Commercial Poison (err... "Feed")

[BastyPutt]

There was at least one tsc that did have statements handed out about their feed months ago.

This very well could have been a local manager trying to save themselves

I don't know. You obviously have seen something similar (but scaled much larger) with annheser Busch and bud light. In that case, they tried to stop the bleeding quickly.

My thought is, chicken feed must be a much smaller revenue stream for them than we realize. Just a thought.

 

[BastyPutt]

Some feed has been tested. These threads have some results:
https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/feed-tests-more-results.1565804/
https://www.backyardchickens.com/th...en-feed-craze-posted-testing-results.1564737/

Summary: nothing obviously wrong with any of them (details in the threads, discussion there if you want to read it & join in.)

Of course testing a few bags does not prove that all other bags were fine. It just shows that those particular samples from those particular bags were fine.

I did see some of these folks testing and was shocked at how accurate the actually nutritional numbers are. I didn't feel like I'd have anything of relevancy to contribute.

Again, I think because we are folks who spend time on the internet, looking up chicken stuff, and we make up a very small percentage of people. We follow chicken people and it seems like it is everywhere, But there are all kinds of people, the majority, feeding their chickens TSC food without issue. They also don't post, talk about it, etc.

I just believe the biggest tell is in TSC's reaction. Clearly, it isn't that big of a deal on their radar. Doesn't mean they don't care, just means the "problem" didn't affect their bottom line enough to run a campaign against it.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Do you have the link to the thread?

Do you have a link to the thread?

Here

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

I just believe the biggest tell is in TSC's reaction. Clearly, it isn't that big of a deal on their radar. Doesn't mean they don't care, just means the "problem" didn't affect their bottom line enough to run a campaign against it.

The link Stormcrow posted is the same statement I am aware of. I think his link links it from where I posted it a degree or two of separation away.

TS didn’t do much in the first couple of weeks of the theory going viral because reacting strongly to it would only stoke the flames and draw more attention to it.

I also think they realized its refuting the theory with the most likely true answer was a dangerous thing. That truth being that that laying dry spells of several months is biologically normal due to maturation and molting. Hitting people up hard and direct with that answer questions both the believers’ experience with chickens and their critical thinking skills for not knowing the most obvious explanation. That’s a quick way to further turn someone off from your brand.

People took this most recent theory quite personally. I got banned from a survivalist-oriented forum for challenging a moderator who believed in the TS conspiracy theory. I only argued the facts, primarily the science of egg laying and the math that dictates that hens must take long breaks as they age or else all of the known science behind egg laying is wrong. He found that by me arguing the science, I was calling indirectly calling believers idiots, therefore I was violating forum policies because factual arguments that made people feel insulted, was in fact being insulting. Seriously, I’m not making that up or exaggerating it. His logic was “you say the science proves X. If that’s true, only an idiot would believe the conspiracy theory. I believe the conspiracy theory and you’re making me feel like an idiot. Therefore, I declare that you’ve called me an idiot. You’re banned.”

Unfortunately, that’s how many conspiracy theorists react when questioned. Whatever theory they latch on to is very personal to them and they don’t hold it to the same skepticism they put to official narratives.

There’s no winning with that kind of person, so TS was shrewd to let the theory die on its on without further alienating customers by questioning their beliefs through strongly worded statements, even though the beliefs were faulty.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

I was a bit disappointed in TSC's statement, actually. They could have gone further with their quality control comments, but they were walking a legal tight rope. TSC is a retailer, not a feed manufacturer. There's only so far they can go w/o blurring things regarding their house "Brand" before they run real risk of being dragged into any litigation with attendant costs, over manufacturing liability.

and as someone who has worked with manufacturing liability over the years, I can tell you that the costs of litigation FAR exceed the profits associated with producing a thing - and that much of those costs accrue long before one can get in front of a judge on a motion to dismiss (rarely granted, btw)

 

[Goosebaby]

The link Stormcrow posted is the same statement I am aware of. I think his link links it from where I posted it a degree or two of separation away.

TS didn’t do much in the first couple of weeks of the theory going viral because reacting strongly to it would only stoke the flames and draw more attention to it.

I also think they realized its refuting the theory with the most likely true answer was a dangerous thing. That truth being that that laying dry spells of several months is biologically normal due to maturation and molting. Hitting people up hard and direct with that answer questions both the believers’ experience with chickens and their critical thinking skills for not knowing the most obvious explanation. That’s a quick way to further turn someone off from your brand.

People took this most recent theory quite personally. I got banned from a survivalist-oriented forum for challenging a moderator who believed in the TS conspiracy theory. I only argued the facts, primarily the science of egg laying and the math that dictates that hens must take long breaks as they age or else all of the known science behind egg laying is wrong. He found that by me arguing the science, I was calling indirectly calling believers idiots, therefore I was violating forum policies because factual arguments that made people feel insulted, was in fact being insulting. Seriously, I’m not making that up or exaggerating it. His logic was “you say the science proves X. If that’s true, only an idiot would believe the conspiracy theory. I believe the conspiracy theory and you’re making me feel like an idiot. Therefore, I declare that you’ve called me an idiot. You’re banned.”

