Organic...
Replies
-
Loose definition of scholarly. Right off the bat I can see the Seralini rat that gets used for shock value. Too bad the control group in that study looked just as bad, but Seralini didn't tell the press about that. Also, said "scholarly" article got retracted.TrailBlazinMN wrote: »
0 -
If you can show me where anyone said organic farming should be outlawed, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, you're intentionally misrepresenting everyone here's statements.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Last time I saw a strawman that big, the people at Burning Man where starting up their lighters.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What I can't wrap my head around is why anyone would be against organic gardening or think that organic food "sucks". I mean I totally get thinking it's not necessary, doesn't taste better, not more nutritious, but why the hate?
what I can't wrap my head around is why you have spent 11 pages arguing so strongly in favor of it
I totally get that some people like it
I wasn't actually arguing in favor of it. Not in favor of eating organic, that is. I don't care what others eat.
I would certainly argue in favor of allowing the practice to continue. We sure as heck don't need to outlaw organic farming.
If there is meaning in this, I missed it.
Again, you are reading things into my post that aren't there. I was clarifying my statements and opinions is response to the post that said I was arguing in favor of eating organic. I didn't say anything about anyone else.0 -
Can't prove a negative. Can we prove organic is safer and healthier?
I'd say we trade one terror for another. On one side there's the fear of pesticide residue and the unknown compounding effect in our diet, and on the other it's bacterial contamination. (At least for me).
Then there's the matter of maximizing our land resources to their best potential. Is it organic? Or is it a mixture of the two? For instance, what if a farmer used soil preserving methods and natural fertilizing, rotating crops, and generally taking care of the land, without banning the use of fertilizers, pesticides for outbreaks, and GMO crops designed for maximum yield?
Why does it have to be one or the other?
IMO, choice is usually good. That there are a variety of supply options, including organic, available for those who want it is a good thing.
That the possibly woo preference for organic by some better off people means that they demand organic and allow the development of new markets for smaller, local farms vs. big agriculture seems to me a positive thing for the farmers and for people who see value in the availability of produce (and meat and eggs and dairy) from local farms.
I don't care much about organic--I never choose it over conventional when buying in the grocery stores unless there is some other relevant difference between the produce available. But I do like seasonal local produce for a variety of reasons--some taste/health related (I prefer to eat food closer in time to when they are picked and to have a greater variety of options for the particular variety of tomato or, for that matter, kind of pig) and some ethical (treatment of animals which IMO can be a lot better on a local farm than through big ag) and some probably political or woo (I think there's a benefit to keeping small local farms in business for the surrounding community and the country, I'm sympathetic to the desire in part because my parents were raised on farms, even though neither of them has a desire to farm now). That others care about organic makes the things I care about more available. And it's not like conventional is hard to come by.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why0 -
It is the organic advocate that has the burden of proof. If they can't, then this is a matter of preference.Can we prove organic is safer and healthier?
I've protested one consequence of this preference, as have others. It directs the farmer's choice to perhaps methods that are less efficient. With land scarcity coming a reality, this could be a problem.
The organic farmer, to keep certification, must avoid artificial fertilizers, man-made pesticides, and GMO, even if they may be the superior choice. That is an "economic" ban.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why
According to the organic rules posted a couple of pages ago, this practice is prohibited in organic gardening.0 -
It is the organic advocate that has the burden of proof. If they can't, then this is a matter of preference.Can we prove organic is safer and healthier?
I've protested one consequence of this preference, as have others. It directs the farmer's choice to perhaps methods that are less efficient. With land scarcity coming a reality, this could be a problem.
The organic farmer, to keep certification, must avoid artificial fertilizers, man-made pesticides, and GMO, even if they may be the superior choice. That is an "economic" ban.
