View previous topic | View next topic

tick bites can save the world!

Page 5 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Spud McLaren
1207990.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:25 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
Calling them "baby pigs" is emotive, calling them "piglets" is pragmatic.

Calling them "corpses" is emotive, calling them carcasses is pragmatic.
It's an emotive subject, criss. Expect emotive language.

 
14-11-2014
1207992.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:26 pm Reply with quote

A graph doesn't have to address your statements. Apparently you already knew what a "baby pig" is. Unfortunately the graph doesn't mention the "baby pigs" of radicalism.

So I don't know what a "baby pig" is, but the graph shows the typical future of piglets and young pigs. Statistically exceptions are too rare, and it will still be quite hard to legally buy the required "corpse" of a "baby pig".

FWIW, the average weight of slaughtered pigs in the UK in 2013 was 80.88 kg. If that's a "baby pig", then 100% of all killed pigs in the UK may have been "baby pigs" indeed.


Last edited by 14-11-2014 on Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:31 pm; edited 2 times in total

 
Zziggy
1207993.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:29 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
Calling them "baby pigs" is emotive, calling them "piglets" is pragmatic.

Calling them "corpses" is emotive, calling them carcasses is pragmatic.

We're literally talking about, as I said before, industrial scale insemination, pregnancy, and killing of sentient animals, most of which have reached maybe 5% of their natural potential life.

No doubt it is nice to think that you are the cool objective one and I am being emotive and irrational, but from here things look different.

 
Spud McLaren
1207997.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:41 pm Reply with quote

14-11-2014 wrote:
A graph doesn't have to address your statements.
Then by logical extension, my statements don't have to address your illustration (which, by the way, isn't a graph).
Quote:
Apparently you already knew what a "baby pig" is.
Err, yes, as does everybody else.
Quote:
Unfortunately the graph doesn't mention the "baby pigs" of radicalism.
There are many things the "graph" doesn't mention, some of them rather more pertinent that that.
Quote:
I don't know nor care what a "bby pig" is
I can believe that you don't care; I can't believe that you can't at least hazard a guess.
Quote:
but the graph shows the typical future of piglets and young pigs. Statistically exceptions are too rare, and it will still be quite hard to legally buy the required "corpse" of a "baby pig".
Beg to differ there. As barb says, it might be prohibitively expensive (although I can't quite see the reason for this), but they're available if you want and can afford it.
Quote:
FWIW, the average weight of slaughtered pigs in the UK in 2013 was 80.88 kg. If
that's a "baby pig", then 100% of all killed pigs in the UK may be "baby pigs".
Now, come on - you should know better than to quote an average to illustrate the lower quartile. That's just disingenuous.

 
barbados
1207999.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:00 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
As barb says, it might be prohibitively expensive (although I can't quite see the reason for this), but they're available if you want and can afford it.

The reason they are expensive is that for very little further investment the farmer has a full size pig for sale, a 20 kilo suckler would cost a similar amount as an 80 kilo average sized pig, making the cost to the consumer approx 4 times greater for the smaller animal.

I would very rarely purchase a complete carcass, but if I were to look to spend the money that a suckler would cost I would look to buy a full size one. Mind you I do have the equipment to cook one, if I didn't I might be more tempted to spend the extra on a suckler, If I want 20 kg of pork, I would simply buy a couple of butts for less. If I want to cook a whole pig, I would buy one (although that would feed a lot of people)

The only qualification is I buy an awful lot of pork, I make my own bacon, and sausages, during the summer I have a separate freezer that is usually full of ribs and butts.

 
PDR
1208007.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:23 pm Reply with quote

I'm bemused by the suggestion that feeding and caring for a pig for several months is "very little investment".

I didn't realise that pigfeed was free and pigmen were all volunteers...

PDR

 
barbados
1208010.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:28 pm Reply with quote

It isn't free, and no one is suggesting that it is.

 
PDR
1208011.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:55 pm Reply with quote

You are suggesting that it's "very little investment" in comparison to getting to the suckling stage. So what is this huge initial cost that utterly dwarfs the cost of several months of pigfeed and pigmen?

Or is this yet another of your bald assertions which you are never going to substantiate?

Your credibility is in your own hands, you know.

PDR

 
Spud McLaren
1208014.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:25 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I'm bemused by the suggestion that feeding and caring for a pig for several months is "very little investment".
I wondered along similar lines.

AIUI, the main ongoing investment in pig farming is the rearing.

 
CharliesDragon
1208019.  Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:56 pm Reply with quote

It doesn't change the fact that factory farming does not provide a fulfilling or full life to the animals, but according to one index the UK are one of the best countries for animal welfare, also when it comes to farm animals. I'll admit I haven't read the details, I've mostly looked at the overall rating and skimmed some of the sections, and I haven't checked the credability of the site or how they rate things, but I think it's safe to say the UK at least isn't among the worst offenders.

http://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/united-kingdom

It might be a bit like saying Putin isn't that bad because he's not gassing millions of people to death, but I found the index interesting, especially that Brazil, Chile, and India score higher than Canada and the US, but that might just show how biased I am.

 
barbados
1208022.  Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:33 am Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
PDR wrote:
I'm bemused by the suggestion that feeding and caring for a pig for several months is "very little investment".
I wondered along similar lines.

AIUI, the main ongoing investment in pig farming is the rearing.

A pig, from suckling size to full size will eat approx 188kg of food. Which costs apprx 129 per tonne, so if my calcs are correct that makes it 13p per kilo times that by the 188 makes it 25 per pig through its life.
The price of a standard pig, is 1.39 per kilo means the difference in return for that additional investment of 25 is 125 per pig.

I'm not a farmer, so I have no idea how much the husbandary costs per pig, that is a hugely variable cost. But for an extra 25 in food, you get a 5fold* return on your money, I'd suggest that it is a relatively small investment to make

*or is it 4fold, even so in the 14 weeks between suckle and slaugther that is none too shabby.

 
Spud McLaren
1208026.  Sun Oct 09, 2016 3:46 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
A pig, from suckling size to full size will eat approx 188kg of food.
And (going off at a tangent) there we have another point. It takes 188kg of animal food to produce 80-90kg of animal, not all of which ends up on humans' plates. Strikes me as being an inefficient use of resources.

Yes, I know there are other factors involved. But since the amount of (say) waste food that can be given to pigs is strictly controlled (it may be zero these days, I'd have to check), it looks to me as though there's a lot of wasted resource in sustaining the meat industry.

 
barbados
1208033.  Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:20 am Reply with quote

Well, if you likeyou can stick to the pig swill, I'd rather eat the pork ;)
But in all seriousness, the point you raise about waste is a valid one, I'm not certain of how much of the pig is waste, but I have a feeling that as animals go the pig is probably quite efficient with not much waste. Of course offal has gone out of fashion in the civilised part of the world so that would increase the waste a bit, but I think most of it is used.
Cows on the other hand I think have a lot of waste product.

 
Spud McLaren
1208035.  Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:25 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
... I have a feeling that as animals go the pig is probably quite efficient with not much waste.
My grandparents used to say that the only part of a pig you couldn't eat was its squeal. That was a bit of an exaggeration, though.

I'm fairly sure that during the course of this thread I found some figures to say that about 71% is deemed fit for human consumption.
Quote:
Cows on the other hand I think have a lot of waste product.
They do. You have to be careful not to step in it when on a country walk.

 
barbados
1208037.  Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:39 am Reply with quote

70 odd percent sound reasonable, there is also some that will go into animal feed as well

 

Page 5 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group