Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiUmmm... yup. My eggs are much better-tasting than mass-produced
stuff.
And mine are better tasting than yours....
Possibly, though it'd be hard to say since you haven't eaten ours.
Well I've eaten a wide variety of eggs. Home grown duck eggs and my
brother's free-range at times. All the same to me, sorry.
Post by Jackie PattiI have eaten mass-produced eggs though, for 4 decades. The home-grown
variety tastes way better. I don't think it has to do with the brown
vs. white shells, or the variety of chicken, though those may impact. I
suspect it's primarily the chicken's diet as the egg yolks look so much
brighter and darker, which I understand is related to the amount of
greens in their diet.
What do you feed your chickens?
I haven't got any chooks.
But my brother feeds his commercial feed.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiSo are my tomatoes.
Vine ripened? What variety?
Brandywines. They are *awesome*.
I also grow Debaros for sauce/paste/canning. But nothing has come close
to the Brandywines for fresh eating. They're incredible.
I daresay I'd like them if they are strong tasting, but many folk
don't like this.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiGrowing stuff yourself or buying stuff grown locally means varities
can be chosen based on *taste* rather than on how well they keep while
being transported across country.
Agreed, but if you like the taste, there is no difference in
nutrition.
Course there's differences in nutrition in different varities. Heck,
some varities have been bred specifically for nutritional differences.
For instance?
Post by Jackie PattiThere's also differences depending on if they're vine-ripened or not.
Only on acid/sugar content. But nutritionally, there are some better
and some worse. They're all pretty good, on average.
Post by Jackie PattiAnd for me nutrition isn't the whole thing, better taste = better food.
Not necessarily connected.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiIt also means they can be harvested
when ripe rather than prematurely... so much yummier.
Can be. My wife doen't like vine ripened, too strong tasting.
Go figure
Different strokes and all.
Yep.
Post by Jackie PattiMy husband doesn't care for Brandywines either. On the other hand, he's
not big on tomatoes at all until they've been ketchuped or sauced.
I eat tomatoes several time per day every day in some form.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiFactory farms that tranport tomatoes for several days to grocery
stores cannot grow Brandywine tomatoes, because they do not ripen well
if picked immaturely and go bad rapidly. And they also taste better
than *any* of the hybrids popular with mass producers. You *can't*
buy that at a store.
You can at mine. Sometimes even cheaper, depending on season and
weather. But then taste is very subjective and variable.
Your major grocery stores carry local produce?
Yep, or from thousands of miles away. Huge variety.
Post by Jackie PattiThat's rare here. Some
of our smaller one-off stores do, but the major chains don't.
Ours use it as a big marketing feature, so I suppose competition and
keeping up with the opposition drives ours. Shows it can be done
though.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)I just saw a
TV experiment on this very subject. They had two growers. One a
specialist "organic" vine ripened, and a commercial "factory"...
They cut up a few specimens from each and labelled them A and B.
The specialist chose the wrong one. Some of his pickers got it right
and some got it wrong. Proves nothing, but interesting.
Some restaurants put cheap cask wine in expensive bottles, and the
toffee-nosed, wine-expert customers can't tell the difference.
Heh.
I dunno though. We've gotten kind of spoiled with home-grown,
home-cooked foods. One of the major downsides is that going out to eat
kinda sucks now. Nothing is as good as it is at home, most food bought
out tastes mediocre at best. I kind of *miss* being able to enjoy going
out to eat - now it's just somehting that happens cause we're traveling
or like recently, when we spent 2 days in ERs due to a family crisis.
Hard to say whether that's about home-grown food or about home-cooked
food though. Just... everything tastes so the *same* when we eat out.
Probably getting that way here, but I hardly ever eat out, so I'm no
judge.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiVegetables grown in composted manure and humus-enriched soils have
better nutrient profiles than those grown with petroleum-based
fertilizers too - and it *adds* topsoil rather than depleting it.
Total misunderstanding.
Organic soil cannot be amended with non-organic manure and compost.
