Whoa. Another huge salvo in the HSUS wars.

[Debbie Meier]

Kinda off topic but fits in with the exteme "I'm vegan so everyone else needs to be and here is why" view... this article was just sent via the ASI weekly e-news. There is so much that we don't know, so many arguments that are made based on unproven or under developed science

 

Livestock Absolved of Causing Global Warming

 

Livestock could actually be good for the environment according to a new study that found grazing cows or sheep can cut emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas.

 

In the past, environmentalists have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming.

 

However a new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.

 

Authors of the paper, published in Nature, say the research shows that in certain circumstances, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland.

 

The research will reignite the argument over whether to eat red meat after other studies suggested that grass fed cattle in the United Kingdom and United States can also be good for the environment as long as the animals are free range.

 

Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, carried out the study in Inner Mongolia in China. He found that grassland produced more nitrous oxide during the spring thaw when sheep or cattle have not been grazing. This is because the greenhouse gas, also known as laughing gas, is released by microbes in the soil. When the grass is long snow settles keeping the microbes warm and providing water, however, when the grass is cut short by animals the ground freezes and the microbes die.

 

Butterbach-Bahl said the study overturned assumptions about grazing goats and cattle.

 

"It's been generally assumed that if you increase livestock numbers you get a rise in emissions of nitrous oxide. This is not the case," he said.

 

Estimated nitrous oxide emissions from temperate grasslands in places like Inner Mongolia as well as vast swatches of the United States, Canada, Russia and China account for up a third of the total amount of the greenhouse gas produced every year. Nitrous oxide is the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.

 

eprinted in part from Telegraph.co.uk

[Eileen Stein]

As far as the sabateurs deal, you just don't know, what will people do to get their moment of fame?

 

And earlier you wrote:

 

BTW, we have heard of other situations where video was staged, at one raid the claim is that the malnourished injured dog in a promo video and photos was of a breed that the breeder did not raise. Yes, it was a hunting dog, but the breeder did not breed those types of hunting dogs. We also heard of volunteers running out into a corn field and reappearing with a plastic bag of puppy bones, kinda one of those "Yeah, right" moments for me. Anyway, the idea that the video was staged does not surprise me in the least.

 

Does it matter at all who you hear this stuff from? Do you honestly think it would be so hard for the HSUS to find any examples of overcrowding and mistreatment in chicken houses that they'd have to doctor video or plant evidence or make it up? Or to find malnourished injured dogs or puppy remains in a puppy mill?

 

In your mind, what is considered a fast and relatively painless method?

 

Gunshot, for example, if you know what you're doing.

[Ooky]

Kinda off topic but fits in with the exteme "I'm vegan so everyone else needs to be and here is why" view... this article was just sent via the ASI weekly e-news. There is so much that we don't know, so many arguments that are made based on unproven or under developed science

 

Very cool article, I have read it. But note, these possible reductons to overall NO2 emmision by microbes in grasslands would only apply to pasture-raised animals, not feedlot animals. And only in cold climates.

 

I see this as a better understanding of biogeochemistry. And I find it to be further evidence that when a grassland area has lost its native large grazing herds, the ecosystem is out of balance, and in my mind this should be replaced with a substitute grazing animal. Microbes have always been here, releasing NO2. The anthropogenic change was loss of native grazers in certain areas for a time. And, livestock still release methane, this does not change that.

 

However, I wonder what you are characterizing as "underdevveloped science". Scientists are constantly refining and testing models and hypotheses, so in effect there is no "fully developed" science. To view this as the "ultimate" truth because it backs your argument, as it were, would not be right either. This model will also undergo further refinement, and if results are not replicated by other scientists, or in other systems, it will be replaced with a different understanding altogether.

[Debbie Meier]

However, I wonder what you are characterizing as "underdevveloped science". Scientists are constantly refining and testing models and hypotheses, so in effect there is no "fully developed" science. To view this as the "ultimate" truth because it backs your argument, as it were, would not be right either. This model will also undergo further refinement, and if results are not replicated by other scientists, or in other systems, it will be replaced with a different understanding altogether.

