I'm Sending Feed to be Analyzed

[Shadrach]

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.

He didn't raise questions though. He made an accusation based on no evidence. There is in the UK and other nations the principle, which I fully support that a person, or body is innocent until proven guilty by due process of the law.

 

[Geena]

Questioning is a wonderful thing, without it we wouldn't answers

If one questions the quality of their feed, they have the right to have that feed tested, change feeds, even bad mouth the feed or sue the feed company if they like.
What they don't or shouldn't have the right to do is go on social media flapping their gums and making absolutely baseless accusations about people or products and ruining their reputation in the process.

I'm not speaking of the average Joe, but more of those whose business and livelihood is being a social media personality.

You can be sure that the MSM was careful to couch it in such terms that would not legally be considered slander or libel. That way they can say whatever they want to say, but with the addition of a few key words or phrases avoid any prosecution.

 

[WhiteTreeOfGondor]

He didn't raise questions though. He made an accusation based on no evidence. There is in the UK and other nations the principle, which I fully support that a person, or body is innocent until proven guilty by due process of the law.

An accusation has to come first before the due process of the law can prove innocence or guilt.
I don't know who "he" is, who is this person?

 

[NatJ]

Let's say a person doesn't trust the lab analysis on a bag.

For the chicken foods under discussion, sold in the USA, the tag on the bag is a "GUARANTEED ANALYSIS" (usually labeled in all caps.)
They are guaranteeing that the feed meets those specs.

The tag does not say the feed contains exactly x% of something.
They say it contains a minimum or a maximum.

So every item listed on that tag needs to be above the minimum, or be under the maximum.
Otherwise, that company is breaking the law by putting that tag on that bag of feed.

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.

As regards some of your other points:
--who to believe only matters if the lab finds the feed to be wrong. If the lab finds the feed to be correct (above stated minimums, below stated maximums), then there is no conflict.

--yes, all of those are common reasons for chickens to stop laying. That's been said many times (including repeatedly by me in various threads.) If the feed is fine, people should quit wasting time yelling about the feed and go focus on the other points.

--feed sometimes does have problems. So the people who are sure it's the feed might be right. I'm not saying they are, I just can't prove they aren't.

 

[NatJ]

If a flock eats feed that has a source of protein from plants rather than bugs or meat, do you think they’ll skip that cute little grasshopper that’s in the run, or will they chase it and eat it? My flock eats bugs, lizards and whiney baby birds that fall into our yard. How, exactly, does one get vegan eggs?

If the chickens are shut in cages inside a building, they probably don't get enough bugs to matter. But I think that would make the hens vegan, not make their eggs vegan. So I assume "vegan eggs" would be things that resemble eggs in some way, but do not come from animals and are therefore acceptable to vegans.

 

[Shadrach]

An accusation has to come first before the due process of the law can prove innocence or guilt.
I don't know who "he" is, who is this person?

If you haven't seen the video that is reputed to have started the debate then perhaps you should investigate the source before making further comment.

 

[JacinLarkwell]

Totally agree. I've been a vegetarian most of my life. I prefer unprocessed foods, usually. And faux meat just perpetuates meat eating as a desirable habit, which seems counterintuitive to me. I have had plant based meat products, mainly when our to get burgers and there is no suitable vegetarian sandwich option. Or if the only thing on the menu that is vegetarian is something that sounds icky. I don't ever go looking for plant based "meat" and I've never bought faux meat products to eat at home.

The only thing I can think ofasto the purpose of plant based meat products is to make vegetarianism more appealing to meatatarians.

I think the original goals were to kinda help non-meat eaters 'blend in' a bit more and to help people that want to stop eating meat to wean off it. They aren't giving up burgers and eggs and chicken nuggets, they are just giving up meat based ones. Or at least that's how I see it.

 

[Isadora]

I think the original goals were to kinda help non-meat eaters 'blend in' a bit more and to help people that want to stop eating meat to wean off it. They aren't giving up burgers and eggs and chicken nuggets, they are just giving up meat based ones. Or at least that's how I see it.

I think they crave meat, in a lot of cases.

 

[WhiteTreeOfGondor]

If you haven't seen the video that is reputed to have started the debate then perhaps you should investigate the source before making further comment.

If it's a video, a link would be helpful!

 

[Huntmaster]

Have you been following the "Twitter File Dumps"? Congressional hearings? Twitter, FB, Instagram, Google working with FBI to suppress information by out spoken Doctors and Nurses about C-19? Blatant violation of First Amendment (which is enforced by the Second). Suing is their "LawFare" defense. If people come out against the Main Stream Narrative they sue, you loose everything trying to defend your self and the lawyers get rich. So, Right on!!!

This is more an abuse of power and for those very reasons you have stated makes a very good point why we need and do have the right to defend our honor and rights to free speech, to not be slandered or caused harm by slander with no facts. And have the right to use the legal system to make it right to our honor and damages caused by such acts. Please don't tell me you would not want the right for those you have mentioned to have that right to restore their honor and receive damages for the wrongdoing perpetrated on them. Be careful what you wish for.