What an absurd concept!
Here, we allow the chickens to run around like chickens with their heads on, then just like the confined chickens we approach them, chop off their heads and prep them. So ... they're happier or healthier? Certainly the spread of contagions is less, but their diet is less controlled. So -- who cares? It isn't as if they could claim that the chickens are happier, perhaps for a few months, prior to suffering the same fate as caged brethren, save their feeling of loss of freedom.
I suppose I should favor more expensive hand fished or ocean fished fare, instead of cheaper farm raised? I think if I could get cheaper, more controlled, less heavy-metalled (mercury) lobster and salmon, I'd take the safer, cheaper lobster and salmon.
Free range cattle and pigs with larger pastures to eat, eating less of their own fecal matter might make sense, but not at a high increase of cost, especially if they have fewer injections.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Free Range
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think the idea of keeping a supper-bread animal contained is to keep it from developing it's muscles and therefore toughening the meat. In Mexico, the cattle graze on hilly terrain and therefore Mexican meat is tough.
I've heard of Rock Lobster, but never Heavy Metal Lobster.
Post a Comment