Quote from MasterJohnny
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org:8080/Plone/food/factoryfarms/FoodSafetyFactoryFarms.pdf
I guess when it gets to taste it is subjective (to me that stuff taste nasty). But when you get to like quality of the meat you cannot say it is nutritionally the same or better. Do not say slightly. It is definitely is not going to be good as free range because of all the hormones, diseases, and possible deformity.
You do not get the same end. You get better quality meat.
I guess when it gets to taste it is subjective (to me that stuff taste nasty). But when you get to like quality of the meat you cannot say it is nutritionally the same or better. Do not say slightly. It is definitely is not going to be good as free range because of all the hormones, diseases, and possible deformity.
You do not get the same end. You get better quality meat.
That PDF is focusing on cow farming, not chickens, and more != worse, the hormones used simply allow more to be produced, less does not mean better quality, with more animals your chances of having problems is going to go up, not because of their conditions, but because you simply have a larger pool to draw errors from, this "better quality meat" is probably the difference between an MP3 and a FLAC file, you can't honestly tell the difference, but it's just a huge mind game of "it's better". The bad effects of the added hormones and such far from outweigh the positives of using them, food has to be produced for a massive population, and this is one of the best ways of going about that efficiently.
None.