99% of the producers in the wicked world of "Food, Inc" are independent farmers and ranchers with production contracts.
Are store-bought poultry (chicken and turkey) fed medicated chick feed
- Thread starter emartin
- Start date
Quote:
therein lies the problem: the US shouldn't be feeding hundreds of millions of people. the US shouldn't be feeding anyone. people should be feed themselves and their neighbors.
this is what i do. i work in international aid doing socially sustainable development in the face or famine, war, environmental destruction, etc etc. there are millions of people without access to clean food and water. but the answer IS NOT to grow a bunch of food in the US on industrial farms and ship it overseas. that only works to acerbate the problem. the solution is to provide people in need with the know-how and the tools to grow their own food, to supply THEIR OWN communities needs.
and don't let ANYONE tell you that people in the underdeveloped world would rather have the US's hand-offs. they don't. they will take it to keep their children alive, just as any of us would. but they want to be self sufficient. all they need is a hand-up. organizations like Heifer International and FARM-Africa are doing what US industrial agriculture will never be able to do.
here's a good anecdote for you:
in 1977, Jamaica was forced to sign their first loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank because they desperately needed the assistance. before that time, Jamaica had been closed to foreign agricultural imports and actually had a fairly good, sustainable national agriculture. as part of their IMF agreement, they were forced to open their markets to foreign goods.
now, all these small dairies, from corporate-run to cooperatives to the little old man in the village, were doing good business. no one was going to get insanely wealthy, but they could support themselves. when the markets were opened, the US instantly began selling milk powder at insanely reduced prices- prices that it could achieve because of heavily subsidized industrial farming and production- that the local dairies couldn't compete with. local farmers were basically giving milk away or pouring it in the gutters. cows have to be milked whether there is a market or not... most of these farmers ended up slaughtering their herds because they couldn't afford to keep them and they couldn't sell them.
so now you have a large portion of the agricultural community out of jobs. another part of the IMF agreement created tax free industry zones where US companies could build factories and produce goods without pay taxes to the Jamaican government or needing to pay import taxes on those goods coming back to the states for sale. conveniently, all those unemployed farmers could go work there. these are little better than sweat shops and the workers can't even afford to buy the t-shirts they are manufacturing (Fruit of the Loom was one of the first companies to open in the tax free zone).
this is just one example at how the "US feeding the world" is actually completely destroying many countries ability to be self sufficient. people don't want milk powder from the US when they could get milk from the guy down the street. but they don't have that choice when US goods are FALSELY cheap and shoved on them.
as i said, the US doesn't need to feed the world. the US needs to ensure that people have the ability and opportunity to feed themselves. then maybe we can start addressing what's REALLY wrong with our agricultural system.
Quote:
i think it's naive to think that people who agree with Food Inc aren't "in the biz." i come from an agricultural family as far back as we have records to look at. and i KNOW that there is really good, important information to be had from that film and others like it. it's hard to change the way you've always done things. but that doesn't mean that people who demand that change are uninformed and incapable.
and i don't think any farmer has the right to say that a nonfarmer has no business criticizing the system. it's a consumer driven sector after all. everyone eats. if people want farmers to raise their food in sustainable ways, the farmers better get to getting. sometimes those outside of the industry SHOULD be the ones driving the change, but we aught to be right there beside them navigating.
therein lies the problem: the US shouldn't be feeding hundreds of millions of people. the US shouldn't be feeding anyone. people should be feed themselves and their neighbors.
this is what i do. i work in international aid doing socially sustainable development in the face or famine, war, environmental destruction, etc etc. there are millions of people without access to clean food and water. but the answer IS NOT to grow a bunch of food in the US on industrial farms and ship it overseas. that only works to acerbate the problem. the solution is to provide people in need with the know-how and the tools to grow their own food, to supply THEIR OWN communities needs.
and don't let ANYONE tell you that people in the underdeveloped world would rather have the US's hand-offs. they don't. they will take it to keep their children alive, just as any of us would. but they want to be self sufficient. all they need is a hand-up. organizations like Heifer International and FARM-Africa are doing what US industrial agriculture will never be able to do.
here's a good anecdote for you:
in 1977, Jamaica was forced to sign their first loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank because they desperately needed the assistance. before that time, Jamaica had been closed to foreign agricultural imports and actually had a fairly good, sustainable national agriculture. as part of their IMF agreement, they were forced to open their markets to foreign goods.
