Dairy products are causing cancer.

[Rheghead]

I don't think you are getting my point.

Farmers can produce enough to feed the UK population, that's agreed. What we are currently debating is biodiversity.

What I am trying to find out from you is whether you want farmers to produce the food or whether there should be some sort of land redistribution, whereby we all have our own plot as in medieval times.

If you want farmers to grow the food, your vision of lots of biodiversity will not work. there would still have to be farming on an industrial scale, i.e. monoculture. Do you know how much a pea harvester costs? To justify buying one, you need a huge acreage of peas. Same with potatoes, carrots and any other vegetable you can name. I think your vision is of farmers having a few rows of each, something like an oversized allotment. It can never be like that because of economy of scale.

So, we have established farmers will be growing food in huge single crop fields, no real biodiversity there especially as huge amounts of pesticide would be used, unless you allow GM crops bred to be pest resistant (new thread perhaps?) Any land not used would soon 'scrub up' as there are no animals to graze it. within 50 years new trees are established, within 100 years all unfarmed land is forest with poor diversity, particularly in the more northern parts of the UK where it will be mostly pine which is a really poor environment for biodiversity. What happened to all your butterfly meadows? Your vast plains of grassland with wild animals free to chase and eat each other? Buried under elder, willow ash, bracken and alder, soon to be followed by oak, beech etc.

Will we be allowed to continue growing wheat and barley? Thinking of malting barley specifically, because in this new world we are all going to need a drink! Based on last years crop about 650,000 acers were given over to malting barley. Not much wheat grown in this country is suitable for milling, most is feed wheat, so I assume we will be allowed to import Canadian?US wheat for bread, or are we all going gluten free too?

Neither, market forces will take care of it all. Of course there will be farming on an industrial scale as is now but only on a very much reduced land footprint. As the demand for meat and dairy falls, a lot of the land used for growing crops for animal feed will just be not needed. There will be no profit in keeping it looking like a farm. Wild animals and plants will just simply move in which would require minimal management by us.

There will just be an abundance in food that it will be cheap to produce and consume.

I didn't say all the land will turn to forest or all the land will turn to meadow, that is just misrepresentation of my posts on your part. What determines the final landscape is the underlying geology and nature will take its course, the land will be diverse.

Pine forests are not a poor environment for biodiversity, they are a rich environment for biodiversity. There can be eagles, bears, wolves, fox, badger, lynx, deer, etc etc.

On another point, I think we should put a higher value on foods that are healthier, safer and better for the environment. Currently the UK administers £3bn in farming subsidies. About ~80% of this money goes to animal livestock, this makes the products cheaper at the shops, the rest goes to largely suger producers. All the wrong priorities!. The government can do much to redistribute that subsidy to make plants cheap to buy. This extra money could buy specialist machinery for growing food for a vegan population. It will also raise food prices for meat and dairy and cause economic pressure to grow healthier plant food. I believe the Green party have policies that address this.

[Goodfellers]

Rheghead states ''I didn't say all the land will turn to forest''

Rheghead states
I watched Countryfile tonight. A sheep farmer reported that they were preserving the landscape by having sheep to graze the land. Otherwise without sheep the land would be scrub within 5 years and within 50 years the land would be woodland. It seems to me that farmers agree with what I am saying.

Are you saying within 50 years the ungrazed land would return to woodland? If not, what is it that you and the farmers agree on?

Rheghead says
the land will return to a natural landscape which would be rich in wildlife. There will be no profit in keeping the land looking like a farm. The butterflies of meadows will return.

This natural landscape will be dense woodland within a few years by your own admission. Where are the meadows for the butterflies.
More importantly where are all the bees? Who will pollenate all your crops?

Extract from a training manual ‘’ http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...DdMECWXUIeWjxQ
Ecosystem (habitat) diversity

This is the diversity of habitats or ecosystems within an area. A region possessing a wide variety of habitats is preferable, and will include a much greater diversity of species, than one in which there are few different habitats. More specifically a countryside which has ponds, river, woodland, hedgerows, wet meadowland and set-aside grassland will be more species rich and more diverse than countryside with ploughed fields, land drained and without wet areas and devoid of woods and hedgerows.


The Woodland trust say ‘’don’t let grassland fade away’’
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blo...assland-value/

You need human intervention to keep a diverse landscape.

Rheghead says
I am 100% in favor to have the freedom to choose what we want to eat

So long as it’s not meat?? Sounds a bit like Henry Ford, you can have your car any colour you like, so long as it’s black.

