#factory farm

[thesiouxzy]

I responded to this post on fb & am happy to see so many agree. It’s disappointing however to see a few ppl asking what Factory Farms are. Please get familiar with factory farms by clicking on the link below. They are disgusting, cruel places where the majority of US meat & dairy come from:

[invegan]

people will buy a $6.99 bag of meat that they and their kids will kill in one night and then say that veganism is too expensive and inaccessible

[paullorenz]

Paul Lorenz

FACTORY FARM

[nonconformist-vegan]

“A factory farm pig sees a butterfly for the first time in his life and has a dream about beauty and color. It is his last dream.”

Writer/Director: Noam Rabinovitch

Co-Director/Editor: Chris Dainty

Animator/VFX: Bradley Cayford

Animator/VFX: Fabian J. Cuevas

Animator/VFF: Chris Dainty

Animator/VFX: Jennifer Dainty

Animator/VFX: Phil Lockerby

Composer: Marjan Mozetich, Composer

Producer: Noam Rabinovitch, Producer

Production Company: Jasper Films & Dainty Productions Inc,

Funder: BravoFACT

[lanalovelyanimals-blog]

[animalsandtrees]

Read---> The New Yorker

When she was small, Sunaura Taylor writes, other children told her that she walked like a monkey and ate like a dog; by this, they meant that her disability made her like an animal and, therefore, less than human.

In  “Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation,” she argues that they had everything backward. Human beings are already animals; age, disease, and accident mean that all able-bodiedness is a temporary state. Even able-bodied people can “die in the woods” alone—they, too, are dependent upon society.

Disabled people should be proud to associate themselves with animals, Taylor argues, because the same ideology, ableism, oppresses both groups. If you’re cognitively or physically disabled, it’s ableism that tells you that you’re worth less than a more capable person; similarly, if you’re an animal, it’s ableism that makes eating you permissible, since you can’t do what humans do.

 Taylor is adept at using her mouth for everyday tasks, such as retrieving items from her handbag. (She paints by holding the brush in her mouth.) “I feel animal in my embodiment,” she writes, “and this feeling is one of connection, not shame.” She continues, “When I rummage through my purse with my face, sometimes getting spit on my cell phone or accidentally ingesting something unpleasant . . . I think of animals—pigs who root with their noses, birds who build nests with their beaks.”

Taylor began to read about the connections between animal rights and disability. She discovered that many factory-farmed animals are disabled in one way or another. In some cases, they’ve been injured through confinement; in others, their unusually shaped bodies make their lives harder. (She wondered if, in some sense, their man-made disabilities made killing them and eating them feel easier.)

It seemed to her that there was an analogy between those factory farms and the environments in which many disabled people live. In “Beasts of Burden,” she writes that both farms and cities are built environments designed “to reward certain embodiments over others.” In a city, human-designed structures—curbs, stairs, doorknobs—make some kinds of bodies more difficult to have. In a similar way, Taylor argues, we build systems—of breeding, farming, slaughter, and thought—that diminish animals, then imagine their diminishment to be natural and inevitable.

Reading “Beasts of Burden,” I wondered if the book might be a case of intersectionality run amok: Did animal rights and disability rights really need to be linked? In fact, Taylor’s book responds to how other thinkers have already linked them. Taylor points out that, in the past, colonial subjects were often described as both disabled and animal-like: they were seen as shambling, hunched, and bestial, and, therefore, as “lower” on the chain of being. This authorized their exploitation.

[agritecture]

Is Urban Ag. losing its way? Are we repeating mistakes of the past?

This article comes from Scott Carrus, Lead Horticulturalist at Agritecture’s sister company, Blue Planet Consulting. 

Technological advancement has created a buzz in the agriculture sector, specifically in urban agriculture and agtech. This industry, still relatively new, has opened up the possibility to create hyper-local farms capable of growing all year round. However, I fear that we are repeating past mistakes and remaining stuck in an outdated, potentially dangerous mentality, rather than using the new and exciting technology to correct for past mistakes of conventional agriculture and improve the quality of our produce

The current agriculture mentality prioritizes quantity and appearance over quality and flavor. This is the mentality that led to the downfall of the red delicious apple in the 20th century. Once a sweet and crisp apple, Red Delicious is now one of the least popular apples in grocery stores. This is the mentality that led to the rise of the factory farm and the creation of the broiler chicken in the 21st century. After all I have seen in my five years in the industry, my fear is that this mentality is now a major driving force in the agtech community.

“Can we feed 9 billion people by 2050?” “Can we provide fresh and local food to our communities?” Almost every agricultural lecture that I attend addresses one or both of these questions, and they are incredibly important. The current broiler chicken debacle can be traced directly back to the first question. The broiler chicken, which once had a growth period of 120 days, now grows to size in just 30 days. While the faster growth rate allows for more chicken on the market, it leaves the chicken with a plethora of dysfunctions (1). Animal rights activists probably won’t come knocking on our doors if we cram plants indoors with nothing but artificial light; however, there are numerous studies that show that providing plants with only the “bare necessities” has major effects on texture, flavor, and appearance due to red/blue light only combinations.

Companies and farms will claim their greens, grown in these crammed, artificially lit conditions, are fresh and nutritious; however, plants grown without green light have almost double the amount of nitrates (a carcinogenic compound often used in preserving meat) as those grown with green light (2). Despite this compelling research, these companies continue to claim that they grow premium quality produce, based on flavor, nutrition, and appearance, but they lack the data to prove it. The below figures illustrate that while red/blue lights maintain the high quality appearance of produce, evident through color, and may even increase the plants’ rate of growth, the shape, flavor, and texture suffer. Yes, the plants may primarily only need red/blue wavelengths, but there is a real loss when we take away the full spectrum.

I am not writing this article to shame those in the industry who have adopted these practices. My intention is to spark a discussion and create a movement away from outdated, problematic practices and false claims of “premium products.” The moment is ripe to make a change, as urban agriculture is beginning to boom. Many companies and businesses claim that they are providing products that are “healthy,” “tasty,” and/or “nutritious”, however, they lack proof to back up their claims. Let us not allow companies with false claims to represent and lead the urban agtech industry.

Let us not hide the negative impact of certain growing practices from our consumers. Consumers need to be educated to ask the right questions about their produce. They need to learn the industry vocabulary that is often used to trick them into investing or buying products. They need knowledge in order to be able to hold growers and agricultural businesses to a higher standard. Growers and others in the industry have a responsibility to maintain high standards, not just for quantity and appearance, but also for flavor, texture, and nutrition. Growers should be proud of what they grow. Plant scientists should examine the evidence and share the facts. I love my vegetation and I strongly believe “locally grown” and “premium” produce should not be prioritized over plants that are truly cared for.

1.   BESSEI, W. (2006). Welfare of broilers: A review. <i>World's Poultry Science Journal,</i> <i>62</i>(3), 455-466. doi:10.1017/S0043933906001085

2.   http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/141/2/186.abstract

3.   http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0304423812004797/1-s2.0-S0304423812004797-min.pdf?_tid=2ca111ca-0455-11e7-8725-00000aab0f02&acdnat=1489015132_c5b3e3f5bf36469075c7a2dbc8d49c50

SOURCE

[lanalovelyanimals-blog]