That's something I've never understood, if you decide to go vegetarian or vegan that's great, but then why eat faux "meat"? Isn't that the whole point, that you are not eating meat? If you are eating a bean patty why not call it a bean patty, why call it a burger and attempt to make it taste like meat?My thoughts exactly.....along with 'plant based meats'
I think a lot of that is just marketing meant to target the people who do it as a fad diet not a lifestyle. My sister has been Vegan for over 10 years and she calls it as it is. She gets very creative with her cooking as she went to culinary school before she went vegan though.
My sister has been vegetarian for most of her life, she tries to go vegan, but just can't give up cheese. Can't say I blame her, there's no way I could do without dairy products.
It should be called 'egg substitute'...then vegan or organic or whatever applies.
Let's say a person doesn't trust the lab analysis on a bag. Ok. So distrustful chicken keeper sends off for a private analysis... assuming the private analysis must be accurate. The fact is that we have no idea which one is the right one or more accurate one. Then consider how lab samples are taken. Each bag is not tested. A set number of random samples are taken from a huge lot of product and then averaged. If you wish to test for the accuracy of the manufacturer's lab, then one needs to compare an analysis from the SAME samples the manufacturer used for sampling. So if someone sends their bagged feed sample off, then what if the (protein as an example) is different by .5%? What are you going to do? What if the private lab comes back lower? Which analysis are you going to believe? My point is that somebody sending their tiny single sample from a huge lot has no more idea than when they started. However, if we choose to believe conspiracies about, say Tractor Supply, then we are automatically going to assume the private lab is correct without any evidence. Besides, if there was some government conspiracy to get rid of backyard chicken farmers, then why only TS? Huh? Why wouldn't they also rope all the private labs to lie too? It's nuts. You want to send off feed? Fine I have no problems with how others spend their money. The point is that a single sample taken from a single bag means zero. Absolutely zero.This stuff is brought in and manufactured by the train and silo load, not one bag at a time. A person's chickens were laying fine, then quit, and the feed wasn't changed? Well, it's winter. Everything from light, molting and even breed can affect laying. So can harassment from pets and predators. Some breeds don't lay as well in winter. Sometimes they slow down for some inexplicable reason. But let's not pretend sending a sample from a bag is going to explain it. Let's also not pretend everyone's out to get us.
What damages? People have a right to raise questions if they have a suspicion that the companies are doing something wrong that affects their flocks. If the suspicions turn out conclusively unfounded, they should admit their error. But why on earth should they be sued for raising questions? We're in a scary state if we don't have the freedom to do that.Once the lab results are in and it's been proven that there has been no addition to the feed that prevents hens from laying eggs it would be rather cool if Purina took the person who started the rumour to court and sued them for damages.
It's not like they can't find out who he is.