Rheghead says
The Dairy industry is appalled about high profile campaigns against animal cruelty in the media. They don't deny the reports though

The full sentence from the NFU says ‘’ Oakes has not denied these allegations, but did say he was "appalled" at the newspaper, and that it was "demoralising" for farmers. He said: "It makes you really angry. We are really conscious of welfare. The way we look after them is key. The last thing we want is any animal suffering. It portrays us in a really poor way which does not reflect our membership

Rheghead says ‘’This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.’’

I am still waiting for your evidence to back up this untrue accusation.

[Rheghead]

Rheghead states ''I didn't say all the land will turn to forest''

Rheghead states
I watched Countryfile tonight. A sheep farmer reported that they were preserving the landscape by having sheep to graze the land. Otherwise without sheep the land would be scrub within 5 years and within 50 years the land would be woodland. It seems to me that farmers agree with what I am saying.

Are you saying within 50 years the ungrazed land would return to woodland? If not, what is it that you and the farmers agree on?

Rheghead says
the land will return to a natural landscape which would be rich in wildlife. There will be no profit in keeping the land looking like a farm. The butterflies of meadows will return.

This natural landscape will be dense woodland within a few years by your own admission. Where are the meadows for the butterflies.
More importantly where are all the bees? Who will pollenate all your crops?

Extract from a training manual ‘’ http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...DdMECWXUIeWjxQ
Ecosystem (habitat) diversity

This is the diversity of habitats or ecosystems within an area. A region possessing a wide variety of habitats is preferable, and will include a much greater diversity of species, than one in which there are few different habitats. More specifically a countryside which has ponds, river, woodland, hedgerows, wet meadowland and set-aside grassland will be more species rich and more diverse than countryside with ploughed fields, land drained and without wet areas and devoid of woods and hedgerows.


The Woodland trust say ‘’don’t let grassland fade away’’
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blo...assland-value/

You need human intervention to keep a diverse landscape.

Rheghead says
I am 100% in favor to have the freedom to choose what we want to eat

So long as it’s not meat?? Sounds a bit like Henry Ford, you can have your car any colour you like, so long as it’s black.

Rheghead says
The Dairy industry is appalled about high profile campaigns against animal cruelty in the media. They don't deny the reports though

The full sentence from the NFU says ‘’ Oakes has not denied these allegations, but did say he was "appalled" at the newspaper, and that it was "demoralising" for farmers. He said: "It makes you really angry. We are really conscious of welfare. The way we look after them is key. The last thing we want is any animal suffering. It portrays us in a really poor way which does not reflect our membership

Rheghead says ‘’This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.’’

I am still waiting for your evidence to back up this untrue accusation.

You are using big fonts now, you are desperate to force through your lack of content.

As i said, you are seeing contradictions in my posts where none exists, I do not know if this is negligent or willful.

The farmer in question who said if the land wasn't grazed it would go to scrub in 5 years and into woodland in 50 years was talking about one particular landscape, the South Downs, that is just one example. An absence of livestock would have a different effect in other areas depending on the geology. An absence of livestock farming in the Norfolk area may result in the expansion of wetlands and give rise to an abundance of life associated with wild wetland areas, birds, butterflies. An absence of livestock farming in other areas could give rise to all the meadows that we have lost. Machairs are an important habitat etc etc. There will be an abundance of bees to pollinate crops, it is biodiversity loss due to livestock farming that is killing off the bees.

As for the animal welfare, how do you look after an animal's welfare your intention is to brutally kill it before the end of its natural life? That doesn't make sense.

As for the following quote

I am 100% in favor to have the freedom to choose what we want to eat

It is my turn this time to complete the full quote;

A common theme that runs through people who are resistant to adopting a plant-based diet is that they quote that their freedom to choose what to eat is being infringed.

I am 100% in favor to have the freedom to choose what we want to eat. The World would be a very draconian place indeed if the State imposed restrictions on our freedoms especially in our food choices.

But with Freedoms comes Responsibilities, hand-in-hand.

In the same way that we all cherish our freedom to express ourselves, we also have a responsibility to make sure that Freedom to express ourselves doesn't extend to having the freedom to express racist slurs, incites to violence, phrases to defraud others etc etc. I feel the way about the freedom to choose what we want to eat. Our choices should not involve violence towards animals, serious damage to the environment and certainly should not include misleading or fraudulent claims about our health.