now, all these small dairies, from corporate-run to cooperatives to the little old man in the village, were doing good business. no one was going to get insanely wealthy, but they could support themselves. when the markets were opened, the US instantly began selling milk powder at insanely reduced prices- prices that it could achieve because of heavily subsidized industrial farming and production- that the local dairies couldn't compete with. local farmers were basically giving milk away or pouring it in the gutters. cows have to be milked whether there is a market or not... most of these farmers ended up slaughtering their herds because they couldn't afford to keep them and they couldn't sell them.
so now you have a large portion of the agricultural community out of jobs. another part of the IMF agreement created tax free industry zones where US companies could build factories and produce goods without pay taxes to the Jamaican government or needing to pay import taxes on those goods coming back to the states for sale. conveniently, all those unemployed farmers could go work there. these are little better than sweat shops and the workers can't even afford to buy the t-shirts they are manufacturing (Fruit of the Loom was one of the first companies to open in the tax free zone).
this is just one example at how the "US feeding the world" is actually completely destroying many countries ability to be self sufficient. people don't want milk powder from the US when they could get milk from the guy down the street. but they don't have that choice when US goods are FALSELY cheap and shoved on them.
as i said, the US doesn't need to feed the world. the US needs to ensure that people have the ability and opportunity to feed themselves. then maybe we can start addressing what's REALLY wrong with our agricultural system.
Quote:
i think it's naive to think that people who agree with Food Inc aren't "in the biz." i come from an agricultural family as far back as we have records to look at. and i KNOW that there is really good, important information to be had from that film and others like it. it's hard to change the way you've always done things. but that doesn't mean that people who demand that change are uninformed and incapable.
and i don't think any farmer has the right to say that a nonfarmer has no business criticizing the system. it's a consumer driven sector after all. everyone eats. if people want farmers to raise their food in sustainable ways, the farmers better get to getting. sometimes those outside of the industry SHOULD be the ones driving the change, but we aught to be right there beside them navigating.
- Jul 30, 2009
- 2,321
- 15
- 181
I think this thread has been completely hijacked.
Sorry OP.
Yes, commercial chickens are fed medicated starter, and are administered antibiotics on a frequent basis, due to the environment they live in.
Regardless of your stand on the latest movie, at least it gets a body thinking.
Take it for what its worth. Its a start.
In time we will finally see a more public push for true sustainablility, and true real foods that are not altered. It takes one step at a time though, and I am glad to see those steps being made.
We have to be ready when the system crashes. And it will.
Sorry OP.
Yes, commercial chickens are fed medicated starter, and are administered antibiotics on a frequent basis, due to the environment they live in.
Regardless of your stand on the latest movie, at least it gets a body thinking.
Take it for what its worth. Its a start.
In time we will finally see a more public push for true sustainablility, and true real foods that are not altered. It takes one step at a time though, and I am glad to see those steps being made.
We have to be ready when the system crashes. And it will.
Quote:
No, that would be your average consumer. They have no clue where their food is coming from or the conditions that brought it to them.
But not to worry. They are slowly becoming more educated, thanks to films like Food Inc and FRESH, and books like The Omnivore's Dilemma and Animal, Vegetable, Miracle.
It is actually people in agriculture who have been doing it for many, many years who are driving this movement for a more sustainable food system, by the way.
I'm not talking about them knowing where their food comes from.
Well, Food Inc is. It is about creating a more informed consumer. You have to understand that simple fact in order to understand the film or those who advocate it.
And I don't know about Food Inc groupies, but it is my belief that it is the farmer who has the answers to the future of our food system, not the government (as Food Inc appears to advocate at times) and not the few corporations currently controlling our food system.
No, that would be your average consumer. They have no clue where their food is coming from or the conditions that brought it to them.
But not to worry. They are slowly becoming more educated, thanks to films like Food Inc and FRESH, and books like The Omnivore's Dilemma and Animal, Vegetable, Miracle.
It is actually people in agriculture who have been doing it for many, many years who are driving this movement for a more sustainable food system, by the way.
I'm not talking about them knowing where their food comes from.
Well, Food Inc is. It is about creating a more informed consumer. You have to understand that simple fact in order to understand the film or those who advocate it.