It's not a "ban", it's a choice. A preference. No one is forcing anyone to grow organic. Some people care about more than effeciency when it comes to food. And that's okay.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
If you can show me where anyone said organic farming should be outlawed, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, you're intentionally misrepresenting everyone here's statements.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Last time I saw a strawman that big, the people at Burning Man where starting up their lighters.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What I can't wrap my head around is why anyone would be against organic gardening or think that organic food "sucks". I mean I totally get thinking it's not necessary, doesn't taste better, not more nutritious, but why the hate?
what I can't wrap my head around is why you have spent 11 pages arguing so strongly in favor of it
I totally get that some people like it
I wasn't actually arguing in favor of it. Not in favor of eating organic, that is. I don't care what others eat.
I would certainly argue in favor of allowing the practice to continue. We sure as heck don't need to outlaw organic farming.
If there is meaning in this, I missed it.
Again, you are reading things into my post that aren't there. I was clarifying my statements and opinions is response to the post that said I was arguing in favor of eating organic. I didn't say anything about anyone else.
You literally wrote:I would certainly argue in favor of allowing the practice to continue. We sure as heck don't need to outlaw organic farming0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
If you can show me where anyone said organic farming should be outlawed, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, you're intentionally misrepresenting everyone here's statements.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Last time I saw a strawman that big, the people at Burning Man where starting up their lighters.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What I can't wrap my head around is why anyone would be against organic gardening or think that organic food "sucks". I mean I totally get thinking it's not necessary, doesn't taste better, not more nutritious, but why the hate?
what I can't wrap my head around is why you have spent 11 pages arguing so strongly in favor of it
I totally get that some people like it
I wasn't actually arguing in favor of it. Not in favor of eating organic, that is. I don't care what others eat.
I would certainly argue in favor of allowing the practice to continue. We sure as heck don't need to outlaw organic farming.
If there is meaning in this, I missed it.
Again, you are reading things into my post that aren't there. I was clarifying my statements and opinions is response to the post that said I was arguing in favor of eating organic. I didn't say anything about anyone else.
You literally wrote:I would certainly argue in favor of allowing the practice to continue. We sure as heck don't need to outlaw organic farming
Yes, because that is my opinion. (still not sure where you're going with this??)0 -
It is the organic advocate that has the burden of proof. If they can't, then this is a matter of preference.Can we prove organic is safer and healthier?
I've protested one consequence of this preference, as have others. It directs the farmer's choice to perhaps methods that are less efficient. With land scarcity coming a reality, this could be a problem.
The organic farmer, to keep certification, must avoid artificial fertilizers, man-made pesticides, and GMO, even if they may be the superior choice. That is an "economic" ban.
I'm not following. Nobody is mandating organic methods - there is no "economic" ban - if a farmer chooses to go after the organic market, that's their *choice*.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why
According to the organic rules posted a couple of pages ago, this practice is prohibited in organic gardening.
you do not garden animals0 -
Not to mention the age-old logical fallacy, called "changing the subject" when I provided an example way back on page 11 that in seasonal countries, failure of a crop, say, to fungus, does indeed write off the crop for the entire year.
All of a sudden, we're talking about banning organic.
@Mr_Knight, isn't that a choice to be poor?0 -
There are certain things that I buy organic because they have more pesticides than other things, berries, lettuce, spinach, apples, tomatoes, grapes, (chicken when I occasionally buy it). I wish that I could buy more organic but I can't afford it.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why
According to the organic rules posted a couple of pages ago, this practice is prohibited in organic gardening.
you do not garden animals
Actually, I do raise animals for food.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why
According to the organic rules posted a couple of pages ago, this practice is prohibited in organic gardening.
you do not garden animals
Don't tell me what to do mom! I'll garden all the animals I want. I'm off to fertilize the cow - no wait, that's not right.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why
According to the organic rules posted a couple of pages ago, this practice is prohibited in organic gardening.
you do not garden animals
Oh, I see now you were just being flip. Haha. Nice dodge.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why
According to the organic rules posted a couple of pages ago, this practice is prohibited in organic gardening.
you do not garden animals
Actually, I do raise animals for food.
you do not garden animals0 -
Is anyone here actually a farmer or rancher? I'm guessing not by the responses (my Dad, uncles, cousins, grandparents, their parents, etc.) are all farmers/ranchers. I grew up on a farm and ranch. During high school, I worked on the farm end of a large scale beef ranch, a medium sized vegetable farm, an alfalfa, soybean, and wheat farm, etc. During my career, I have worked with an industrial sized fertilizer manufacturing facility, a sugar beet plant, a potato (french fry) manufacturing facility. I also oversee the work of an Ag engineer in my current profession--among other things. Anyone else? Maybe anyone who grew up next to a feedlot, dairy, fertilizer plant? Anyone here actually have real life experience with how large-scale (and smaller scale) food production works?