I also want the freedom to enjoy a world which is rich in biodiversity. I want the freedom to choose a wide range of foods in a restaurant without having to eat something that involves the killing of another sentient being. I also want the freedom to choose foods that nourish well and provide worthwhile jobs for the farmers.

Freedom to eat animals to the detriment of your health, the environment and animal welfare is not a freedom. Eating animals and their secretions is slavery for the human race as it locks us into a Cycle of Violence to other animals. It also denies us a multiple of other food choices on a grand scale. Due to the Inclosure Acts which require us to enclose animals into discrete parcels of land, the consequences of meat eating has denied us free access across the United Kingdom and has pushed wildlife to eak out an existence in the fringes of the hedgerow.

Eating meat also locks us into a cycle of dependency on powerful meat and dairy lobbies who feed us unhealthy food and unreliable information about the impact of their products on our health and our pocket.

I want more for my fellow humans that animal foods cannot provide, I want them to be free of the constraints that keep them in bad health, a poor degraded environment and their Cruelty to others that share our planet.

Going vegan is Freedom, it frees us from worrying about foxes, badgers, bird flu, bovine TB, land enclosure, farming subsidies, and animal cruelty.

[Goodfellers]

Day off today?

Lets concentrate on one point that really annoys me


Rheghead says ‘’This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.’’

Where is your evidence...?

Where is your evidence that animals are ''brutally'' killed..?

I have been to slaughterhouses, they are modern Gov. regulated facilities. I think you are living in the distant past when some questionable practices were considered 'ok'. The animals have no idea what is about to happen. I believe Countryfile did an episode on this very subject and the overwhelming response from the public was positive. I agree some 'culturally' killed meat is not right but the vast majority of animals do not suffer and as I said have no idea, one minute they are standing still, the next they are dead. Watching a wild animal stalked, played with and finally killed by a hunter animal is far more distressing. Having been on safari I can attest to that.

[Goodfellers]

Just re read your last posting.

An absence of livestock farming in the Norfolk area may result in the expansion of wetlands and give rise to an abundance of life associated with wild wetland areas


Do you really have such a poor understanding of how the ecology of the UK works?

The wetlands of Norfolk are only there because of humans. Lets assume there is no further human intervention. The reeds would flourish, trapping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt, Alder would quickly establish itself. The wetlands would dry out allowing other tree species to establish. Within two generations the wetlands would disappear. Eventually the whole of Norfolk would be tree bound.

I have to ask; were you a spin doctor before you moved here to convert everyone? I only ask as you like to post headline grabbing sentences that upon further investigation don't actually say what you claim. You should go and work for a politician.

I have said it before, but this time I am going to try really hard ​to move on from this thread. Unless you post anymore untrue statements, then I will have to respond. Still waiting for evidence that laying hens suffer from calcium deficiency.....keep looking on Google, you never know some one may have posted some misleading information in the past.

[Goodfellers]

One final question for you Rheghead.

You claim that wild animals hunting each other is acceptable to you, despite the fact that the hunted animal often dies a horrible agonising death and is often eaten whilst still alive (thanks F for reminding me of that fact). You find that acceptable but not a human abattoir?

My question. Humans are hunters and have been for at least 2,000,000 years (our forward facing eyes are also testament to that) If I were to go over to Swona with my wife and we were to drive one of the wild cows over a cliff would that be ok? The poor cow would probably suffer horribly from broken legs from falling over the cliff, I would then either have to hold on to its trachea until it suffocated or bash its brains with a rock until it eventually died. We could then eat the meat knowing that it was 'natural' You find this more acceptable than a clean painless kill at an abattoir?

[Rheghead]

Day off today?

Lets concentrate on one point that really annoys me


Rheghead says ‘’This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.’’

Where is your evidence...?

Where is your evidence that animals are ''brutally'' killed..?

I have been to slaughterhouses, they are modern Gov. regulated facilities. I think you are living in the distant past when some questionable practices were considered 'ok'. The animals have no idea what is about to happen. I believe Countryfile did an episode on this very subject and the overwhelming response from the public was positive. I agree some 'culturally' killed meat is not right but the vast majority of animals do not suffer and as I said have no idea, one minute they are standing still, the next they are dead. Watching a wild animal stalked, played with and finally killed by a hunter animal is far more distressing. Having been on safari I can attest to that.