And I don't know about Food Inc groupies, but it is my belief that it is the farmer who has the answers to the future of our food system, not the government (as Food Inc appears to advocate at times) and not the few corporations currently controlling our food system.
- Jul 30, 2009
- 2,321
- 15
- 181
Quote:
therein lies the problem: the US shouldn't be feeding hundreds of millions of people. the US shouldn't be feeding anyone. people should be feed themselves and their neighbors.
this is what i do. i work in international aid doing socially sustainable development in the face or famine, war, environmental destruction, etc etc. there are millions of people without access to clean food and water. but the answer IS NOT to grow a bunch of food in the US on industrial farms and ship it overseas. that only works to acerbate the problem. the solution is to provide people in need with the know-how and the tools to grow their own food, to supply THEIR OWN communities needs.
and don't let ANYONE tell you that people in the underdeveloped world would rather have the US's hand-offs. they don't. they will take it to keep their children alive, just as any of us would. but they want to be self sufficient. all they need is a hand-up. organizations like Heifer International and FARM-Africa are doing what US industrial agriculture will never be able to do.
here's a good anecdote for you:
in 1977, Jamaica was forced to sign their first loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank because they desperately needed the assistance. before that time, Jamaica had been closed to foreign agricultural imports and actually had a fairly good, sustainable national agriculture. as part of their IMF agreement, they were forced to open their markets to foreign goods.
now, all these small dairies, from corporate-run to cooperatives to the little old man in the village, were doing good business. no one was going to get insanely wealthy, but they could support themselves. when the markets were opened, the US instantly began selling milk powder at insanely reduced prices- prices that it could achieve because of heavily subsidized industrial farming and production- that the local dairies couldn't compete with. local farmers were basically giving milk away or pouring it in the gutters. cows have to be milked whether there is a market or not... most of these farmers ended up slaughtering their herds because they couldn't afford to keep them and they couldn't sell them.
so now you have a large portion of the agricultural community out of jobs. another part of the IMF agreement created tax free industry zones where US companies could build factories and produce goods without pay taxes to the Jamaican government or needing to pay import taxes on those goods coming back to the states for sale. conveniently, all those unemployed farmers could go work there. these are little better than sweat shops and the workers can't even afford to buy the t-shirts they are manufacturing (Fruit of the Loom was one of the first companies to open in the tax free zone).
this is just one example at how the "US feeding the world" is actually completely destroying many countries ability to be self sufficient. people don't want milk powder from the US when they could get milk from the guy down the street. but they don't have that choice when US goods are FALSELY cheap and shoved on them.
as i said, the US doesn't need to feed the world. the US needs to ensure that people have the ability and opportunity to feed themselves. then maybe we can start addressing what's REALLY wrong with our agricultural system.
Quote:
i think it's naive to think that people who agree with Food Inc aren't "in the biz." i come from an agricultural family as far back as we have records to look at. and i KNOW that there is really good, important information to be had from that film and others like it. it's hard to change the way you've always done things. but that doesn't mean that people who demand that change are uninformed and incapable.
and i don't think any farmer has the right to say that a nonfarmer has no business criticizing the system. it's a consumer driven sector after all. everyone eats. if people want farmers to raise their food in sustainable ways, the farmers better get to getting. sometimes those outside of the industry SHOULD be the ones driving the change, but we aught to be right there beside them navigating.
Amen to all you said!
therein lies the problem: the US shouldn't be feeding hundreds of millions of people. the US shouldn't be feeding anyone. people should be feed themselves and their neighbors.
this is what i do. i work in international aid doing socially sustainable development in the face or famine, war, environmental destruction, etc etc. there are millions of people without access to clean food and water. but the answer IS NOT to grow a bunch of food in the US on industrial farms and ship it overseas. that only works to acerbate the problem. the solution is to provide people in need with the know-how and the tools to grow their own food, to supply THEIR OWN communities needs.
and don't let ANYONE tell you that people in the underdeveloped world would rather have the US's hand-offs. they don't. they will take it to keep their children alive, just as any of us would. but they want to be self sufficient. all they need is a hand-up. organizations like Heifer International and FARM-Africa are doing what US industrial agriculture will never be able to do.
