Thoughts on organic chicken feed. What is your opinion?

[Shadrach]

My opinion is that currently the organic label is much like the free range label; you would need to do an awful lot of research to be sure that one is actually getting what one is paying for. The definition and testing system is not robust enough currently. Organic does not necessarily mean no pesticides, just approved pesticides.

I bought a bag of organic chicken feed. It came in a large plasic bag.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-farming-how-to-get-certification-and-apply-for-funding

 

[saysfaa]

No more than the plaintiff's bar is paying you for spreading fear. If you don't understand the difference between an allowed level of 310 parts per million (EPA), and 160 parts per billion (some arbitrary figure invented for litigation), there's no hope for you.

I think the people out to villainize roundup picked that figure because it is the minimum the tests can find. Therefore got the positive results. They (the people usually quoted as having tested for residues) certainly haven't given any other rational for the levels they picked.

As opposed the the EPA which used a given percentage (100th or 1000th, depending on the substance) of the minimum amount that would cause any detectable effect in lab animals.

 

[saysfaa]

Besides, it isn't sprayed as a desiccant very often. At least in the US.

This explains why https://kswheat.com/news/the-truth-about-roundup-in-wheat

For what it is worth, I detest Monsanto.

 

[Cat Ballou]

Besides, it isn't sprayed as a desiccant very often. At least in the US.

This explains why https://kswheat.com/news/the-truth-about-roundup-in-wheat

For what it is worth, I detest Monsanto.

Great PR maneuver. The reports center around oats, so get farmers on record saying they don’t desiccate their wheat crops with Roundup

https://ceh.org/glyphosate-herbicide-found-popular-cereals/

 

[Solanacae]

In Michael Pollan’s book ‘An Omnivore’s Dilemma’, he discusses the different supply chains involved to get a conventional, large scale organic, local small scale sort of organic, and homegrown/foraged/hunted meal to the table. While it was published a while back and supply chains have probably altered somewhat in that time, it still changed the way I think about conventional vs organic. If we are really interested in doing the best good for the earth and our health, eating seasonally and locally is the best route to go.

Conventional ag is extremely efficient but exacts a heavy cost environmentally, and not just in the form of glycophosphate. The damage done to peoples’ health from the heavily processed foods created and distributed by big ag cannot be ignored.

Large scale organic can exact a heavy environmental cost as well, just in different ways. Few small farms can afford the organic certification, so you have big conglomerate companies (often branches of big ag companies) with very little transparency. Organic produce is often shipped further (read higher use of fossil fuels contributing to greenhouse gasses) because there are fewer farms producing that type of produce. Large scale organic creates heavily processed foods that aren’t any better for you than the conventional garbage.

Small scale local may not be able to switch over to organic for cost prohibitive reasons, much less afford the certification by the USDA, but you have transparency that isn’t available with big ag or big organic. You can get to know your local farmers, ask questions, see their operation, etc. You’ll pay more because you’re paying for the actual cost of producing that food, rather than something artificially low in price because of subsidies. You’ll also have to eat seasonally, which means giving up eggs year round and strawberries in January.

Growing/foraging/hunting your own food will be the best option but not always a practical one, since people have to work and whatnot. But it will be the best for you because you know exactly what went into it, and it will be picked at peak nutrition. If not, you have only yourself to blame.

I’d rather go with a good quality feed that’s made from locally grown grains purchased from a local store than something stamped ‘organic’. My husband studied environmental soil and water science and mentioned what others have said here - organic isn’t a guarantee of better, it’s just a guarantee of different farming practices. Unless you’re able to trace the sources of your chicken feed to the farms they were grown on and look into how those crops were grown, you have no way to really know if it’s actually benefitting your health or the environment.

There is a balance to be found. The ideals of organic farming are good ones. I think it’s counterproductive to shame people who are doing what they thing is best for their health and the ones they care for. Getting defensive because someone disagrees with the conclusions you have made based on the information you have is also counterproductive. We should be willing to learn from each other, consider new information from a variety of sources, make the choices we think are best for our particular situation, and allow others the grace to do the same.

 

[TXchickmum]

I feed my flock Kalmbach Feeds organic 17% layer feed. I also let them forage all the bugs and greens they can. They get berries and greens from our garden. (I am old school. -not looking to get into any debates over pros/cons of this or that. I feel everyone should feed their flocks and themselves according to what works best for them.) I grow as much food as I can for my family. -no pesticides used of any sort. My pollinators do their thing and keep things flourishing. All our meat is sourced from a farm that employs the old ways of farming. -not into "trendy" labels, and actually find it a hoot that exclusively "grassfed" cattle for milk and meat is touted as "a thing" these days. It's all cows used to consume, same stuff my great grandparents did, and my preference because it just makes sense to me to let things be the way nature intended without jacking around with them.
Many of my birds have lived (and produced eggs) until 9 yrs old. It works for me to just keep doing the same.

"There is a balance to be found. The ideals of organic farming are good ones. I think it’s counterproductive to shame people who are doing what they thing is best for their health and the ones they care for. Getting defensive because someone disagrees with the conclusions you have made based on the information you have is also counterproductive. We should be willing to learn from each other, consider new information from a variety of sources, make the choices we think are best for our particular situation, and allow others the grace to do the same." -Agree completely with Solanacae

 

[Sally PB]

You want to protect the Earth? Then be honest about it - you want a massive reduction in the human population. The rest will follow.

Yup. But does anyone want to volunteer to leave? Nope, and me neither.

Humans being who and what they are, it will take a long time "fix" the problems we are making for ourselves. And even more so for future generations.

We'll only do what we are forced to do. Some of us will do things that we think/hope will help, but it probably won't be enough.

Still, I'll do things that I think/hope will help. If it helps, great. If all it ends being good for is "happy touchy feely goodness," well, a little of that in my life isn't a bad thing either.

 

[saysfaa]

Great PR maneuver. The reports center around oats, so get farmers on record saying they don’t desiccate their wheat crops with Roundup

https://ceh.org/glyphosate-herbicide-found-popular-cereals/

I thought we were talking about chicken feed, which has a lot more wheat in it than oats. Not to say oats are much different.

Your link here has a list of foods - the most they found was 2015 parts per billion.

I think the people out to villainize roundup picked that figure because it is the minimum the tests can find. Therefore got the positive results. They (the people usually quoted as having tested for residues) certainly haven't given any other rational for the levels they picked.

As opposed the the EPA which used a given percentage (100th or 1000th, depending on the substance) of the minimum amount that would cause any detectable effect in lab animals.

EPA allows 30,000 parts per billion. Which means it takes at least 3,000,000 parts per billion to result in a detectable difference. Not a significant difference - just a detectible difference.

 

[raingarden]

We can't feed the world's bloted population or their livestock with organic, non-GMO crops because organic, non-GMO is less efficient. Only the rich can afford this luxury. By insisting on organic, non-GMO you are, in a sense, taking food out of someone else's mouth.

 

[NestingMillenial]

We can't feed the world's bloted population or their livestock with organic, non-GMO crops because organic, non-GMO is less efficient. Only the rich can afford this luxury. By insisting on organic, non-GMO you are, in a sense, taking food out of someone else's mouth.

See my previous comment about that (it had some sources) -> that is simply not true, or at least it does not have to be. Real regenerative agriculture has been shown to be on par with conventional agriculture when it comes to yields. I'm talking about the real deal of course, which is still not implemented a lot (a big reason for that is lobbies and the resistance to already set up operations to switch their equipment)

Redistribution of food to people who need it is clearly something the world is failing at and GMOs or any other conventional/intensive technique has failed to change that. All GMO has been doing is to put crops, and as a result food that especially the third world rely upon, under ownership (examples of that from Monsanto abound). So is anyone is taking food from someone else's mouth, it's clearly not who you claim.

Finally, studies have shown that the use of GMO does not mean that less land is used, just that we overproduce and dump it if we have surplus (again, no efficient infrastructure exists to really address food waste and take that surplus food to where it's needed, unfortunately), so an argument about saving more land (in case anyone wanted to go there next) is also false.

Nobody is telling you guys to go change your practices and buy organic. We have all agreed that this is a personal choice and right now it comes at a premium that not everyone is willing or able to pay. But claiming that it is in any way worse, or even on par with conventional agriculture, be it from a health, environmental or other ethical (like seed ownership) standpoint, is just not true.

I am surprised by how many here seem personally invested in battling non-conventional practices or fighting for RoundUp... Except if you are an intensive farmer yourself, those things are not playing on your team.
In the region I come from, organic and other labels are the only thing that help small scale farmers survive the onslaught of the massive firms coming in, by revaluing their products and boosting jobs (organic practices usually require more manpower). Again, the point is not to say organic is the be-all-end-all of food production standards, just that it has merits. And if those merits are not worth it for you, it is totally fine, this is a free country. But there is no need to make it sound like not choosing organic is the only good, reasonable and ethical thing to do, because that is just not true.