Conventional soil can be ammended with any compost or manure. The
convential soils are replenished for the "used-up" nutrients which
have been exported off the soil with the crop.
All good farmers ammend soils with organic matter. This is NOT the
sole province of "organic" farmers.They didn't invent this like they
try to claim.
We're arguing over terms, not reality. In the states, "organic" means
something entirely stupid, frankly. It's got to do with producing gobs
of paperwork and other stupidity. Genetically-altered foods here can be
considered "organic." Most labeled organic food is produced by factory
farms.
Do you regard any large efficient farm as a factory farm?
BTW, there's no logical reason why genetically altered foods can't be
organic. We've been genetically altering plants for at least 10,000
years. Organic growing accepts Bt for pest control, and that's been
genetically engineered.
Post by Jackie PattiAll *good* farmers amend with organic matter, true. But... large
factory farms here do not do so. They also produce the majority of the
food Americans eat.
Sorry, I don't believe that. Have you seen analyses of their soild for
organic matter? There are many subtle ways to keep OM up to standard.
Post by Jackie PattiI'm a chemist so "organic" has a different meaning entirely. ;)
Yes, I object to the bastardisation of a perfectly good word for a
rather vague and often mystical practice.
Post by Jackie Patti"Good" farmers are what you can find buying from most CSAs... many do
not bother with the expense and stupidity of getting organic
certification, but practice good farming regardless.
That's fine.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Ummm, who pays for transport to the city? The wholesaler pays the
farmer. Commercial distribution systems are much more efficient wrt
ton.miles per litre of diesel fuel.
There are several local CSAs I'm familair with. The one I like
transports the food themselves in a pickup truck.
Big turnover? :)
Post by Jackie PattiSince they are only
10 miles outside of town, this is not a big deal. That's the point of
buying *locally* - besides getting ripe, in-season produce.
And how would you suggest NYC, London and other large cities do this?
How many million pickup trucks?
Post by Jackie PattiThe grocery stores here import food from national distribution centers.
They sell lettuce from Florida.
There's no contest in terms of the fossil fuels used... at least the way
it works here.
Here being a small town? Sorry, but you have to up the scale and
efficiency somewhat to feed the rest of the world.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiPossibly. And many non-families too. Really depends on your
viewpoint.
What are "non-families"?
Do you mean shareholders? Are they not members of families?
No, I mean legal "persons" whom are not members of families.
Corporations are not actual people, regardless of US laws.
But corporations don't have incomes as such. They disburse it to
families -- shareholders, and so on.
Post by Jackie PattiCan't say how it works there, but here corporate profits do not
necessarily get paid to shareholders. In fact, the vast majority of
time, they do not.
So where do they go? Where do corporations get their capital from? I
thought you had a big stock exchange over there :)
Post by Jackie PattiI think... you and I are talking differences that may be based on our
locations.
Perhaps.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiThe local hardware store supports several families at middle-class
levels. The newly opened Lowe's supports more families at
minimum-wage. I prefer the hardware store.
So the "more families" can starve? Do you not prefer cheap hardware?
Or would you rather pay the store for inefficient practices?
Super-chains do not support families. In this country, they provide
"jobs" without benefits and at payrates that do not support even a
single person living in a one-bedroom apartment, let alone a family.
That's the "free enterprise" system. Maybe you need a bit of
unionisation :)
Post by Jackie PattiAt
best, they provide teenagers with spending money, but they do not
support families.
Sorry, I don't believe you. You have a minimum wage there I believe?
One salary might not support fully a family of five, but who said
fully supported?
Post by Jackie PattiI'd rather pay the store where the guy's sold hardware for decades. If
not for such stores, I'd have never learned anything.
That's fine, so for all that money you spend, you get goods and an
education. I don't need an education (in that area) and so go
where they will sell me the goods only at the cheapest price.
Post by Jackie PattiThe minimum-wage
folks at Lowes don't know anything, can't advise me, can't teach me.
