In watching the trailer, yes I could tell you as an Ag Education major and Animal Science minor that this film would present many anomolies, Not the normal conditions of the majority of growers. For instance, the quick image of cattle in a lot (the first 1/3rd, couldn't get a time), that image bothers me as being very unclean, and Not the norm. That producer needs to clean up his farm.
If anything, if this type of film and movement forces our industry to do a better job of "policing thyself" then some good Can come out of this film for our industry.
Also the statement that the ag industry does Not want the public to know what is in their food or what goes into your foods, I couldn't dissagree more. Many of us embrace the public coming out to visit the farm or our feedlots.
GlttrGrrl, i Did read your link. Unfortunately poultry manure is very high in urea, and cattle, their unique 4 chambered stomach can break down the urea and use it as protein. Again, I can't say we would feed our cattle poultry manure or would any good producer I know would either. A good friend of mine from college has a masters in ruminant nutrition, I'll send him an e-mail and ask how common this feeding practice is and if he would recommend it in a ration.
And..you wrote this:
"Having driven past many of these large feed lots, and seeing what a waste of the earth they are and not being able to breathe for miles around them, I don't consider them any more humane than tethering them, and they are certainly not "good" for the planet, in my definition of "good.""
It is obviously your choice to not eat beef, but if those cattle provide nutrition to several thousand people, then I can't see them as a "waste of space." Sorry if the smell bothers you, but when I travel to many major cities, it smells like a mix of puke and ass to me, so are those humans living there a waste as well? ha, j/k, just tryin to make a counter point...
ok, but in my very first post i said i didn't think every single farm uses these types of practices but it does happen and i don't think many people would think the average family farmer would do these things, that's probably why it's called Food, INC, not Farming, USA.
so yeah, i'm sure YOU'D have no problem with anyone coming to check your farm and your practices out but farms like yours isn't what this is about. the sad fact is SOME do use things like cement dust, sewage, whatever they can get away with.
on a somewhat related note....i work at an animal rescue and while feeding the other day i looked at the can of beef alpo....the 2st meat product was the 2nd ingredient, meaning there's more of that than only 1 other thing....the first meat in the beef alpo was chicken! the next meat product was the 7th or 8th item and was beef by products. it just made me laugh that there's more chicken than beef in beef alpo
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Pepe, I appreciate those comments about most farms & farmers.
Btw, as I "educate" the masses on here...NEVER, Ever eat dog or cat food. The "meat" the label refers to comes from "rendered" dead cattle, swine, poultry and even horses. Long story short, when an animal dies of Natural causes, old age etc., the animal science industry discovered long ago that we needed to something useful with the "dead stock." Think of the process as recylcling to make some good instead of incenterating.
Basically the deads are literally ground up and then cooked at very high temperatures to kill any bacteria.
Animal fat rises to the top of the cooker, and it is taken off, further boiled to remove the water, and can be used in the manufacturing of some plactics, and get this, the glycerin is used for those fabric softener sheets you put in your dryer! When the "mash" is cooled it is a chunky meal-like product commonly referred to as meat and bone meal, and that is a key primary ingredient of many pet foods.
Sorry if this is alarming to any of you, but as I've stated previously, I'm here to educate, inform and debunk myths about modern agriculture.
If you don't want your pets consuming such by-products, ask your vet or better high end feed stores about the ingrediants in your pet food. And also know that many smaller dogs should NOT have a diet where corn is listed as one of the top ingrediants. Corn is very high in energy and can be hard on lil dogs' digestive tract.
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
Pepe, I appreciate those comments about most farms & farmers.
Btw, as I "educate" the masses on here...NEVER, Ever eat dog or cat food. The "meat" the label refers to comes from "rendered" dead cattle, swine, poultry and even horses. Long story short, when an animal dies of Natural causes, old age etc., the animal science industry discovered long ago that we needed to something useful with the "dead stock." Think of the process as recylcling to make some good instead of incenterating.
Basically the deads are literally ground up and then cooked at very high temperatures to kill any bacteria.
Animal fat rises to the top of the cooker, and it is taken off, further boiled to remove the water, and can be used in the manufacturing of some plactics, and get this, the glycerin is used for those fabric softener sheets you put in your dryer! When the "mash" is cooled it is a chunky meal-like product commonly referred to as meat and bone meal, and that is a key primary ingredient of many pet foods.
Sorry if this is alarming to any of you, but as I've stated previously, I'm here to educate, inform and debunk myths about modern agriculture.
If you don't want your pets consuming such by-products, ask your vet or better high end feed stores about the ingrediants in your pet food. And also know that many smaller dogs should NOT have a diet where corn is listed as one of the top ingrediants. Corn is very high in energy and can be hard on lil dogs' digestive tract.
This is a spot on post. Cat's shouldn't really have corn in their diet either as they can't really digest it. I see many mass marketed pet foods that have corn as one of the main ingredients. In fact I used to feed my cat that shit until he got sick and I researched it a bit more and found some really good holistic food. Ever since he's been on it he has had more energy, maintained his weight, and most importantly not gotten sick. It's also amazing how much it changed his stool. He's had some massive passings that just look healthier but also sometimes rival some of my own...he's a big cat, what can I say. (Gross I know, but it is important that your pets have healthy stools)
Oh yeah, that reminds me, my uncle's cat used to be extremely lethargic and would always have very dry tiny BM's...well after she started loosing hair on her belly he decided to look into things and changed her diet much like I did and now she has healthier BM's and her coat of hair is getting better and she is more playful than she used to be. So yeah, I guess my point is, paying attention to what you eat is important and so is paying attention to what your pet eats.
I believe there were some places that were actually using recycled pets along with rendered cattle for pet food and the reason this is bad (aside from it being gross and morbid) is that many of those pets were put down by injection due to old age or other complications. From what I've seen that stuff doesn't break down during the cooking process of the pet food so in essence you are feeding your own pet trace amounts of whatever it is that is used to put other pets down.
got a car...got some gas...oh let's get out of here-get out of here fast...
I hope you get this message but your not home...I will be there in just a minute or so...
