Thursday, August 12, 2010

NY Times article about changing farming practices in Ohio

Something to note as you read this article:  Existing farms that do confine the animals are not required to stop doing it, at least for egg producers.  Only new egg producers will be barred from building similar facilities.  Since the existing farms are able to use practices new ones are barred from, I suspect that this will be an effective permanent competition benefit to the farms that exist now.  Not the intended result, but economics have always been a part of factory farming.  Factory farms are designed to produce their product (eggs, poultry, pork, beef, milk) at the lowest possible cost of production.  

I suspect that most people who read this will assume that chickens will no longer be confined in Ohio 6 or 7 at a time to small cages, when the truth is that for existing farms, there will be no change, permanently. 

California, by contrast,  barred ALL producers from using the small cages, and I find that solution to be at least competitively better, fairer.  No producer has any special advantage.  If you're going to say that a practice is bad and outlaw it, you should do so equally for all producers, in my opinion. 

Farmers Lean to Truce on Animals’ Close Quarters


Anonymous said...

The article I believe also mentioned about getting rid of farrowing crates for hogs.

Anonymous said...

My mistake. I meant "gestation crates" for hogs and veal.