Local stores have explained stuf to me since I was in my first apartment
unable to figure out how to get the curtain rods to stay up all the way
to today where I need to figure out more complex stuff about building my
own home. I get *more* for my money, thus better value, buying from
locally-owned businesses.
Yep, see above.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)No farming is sustainable, just "as-efficient (in all respects) as it
possibly can be".
Before I get "into" this with you... why don't you define "sustainable"
so I know what we're talking about. Maybe it'll turn out I agree with
you anyways once I know how you're defining it.
Able to be carried on forever without a downside to any other area of
the planet.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiThe point is to buy from someone locally.
Why? How do you do this in down town NYC? London?
Tokyo? Rio?
There are CSAs in NYC. NYC happens to be located in the middle of a
state full of farmland.
And some of it is hundreds of miles from NYC IIRC. What proportion of
NYC is supplied by CSAs?
I remember a chap telling me he keeps himself supplied from his London
allotment, but that can't work for any more than a few thousand.
Post by Jackie PattiCan't speak for elsewhere... haven't been to any other countries except
Canada.
I've been to lots -- on the telly :)
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Well labelling is pretty accurate in Australia, but I agree with the
"organic" myth.
Post by jpatti"Free-range" chickens may have barely more space to move than caged
chickens in many cases.
Yep, it is worrisome, but if we knew everything that happend to our
produce, we'd likely starve.
I *do* know! I grow my own. And I buy from farmers I know.
And no other source? But seriously. Your personal system sounds great,
and ideally would be wonderful for the rest of the world,
unfortunately, practically....
Post by Jackie PattiAnd I used to be a chemist, so I know how Diet Pepsi is made too. ;)
What's the problem here?
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiIt *does* have to do with sustainable practices, which are more often
used on family-farms runnins CSAs than on factory farms.
And who told you this? Most family farms are run by well-meaning
amateurs. "Factory" farms are run by professionals.
In the US, factory farms are run by corporations whom hire unskilled
labor to raise food.
Managed by professionals
Post by Jackie PattiMy landlord raises cattle on a farm that has been in his family since
the 1800s. He knows quite a bit more than most employees of factory farms.
The employees don't have to know much, just do as they are told by the
professional managers.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiCert seainly not
on *all* of them, but... if you buy your food fom the farm, you can
know... which you can't when you buy it at a grocery store.
Know what, exactly?
How it's raised.
You study the vet reports and soil analyses?
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiWe don't *have* central locations served by public transport in the
states. What we have is semi-trucks that transport produce to
distribution points, then from distribution points across the country
to a town to numerous grocery stores that people drive to.
OK. I walk to several supermarkets served by daily semi-trailers. I
see them drive past my house from a central distribution wharehouse
out in the outer suburbs near the railway marshalling yards where much
produce and goods are imported from other states.
Post by jpattiThe town nearest me has *no* public transport at all within the town.
Yes, I've heard of that. What a terribly flagrant waste of energy
resources. I live close to two railway stations with airconditioned
electric trains every 15 minutes to where I want to go . And almost at
my door are busstops for other destinations. Way to go. Cheap.
Post by jpattiYou *can* get a bus there... to another town. There's two cabs.
Everyone drives - or walks. There's no other choice.
Sad. Are you sure it is the same all over the States?
Nope. I'm sure it's like this in many places I've lived though.
I live in the country now, 4 miles from town, in PA. There'd be no way
for there to be public transport to here efficiently cause we're too
spread out here.
Yep.
Post by Jackie PattiI used to live in a suburb of Philadelphia. For a while, I worked in
that town and walkd to work. I could get most shopping down by walking.
There were buses that ran along the main routes of that town and
others, but there was limited usefulness unless you were going exactly
where the routes went. Most of each town was several miles from the bus
roues and they didn't run very regularly. When our main grocery store
in town shut down, I had to use my car to shop.
I later got a job in another town, in another state, and it was an hour
drive to get there. Theoretically, I could've done this on public
transportation, but realistically, the trip would take 6 hours each way
cause of switching from one train to another bus, etc.