 

I'm looking at it from a voter, lobby or political viewpoint. A new scientific study is done and groups that have one agenda or another will view the study as pro or con, they then sway for support based on that study and those that sign the petition or cast their ballat are under the assumption that they are doing the right thing based on a proven fact, when in reality a few years later they may wish they had not as science discovers that there was more to the over situation.

 

Simular to the large confinements, where as they emit something bad how many consider the overall good they produce? There is a balance that is being struck with every thing we do. Personally it wouldn't bother me if the confinement farms were banned but I also have no problem with the way the animals are housed in the majority of the confinements, I would feel bad that alot of people we know would fall on really hard times due to it and don't see enough positive coming from the banning to stand up and vote with others that want them stopped, but rather I see enough negative to vote for free enterprise and the right to raise you livestock in a fashion that is most economically feasible for you. Anyway, the question is, if you (the collective you that are anti confinement) get there way, what will the scientific studies begin to reveal in 10 years, there are going to be negative effects to the positive action and have those negative effects been considered or are we just going to deal with that when we get there?

 

Does it matter at all who you hear this stuff from? Do you honestly think it would be so hard for the HSUS to find any examples of overcrowding and mistreatment in chicken houses that they'd have to doctor video or plant evidence or make it up? Or to find malnourished injured dogs or puppy remains in a puppy mill?

 

Does it matter at all who you hear this stuff from? Yes it does, as far as the propane deal it was an alert, Wayne is a propane driver. As far as the puppy remains, we got to meet the breeder personally, evaluate his character and yes I believe him. Now there is another breeder that we know that if she said it, I would not believe it. So, these are not media sourced or sensationalized reports.

 

Do you honestly think it would be so hard for the HSUS to find any examples of overcrowding and mistreatment in chicken houses that they'd have to doctor video or plant evidence or make it up? What is considered overcrowding and mistreatment, what makes it "overcrowding"? Death, heck a hen could die out in an open field. What makes mistreatment? Beak clipping? That's so that the hens don't hurt each other, hens can be canibibles, saw myself here at home when my hens killed and snacked on our ducklings. Ok, now someone says, just feed them...they had plenty of the right type of food. I never said that they planted evidence or doctored the video with the chickens, I said that they may not have been where they say they were. There was an interesting development right after the video release, the company that was "exposed" was spotlighted for contributing a huge quantity of eggs to the homeless shelters. Here is my question, which lead to which, was one done to undermine the upcoming PR or was the PR done to calm the bad press? I honestly don't know but I wonder.

 

Or to find malnourished injured dogs or puppy remains in a puppy mill?

 

What is your definition of a puppy mill? Is a breeder that has 150 well kept dogs that incinerates or buries the remains properly (hmm, wonder how many people are aware of the regulations when it comes to animal remains in their area) still a puppy mill, or is he not a puppy mill since he cares properly for his dogs? Here comes the "there is no way you can properly care for 150 dogs.", seems like the shelters are doing it, all depends on what you consider proper care, food, water, shelter or maintain each on as if they are a family pet. I know lots of people that have one or two dogs that just provide the minimum care, it's just a dog.

 

Kinda interesting that breeders are expected to have totally injury free dogs, wonder what the rest of the pet owners are doing wrong.

 

Then there's the latest here in Iowa "in desperate need of dental care", when they can't find anything else wrong that's the last ditch thing to try to keep their sympathic heartstring plucked audience. Cripes, how many lap dogs have nasty teeth that live in apartments with owners that love them dearly? Better start taking their dogs away, they don't provide adaquate care.

 

I'm not saying that there are no bad players when it comes to confinements or mills, but there are many that are doing a good job and care for their animals. I've walked through hog confinements myself, I did not see any abuse, my arrival was not preplanned so there was no special presentation for m, I went with Wayne to help him with his daily routine at the confinement. I have not been through a chicken farm, but it would not surprise me to find the same.

