"Eating free range animals is more humane"

Well not sure if the "eating" part is more humane... maybe the "living" part is for the chicken?

Chickens have a natural instinct, when in close quarters with others, to pile in heaps on top of each other, resulting in massive deaths. I believe it is called flutters or something similar.

I am currently reading a book on meat, proper hanging, charcuterie, husbandry, etc. Very gripping. It is called, "The River Cottage Meat Book" by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. Although it is a UK book, it says that the US/Canada is even worse when it comes to intensive farming. He raises all his meat on his own so he knows precisely what goes into them, the amount of sunshine and comfort and bedding they receive, natural pesticide-free grazing available, etc. This is one book that has literally been life changing.

I will never, ever purchase an animal from a grocery store. Ever. The very worst type of meat to buy is that which is in cryo-vac packaging. Sorry - a wee bit off topic...

I love foie gras and veal too. But I don't eat it anymore because the majority is of very low quality.

There once was a time when it was consumed very infrequently. But now, its everywhere and, for the most part, disgusting. It has lead to the demise of a incredibly labor-intensive culinary technique to something completely pedestrian. Bleck!!

We once got lost in the Dordogne and stopped at a farm to ask for directions. The farmer was in the goose liver business, obviously feeding his geese that were all caged in the barn. Small does not guarantee open range.

Of course not, being open range is not part of the technique, at least not for the last 3 weeks. What I am opposed to is industrialized farming practices. That's the larger problem.

Bon Appetit.

Some of you seem unable to take my tongue in cheek comment about the tragic death of free range chickens for what it is worth. I certainly never meant it as a serious political statement.

However the following reaction is kind of funny to me as well:

""Other chickens are willing to die after being cooped up 12 deep in their own excrement. "
And you're willing to eat them???"

Gee? Ever eat a stalk of celery? How about a carrot? Most root vegetables and many others are literally grown IN animal excrement. Ever hear of fertilizer? There's a little town in Ohio called Celeryville that provides a lot of the nation's celery. On a warm day, the smell is overpowering. The fields of black muck they grow the celery in is about half cow and pig manure. You're willing to eat that stuff? And don't give me the "organic" story. What that basically means is that things are grown in real s__t instead of fake s__t.

Yes I realise your comment was tongue in cheek - as was mine.

But now you mention it, yes I do I know animal manure is used as fertiliser. I grew up in the countryside - I know what muck-spreading smells like. However, as far as I know, unlike plants, most farm animals don't thrive particularly well when covered with excrement.

Patrick,

You might want to read a little about organic farming before you make a statement such as that.

Comparing the farming of celery to the raising of poultry is difficult if not impossible.

You may eat all the non-organic vegetables you like as studies have shown them to be no less nutritious. I prefer organic because of the taste, environmental reasons, and supporting local farmers.

Cheers

copain, I have no idea what you are talking about, but you clearly misunderstood my post. Unless you are suggesting that animal "excrement" NEVER comes in contact with organically grown root vegetables. If that is true, then I'll admit I was mistaken.

I agree that copain's post is confusing. What about hanl's post though? Animals become diseased from living in excrement, just as you or I would. Hence the antibiotics that are shoved into them. If you're comfortable with this from an ethical and nutritional point of view (and taste, incidentally) keep doing what you're doing. But, really, comparing a chicken to a stalk of celery is inane on a hundred different levels, don't you think?

I certainly did not compare a chicken to a stalk of celery, if you are referring to me.

I mentioned that if a person is shocked at the thought of eating a chicken which has been "covered" in excrement, why shouldn't he be equally shocked at the idea of eating a stalk of celery which has been fully grown in excrement.

If someone says, I could never eat anything that has touched excrement that might make a little sense (but seriously limit his eating). But to say I won't eat item A which has touched excrement, but I will eat item B which has touched excrement, I'm just curious why. Please note this has nothing to do with a myriad of other reasons for eating or not eating either item -- I'm only talking about not eating one BECAUSE it touched excrement while delighting in eating another which also did.

I will assume this is a sincere question although this seems to be a semantics game you're playing.

All animals touch excrement--their own. Free range animals and pets may have some casual contact with the excrement of other animals. No big deal.

Factory farmed animals live in their own and other animals' excrement, barely able to move in many instances. I doubt very much that anyone has an issue with whether an animal has merely "touched" excrement, and I think you know this.