When I lived in suburban NJ, public transport was the sanest way to get
to NYC. But it was the stupidest way to get anywhere in NJ for similar
reasons as above... it could take hours and hours to get somewhere that
would be a 20 minute drive in a car.
Living in MA was similar, it made sense to take public transport to
Boston and getting around within Boston, but local public transportation
in Lowell was inconvenient (as described above) and in Wakefield was
non-existent. On the other hand, it wasn't very needed in Wakefield...
you could get around the whole town in 10 minutes on a bike.
In Florida, there was useful transportation in downtown St. Petersburg
and Tampa, but you'd have to both live and work in those areas to find
that useful and most people didn't.
Public transport makes sense where there's a lot of people, but most of
this country is pretty sparsely populated.
And all the places I personally want to live in are *very* sparsely
populated... unless you count cows. Cows don't drive much though. ;)
Yep, my bil lived in NH for 20 years and claimed (bragged) that they
has NO public transport.
I must be incredibly lucky to live in Perth. An even better city is
Vienna so I believe. It is the way of the future and the way to get
off the Middle East oil addiction. We have had governments close down
railways here, and are screaming about a new one being built now. The
ones they closed down are now very popular and whizz past all the
clogged up traffic on the roads. Way to go. Light rail down the middle
of the freeways. I live 40 km from my daughter and trains every 15
minutes will take me there in 20 minutes for a couple of bucks.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)And your selection must be terribly limited.
We get a huge variety of fruit, dairy and meat from hundreds or
thousands of miles away.
I find a larger selection of fresh produce from the CSA than from the
major grocery chains. I *am* discussing buying local produce, not
*everything*.
Our local Woolworths or Coles supermarkets carry a very wide variety
of fresh produce coming from the closest farms to the other side of
the country or even nearby countries. It is done quite efficiently and
reliably. If this doesn't happen in your town, I wonder why not and
contend that this would be quite unusual.
Post by Jackie PattiThough I think I began with meats... somehow we morphed into produce in
this thread.
Yep. We don't really have feedlots here (not needed I assume) but we
still have much unavoidable animal cruelty.
Are sheep mulesed where you are? They have to be here, by law, I
believe.
Post by Jackie PattiAnyway, grocery stores have lotsa stuff that CSAs do not. For instance,
they have Diet Pepsi and DaVinci syrups, which I cannot buy locally
produced. ;)
I avoid both of these, but our supermarkets sell much more than
available in any CSA. No farm is allowed to sell meat anyway. It must
be processed in a certified abbatoir.
Post by Jackie PattiI do shop at grocery stores, but rarely for produce.
I would have to travel many miles for a CSA. My daughter lives near
one and occasionally get a bargain there, but still shops at
supermarkets and she is one careful shopper.
Post by Jackie PattiMost of my whole foods are purchased from local sources. That includes
a variety of meats, fruits, vegetables, grains and honey.
Who slaughters her meat?
Gee, local fruits are often very limited at times. A supermarket can
offer a huge variety of many locally out-of-season fruits all year
round. Tropical and cold climate fruits sometimes efficiently
transported for thousands of miles.
Post by Jackie PattiSome stuff cannot be produced locally,
Most, in my experience here, but YMMV
Post by Jackie Pattiso I don't buy it locally.
There's coffee, some spices, baking powder, baking soda and a few
mass-produced products like soda and DaVinci syrups (which I could
probably live without).
I don't know where you are, but what about bananas, pineapples stone
fruits out of season, apple varieties, citrus and so on?
Can you buy a durian where you are? I can :)
Don't you import bananas from South America?
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiOn the SUV thing... well, frankly, the sort of people who'd *care*
about animals being raised humanely and *care* about topsoil not being
depleted wouldn't be likely to be driving SUVs in the first place. So
they probably aren't the audience for my post.
But other than public transport is surely very energy wasteful.
