confining a human being apart from punishment for a crime is abusive; not necessarily so with an animal. Where are you drawing the line here?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is "Free Range" better or worse for us? - 10/15/2008 4:02:17 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 10522
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
If a line is hard to draw, does that mean abuse cannot exist?
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Resume Quotations: "Reason for leaving last job: The owner gave new meaning to the word 'paranoia.' I prefer to elaborate privately."
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
