why not?

9/19/2008 1:13:40 PM

I'm employed as a vet but not in private practice

9/19/2008 3:02:44 PM

THE PLOT THICKENS!!!

9/19/2008 3:42:37 PM

*munching on some pork rinds*

9/19/2008 3:54:03 PM

Why join PETA when you can just join Team Judaism.

Pig free's the way to be!

9/19/2008 4:35:23 PM

Killing them to eat is one thing.

But, if you're just whacking them for shits and giggles, you need to start masturbating more.

9/19/2008 5:03:00 PM

get a life. there are people living under overpasses and eating out of trashcans and you're worried about pigs? seriously? anybody that donates to groups like peta and picks up stray cats off the street to sleep in their bed while millions of PEOPLE in the world starve should be ashamed of themselves. and you've got some nerve to try to increase the cost of food too.

9/19/2008 5:18:30 PM

^ wtf are you talking about 'raising the cost of food'? eh?

9/19/2008 5:25:17 PM

those pigs would make great bacon.

9/19/2008 6:26:57 PM

Quote :

"anybody that donates to groups like peta and picks up stray cats off the street to sleep in their bed while millions of PEOPLE in the world starve should be ashamed of themselves"

Agreed. They should go watch a movie, eat a steak, or buy a car instead. Or maybe post on TWW. All of those things would be better than playing with evil, resource-draining kittens.

9/19/2008 6:54:32 PM

Quote :

"^ wtf are you talking about 'raising the cost of food'? eh?"

Its people like this that moan and cry about food animals not living happy lives and force extra regulations to be passed. So much money is wasted by the food industry on making sure livestock are kept entertained. This cost gets passed down to the consumer.

9/19/2008 7:11:18 PM

And the meat industry wastes vast quantities of grain and energy to begin with. Go figure.

9/19/2008 7:18:12 PM

Huh? Straw man is getting his ass assaulted. Keeping livestock "entertained" is not even close to being abused and beaten for the "entertainment" of farmhands.

9/19/2008 8:22:47 PM

Quote :

"And the meat industry wastes vast quantities of grain and energy to begin with. Go figure."

an industry renown for small profit margins willingly wastes money in the form of their 2 biggest input costs?

care to source that?

9/19/2008 11:42:42 PM

it is obvious what he meant.

it is far more cost effective for humans to feed on plants than to feed on animals that feed on plants.

10 pounds of plant material produce 1 pound of herbivore flesh.

9/19/2008 11:45:34 PM

wrong

you might want to look up some feed conversion rates before you make yourself look stupid again.
you're about 5x above feed conversion currently.

if you've got a better source for converting energy into protein, in the same scale as current animal protein production, other than creating another continent for the sole purpose of growing crops, I'm all ears.

9/19/2008 11:56:10 PM

Quote :

"picks up stray cats off the street to sleep in their bed while millions of PEOPLE in the world starve should be ashamed of themselves"

there is just something about a homless guy sleeping with me in my bed that makes me uncomfortable

9/19/2008 11:58:18 PM

Quote :

"if you've got a better source for converting energy into protein, in the same scale as current animal protein production, other than creating another continent for the sole purpose of growing crops, I'm all ears."

We wouldn't need to do anything like that. Vegetable sources provide sufficient protein. While I'm personally vegan, the most efficient food production scheme would include animal protein from fish and a bit from mammals and birds. Industrial meat production like we have today, however, would be right out. As would the level of meat and dairy consumption in the standard American diet.

Quote :

"you're about 5x above feed conversion currently."

No, he's fairly close, depending on the animal in question:

Quote :

"In terms of feed utilization, broiler chickens are the most efficient requiring 3.4 kilograms of feed (expressed in equivalent feeding value of corn) to produce one kilogram of ready-to-cook meat. Pigs are the least efficient, with a feed to meat ratio of 8.4 to 1."

http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 1:18 AM. Reason : added link]

9/20/2008 1:08:53 AM

so you're willing to quote a vegetarian association on how meat is produced, but unwilling to listen to someone who has first hand intimate knowledge of the industry and knows exactly what feed conversions are?