[Eileen Stein]

Deb, this is getting too scattershot for me to keep up with. I asked whether you really believed that HSUS undercover operatives couldn't find overcrowding or mistreatment in a chicken house, or injured malnourished dogs in a puppy mill, without the need for doctoring photos, creating the damage themselves, or the like. To the extent you replied to this, you seem to be saying yes, there are things that would look bad in chicken houses (dead chickens, for example) or in dog breeding operations (injuries, for example), but who's to say what's overcrowding or what's a puppy mill, and those things aren't necessarily a sign of anything bad, and pet owners often neglect or mistreat their animals too, and, and, and . . . . Look over there!

 

So it sounds to me as if you are conceding this point at least -- that it would not be hard for HSUS undercover folks to get footage that would look bad to its target audience (press and public). Then why repeat these unsupported claims of doctored video, sabotage, maybe it's another identical chicken house, etc., as if they were probable explanations? Why does HSUS care whose chicken house it is -- wouldn't any commercial chicken operation be as good as any other to make the point they want to make? And why on earth come up with the argument that HSUS might have somehow found out that a particular egg producer was going to donate eggs to the homeless and so was motivated to manufacture this scheme to counteract the devastating PR coup such a donation would be for commercial egg producers? I mean, come on.

 

I have been in chicken houses on the eastern shore of Maryland. I have been in puppy mills. I have seen enough nasty stuff to know that HSUS does not need to fake their photos. In fact, I saw aljones's dog Ody when he was in a puppy mill, before she got him, and he was, yes, injured and malnourished. If I were to post photos of Ody taken in that puppy mill, knowing the owner/miller as I do I'm sure he would say that he'd never had a dog who looked like that dog, and sound very earnest and sincere when he said it. He would also say that Ody wasn't injured while he was there so the injury must have happened later, and that the picture was probably doctored, and that he'd taken Ody to a vet for the injury and given him the best of care, and that he would have taken Ody to a vet but he's a poor man unlike these rich folks who can just go to a vet whether it's necessary or not, and that the picture was probably taken at Mike M's kennel rather than his, and that I was out to get him because of [take your pick of reasons]. He would even say some of these mutually inconsistent things to the same person. And I guess a fair number of people would want to believe him, and some of them actually would believe him.

 

Maybe that's why it all sounds so lame and hollow to me.

[Mark Billadeau]

if the humane consumer is willing to pay more for humanely produced meat. But if enough people shift away from eating meat because they are unable to get humanely produced meat, and they lose their taste for feeding off the misery of animals, that does spell trouble for producers using the feedlot/confinement systems that currently produce the overwhelming majority of our meat (lamb excluded).

IMHO you are overly optimisitc about the majority of consumers being willing to pay to be "humane consumers" or even socially responsible consumers.

 

As far as regulations, HSUS actions will likely force new regs; Big Ag will have significant input on how those regs are written; the added effort/cost for small ag will be a bigger burden on their bottom line than it is on Big Ag. This is based upon simple trend analysis (history) of what happens when regs change (Big Ag lobby is more influential than the non existent small ag lobby).

 

But then I'm typically cynical.

[juliepoudrier]

Debbie,

I don't particularly want to get involved in this discussion, but the debeaked chickens comment you just made has forced me to. There's plenty of evidence to support the claim that chickens who are overcrowded will peck each other to death/cannibalize. Yep, chickens will eat other living creatures (I've even tossed mice I've found in the feed cans out to the chickens) BUT (and it's a huge BUT), chickens that are kept with adequate space or free roaming don't generally cannibalize or peck one another to death. So arguing debeaking is for the safety of chickens while using the examples that chickens will kill a duckling is a bit specious IMO. It's pretty common knowledge that overcrowding and the resulting stress is what causes chickens to peck each other to death, and since it's simpler/cheaper to debeak the chickens than to provide more space, that's what's done. Frankly, my experience with chicken houses has led me to raise my own chickens for slaughter. I personally wouldn't want to eat chickens raised that way. It didn't take HSUS or anyone else to help me come to that conclusion, just my own first-hand observations.

 

J.

[jdarling]

Is your defintion of humanely produced meat pasture fed? If so, do you think the USA can pasture feed 94.5 million cattle, 64 million hogs/pigs, 5.7 million sheep and 3 million goats (plus all other grazing animals)

 

Wow ... those numbers are staggering. I wonder what percentage goes to McDonalds directly, and what overall percentage makes up the fast food industry.