Nevertheless, our discussion is not to do with your or my individual
circumstances, but the overall principle.
The overall principle originally was... if you choose to reduce the
cruelty inflicted on animals in producing food for yourself, there are
choices beyond being vegetarian.
My original contention was that feeding huge urban populations MUST
involve much animal cruelty.
Post by Jackie PattiReduced fossil fuel usage buying lettuce grown across the country is
just a side-benefit of CSA buying.
Driving millions of small inefficient vehicles many miles instead of a
large train or a fleet of efficient, well-maintained diesel trucks.
Post by Jackie PattiI don't quite "get" what your objection is to buying from a CSA, but
whatever.
It's impractial for supplying large populations reliably and cheaply,
and uses way too much fossil fuel.
Otherwise it's fine.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiAll food animals are mistreated to some extent.
My chickens are not mistreated - unless you count the rooster's
behavior. ;)
And your chickens supply...?
My budgerigar is not mistreated. Supplies nothing except squealing on
the cockatoos who steal my almonds :)
We have over 90 eggs in the fridge right now. Sometimes, instead of
eggs, they produce chickens too. We've got a bunch of them in the freezer.
My brother does the same, living on a semirural five acres, but I
can't do this, living on a tiny plot of land in the centre of a city
of over 1,000,000. I contend that only a tiny proportion of folks here
could do anything like what you describe. I wish I could, but if most
people here did, the city would spread over most of our vast state
with transport problems that overwhelmed our food production problems.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)You do to feed millions at reasonable cost. Sorry, them's the facts.
Everyone can't live like you, I'm afraid.
Well, no... you don't. The "unreasonable" cost is about certification,
not about practices. My chickens live in a coop made out of pallets.
Factory farms do not raise chickens cheaper than I do!
The certainly do, if your family's labour is costed into the price of
your eggs.
Post by Jackie PattiCSAs that raise chickens and/or eggs don't need to raise each animal in
a cage with no room to move to make profits at reasonable costs. They
save costs on transporation
But then the consumer pays for the transport, and it is inefficient
and contributes to your scandalous fossil fuel usage.
They also can't compete equally on cost with large efficient factory
production and distribution methods.
The share dividends given to shareholders of all the required
infrastructure needed for this efficient distribution and sale of
reasonably priced eggs is itself at the mercy of market forces at the
stock exchange. There really is no other way to do it. Small
"boutique" egg farms are fine for those who want to pay a premium, but
are totally impractial for large populations.
Now if we could severely cull the human population....
Post by Jackie Pattiand cutting out corporate profits,
Profits to shareholders investing their capital for retirement or to
live on?
Post by Jackie Pattiso can
provide eggs cheaper than so-called "organic" crap in the stores (which
is just more factory farming).
Nope, see above. Big organisations are needed to suply big populations
efficiently.
Post by Jackie PattiMy local CSA sells eggs for the same price as regular eggs at the
grocery, which is significantly less than the cost of "organic" eggs.
But it is dangerous (unsafe in a legal sense) to extrapolate from a
small unusual example to the general.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)So what population in USA could survive on hunting?
A majority of the rural population in some states gets all their meat
from hunting.
Which is what proportion of the total populatio of the USA, an unusual
country in the world.
Post by Jackie PattiHunting is unlikely to be a complete solution. My point was it's a
source of meat that does not involve human-inflicted cruelty on animals.
But as it can't supply any but a tiny proportion of the population, it
really solves no problems, does it.
Post by Jackie PattiFamily farms marketing through CSAs is another.
And again, a tiny proportion of the population.
Post by Jackie PattiRaising your own is another.
Totally impractial for most.
Post by Jackie PattiYou don't *have* to support human cruelty to animals *or* be vegetarian.
There are other choices.
A tiny number of folk hunting "farmed -- managed" flocks of "wild"
animals and a small amount of grow your own is not going to make a
tiny dent in the problem of animal raising for large urban
populations. I just saw a doco about Australian sheep exported to your
friends, Kuwait. The individuals buying a sheep or two for their own
family slaughter, butchering and eating was appalling. Our cruelty
pales into insignificance.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiCause whether nature cares about cruelty or not, *I* do.
