Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for animal growth hormones, I tend to like my chickens at 15 pounds in 35 weeks--NOT 7 weeks.
Growth hormones (artificial or natural) are not approved for use in poultry and egg operations in the US, and are illegal.
The extremely rapid growth seen in most factory broilers is due to a combination of the use of hybrids (Cornish-Cross) that are selectively bred to put on weight extremely fast, an intensive high-protein feeding program, and antibiotic regimes to increase feed conversion.
** Please note that Cornish-Cross broilers are also raised by small producers, even organic & pastured poultry operations. They aren't genetically engineered GMO, they're naturally bred hybrids.
Antibiotics have been used on poultry in large quantities since the 1940s, when it was found that the byproducts of antibiotic production, fed because the antibiotic-producing mold had a high level of vitamin B12 after the antibiotics were removed, produced higher growth than could be accounted for by the vitamin B12 alone. Eventually it was discovered that the trace amounts of antibiotics remaining in the byproducts accounted for this growth.[30]
The mechanism is apparently the adjustment of intestinal flora, favoring "good" bacteria while suppressing "bad" bacteria that provoke inflammation of the gut mucosa. So, the goal of antibiotics as a growth promoter is the same as for probiotics. Because the antibiotics used are not absorbed by the gut, they do not put antibiotics into the meat or eggs.[31]
Of course there will be readers who say this is nothing more than government propaganda and lies....
Good link with lots of info. Thanks
Both sides of the argument are guilty of spinning their media message, and accusing each other of decept and propaganda. It all comes down to each individual's trust threshold. My Gramps always told me "when you point a finger, the remaining three are pointing back at you"
I was just reading a German news site and they had a video (can't link to it) concerning the EU seed laws overturned by the high court. It appears as though in the EU one can only plant and grow what the EU approves of. So in certain respects it's not Monsanto or Bayer who are ramming GMO seeds down farmers throats..
In the EU (much like the US) each country (state) has some latitude regarding the laws within it's borders... a restriction can be more strict (but usually not less), or a permission can be denied/refused (but usually not granted) in each country compared to the EU-sanctions. But unlike the US Feds, the EU "Government" has no power unto itself, regulations are usually the minimum that all the countries affected are willing to agree upon (closer to how NATO works).
The process begins with myoblasts, the precursor cells to the muscle fibers of an embryo - in this case of a cow.
<snip>
When we have enough cells, we differentiate them into myotubes, which are actually muscle cells. Then we seed them onto a Petri dish and let them grow in an incubator.
<snip>
The growth process is not accelerated and there's no genetic engineering - the cells should feel as comfortable in the incubator as if they were growing inside of a cow.
Since many GMO supporters claim improved agricultural yields and lowered toxic chemical usage (due to herbicide resistance, pesticide integration, disease and drought resistance, etc) and a large portion of the current GMO agricultural crops are used as animal feed... could we not reduce/eliminate the need for such large quantities of GMO animal feeds by reducing/eliminating the need for live animals to produce our meat?
Since many livestock detractors claim inappropriate/excessive land use raising both animal and growing animal feeds, as well as claiming inhumane conditions and inappropriate use of growth hormones and antibiotics... could we not reduce/eliminate most of these issues by reducing/eliminating the need for live animals to produce our meat? If we removed commercial meat animals from the livestock equation, only a smaller portion would remain for commercial milk, egg and fiber production.
I can certainly see the benefits... less agricultural land use, less agricultural chemical use, less agricultural water use, less agricultural waste in the environment, less risk of erosion and soil depletion, less synthetic hormone use, less/no antibiotic use, no environmental exposure to pathogens, no farm/ranch reservoir of these pathogens, no tampering with DNA and possible side effects....
I wonder which way the scales would balance on this one...
Is growing something natural in an unnatural way preferable to growing something unnatural in a natural way?
Good interview Zthatz, thanks for posting the link. I think the key takeaway is that the current process used in transgenic crop engineering is not as precise as we're lead to believe, which can (and does) result in altered gene expression and cellular changes other than the intended target modification.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Disgruntled Monsanto drone talks to CBS