here's a good anecdote for you:
in 1977, Jamaica was forced to sign their first loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank because they desperately needed the assistance. before that time, Jamaica had been closed to foreign agricultural imports and actually had a fairly good, sustainable national agriculture. as part of their IMF agreement, they were forced to open their markets to foreign goods.
now, all these small dairies, from corporate-run to cooperatives to the little old man in the village, were doing good business. no one was going to get insanely wealthy, but they could support themselves. when the markets were opened, the US instantly began selling milk powder at insanely reduced prices- prices that it could achieve because of heavily subsidized industrial farming and production- that the local dairies couldn't compete with. local farmers were basically giving milk away or pouring it in the gutters. cows have to be milked whether there is a market or not... most of these farmers ended up slaughtering their herds because they couldn't afford to keep them and they couldn't sell them.
so now you have a large portion of the agricultural community out of jobs. another part of the IMF agreement created tax free industry zones where US companies could build factories and produce goods without pay taxes to the Jamaican government or needing to pay import taxes on those goods coming back to the states for sale. conveniently, all those unemployed farmers could go work there. these are little better than sweat shops and the workers can't even afford to buy the t-shirts they are manufacturing (Fruit of the Loom was one of the first companies to open in the tax free zone).
this is just one example at how the "US feeding the world" is actually completely destroying many countries ability to be self sufficient. people don't want milk powder from the US when they could get milk from the guy down the street. but they don't have that choice when US goods are FALSELY cheap and shoved on them.
as i said, the US doesn't need to feed the world. the US needs to ensure that people have the ability and opportunity to feed themselves. then maybe we can start addressing what's REALLY wrong with our agricultural system.
Quote:
i think it's naive to think that people who agree with Food Inc aren't "in the biz." i come from an agricultural family as far back as we have records to look at. and i KNOW that there is really good, important information to be had from that film and others like it. it's hard to change the way you've always done things. but that doesn't mean that people who demand that change are uninformed and incapable.
and i don't think any farmer has the right to say that a nonfarmer has no business criticizing the system. it's a consumer driven sector after all. everyone eats. if people want farmers to raise their food in sustainable ways, the farmers better get to getting. sometimes those outside of the industry SHOULD be the ones driving the change, but we aught to be right there beside them navigating.
Amen to all you said!
Quote:
another thing i wanted to point out: a lot of us are MOST interested in agricultural reform EXACTLY BECAUSE we want it to be easier for farmers and ranchers to make a living doing what they do. that's darn near impossible at the moment. farmers aren't even in control of their own farms anymore- they are being driven by what subsidies (and that system is completely messed up now. thank you Earl Butz.) are available and how much you can grow/raise in a certain amount of space regardless of the negative impact on the animals, the planet, and, most importantly to me, farming communities.
for me, there is no point in changing the agricultural system if that change doesn't help save farmers.
poor hijacked thread...
another thing i wanted to point out: a lot of us are MOST interested in agricultural reform EXACTLY BECAUSE we want it to be easier for farmers and ranchers to make a living doing what they do. that's darn near impossible at the moment. farmers aren't even in control of their own farms anymore- they are being driven by what subsidies (and that system is completely messed up now. thank you Earl Butz.) are available and how much you can grow/raise in a certain amount of space regardless of the negative impact on the animals, the planet, and, most importantly to me, farming communities.
for me, there is no point in changing the agricultural system if that change doesn't help save farmers.
poor hijacked thread...
Either you want convenient pre slaughtered prettily packaged commercially grown mutant 5-7 week old full grown chickens on the shelf at the grocery store...or you grow them in your back yard with much sweat and labor and much longer to get a better finished product that is worth more and tastes better than the store bought mutant formerly known as a chicken. Who cares as long as the mutant eaters are happy to eat mutants, let them. I want better chicken and am willing to put forth the effort to attain it. Neither one is going to be the sole answer to a national food supply. You have to pick one or the other! Neither option is the right choice for everybody across the board. All we need to do is maintain the varying choices and let the market decide. Nothing to argue over
Supply and demand will handle it!
