Over 280 million turkeys are slaughtered annually for human consumption in the United States


10 Things Everyone Should Know About Free-Range Turkeys

Angel Flinn November 15, 2013 3:05 pm

  

A pair of domestic turkeys (left) and a guinea...
A pair of domestic turkeys (left) and a guinea fowl (right) at the Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary in Poolsville, Maryland. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over 280 million turkeys are slaughtered annually for human consumption in the United States,

despite the fact that such consumption is unnecessary for humans and absolutely horrifying for turkeys. Forty-five million of those deaths occur for the ritual of Thanksgiving alone. Increasingly, as consumers are becoming more aware of the extreme cruelty of animal farming, free-range, organic and “natural” animal products are gaining popularity. What many people don’t realize, however, is that animals raised under these labels frequently suffer through much of the same torment as those in standard factory farming operations. 1. According to the USDA, the terms “free range” and “free roaming” can be used to describe animals that “are

Domestic turkey poults (babies)
Domestic turkey poults (babies) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

allowed access to the outside for 51 percent of their lives.” There are no other requirements, including the amount of time spent outdoors or the quality and size of the outdoor area. For this reason, contrary to popular belief, “free-range” facilities are generally no more than large sheds in which tens of thousands of turkeys are crammed together on filthy, disease-ridden floors, living in their own waste. The conditions are often so poor that many turkeys die simply from the stress of living in such an environment. 2. Lighting is often kept dim to discourage aggression, since birds can engage in feather plucking and even cannibalism when they become highly stressed. Low lighting can cause reduced activity levels and result in abnormalities in growth, such as in the eyes and legs. 3. When raised for food, turkeys (even those described as free-range) are genetically modified to grow abnormally large — often twice their normal size — for producer profits. This genetic modification causes severe health problems, but since turkeys are generally slaughtered five months into their natural life span of 10 years, most are killed prior to the heart attacks or organ failure that would otherwise occur after six months. (This becomes apparent when genetically modified turkeys are rescued and allowed to live out the rest of their lives in sanctuary situations.) 4. “Natural”, “free range,” and “organic” turkeys are routinely subjected to debeaking, which is intended to prevent overcrowded birds from pecking at each other. Debeaking involves slicing off about one-third of a bird’s beak with a red hot blade when the turkey is around 5 days old (or often even younger). 5. To prevent cannibalism due to stressful conditions, turkeys sold under the above labels are just as likely to be subjected to detoeing. Detoeing is a very painful procedure which involves cutting off or microwaving the ends of the toes of male turkeys within the first three days of life. 6. Free-range, organic and natural operations are also allowed to practice desnooding, which consists of the cutting off of the snood (the fleshy appendage above the beak). Desnooding is an acutely painful procedure, and is often done with scissors, or using methods that are too brutal to describe here. 7. By the time the birds are sent to slaughter, as much as 80 percent of the litter on the floor of the shed is their own feces. This results in a buildup of ammonia, causing turkeys to develop ulcerated feet and painful burns on their legs and bodies. 8. When they reach market weight, free-range turkeys generally undergo the same horrifying conditions on their way to slaughter as does any factory-farmed animal. Workers gather these birds up to four at a time, carrying them upside down by their legs and then throwing them into crates on multi-tiered trucks. During transport, they are at the mercy of the elements, sometimes enduring extreme cold, and are denied access to food or water. 9. After transportation, free-range turkeys arrive at the same slaughterhouses as turkeys from any other facility. In these places, workers often torture the turkeys – kicking them, throwing them into walls, and breaking their necks and bones. 10. Even when turkeys are not intentionally tortured during transportation or at the slaughterhouse, the killing process itself would certainly be considered torture if done to a human being. The birds are hung upside down by the legs, and dipped in an electrical bath that is supposed to “stun” them, but often only causes convulsions and terror. If they miss the stunning bath, their throats are slit while they’re still conscious. Sometimes, because they are flailing around, they miss both the bath and the blade, and end up alive in a scalding tank designed to remove feathers. As anyone familiar with animal sanctuary operations will tell you, turkeys are intelligent, social beings who nurture and protect their young and thrive in their natural habitat. Even when they are stressed and confined in “free-range” concentration camps, they have an amazing will to live, as do all sentient beings. In the extremely rare cases where turkeys are raised gently in someone’s backyard, slaughter by any method is intentional killing of the innocent and clearly unnecessary for humans, and is therefore wrong and logically indistinguishable from murder. Instead of practicing the primitive ritual of making the sacrifice of a turkey the focus of Thanksgiving dinner, consider giving thanks for all life by having a vegan thanksgiving. Being vegan inspires a new sense of self-esteem which comes from not contributing to the unnecessary and heartless killing of those who simply want to live their lives, as you do.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-things-everyone-should-know-about-free-range-turkeys.html#ixzz2kuEHNjFM