I want to go but I want to go with you.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. -MT
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough. I'm fine, still in it.
i seriously think those who are critical of food inc should actually WATCH said film ,and then decide if they truly believe it's worth criticizing. most of what i've read here a. isn't even in the film, b. is but to a small degree, c. is part of the bigger picture' the filmmakers are focused on....which is not about farmers per se, but about corporate control of our food supply, how it is grown, developed, offerred. again, i am no expert so cannot say with certainty that everything in the film is 100% accurate. however, the broader issues it touches upon and even it's summation at the end of the film..spot on to me. we all can learn from it, even if you disagree with some of it.
i seriously think those who are critical of food inc should actually WATCH said film ,and then decide if they truly believe it's worth criticizing. most of what i've read here a. isn't even in the film, b. is but to a small degree, c. is part of the bigger picture' the filmmakers are focused on....which is not about farmers per se, but about corporate control of our food supply, how it is grown, developed, offerred. again, i am no expert so cannot say with certainty that everything in the film is 100% accurate. however, the broader issues it touches upon and even it's summation at the end of the film..spot on to me. we all can learn from it, even if you disagree with some of it.
this is why i was a bit shocked that in the end, this was all from a trailer...
i seriously think those who are critical of food inc should actually WATCH said film ,and then decide if they truly believe it's worth criticizing. most of what i've read here a. isn't even in the film, b. is but to a small degree, c. is part of the bigger picture' the filmmakers are focused on....which is not about farmers per se, but about corporate control of our food supply, how it is grown, developed, offerred. again, i am no expert so cannot say with certainty that everything in the film is 100% accurate. however, the broader issues it touches upon and even it's summation at the end of the film..spot on to me. we all can learn from it, even if you disagree with some of it.
Well said!
got a car...got some gas...oh let's get out of here-get out of here fast...
I hope you get this message but your not home...I will be there in just a minute or so...
I want to go but I want to go with you.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. -MT
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough. I'm fine, still in it.
d2d, i agree as long as every1 who sees the film has your perspective of realizing the family farm is Not your enemy. but as an industry we must educate our consumers and defend our indusry. if we don't i shutter to think of the beaucratic red tape the government reigns (double meaning intended) down upon us.
embrace, i quickly skimmed a couple sites. the first pdf was interesting, i can't say much or comment on peach production and their use of pesticides. i would say the picture on the 2nd slide show post WWII farmers, one pic had the pesticide trailer pulled by horses! i shutter to think of what pesticide application was like in fruit prod 50+ years ago.
just know that currently even farmers (let alone commercial applicators) must have a Certified Pesticide Applicators (CPA) license. my Father took a week-end refresher course at Purdue (Go Boilers BEAT Mich!) and then took a multi page test to get and renew his license. not only does the course educate growers on chemicals they use, but the proper application techniques, proper timing of app, proper storage and disposal of chemicals as well as applicator safety, i.e. googles, face masks, rubber gloves etc.
the second link on biotech was interesting. i read most of an summary article on the development RR technology that was written in 2000. http://www.biotech-info.net/felsot1.html
most of what i read was good info, until i got to end. he mentions that when companies "gun"/insert the gene into plant material we don't know where on the chromozone/DNA strand it lands. that might have been true 9 yrs ago, but not now. both Monsanto and Pioneer have a molecular marker technology that allows us to accurately place the "event" i spoke of into the least invasive part of the plants molecular make up. this accomplishes 3 things: allows the plant to work and grow more like an unaltered non-GMO crop, 2. makes the resulting genetics to be more pure and consistant (like 99.99% homogenius) 3. allows the proteins both corn and soybeans produce to be nearly identical grains as their non-GMO counterparts.
more to follow
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
don't get me wrong, i'm not opposed to seeing the film, but i've encountered attacks upon my industry most of my adult life...same shit, different angle. it's mainly scare tactics.
see my exchanges on biotech and bio-engineering. we were told at the Univ of IL back in '92-'93 that GMO crops were in the works, and it was like telling us we would be soon living on Mars! so as a Pioneer seedsmen, i've closely followed this technology and it's development.
some of the basic patent approval of the RR traits for example date back to 'the mid to late '90's. Monsanto had to present it's case to the FDA, USDA and the EPA before the patent was issued. (talk about red-tape) Monsanto had to prove that not only was glyphosate a safe chemical (more later), but it had a very small environmental impact. also, Monsanto had to prove that feeding this GMO grain was harmless to livestock. with the help of many university feeding trials, it was all approved.
btw, glyphosate was one of sciencetist's "mistakes," kinda like the adhesive on post-it notes. glyphosate was originally intended to be...wait for it...SOAP! turns out when mixed in water it foams up way too much (small problem we deal w/ in our sprayers), but it kills anything green it touches.
so while we have been using all these technologies for approaching a decade now, we've all consumed beef, pork and poultry that has been fed these GMO grains...and still yet no reports on any one growing a 3rd nipple!
(Friends ref.) later
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
just sayin' that if you are going to make a statement that something is "full of untruths"...i might actually believe it mores if you actually have SEEN what you are criticizing. and it's not just you, or this topic...it would be anything. it's akin to someone telling me they don't like X, when they have never tried X. so really, how can you know? just because you've eaten something else that is similar, doesn't mean you actually know with any certainty. that is all.
i seriously think those who are critical of food inc should actually WATCH said film ,and then decide if they truly believe it's worth criticizing. most of what i've read here a. isn't even in the film, b. is but to a small degree, c. is part of the bigger picture' the filmmakers are focused on....which is not about farmers per se, but about corporate control of our food supply, how it is grown, developed, offerred. again, i am no expert so cannot say with certainty that everything in the film is 100% accurate. however, the broader issues it touches upon and even it's summation at the end of the film..spot on to me. we all can learn from it, even if you disagree with some of it.
I think the bottom line to what you're saying is that if you can't watch the movie (nor the trailer) with an open mind, there's no chance of get anything valuable out of it. Closed-mindedness from the getgo gives the movie no chance at all!
Jeanwah, you ask some very good questions...where to start?
When genetic suppliers are breeding both soybean and seed corn, we refer to the modification as an "event."