As far as an animal being "covered" in excrement is concerned, as I said in a previous post, animals are not meant to live this way. Parasites, disease, sores, misery and death are the natural result of animals crowded together in their own filth. Antibiotics are able to stave off some of these ill effects until the animal can be slaughtered. All of the above is why, to answer your question, someone should be shocked by the thought of eating an animal covered in excrement. Vegetables, on the other hand, thrive in manure. And they do not suffer from living in it. So it's totally different.

And yes, you are, indirectly, comparing a stalk of celery to a chicken. It's pretty self-evident. If you can't see it, nothing I say will help to explain it to you.

Cimbrone, go back and read the post that made me react. The reaction was to the idea of eating chickens which had been in excrement -- it did not refer to parisites, misery, slaughter and all the rest. It was not about how chickens are raised for slaughter -- it was clearly a "how can you eat something that has been covered in s__t?" I am not defending eating chickens no matter how they are raised. I am merely reacting to the reaction by a poster who was apparently shocked that anyone could eat anything that had been covered with s__t. That is all. Now if YOU can't understand THAT, then I can't help YOU either.

I eat meat, I eat foie gras, and I've gone fishing. So I'm not going to argue the morality of eating other animals.

But I disagree that fishing is more cruel than foie gras. Has this "scientician" (I hesitate to call him a scientist) ever studied fish? I've seen fish partially consumed by larger fish who do not appear to be in distress. They don't seem to realize that half their body is gone - they continue swimming along as best they can. I truly believe they do not feel pain to the same extent mammals or birds do.

As a side note, I also disagree with the argument that since an animal is going to be killed anyway, it doesn't matter how it's treated before its death. I mean, all humans will die someday, there aren't going to be any exceptions (sorry to break the news), yet I would not say it doesn't matter how we are treated in life since we're all going to die at the end.

All I can say is that I think we have a moral obligation to raise animals as humanely as possible. I love foie gras as a treat and only as a treat. I have watch foie gras geese being feed. They come running. If you are going to fish, catch it and eat it. At least you are killing the fish. Fish and hunting for sport is lame.

I was reading about how Chinese are raising tilapia. They have these enormous ponds of tilapia. Above the ponds are thousands of caged chickens (if I can find the site I will publish the link). The chickens defecate into the ponds, the tilapia eat the excrement. The ponds are so contaminated that they have continuous feeders of antibiotics to control disease. Then they discharge the ponds into the river.

We have not come very far as humans.

Neo, hanl was reacting to people eating chickens covered in %$#!. Not "things." His implication was that it's disgusting. Your response was that it's no more disgusting than eating celery that's covered in same stuff--but that's clearly not the case. You tried to say something clever but it had no logic behind it.

Go ahead, admit that you're wrong. You can do it. ;)

Cimbrone, I really feel sorry for people who are so passionate about ideals (I honestly could care less about this entire issue) that they can't appreciate a simple tongue in cheek comment like "organic is grown in real s__t instead of fake s__t" without going into a grand debate about what organic gardening really is. Too bad things like that go over your head. And too bad that you can't understand the irony of someone saying "how can you eat that when it's been covered in s__t?", and not see the humor (yes -- humor -- look it up in the dictionary, since it is a foreign term to you) of saying "hey, you eat celery which has been covered in the same thing".

No, you don't have to now rant about how there is nothing funny about this stuff -- I know it is too dear to you to see any humor at all in it. Some others, however, might.

You are desperate to make me out to be a grand supporter of meat eating, anti-organic farming, and against every cause that is near and dear to your heart. But sadly, I'm not. I just thought it might be fun to point out the irony of someone's reasoning and at the same time perhaps evoke a little humor. No, I'm not wrong -- it's just that you are unable to tell the difference between pointing out humor or irony and ranting for a cause. I'm doing the former. You're doing the latter. Good night. I hope you don't have nightmares about all this, particularly now the new image of chickens defecating into pools of tilapia. Sleep well, dear. I will, and with a smile on my face at the thought of someone taking this all so seriously -- particularly my posts, which were NEVER meant to be even the least bit serious. But you certainly did bite! Now THAT'S funny!

Patrick,

You are so cool. Better go to bed. It's a school night.

Good morning! I slept very well, indeed.

Did I go into a grand debate about what organic farming is? I think we have some basic reading comprehension problems on top of everything else, dear.

I know you don't care about this issue. Ignorance is bliss, it seems.

Have a blissful day!

Sorry I embarrassed you for pointing out that you have no sense of humor and didn't understand that I wasn't serious. I think most people figured out the celery thing was a "joke". Oh well. I guess I took all the fun away. You wanted serious discussion and argument about the evils of eating chickens and all I wanted to do was make fun of silly rationalization. I guess it's like taking the ball away and going home when someone is still hoping to compete.