do you think organic/free-range/etc food tastes better?

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I let some chickens free-range on my property for a few years. 50 acres to play with and of course they hung out right next to the house. Didn't eat them but ate their eggs. They were as good as those in any grocery but no better. Eventually gave them away after I got tired of the chicken shit everywhere.

Genetically modified crops and livestock worries me slightly - don't know if there will be problems - it's too early to tell. We've gotten into trouble messing with mother nature before.

If you believe all the mother nature bullshit you must also accept that humans are just as much a part of the system and any changes we make are the natural changes that are supposed to take place.

This seems circular. I'll have to think about it...

Don't believe mother nature is bullshit.
Do believe humans are part of the system (mother nature?).
The last part is rough - reminds me of rush limbaugh logic. I don't believe a river polluted by humans is a natural change that is supposed to take place.

Who is to say the river isn't supposed to contain those substances? We say "polluted" but in reality it's just various substances that may or may not be harmful to human life. Nature is full of things that are harmful to humans (mercury, lead, various bio toxins from other life-forms etc), maybe they should have never been put here or ended up here (on our planet) because they are harmful to us? They have "polluted" our environment, no?

Um, no. One definition of pollutants is substances present in concentrations much higher than commonly found in nature. For example, if factories were to suddenly start producing massive quantities of Oxygen they would be a pollutant as the atmosphere of Earth is normally only ~21%. A more common example would be Uranium. Uranium is scattered in some concentration all over the world, but despite giving off radiation deaths from this substance are rare. But, go mine a bunch of it and the pools used to clean it become lethally toxic.

So according to you the only way substances become more common is if humans move them, but if they arrived in their location some other way (without human involvement) they occur that way "in nature"? Sorry, this doesn't make sense. If humans are considered to be part of "mother nature" (and we are, we evolved on this planet like everything else) then anything we move around is in fact where "nature" put it.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
...
Intended by who? The entire planet was on fire for a significant amount of time according to most scientists - including the rivers.

ma nature?

I guess I was thinking only about the last 40,000 years that humans were around. It is interesting to think on a much grander scale though.

I don't know who ma nature is? Is that similar to the flying spaghetti monster or Jesus or Buddha or Zeus?

I agree it is interesting to think about.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: Arcadio
Sometimes organic food tastes worse because they don't add chemicals that make it taste better than it really is.

Most the food I eat is organic but the quote above is correct.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

So according to you the only way substances become more common is if humans move them, but if they arrived in their location some other way (without human involvement) they occur that way "in nature"? Sorry, this doesn't make sense. If humans are considered to be part of "mother nature" (and we are, we evolved on this planet like everything else) then anything me move around is in fact where "nature" put it.

There are many definitions of nature. The general dividing line is whether nature includes sentient species and their actions. Really though the issue is scale. No other species on Earth has the ability to modify the environment on anything close to the scale humans do. No other species can produce high concentrations of mercury over a geographically large area. None.

One way it is often described is that humans are a product of nature but are not of nature. *shrug*

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Anyway, I'm not trying to start a debate here. I just get irked when I hear people make silly statements about pesky humans altering the environment (like we aren't supposed to or something).

I wasn't either. I'm no environmentalist with a lot of intimate, time tested knowledge. And if I was, I'd probably choose someone who isn't so immediately dismissive and feels that any debate is just a waste of time.

Humans are definitely having an impact on this planet. The more the population increases, the more impact. My guess is that, in many ways, this impact is negative. We'll know in a few thousand years if we've been overcautious or arrogant.

Actually I didn't want to debate as to not take the thread any more off topic. I love to debate, and I will consider your assertion of me as being dismissive as ignorance and won't hold it against you.

Of course we have an impact on our environment. What you are trying to argue is if that impact is right or wrong.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

So according to you the only way substances become more common is if humans move them, but if they arrived in their location some other way (without human involvement) they occur that way "in nature"? Sorry, this doesn't make sense. If humans are considered to be part of "mother nature" (and we are, we evolved on this planet like everything else) then anything me move around is in fact where "nature" put it.

There are many definitions of nature. The general dividing line is whether nature includes sentient species and their actions. Really though the issue is scale. No other species on Earth has the ability to modify the environment on anything close to the scale humans do. No other species can produce high concentrations of mercury over a geographically large area. None.

One way it is often described is that humans are a product of nature but are not of nature. *shrug*

Good point, more for me to think about.

I suppose fish have about as much control of how much mercury is in their water as we have control of how much mercury was put/ended up on the planet.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

So according to you the only way substances become more common is if humans move them, but if they arrived in their location some other way (without human involvement) they occur that way "in nature"? Sorry, this doesn't make sense. If humans are considered to be part of "mother nature" (and we are, we evolved on this planet like everything else) then anything me move around is in fact where "nature" put it.

There are many definitions of nature. The general dividing line is whether nature includes sentient species and their actions. Really though the issue is scale. No other species on Earth has the ability to modify the environment on anything close to the scale humans do. No other species can produce high concentrations of mercury over a geographically large area. None.

One way it is often described is that humans are a product of nature but are not of nature. *shrug*

Good point, more for me to think about.

I suppose fish have about as much control of how much mercury is in their water as we have control of how much mercury was put/ended up on the planet.

