The Irish Ham wars

Muahahaha

sdanseo wrote: »

I had reason to buy ham today. Wanted a ham and coleslaw sandwich.

Cheapest was 5 slices (100g) for €2.

Meanwhile a 700g lump of bacon not far away is €4 and you don't need to be an expert to know it probably has far fewer chemicals and is 3.5 times the value, besides being a hell of a lot nicer in a sandwich.

I bought the €2 packet.

--

tldr; we, the consumers, are paying for environmentally disastrous, artificially preserved, neatly-packaged and convenient products. But when you have no need for the larger amount because you wouldn't eat it all before it went off, you have to cop out every so often.
It's frustrating.

Why not in future buy the 700g bacon, use what you need and then cut the rest into portions for freezing and using in a week or twos time? As you said there is better value in buying meat in bigger quantities, freezing lets you take advantage of that and you get a better product than the smaller packets of ham

Buford T. Justice XIX

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I want to respond to this post more comprehensively in a later post, but I want to clear this thing up first. Are you saying it's not appropriate to anaesthetise pigs when cutting their teeth or burning their tails off through cauterisation? See also below.

Most beef farmers (at least, any I know) won't squeeze their cattle without some kind of pain relief. Yet, you somehow think it's appropriate to dismiss pig welfare.

Yes, I said pain killing is used where appropriate.

Now, in the 20 or more years since I was working in the industry, there have been advances in medicines and restrictions on their usage along with ever increasing withdrawl periods where an animal treated will be restricted or prohibited from being killed for human consumption while traces of the used meds are still present in their systems.

I never said using anaesthetic was inappropriate. What I said was there were high risks involved in using those drugs on piglets and there would be a high risk of both over and underdosing unless there were procedures in place to ensure the correct dose was used. Along with the labour issue of catching, holding, weighing, calibrating and dosing. And this done many many times in a short period of time.

Iron supplementation would be given to young pigs and there are a wide range of pig weights given the exact same injection because the was such a low risk of overdosing the animal and harm occurring from that dose.

tempmailtest mail

Thought this thread was about hobby radio... Breaker Breaker, 10-4

TuringBot47

Charles Ingles wrote: »

How offensive to the memories of those who died during the famine

Can you name anyone who died in the famine?

Which memories are you talking about?

Buford T. Justice V

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I never said using anaesthetic was inappropriate. What I said was there were high risks involved in using those drugs on piglets and there would be a high risk of both over and underdosing unless there were procedures in place to ensure the correct dose was used. Along with the labour issue of catching, holding, weighing, calibrating and dosing. And this done many many times in a short period of time.

Let's add to that, the cost of acquiring and administering the anaesthetic, and where are we now?

Convenience. It is not convenient to consider pig welfare on an intensive farm. Evidently, this is fine by you. You seem to favour practicality over the burden of maintaining welfare standards, something that every other farmer (with the possible exception of poultry, I don't know anything about poultry) manages fairly easily.

The difference between pig farming and those of beef, dairy and sheep systems is one of magnitude. Pig farms are too huge. There are farmers in this country with well over 10,000 pigs. Given the sheer size of these farms, no farmer or farm-worker can possibly maintain veterinary and welfare standards like other farmers can. And that is simply what I have been saying all along, and I am struggling to understand which part of this you object to.

Buford T. Justice XIX

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Let's add to that, the cost of acquiring and administering the anaesthetic, and where are we now?

Convenience. It is not convenient to consider pig welfare on an intensive farm. Evidently, this is fine by you. You seem to favour practicality over the burden of maintaining welfare standards, something that every other farmer (with the possible exception of poultry, I don't know anything about poultry) manages fairly easily.

It's you characterising my responses that way. You're looking for a black and white answer in a world of different shades of grey. If there's a need for anaestethic, I'm sure it will be given. I pointed out the numerous obstacles that would have to be surmounted before that would be accepted as a standard practice.

Incidentally, you still haven't shown a need for that course of action, that the stresses caused by this management practice would be sufficiently controlled by usage of anaestethic and that the relevant drugs are safely capable of sufficient relief and will not cause issues with drug residues down the line.

The difference between pig farming and those of beef, dairy and sheep systems is one of magnitude. Pig farms are too huge. There are farmers in this country with well over 10,000 pigs. Given the sheer size of these farms, no farmer or farm-worker can possibly maintain veterinary and welfare standards like other farmers can. And that is simply what I have been saying all along, and I am struggling to understand which part of this you object to.

That's your opinion and it's one you're entitled to.

That doesn't, however, make it a universal truth.

gozunda

Muahahaha wrote: »

Can only speak for myself but I didnt know pigs tails were cut and teeth extracted without anesthesia until this thread. Its not exactly something you read in the media and I'd hazard a guess that most consumers of meat don't know it happens either.

I'm fine with eating meat and won't be giving it up but also feel it is important that the animal does not endure any unnecessary suffering when they are alive. Even if an anesthetic cost €10 per pig that finishes at 100kg it would only add a few cents to your 200g packet of ham, the difference in price would be negligible. Id imagine meat consumers wouldnt have a problem paying a bit extra to know that the pig hasn't suffered.

They're not.

longgonesilver

There is so so so much misinformation in this thread.

For a start piglets needle or corner teeth are not pulled, extracted, smashed or crushed, they are clipped or ground down. No anaesthetic is needed. Why? There should be no pain associated wit the procedure if carried out properly.
My father kept pigs when we were young, not a large number up to 8 breeding sows at a time. As teenagers clipping teeth was one of the jobs we were given. It was possible to sneak into the house without waking either the sow or piglets and with two people, one holding, one clipping you could pick each piglet up gently,still asleep and be finished before it realised that something was happening.

Why is it done? Like outlined further back in the thread, to prevent the mother being bitten, as well as the mastitis risk a sow with sore nipples or udder is cranky and tries to avoid feeding the piglets. Every time she stands up and lies down or turns over there is a big risk of piglets being crushed to death.

Why do piglets bite their mother? Her injuries are just collateral damage in the battle for supremacy between the piglets.

Pigs are different to other domesticated animals. There is little love between siblings, there is an intense rivalry to be the top pig. The front nipple is the best and they know it when they are born. When feeding they are continually trying to move forward if possible. The strongest piglet most willing to push and bite wins and the runt ends up on the hindmost teat. This competition is far more than a playful wrestling match. The teeth are very sharp and pointed and stick out sideways slightly. They cut the sow and her nipples. The piglets tear the sides of each others faces and lips and can bleed profusely and they will not stop unless there rival gives up.
Not clipping their teeth can become an animal welfare issue.

igCorcaigh wrote: »

100% this.
There should not be an a la carte approach to animal welfare.

There is no "a la carte approach", procedures that are allowed to be carried out without anaesthetic are laid out in national legislation.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/107/made/en/print