Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We're still a far cry away from all those people crying that we don't have enough food when its blatantly false. Food isn't the problem, its the equitable distribution of it.

never mind... To late. I was not on the page I thought I was.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some essential amino acids are not available from plant sources too.

Could you please name them? It's clear one of us is grossly ignorant on the matter and if it's me I loathe to remain uneducated.

It appears I misspoke on this.

While you can get all essential Amino acids from plants, only animal proteins contain all the essential amino acids together. IE: no plant foods are complete proteins. Meaning that without meat its far harder to get all your essential proteins. They are histidine, lysine, threonine, methionine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine and tryptophan. Only meat has all 9 together in useful quantities.

Vegetarians and Vegans are also often deficient in several other important nutrients, like Vitamin B12.

gak. You mean Vegetarians might have to eat Rice and Beans? feth that gak. Who in the world eats more than one thing? Game over plants.

That's more than misspeaking, that's total reversal of the previous statement.

A well planned diet of strictly plant material can provide every nutrient in sufficient amounts save the only one you've correctly cited here - B12 which is unavailable at all from plants and mostly only from animals. That said a meat is far from the most efficient way to get B12 from animals, certainly the flesh of large mammals are a horrible way of getting it from an ecological standpoint.

What's more true is that the good plant sources for every nutrient are not always widely available to or readily accepted by all populations everywhere.

I'm a meat eater. I'm not about to stop eating meat. I'm not about to stop eating mammals. Pigs are pretty much pure deliciousness given physical form, a sort of flavor elemental if you would. That said it's silly to go about pretending that Pork Chops, Chicken Legs or even the odd squirrel are an essential part of the human diet.

Meat is something humans are adapted for eating. Meat is something that's perfectly good for us. Meat also has an high energy cost to produce, has huge ecological footprints and is not necessary.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Rate of course.

Death was about 5% higher in the lower density cages, this includes death caused by cannibalism(which starts due to injury or disease opening a wound which chickens have a compulsion to pick at). While it is a small increase, it does show that having more space doesn't improve the bird's welfare like proponents of larger cages claimed.

I think your being somewhat disingenuous here. To a point violence and canabilism among chickens does increase as stocking densities go down, but then quickly decrease as stocking densities reduce further. Reduction in stocking rates however does reduce other effects on birds, from reduced illness to less damage from waste. If you look at high density birds you will see red marks on their legs. This is from ammonia burns. Cannibalise, ammonia burns and violence disappears in stocking levels required to be called free range in the EU.

Sure, if you actually give them a ton of space. But then at that point you lose out on making any profit without jacking prices up to exorbitant levels.

The increase in space mandated by Prop2 doesn't increase bird welfare, but it does hurt businesses who are already barely making money. They only clear a few pennies per dozen over expenses. And now businesses will have to pay millions to update their cages to comply with a nebulous and undefined standard or move out of state, and then ship eggs into California. Increasing prices for consumers, do nothing for bird welfare, and increase pollution due to longer shipping.

Its not disingenuous, its applied to the specific situation. Free range is better for the bird, but its not better for people. And ultimately people > birds.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sure, if you actually give them a ton of space. But then at that point you lose out on making any profit without jacking prices up to exorbitant levels.

If you slap it with a "Free range organically grass fed" blah blah blah label, you sure as gak can jack up the prices

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sure, if you actually give them a ton of space. But then at that point you lose out on making any profit without jacking prices up to exorbitant levels.

The increase in space mandated by Prop2 doesn't increase bird welfare, but it does hurt businesses who are already barely making money. They only clear a few pennies per dozen over expenses. And now businesses will have to pay millions to update their cages to comply with a nebulous and undefined standard or move out of state, and then ship eggs into California. Increasing prices for consumers, do nothing for bird welfare, and increase pollution due to longer shipping.

Its not disingenuous, its applied to the specific situation. Free range is better for the bird, but its not better for people. And ultimately people > birds.

Or you could argue that meat has become far to cheap at the expense of animal welfare. I would argue it is not "exorbitant levels", but that £8/kg for chicken is reasonable price, and £2/kg is far too cheap. Eggs only go up by a small amount. You were claiming that welfare was the highest concern of farmers, as higher welfare makes for a better price, now your arguing the opposite. You specifically states "it does show that having more space doesn't improve the bird's welfare like proponents of larger cages claimed" with no disclaimer or context. That is why I was saying you were being disingenuous. Had you mentioned that a specific regulation was not appropriate or achieve what it sets out to do, I would not disagree, but you have been making sweeping statements about how factory farming is not a problem, more space is not a good thing and that birds must be fine because otherwise farmers would not do it. Your claim that "it is not better for people" is working on the assumption that the only defining factor in the equation should be getting the most product for the least money, but the change in welfare standards in the UK and EU show that this is not the case.

"Living biosphere"

So basically a school to raise pretentious little gaks most people will want to bitch slap down a flight of stairs?

Exactly.