“The bees are dying and we´re to blame.” TIME´s Bryan Walsh explains colony collapse disorder, and why bees are on the verge of extinction.


A poster of bees and wasps
A poster of bees and wasps (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The bees are dying and we’re to blame. TIME’s Bryan Walsh explains colony  collapse disorder, and why bees are on the verge of extinction.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,2591408791001_0,00.html?iid=tabvidrecirc#ixzz2cs5CP4oN

http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,2591408791001_0,00.html

HONEY BEE COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER- Common Agricultural Chemicals Linked to BEE DECLINE by New Research


Low temperature scanning electron micrograph (...
Low temperature scanning electron micrograph (LTSEM) of Varroa destructor on a honey bee host (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: Female Honey Bee Morphology for the a...
English: Female Honey Bee Morphology for the article on Bees. It can be identified as a female by both the number of divisions on its antenna and by its sting. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A honeybee on an apiary, spreading feromones t...
A honeybee on an apiary, spreading feromones to ‘call back’ her collegues, showing her nassanoff-gland. Location: Tübingen-Hagelloch. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Two drone pupae of the Western honey bee with ...
Two drone pupae of the Western honey bee with varroa mites. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

image56H

Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder — Common Agricultural Chemicals Linked To Bee Decline By New Research

Posted: 25 Jul 2013 08:20 PM PDT

Commonly used agricultural chemicals — including many commonly used fungicides — damage and impair the abilities of commercial honey bees to fight off dangerous potentially lethal parasites, according to new research from the University of Maryland and the US Department of Agriculture.

Researchers collect pollen samples from honey bee hives used to pollinate blueberries in Maine.” Image Credit: Michael Andree
“Researchers collect pollen samples from honey bee hives used to pollinate blueberries in Maine.”
Image Credit: Michael Andree

Commercial honey bees are regularly exposed to these chemicals during the corse of their pollination activities — many of the most productive agricultural crops in the world are entirely dependent upon honey bees for pollination, but their numbers have been rapidly falling in recent years for “unknown” reasons.

This new research is “the first analysis of real-world conditions encountered by honey bees as their hives pollinate a wide range of crops, from apples to watermelons.”

The University of Maryland has details:

The researchers collected pollen from honey bee hives in fields from Delaware to Maine. They analyzed the samples to find out which flowering plants were the bees’ main pollen sources and what agricultural chemicals were commingled with the pollen. The researchers fed the pesticide-laden pollen samples to healthy bees, which were then tested for their ability to resist infection with Nosema ceranae — a parasite of adult honey bees that has been linked to a lethal phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder.

On average, the pollen samples contained 9 different agricultural chemicals, including fungicides, insecticides, herbicides and miticides. Sublethal levels of multiple agricultural chemicals were present in every sample, with one sample containing 21 different pesticides. Pesticides found most frequently in the bees’ pollen were the fungicide chlorothalonil, used on apples and other crops, and the insecticide fluvalinate, used by beekeepers to control Varroa mites, common honey bee pests.

In the study’s most surprising result, bees that were fed the collected pollen samples containing chlorothonatil were nearly three times more likely to be infected by Nosema than bees that were not exposed to these chemicals, said Jeff Pettis, research leader of the USDA’s Bee Research Laboratory and the study’s lead author. The miticides used to control Varroa mites also harmed the bees’ ability to withstand parasitic infection.

Beekeepers know they are making a trade-off when they use miticides, said University of Maryland researcher Dennis vanEngelsdorp, the study’s senior author. The chemicals compromise bees’ immune systems, but the damage is less than it would be if mites were left unchecked. But the study’s finding that common fungicides can be harmful at real world dosages is new, and points to a gap in existing regulations, he said.