Unfortunately, that’s how many conspiracy theorists react when questioned. Whatever theory they latch on to is very personal to them and they don’t hold it to the same skepticism they put to official narratives.

There’s no winning with that kind of person, so TS was shrewd to let the theory die on its on without further alienating customers by questioning their beliefs through strongly worded statements, even though the beliefs were faulty.

Critical thinking and objective evidence is very threatening to some.

 

[BastyPutt]

I was a bit disappointed in TSC's statement, actually. They could have gone further with their quality control comments, but they were walking a legal tight rope. TSC is a retailer, not a feed manufacturer. There's only so far they can go w/o blurring things regarding their house "Brand" before they run real risk of being dragged into any litigation with attendant costs, over manufacturing liability.

and as someone who has worked with manufacturing liability over the years, I can tell you that the costs of litigation FAR exceed the profits associated with producing a thing - and that much of those costs accrue long before one can get in front of a judge on a motion to dismiss (rarely granted, btw)

This is spot on and something unconsidered generally There is so much legality behind the scenes that I am sure they are handcuffed beyond my (our) comprehension.

And you are also correct. A true conspiracy theorist NEEDS to be accurate because their ideas are so far reaching. One of the requirements for a prophet in the Bible (whether you believe it or not) was they were to have been 100% correct in their prophecy. The prophecies were (and for some, still can be) very unbelievable, and one error can result in losing complete credibility in their audience.

I believe there is a healthy skepticism one needs to have in big business, that the more questions you ask, the safer you ultimately are. But that can go too far as well. Sometimes, I believe those questioning and unwilling to just go along with flow, are grouped with the extreme conspiracy theorists. For instance, someone who doesn't want to get the C19 vaccine because there are potential unforeseen health risks, are completely different from those thinking there is a microchip in the vaccine, or it is some plot by the government to negatively affect a large part of the population. Unfortunately, the latter disallows the former from actually being heard. (I know this is obviously a trigger button for folks, but I thought it to be something we could all resonate with. I AM NOT endorsing any theory in the vaccine).

And I believe that to be the case here. There very well could have been something wrong with one of the lots of food, something unintentional, but we will never know because it was overshadowed by theories that Jefferey Epstein somehow influenced Purina to harm the egg supply.

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

This is spot on and something unconsidered generally There is so much legality behind the scenes that I am sure they are handcuffed beyond my (our) comprehension.

And you are also correct. A true conspiracy theorist NEEDS to be accurate because their ideas are so far reaching. One of the requirements for a prophet in the Bible (whether you believe it or not) was they were to have been 100% correct in their prophecy. The prophecies were (and for some, still can be) very unbelievable, and one error can result in losing complete credibility in their audience.

I believe there is a healthy skepticism one needs to have in big business, that the more questions you ask, the safer you ultimately are. But that can go too far as well. Sometimes, I believe those questioning and unwilling to just go along with flow, are grouped with the extreme conspiracy theorists. For instance, someone who doesn't want to get the C19 vaccine because there are potential unforeseen health risks, are completely different from those thinking there is a microchip in the vaccine, or it is some plot by the government to negatively affect a large part of the population. Unfortunately, the latter disallows the former from actually being heard. (I know this is obviously a trigger button for folks, but I thought it to be something we could all resonate with. I AM NOT endorsing any theory in the vaccine).

And I believe that to be the case here. There very well could have been something wrong with one of the lots of food, something unintentional, but we will never know because it was overshadowed by theories that Jefferey Epstein somehow influenced Purina to harm the egg supply.

I agree with much of what you’ve stated here and bolded one part in particular. What you’re describing in the bolded part is nuance. Objective truth can often be a little bit of this and a little bit of that, yet parts being true doesn’t make the entirety true, nor does taking a certain stance on a particular issue mean that the reason you’re doing so is the same that others may be.

Nuance is often lost in today’s debates on a whole range of issues.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Nuance is often lost in today’s debates on a whole range of isissues.

Can you imagine how much longer my posts would be if I added more nuance?

Which is to both agree with you and acknowledge that there are good reasons to forego some degree of nuance in most conversation, regardless of media.

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

Can you imagine how much longer my posts would be if I added more nuance?

Which is to both agree with you and acknowledge that there are good reasons to forego some degree of nuance in most conversation, regardless of media.

I’m not necessarily decrying a failure to offer a bunch of alternative or competing theories in the midst of a debate when a person is arguing for the position they most agree with. The sort of nuance I believe is mostly missing in contemporary debates in politics and science is more of a state of mind. Its a sort of wisdom that knows what truths a person should dig their heels in to defend vs what to hold lightly and leave subject to change. That state of mind informs how a person approaches a subject and competing views.

Best intellectual advice I was ever given was from an Israeli professor who taught counter-terrorism and religion in politics just prior to and through the 9/11 era. He said that intellectual, moral, philosophical, or even scientific questions, should be viewed as a physical cube. Myself as the evaluator should pick it up, look at all sides, consider and critique all of the facets of it, and then put it down again. I could choose to take all, none, or some of it to heart. I didn’t have to let the opposing sides brainwash me or make me a different person. I only had to understand the reasoning of the other sides. Understanding didn’t equate to acceptance. I could both have an open mind and guard myself at the same time.