I loved the "happy cow" pictures and the fertilizer chart. It really gave me a great laugh this morning. Is that how people outside the Ag industry think beef and dairy cattle live? Has anyone asked the butcher to source "100% grass raised and finished beef"? It's really almost impossible to find. Most beef cattle spend a large portion of their lives at a feedlot (yes, google pictures of that one). If you can find "grass finished" it's the best indication that a cow has never lived on a feedlot. At the feedlot, the beef is fed an antibiotic blend, not to "cure" them of any diseases, no, the antibiotics are used to fatten them up. There are also "health benefits" of antibiotic use in feedlot cattle. Feedlots tend to feed corn and other grains, which is not a natural food for cattle. Grains cause bloat. But, it's cheaper to feed corn than raise a cow on what it eats naturally. Fortunately, giving the cattle antibiotics also prevents the bloat caused by the unnatural feed. And, as you can imagine, living in crowded spaces, on a pile of your own (and every other cow's) poo, is not really a very healthy environment, so a little extra boost of antibiotic can't hurt right?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
Untrue; they are treated but do not go into the antibiotic free meat stream.
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/do-organic-animals-get-sick-and-if-so-what-does-that-farmer-or-rancher-use-to-treat-the-animal-
If an animal that is being raised for food using organic production practices becomes sick, the farmer/rancher will do what they can to make the animal healthy, first utilizing natural remedies. If these remedies are ineffective, then it may be given medical treatment including antibiotics if appropriate for the illness. Once an animal is treated with antibiotics, it cannot be sold as organic. These animals are simply separated from the non-antibiotic group, treated and then marketed as conventional products following proper withdrawal times. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR 205.238 (c)).
Organic is Good for Cows
...Still, both Velez and Tikofsky agree that the organic system, which is governed by a set of strict and enforceable rules, does help to ensure that a basic commitment to animal health is made and upheld. For example, because it prohibits the use of antibiotics (except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy), the organic system supports and promotes a preventative approach to health care that benefits animals and farmers alike. Most notably, it compels farmers to establish a close relationship with each animal. This relationship, which is cultivated through frequent interaction and “near constant observation,” enables farmers to quickly identify, assess, and respond to behavioral changes before they develop into health problems. In many cases, this approach spares organic animals of such common illnesses as mastitis and pneumonia. Moreover, it helps organic farmers to avoid reactive, antibiotic-based treatments, which can not only be costly but also threaten their animals’ organic status.
brown cowFrom Tikofsky’s standpoint, the organic system also promotes animal health through its understanding of and support for animals’ natural behaviors. As she explains it, “Cows are designed to spend much of their time outside on the pasture, where they can acquire the nutrients they need to survive. To the extent, then, that the organic system makes access to the outdoors a priority, it gives cows access to the high forage diet they need to maintain digestive health.”
Karreman agrees. “Much of the organic system is about trying to mimic Mother Nature. Her cues point to the importance of fresh air, dry bedding, sunshine, quality pastures, and high-forage feed, so that is what the organic system attempts to provide.”
Tikofsky adds that the organic system’s requirement that livestock have access to the outdoors appears to help reduce the number of health problems from which many cows suffer. Several studies have found that cows raised organically are less prone to lameness and foot disease, due, in large part, to the fact that they move about on pasture, which is softer and therefore easier on their legs than concrete. Other studies have shown that animals consuming high forage diets, such as those organic cows are fed, suffer from fewer instances of mastitis and tend to enjoy greater longevity than animals whose diets are more grain and less forage-based.0 -
the post count increase is strong in this thread0
-
We don't buy organic. I don't care about GMOs. I like humanely treated animals for meat but budget prevails ...0
-
Why I buy potatoes that are organic or locally grown on small farms, or grow my own, which I don't need to spray, just pick off potato bugs from time to time.