“We don’t think of fungicides as having a negative effect on bees, because they’re not designed to kill insects,” vanEngelsdorp stated. Current federal regulations limit the use of insecticides during the time periods when pollinating insects are foraging, “but there are no such restrictions on fungicides, so you’ll often see fungicide applications going on while bees are foraging on the crop. This finding suggests that we have to reconsider that policy.”

One of the more interesting findings of the new research is that the majority of “the crops that the bees were pollinating appeared to provide their hives with little nourishment. Honey bees gather pollen to take to their hives and feed their young. But when the researchers collected pollen from bees foraging on native North American crops such as blueberries and watermelon, they found the pollen came from other flowering plants in the area, not from the crops. This is probably because honey bees, which evolved in the Old World, are not efficient at collecting pollen from New World crops, even though they can pollinate these crops.”

The researchers make the distinction that these new findings aren’t “directly related to colony collapse disorder, the still-unexplained phenomenon in which entire honey bee colonies suddenly die. However, the researchers said the results shed light on the many factors that are interacting to stress honey bee populations.”

The new research was just published July 24th in the online journal PLOS ONE.

Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder — Common Agricultural Chemicals Linked To Bee Decline By New Research was originally posted on: PlanetSave

MoJo Tom Philpott: Charts: How Big Pork Screws Small Towns


Satellite image of farming in Minnesota.
Satellite image of farming in Minnesota. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Charts: How Big Pork Screws Small Towns

—By

| Mon Nov. 12, 2012 4:08 AM PST
                    please, watch my blog, too:  www.schweingehabt.wordpress.com/

I’ve argued often that the food system functions like an economic sieve, draining away wealth. Imagine, say, a suburb served by a handful of fast-food chains plus a supermarket or Walmart or two. Profits from residents’ food dollars go to distant shareholders; what’s left behind are essentially low-skill, low-wage clerical jobs and mountains of generally low-quality, health-ruining food.

But the food system’s secret scandal is that it’s economically extractive in farming communities areas, too—and especially in the places where industrial agriculture is most established and intensive. I first learned about this surprising fact from the Minnesota-based community economics expert Ken Meter, specifially this 2001 study on a farm-heavy region of Minnesota. And now Food and Water Watch, working with the University of Tennessee‘s Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, has come out with an excellent new report documenting the food industry’s effect on several ag-intense regions, with the main spotlight on the hog-centric counties of Iowa, the nation’s leading hog-producing state. …

Read more ….

New Mexico Horse Meat Facility Moves a Step Closer to Operation


Violence
The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/business/new-mexico-horse-meat-facility-moves-a-step-closer-to-operation.html?src=recg&pagewanted=print


April 22, 2013

New Mexico Horse Meat Facility Moves a Step Closer to Operation

<nyt_byline>

By

<nyt_text>

<nyt_correction_top>Amid the unfolding horse-meat scandal, a New Mexico slaughterhouse has moved closer to becoming the first in the United States since 2007 to be allowed to process horses for human consumption.“I am recommending to the Dallas district manager that your application be processed, and a grant of federal inspection be issued, provided you meet all other requirements for inspection,” Scott C. Safian, a director at the Agriculture Department, wrote in a letter dated April 13 to Ricardo De Los Santos, owner of the Valley Meat Company.

Mr. De Los Santos has been seeking U.S.D.A. approval for his processing plant in Roswell, N.M., since December 2011.

“Grants will not be issued until an establishment is able to produce a safe product in accordance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act,” said an Agriculture Department spokeswoman, Catherine Cochran.

On Monday, an advocacy group for horses sent a letter to the U.S.D.A., asking it not to grant permission for Mr. De Los Santos to operate the facility because he had failed to disclose two felonies on his original application form, as well as on a second, subsequent form.

“Is this really a guy we want to be operating a regulated business, one in which the U.S.D.A. will rely on his representations?” said Bruce A. Wagman, a lawyer representing Front Range Equine Rescue, the advocacy group.