We're all right
Quit calling me a Food Inc 'groupie' Katy
We're all right
Quit calling me a Food Inc 'groupie' Katy
Quote:
I found the part of your statement that I've highlighted rather humorous.....since it seems the the "food inc" goupies are already thinking along those lines in that they know better than the families who have been doing it for many, many years how to farm and feed this nation and a good portion of the rest of the world. The way I see it they are the uneducated & ill-equiped group that wants to be in charge. I'm sure there are some that have some sort of ag background, but for the most part, that group seems to be made up of people who have never made their living or life from agriculture and have a "rose colored glasses" prospective of the whole thing. Are there things that need to be improved?....sure there are, but I'm really tired of people reading a book or seeing on a movie screen issues portrayed in a way to suit the writer or director's point of view and taking that as the gospel truth. "Facts" can be found to prove whatever viewpoint a person wants to put out there......doesn't mean it's the truth.
Well put, Katy. I dont believe anyone should talk down on a group until they've been in their position. If you've never raised livestock/crops for mass production, you dont realize all of the work put into it. You dont raise thousands upon thousands of chickens and then treat them like garbage like many people want you to believe. If you did that, you'd never get any to market & you'd be broke. I could ramble, but I have to go to a rehearsal dinner. Again, well said, Katy.
I found the part of your statement that I've highlighted rather humorous.....since it seems the the "food inc" goupies are already thinking along those lines in that they know better than the families who have been doing it for many, many years how to farm and feed this nation and a good portion of the rest of the world. The way I see it they are the uneducated & ill-equiped group that wants to be in charge. I'm sure there are some that have some sort of ag background, but for the most part, that group seems to be made up of people who have never made their living or life from agriculture and have a "rose colored glasses" prospective of the whole thing. Are there things that need to be improved?....sure there are, but I'm really tired of people reading a book or seeing on a movie screen issues portrayed in a way to suit the writer or director's point of view and taking that as the gospel truth. "Facts" can be found to prove whatever viewpoint a person wants to put out there......doesn't mean it's the truth.
Quote:
I dont understand why in a commercial standpoint, they're mutants, but if a BYC'er raises them they're a delicious chicken. They're the same exact breed, raised the same period of time, and raised the same way. I raise my chicks in a brooder, with a heating system, plenty of feed, water and bedding.... as do commercial farms.
I didnt realize if you raised a couple thousand together they randomly mutated into munsters.
I dont understand why in a commercial standpoint, they're mutants, but if a BYC'er raises them they're a delicious chicken. They're the same exact breed, raised the same period of time, and raised the same way. I raise my chicks in a brooder, with a heating system, plenty of feed, water and bedding.... as do commercial farms.
I didnt realize if you raised a couple thousand together they randomly mutated into munsters.
- Jul 30, 2009
- 2,321
- 15
- 181
Quote:
I dont understand why in a commercial standpoint, they're mutants, but if a BYC'er raises them they're a delicious chicken. They're the same exact breed, raised the same period of time, and raised the same way. I raise my chicks in a brooder, with a heating system, plenty of feed, water and bedding.... as do commercial farms.
I didnt realize if you raised a couple thousand together they randomly mutated into munsters.
Its the food that is used, and whether or not they can be out and about on grass that makes the difference.
I do not call them mutants, but I do call them obese and unhealthy, and then contaminated because of how they are processed.
And no, we do not raise them the same way. Have you seen Beekisseds thread on her free range broody raised meaties?
I dont understand why in a commercial standpoint, they're mutants, but if a BYC'er raises them they're a delicious chicken. They're the same exact breed, raised the same period of time, and raised the same way. I raise my chicks in a brooder, with a heating system, plenty of feed, water and bedding.... as do commercial farms.
I didnt realize if you raised a couple thousand together they randomly mutated into munsters.
Its the food that is used, and whether or not they can be out and about on grass that makes the difference.
I do not call them mutants, but I do call them obese and unhealthy, and then contaminated because of how they are processed.
And no, we do not raise them the same way. Have you seen Beekisseds thread on her free range broody raised meaties?
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest posts
-
-
Egg bound, retention, hard boiled egg- Latest: BigBlueHen53
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Egg bound, retention, hard boiled egg
- Started by EddieSalita
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Question of the Day - Thursday, August 14th, 2025- Started by casportpony
- Replies: 69
-
Ended BYC Poultry Caption Contest 08-08-25 Pic by Molpet- Started by TwoCrows
- Replies: 62
-
-
Still no idea what’s going on with my hens comb and growing black spots
- Started by Ohsrsly
- Replies: 55
-