Jump to content

Talk:Free range: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 120.89.80.178 to last version by Allen3 (HG)
Line 2: Line 2:


== neutrality ==
== neutrality ==
I am a small scale poultry and waterfowl farmer and I can tell you that this article is biased and untrue in several areas. First of all - this whole of this article seems to be pushing a political agenda and the fact that PETA is mentioned as the first reference confirms the true motive behind the article. Free range does not mean wholly without fences, that is rediculous. Free range means that you allow access to a secure pasture/area for your animals to forage naturally. In addition, no where in the article are the cons of free ranging animals such as predators, nutritional deficiencies, and higher death/injury rate. That being said - my geese are the only production animals that free range 24/7 and that is because they can take a fox in a fight. Believe me - once you lose 30 free-ranging ducks and chickens to a fox in one season you lock them up at night! For their OWN good. IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE AN AGRICULTURAL ARTICLE - GET BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY. And for the record, I believe in free range agriculture (as do most producers), don't medicate or vaccinate the birds, and only harvest eggs so I'm not pushing an opposite agenda - I'm clarifying this one and making good information available - which, in my opinion, should have been the purpose of the original poster.



Please Make This More Simple ,, I Am Looking For A Free Range Farming For My Essesment And THis Would REally Help If It Was More Simpiler <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.243.124.150|85.243.124.150]] ([[User talk:85.243.124.150|talk]]) 13:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Please Make This More Simple ,, I Am Looking For A Free Range Farming For My Essesment And THis Would REally Help If It Was More Simpiler <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.243.124.150|85.243.124.150]] ([[User talk:85.243.124.150|talk]]) 13:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 17:21, 11 March 2009

WikiProject iconAgriculture Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

neutrality

I am a small scale poultry and waterfowl farmer and I can tell you that this article is biased and untrue in several areas. First of all - this whole of this article seems to be pushing a political agenda and the fact that PETA is mentioned as the first reference confirms the true motive behind the article. Free range does not mean wholly without fences, that is rediculous. Free range means that you allow access to a secure pasture/area for your animals to forage naturally. In addition, no where in the article are the cons of free ranging animals such as predators, nutritional deficiencies, and higher death/injury rate. That being said - my geese are the only production animals that free range 24/7 and that is because they can take a fox in a fight. Believe me - once you lose 30 free-ranging ducks and chickens to a fox in one season you lock them up at night! For their OWN good. IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE AN AGRICULTURAL ARTICLE - GET BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY. And for the record, I believe in free range agriculture (as do most producers), don't medicate or vaccinate the birds, and only harvest eggs so I'm not pushing an opposite agenda - I'm clarifying this one and making good information available - which, in my opinion, should have been the purpose of the original poster.


Please Make This More Simple ,, I Am Looking For A Free Range Farming For My Essesment And THis Would REally Help If It Was More Simpiler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.124.150 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contention that concern for the welfare of animals is "illogical" would not be considered a neutral position.

Quote: "Such illogical humanization of animal behavioural patterns is called Anthropomorphizing."


Agreed. using the term "illogical" boils down to a logical fallacy (attacking the person). Since wikipedia is intended to be a reference, there is no place for argument within the articles. --Xenolon 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"By no means free from cruelty" assumes that cruelty is an undisputed characteristic of commercially raising hens. This is almost certainly not the case, and if it is that case hasn't been made. I'm going to mark this npov if there's no objections. 69.142.140.177 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the main part of the article makes clear that there are rarely standards for what can be called "free range," and when there are they are minimal, no mention of this is made above the table of contents. I would like to add a sentence to the very first paragraph. It would go after the sentence that begins "The principle" and it would would read "In practice, there are few regulations imposed on what can be called "free range," and the term may be used misleadingly to imply that the animal product has been produced more humanely than it actually has been." I would like to invite comments on this wording and the inclusion of any sentence of this type. Thanks. Msheskin 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Seeing no objection I'll go ahead.70.109.183.166 12:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is improved with the added sentence, but it's still a little confusing. To be clear, I think it would need to say "free range ideally would be...."Ccrrccrr 13:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Free-range eggs into Free Range

I would suggest this is not appropriate. Free range eggs are a distinct category with unique characteristics. The definition for free range eggs differs widely around the world and a country by country comparison would be of value. --Rotoiti 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I'm gonna remove the notice since it has been so long since it was put up. The bellman 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are 300 million hens in the u.s that are battery hens

Egg quality

Organic (ecological), Free range, Barn and Cages, each category being more progressive (in sense of animals' well-being and consecutive eggs quality[citation needed])

This appears to be suggesting that organic eggs are the best quality. This is controversial at the very least and needs a cite Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Leonr (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of free range

"Free range is a method of farming husbandry where the animals are allowed to roam freely instead of being contained in any manner"

I'm pretty sure even free-range chickens have some kind of fence around them, even if it's a larger one and encompasses fresh air and sunlight :P

perhaps a more rigourous explanation of the term could be found? 82.41.11.155 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]