A. Blair Dunn, the lawyer representing Mr. De Los Santos, said Front Range had erroneously described a case of criminal trespassing as a felony. He said the issue was “another desperate attempt to degrade my clients” by Front Range and the Humane Society of the United States.

“Everything regarding that information has been vetted” through the department’s food safety and inspection service “and has been certified by letter by U.S.D.A. to offer no impediment,” Mr. Dunn wrote in an e-mail.

The issue of horse slaughtering has become contentious in light of a labeling scandal in Europe, where ground beef in processed foods made and sold by companies ranging from Nestlé to Ikea was found to contain horse meat.

On Monday, Robert Redford, who starred in “The Electric Horseman” and “The Horse Whisperer,” lent his voice to the debate in a letter to Equine Advocates, a horse welfare group, explaining his opposition to slaughter. “We need to oppose this unspeakable practice with all our might,” Mr. Redford wrote. “It has no place in our culture.”

Horses have not been slaughtered in the United States since 2007, after Congress forbade the use of federal money for inspection of horse meat. That prohibition fell out of legislation in 2011, and Mr. De Los Santos first applied for inspection in December of that year.

On that application, dated Dec. 13, 2011, Mr. De Los Santos wrote “none” in the section asking applicants to account for any felonies they have committed.

A subsequent application dated March 1, 2012 was filled out the same way, with no note made of any felony.

But on a third application dated March 15, 2013, the section is filled out with Mr. De Los Santos’s name and two convictions, one for criminal trespass in Texas in 1988 and the other for residential burglary there in 1978.

Court records show that Mr. De Los Santos was arrested by the Amarillo police department on Sept. 11, 1989 — his third U.S.D.A. application reported the incident occurring a year earlier — on suspicion of criminal trespass but charged only with a moving violation and convicted of that offense.

He was arrested on Aug. 28, 1978, in Dallam County, Tex., charged with residential burglary and convicted.

In his letter, Mr. Safian indicated that the U.S.D.A. and Mr. De Los Santos had been corresponding for some time on the issue. “We note that your April 4, 2013, submittal contends that the disclosed convictions were previously identified on a 1990 application for federal inspection,” Mr. Safian wrote. “However, for clarification, our records indicate prior disclosure of only the 1978 conviction, and no disclosure of a 1988 conviction prior to submittal of your March 2013 application.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Safian concluded that because of the time that had elapsed since the incidents and “other factors,” he was recommending approval of the application.

Mr. Wagman, the lawyer for Front Range, contended that Mr. De Los Santos now has committed a third felony by improperly filling out his first two applications. Under federal law, it is a felony to knowingly falsify, conceal or materially misrepresent facts submitted on a federal application.

Front Range also forwarded to the U.S.D.A. letters from the New Mexico Environment Department to Mr. De Los Santos, noting various failures related to discharge from what was then known as the Pecos Valley Meat Packing Company, a cattle slaughtering operation the De Los Santos family operated in the facility where they are seeking to slaughter horses.

In 2009 and 2010, the U.S.D.A. itself suspended inspection of Pecos Valley Meats, effectively suspending its operations, after finding problems with its sanitation and food safety program including “inadequate” testing for E. coli and “irregularities” in the segregation and disposal of “specified risk materials.” Those are parts of an animal banned for human consumption because they run a higher risk of contamination with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy prions that transmit mad cow disease. Mr. Dunn said the suspensions were only for a short time.

Some Informations about Poultry Inspection Policy MoJo


Buffalo grazing on rangeland in Crook County, ...
Buffalo grazing on rangeland in Crook County, Wyoming. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

THE MAIN DISH

USDA Ruffles Feathers With New Poultry Inspection Policy

The Obama administration is on the verge of dramatically scaling back the US Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA) oversight of the nation’s largest chicken and turkey slaughterhouses—while also allowing companies to speed up their kill lines.

After the idea was floated last year, it was met by massive pushback from food-safety and worker advocates, who argued that the combination of more speed and fewer inspectors would lead to dangerous conditions for both consumers and workers.