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/playing-god-in-the-garden/
Danny Forsyth laid out the dismal economics of potato farming for me one sweltering morning at the coffee shop in downtown Jerome, Idaho. Forsyth, 60, is a slight blue-eyed man with a small gray ponytail; he farms 3,000 acres of potatoes, corn and wheat, and he spoke about agricultural chemicals like a man desperate to kick a bad habit. ”None of us would use them if we had any choice,” he said glumly.
I asked him to walk me through a season’s regimen. It typically begins early in the spring with a soil fumigant; to control nematodes, many potato farmers douse their fields with a chemical toxic enough to kill every trace of microbial life in the soil. Then, at planting, a systemic insecticide (like Thimet) is applied to the soil; this will be absorbed by the young seedlings and, for several weeks, will kill any insect that eats their leaves. After planting, Forsyth puts down an herbicide — Sencor or Eptam — to ”clean” his field of all weeds. When the potato seedlings are six inches tall, an herbicide may be sprayed a second time to control weeds.
Idaho farmers like Forsyth farm in vast circles defined by the rotation of a pivot irrigation system, typically 135 acres to a circle; I’d seen them from 30,000 feet flying in, a grid of verdant green coins pressed into a desert of scrubby brown. Pesticides and fertilizers are simply added to the irrigation system, which on Forsyth’s farm draws most of its water from the nearby Snake River. Along with their water, Forsyth’s potatoes may receive 10 applications of chemical fertilizer during the growing season. Just before the rows close — when the leaves of one row of plants meet those of the next — he begins spraying Bravo, a fungicide, to control late blight, one of the biggest threats to the potato crop. (Late blight, which caused the Irish potato famine, is an airborne fungus that turns stored potatoes into rotting mush.) Blight is such a serious problem that the E.P.A. currently allows farmers to spray powerful fungicides that haven’t passed the usual approval process. Forsyth’s potatoes will receive eight applications of fungicide.
Twice each summer, Forsyth hires a crop duster to spray for aphids. Aphids are harmless in themselves, but they transmit the leafroll virus, which in Russet Burbank potatoes causes net necrosis, a brown spotting that will cause a processor to reject a whole crop. It happened to Forsyth last year. ”I lost 80,000 bags” — they’re a hundred pounds each — ”to net necrosis,” he said. ”Instead of getting $4.95 a bag, I had to take $2 a bag from the dehydrator, and I was lucky to get that.” Net necrosis is a purely cosmetic defect; yet because big buyers like McDonald’s believe (with good reason) that we don’t like to see brown spots in our fries, farmers like Danny Forsyth must spray their fields with some of the most toxic chemicals in use, including an organophosphate called Monitor.
”Monitor is a deadly chemical,” Forsyth said. ”I won’t go into a field for four or five days after it’s been sprayed — even to fix a broken pivot.” That is, he would sooner lose a whole circle to drought than expose himself or an employee to Monitor, which has been found to cause neurological damage.
0 -
yes after they try to do other thing to cure the cow. having seen animals go untreated I would never want them to wait.
"except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy" that is rather vague0 -
yes after they try to do other thing to cure the cow. having seen animals go untreated I would never want them to wait.
"except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy" that is rather vague
Is it your position that overall, animals on factory farms are treated better than those organically raised because those organically raised may not be given antibiotics as quickly as you think they should?
0 -
no,kshama2001 wrote: »yes after they try to do other thing to cure the cow. having seen animals go untreated I would never want them to wait.
"except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy" that is rather vague
Is it your position that overall, animals on factory farms are treated better than those organically raised because those organically raised may not be given antibiotics as quickly as you think they should?
I don't recall ever saying that0 -
This content has been removed.
-
UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions