# Chicken Run



## tim (8 Jan 2008)

Did anyone watch this last night. Prog about rearing Chickens in battery vs freerange conditions. Second part tonight. 

Its filmed in Axminster (Hugh F-W's nearest town) and they showed the APTC canteen - seems customer service doesn't apply to staff: frozen omelette anyone?

Big shame that the supermarkets/ poultry industry aren't prepared to comment. Seems its because they are worried about being portrayed negatively. If it was my industry, I would want to make sure that at least part of my story was told by me.

For those that did watch it I would pass two comments: 

1. I think the stockman is going to back down - I think he wants or will need a job inside the industry in the future.

2. The spokeswoman for the housing estate chicken experiment complained that they were struggling to get by on the amount of money they had for food each week. Really??

Cheers

Tim

Ch4 9pm.


----------



## wizer (8 Jan 2008)

I watched, being a HFW fan. I think this format has been done before a few times. Will it change the consumer's habits. I doubt it.

Was a bit disappointed that we didn't even see one tool at APTC! Oh well.


----------



## Waka (8 Jan 2008)

I watched bits of it, we have been buying free range chicken for years. It is stocked by most supermarkets but not in huge quantities.


----------



## gidon (8 Jan 2008)

Got it on my Sky box - will check it out later. 
Cheers
Gidon


----------



## mr (8 Jan 2008)

My issue with his proposal that we should all buy free range chickens etc is based on cost and the average man on the estate's financial reality. Tescos are selling two birds for a fiver as opposed to one freerange bird for £7? It makes sense for the average mum in tescos with a couple of kids and not much cash to go for the cheaper option. Personally speaking I can't afford the freerange option and I don't think I'm an exceptional case. I find it bordering on the offensive that he should preach the virtues of the more expensive route when his own "situation" is far from the reality of majority of people in the country. Of course the target audience for his TV program will mostly agree with him, the rest who can't afford his virtues probably weren't watching in any case. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## tim (8 Jan 2008)

mr":39jyw9qo said:


> My issue with his proposal that we should all buy free range chickens etc is based on cost and the average man on the estate's financial reality. Tescos are selling two birds for a fiver as opposed to one freerange bird for £7? It makes sense for the average mum in tescos with a couple of kids and not much cash to go for the cheaper option. Personally speaking I can't afford the freerange option and I don't think I'm an exceptional case. I find it bordering on the offensive that he should preach the virtues of the more expensive route when his own "situation" is far from the reality of majority of people in the country. Of course the target audience for his TV program will mostly agree with him, the rest who can't afford his virtues probably weren't watching in any case.
> 
> Cheers Mike



Not a lot to disagree with there. These ideas fall flat when they aren't able to provide a zero net cost alternative. I am of the opinion though that it isn't right to provide chickens at £2.50 each especially if those animals have lived a miserable life as a result. Do I blame the consumers for buying them - no, unless they have a choice. Do I blame the retailers - yes, absolutely.

Cheers

Tim


----------



## Paul Chapman (8 Jan 2008)

I haven't eaten chicken for years. I think it's quite revolting and disgraceful the way much food is produced today. That is compounded by selling it on the basis of value for money. A lot of it is diseased and full of chemicals and it's all done with Government approval. Edwina Currie spoke up about the state of eggs when she was a Minister so they threw her out - let's hope Hugh and Jamie have a bit more luck........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Maia28 (8 Jan 2008)

I agree with you Paul. It was the way chickens are produced that sent me veggie for 10 years. I haven't eaten chicken since 1991. I think that food is generally too cheap and undervalued along with those who produce it. Many people will now spend more on alcohol and fags than on proper meals and much of the food they do eat is of poor quality. I guess that I am a bit biased as I spend much of my time working in diabetes and obesity, but it does seem strange that people are prepared to pay £50+ a month for Sky tv but will not feed their children decent food. I'd like to see a subsidy on home-grown seasonal fruit and vegetables and properly produced meat products and a withdrawal of the buy 1 get 10 free offers on high fat and carbohydrate processed foods. In other words incentivising good eating habits so we can all eat well. Given the increasing prevalence of (costly) conditions resulting from poor lifestyle this could prove to be a much cheaper option for improved long-term health.

Sorry if I'm ranting  

Andy


----------



## Anonymous (8 Jan 2008)

Didn't see that one but did see 'kill it, cook it, eat it'. Was all about slaughtering, cooking and eating pigs. Very strange debate in the studio where people seemed to be trying to justify eating meat.

I loved it when they said that some pigs had good deaths and others had bad. Never thought I'd hear that dying could be good. (yeah, yeah, I know what they meant).

Other amusing comment was about the pigs shaking after they'd been stunned. Supposedly entirely natural. How natural can stunning a pig be? (yeah, yeah, I know what they meant again!)

Dave


----------



## Anonymous (8 Jan 2008)

Paul Chapman":lm1dplm0 said:


> I think it's quite revolting and disgraceful the way much food is produced today.
> Paul



Today? It has improved immensely since I stoppd eatig meat as a sort of personal protest against factory farming 27 years ago


----------



## Matt_S (8 Jan 2008)

I think anything that will change even some people's minds on this is great. 

We only buy fruit and veg from the local butchers and farm shops....the only acception being the odd lemon, lime and clementine at Christmas! Haven't bought meat from a supermarket in about 2 years. Now before anyone comments on cost we don't spend a lot on food....between £50 and 60 a week for two and when at uni we survived off £25 for both of us and in large avoided cheap meat. 

The key is quantity, do you need to eat meat every day? If so what size portion and how many meals can you get out of a chicken? We don't really eat chicken much but an equivilant we eat lots of rabbits. One of these as well as a roast meal would then do a casserole bolstered with lots of veg. In the program it looked like one of the guys carved a whole chicken onto his plate!!! I wonder if he used the bones the next day for soup? Hence halving the cost per meal of the bird, and being a lot more respectful of its death. 

I'm only 24 but think some old school thrift would go a long way in all aspects of every day life but especially food production.....Don't get me started on the amount of food my family throw away!!! :evil:


----------



## rjrl101 (9 Jan 2008)

Up here, I find that local shops are often cheaper than the supermarket and supply better quality produce when comparing their respective free range/standard products. For example, I can't get a 20kg sack of Maris Pipers for £8.50 in the supermarket, nor will they sell me 5lbs of beef mince for £5 and tell me which cow on which farm it came from. FR Eggs are still cheaper too despite recent price rises. Milk is the most obvious exception to me.

It's only the basic/essentials/white label ranges that are much lower priced than the local shops, and having tried to eat lumpy anonymous potatoes, rubbery chicken and bacon that disappears into a puddle of water and icky white stuff when it's fried, I'd rather pay a bit more for a degree of quality and support local businesses at the same time.

Also, as Matt_S says there's a lot to be said for thrift and planning your meals. I will buy an oversized joint of meat and, after the meal it is roasted for, it will provide cold cuts for sandwiches/meals for two or three days afterwards. Cheaper and nicer than buying packs of sliced, cooked meat. I use cheaper cuts in curries or stew and something non-meaty like macaroni cheese or pasta will make an appearance once or twice a week.

I'm also shocked by the amount of food waste that it is claimed that the average family produces. 1/3 of the total quantity of food purchased each week, apparently, is thrown away. Just what is this average family doing? It's not all potato peelings, is it? That's the same as saying that people could reduce their weekly shopping bill by about 30% - or alternatively - spend the same, but buying only what they need and of better quality.


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2008)

I think that a lot of people are missing the point of this program. It is not suggesting that "real" people spend £7 on a chicken, rather that the supermarkets stop forcing farmers to produce livestock at this pricepoint. Rather the supermarkets should use another non livestock product to have a price war over, the example used in the program was baked beans. Whilst this probably isn't an alternative product that forms a significant part of enough families weekly shop there must be alternatives to chicken.

In my opinion, things probably wont change, money needs to be made and chickens bring people in through the door. Its all very well educating the masses and I for one applaud Ch4 and HFW for doing it but we all know information that we could act on but we don't. We are lazy, until something easier comes along we dont change.


----------



## mr (9 Jan 2008)

The Saint":18ov0eyk said:


> I think that a lot of people are missing the point of this program. It is not suggesting that "real" people spend £7 on a chicken, rather that the supermarkets stop forcing farmers to produce livestock at this pricepoint.



I think that the suggestion is very much that the supermarkets be forced into this action by means of the general public taking direct purchasing action. While persuading the supermarkets to cease treating farmers in the way they do is laudable, the reality is that the economic imperatives faced by suppliers, retailers and consumers dictate otherwise and I'm afraid I find HFW 's willful disregard for the reality of the situation to be lamentable at best and at worst verging on the offensive. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## Matt_S (9 Jan 2008)

Saint, I'm not sure whether the supermarkets have picked a product to have a price war on, more that C4 have picked one of all the products supermarkets sell as everything is beaten down on price


----------



## Matt_S (9 Jan 2008)

> economic imperatives faced by suppliers, retailers and consumers dictate



do they? why should animals suffer? I'm sorry if this is confrontational but on this basis your happy for child labour to enable cheap clothes on the High street?


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2008)

I regret to say that, IMO, you are wasting your time!
25% of school children apparently think that potatoes come from Cows and are unable to relate crisps to potatoes.
With its feathers on they probably wouldn't relate to what's on their plate.
Too much of modern regulation is pushed through by people with no practical knowledge of what they are talking about.
An example. Grey Squirrels are classed as vermin and may be killed by the land owner, then the do gooders step in. They may be shot or humanely trapped.
So you have now caught your Squirrel, so what next, short of dumping it on a neighbour. The law states that you can now humanely destroy it by hitting it on the head, _not more than twice!_
So if it's squirmed enough for you not have have killed it outright, and you have used your ration of blows, what the hell are you supposed to do?
Also of course, you can hunt a Fox with a bird of prey but not with hounds.
The Fox no doubt appreciates the distinction!

Roy.


----------



## tim (9 Jan 2008)

Matt_S":3c0ybov5 said:


> > economic imperatives faced by suppliers, retailers and consumers dictate
> 
> 
> 
> do they? why should animals suffer? I'm sorry if this is confrontational but on this basis your happy for child labour to enable cheap clothes on the High street?



Matt 

Its funny you say that - I was thinking along the same lines as I watched the enormously fat, gobby one complain about the amount of food money she has. She is clearly not denied calories!

I imagine that there was similar resistance 150 odd years ago when child labour was prohibited in this country. 'but we need the money the 7 year old brings in.........'

Cheers

Tim


----------



## Matt_S (9 Jan 2008)

I know! She certainly looked like she got enough chicken!

Off topic slightly was it just me or was she in the chicken run....in a paramedics uniform?! I hope it went in the wash that evening!


----------



## Jake (9 Jan 2008)

I don't see how it can be offensive or lamentable. The point is that very few people think about or know how intensive chicken sheds are run. If they did, the point is that fewer would eat the stuff, irrespective of price or their wallet - how many fewer is the interesting point. 

Those who are in favour of having cheap industrially produced protein in chicken shapes can't object to a programme which sets out to start a debate as to how that is achieved - ultimately from that perspective everything in the programme should be pretty much irrelevant, because the ends justify the means.


----------



## tim (9 Jan 2008)

Matt_S":1mruoiys said:


> I know! She certainly looked like she got enough chicken!
> 
> Off topic slightly was it just me or was she in the chicken run....in a paramedics uniform?! I hope it went in the wash that evening!



That's what we both thought - still its good because she is clearly so compassionate......


----------



## Jake (9 Jan 2008)

At least she is happy enough to face the facts head on, though.


----------



## woodbloke (9 Jan 2008)

My 2 euros worth. I saw the second programme last night with HFW and JO and fairly stomach turning it was too, 'specially as the intensively reared birds became larger and were increasingly resticted for space..not at all pleasant to watch but good telly none the less. My view is that it ultimately comes down to a change of attitude, on behalf of suppliers and consumers. This is probably one of the hardest things to do (of any sort)...you only have to look how long it's taken for attitudes to change on smoking, 20 or 30 years maybe at a conservative guess? So what HFW and JO are doing is really just 'knocking on the door' or 'awareness raising' in the hope that maybe this will be a very slender start to making this sort of industrial chicken production a thing of the past. Ultimately in my view their message has to impact on the buying public as once sales in battery chickens start to decline then hopefully firms like JS and Tesco will do something about it. 
It's also a 'mind set' ....your'e charging round the supermarket on a Friday night with the list in your mit and one of the things is a bag of frozen chicken breasts, you pass the freezer counter and lob a packet into the trolly without really thinking about where it's come from...I know this is what I do and I suspect millions of others do the same. I think after this tho' that I'll definitely be looking for poultry that's more humanely produced, even if I have to spend a little less time looking at the vino - Rob


----------



## herdsman (9 Jan 2008)

I believe that the problem is two fold;

1 The majority of people live in large towns and cities with very little idea of farming and how food is produced.

2 Most people want cheap food and therefore intensive farming methods are required to satisfy demand.

Having said that I am not making excuses for the way some poor creatures are kept but if people want food to be produced in a more caring way (ie more space and attention for animals) there is a cost attached to this...are we the consumers prepared to meet that cost?


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2008)

I agree with you Rob on the timescale, the trouble is that the actions of do gooders has actually made things much worse in some cases.
On another forum I use a lady commented about a 'stuck Pig', and wanted to know what was meant by the phrase and was horrified when I explained.
To the good intentions of those who know so little many slaughter houses have been closed where I live and the animals are now trucked many miles.
The slaughter houses require that the animal must not have been fed 24/48 hrs before slaughter. Delivery is in cramped conditions to stop the animals from falling over, and it is not unknown for animals to be injured or die from the crush!
After delivery there may be many hours before the animal is killed.
So what did this humane system replace?
It replaced killing on the farm or at the village butcher's shop!
At a slaughter house a Pig is stunned, supposedly, before being killed, a Wild Boar is considered too dangerous to transport to a slaughter house and instead receives a bullet in the head, usually whilst its head is in a feed bucket.
Which system do you think is better?

Roy.


----------



## woodbloke (9 Jan 2008)

Roy - is this not a slightly different issue ie: rearing of livestock vs the slaughtering debate? I think what HFW and JO are concerned about at the present is the way that the animals are _raised_ rather than how they're despatched for the table, though they are connectied. I am in agreement with you though that conditions for animals at slaughter time have deteriorated and involve a lot more stress for them. I used to teach in the depths of the Dorset countryside and am well aware of these sorts of animal issues, 'specially when most of the kids I taught came from farming comunities... I couldn't mention the hunting debate :roll: and expect to stay in one piece, tho' again that's another issue entirely - Rob


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2008)

Agreed Rob, and the housing of animals raised for food, just not chickens, can indeed be appalling, Pig rearing is another example.
But if we can't raise them in humane conditions we can at least ensure a pain free death for them.
The supermarkets carry a great deal of responsibility in this matter as they have a nasty habit of screwing the farmer for his last penny. Giving a battery fowl a little more room would not necessarily raise the cost of production a by a great deal, but if the supermarket won't pay it the poor farmer has to go with the flow.
I have yet to see a supermarket that has asked its customers if another 50p on a chicken would cause them to stop buying. The mantra is always that the customer won't pay it.
The fact that there is a shortage of organically home grown produce, that is made by imports, gives a significant lie to their statements.

Roy.


----------



## tim (9 Jan 2008)

woodbloke":25o1cx6b said:


> Roy - is this not a slightly different issue ie: rearing of livestock vs the slaughtering debate?



No - I don't think it is. It must be about the entire process from start to finish. 


Cheers

Tim


----------



## Matt_S (10 Jan 2008)

Well I watched the final part and was appalled and shocked at how the media and public turned it into a personal attack on Hugh and a publicity stunt!

Timing of his shop was either deliberate to get a bit of publicity or an ill thought out coincidence but no one can surely doubt that Hugh's heart is well and truly in the right place.

The whole thing exposed British people's atttitudes and left me rather depressed


----------



## wizer (10 Jan 2008)

In my opinion.If something is cheap then the public will buy it. So to make any sort of significant change, you have to go to the root of the problem. Starting at the government then working down to retailers, before you get to the consumer. I felt Hugh didn't work hard enough on the takeaway companies. If the cost of chicken rises in the supermarkets, then people will go to McDonalds.


----------



## tim (10 Jan 2008)

The fact is that to change the way consumers act requires either a thunderbolt moment eg a change in law or a long concerted effort which starts in changing attitudes and then behaviour. However, it is a long and expensive process and on top of this there is an unreceptive shop front with enormously deep pockets and margin to protect.

I applaud his sentiment but his approach was woeful. Two things were deeply flawed:

1. He took on a mainstream, mass market audience as his test. They, in general, will only follow actions taken by market leaders and early adopters after seeing that it is safe and approved of. For an example, look how long bands or new fashions take to filter to the average joe yet these will have been listened to or worn by 'those in the know' for a long time, years in some instances. 

2. His self awareness is clearly low. For whatever reasons, there seem to be few people (on camera) who had much good to say about HFW in Axminster. I'm not sure I blame him for their response, I think its more of a deep seated negative reaction in the british psyche to those who have succeeded and god forbid haven't come from the local estate (If he'd been on Xfactor he would have been a bloody hero). That said, he and his advisers should have realised that and focussed their efforts in a different way or location.

The only way this type of change can occur is to influence the powerbrokers - in this instance the supermarkets. If he had brought in a financial model that made sense then they would have listened, got behind him and hey presto, job done. As it was he did little more than chain himself to the railings.

A real shame IMO because it was a lost opportunity.

Cheers

Tim


----------



## Matt_S (10 Jan 2008)

Tim I think you made some good points and agree he could have put a much better argument together. For example the telly idea is never going to take off.

I think the big problem is that whatever anyone says or does there is no way free range will be as cheap as standard as it is too cheap. For many this is the end of the debate


----------



## StevieB (10 Jan 2008)

I think another part of the problem is that the consumer just doesn't see the production side of food. Go to the supermarket and look at the chickens - a free range one will look (and lets face it to the average person taste) identical to the battery farmed one. Given that fact people will tend to go for the cheaper one if money is tight.

IMO the only way to get people eating free range only is legislation to outlaw battery farming. Bring in minimum standards for rearing them with powers of enforcement, inspection and proper penalties for law breakers and standards will improve. 

What I do find interesting is the concentration on chickens. The same applies to pigs, cheap clothes from Tesco et al made in the third world, toys from China etc etc. Conditions of manufacture/rearing/supply will always be at the lowest common denominator, typically to maximise profit for someone (usually not the producer). These conditions are almost always far below ideal but we turn a blind eye because of the cost. I have bought clothes from Tesco because they are cheaper than high street chain clothes which appear identical - is this as bad as buying a battery farmed chicken?

While the sentiment is admirable on the part of JO and HFW et al, I cannot help thinking it will come to nowt sadly without political will as well. As seen with the school dinners campaign (JO did a peice in the evening standard last night) its died a death with much of the government money promised not being ringfenced and hence eroded. While not a supporter of the extreme animal rights movement in any way, perhaps a slightly harder hitting campaign (50 people in cages the equivalent size of the space a battery chicken has outside DEFRAs office for example, inviting the agriculture minister to actually tour/spend a couple of days in a battery farm/slaughter house) might be more effective - would certainly grab news headlines and reach a wider audience than a channel 4 show.

Not really sure what the answer is, but make available a cheaper option and people will buy it. - end of story.

Steve.


----------



## gidon (10 Jan 2008)

I thought the program was very good. It does frustrate me though when they spend so much attention on the one loudmouth that they'll never convert. I've seen this in other programs of this ilk before. You'll never convert everyone - she just wanted HFW to give her a free lifetime's supply of free range chicken! 

I was glad to see some supermarkets finally comment - my Sky+ box missed the last few mins - what was the upshot from Coop and Waitrose?

I think his shop opening was terrible timing - I really don't believe it was any publicity stunt. But the program was pretty successful really I thought - he converted all those people on the estate, a lot of people did seem to agree with the ideal and the APTC canteen has come on leaps and bounds! Of course they'll interview a few people who only have bad things to say about the project and HFW but I'm sure most people like him - what's not to like - he a very amiable chap IMO. 

Thanks for starting the discussion Tim - although I'd set it to record - got us to watch it sooner and glad we did. But having watched 2 hours of it before going to bed all I could see when I closed my eyes were chickens!

Cheers

Gidon


----------



## Matt_S (10 Jan 2008)

Waitrose have 50% free range already apparently, not sure if that is just whole or all chicke products. Hugh questioned if and when they'd go full and mentioned 12months. They said almost definitely not as it is consumer led and they are not demanding this.

CoOp agreed as Sainsburys to up welfare levels I think. But also agreed to change the very misleading packaging on the battery chickens.


----------



## woodbloke (10 Jan 2008)

Interestingly, I just happed to pick up the 'Express' this morning at the barbers and noticed a bit in to the effect that battery farmed poultry would be made illegal by 2012, much reference to HFW and JO..This has just dropped onto the mat from JS:

Sainsbury's 
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd 33 Holborn 
London 
EC1N 2HT 

Over the next few weeks you may see programmes on the television or read articles in the press about the farming practices used for chicken and egg production. We take our responsibilities for animal welfare 
very seriously as we know that for our customers it is not only the quality of what we sell that is important but also how these products are sourced. 
Currently all the fresh and frozen chickens and eggs we sell are British and we are one of the few retailers who can make this claim. We also sell chicken and eggs that are produced in a variety of ways, from Assured Food Standards (Red Tractor) to Free Range and Organic. The enclosed leaflets explain the key differences in the production methods for each. 
In December we were delighted-to-win two out of the three awards that th-e charity, Compassron-in World ­Farming presents to the major supermarkets for their commitment to the welfare standards of farm animals. This includes fish, meat, poultry, milk and eggs. 
Whilst we are pleased that our commitment to farm animal welfare has been recognised, we are constantly looking to raise both minimum standards and to lead the introduction of new standards. You may have seen in the press that we plan to stop using eggs that are produced by caged hens by 2010, and we have been presented with a Good Egg Award by Compassion in World Farming in recognition of this commitment and the work we have done in developing Woodland Eggs. In addition we are working closely with both the RSPCA and the Woodland Trust to make significant improvements in our chicken production methods. 
We always look to provide our customers with a range of products that they can trust, and will continue to work towards improving the way in which we, alongside our suppliers, can further improve standards. 


Judith Batchelar 
Director - Sainsbury's Brand 
The two Compassion in World Farming awards we won were Most Improved Retailer and Best Volume Retailer.

Interesting reading - Rob


----------



## StevieB (10 Jan 2008)

would I be really cynical for re-writing those awards as 

We were really bad, but now we have improved things a bit

and

Of the main supermarkets (volume retailer) we are better than the others, but that doesnt mean we are necessarily good

Neither of those awards are for reaching a recognised standard, goal or target, but are comparable to either prior performance or other retailers rather than a fixed benchmark. I am better than my wife at woodwork, but thats not the same as saying I am good at woodwork!

Cynical, Moi ?!


----------



## Digit (10 Jan 2008)

All these problems are as a result of our increasingly urbanised living. I haven't seen the programmes and don't need to, I am fully aware of what goes on and am only surprised that it has shocked people. It is nothing new, hopefully the programme will do some good.
You only have to watch some of the TV quiz programmes to understand that to the majority of our urban raised generations the countryside is simple something to drive through till the next urban sprawl.
Two MPs on TV recently argued that immigration was not a problem here at all as from the air it was obvious that only about 10% of the country was built over!
God protect us from governments.


----------



## andycktm (10 Jan 2008)

Just another case of greed from the supermarket's :twisted:
I read today they get these chicken's for penny's (i don't believe everything i read,but it sounds about right).
In a supermarket late the other night chicken's 20p,i beliveve that is cost price to the supermarket.


----------



## Ed (11 Jan 2008)

I thought for a few moments before deciding to post on this topic as it's always going to be emotive. 

I eat meat. I like it. But I believe that every animal deserves a good life and a quick and as much as possible painless death. 

I grew up on a small holding, at various times we raised beef cattle, chickens, ducks, geese, guinea fowl and sheep ( not all at the same time, it wasn't that big  ). 

Most of the animals had names and they all ended up in the freezer. Was it a problem eating an animal I had known? No, because it had as good a life as possible, it was fed, watered, given shelter and cared for. It was not force fed or pumped full of drugs just to make a profit. 

I have hunted in the past ( rabbits etc) as a sport, but only if the meat was to be eaten. It's a strange distinction but I find the killing of an animal purely for sport disgusting, but if you are going to eat it that's fine. Odd I know. Hunting of foxes etc for sport is not on. If you have a vermin problem you deal with it quickly and efficiently (shoot it) you don't chase the poor bloody thing all over the country first. 

All of the comments in previous posts on the industrialisation of slaughter houses and the transportation of animals I agree with. The death of the local butcher and slaughterman has not improved animal welfare one bit. 

Just putting into context my thoughts before commenting on the program. 

At the end of the day it's about priorities, the people in the pub who were interviewed felt free range was too expensive obviously believe having a pint was more important that animal welfare and putting decent quality meat on their childrens plates. It is as simple as that. 

Whilst I believe there are people who live on a very tight budgets the majority of people in this country would prefer having a packet of fags a can of beer and watch sky sports than eating quality food. That may be a bitter pill to swallow but I believe that is the case. 

I don't blame people for that as I feel it's down to a lack of knowledge on how food is produced.

If Tesco and the like were convinced they were giving the customer what they wanted and the customer base would not stand more expensive chickens why is everyone so scared about showing the customer how the meat is produced? 

If it is what the customer really WANTS it should not make a single bit of difference to their buying patterns. But that is not the case is it? That knowledge is kept from the public in the interests of profit.


I think HFW should be congratulated on his efforts, whilst not executed in the best way possible it has at least sparked debate. 

And remember it's not the Jade Goody look alike he needs to convert, its the silent masses. The other 10 or so people in that group who have changed their point of view as a result of the programme. That in my book is a good result. 

All the best

Ed


----------



## Digit (11 Jan 2008)

I support your ideal on the Fox Ed, but unfortunately our control mad government makes shooting rather difficult. A shot gun is not a suitable weapon for achieving a clean kill because of the difficulty in getting close enough.
Like you I have raised, and killed, and eaten my own stock, and wild animals, and the idea of wounding an animal, whether 'vermin' or not does not sit well.
The only weapon suitable for the task is a rifle, and just try and get a licence for one.
Hunting, with all its faults, is the least worst option.

Roy.


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2008)

Lamping and rifle is very effective.


----------



## Digit (11 Jan 2008)

> Lamping and rifle is very effective.


It is indeed. One of the problems with the Fox is the 'cuddly bunny syndrome'. Some years ago a council in the west midlands hired a chap to reduce the numbers of urban Foxes.
He had to stop as he was threatened, as were his wife and children!
But the police will still do everything they can to prevent you obtaining fire arms licence.
The ban on hand guns after Dunblane was another example of, ignore the villains, penalise the law abiding.
The ban has probably saved not one life and the ban on Fox hunting has simple resulted in farmers and land owners using other, and possibly less legal methods. It certainly hasn't saved any Foxes.
The argument appears to be that hunting Foxes is ok, provided that you don't enjoy it! 
Anglers beware!

Roy.


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2008)

I don't like foxes at all. I grew up in the country and have seen too many times what they do, but I don't think hunting them with hounds is the right way of culling them.


----------



## tim (11 Jan 2008)

> Whilst I believe there are people who live on a very tight budgets the majority of people in this country would prefer having a packet of fags a can of beer and watch sky sports than eating quality food. That may be a bitter pill to swallow but I believe that is the case.



=D> =D> =D> 



Cheers

Tim


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2008)

Tim reminds me that I forgot to say that I agree wholeheartedly with just about everything Ed said!


----------



## Digit (11 Jan 2008)

> I don't think hunting them with hounds is the right way of culling them.


I look on it as nasty but efficient.

Roy.


----------



## Taffy Turner (11 Jan 2008)

You can get a licence for a rifle *if* you can *prove* that you *need* one.

I sign my neighbour's firearm certificate whenever it comes up for renewal.

He is a farmer, and keeps sheep. Without his rifle he would lose a lot of lambs to foxes - as it is he loses at least 3 or 4 every year. It is usually just the one fox that keeps coming back night after night until he is eliminated - usually ones that are old and find it hard to hunt normal fox food like rabbits, moles, etc.

I am all in favour of stopping people without a genuine need getting hold of firearms - I have had quite enough of chucking armed trespassers off my land to last me a lifetime thank you. These idiots go out lamping for rabbits with a .22 rifle, but the trouble is if there are no rabbits about, they start taking pot shots at anything they can find, including our cats, electricity pylon insulators, next door's lambs etc.......

Don't get me started - please!

Gary

PS - Ed has it spot on - the voice of reason at long last!


----------



## tim (11 Jan 2008)

Does this thread have to mutate into a hunting debate? 

Cheers

Tim


----------



## StevieB (11 Jan 2008)

Anyone get the axminster weekly offers by e-mail? Big banner on he bottom this week saying they support free range chickens and a website address for more info. Funny, but I didn't notice it last week, and I bet in a month or so its disappeared again.....

Steve.


----------



## Taffy Turner (11 Jan 2008)

Digit":x78m4jid said:


> > I don't think hunting them with hounds is the right way of culling them.
> 
> 
> I look on it as nasty but efficient.
> ...



Efficient ????? - prior to the ban, most hunts would kill an average of 1 or 2 foxes per day hunting. Hardly an efficient means of controlling the fox population!!!! This is why we have not seen the predicted explosion in fox numbers since the ban, it is simply that, despite the hunt propaganda, their effect on fox population density was negligible. Far more foxes are killed on roads than were ever killed by hounds.

As the comedian Andy Parsons once said, if you have a problem with a mouse, you put down a trap to kill it. You don't get 20 of your mates to come round in fancy dress on horse back, all get p*ss*d off your t*ts and chase it around for three hours before ripping it apart whilst still alive!

Gary


----------



## Taffy Turner (11 Jan 2008)

tim":16icf3bx said:


> Does this thread have to mutate into a hunting debate?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Tim



Sorry Tim - one of my "Hot Button" topics I'm afraid. 

It is an animal welfare issue though, so is related - sort of. 

Gary


----------



## Digit (11 Jan 2008)

I didn't suggest it was an efficient way of controlling the Fox population, rather an efficient method of killing.
Lady Mucca was on Question Time, just the once, expounding the fact that during the foot and mouth out break, when hunting was halted, the number of Foxes on her estate did not increase. Ipso facto, hunting was pointless.
Lady Mucca is a fool, foxes are territorial, and when the number of animals that the area will support during the winter is reached, it will increase no further as the youngsters are driven away, either to find territory of their own, or to starve.
Which is the reason for cub hunting. As regards the small number of kills by Hunts, the League against cruel sports listed it as between 50 and 100000. They were also prosecuted for using press adverts to give misleading info.
The committee that Blair set up to look into the matter, at the cost of several million pounds, came down on the side of hunting as an effective control method, particularly here in Wales.
Wrong answer, so the government ignored them and used the Parliament Act to force it through.
When it comes to holding people for 90 days they don't use the Parliament Act, gotta be something amiss there.

Roy.


----------



## tim (11 Jan 2008)

Okay - maybe you can start your own thread now.

Of course the topics are both about animal welfare but this thread is specifically about the poultry industry and more loosely about the welfare of other animals raised for food production.

Thanks

Cheers

Tim


----------



## Taffy Turner (11 Jan 2008)

Digit":106w7ad7 said:


> Which is the reason for cub hunting.
> Roy.



My last word on this subject - honest! As I was born and brought up on a farm, and hunted regularly until I was old enough to decide it was morally unacceptable (to me), I feel I have to correct your erroneous belief.

Cubbing serves two purposes: -

1) To train young and novice hounds.

2) To spread the young foxes around, so as to prevent inbreeding, thus guaranteeing a health fox population for the following year's "sport".

Gary


----------



## Digit (11 Jan 2008)

> so as to prevent inbreeding



I can see how killing them would do that! 8) 

Roy.


----------



## Ed (11 Jan 2008)

Hi Guys, 

Gary wrote: 


> PS - Ed has it spot on - the voice of reason at long last!


 - I'll have to print that off and show it to the wife.... :lol: 

Agree this is about animal husbandry rather than hunting. 

My intention was to demonstrate my attitude towards animals as a whole. That I am not against the killing of animals, but I am for the them having a good existence until the big moment comes. The big moment should be quick and clean (and the enjoyment of shooting for me was in using my skill to ensure it is as quick and clean as possible and put food on the table). One moment happy as larry, next moment meeting the God of pigeons, rats, foxes or whatever. (Didn't eat many rats or foxes, but you know what I mean :shock 


I believe that applies equally to domesticated food production and hunting. As the top of the food chain we have a duty of care to the animals we eat. Not just to protect that animal, also our own health, it is after all going into our bodies. 

Consider BSE, a prime example of where human health has been effected by the relentless drive for profit from food. 

Much better to have smaller cuts of quality organic meat and a few more helpings of veg. I can't say we personally eat organically, but it is something I would like to move towards. 

Just started an allotment so the plan is Tesco will not be getting as much of our veg purchases this year either. ( No livestock allowed so there won't be any chucks running about. I may give the carrots pet names though) 


Cheers 

Ed 

Born in Bridgend, raised in Pembrokeshire, slumming in Surrey ( Hi to all the people back on the sunny side of the Severn Bridge)

Edit: Spelling


----------



## [email protected] (11 Jan 2008)

Hi everyone,

On a lighter note... My Mum is Rosie who works in the APTC Canteen! The Chicken and Ham pie was fantastic!


----------



## Ed (11 Jan 2008)

Mmmm Chicken and Ham Pieee.... ( Said in a Homer Simpson fashion) :lol: 

Congrats to your Mum Richard . Looked like a great success.


----------



## tim (11 Jan 2008)

[email protected]":2d8bd7lh said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> On a lighter note... My Mum is Rosie who works in the APTC Canteen! The Chicken and Ham pie was fantastic!



I saw that and said to my wife that that looked like a pie made by a proper cook! 

Congrats to her!

Cheers

Tim


----------



## Taffy Turner (14 Jan 2008)

Ed":xaqvvmq1 said:


> Born in Bridgend, raised in Pembrokeshire, slumming in Surrey ( Hi to all the people back on the sunny side of the Severn Bridge)



Ed,

Ah - now I see why we see eye to eye - I'm a Tondu boy myself! 8) 

Can someone please explain to me why we need intensive farming methods, GM crops to improve yield, cloned livestock ( I really don't understand this one - what's wrong with the traditional method of producing baby animals???) etc, when we are paying farmers subsidies for set-aside - i.e. to leave their land lie fallow.

I mean, it isn't as if we are short of land is it? Also, there is a clear demand from consumers for organically raised produce.

I appreciate that there is a cost premium attached to organic farming, but I am sure that much of the increased cost of organic stuff is simple economics - there isn't enough supply to meet demand - hence the cost is high.

It almost seems as if we are doing all this mucking about with nature simply because we can, not because there is a necessity.

Gary


----------



## Taffy Turner (14 Jan 2008)

Digit":3tkikrjg said:


> > so as to prevent inbreeding
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry Roy, 

Another common misconception I'm afraid. Cubbing isn't about killing the young foxes - in fact it is actively avoided as far as possible. It is solely about moving them around to prevent them breeding with their close relatives, as this produces weak and unhealthy foxes, who get caught too soon to provide a decent days "sport" to the red-coat brigade.

Gary


----------



## herdsman (14 Jan 2008)

Ed":2b929p1c said:


> Consider BSE, a prime example of where human health has been effected by the relentless drive for profit from food.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Spelling



The ultimate responsibility for the way animals are farmed must rest with the supermarkets, it is they who set the prices in their price war with one another to entice consumers into their stores. If the supermarkets paid a fair price for the items supplied by farmers the consumers would have to pay accordingly...

Fox hunting... an interesting debate but maybe on another thread. It would be intersting to know how many forum members are for/against this and whether they live in rural/urban areas?


----------



## Digit (14 Jan 2008)

They certainly killed cubs where I lived in Bucks.
I noted in the press this week end that the RSPB is now concerned about the hunting ban as the number of ground nesting birds is suffering increased predation.
Now there's a surprise!

Roy.


----------



## StevieB (14 Jan 2008)

Gary wrote



> Can someone please explain to me why we need intensive farming methods, GM crops to improve yield, cloned livestock ( I really don't understand this one - what's wrong with the traditional method of producing baby animals???) etc,



Hmm, depends what you mean by GM. Most of the GM work to date is not about improving yield of traditionall grown crops in traditional pastures, but rather improving disease resistance or improving growth in harsh conditions. Imagine a crop in Africa that has a 5% reduction in the amount of water it requires to grow, or a chemical expressed in it that makes it taste noxious to locusts. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Most people use the term GM to mean 'altering DNA'. Unfortunately this is exactly what breeding does. New techniques just allow us to do it faster. Selective breeding is a type of genetic manipulation. Dogs are the classic example - selective breeding for traits of interest such as agressiveness, or looks, or ability to farm sheep. The same technique is used to breed cattle to increase milk yield, and pigs to increase meat yield. They are all types of genetic manipulation. The Frankenstein aspect is merely an extension of this. Instead of breeding via traits and hoping good genes are passed on, we now know the gene that causes the trait and can select on its presence or absence to increase yield.

What poeple seem to object to is the 'playing god' aspect. Whether this is uncertainty about the technology, a fear of something new or the worry that by eating genetically engineered corn you are suddenly going to develop the urge to face the sun is unclear. Some noteable failures from the industry such as inability to prevent cross pollination (as well as some successes - Dolly the sheep for example) dont necessarily make the technique all bad.

Agreed, applied to todays modern farming methods in the Western world there is little need for further intensification of farming. Apply it to the third world where a 5% reduction in water requirement for a crop can make a huge difference and the situation changes. Of course, if you just apply it to the Third world and biotech companies are accused of peddeling modified crops or using poor countries as a testing ground for unsafe technologies. Apply it to the Western world and you are accused if over intensive farming, profiteering and playing God. Bad press either way.

Cloning is an extreme form of GM if you like. The recent cases in the News, starting with Dolly the sheep, are really a newly developed technique that allows a new offspring to be developed without the requirement for two parents. Reactions range from disgusting to wow, depending as much on your own moral viewpoint as anything else. Scientists are not cloning sheep to get more sheep for the sake of it however, as you say nature can do that. The cloning aspect is partly about making identical copies (something Nature cannot do repeatedly) and treating human disease. Cloning allows replication of cells with known genetic content almost at will, and allows transplantation of those cells to a host to cure a gene defect which may otherwise be untreatable. Stem cell research is the latest incarnation of such techniques currently in the News, and although highly controversial (depending on ones moral viewpoint) do offer great promise. 

Anyhow, I dont want to hijack the farming thread onto one of GM, cloning and stem cells, just simply to state that not all genetic manipulation is to boost the profits of farmers.

Steve.


----------



## tim (14 Jan 2008)

Digit":2f3dw6kl said:


> They certainly killed cubs where I lived in Bucks.
> I noted in the press this week end that the RSPB is now concerned about the hunting ban as the number of ground nesting birds is suffering increased predation.
> Now there's a surprise!
> 
> Roy.



PLEASE - if you want to debate hunting start another thread. I have asked twice already.

Thanks

Tim :x


----------