Well for a starter for 10, if I led you through to a cosy room, sat you down and furnished you with your favorite night-time snack and gave you a reasonable time to eat it in your own time. Then I led you through another door whereupon I instantly without you noticing, hit you, gassed you, or electrocuted you, and with in minutes, regardless if you were still fully dead of not you were being cut up. Could you describe that process as being humane?

[Rheghead]

One final question for you Rheghead.

You claim that wild animals hunting each other is acceptable to you, despite the fact that the hunted animal often dies a horrible agonising death and is often eaten whilst still alive (thanks F for reminding me of that fact). You find that acceptable but not a human abattoir?

My question. Humans are hunters and have been for at least 2,000,000 years (our forward facing eyes are also testament to that) If I were to go over to Swona with my wife and we were to drive one of the wild cows over a cliff would that be ok? The poor cow would probably suffer horribly from broken legs from falling over the cliff, I would then either have to hold on to its trachea until it suffocated or bash its brains with a rock until it eventually died. We could then eat the meat knowing that it was 'natural' You find this more acceptable than a clean painless kill at an abattoir?

I would not find it acceptable that you would chase a cow off a cliff and leave it in agony. You are still foreshortening its life and also causing it more distress.

If we are getting on to the Cycle of Life question then we are getting on to the fact that proper animal carnivores do not have a real choice in what food they must eat, they have evolved as carnivores. They do not have a freedom to choose what food they eat. Whereas, in contrast, we evolved as herbivores, we have evolved intelligence enough to have the freedom to choose what goes down our necks. Incidentally, we do not have a choice not to eat plants as we are herbivores, we absolutely require plants to eat. Eating meat and dairy is a choice, and what is a choice is always born out of our beliefs and not of our requirements.

edit:Gorillas and all the great apes also have binocular vision, 100% herbivore physiology.

[Rheghead]

Just re read your last posting.

An absence of livestock farming in the Norfolk area may result in the expansion of wetlands and give rise to an abundance of life associated with wild wetland areas


Do you really have such a poor understanding of how the ecology of the UK works?

The wetlands of Norfolk are only there because of humans. Lets assume there is no further human intervention. The reeds would flourish, trapping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt, Alder would quickly establish itself. The wetlands would dry out allowing other tree species to establish. Within two generations the wetlands would disappear. Eventually the whole of Norfolk would be tree bound.

I have to ask; were you a spin doctor before you moved here to convert everyone? I only ask as you like to post headline grabbing sentences that upon further investigation don't actually say what you claim. You should go and work for a politician.

I have said it before, but this time I am going to try really hard ​to move on from this thread. Unless you post anymore untrue statements, then I will have to respond. Still waiting for evidence that laying hens suffer from calcium deficiency.....keep looking on Google, you never know some one may have posted some misleading information in the past.

In order to lay eggs an unnaturally 300 times a year, hens diet need to be supplemented with oystershell and rocks containing calcium. If you didn't do that they would die because the calcium would be lost from their skeleton and suffer brittle bone disease. You insist on making out that farming is a natural process but what is natural about a hen ovulating 300 times a year and supplementing the diet with oystershell and chalk?

You have used a broad brush there re the Norfolk area, you have read that the broads were used for clay industry and suddenly the whole Norfolk area is a man made landscape and it is mankind that is preserving the landscape. It isn't that simple I am afraid to say. There is a lot of pasture land there that has been drained that should be wetland also.

[Goodfellers]

Well for a starter for 10, if I led you through to a cosy room, sat you down and furnished you with your favorite night-time snack and gave you a reasonable time to eat it in your own time. Then I led you through another door whereupon I instantly without you noticing, hit you, gassed you, or electrocuted you, and with in minutes, regardless if you were still fully dead of not you were being cut up. Could you describe that process as being humane?

You are making the mistake of attaching human emotion to animals that do not have the same thought processes. When you are shot with a large metal bolt straight into the middle of your brain, you know nothing about it. We as humans know what death is, animals do not. If someone crept into your house while you were asleep and shot you in the brain, what would you feel? NOTHING the same as animals. as for being cut up alive, you are finding 'old' information, modern cutting machines discard animals that are not in the 'correct' position. all abattoirs have Ministry vets on site to make sure everything works as it should.