According to a 2012 statement, the department expects to save $90 million over three years by firing inspectors. Meanwhile, the USDA calculates that by increasing kill line speeds, the plan will save the poultry industry more than eight times as much, or $256.6 million each year.  [READ MORE]

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/04/usda-inspectors-poultry-kill-lines-chicken

New Case of Mad Cow Found in California (poor cows)


Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), H&E
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), H&E (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

New Case of Mad Cow Found in California AprNew Case of Mad Cow Found in California April 24, 2012. ”

They’re here!” –

Heather O’Rourke, Poltergeist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9aENGodu5A

Let’s assume for the moment that this was not a California Happy Cow. Happy Cows, as you know, are disease-free, or so we are told by USDA. We are also being told that meat and milk are safe to eat, so that sure must be a relief to American consumers. Before being sent to the rendering facility where her body would have been ground into pet food for companion cats and companion dogs, how much milk over how many years did yesterday’s Mad Cow provide for California boys and girls? A cow filters through her udder 10,000 liters of pus, proteins, & dead white blood cells each day. See: http://www.notmilk.com/m.html One cannot donate blood if he or she has spent more than two weeks in England, home of the original Mad Cow Disease outbreak. If one cannot donate blood because the infectious mad cow disease protein (Prion) can be passed in the blood; AND; If Mad Cow Disease sometimes has a 40 year incubation period; AND; Since Mad Cows are clearly in our milking herd before their lethal diseases are detected; THEN; Do you still lack the wisdom and continue to drink milk or eat concentrated dairy cheeses, butter, and ice cream from animals you know to be diseased? BUT; The good news is twofold. First, dairy is delicious. Second, once infected with the human form of Mad Cow Disease, death comes rapidly. The bad news? There is no bad news. Mad Cow Disease can save our Social Security and pension funds and give America a financially strong future. Robert Cohen http://www.notmilk.com il 24, 2012. “They’re here!” – Heather O’Rourke, Poltergeist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9aENGodu5A Let’s assume for the moment that this was not a California Happy Cow. Happy Cows, as you know, are disease-free, or so we are told by USDA. We are also being told that meat and milk are safe to eat, so that sure must be a relief to American consumers. Before being sent to the rendering facility where her body would have been ground into pet food for companion cats and companion dogs, how much milk over how many years did yesterday’s Mad Cow provide for California boys and girls? A cow filters through her udder 10,000 liters of pus, proteins, & dead white blood cells each day. See: http://www.notmilk.com/m.html One cannot donate blood if he or she has spent more than two weeks in England, home of the original Mad Cow Disease outbreak. If one cannot donate blood because the infectious mad cow disease protein (Prion) can be passed in the blood; AND; If Mad Cow Disease sometimes has a 40 year incubation period; AND; Since Mad Cows are clearly in our milking herd before their lethal diseases are detected; THEN; Do you still lack the wisdom and continue to drink milk or eat concentrated dairy cheeses, butter, and ice cream from animals you know to be diseased? BUT; The good news is twofold. First, dairy is delicious. Second, once infected with the human form of Mad Cow Disease, death comes rapidly. The bad news? There is no bad news. Mad Cow Disease can save our Social Security and pension funds and give America a financially strong future. Robert Cohen http://www.notmilk.com

How Much Milk is Produced by Factory Dairy Farms?


How Much Milk is Produced by Factory Dairy Farms?

There was a time that dairy farms resembled the
tranquil scenes depicted on milk cartons.

This week (March 1, 2012), the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) released
a report “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock
Operations, 2011 Summary” showing that more
than half of the United States milk supply
was produced on farms with 1,000 or more cows.

USDA counted 60,0000 dairy farms in 2011, and
there were 1,750 milking more than 1,000 cows.
Less than three percent of America’s dairies
produce more than 50 percent of our milk.

What other than milk do such farms produce?

A typical 1600 pound Holstein cow produces
42,200 pounds of waste each year. That volume
represents 30,400 pounds of solid waste and
12,800 pounds of urine. Multiply that by
1,000, and the resulting bovine body waste
from such a farm is equal to 42 million pounds,
an amount equal to the waste produced by a city of
500,000 humans.

Human urine is sanitized in waste treatment plants.
Cow waste enters the ground and finds its way to
underground reservoirs or into streams.

As for the solid waste, watch where you step.

On factory farms, urine and feces are mixed and stored
in lakes and dams and then sprayed as fertilizer on
growing fruits and vegetables which end up in supermarkets.

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com

US-Zirkusunternehmen muss wegen mutmasslicher Verstösse gegen das Tierschutzgesetz eine Geldbusse zahlen


  • Ein US-Zirkusunternehmen muss wegen mutmaßlicher Verstöße gegen das Tierschutzgesetz …

Ein US-Zirkusunternehmen muss wegen mutmaßlicher Verstöße gegen das Tierschutzgesetz eine Geldbuße in Höhe von 270.000 Dollar (200.000 Euro) zahlen. Wie das US-Landwirtschaftsministerium mitteilte, akzeptierte das Unternehmen Feld Entertainment, Muttergesellschaft des Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, die Strafzahlung als Teil eines Vergleichs. Im Gegenzug würden die Ermittlungen wegen Tierquälerei gegen das Unternehmen eingestellt.

Die Behörden hatten im Zeitraum von 2007 bis 2011 zahlreiche Missstände bei der Tierhaltung des Zirkusbetreibers festgestellt. Dem Landwirtschaftsministerium zufolge verpflichtete sich Feld Entertainment, alle seine Angestellten einer Fortbildung im Tierschutz zu unterziehen. Das Unternehmen erklärte sich zu einer “konstruktiven” Zusammenarbeit mit den Behörden bereit. Zugleich betonte Feld Entertainment, dass es mit dem Vergleich kein Fehlverhalten einräume.

Yahoo-News

Surprising Changes in Per Capita American Food Consumption


 
Public domain photograph of various meats. (Be...
Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Surprising Changes in Per Capita American Food Consumption

“It is not government’s job to mandate responsibility on
our behalf. We have the intelligence and good sense to
make wise consumption choices for ourselves and our
children. It is up to us to do what is best for our
health and our children’s health.
– Michael Crapo (U.S. Senator from Idaho)

What’s happened to meat and dairy consumption
during the 2-decade period between 1990 and 2010?

According to the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA):

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/

Per capita consumption of red meat dropped from
119.4 pounds to 111.7 pounds.

Per capita consumption of chicken increased from
60.6 pounds to 80.0 pounds.

Per capita consumption of liquid milk dropped from
233.3 pounds to 203.4 pounds.

Per capita consumption of cheese rose from
38 pounds to 43.6 pounds.

Bad publicity and real science about milk most
certainly contributed to the decline, but consumers
have been scared into eating additional cheese by
those people who market and promote dairy products
by using calcium scare tactics.

What a mistake! I should have simultaneously become the
UnCheeseman at the same time I became the NotMilkman.

More Bad News For the Animal Rights Movement (& Chickens)

Clearly, the animal rights movement is not waging
a very effective campaign. After first becoming involved
in the AR movement in 1995, I’ve noted how AR groups
have focused upon the plight of abused chickens.

From 1995 until 2000, activists and lobbyists have
increased their altruistic efforts in creating greater
public awareness of the horrible nature in which
chickens live and die. How they are de-beaked. How they
are confined. How they are killed without first being
stunned. By promoting compassionate slaughter laws,
AR organizations have relieved the guilt of chicken
eaters, who now enjoy eating more chicken by supposedly
doing so compassionately.

While red meat consumption has declined by 6.54 percent,
chicken consumption has increased by 32.3 percent!
Overall, the consumption of red meat and chicken
resulted in a combined increase over the past 20
years from 180 pounds per person to 191.7 pounds
per person. That represents a 6.5 percent increase.

Since ten pounds of milk are required to produce one
pound of hard cheese, the dairy “influence” has increased
from 613.3 pounds of liquid milk plus the milk required to
produce the cheese to a whopping 639.4 pounds per person
which represents an actual 4.25 percent increase.

As for the animal rights movement, ask yourself why it is
that total meat and chicken consumption and total dairy
and cheese consumption have increased during the past
20 years? Are the dollars altruistic people donate to
animal rights groups being wasted by huge AR salaries
and groups that make animal welfare their priority?
Larger cages and easier ways for animals to die show
results which A.R. groups distort. The proof is in the
Yorkshire pudding

(Note: Yorkshire pudding is made with milk, eggs,
and fat drippings from the roasted beast.)

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com