organic

G

grumpy

Guest
ok we might as well have a go at this one on here.i heard on the tractor radio the other day some lassie saying she only buys organic meat as she only wants to consume meat that comes from animals that have been reared humanly.surely folk cant be that thick?
 
ok we might as well have a go at this one on here.i heard on the tractor radio the other day some lassie saying she only buys organic meat as she only wants to consume meat that comes from animals that have been reared humanly.surely folk cant be that thick?

Everyone should have the right to buy and sell whatever they want. Personal freedom. Organic people that I have seen work hard, more power to them.
 
Everyone should have the right to buy and sell whatever they want. Personal freedom. Organic people that I have seen work hard, more power to them.

you have missed the point of my post,note the humane part of my post.the said lady was under the impression that organically reared animals are kept in better conditions than conventionally reared one,s.which of course is nonsense.i too have nothing against organic produce but buy it for the correct reason the mistaken belief that it is better for you not animal welfare.
 
you have missed the point of my post,note the humane part of my post.the said lady was under the impression that organically reared animals are kept in better conditions than conventionally reared one,s.which of course is nonsense.i too have nothing against organic produce but buy it for the correct reason the mistaken belief that it is better for you not animal welfare.

I didn't miss it but maybe didn't reply straight forward, it is complicated. Firstly it doesn't make any difference why she buys it, her reasons are hers alone. However, if she is wishing to buy pork for example based on animal welfare issues, I would think that without her knowing the exact source of her food the chances of the animal being raised in an environment like she envisions would be good. That is, organic pigs were most likely raised free stall and outside while other meat in the case was raised in a intensive production environment. So I would not say it is of course nonsense.
Now producers can debate the relative welfare of the animals in the two production systems but by selecting organic she is most likely supporting the system she believes is best for the animals. We come back to the customer and the fact that whatever their reasons are (mostly) we as producers need to educate or accommodate.
There's more to it but that's enough for now.

best,Tom
 
she said she was an ethical consumer so only ate organic meat as she didnt believe in animal cruelty,therefore she is assuming that conventional production is cruel which is nonsense.the assumption that organic production is better for animals is tosh as all organic means is the animals have been fed on organic fodder and have had minimal drugs.that is all it is no indicator of the quality of life an animal has had.in the case of pigs you could run an intensive unit with all the pigs in doors and feed them organic fodder and minimal drugs you would still be considered organic.where as you could run a free range system aimed at producing top quality pork no expense spared highest quality fodder produced with fertilizer.then the stricktest health regime every drug on the market used in the persuit of perfect health and well being.i therefore suggest the organic part is irrelevant in the quality of life of an animal.but knowing the conditions an animal has lived under is relevant such as free range.
 
she said she was an ethical consumer so only ate organic meat as she didnt believe in animal cruelty,therefore she is assuming that conventional production is cruel which is nonsense.the assumption that organic production is better for animals is tosh as all organic means is the animals have been fed on organic fodder and have had minimal drugs.that is all it is no indicator of the quality of life an animal has had.in the case of pigs you could run an intensive unit with all the pigs in doors and feed them organic fodder and minimal drugs you would still be considered organic.where as you could run a free range system aimed at producing top quality pork no expense spared highest quality fodder produced with fertilizer.then the stricktest health regime every drug on the market used in the persuit of perfect health and well being.i therefore suggest the organic part is irrelevant in the quality of life of an animal.but knowing the conditions an animal has lived under is relevant such as free range.


That has to be a record for you :eek:
 
We are dealing with two concepts here which while as you say do not necessarily follow each other are in her mind linked. She does not know the conditions under which the meat was raised so she is inferring that meat raised organically is more likely to have been raised under conditions she considers humane. That is the only information she is supplied. I think she would be right.
I would doubt a total confinement situation farrow to finish could be achieved organically, too much disease pressure. Of course the best solution would be for her to visit the farm from which her meat came and see that the animals were raised as she would like them to have been.
Humanely raised is not quantifiable and is subject to personal interpretation. What are humane conditions to me may not be to her.
I think we should be happy she is at least still buying meat.
 
Seeing how my neighbours rear their organic livestock, I wonder if we are in fact more organic than they are! :eek:

I have all my costings analised by the Imperial Collage of London, as part of DEFRAs costing scheme. It then gets compared like for like with other similar farms around the UK and surprisingly my vet and medicine expenses are alot less than most organic farmers!