True, and this is one of the fundamentals of the environmental movement*. By being able to have such an impact on the environment we effectively have become the gods of Earth, able to choose life or death for entire species in an instant, through either action or inaction, deliberate actions or unintentional consequences. It is for this reason that many believe that we as humans have a responsibility to care for and ensure the health of those within our domain.

* I am talking about the true environmental movement, not the crazy unwashed nutjob on the corner holding a sign movement.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Anyway, I'm not trying to start a debate here. I just get irked when I hear people make silly statements about pesky humans altering the environment (like we aren't supposed to or something).

I wasn't either. I'm no environmentalist with a lot of intimate, time tested knowledge. And if I was, I'd probably choose someone who isn't so immediately dismissive and feels that any debate is just a waste of time.

Humans are definitely having an impact on this planet. The more the population increases, the more impact. My guess is that, in many ways, this impact is negative. We'll know in a few thousand years if we've been overcautious or arrogant.

Actually I didn't want to debate as to not take the thread any more off topic. I love to debate, and I will consider your assertion of me as being dismissive as ignorance and won't hold it against you.

Of course we have an impact on our environment. What you are trying to argue is if that impact is right or wrong.

Maybe condescending would have been more accurate but if you say you're not dismissive, then I'll take you at your word.

You could be right about right/wrong argument. I'm thinking more along the lines of continuation of all of the species though as opposed to any moral argument. I don't have a very well formed opinion about this. And, I don't think that all species should continue indefinitely. I believe the natural order is for them to pop up, prosper and then die off in various time frames. I imagine this will be humans' story one day.

---

To get back to the op: I think that people who have experienced veggies from a backyard garden or farm are more likely to be critical of taste. Don't have a lot of experience with home-grown cows though.

 

[sactoking]

If I remember correctly, 'free range' is a term not defined by the USDA or FDA and can mean ANYTHING from "running free in a 100 acre pasture" to "in a 2*2 coop instead of a 1*1 coop".

As such, most 'free range' differences would be completely placebo.

 

[mugs]

I'd be interested in seeing the results of a blind taste test, because there's definitely the potential for a placebo effect.

Some people actually think brown eggs are better/healthier than white eggs. 😕

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: mugs
I'd be interested in seeing the results of a blind taste test, because there's definitely the potential for a placebo effect.

There are so many differences in food it is often difficult to tell. Free range beef will, in general, be much different than non free-range (CAFO), but this is not always the case. Some CAFO beef will taste very similar. Add in regional variations and differences between the types of feed and the results are all over the place.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: mugs
I'd be interested in seeing the results of a blind taste test, because there's definitely the potential for a placebo effect.

Some people actually think brown eggs are better/healthier than white eggs. 😕

I never did any chemical tests of the fresh eggs I had but they were brown and indistinguishable in taste from kroger eggs.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: mugs
I'd be interested in seeing the results of a blind taste test, because there's definitely the potential for a placebo effect.

There are so many differences in food it is often difficult to tell. Free range beef will, in general, be much different than non free-range (CAFO), but this is not always the case. Some CAFO beef will taste very similar. Add in regional variations and differences between the types of feed and the results are all over the place.

I've always understood that corn fed cows taste better than grain fed.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: mugs
I'd be interested in seeing the results of a blind taste test, because there's definitely the potential for a placebo effect.

There are so many differences in food it is often difficult to tell. Free range beef will, in general, be much different than non free-range (CAFO), but this is not always the case. Some CAFO beef will taste very similar. Add in regional variations and differences between the types of feed and the results are all over the place.

I've always understood that corn fed cows taste better than grain fed.

Let me backtrack a bit. The factors that effect the taste (including texture) of beef are:

* Feed type (grass/grain)
* Feed mixture
* Feed species
* Feed quantity
* Time of year
* Age of cattle
* Free range or CAFO (CAFO tend to have more fat)
* Season of slaughter
* Climate of habitat

The first four are really the most important, but you get the idea.

 

[DarrelSPowers]

It really depends what it is. To me the biggest difference I've ever noticed is free range chicken from the local butcher compared to one of those yellow perdue thingys at the supermarket... difference in taste/texture/stomach feeling afterwards is amazing.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
...
Let me backtrack a bit. The factors that effect the taste (including texture) of beef are:

* Feed type (grass/grain)
* Feed mixture
* Feed species
* Feed quantity
* Time of year
* Age of cattle
* Free range or CAFO (CAFO tend to have more fat)
* Season of slaughter
* Climate of habitat

The first four are really the most important, but you get the idea.

And, to some extent, how much stress and exercise they have.

What is CAFO? I've seen farms in northern ohio where the cows are always kept inside of barns.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
...
Let me backtrack a bit. The factors that effect the taste (including texture) of beef are:

* Feed type (grass/grain)
* Feed mixture
* Feed species
* Feed quantity
* Time of year
* Age of cattle
* Free range or CAFO (CAFO tend to have more fat)
* Season of slaughter
* Climate of habitat

The first four are really the most important, but you get the idea.

And, to some extent, how much stress and exercise they have.

What is CAFO? I've seen farms in northern ohio where the cows are always kept inside of barns.

CAFO is the technical term...Confined Animal Feeding Operation. Such an operation has its benefits and drawbacks, but that is a different discussion.