You still haven't satisfactorily explained why giving a hen a balanced diet is cruel? Natural selection is why hens lay 300 eggs a year, no freaky science just hard work on the part of pullet rearers. So contrary to your belief there is nothing cruel about it. A hen is a very temperamental creature, if she doesn't get the right sort of feed, she goes off lay, so sorry to disappoint you, she will not deplete her own skeleton. Have you been reading 'Farming for dummies'? Ps hens are never fed 'chalk' they get limestone rock crushed down into grit as they need the grit to aid digestion, chalk is too soft. I'll turn you into a poultry farmer yet.

So naturally bred hens eating a natural diet is cruel...what world do you live in?

''We have evolved as herbivores'' here we go again. TWO MILLION years ago we were accomplished hunters and butchers, man as we know man came along 200,000 years ago so how far back are you going to claim we are herbivores? Maybe to a time when we crawled out of the mud and didn't have the skills needed to kill animals.

I really am going now

[Rheghead]

You are making the mistake of attaching human emotion to animals that do not have the same thought processes. When you are shot with a large metal bolt straight into the middle of your brain, you know nothing about it. We as humans know what death is, animals do not. If someone crept into your house while you were asleep and shot you in the brain, what would you feel? NOTHING the same as animals. as for being cut up alive, you are finding 'old' information, modern cutting machines discard animals that are not in the 'correct' position. all abattoirs have Ministry vets on site to make sure everything works as it should.

You still haven't satisfactorily explained why giving a hen a balanced diet is cruel? Natural selection is why hens lay 300 eggs a year, no freaky science just hard work on the part of pullet rearers. So contrary to your belief there is nothing cruel about it. A hen is a very temperamental creature, if she doesn't get the right sort of feed, she goes off lay, so sorry to disappoint you, she will not deplete her own skeleton. Have you been reading 'Farming for dummies'? Ps hens are never fed 'chalk' they get limestone rock crushed down into grit as they need the grit to aid digestion, chalk is too soft. I'll turn you into a poultry farmer yet.

So naturally bred hens eating a natural diet is cruel...what world do you live in?

''We have evolved as herbivores'' here we go again. TWO MILLION years ago we were accomplished hunters and butchers, man as we know man came along 200,000 years ago so how far back are you going to claim we are herbivores? Maybe to a time when we crawled out of the mud and didn't have the skills needed to kill animals.

I really am going now

You are now making the same claims made by people who captured and owned people of African descent in the 18th and 19th century. The facts are that higher animals do perceive the world as we do. They may not be able to fill in the Times crossword but they do feel fear, pain and suffering as we do. They do empathise with our feelings as we should empathise with theirs. All dog owners know that their animal understands them. An animal is a someone, not a something. Silence of the lambs?

I think your industrialised cruelty in your profession may have desensitised you from compassion for others and/or you need to display a cognitive dissonance to justify how you run your life.

Back to the hen thing. The hens diet needs to be supplemented with vast amounts of calcium or it dies. It cannot be set free even if it wanted to be set free because it would be unable live a normal life. That is cruel. That affects the hen. And all that rock and oyster shell is something that it probably doesn't want to eat. It is deficient in calcium. A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. (though it needs to eat some)

There is no evidence to suggest that humans evolved as carnivores. We do not have claws, we do not have slicing dentition, we cannot open our jaws very wide, our guts are massive unlike a carnivore's which is short, we have enzymes in our mouths unlike carnivores, the list of differences to a carnivore is massive. These are facts not fiction.

I think you are pursuing a bogus philosophy to justify your lifestyle choice.

[Goodfellers]

Back to the hen thing. The hens diet needs to be supplemented with vast amounts of calcium or it dies. It cannot be set free even if it wanted to be set free because it would be unable live a normal life. That is cruel. That affects the hen. And all that rock and oyster shell is something that it probably doesn't want to eat. It is deficient in calcium. A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. (though it needs to eat some)

What agricultural college did you go to? ...............It needs closing down
You are talking absolute rubbish............................We are all getting used to that
As with all your pro-vegetarian posts, please post links to your scientific evidence to back up your claims.

As for ''vast amounts of calcium'' do you know what % is added to feed? Just under 4% REALLY VAST

A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. How little you know, showing a huge amount of ignorance (yet again) , wild birds need grit in their diet, put crushed dried egg shells on your bird table and see how quickly they are taken. Snail shells will do as I doubt you would let an bird ovulation pass your lips.

Hens often escaped to roam free around the farm, living happy lives...not dying a horrible death as you seem to think.