The big organic con.:(
 
indeed , you could kick your sheep , cattle out onto the hill never look at them until you want to sell them . bring whats left living to market and sell them as organic, but thats not necessarily humane . or you could have well fed cattle that have been given all the antibiotics they need when ill to keep them healthy as we would want our selfs when ill .
don't most buyers who buy organic because there worried about because the cattle have been given antibiotics and pour-ons it might cause them harm or make them less resistant to antibiotics so its nowt to do with animal welfare and all about self preservation




well done grumps youve opened a massive can of worms there :rolleyes:
 
don't most buyers who buy organic because there worried about because the cattle have been given antibiotics and pour-ons it might cause them harm or make them less resistant to antibiotics so its nowt to do with animal welfare and all about self preservation

That is the way I understand it, and in addition they are worried the continual use of pesticides and such is harmful to the environment. It is many faceted and what is of concern to one may not be to another. The woman in question was making a leap when equating organic with humane treatment and my only point is that with information she had she was probably grounded.
My animals are far from organically raised but I doubt if any are raised more humanely. I would encourage her to buy from producers that she is comfortable with, or from suppliers that source their products from such producers.
Maybe there should be some type of certification to that effect, but then raising animals inhumanely is not allowed now. It all comes back to what you think humane practices are. Apples and oranges.
 
That is the way I understand it, and in addition they are worried the continual use of pesticides and such is harmful to the environment. It is many faceted and what is of concern to one may not be to another. The woman in question was making a leap when equating organic with humane treatment and my only point is that with information she had she was probably grounded.
My animals are far from organically raised but I doubt if any are raised more humanely. I would encourage her to buy from producers that she is comfortable with, or from suppliers that source their products from such producers.
Maybe there should be some type of certification to that effect, but then raising animals inhumanely is not allowed now. It all comes back to what you think humane practices are. Apples and oranges.


Not allowed???
Dosnt mean that it dosnt go on,
My biggest gripe with the organic banner is that in the main folk like the lady on grumpys op wrongly assume that "organic" means humane.Or they think it is good for the enviroment:eek:

Lets face it, a lot of folk whant what is cheap, want it so it looks farthest from the animal it once was, and a s far as taste goes....how many time has some one said to you go to x restaurant, "its wonderful" only for it to be the biggest pile of cack you have ever tasted.
Lot of truth in the saying "one mans meat".

I know what my opinion is on organics:rolleyes:
I will stick my neck out and say that certainly for upland farms, down to permanant pasture, farming is extensive rather than intensive, should the bunny hugging consumer who is led to believe that organic means something it dosnt, not be told that these animas had lived the best life possible, had the drugs that were necessry to prevent some rotten illnesses,fluke, staggers, orf,scab, recieved the best nutrition(that they would not have got under organic rules)
and further more they would by buying this produce be going further to prevent the loss of native flaura and fauna, conserving our native countryside.

Sorry i am tired and grumpy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose that the end customer will buy a product according to whichever set of criteria are uppermost in her mind at the time of purchase.
If, for meat products, It is is animal welfare, then she/he might buy organic or one of the other designated label that purport to demonstrate 'higher' welfare conditions.
I do think however, that there is a lot of 'wooly' thinking on the subject of welfare. Just because a standard has been established and marketed does not mean the animal would choose that set of standards to govern its behaviour. Let me give an example from human behaviour.
Most urban humans in the West prefer to stay at home in front of the TV eating fatty, salty, sugary products than got out outside (whatever the weather) to perform physical tasks or exercise, they prefer sedentary behaviour.
This is despite knowing the criteria that the latter pattern of behaviour will give 'supposed' benefits to the being concerned.
Those who set the standards for animal welfare have a vested interest in promoting their particular 'standard' and at times set of criteria to suit the market not the animal. (the recent doubling of the number of hens per hectare [2000 to 4000] in the organic system, being an example.)
My own view is that there is space for all kinds of animal husbandry and that the RSPCA's original Victorian remit to prevent cruelty should be the yardstick for welfare. Not the standards adopted in recent years which purport to be about welfare but are really about product differentiation in a commodity market.
By all means, differentiate on whatever grounds you like, but do not claim a kind of moral superiority for organic over conventional.
 
Back
Top