- Oct 13, 2008
- 1,020
- 285
- 369
In my opinion the value of organic feed is essentially priceless. It's not just about nutrition, although organically grown food IS higher in nutritional value. One also has to consider the collateral damage to people and the environment of the increasingly high dosages of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides sprayed on conventional fields. By purchasing "conventional" products, you become complicit in that destruction, whether you deny it or not. Glyphosate, to give but one example, the active ingredient in Roundup, is carcinogenic and damaging to the reproductive system and the nervous system. That's just in humans, but one assumes it's equally damaging to other animals, and it's also recorded as toxic to "aquatic organisms" (http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33138). If you actually bother to READ about the ingredients in ANY of these pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides--instead of just taking the chemical companies' word that it's "safe," and wasting your time ranting about the high prices of organic products, or bashing organic consumers as elitist--you'll find a sinister rainbow different but similar horrors. Genetically modified crops, which includes most of the corn and soy grown chemically in America today, including that going into your "conventional" chicken feed, carries a whole further slew of freakishness and still only partially known dangers, since our government bent over for Monsanto, Dupont, and Friends and never required any of it to be third-party-verified for safety, but anyone who's paying attention knows enough to avoid eating it. Which is why somewhere over 90% of Americans want the government to require mandatory labeling by law of any foods containing genetically engineered ingredients (http://gefoodlabels.org/gmo-labeling/polls-on-gmo-labeling/).
As to the high prices, it's unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with the real costs. chemical farming has MUCH higher overhead costs in inputs that organic farming, and the yields are not necessarily better, especially not in net profits. Also, the chemical growing of many crops (eg corn, soy, wheat) is subsidized by the US goverment, making it cheaper, whilst organic growing of the same crops is not (because organic farming can actually make a profit on its own without gov money). The finally coup de grace against chemical farming comes when one realizes that the costs in the damages that it wreaks on the environment and on human health are not factored into the storefront pricetag.
I feed organic feed to my flock, but it only makes up an estimated 40% or so of their feed--the rest is scraps or homegrown feed components. This approach seems a far more sensible and responsible way to reduce feeding costs than buying conventional feed.
I refuse to be complicit in the destruction of the land. And I know that looking the other way won't fix squat.
As to the high prices, it's unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with the real costs. chemical farming has MUCH higher overhead costs in inputs that organic farming, and the yields are not necessarily better, especially not in net profits. Also, the chemical growing of many crops (eg corn, soy, wheat) is subsidized by the US goverment, making it cheaper, whilst organic growing of the same crops is not (because organic farming can actually make a profit on its own without gov money). The finally coup de grace against chemical farming comes when one realizes that the costs in the damages that it wreaks on the environment and on human health are not factored into the storefront pricetag.
I feed organic feed to my flock, but it only makes up an estimated 40% or so of their feed--the rest is scraps or homegrown feed components. This approach seems a far more sensible and responsible way to reduce feeding costs than buying conventional feed.
I refuse to be complicit in the destruction of the land. And I know that looking the other way won't fix squat.
