Are store-bought poultry (chicken and turkey) fed medicated chick feed

[SkyWarrior]

Quote:
And this is a problem. If they actually told people to eat less or that other people could not eat, do you think they would? And who are they to tell others how to live their lives? The problem is that famine was still very much a reality in America up until after the Dust Bowl when farmers started learning from their mistakes.

I'm all for organic and small farms, but do we really want to go back to a time where the US couldn't feed hundreds of millions of people? Something to think about.

 

[PaulaJoAnne]

Quote:
And this is a problem. If they actually told people to eat less or that other people could not eat, do you think they would? And who are they to tell others how to live their lives? The problem is that famine was still very much a reality in America up until after the Dust Bowl when farmers started learning from their mistakes.

I'm all for organic and small farms, but do we really want to go back to a time where the US couldn't feed hundreds of millions of people? Something to think about.

We may be feeding our nation, but what are we feeding them?
Highly processed junk!
Its no better then the Dust Bowl days. Starve to death, or die slowly of fake food induced illness.

 

[Buster52]

Quote:
A fairly common misconception of what eco-agriculture is all about.

It isn't about going back to the good ol' days (although the good ol' days were in many ways more sustainable). We have not been standing still all these years. Many advances have been made in sustainable agriculture and it is a very different animal. It is not your grandpa's farm.

But the question is not whether or not we are going back to the dust bowl. The question is whether or not our agricultural system is going to be sustainable.

Meaning, can it be sustained over the long term?

Industrial agriculture clearly cannot. Sooner or later, it is going collapse. When it does, let's hope sustainable agriculture is widespread enough that it can catch us.

This thread is a perfect example of what is wrong with unsustainable ag. You cram animals together in such high densities that you have to medicate them, even when they aren't sick. As you medicate them, the pathogens you are trying suppress or avoid develop resistance the your medication. So, newer and stronger interventions are sought out and applied, which the bugs sooner or later once again defeat.

In the meantime, genetics are watered down to the extent that you only have one or two breeds left in any significant numbers, and those have weaker and weaker immune systems because we have been relying on chemical and biological crutches all this time.

Sooner or later, all that comes together in a perfect storm. Superbugs attacking animals with weak natural immune systems and farmers with no effective tools left to fight them.

What are you going to feed those millions then?

 

[PaulaJoAnne]

Quote:
A fairly common misconception of what eco-agriculture is all about.

It isn't about going back to the good ol' days (although the good ol' days were in many ways more sustainable). We have not been standing still all these years. Many advances have been made in sustainable agriculture and it is a very different animal. It is not your grandpa's farm.

But the question is not whether or not we are going back to the dust bowl. The question is whether or not our agricultural system is going to be sustainable.

Meaning, can it be sustained over the long term?

Industrial agriculture clearly cannot. Sooner or later, it is going collapse. When it does, let's hope sustainable agriculture is widespread enough that it can catch us.

This thread is a perfect example of what is wrong with unsustainable ag. You cram animals together in such high densities that you have to medicate them, even when they aren't sick. As you medicate them, the pathogens you are trying suppress or avoid develop resistance the your medication. So, newer and stronger interventions are sought out and applied, which the bugs sooner or later once again defeat.

In the meantime, genetics are watered down to the extent that you only have one or two breeds left in any significant numbers, and those have weaker and weaker immune systems because we have been relying on chemical and biological crutches all this time.

Sooner or later, all that comes together in a perfect storm. Superbugs attacking animals with weak natural immune systems and farmers with no effective tools left to fight them.

What are you going to feed those millions then?

Pottenger's cats! He and Weston Price were prophets.

 

[SkyWarrior]

Quote:
A fairly common misconception of what eco-agriculture is all about.

It isn't about going back to the good ol' days (although the good ol' days were in many ways more sustainable). We have not been standing still all these years. Many advances have been made in sustainable agriculture and it is a very different animal. It is not your grandpa's farm.

But the question is not whether or not we are going back to the dust bowl. The question is whether or not our agricultural system is going to be sustainable.

Meaning, can it be sustained over the long term?

Industrial agriculture clearly cannot. Sooner or later, it is going collapse. When it does, let's hope sustainable agriculture is widespread enough that it can catch us.

This thread is a perfect example of what is wrong with unsustainable ag. You cram animals together in such high densities that you have to medicate them, even when they aren't sick. As you medicate them, the pathogens you are trying suppress or avoid develop resistance the your medication. So, newer and stronger interventions are sought out and applied, which the bugs sooner or later once again defeat.

In the meantime, genetics are watered down to the extent that you only have one or two breeds left in any significant numbers, and those have weaker and weaker immune systems because we have been relying on chemical and biological crutches all this time.

Sooner or later, all that comes together in a perfect storm. Superbugs attacking animals with weak natural immune systems and farmers with no effective tools left to fight them.

What are you going to feed those millions then?