 

I'm not into eating meat that comes from animals who have been fed genetically modified feed, and that is most of what you find at the grocery stores. The part that irritates me is that the consumer is not being informed about what went into the food they're being served/sold at most places. Would people buy it if they knew how it got there? Unfortunately, if you ask a lot of city folk where their food comes from, they say, "Well, the grocery store! Duh!"

 

Yes. You're right. It comes from the grocery store. Can't argue with such brilliance.

 

Sorry ... tangent.

 

The video of the chickens ... even if it is doctored a bit the way Rose Farms is claiming ... the entire thing wasn't faked. If you watch Food, Inc. and the like on Hulu, you can see the disgusting conditions most production chickens are in because the consumer is looking for big white breasts of meat, and very little dark meat. So the chickens are raised in tight quarters so they can't walk, and therefore, their legs don't develop but they fatten right up in almost 1/2 the time a free range chicken does, and when it does try to walk, it can only walk about three steps before it has to plop back down again (and don't think too much about what it's plopping back down on ... that'll gross you out too).

[Eileen Stein]

IMHO you are overly optimisitc about the majority of consumers being willing to pay to be "humane consumers" or even socially responsible consumers.

 

Maybe so. Certainly a lot of people won't be willing to pay more, and a lot will, and what the relative percentages are only time will tell. Right now my impression is that the number willing to pay more for humanely raised meat exceeds the supply available. That presents a marketing opportunity for humane producers.

 

As far as regulations, HSUS actions will likely force new regs; Big Ag will have significant input on how those regs are written; the added effort/cost for small ag will be a bigger burden on their bottom line than it is on Big Ag. This is based upon simple trend analysis (history) of what happens when regs change (Big Ag lobby is more influential than the non existent small ag lobby).

 

Well, you're making it sound as if Big Ag will be the competitive beneficiary of any regs that HSUS can win support for. Funny Big Ag doesn't seem to think so, or they wouldn't be going so all out to discredit the HSUS. I kinda doubt it myself, and your basis for this conclusion is pretty vague. The Big Ag lobby is certainly more influential than the small ag lobby, but Big Ag likes to hide behind the family farmer, so the family farmer's situation would certainly be advocated for. Then too, is the Big Ag lobby more influential than the animal rights/welfare lobby plus HSUS-influenced public opinion plus the small ag lobby? I guess time will tell here too. Regulation of confinement operations does not affect non-confinement operations, and it's routine in enacting federal laws and regulations to exempt operations below a certain size (e.g., most businesses are not covered by federal laws against employment discrimination, which exempt employers with fewer than 15 employees, or whose workforce rises above that number only seasonally). It seems to me you'd need to know more about specific regulatory proposals before you could predict that they will burden the small producer more than Big Ag.

[Mark Billadeau]

Based upon the past, whenever there is a change made to regs the lobby interest with the most influence is the biggest beneficiary under the new regs. That does not mean the one with the biggest lobby interest won't fight the change, only that under the new regs they will loose the least. In the absence of proposed regs, all we have to go on is what has happened in the past.

[Debbie Meier]

Eileen, who do you think is going to have the money to make the changes? Do you think that if the larger confinements were made illegal that it would'nt soon follow for the small confinements? If regulation was based on a certain number of animals in a given facility your just going to see smaller facilities take their place with maximum stocking rate based on return. It's going to trickle down.

 

It's all about economics, pushing the envelope and getting the most out of your investment. If you have a barn how many animals can you put into it and still have them gain the maximum amount while feeding them the least while having a low mortality rate. What low cost changes can you make that will allow you to feed more in the same space while using the same amount of labor.

 

 

Certainly a lot of people won't be willing to pay more, and a lot will, and what the relative percentages are only time will tell. Right now my impression is that the number willing to pay more for humanely raised meat exceeds the supply available. That presents a marketing opportunity for humane producers.

 

I wonder what percentage can afford to pay more and would change over to a different protein source if it came down to money. Sounds like a great opportunity for the non-meat based food industry. Isn't that a goal of HSUS, or is that just a unfounded rumor? And let's see, where does the protein source in their new dog food originate from? Are they atleast supporting American Farmers?

[Debbie Meier]

Opps, just had my questions answered about the HSUS dogfood...

 

Look, over there: Tagged along on an HSUS Lobby Day

[Eileen Stein]

Based upon the past, whenever there is a change made to regs the lobby interest with the most influence is the biggest beneficiary under the new regs. That does not mean the one with the biggest lobby interest won't fight the change, only that under the new regs they will loose the least. In the absence of proposed regs, all we have to go on is what has happened in the past.

 

Well, I've been involved in the drafting of a number of statutes and regulations, and in my experience that is certainly not always the case. The factors that influence the outcome are much more complicated than that. In fact, I would say it's probably not even true a majority of the time, although a lot of lobbyists make a nice living from persuading people that that's how it works.

 

Opps, just had my questions answered about the HSUS dogfood...

 

Look, over there: Tagged along on an HSUS Lobby Day

 

Deb, based on your participation in this earlier thread, you already knew where HSUS's dog food comes from. But I can see where the temptation to post another link to humanewatch.org would be hard to resist.

[Mark Billadeau]

Deb, based on your participation in this earlier thread, you already knew where HSUS's dog food comes from. But I can see where the temptation to post another link to humanewatch.org would be hard to resist.

But is was an interesting first hand account of the inner workings of the HSUS lobbing activities and methods.

[Eileen Stein]

But is was an interesting first hand account of the inner workings of the HSUS lobbing activities and methods.

 

And from such an impartial source!

 

Oops, I'm repeating myself. Guess it's time to stop.

[geonni banner]

jdarling:

"Wow ... those numbers are staggering. I wonder what percentage goes to McDonalds directly, and what overall percentage makes up the fast food industry."

 

There has been a story circulating for a long time that Mac Donald's gets its beef from Argentina/ South America. Snopes had an article about it in 2002:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mcdbeef.asp

 

The thing I found interesting about this article was that Mac Donald's supposedly claimed they could not get enough sufficiently lean meat from American sources, so they began buying grass-fed beef from New Zealand and Australia.

[juliepoudrier]

Ha! Ha! No one associated McDonald's with lean beef. Oh, I know, since they're going to fry everything in fat anyway, they probably need lean beef so that the fat content isn't even more staggering than it actually is.

 

It is true, though, that Americans like their beef well-marbled and thus the flavor that comes from that fat. South Americans prefer a leaner, grass-fed beef in general. Like with many things, we have had our tastes defined for us largely by what's available on the mass market. I am really looking forward to sampling my home-grown chickens to see what the flavor difference is (I understand that most heritage breeds--read that as old farmstead breeds--are more flavorful than what one can currently buy in a grocery store).

 

A complete aside, but I've drunk skim milk for years and now when I'm given whole milk it tastes funny to me. But the other day I got some raw goat'smilk from a friend and it tasted quite good. Maybe it was all the bacteria floating around in it, lol! (j/k, I was raised on raw goat's milk)

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

No first hand accounts are truly impartial.

No information presented to the public is impartial.

No publicity campaigns are impartial.

No website is impartial.

 

Therefore, there is no reason to state a source is not impartial.

 

Of course that does not mean it is not accurate.

[Debbie Meier]

Actually the timing of it was not intentional, I read the article in the latest link after I posted the dog food question in this thread, and yes I was aware of the answer but did not set up the situation.

[Debbie Meier]

And from such an impartial source!

 

Oops, I'm repeating myself. Guess it's time to stop.

 

 

[Debbie Meier]

jdarling:

"Wow ... those numbers are staggering. I wonder what percentage goes to McDonalds directly, and what overall percentage makes up the fast food industry."

 

There has been a story circulating for a long time that Mac Donald's gets its beef from Argentina/ South America. Snopes had an article about it in 2002:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mcdbeef.asp

 

The thing I found interesting about this article was that Mac Donald's supposedly claimed they could not get enough sufficiently lean meat from American sources, so they began buying grass-fed beef from New Zealand and Australia.