9/20/2008 11:41:51 AM

Yes. Unfortunately, you're not a published source. Those evil vegetarians took the numbers from an official document and modified them for increased accuracy:

Quote :

"Note: Beware of inflated animal efficiency claims. For example the industry boasts that it takes only 2 kg of feed to produce 1 kg of chicken. This is for the whole weight of the animal “ even though only 72% of a chicken, 56% of a cow, and 58% of a pig is ready-to-cook meat."

9/20/2008 11:47:32 AM

yeah, you're probably right. when I want to know how the auto industry works, the first place I go for credible information is a horse and buggy association

9/20/2008 12:28:28 PM

better than going to someone whp keeps on saying he knows the EXACT feed conversions but won't say what they are. do you have something to add or not?

GoldenViper kindly backed me up (I was off a little, but not much, when looking at pigs and cows) and provided a source. what about you? do you have something we can consider [other than your word of mouth]?

9/20/2008 12:38:50 PM

Quote :

"get a life. there are people living under overpasses and eating out of trashcans and you're worried about pigs? seriously? anybody that donates to groups like peta and picks up stray cats off the street to sleep in their bed while millions of PEOPLE in the world starve should be ashamed of themselves. "

Agreed that anyone who donates to peta should be ashamed, considering the organizations goals, especially if one likes pets (they want to rid the world of all domestic animals, including our beloved cats and dogs)

But if you'd rather have a homeless man in your bed than a kitten, that's your choice.

9/20/2008 12:45:51 PM

Quote :

"By selecting nutrient-dense feedstuffs, with high digestibility, farmers are able to provide fish with adequate intake of their recommended nutrients without exceeding the fish's energy requirement. Because more nutrients are available and easily assimilated in a nutrient-dense diet, fish growth is improved and FCRs are lowered. For example, in Idaho, trout raised on commercial, nutrient-dense feeds now exhibit a FCR of 1.2:1; a significant improvement from a traditional 1.8-2.0:1 FCR for most fishes. Raised on experimental nutrient-dense diets, trout and salmon have exhibited FCRs as low as 0.7-0.8:1. A FCR of 1.2:1 is quite significant, when considering the current FCR for land animals is approximately 8:1 for cattle, 4:1 pigs, and 1.8:1 for meat-type broiler chickens."

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FA145



There is a source, now continue arguing.

Quote :

"*munching on some pork rinds*"

9/20/2008 12:59:54 PM

You get a lot a different numbers for the feed-to-meat ratio. It depends on who you ask and the exact farm in question. For example, pork producers will tell you pigs rule and cows suck:

Quote :

"http://The average whole-herd feed conversion ratio, or pounds of feed required per pound of live weight produced, for the U.S. pork industry is about 3.4 to 3.6 and is improving (getting lower) steadily. This figure includes the feed fed to the boars and sows. For comparison, consider that beef cattle take 7-10 pounds of feed to produce a pound of live weight, and broiler chickens require about 2 pounds of feed per pound of live weight produced."

http://www.pork.org/NewsAndInformation/QuickFacts/porkstory2.aspx

But that's total weight, not what folks actually consume. And, I believe, it's dry feed vs. wet live weight. In any case, Trap was on the money for cattle, which is what I assumed he was talking about.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 1:03 PM. Reason : fail]

9/20/2008 1:00:51 PM

^ Those numbers aren't much different than mine. Not seeing the pork bias you speak of. I consider myself a cow person and I've never said or heard anybody else say that beef was better FCR-wise.

9/20/2008 3:26:56 PM

I don't really know if there's pork bias, but never hurts to be a little suspicious of industry numbers. Always, it looks as if Trap was almost exactly right about the ratio for beef production. On the other hand, quacko's 5x claim works for broiler chicken.

9/20/2008 3:58:38 PM

I'm very suspicious of information about meat or meat producers that comes from vegan/vegetarian/animal rights sites.

9/20/2008 8:01:41 PM

Quote :

"Agreed. They should go watch a movie, eat a steak, or buy a car instead. Or maybe post on TWW. All of those things would be better than playing with evil, resource-draining kittens."

