The scaremongering contrived to frighten consumers consists of a rhetoric of evil versus good that borders on cloying. On the subject of poultry farms, for example, various articles, videos and films circulate that have been shot with trained skills to convey a level of drama using strategies and tricks very similar to those of illusionists: to make the audience focus on marginal aspects of the context in which the scene takes place, but described as principal.
What tricks? The most obvious one is to make facts appear as extraordinary that are only occasional, percentage-wise irrelevant and we might even say inevitable. For example, that out of thousands of chickens a few dozen die is even natural. Regrettable but it is natural. To accentuate the dramatic effect, one technique used is to liken the health conditions of animals to those of humans. If it made sense, we would have to observe that in the human population there are numerous cases of individuals who, although brought up in an overprotective civilisation, die and fall ill suddenly for the most disparate reasons… are we to believe that this is the result of someone’s calculation?
Another trick is to claim that phantom ‘investigation teams’ have conducted unprecedented investigations and night raids on farms that have never been identified, offering the results in advance to some media hungry for divisive news. These self-styled investigations by many animal rights activists turn genetic selection into a degenerative factor and refer to opinions of expert veterinarians who have x-rayed a few dead chickens on an intensive farm.
Those who know the sector and its strict rules on the care of livestock have to wonder about the skills of these phantom teams who, with their little cameras, think they are providing information, when all they are doing is worrying consumers and regular farmers, wasting everyone’s time and instrumentally fuelling a media pillory that is unnecessarily damaging an extraordinarily careful and controlled food chain.
Who are the people in these teams? In what capacity and with what competence do they make statements based on consultations with vets whose names are not known? What could have prompted veterinarians – who are supposed to be at least competent – to venture assessments based on ridiculous samples that are certainly not representative, let alone indicative of any scientific sign?
If we could meet these teams, we would ask them about the health status of all the other (thousands) chickens. What vaccinations had they received? Had they received them? What feed had they been fed? What water had they been drinking? What ventilation was there? What inconveniences, if any, had they suffered? …
They would not know how to answer these questions and if they did, they would be forced to point out all the gaps in their thinking.
Just to get a basic idea, it would, for example, be necessary to know that, if only to check and evaluate the weight of the animals on the farm, regular farmers weigh dozens of animals per shed every week.
Anti-farming activists also make many other claims without ever seeking or accepting confrontation with experts in the field. We have therefore collected a few more examples of false information spread by them, accompanied by the answers they would receive from those who know the subject:
“… but chickens are bred exclusively for meat production...”
What else should they be bred for? Every year millions of chickens are used to meet demand. The poultry industry provides healthy, simple and cheap food for at least 2/3 of the world.
“… those on intensive farms are chickens genetically condemned to suffer…”
The chickens reared are genetically selected according to their natural voracity, letting them grow up to 3-4 kg because beyond that would be uneconomical for the whole chain including the environmental impact. The poultry industry actually works tirelessly to ensure that the care of the animal increases its welfare. The more its welfare increases, the better and faster it grows… just as happens to our youngsters who, due to particularly favourable environmental conditions and wide access to food, grow as their grandparents, who grew up in deprivation and hardship, would never have done.
“Farmed chickens die much earlier than the 7-10 years a non-broiler chicken might reach.”
Actually they are bred to produce meat and eggs and not to become pets! Speaking of companion animals, an honest reflection should be made without hypocrisy about sterilisation and the cross-breeding of different breeds that man does to make them pleasing to himself?
“…factory farms bring human-imposed suffering to animals selected to maximise their profits at the expense of their health”
Would the farmer then have an interest in making his animals suffer and die in order to make more money?
“The growth of broilers is as if a child weighs 300 kilos in just two months.”
Comparisons between different breeds are meaningless and alone disqualify any claims made by the anti-farming teams. Compared to an ant, if it made sense to make the comparison, man should be able to lift 7-800 kg!!!
“Farmed chickens have low immune defences due to a limited genetic make-up“.
Gratuitous and false claims. Have they tested the antibody kits of those animals they refer to? Of how many?
‘Chickens report organ damage attributable mainly to genetic selection’
Genetic selection… that is? Broiler breeds are the result of selection. Although the term ‘genetic’ makes one think of who knows what, it is natural selection that takes place by observing the behaviour of animals that, like any other animal being, carry with them a genetic endowment derived from their ancestors. The choice is therefore made to breed only those with certain characteristics. These animals grow up in protected breeding farms (which are not cartoon farms) both to protect their welfare in the broadest sense and to prevent all the care they receive from coming into contact with diseases brought in from outside and aggression from wild animals. The speed of the animal’s growth comes from allowing it to live (admittedly for less than it could) in the welfare generated by the attention on modern farms. Sheltered farms (a more appropriate term than ‘intensive’ which generates misplaced reflections) are much safer than any outside ‘shelter’.
‘Rapid growth must be banned‘
It would take a long time to explain, but in summary we can say that if a ‘fast growing’ a conventional broiler is replaced by a ‘slow growing’ one, there are consequences to consider, including higher costs for the supply chain, higher cost for the consumer, higher environmental impact and the chickens are brought to a predefined weight as suitable for slaughter only a few weeks later.
The editorial staff of M.A.C.