Monsanto (w/ funding from Pioneer, a DuPont Co.) developed the RR (tm) traits, they then in turn let all seed companies purchase their "event" to breed into our existing genetics. That's where the technology fee that Monsanto charges the seed co.'s, then we charge our customer, the farmer. There in-lies farmers resentment for Monsanto, they pay BOTH the tech fee, and then for the Round Up itself. A monopoly for sure. Some representatives in D.C. are looking into an anti-trust suite aimed at Monsanto.
By the way, the "event" is what is registered with the Federal Patent office. Which brings me to the next little known fact. The chemical that is Round-Up, generically known as Glyphosate, well R-Up in it's original form lost it's exclusive patent status a few years ago. Just about any chemical company could manufacture it and sell it to farmers. Guess what country got into the generic glyphosate market? U guessed it, CHINA. Here's the kicker, Monsanto then made a bold move almost 2 yrs ago. Yep, they started buying up the generic manufacturers all over. HELLO more anti-trust fodder.
The R-Up you might see advertised and the R-Up you can buy to kill weeds on your property, well that is still glyphosate but with crop oils and surfactents added to it. Basically those are very harmless additives that helps the glyphosate stick to the leaves better and thus work more effectively and faster.
Monsanto never forced or asked growers to destroy any soybean seed we kept back (we used to call it "bin-run" seed). The use and acceptance of the technology just made the bin run seed obsolete. Growers did not want run the risk of getting it mixed up and then spray the wrong field and inadvertently kill a whole field of non RR (tm) soybeans.
When I said we were "forced" to use and accept the RR (tm) technology, I was speaking as a farmer. Here's the snenario: R-up makes fields clean of weeds in a Very Effective manner. So if your neighbors' fields are all clean as a pin, the you look like a half-ass farmer. AND these older retired farmer land-lords, they pay attention to this. And, to be honest, the shit works Really well.
Growers do have the option to raise non R-Up crops. The soybeans as grain prolly gets made into tufu for all I know. We, as Pioneer dealers, have a couple large growers that raise these non GMO beans for about a $0.50 premium per bushel.
And just know, companies like Pioneer (one of the oldest seed companies) still have a Huge inventory of older seed genetics. Also ag universities like Purdue, Univ of Illinois and Iowa State used to be providers of soybean seed to farmers. I am very confident they a large inventory of older seed.
I can post info on how we breed seed corn and how hybrid seed corn is bred...yes bred, we cross different inbreds to make the seed corn we plant.
Also, guess what company has bought up many older smaller regional seed companies like Crowes and Golden Harvest? I'll give you 2 guesses...
Your post here Vederman depresses me. You pretty much verified the monster that Monsanto and Roundup has created and makes the future for the independent farmer loook pretty darn dim.
I was just telling you what was mentioned in The Future of Food, as to farmers testimonally speaking that their original seed was deemed to be destroyed by Monsanto buying them out underhandedly. It spoke of few farmers fighting, only to lose everything, where most farmers that settled to be bought by Monsanto, had to use Monsanto seeds and destroy their original seeds. It makes sense; when you're bought out, you either go under or you continue to work for said buyer and their product, only.
I know Roundup works great, but it's a weed killer, and if it was up to me, I'd rather eat my food knowing that loads of chemically ridden pesticides weren't used in it's development. Same with a seed created in a labratory. Older farmers weren't about quantity, they were about quality. With the age of pesticides and Roundup, it's all about the more the better. Do you agree with this? Is it a financial gain focus or a quality product focus? I'm sure it's both, but at what cost?
So what is Pioneer doing with all the older seed inventory? You mention that growers have the option to buy and grow that seed, but at what price? What are the conditions for buying it and growing it? I'm convinced there's got to be some.
Jeanwah, thanks again for the kind words.
Don't misunderstand my critical comments of Monsanto, even the smaller independent family farms have enjoyed record profits the last couple years, and prolly this year too. Even while being shackled by Monsanto's fees, farmers are still maintaining a good level of profitability.
As India and China continue to grow in not only population, but more iportantly in wealth as their economies continue to expand, all the while the Dollar weakens, the demand for US protein is at a record high level.
Not sure about the farmers who were bought out or forced to sell to Monsanto. Those examples remind me of Canadian examples that were referenced on this thread earlier. I have no doubt Monsanto would use Canadian growers and those law-suits to send a message to US growers as a "shot accross their bow" so to speak.
Monsanto is for sure a monopoly but the industry is doing well.....for now.
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
Sorry not to answer this important point.
"So what is Pioneer doing with all the older seed inventory? You mention that growers have the option to buy and grow that seed, but at what price? What are the conditions for buying it and growing it? I'm convinced there's got to be some."
We can sell non-GMO corn and soybean seed to growers/customers/farmers but the GMO stuff not only yields more, but allows us to be less dependant on soil applied insecticides. Corn root-worm continues to be a bigger problem in the Midwest. If we don't plant GMO crops, we need some form of pesticide protection, lest we lose a substantial amount of our crop to corn root-worm.
My Dad has a fellow Pioneer dealer friend who has grown some non-GMO corn this year, I'll find out the premium per bushel they received. There really needs to be a premium to encourage them to grow non-GMO corn.
Many years of old seed is banked in many a location, trust me.
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
As a 38 year old farmer who has "fed the world" my entire life, this deeply saddens me that Pearl Jam would lend it's name in support of a film full with untruths and propoganda. Animal agrilculturalists want our livestock and poultry to thrive and be healthy. The animal science industry takes better care of our animals than we as humans take care of our homeless population.
Write a song about that Ed...
Congratulations on being a farmer and only 38. Isn't getting rarer and rarer to find farmers so young. I live in Ontario and seems that the farmers are getting up their and the kids do not want the farm, probably because it is so tough to make a go of it.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Lukin thank you for the kind words. In my local community, there is a nice group of guys even in their 20's who are stepping up to the plate to be the next generation of farmers of their family's farms. Those larger growers I referenced, those families are pretty well "set" financially, so it should be a good transition for them.
I make no apologies for being a capitalists in our family seed business. I am cultivating good relationships with this next generation of growers. When the pendulum swings away from Monsanto I would be glad to be their main supplier of seed corn and soybeans.
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
this thread did get a bit sidetracked...one of the main issues that Food Inc addresses is FACTORY farming. V71, what you mention sounds more like a large local farm.
The factory farms are a huge problem and the gases distributed into the atmosphere are threatening our environment. The "manipulation" of animals to look alike/match in size for uniformity in distribution is NOT natural and cant be good for our bodies. Let's revisit the McDonalds scenario where that giant wants all of their burgers to taste the same so no matter where you go in the world you get the same product. Put aside the carbon emissions for sending this beef all over the world and the detriment to local economies when we go corporate global and focus on what is actually in that product. It's a manufactured product - there is significant difference between what McDonalds puts out and that of a grass fed burger. McD can offer a low price "food product" all over the world but what "cost" is that to the human ingesting that product ? (health, environment, the local economy where they live?)
got a car...got some gas...oh let's get out of here-get out of here fast...
I hope you get this message but your not home...I will be there in just a minute or so...
I want to go but I want to go with you.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. -MT
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough. I'm fine, still in it.
Embrace i appreciate your commentary regarding my local family farm brethren.
I've been wanting to tackle this part of your concerns with 1. factory farming
2. in your words: "The "manipulation" of animals to look alike/match in size for uniformity in distribution is NOT natural and cant be good for our bodies"
I could write a Very long explaination for either point.
I guess I will start to tackle the second question by asking you a counter point question: Why do you feel a uniform product is less healthy? In the case of open pollinated corn, (as opposed to hybrid corn), yes I saw some data where the open pollinated corn was more nutrient dense. There could be a very simple reason in that the open pol. corn is planted much thinner population per acre than the population we plant hybrid corn (20k vs 35k/acre). The open pol corn has more fertility available per plant.
Since you mentioned hamburger, I will switch gears to animal science. (Ironically, I just finished lunch @ McD's, using their Wi-Fi to check this thread) We actually had this similar discussion in one of my An Sci classes, so work w/ me on this concept. Let's say we were able to take a trip to a jungle to study Elephants or Lions. Though they might very in size, if we were to study their skeletal structure, the entire herd of elephants would look Very Similar in their angle to their shoulder and their slope to their hip or rump. Why you might ask? Because it's natural selection through the "survival of the fittest." Through generations of existance, the unsound elephants will Not live to be a ripe old age, and thus will have fewer progeny. The unsound male, let's say his rear feet and legs are not sound, he will not breed as many females. Over time, the majority of the herd of elephants will not only be sound, but if you were able to trace their linage, many would at Least 1st or 2nd cousins. Why? Somewhere along the way 1 or 2 males will be dominant and therefore will sire many females, whom might end up mating with their half brothers. Sorry folks, the animal kindom doesn't give a crap about incest! And if there is a flaw in this herd of "inbreds" then weaker ones will eventually be replaced by a stronger line of elephants.
I can tell you as a purebred Angus breeder that we implement selection in every mating. Not only in physical structure for soundness, but also their effeciency of converting forage or grain into gain. We weigh our cattle at birth, weaning (9 months) and a yearWhy? If I am selling bulls to larger commercial cow herds, then I want that bull able to breed 30-50 cows in a 2 month breeding season over a very large terrain; thus structural soundness. Also that commercial producer wants live calves (birth wt.), he wants heavy calves at weaning, and if he retains ownership on the feedlot then he wants efficient gaining calf (actually using LESS grain) to make it to a market weight (usually 1250 lbs at 15-18 mo).
My point is: just b/c this cattle rancher's calves look very similar, how does that make their meat and protein any less nutritious?
I can also tell you that Bt & RR corn has a Very similar protein and starch profile as their non-GMO counterpart.
I'll be back later to chat up factory farms...
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
This thread is full of garbage and emotional complainers.... Eat at McDonald's, it's the healthiest meal you can get! Don't listen to any of the propaganda!
How is organic food not healthier than non-organic food? Eating added chemicals is EXACTLY the same as eating non-added chemicals? That doesn't make sense at all!
News articles are titled and written the way they are so that people don't think or question them and just accept the intention of the author's or sponsor's advertisement.
A child's rhyme stuck in my head...
It said "Life is nothing but a dream."
I've spent so many years in question
To find I'd known this all along.
This thread is full of garbage and emotional complainers.... Eat at McDonald's, it's the healthiest meal you can get! Don't listen to any of the propaganda!
ummm... that might be going a bit far...
live pearl jam is best pearl jam
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
This thread is full of garbage and emotional complainers.... Eat at McDonald's, it's the healthiest meal you can get! Don't listen to any of the propaganda!
You're absolutely right if you want to live (NOT very well either) till you're 30!
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Embrace i appreciate your commentary regarding my local family farm brethren.
I've been wanting to tackle this part of your concerns with 1. factory farming
2. in your words: "The "manipulation" of animals to look alike/match in size for uniformity in distribution is NOT natural and cant be good for our bodies"
I could write a Very long explaination for either point.
I guess I will start to tackle the second question by asking you a counter point question: Why do you feel a uniform product is less healthy? In the case of open pollinated corn, (as opposed to hybrid corn), yes I saw some data where the open pollinated corn was more nutrient dense. There could be a very simple reason in that the open pol. corn is planted much thinner population per acre than the population we plant hybrid corn (20k vs 35k/acre). The open pol corn has more fertility available per plant.
Since you mentioned hamburger, I will switch gears to animal science. (Ironically, I just finished lunch @ McD's, using their Wi-Fi to check this thread) We actually had this similar discussion in one of my An Sci classes, so work w/ me on this concept. Let's say we were able to take a trip to a jungle to study Elephants or Lions. Though they might very in size, if we were to study their skeletal structure, the entire herd of elephants would look Very Similar in their angle to their shoulder and their slope to their hip or rump. Why you might ask? Because it's natural selection through the "survival of the fittest." Through generations of existance, the unsound elephants will Not live to be a ripe old age, and thus will have fewer progeny. The unsound male, let's say his rear feet and legs are not sound, he will not breed as many females. Over time, the majority of the herd of elephants will not only be sound, but if you were able to trace their linage, many would at Least 1st or 2nd cousins. Why? Somewhere along the way 1 or 2 males will be dominant and therefore will sire many females, whom might end up mating with their half brothers. Sorry folks, the animal kindom doesn't give a crap about incest! And if there is a flaw in this herd of "inbreds" then weaker ones will eventually be replaced by a stronger line of elephants.
I can tell you as a purebred Angus breeder that we implement selection in every mating. Not only in physical structure for soundness, but also their effeciency of converting forage or grain into gain. We weigh our cattle at birth, weaning (9 months) and a yearWhy? If I am selling bulls to larger commercial cow herds, then I want that bull able to breed 30-50 cows in a 2 month breeding season over a very large terrain; thus structural soundness. Also that commercial producer wants live calves (birth wt.), he wants heavy calves at weaning, and if he retains ownership on the feedlot then he wants efficient gaining calf (actually using LESS grain) to make it to a market weight (usually 1250 lbs at 15-18 mo).
My point is: just b/c this cattle rancher's calves look very similar, how does that make their meat and protein any less nutritious?
I can also tell you that Bt & RR corn has a Very similar protein and starch profile as their non-GMO counterpart.
I'll be back later to chat up factory farms...
McDonalds - really ?! :problem: Its at the crux of the issue- we supply the people of the earth with crap and filler and it blows them up- just as we do our animals...Bigger isn't always better- In the case of Americans, diabetes is running rampant, the use of too much corn in our diets (esp in form of high fructose) is causing massive issues in the health and longevity of the human life.
I get natural selection and evolution of species but we can't take the "natural" out of it. If we inject with antibiotics, steroids or spray it's not natural and it is going to have effects.
got a car...got some gas...oh let's get out of here-get out of here fast...
I hope you get this message but your not home...I will be there in just a minute or so...
I want to go but I want to go with you.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. -MT
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough. I'm fine, still in it.
This thread is full of garbage and emotional complainers.... Eat at McDonald's, it's the healthiest meal you can get! Don't listen to any of the propaganda!
ummm... that might be going a bit far...
i'm going to guess sarcasm, based on the rest of his/her post.
and i do have to agree that the less chemicals we take in, the better we are. that has nothing to do with more/less nutrients in regards to organic/non-organic....just less toxic substances = good.
Yep d2d i took LiteThe Match (Indifference is 1 of my all time faves-nice handle) as being complete sarcasm.
embrace, ya i was nursin a small hang-over, so i had a weak moment and got some grease...
embrace wrote:
"...we supply the people of the earth with crap and filler and it blows them up- just as we do our animals...Bigger isn't always better- In the case of Americans, diabetes is running rampant, the use of too much corn in our diets (esp in form of high fructose) is causing massive issues in the health and longevity of the human life. I get natural selection and evolution of species but we can't take the "natural" out of it. If we inject with antibiotics, steroids or spray it's not natural and it is going to have effects."
As was mentioned earlier on this thread, most antibiotics fed in commercial swine and cattle operations feed low levels of preventative antibiotics. those drugs will NOT end up in beef and pork as residues as long as growers take the livestock off those meds within 2 weeks of slaughter. like any meds, there are "label" instructions for how these meds are administered. if an animal becomes ill, they are given therapuetic levels to get them healthy again. again, there are "withdrawal" regulations on these meds. IF in a rare occasion a producer would not follow the withdrawal laws, the producer faces some pretty serious fines.
my mom is a former Type II diabetic, so again, you are hitting home with me. i still say people make choices in their eating habits (ok, so i had a bad day), it's Not All on the US farmer. i realize you all get that, but all the country's health ills don't fall on the lap of US Agriculture.
ok gotta jet, a friend invited me over for a steak...
Post edited by vedderman71 on
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
This thread is full of garbage and emotional complainers.... Eat at McDonald's, it's the healthiest meal you can get! Don't listen to any of the propaganda!
ummm... that might be going a bit far...
i'm going to guess sarcasm, based on the rest of his/her post.
and i do have to agree that the less chemicals we take in, the better we are. that has nothing to do with more/less nutrients in regards to organic/non-organic....just less toxic substances = good.
ah
i read it wrong. i thought sarcasm at first and then read the second half as organic is not healthy
woooops
sorry
"The filmmakers have courageously pulled the mask off of giant corporations who treat the human consumer in ways very similar to the animals they send off to slaughter.
It’s terrifying to us to think that the health of our population and future of our country’s farmers seem to get no consideration in the quest for ever increasing profits; and that the very fabric of nature, meaning the seeds for growing our crops, are being mutated then copy-written and privately owned from here to eternity?!"
while i think most of the thread has been a valued discussion and the OP has good points and is obviously very passionate about what he does and how he feels about the industry, i'm not really sure i understand where all the hate towards this documentary is coming from and why factory farms keep getting defended.
first off, the band's message clearly states the movie is about what large corporations do to us and american farmers, and then the premise of this thread is based on seeing a 2 minute trailer... i think that, being on a farm and being very passionate about it gives us a good perspective from people who work with food day in and day out. however, it might also create a bias where its hard to see outside your world. though i have to see this movie still i don't think its a generalized attack against all farming. I'd like to think that the readings, documentaries, lectures, articles etc. that i have gotten info from about this topic aren't ALL wrong.
obviously i'm not saying the OP is wrong in expressing his opinion, i just think that it doesnt hurt to think outside of what you are doing on your farm and open up to the possibility (probability) that others aren't farming sustainably or morally... it just seems to me that you have taken great offense from this movie when the filmmakers aren't even pointing the finger at you... in fact, from what people have said so far, it sounds like they are defending farmers.... :roll:
while i think most of the thread has been a valued discussion and the OP has good points and is obviously very passionate about what he does and how he feels about the industry, i'm not really sure i understand where all the hate towards this documentary is coming from and why factory farms keep getting defended.
first off, the band's message clearly states the movie is about what large corporations do to us and american farmers, and then the premise of this thread is based on seeing a 2 minute trailer... i think that, being on a farm and being very passionate about it gives us a good perspective from people who work with food day in and day out. however, it might also create a bias where its hard to see outside your world. though i have to see this movie still i don't think its a generalized attack against all farming. I'd like to think that the readings, documentaries, lectures, articles etc. that i have gotten info from about this topic aren't ALL wrong.
obviously i'm not saying the OP is wrong in expressing his opinion, i just think that it doesnt hurt to think outside of what you are doing on your farm and open up to the possibility (probability) that others aren't farming sustainably or morally... it just seems to me that you have taken great offense from this movie when the filmmakers aren't even pointing the finger at you... in fact, from what people have said so far, it sounds like they are defending farmers.... :roll:
I don't think the OP has actually seen the movie................ :?:
while i think most of the thread has been a valued discussion and the OP has good points and is obviously very passionate about what he does and how he feels about the industry, i'm not really sure i understand where all the hate towards this documentary is coming from and why factory farms keep getting defended.
first off, the band's message clearly states the movie is about what large corporations do to us and american farmers, and then the premise of this thread is based on seeing a 2 minute trailer... i think that, being on a farm and being very passionate about it gives us a good perspective from people who work with food day in and day out. however, it might also create a bias where its hard to see outside your world. though i have to see this movie still i don't think its a generalized attack against all farming. I'd like to think that the readings, documentaries, lectures, articles etc. that i have gotten info from about this topic aren't ALL wrong.
obviously i'm not saying the OP is wrong in expressing his opinion, i just think that it doesnt hurt to think outside of what you are doing on your farm and open up to the possibility (probability) that others aren't farming sustainably or morally... it just seems to me that you have taken great offense from this movie when the filmmakers aren't even pointing the finger at you... in fact, from what people have said so far, it sounds like they are defending farmers.... :roll:
I don't think the OP has actually seen the movie................ :?:
Comments
ok, but in my very first post i said i didn't think every single farm uses these types of practices but it does happen and i don't think many people would think the average family farmer would do these things, that's probably why it's called Food, INC, not Farming, USA.
so yeah, i'm sure YOU'D have no problem with anyone coming to check your farm and your practices out but farms like yours isn't what this is about. the sad fact is SOME do use things like cement dust, sewage, whatever they can get away with.
on a somewhat related note....i work at an animal rescue and while feeding the other day i looked at the can of beef alpo....the 2st meat product was the 2nd ingredient, meaning there's more of that than only 1 other thing....the first meat in the beef alpo was chicken! the next meat product was the 7th or 8th item and was beef by products. it just made me laugh that there's more chicken than beef in beef alpo
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Btw, as I "educate" the masses on here...NEVER, Ever eat dog or cat food. The "meat" the label refers to comes from "rendered" dead cattle, swine, poultry and even horses. Long story short, when an animal dies of Natural causes, old age etc., the animal science industry discovered long ago that we needed to something useful with the "dead stock." Think of the process as recylcling to make some good instead of incenterating.
Basically the deads are literally ground up and then cooked at very high temperatures to kill any bacteria.
Animal fat rises to the top of the cooker, and it is taken off, further boiled to remove the water, and can be used in the manufacturing of some plactics, and get this, the glycerin is used for those fabric softener sheets you put in your dryer! When the "mash" is cooled it is a chunky meal-like product commonly referred to as meat and bone meal, and that is a key primary ingredient of many pet foods.
Sorry if this is alarming to any of you, but as I've stated previously, I'm here to educate, inform and debunk myths about modern agriculture.
If you don't want your pets consuming such by-products, ask your vet or better high end feed stores about the ingrediants in your pet food. And also know that many smaller dogs should NOT have a diet where corn is listed as one of the top ingrediants. Corn is very high in energy and can be hard on lil dogs' digestive tract.
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
This is a spot on post. Cat's shouldn't really have corn in their diet either as they can't really digest it. I see many mass marketed pet foods that have corn as one of the main ingredients. In fact I used to feed my cat that shit until he got sick and I researched it a bit more and found some really good holistic food. Ever since he's been on it he has had more energy, maintained his weight, and most importantly not gotten sick. It's also amazing how much it changed his stool. He's had some massive passings that just look healthier but also sometimes rival some of my own...he's a big cat, what can I say.
Oh yeah, that reminds me, my uncle's cat used to be extremely lethargic and would always have very dry tiny BM's...well after she started loosing hair on her belly he decided to look into things and changed her diet much like I did and now she has healthier BM's and her coat of hair is getting better and she is more playful than she used to be. So yeah, I guess my point is, paying attention to what you eat is important and so is paying attention to what your pet eats.
I believe there were some places that were actually using recycled pets along with rendered cattle for pet food and the reason this is bad (aside from it being gross and morbid) is that many of those pets were put down by injection due to old age or other complications. From what I've seen that stuff doesn't break down during the cooking process of the pet food so in essence you are feeding your own pet trace amounts of whatever it is that is used to put other pets down.
http://www.biotech-info.net/AAAS_2005_6.pdf
http://www.biotech-info.net/ (some of the links within don't work, but there is some good stuff here)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
I hope you get this message but your not home...I will be there in just a minute or so...
I want to go but I want to go with you.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. -MT
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough. I'm fine, still in it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Well said!
I hope you get this message but your not home...I will be there in just a minute or so...
I want to go but I want to go with you.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. -MT
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough. I'm fine, still in it.
embrace, i quickly skimmed a couple sites. the first pdf was interesting, i can't say much or comment on peach production and their use of pesticides. i would say the picture on the 2nd slide show post WWII farmers, one pic had the pesticide trailer pulled by horses! i shutter to think of what pesticide application was like in fruit prod 50+ years ago.
just know that currently even farmers (let alone commercial applicators) must have a Certified Pesticide Applicators (CPA) license. my Father took a week-end refresher course at Purdue (Go Boilers BEAT Mich!) and then took a multi page test to get and renew his license. not only does the course educate growers on chemicals they use, but the proper application techniques, proper timing of app, proper storage and disposal of chemicals as well as applicator safety, i.e. googles, face masks, rubber gloves etc.
the second link on biotech was interesting. i read most of an summary article on the development RR technology that was written in 2000. http://www.biotech-info.net/felsot1.html
most of what i read was good info, until i got to end. he mentions that when companies "gun"/insert the gene into plant material we don't know where on the chromozone/DNA strand it lands. that might have been true 9 yrs ago, but not now. both Monsanto and Pioneer have a molecular marker technology that allows us to accurately place the "event" i spoke of into the least invasive part of the plants molecular make up. this accomplishes 3 things: allows the plant to work and grow more like an unaltered non-GMO crop, 2. makes the resulting genetics to be more pure and consistant (like 99.99% homogenius) 3. allows the proteins both corn and soybeans produce to be nearly identical grains as their non-GMO counterparts.
more to follow
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
see my exchanges on biotech and bio-engineering. we were told at the Univ of IL back in '92-'93 that GMO crops were in the works, and it was like telling us we would be soon living on Mars! so as a Pioneer seedsmen, i've closely followed this technology and it's development.
some of the basic patent approval of the RR traits for example date back to 'the mid to late '90's. Monsanto had to present it's case to the FDA, USDA and the EPA before the patent was issued. (talk about red-tape) Monsanto had to prove that not only was glyphosate a safe chemical (more later), but it had a very small environmental impact. also, Monsanto had to prove that feeding this GMO grain was harmless to livestock. with the help of many university feeding trials, it was all approved.
btw, glyphosate was one of sciencetist's "mistakes," kinda like the adhesive on post-it notes. glyphosate was originally intended to be...wait for it...SOAP! turns out when mixed in water it foams up way too much (small problem we deal w/ in our sprayers), but it kills anything green it touches.
so while we have been using all these technologies for approaching a decade now, we've all consumed beef, pork and poultry that has been fed these GMO grains...and still yet no reports on any one growing a 3rd nipple!
(Friends ref.) later
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Your post here Vederman depresses me. You pretty much verified the monster that Monsanto and Roundup has created and makes the future for the independent farmer loook pretty darn dim.
I was just telling you what was mentioned in The Future of Food, as to farmers testimonally speaking that their original seed was deemed to be destroyed by Monsanto buying them out underhandedly. It spoke of few farmers fighting, only to lose everything, where most farmers that settled to be bought by Monsanto, had to use Monsanto seeds and destroy their original seeds. It makes sense; when you're bought out, you either go under or you continue to work for said buyer and their product, only.
I know Roundup works great, but it's a weed killer, and if it was up to me, I'd rather eat my food knowing that loads of chemically ridden pesticides weren't used in it's development. Same with a seed created in a labratory. Older farmers weren't about quantity, they were about quality. With the age of pesticides and Roundup, it's all about the more the better. Do you agree with this? Is it a financial gain focus or a quality product focus? I'm sure it's both, but at what cost?
So what is Pioneer doing with all the older seed inventory? You mention that growers have the option to buy and grow that seed, but at what price? What are the conditions for buying it and growing it? I'm convinced there's got to be some.
Thanks for all your insight.
Don't misunderstand my critical comments of Monsanto, even the smaller independent family farms have enjoyed record profits the last couple years, and prolly this year too. Even while being shackled by Monsanto's fees, farmers are still maintaining a good level of profitability.
As India and China continue to grow in not only population, but more iportantly in wealth as their economies continue to expand, all the while the Dollar weakens, the demand for US protein is at a record high level.
Not sure about the farmers who were bought out or forced to sell to Monsanto. Those examples remind me of Canadian examples that were referenced on this thread earlier. I have no doubt Monsanto would use Canadian growers and those law-suits to send a message to US growers as a "shot accross their bow" so to speak.
Monsanto is for sure a monopoly but the industry is doing well.....for now.
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
"So what is Pioneer doing with all the older seed inventory? You mention that growers have the option to buy and grow that seed, but at what price? What are the conditions for buying it and growing it? I'm convinced there's got to be some."
We can sell non-GMO corn and soybean seed to growers/customers/farmers but the GMO stuff not only yields more, but allows us to be less dependant on soil applied insecticides. Corn root-worm continues to be a bigger problem in the Midwest. If we don't plant GMO crops, we need some form of pesticide protection, lest we lose a substantial amount of our crop to corn root-worm.
My Dad has a fellow Pioneer dealer friend who has grown some non-GMO corn this year, I'll find out the premium per bushel they received. There really needs to be a premium to encourage them to grow non-GMO corn.
Many years of old seed is banked in many a location, trust me.
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
Congratulations on being a farmer and only 38. Isn't getting rarer and rarer to find farmers so young. I live in Ontario and seems that the farmers are getting up their and the kids do not want the farm, probably because it is so tough to make a go of it.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I make no apologies for being a capitalists in our family seed business. I am cultivating good relationships with this next generation of growers. When the pendulum swings away from Monsanto I would be glad to be their main supplier of seed corn and soybeans.
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
The factory farms are a huge problem and the gases distributed into the atmosphere are threatening our environment. The "manipulation" of animals to look alike/match in size for uniformity in distribution is NOT natural and cant be good for our bodies. Let's revisit the McDonalds scenario where that giant wants all of their burgers to taste the same so no matter where you go in the world you get the same product. Put aside the carbon emissions for sending this beef all over the world and the detriment to local economies when we go corporate global and focus on what is actually in that product. It's a manufactured product - there is significant difference between what McDonalds puts out and that of a grass fed burger. McD can offer a low price "food product" all over the world but what "cost" is that to the human ingesting that product ? (health, environment, the local economy where they live?)
I hope you get this message but your not home...I will be there in just a minute or so...
I want to go but I want to go with you.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. -MT
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough. I'm fine, still in it.
I've been wanting to tackle this part of your concerns with 1. factory farming
2. in your words: "The "manipulation" of animals to look alike/match in size for uniformity in distribution is NOT natural and cant be good for our bodies"
I could write a Very long explaination for either point.
I guess I will start to tackle the second question by asking you a counter point question: Why do you feel a uniform product is less healthy? In the case of open pollinated corn, (as opposed to hybrid corn), yes I saw some data where the open pollinated corn was more nutrient dense. There could be a very simple reason in that the open pol. corn is planted much thinner population per acre than the population we plant hybrid corn (20k vs 35k/acre). The open pol corn has more fertility available per plant.
Since you mentioned hamburger, I will switch gears to animal science. (Ironically, I just finished lunch @ McD's, using their Wi-Fi to check this thread) We actually had this similar discussion in one of my An Sci classes, so work w/ me on this concept. Let's say we were able to take a trip to a jungle to study Elephants or Lions. Though they might very in size, if we were to study their skeletal structure, the entire herd of elephants would look Very Similar in their angle to their shoulder and their slope to their hip or rump. Why you might ask? Because it's natural selection through the "survival of the fittest." Through generations of existance, the unsound elephants will Not live to be a ripe old age, and thus will have fewer progeny. The unsound male, let's say his rear feet and legs are not sound, he will not breed as many females. Over time, the majority of the herd of elephants will not only be sound, but if you were able to trace their linage, many would at Least 1st or 2nd cousins. Why? Somewhere along the way 1 or 2 males will be dominant and therefore will sire many females, whom might end up mating with their half brothers. Sorry folks, the animal kindom doesn't give a crap about incest! And if there is a flaw in this herd of "inbreds" then weaker ones will eventually be replaced by a stronger line of elephants.
I can tell you as a purebred Angus breeder that we implement selection in every mating. Not only in physical structure for soundness, but also their effeciency of converting forage or grain into gain. We weigh our cattle at birth, weaning (9 months) and a yearWhy? If I am selling bulls to larger commercial cow herds, then I want that bull able to breed 30-50 cows in a 2 month breeding season over a very large terrain; thus structural soundness. Also that commercial producer wants live calves (birth wt.), he wants heavy calves at weaning, and if he retains ownership on the feedlot then he wants efficient gaining calf (actually using LESS grain) to make it to a market weight (usually 1250 lbs at 15-18 mo).
My point is: just b/c this cattle rancher's calves look very similar, how does that make their meat and protein any less nutritious?
I can also tell you that Bt & RR corn has a Very similar protein and starch profile as their non-GMO counterpart.
I'll be back later to chat up factory farms...
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
How is organic food not healthier than non-organic food? Eating added chemicals is EXACTLY the same as eating non-added chemicals? That doesn't make sense at all!
News articles are titled and written the way they are so that people don't think or question them and just accept the intention of the author's or sponsor's advertisement.
It said "Life is nothing but a dream."
I've spent so many years in question
To find I'd known this all along.
ummm... that might be going a bit far...
You're absolutely right if you want to live (NOT very well either) till you're 30!
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
McDonalds - really ?! :problem: Its at the crux of the issue- we supply the people of the earth with crap and filler and it blows them up- just as we do our animals...Bigger isn't always better- In the case of Americans, diabetes is running rampant, the use of too much corn in our diets (esp in form of high fructose) is causing massive issues in the health and longevity of the human life.
I get natural selection and evolution of species but we can't take the "natural" out of it. If we inject with antibiotics, steroids or spray it's not natural and it is going to have effects.
I hope you get this message but your not home...I will be there in just a minute or so...
I want to go but I want to go with you.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. -MT
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough. I'm fine, still in it.
i'm going to guess sarcasm, based on the rest of his/her post.
and i do have to agree that the less chemicals we take in, the better we are. that has nothing to do with more/less nutrients in regards to organic/non-organic....just less toxic substances = good.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
embrace, ya i was nursin a small hang-over, so i had a weak moment and got some grease...
embrace wrote:
"...we supply the people of the earth with crap and filler and it blows them up- just as we do our animals...Bigger isn't always better- In the case of Americans, diabetes is running rampant, the use of too much corn in our diets (esp in form of high fructose) is causing massive issues in the health and longevity of the human life. I get natural selection and evolution of species but we can't take the "natural" out of it. If we inject with antibiotics, steroids or spray it's not natural and it is going to have effects."
As was mentioned earlier on this thread, most antibiotics fed in commercial swine and cattle operations feed low levels of preventative antibiotics. those drugs will NOT end up in beef and pork as residues as long as growers take the livestock off those meds within 2 weeks of slaughter. like any meds, there are "label" instructions for how these meds are administered. if an animal becomes ill, they are given therapuetic levels to get them healthy again. again, there are "withdrawal" regulations on these meds. IF in a rare occasion a producer would not follow the withdrawal laws, the producer faces some pretty serious fines.
my mom is a former Type II diabetic, so again, you are hitting home with me. i still say people make choices in their eating habits (ok, so i had a bad day), it's Not All on the US farmer. i realize you all get that, but all the country's health ills don't fall on the lap of US Agriculture.
ok gotta jet, a friend invited me over for a steak...
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
i read it wrong. i thought sarcasm at first and then read the second half as organic is not healthy
woooops
sorry
carry on... :oops:
It’s terrifying to us to think that the health of our population and future of our country’s farmers seem to get no consideration in the quest for ever increasing profits; and that the very fabric of nature, meaning the seeds for growing our crops, are being mutated then copy-written and privately owned from here to eternity?!"
this is from pearljam.com...
first off, the band's message clearly states the movie is about what large corporations do to us and american farmers, and then the premise of this thread is based on seeing a 2 minute trailer... i think that, being on a farm and being very passionate about it gives us a good perspective from people who work with food day in and day out. however, it might also create a bias where its hard to see outside your world. though i have to see this movie still i don't think its a generalized attack against all farming. I'd like to think that the readings, documentaries, lectures, articles etc. that i have gotten info from about this topic aren't ALL wrong.
obviously i'm not saying the OP is wrong in expressing his opinion, i just think that it doesnt hurt to think outside of what you are doing on your farm and open up to the possibility (probability) that others aren't farming sustainably or morally... it just seems to me that you have taken great offense from this movie when the filmmakers aren't even pointing the finger at you... in fact, from what people have said so far, it sounds like they are defending farmers.... :roll:
I don't think the OP has actually seen the movie................ :?: