7 ms·
From the article: " This high-tech broiler house holds up to 150,000 birds, from hatching to harvesting" No 'decades old photo' either. I find it hard to belie
by mverwijs 9y ago
From the article: " This high-tech broiler house holds up to 150,000 birds, from hatching to harvesting"
No 'decades old photo' either. I find it hard to believe someone loving live animals would put them in such a place.
- spiderfarmer 9y agoThese 150.000 birds are getting much better care from this single farmer than when they were spread over 10.000 households like they were 100 years ago.
- adrianN 9y agoCitation needed. Having a dozen chicken in a large yard seems to me to be pretty nice for the chicken.
- spiderfarmer 9y agoYou forget that nature is brutal. http://www.livingthecountrylife.com/animals/poultry/10-poultry-problems/ http://www.livingthecountrylife.com/animals/poultry/10-poult...
- cool_username 9y agoOut of curiosity, do you genuinely believe there is a citation out there relating to the treatment of chickens on this farm today vs. treatment of chickens on 10000 small household farms 100 years ago? It comes across as though you are demanding impossible standards of evidence here in order to cut off a side of an argument you don't agree with, and don't want to begin to consider? "Citation needed" is not a universally acceptable reflexive alternative to discussion of things you don't personally agree with. > Having a dozen chicken in a large yard seems to me to be pretty nice for the chicken. Citation needed.
- adrianN 9y agoI wouldn't be surprised if there was a paper that compares traditional methods of raising chicken to modern ones. But for the purposes of Internet discussion I would be satisfied with a convincing anecdote.
- spiderfarmer 9y agoRats, foxes and dozens of other meat eating predators would thoroughly enjoy the 10.000 unprotected henhouses. Bird flu has been a big problem historically because of the large amount chickens in urban areas, although it had different names then. It's still a problem now, but it's now only spread by migrating birds. When it comes to diseases. Do you think 10.000 amateur farmers know all ins and outs of chicken diseases as well as the professional chicken farmer? And do you think they are more exposed to diseases in a farm with hygenic corridors or in someones backyard?
- alsetmusic 9y ago> I find it hard to believe someone loving live animals would put them in such a place. I read the parent post as a statement on production and media representation. I didn't see any claim about farmers loving animals. I'm sure many do, but your argument is addressing something different. I love animals. I eat meat. I want humane treatment of animals when they are bred for consumption. I know this is frequently not the case. But this is a different cause than what parent post addresses (aside from the 'decades old' bit about photos, which I am not qualified to address as someone outside the Netherlands).
- usaphp 9y ago> large part of our country thinks that our farmers are incompetent, stupid, nature-hating animal bashers
- spiderfarmer 9y agoAnimal bashing is not something farmers do.
- codefined 9y agoMost farmers do literally bash the animals before slaughtering them[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol
- spiderfarmer 9y agoI am talking about Dutch farmers. This is exactly what I mean. For example, early this year Dutch farmers had to explain themselves for something that happened in a Belgian slaughterhouse. Do you like it when your mother blames you for bugs in her printer's Windows driver?
- NicoJuicy 9y agoWhat did the Netherlands had to do with this? The only thing I know is that done Dutch people sold illegal medecine to Belgian farmers and the Dutch were informed, but didn't alert Belgium That's what they had to explain, because it endangered the did supply
- 21 9y agoFunny, looking at the associated picture tells me a different story. Look at how uncrowded the chicks are and how much free space to move they have, and compare with US where they are so packed together that they can't even turn in place. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/rights-exempt/2017/09/hunger-solution/hunger-solution-chickens.adapt.1190.1.jpg http://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/right...
- enraged_camel 9y agoIt seems strange to point out how well you are treating an animal when you are slaughtering it for consumption in the end. In fact that is the animal's only purpose of existence.
- 21 9y agoI think you look for purpose where there is little. What's the purpose of an animal living in the wild? Ecologists would say eat or be eaten, thrive, multiply. From an evolutionary point of view you could say that cows, chickens, pigs (and cats, dogs, horses) are one of the most successful animals, exactly because we eat (or pet) them.
- spiderfarmer 9y agoMaybe I, like all my predecessors, am not yet 'evolved' enough to give up on eating meat. In the meantime I like the fact that the animals are growing up disease free in relatively humane conditions.
- enraged_camel 9y agoIt's not about being evolved enough, whatever that means. Eating meat is a conscious choice. Humans can do without meat. We are omnivores, not carnivores. I mean yes, in the grand scheme of things, treating animals well before slaughtering them is better than treating them poorly, but it misses the forest for the trees.
- 9y ago
- oh_sigh 9y agoLook at the bird density. They aren't packed in there in the slightest. Have you studied chicken raising? Do you have a better system? Do you really love all live animals or just intellectually love them and feel empathy when one is mistreated?
- spiderfarmer 9y agoFor animal rights activists there is no acceptable way to keep an animal. They want to regulate farms until it's economically impossible to produce meat (from living animals). I get that, but in my view nature is brutal and I have no problem killing an animal for a nice BBQ. Who is closer to nature?
- bostik 9y agoFor as long as there have been humans, they have made every effort possible to get away from nature. (I didn't come up with that joke. Gaiman and Pratchett did.)
- oh_sigh 9y agoYes, because nature isn't your friend and is completely indifferent to your pain, suffering, and existence. It's easy to fetishize and "love" nature while we sit in our climate controlled boxes looking at pictures of the 1% most scenic sites in the world.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoThat’s a “no true Scotsman” argument if ever I’ve heard one!
- krageon 9y agoThis is simply untrue. You can try spending some time having an actual conversation with real animal rights activists, you might find out that they're real nuanced people (just like you, hopefully).
- mverwijs 9y ago