I don't disagree. I think there are better ways, certainly. Routinely medicating animals is not a good idea, and yet, here I am feeding medicated feed to chicks because I really don't want to lose them. And I don't have a lot nor are they crammed together. Part of it is that the chick food is medicated here -- and even the stuff I thought wasn't medicated was.

As for genetics, yes, I agree. But I think that a number of ranchers have picked different animal breeds to avoid the problems we see or because they like a particular animal. Not so much with the egg laying industry, but they want producers and not an interesting flock. Isn't the turnover rate for layers somewhere around one or two years?

I think the problem is that the mainstream agriculture sees a number of the methods done in the name of sustainability as inefficient (and yes, some of it is). But there are tradeoffs, certainly. And I'm not sure everyone in the current industry is willing to change.

 

[Olive Hill]

Quote:
A fairly common misconception of what eco-agriculture is all about.

It isn't about going back to the good ol' days (although the good ol' days were in many ways more sustainable). We have not been standing still all these years. Many advances have been made in sustainable agriculture and it is a very different animal. It is not your grandpa's farm.

But the question is not whether or not we are going back to the dust bowl. The question is whether or not our agricultural system is going to be sustainable.

Meaning, can it be sustained over the long term?

Industrial agriculture clearly cannot. Sooner or later, it is going collapse. When it does, let's hope sustainable agriculture is widespread enough that it can catch us.

This thread is a perfect example of what is wrong with unsustainable ag. You cram animals together in such high densities that you have to medicate them, even when they aren't sick. As you medicate them, the pathogens you are trying suppress or avoid develop resistance the your medication. So, newer and stronger interventions are sought out and applied, which the bugs sooner or later once again defeat.

In the meantime, genetics are watered down to the extent that you only have one or two breeds left in any significant numbers, and those have weaker and weaker immune systems because we have been relying on chemical and biological crutches all this time.

Sooner or later, all that comes together in a perfect storm. Superbugs attacking animals with weak natural immune systems and farmers with no effective tools left to fight them.

What are you going to feed those millions then?

Buster did such a good job here, I don't think I have anything to add at this point.

Quote:
You live in Montana? Surely there is a mill somewhere within driving distance of you?

Quote:
Unless those Ranchers are specifically raising those animals with the intent to promote the breed or produce those animals more sustainably, no. They've most certainly not chosen an animal that is in danger of extinction. Why? Because those animals are in the position they are in for that very reason. They've not been genetically selected to compete with the breeds that commercial ag are using. They can't thrive in the same environment, under the same set of circumstances and make the same amount of money while producing the very same end product. It's not just meat and eggs, dairy is also a heavily affected industry. There are numerous breeds of dairy cattle that we are at risk of losing the genetics from entirely.

Quote:
The mainstream ag industry will be willing to change the moment the consumer's demand tells them to. It has nothing to do with efficiency. Many small farmers are using modes of efficiency that can be translated into businesses of any scale. It's being proven over and over again in an ever expanding industry all its own that alternative ag can be both sustainable and profitable at the same time. Mainstream ag companies have already been exploiting that opportunity for profit. They see alternative ag, but they also see a complacent consumer base that they can continue to take advantage of and until that changes, neither will they.

 

[illegal avian]

Quote:
If it's in a movie is must be fact right?

Store bought chickens are processed at 6 to 7 weeks.
That is their entire lifespan, 6 to 7 weeks.

The last week of life the feed contains no medication.
The phrase "their entire lives" is such an exaggeration.

 

[Bossroo]

Hmmm ! Interesting observation... Every country that has brocken up large prosperous private farms and given their lands to the toiling poor masses and taken over industry businesses in the name of the people this past century, may sound noble, idealistic and popular at that time, but sooner or later has food shortages, runaway inflation, and turmoil. The only reason the zealot leaders are still in power is due to imposing brutal force on their own people whom they gave away farm lands to.

 

[Buster52]

Quote:
So exactly what countries are those, Bossroo? Certainly not the USSR or China. Both those dumped and/or discouraged the small farm, the former in favor of large collective ones and the latter for modern day industrial agriculture.

Ironically, it was the small peasant farms that popped up everywhere, including back yards and parks in urban areas, that saved the populace when the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

[Olive Hill]

Quote:
Ok, playing into this scenario here. What part of a regime facilitated and mandated overhaul of a country's entire existence, especially one that puts its greatest asset in the hands of the uneducated and ill-equipped masses, failing terribly would be "interesting"? Around here we call that common sense, or in the case of those who didn't see it coming "Here's Your Sign".

Which is probably why I've yet to see anyone in this thread insinuate that the country as a governing body should break up big ag and redistribute lands to private citizens. I cannot even comprehend how one would begin to think that is a feasible option here. Honestly, at what point did you draw the conclusion that moving away from unsustainable models of agriculture equals a government takeover and redistribution of wealth? That train of thought has me truly perplexed.