4 ms·

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26669595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26669595/ >That study measured fecal cortisol (indicator for stress) upo

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26669595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26669595/ >That study measured fecal cortisol (indicator for stress) upon arriving at a feedlot and after fattening and the animals seem to be within normal limits the whole time. It seems like your opinion is not supported by the scientific evidence that reflects stress levels.

throw_away 7y ago
I'm not going to buy the whole paper, but this seems to be studying whether there is additional stress in humid, tropical climates, not whether feedlots affect stress levels. Note that there is no non-feedlot control. The fact that it says that stress indicators were in the "normal ranges for cattle" could mean simply that they are not more stressed than feedlot animals in non-humid, non-tropical climates. The one paper that cites this one is also about how temperature and climate differences affect reproduction rates: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191961 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- wysifnwyg 7y ago
  >That study measured fecal cortisol (indicator for stress) upon arriving at a feedlot and after fattening and the animals seem to be within normal limits the whole time. Perhaps you have a different definition of what normal means?
  - throw_away 7y ago
    I think you're willfully ignoring the main intent of this paper (effects of climate, not effects of feedlots) and instead replying with trite, condescending responses and nitpicks, so I highly doubt anything productive can come out of this thread. I don't think that's normal. I think that's trolling. & I think I'm done here.
    - wysifnwyg 7y ago
      If you've got any evidence which would support the idea that they were stressed, I would imagine you'd provide it. As you haven't, we both know what the answer is.
lawlessone 7y ago
>It seems like your opinion is not supported by the scientific evidence that reflects stress levels. people can be happy in pretty shite situations too.
- wysifnwyg 7y ago
  One animal's "shite situation" is another animal's "happy situation".
ForrestN 7y ago
This summary is certainly not scientific evidence of the experience of suffering in these animals! As a start, who decided what level of stress is "within normal limits?" If the idea is that this somehow "scientifically" proves that cows don't suffer when confined in abject squalor, well, good luck with that.
- wysifnwyg 7y ago
  It seems like you'd prefer to reject science when it doesn't support your opinions.
  - throw_away 7y ago
    It seems you just read the titles of papers and then use them as weapons to further your own viewpoint even when reasonable arguments are made that the papers don't mean what you think they mean.
    - wysifnwyg 7y ago
      >That study measured fecal cortisol (indicator for stress) upon arriving at a feedlot and after fattening and the animals seem to be within normal limits the whole time. If you're not aware, that's not the title of the paper and is indeed the content.

throw_away 7y ago

I'm not going to buy the whole paper, but this seems to be studying whether there is additional stress in humid, tropical climates, not whether feedlots affect stress levels. Note that there is no non-feedlot control. The fact that it says that stress indicators were in the "normal ranges for cattle" could mean simply that they are not more stressed than feedlot animals in non-humid, non-tropical climates. The one paper that cites this one is also about how temperature and climate differences affect reproduction rates: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191961 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

wysifnwyg 7y ago
>That study measured fecal cortisol (indicator for stress) upon arriving at a feedlot and after fattening and the animals seem to be within normal limits the whole time. Perhaps you have a different definition of what normal means?
- throw_away 7y ago
  I think you're willfully ignoring the main intent of this paper (effects of climate, not effects of feedlots) and instead replying with trite, condescending responses and nitpicks, so I highly doubt anything productive can come out of this thread. I don't think that's normal. I think that's trolling. & I think I'm done here.
  - wysifnwyg 7y ago
    If you've got any evidence which would support the idea that they were stressed, I would imagine you'd provide it. As you haven't, we both know what the answer is.

lawlessone 7y ago

>It seems like your opinion is not supported by the scientific evidence that reflects stress levels. people can be happy in pretty shite situations too.

wysifnwyg 7y ago
One animal's "shite situation" is another animal's "happy situation".

ForrestN 7y ago

This summary is certainly not scientific evidence of the experience of suffering in these animals! As a start, who decided what level of stress is "within normal limits?" If the idea is that this somehow "scientifically" proves that cows don't suffer when confined in abject squalor, well, good luck with that.

wysifnwyg 7y ago
It seems like you'd prefer to reject science when it doesn't support your opinions.
- throw_away 7y ago
  It seems you just read the titles of papers and then use them as weapons to further your own viewpoint even when reasonable arguments are made that the papers don't mean what you think they mean.
  - wysifnwyg 7y ago
    >That study measured fecal cortisol (indicator for stress) upon arriving at a feedlot and after fattening and the animals seem to be within normal limits the whole time. If you're not aware, that's not the title of the paper and is indeed the content.