My resource-draining kitten says wethebest needs to stop sleeping with homeless men

Quote :

"Note: Beware of inflated animal efficiency claims. For example the industry boasts that it takes only 2 kg of feed to produce 1 kg of chicken. This is for the whole weight of the animal “ even though only 72% of a chicken, 56% of a cow, and 58% of a pig is ready-to-cook meat."

This statement kind of ignores the fact that the not "ready-to-cook meat" is used in other ways and not necessarily just chucked in the garbage.

9/25/2008 1:15:53 AM

Quote :

"I'm very suspicious of information about meat or meat producers that comes from vegan/vegetarian/animal rights sites."

And I'm suspicious of anything that comes from the industry. The solution? Trust no one.

Quote :

"This statement kind of ignores the fact that the not "ready-to-cook meat" is used in other ways and not necessarily just chucked in the garbage."

A lot of times it is just chucked in the garbage. Of course, that applies to most food. We waste lots of everything.

9/25/2008 2:06:14 AM

^ Not really. If it's garbaged it's loss income. A lot of the times it's ground up to become pet food (that pesky animal byproduct you see listed in the ingredients), fertilizer, canned "meat" , etc. Depends on the type of meat what the byproducts are used for.

9/25/2008 2:37:08 AM

Yes, we really do waste tons and tons of food. Consumers, anyway. I don't know as much about industry.

And feeding pets or making fertilizer doesn't directly feed humans.

[Edited on September 25, 2008 at 3:04 AM. Reason : ly]

9/25/2008 3:04:27 AM

^ True, but that doesn't make this statement:

Quote :

"For example the industry boasts that it takes only 2 kg of feed to produce 1 kg of chicken. This is for the whole weight of the animal"

Any less incorrect. And while byproduct might not (always) feed humans, it still is used for things we need or want.

Also keep in mind, a lot of the stuff we don't consider ready-to-cook other countries do. For example, a lot of parts of the chicken Americans don't eat gets shipped over for sale in Asia.

Plus, the whole grain to animal ratio thing is obviously talking about industry, not consumers, so the percentage of byproduct used should also be taken into consideration.

[Edited on September 25, 2008 at 3:11 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2008 3:10:10 AM

Quote :

"evil, resource-draining kittens"

hahahahahahhahahahhaa

BWAHAHAHHAHAH

9/25/2008 11:15:38 AM

Quote :

" I don't know as much about industry."

Here is your problem right here, you don't know shit about the industry. You believe everything PETA/animal rights people say to you.

Quote :

"And I'm suspicious of anything that comes from the industry. The solution? Trust no one."

WTF. I posted a link to a University of Florida page. You are the one that linked to pork.org or whatever. If you want to remain stubborn and not learn the facts that is your prerogative, but DON'T keep preaching like you know shit. Obviously you don't.

9/25/2008 11:31:35 AM

there are a lot of mean people in this thread.

lets face it.

youre not gonna change anyones mind.
ill put money on it.


so stop arguing.



[Edited on September 25, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : dgffdgfd]

9/25/2008 11:33:36 AM

i actually prefer wild meat... tastes more interesting, its leaner and you know the animal had fun while it was alive...

9/25/2008 11:36:15 AM

^hahah i <3 u

9/25/2008 11:37:46 AM

Quote :

"Any less incorrect."

What? Are you suggesting the industry doesn't boast of this?

Quote :

"Plus, the whole grain to animal ratio thing is obviously talking about industry, not consumers, so the percentage of byproduct used should also be taken into consideration."

You're right, it should be.

Quote :

"If you want to remain stubborn and not learn the facts that is your prerogative, but DON'T keep preaching like you know shit. Obviously you don't."

Ah, jumping to conclusions. If you review the record, you'll see I had no problem using your University of Florida numbers. They show Trap as about right for beef production. They don't question the fundamental fact that animals require more food than they yield. (Well, except for trout and salmon. But that's an artifact of dry feed vs. wet animal wet, as your site notes.)

9/25/2008 12:29:50 PM

^ No, I'm saying that the grain to animal product ratio is not incorrect when you take byproduct into account, which the source saying the industry is incorrect is obviously not doing.

9/25/2008 8:18:49 PM

I'd be pissed off all the time too if I lived in Iowa.

9/26/2008 11:56:39 AM