Do you really believe the rubbish you post, or do you do it just to get a reaction
Is your life so sad and lonely that you are forced to post 'bizarre' untrue statements?http://www.bhwt.org.uk/rehome-some-hens/hen-keeping-starter-guide/

This is a link to a national charity that re-homes commercial layers, both intensive and free range. Talk to them before posting your rubbish on here. That way you are getting independent information, not my biased opinion.

I did say I would only post on this thread when you lie on here, I will always defend farming practices.

Still waiting for someone on this thread to support you.

[Rheghead]

Back to the hen thing. The hens diet needs to be supplemented with vast amounts of calcium or it dies. It cannot be set free even if it wanted to be set free because it would be unable live a normal life. That is cruel. That affects the hen. And all that rock and oyster shell is something that it probably doesn't want to eat. It is deficient in calcium. A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. (though it needs to eat some)

What agricultural college did you go to? ...............It needs closing down
You are talking absolute rubbish............................We are all getting used to that
As with all your pro-vegetarian posts, please post links to your scientific evidence to back up your claims.

As for ''vast amounts of calcium'' do you know what % is added to feed? Just under 4% REALLY VAST

A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. How little you know, showing a huge amount of ignorance (yet again) , wild birds need grit in their diet, put crushed dried egg shells on your bird table and see how quickly they are taken. Snail shells will do as I doubt you would let an bird ovulation pass your lips.

Hens often escaped to roam free around the farm, living happy lives...not dying a horrible death as you seem to think.

Do you really believe the rubbish you post, or do you do it just to get a reaction
Is your life so sad and lonely that you are forced to post 'bizarre' untrue statements?http://www.bhwt.org.uk/rehome-some-hens/hen-keeping-starter-guide/

This is a link to a national charity that re-homes commercial layers, both intensive and free range. Talk to them before posting your rubbish on here. That way you are getting independent information, not my biased opinion.

I did say I would only post on this thread when you lie on here, I will always defend farming practices.

Still waiting for someone on this thread to support you.

You are posting in big fonts again, thou doth protest too much...

Again you are misrepresenting the egg industry to hide the cruelty that happens in your battery sheds.

Under 4% of what exactly? It doesn't mean anything. how much calcium supplement is that? Without knowing how much you are feeding them then it is impossible to tell how much you are hiding from revealing it is. The only reason why they need so much calcium is that they have been cruelly selectively bred to ovulate 300 times a year. That is staggering increase from the hens natural ancestor which ovulates 12 times a year. The egg also comes out of the same hole as the birds pee and poo, yes I suppose i am making that up as well? The truth is that a hen is just physically wrecked after spending its time ovulating for your daily egg.

You are just just interested in maximising egg production for the least amount of cost, you admitted that yourself when you throw the male chicks into the grinder or gas chamber.

I'm not lying, I never tell lies, my information is able to be cross referenced. A hen needs vast amounts of calcium supplements or it dies. It is simple as that.

As for the hen escapes, those escaped hens may live happier lives but in truth those have probably stopped laying and are no longer requiring all that calcium. It also provides some justification for the cruelty, the lab assistants who test chemicals on lab animals quite often have a pet lab animal as a relief for their guilt.

A bird in the wild doesn't need a large constant source of grit, it reuses the grit in its stomach over and over.

In essence, you are misrepresenting the egg industry as a happy egg enterprise when the truth is something different.

[sids]

Well for a starter for 10, if I led you through to a cosy room, sat you down and furnished you with your favorite night-time snack and gave you a reasonable time to eat it in your own time. Then I led you through another door whereupon I instantly without you noticing, hit you, gassed you, or electrocuted you, and with in minutes, regardless if you were still fully dead of not you were being cut up. Could you describe that process as being humane?

You've actually got a room for doing that, haven't you?

[Rheghead]

What agricultural college did you go to? ...............It needs closing down
You are talking absolute rubbish............................We are all getting used to that
As with all your pro-vegetarian posts, please post links to your scientific evidence to back up your claims.

As for ''vast amounts of calcium'' do you know what % is added to feed? Just under 4% REALLY VAST

A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. How little you know, showing a huge amount of ignorance (yet again) , wild birds need grit in their diet, put crushed dried egg shells on your bird table and see how quickly they are taken. Snail shells will do as I doubt you would let an bird ovulation pass your lips.

Well now I have a bit of time to reply properly, I will demonstrate that hens ARE being fed a vast amount of calcium, a vast unnatural and cruel amount in fact.

So lets calculate...