 

 

Back in the 80's I worked at a meat packing plant, we were getting semi loads of meat from New Zealand. It was being ground and put into patty form and distributed to restaurants, some fast food chains. The meat came in boneless frozen chunks that were in big bins.

 

I think it is simular to the lamb deal, lots of imported lamb being sold here. If it is anything like the pork industy, so much is reliant on contract, who can provide the most consistent supply at the lowest price. According to Wayne, most of the pork produced by the company he worked for was exported under contract it didn't end up on US tables, don't know if it is accurate, call it hearsay.

[Eileen Stein]

No first hand accounts are truly impartial.

No information presented to the public is impartial.

No publicity campaigns are impartial.

No website is impartial.

 

Therefore, there is no reason to state a source is not impartial.

 

That's just silliness. Most people are impartial about most subjects, because they simply don't care enough about them to have a bias. Ask me to give you a first hand account of a soccer game between any two teams of your choosing, and you'll get an impartial account. Ask me to present comparative information to the public on my experience with tub and tile cleaners, and you'll get an impartial account (if you ask the manufacturer's paid spokesperson, not so much). If a newspaper reporter does not present impartial information to the public in a news story he's reporting, he is not doing his job. OTOH, if an entity like humanewatch.org, set up and funded for the sole purpose of discrediting HSUS, does present impartial information about HSUS, it's not doing its job. If you give the statements of a paid hatchet man the same credence you give to an observer with no hatchet to grind, you have misplaced your critical faculties.

[Mark Billadeau]

You really think the news outlets are impartial?

You really think HSUS is impartial?

You really think observers don't (unconsciously or consciously) report with their own biases?

 

Clearly we are never going to get anywhere with this; I distrust Animal Rights groups (HSUS is one) activies, motives, and long term goals.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

"It's all about economics, pushing the envelope and getting the most out of your investment."

 

Dear Doggers,

 

I'm not quite sure why Ms. Meier believes confinement rearing is either necessary ( Are the Swedes who outlawed the practice 20 years ago chickenless?) or beneficial for small farmers. Dunno about hog contracts but here in Virginia, to get a poultry contract one mortgages the farm . One pays for and builds the house(s) at 100k per house to company specs. These houses are useless for any other farm purpose. In past years (West Va passed a law against this practice) you only then got your yellow dog contract (lots of verbal promises until now). Oops: the company can deliver birds in any state of health and you must take them. They can refuse any of your grown birds. They supply the feed at their prices and pay what they determine for the birds. Of course you can say no at this point but probably your mortgage lender wouldn't be glad. Subsequently you get to abuse poultry while working in the same health conditions as wastewater and cotton plant workers. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...0497&db=all

 

In a good year, your net per house is about 30k.

 

 

They are rural sweat shops, ugly, animal abusive and exploitative of farmers and the latinos who work in them.

 

Donald McCaig

[Eileen Stein]

You really think the news outlets are impartial?

 

Some definitely are. You must think you're capable of recognizing impartiality when you see it, or you wouldn't be able to judge them as partial. That means it's possible for a news report to be impartial.

 

You really think HSUS is impartial?

 

Certainly not! Where could you have gotten such an idea? They are an advocacy organization.

 

You really think observers don't (unconsciously or consciously) report with their own biases?

 

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have no biases (like me and the soccer game), and sometimes they have biases but they are quite capable of recognizing them and setting them aside to give a fair and unbiased report. You must have seen a scientist with that capability at some point in your career, haven't you?

 

Clearly we are never going to get anywhere with this; I distrust Animal Rights groups (HSUS is one) activies, motives, and long term goals.

 

I know you do. But I'm surprised that would blind you to the fact that some sources of information about HSUS are biased and some are not.

 

I do have concerns about the mistreatment of animals, obviously, but I don't consider myself biased about HSUS. I am happy to point to things they've said or done that I think are disgraceful, or that show a profound lack of understanding about animals, or that I otherwise disapprove of. But I don't assume that everything they do is evil or has an evil motive. It's irritation at that kind of bias that causes me to post, and to risk being mistakenly considered an HSUS advocate.