genetically altered meat birds

[cloudswinger]

A.T. Hagan :

Quote:
Do you not see the contradiction in what you are saying? The economics of them are what makes them sustainable. More meat for less feed in less time.

Perhaps it's the definition of sustainable that needs to be discussed. Are we looking at sustainable in the environmental or in the economic sense? Because there are more/different factors to be considered in the environmental sense. Do we focus only on money; then the cornish x makes sense. If we consider the other impacts, such as manure management, which is not being done very well by the factory farms, and if they were made to actually manage it would drive up the cost of those factory farms to probably make smaller farms more competitive.

Does anyone else see a correlation between the shift to factory farming and how much fatter Americans have become? Is it really a good thing to eat so much meat all the time? And nutrient levels are skewed towards the less healthy aspects. The cheapest foods are the processed foods. Cheap plentiful food is causing us to be less healthy and live shorter lives. The Japanese who have the longest lives eat to 80% fullness. Studies in many animal species have shown that eating less food actually is a factor in living longer. Even with the bad genetics of the Cornish X, they can live longer if their food is restricted.​

 

[Katy]

Quote:
I'm not going to get into a discussion about "factory farms" There is no such thing....it's just a term coined by a faction to raise the ire of non-agriculture people. There are large farm operations and small farm operations and everything in between.

As far as there being a correlation between modern agriculture practices and fat people I think you'd be better served to look at how many couch potaoes there are in this country rather than trying to make modern agriculture out to be the bad guy. Even the kids have become inactive with all their video games and hours spent in front of either a computer or TV screen. I agree that processed food is a culprit, but that was brought about by people wanting quick and easy to fix......not farmers. If a person overeats and lays around, they're going to get fat no matter what they're eating.

BTW...this thread is almost 3 years old.....

 

[A.T. Hagan]

Quote:
Manure management of those large operations have been more and more regulated with every passing year. There have been and maybe still are some big offenders, but manure management has been steadily increasing. Ask any of the professional farmers on this board what they have to do in that regard. One does not simply dump large amounts of manure all over any more. Especially not if it can then run off into a waterway to create problems for the folks downstream. Besides, that manure cost money to produce and is full of nutrients that can, should, and must be reused as efficiently as possible. Pretty much the way farmers have been doing for about forty centuries now.

"Sustainable" has turned into one of those buzzwords like "green" and "heritage" that sounds good, but is seldom clearly explained. If you're in the business of producing a product whether it is eggs or car parts if you cannot make sufficient profit to make a living then you are not sustainable at all. Profit is a good thing. A full accounting of costs is not only a good thing it is vital and we have been steadily seeing that come about precisely because of the pollution problems of the past. Along with a lot of ham handed government regulation. That is never going to be an easy balance.

It seems to me that when people talk of sustainable they really should be talking about education. Convince your potential customers of the value of "heritage" breed birds and why they should be willing to pay a little more for meat that is firmer, chewier, and more flavorful than what can be produced from an eight week old Cornish X. Maybe you'll get somewhere with that. I'm not sure what makes it more sustainable though since it's going to take more feed and more time to produce those heritage birds than the modern hybrids do, but it's a niche market. Perceived value is where it's at.

Does anyone else see a correlation between the shift to factory farming and how much fatter Americans have become? Is it really a good thing to eat so much meat all the time? And nutrient levels are skewed towards the less healthy aspects. The cheapest foods are the processed foods. Cheap plentiful food is causing us to be less healthy and live shorter lives. The Japanese who have the longest lives eat to 80% fullness. Studies in many animal species have shown that eating less food actually is a factor in living longer. Even with the bad genetics of the Cornish X, they can live longer if their food is restricted.

Well, I do call it factory farming because for some types of agricultural production it has become factory like. I pass a large layer operation (Humpty Dumpty in Hoboken, Georgia) on the way to visit family. Four (and more being built) enormous metal barn with tens of thousands of birds each inside. Feed comes in on a conveyor belt, manure and eggs go out on separate belts. The birds go into the cages en masse and never see the light of day again until they are all taken out again en masse. Simple living cogs in an intricate machine. But they can produce clean, wholesome, eggs for a lot less money than I can produce my grass raised eggs even if they don't look or taste as nice so they have their necessary place in our agricultural industry. My system cannot be made to produce the number of eggs this nation needs unless agricultural land and labor goes back to what it used to be back in the nineteen forties and earlier. It's one thing to do this sort of thing because one likes it and another thing entirely because you must do it for lack of any better way to make a living. My grandparents used to expound upon that quite a lot. My parents too for that matter since it's the way they grew up.

Which leads me up to your second point here - fat Americans? Why are we so fat? (And I am fat myself.) Because we spend too much time sitting on our butts. Plain and simple. Factory farming did cause that in a way in that modern day agriculture needs a heck of a lot less labor than once it did and most folks would not willingly go back to the sort of ag labor that needed all those hands in the first place not even with modern day ag wages. We sit on our butts too much and we have access to plentiful, cheap food so the natural end result is that we get fat. The Japanese have some of the most expensive food in the world for reasons that they cannot produce enough for themselves so must import it and a great many other necessities of life to their islands. That naturally runs up the costs considerably. But don't worry, American food prices are rising too. And American energy and fuel prices too. Soon we'll all be eating less and walking a great deal more because we have to.

We'll be thinner, healthier, and happier then, right?​

 

[eatmorechicken]

A.T. Hagan :

Quote:
Do you not see the contradiction in what you are saying? The economics of them are what makes them sustainable. More meat for less feed in less time.

No there is no contradiction. CX are unsustainable options for farms at any level. Sustainablillity requires three pilars.

CX are very economical but drastically swing away from the environmental (biological) pillar, leaving a small margin for sustainability. How? We, the common folk, cannot reproduce them, they are hybrids. F1 Cornish cross cannot reproduce without human assistance. CX require higher input methods or more baby sitting to make them work. Brunty claims his CX losses are because of simple management mistakes (hope I'm not taking your words out of context Brunty

). I would argue that a true chicken can live without its owner in reasonable conditions. CX are becoming increasingly disliked by society because of even the minor problems associated with them. That city person who has no farm experience has the final say, because they have the money to keep little niche markets going. remember when organic was just a niche market. Now its a huge economic force. I think pastured poultry and other locally grown foods will continue to increase in popularity. when it comes down to it people will not want CX. One of the few criticisms of Poly face farm that I have heard of, was that he uses chickens that are derived from the industrial system. Not saying that he is wrong for using them, but the people of the niche market do no want anything with "industrial" attached.

That said I still use CX, and I still try to make them work in low input conditions. However this year I had a hard time finding a hatchery that had them in supply. most places were sold out for a couple months in advance. I talked to several of the ladies at strombergs, hoover, meyer, ect and they all said that their chicks come from about the same place. That "place" was experiencing problems with their birds. they were not laying well because of a cold wet spring, then a sudden shift to hot weather. Because people were not buying chicks during the wettest part of spring, they got a huge surge in demand when the weather warmed. I think that there is something seriously wrong with this picture. I was set a month back because the hatcheries I called were sold out. One wet spring threw of huge system. what would happen if an ALF idiot were to burn down breeder coops? We would all be SOL.​

 

[A.T. Hagan]

I find your reasoning to be somewhat sophistic. F1 Cornish Cross, by which I take it you mean the broiler chicks that many folks order from the commercial hatcheries, are NOT SUPPOSED to reproduce themselves. That is not their purpose. If you want birds that can reproduce themselves naturally they are freely available to any who want them. But there are trade offs in using them. There are always trade offs.

"True chickens" can and do live without any human intervention whatsoever. The original Red Jungle Fowl that all domestic chickens descend from are still to be found in the wild. There are many places in the world where domestic chickens have gone feral and live without any human help and often enough in spite of human attempts to curtail them. They are quite hardy and adaptable creatures. Which is fine for their own purposes. But for human purposes we need them to provide eggs and meat which is what they cannot do in an economical fashion. Once you start taking nutrients out of the system (the meat and eggs) you either eventually run the system dry (as in the chickens disappear) or you start having to putting nutrients into the system in order to keep it sustainable (there's that word again). It's as simple as that. And once you have to start putting nutrients into the system you run face first into the need for their efficient use because ineffciency will run you broke. Not sustainable. And for efficient production of meat and eggs then the modern day hybrids have it all over the older heritage breeds which puts a different complexion on "sustainability."

I think "heritage" breeds (I dislike that word) have their place and I keep them myself. But not for commercial purposes except for those folks that value them. For my commercial needs I keep modern Leghorns and ISA Browns because they'll outlay any heritage breed going and do it on less feed which makes them a heck of a lot more "sustainable" than the old fashioned breeds.

BUT, and it is a big but, I cannot produce those birds myself and there's the rub. Which is why I continue to fool with the old breeds, selecting and reproducing them myself. For as long as I can get them I'm going to keep ordering the modern hybrids. It's the only way to produce those eggs at a reasonable cost. They pretty much carry the older birds that I'm selecting and breeding from for my own purposes. They'll never feed the world, but they may well feed me and my neighbors if one day we for whatever reason cannot get the modern hybrid birds. At that point "sustainability" is going to undergo a drastic evolution. One day. Maybe.

 

[AlbionWood]

A.T. Hagan :

Do you not see the contradiction in what you are saying? The economics of them are what makes them sustainable. More meat for less feed in less time.

I personally believe that it is possible to be economically successful with heritage varieties, it will just take a little creativity and time to discover a low input method.

I sure hope you are right. It's why I keep reading these threads looking for ways to do just that.

But it hasn't happened yet and may never happen. I strongly suspect when it does happen those "heritage" birds are going to end up resembling Cornish X a lot more than they do today.

I don't like quite a lot of what modern day agriculture has become but I sure do like being able to walk into a grocery store to buy food that is cheap, abundant, and mostly of high quality. Back in days of yore this was often not the case. My old granny is 94 now and we've had many discussions about the quality of the food they used to buy back before the Second World War and how much it used to cost in terms of how long it took them to earn the money to buy those groceries. I would not go back to those days for anything. We eat far better than they did and for a lot less money.

I produce grass raised eggs and will eventually get into grass raised poultry meat. But I do not kid myself that it's anything other than a niche market. It's what I want and am willing to put my labor into. But I can't produce eggs remotely as cheaply as the modern day layer factories can nor could I produce broilers as cheaply either. I can produce better tasting, possibly healthier, products, but they'll come at a premium price. With some 12-14 million people unemployed in this country (as per last night's NPR story) and likely many more that are barely making ends meet there is a genuine need for wholesome food produced as inexpensively as possible. That's where the bulk of this planet's food production capacity needs to be and rightfully should be.

I keep reading these threads looking for ways to do it cheaper, easier, more cost effective and hopefully using birds that I can produce myself instead of having to mail-order them but progress has always been slow and may never achieve what we are looking for. Maybe one day, but we are far from it this day yet people still need to eat and need to be able to buy their food as inexpensively as possible. The Cornish X has been a godsend in that regard. Especially when managed by people who understand how to do so.​

X2​

 

[eatmorechicken]

I find your reasoning to be somewhat sophistic. F1 Cornish Cross, by which I take it you mean the broiler chicks that many folks order from the commercial hatcheries, are NOT SUPPOSED to reproduce themselves. That is not their purpose. If you want birds that can reproduce themselves naturally they are freely available to any who want them. But there are trade offs in using them. There are always trade offs.