Well I see you only concerned with cruelty that you perceive as due to
your own needs or actions.
No. I'm concerned overall. But realistically what I can most effect is
what I do.
Yep. Most of us do what we can. I'm unhappy with battery chickens, but
can't do much about it. We have no feedlots here, but I'm not too
happy about animal transport, but again see little available for me to
do effectively. Not eating meat is cutting off my nose to spite my
face, as it were.
Post by Jackie PattiSome things I can change and some I can't. I spend more energy on those
I can cause it's the practical thing to do.
Post by Moosh:)Only in rare examples by farmers heading into bankrupcy.
And feedlots.
Are they headeing into bankruptcy? I wouldn't know.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpattiMass-produced animals are not fed diets healthy for
either the animal nor for the human who will eat them.
Nonsense. It is only a problem for overfed humans. Otherwise it is a
perfect diet for the animal.
Post by jpattiAs an example, cattle are not intended to eat the amounts of grain fed
into them in feedlots...
Who said? What possible problems does it cause? The animals enjoy it
as far as we know.
Fat in muscles is not healthy.
In animals? Please tell what problems it causes the animals.
Post by Jackie PattiChildren enjoy candy too, but that is not an argument for feeding them a
diet exclusively consisting of it.
But where are cattle fed a non-balanced diet?
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Post by jpatticattle thrive best on a diet of consisting
primarily of grasses.
Who says? If that's all they can get.
I think you're just being belligerent now. Go Google it, d00d.
Google what? You made the claim that "cattle thrive best on a diet of
consisting primarily of grasses."
If you can't justify it, then we will just forget it and move on. I
have not heard this despite many years of interest in this area.
Post by Jackie PattiI also think you're confusing me with a certain type of PETA-nutcase.
Not at all. I am merely commenting on what you say here. Nothing else.
I know nothing (nor assume nothing) about you other than what you have
written in this thread.
Post by Jackie PattiThis issue always brings out the *extremists* - somehow one has to be
for the human right to outright torture animals nonsensically or for
animal rights over people's rights. The extremes are both stupid.
I agree. I'm just stating commercial reality, and commenting on what
you say here.
Post by Jackie PattiI'm *for* good food raised well and minimizing cruelty unless it's
actually necessary. I like people better than animals., but I like
animals too.
That could equally well be said about me.
Post by Jackie PattiFor me, personally, corporate profits over the benefits of consumers,
animals, employees and shareholders does not qualify as "actually
necessary."
All businss has profit motive above anything else, otherwise, they go
out of business, involuntarily. These are the facts of life sorry.
Of course, if the society is organised on other than a free-market
regime, that may not be the case.
Post by Jackie PattiYMMV.
Post by Moosh:)They grow the meat that the market demand. The Japanese market demands
marbled beef. They pay top prices for it.
And it's unhealthy stuff. Having more saturated fat in the animal is
not better for the animal nor for those who eat it.
I can agree to those who may eat too much of the animal and too much
of the fat, but please show me any scientific evidence that it is
unhealthy for the animal. I've never heard of this despite an interest
in the area.
Post by Jackie PattiPost by Moosh:)Not here it isn't. I believe we have no or very few feedlots, but have
you got any evidence that feedlot nutrition is unhealthy for the
beast? They wouldn't do it if it was.
Yes they would. You stated so right up there. "Market forces" override
both human and animal health.
Can do, but not in this instance which I'm interested in, but if you
have just claimed that feed lot nutrition is unhealthy for animals,
off the top of your head....
Post by Jackie PattiI think I'm tired of the silliness in this thread... only so much
Googling I want to do in a day. You're just being belligerent, which I
expect is due to thinking of me as some kind of PETA nutcase.
Not at all. I disagree with some of the things you put. If you're
tired, then you should participate no further.