A hens eggshell weighs about 6g, 2.5g of that egg is calcium, but only about 50% of that calcium gets absorbed by the bird.

Therefore to sustain a hen to produce an egg per day you need to feed the bird about 12g of limestone everyday. But a hen doesn't produce an egg everyday but about 300 times a year so lets approximate to 10g of limestone per day.

Now a natural hen ovulates 12 times per year that is 12 eggs per year but 12X12g spread over a year is 0.4g per day is attributable to egg production. That is 25 times less calcium in its diet than its battery hen counterpart.

If I was to scale that up in human terms then the numbers become massive. A layer hen should weigh about 2.7kg. Now I weigh 80kg, so proportionally if I was a hen then I would need to eat 80kg/2.7kg X 10g = a massive ~300g of limestone per day!!

That is the equivalent of eating the weight of 3.5 average-sized apples per day of calcium carbonate or limestone. In anybody's opinion apart your own, how is this not a vast amount of limestone?

In other words, you have just trivialise the amount of limestone or oystershell a bird needs to have as a supplement in their diet.

EDIT: On another point about the grit, you are deliberately confusing insoluble grit that is needed to digest food for a natural hen with limestone needed as supplement, two very different things.

[Goodfellers]

You've actually got a room for doing that, haven't you?

I think he makes lampshades too

[Goodfellers]

Well now I have a bit of time to reply properly, I will demonstrate that hens ARE being fed a vast amount of calcium, a vast unnatural and cruel amount in fact.

So lets calculate...

A hens eggshell weighs about 6g, 2.5g of that egg is calcium, but only about 50% of that calcium gets absorbed by the bird.

Therefore to sustain a hen to produce an egg per day you need to feed the bird about 12g of limestone everyday. But a hen doesn't produce an egg everyday but about 300 times a year so lets approximate to 10g of limestone per day.

Now a natural hen ovulates 12 times per year that is 12 eggs per year but 12X12g spread over a year is 0.4g per day is attributable to egg production. That is 25 times less calcium in its diet than its battery hen counterpart.

If I was to scale that up in human terms then the numbers become massive. A layer hen should weigh about 2.7kg. Now I weigh 80kg, so proportionally if I was a hen then I would need to eat 80kg/2.7kg X 10g = a massive ~300g of limestone per day!!

That is the equivalent of eating the weight of 3.5 average-sized apples per day of calcium carbonate or limestone. In anybody's opinion apart your own, how is this not a vast amount of limestone?

In other words, you have just trivialise the amount of limestone or oystershell a bird needs to have as a supplement in their diet.

EDIT: On another point about the grit, you are deliberately confusing insoluble grit that is needed to digest food for a natural hen with limestone needed as supplement, two very different things.

Oh dear.......someone has a bee in their bonnet!!!! I can picture you hammering away on your keyboard, eyes bulging...the big vein on your temple pulsing and throbbing!

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Look around you at all the beauty and stop wasting your time sat at a keyboard trying to 'prove' things. you are failing miserably (and looking slightly foolish in the process). It's a nice day, go for a long walk and start enjoying life!

As the song from Frozen says ''Let it go, let it go''

A quote from one of my favorite films ''You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?

And finally a quote from Ann Robinson ''you are the weakest link. Goodbye.''

[COLOR=rgb(0,0,255)][/COLOR]

[Rheghead]

Oh dear.......someone has a bee in their bonnet!!!! I can picture you hammering away on your keyboard, eyes bulging...the big vein on your temple pulsing and throbbing!

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Look around you at all the beauty and stop wasting your time sat at a keyboard trying to 'prove' things. you are failing miserably (and looking slightly foolish in the process). It's a nice day, go for a long walk and start enjoying life!

As the song from Frozen says ''Let it go, let it go''

A quote from one of my favorite films ''You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?

And finally a quote from Ann Robinson ''you are the weakest link. Goodbye.''

[COLOR=rgb(0,0,255)][/COLOR]

In typical style you attack me and you do not refute the facts as you cannot. There were no eyes bulging , it was plainly evident that you were misleading the people of this message forum. You failed to anticipate that I would prove you wrong.

[Alrock]

'Healthiest hearts in the world' found & Guess What... They eat meat

[Rheghead]

'Healthiest hearts in the world' found & Guess What... They eat meat

So does this mean if we eat more meat then we will have a healthier heart?

EDIT:

Oh dear...

One idea is that intestinal worms - which dampen immune reactions - could be more common and this may help protect the heart.