"True chickens" can and do live without any human intervention whatsoever. The original Red Jungle Fowl that all domestic chickens descend from are still to be found in the wild. There are many places in the world where domestic chickens have gone feral and live without any human help and often enough in spite of human attempts to curtail them. They are quite hardy and adaptable creatures. Which is fine for their own purposes. But for human purposes we need them to provide eggs and meat which is what they cannot do in an economical fashion. Once you start taking nutrients out of the system (the meat and eggs) you either eventually run the system dry (as in the chickens disappear) or you start having to putting nutrients into the system in order to keep it sustainable (there's that word again). It's as simple as that. And once you have to start putting nutrients into the system you run face first into the need for their efficient use because ineffciency will run you broke. Not sustainable. And for efficient production of meat and eggs then the modern day hybrids have it all over the older heritage breeds which puts a different complexion on "sustainability."

I think "heritage" breeds (I dislike that word) have their place and I keep them myself. But not for commercial purposes except for those folks that value them. For my commercial needs I keep modern Leghorns and ISA Browns because they'll outlay any heritage breed going and do it on less feed which makes them a heck of a lot more "sustainable" than the old fashioned breeds.

You make a valid point there. we shouldn't have to use wild chickens.

BUT, and it is a big but, I cannot produce those birds myself and there's the rub. Which is why I continue to fool with the old breeds, selecting and reproducing them myself. For as long as I can get them I'm going to keep ordering the modern hybrids. It's the only way to produce those eggs at a reasonable cost. They pretty much carry the older birds that I'm selecting and breeding from for my own purposes. They'll never feed the world, but they may well feed me and my neighbors if one day we for whatever reason cannot get the modern hybrid birds. At that point "sustainability" is going to undergo a drastic evolution. One day. Maybe.

No, one huge farm cannot feed the world with undeveloped genetics. But if you can feed yourself and your neighbors. Then the world could use more people like you, then the world could be fed.​

 

[AlbionWood]

Quote:
Only true for a certain definition of "sustainable." You and A. T. Hagan are correct in pointing out that we need to define that term before we can have a reasonable discussion, otherwise we end up confusing the heck out of each other because we are using the same word to mean very different things.

We can't breed CX in our backyards, true. But that does not mean they are "unsustainable," it only means we depend on others to do that breeding for us. This is true of the feed we give the chickens as well - very few of us are able to grow all our own chicken feed - but nobody argues that makes all chickens "unsustainable." Some heritage breeds are excellent foragers and could, no doubt, keep themselves alive soley on foraging; but they will be malnourished, they won't produce eggs or meat at anything like the rate we expect. All domestic chickens are dependent on humans, for food and protection (predation would wipe out my chickens within weeks if the electricity failed) - does that make them unsustainable by your definition?

There are certainly many negative aspects to CX as they are currently developed, and plenty of problems with the factory-farm model (I don't agree with ATH on that one, the term does seem appropriate). There are, as we endlessly discuss on this board, many pros and cons to CX - as there are to DP birds as well. I don't think the question can be simplified down to one aspect, especially one as poorly understood as sustainability.

 

[bigredfeather]

Legal Definition of Sustainable Agriculture
The term ''sustainable agriculture'' (U.S. Code Title 7, Section 3103) means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long-term:

•Satisfy human food and fiber needs.
•Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends.
•Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls.
•Sustain the economic viability of farm operations.
•Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.


That definition is a central element of the legislation of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program of NIFA.

 

[eatmorechicken]

So if we are defining terms. I would like to make a distinction between sustainability and sustainable ag.

Sustainability is the capacity to endure.

Sustainable agriculture is the practice of farming using principles of ecology, the study of relationships between organisms and their environment. (the implication of sustainable ag is to perpetuate farm practices into the future.)

Labeling CX as unsustainable may be a little sophistic. less sustainable would probably be a more correct term.

Chickens have a place on the sustainable farm. CX currently occupy that space. It sure would be nice to have a more sustainable breed than CX