Brigadier General James Monroe Williams

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture Mid‑importance This 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.153.8 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The following statement is contradicted by the two references given and should be removed: "Salmonella infection rates in free-range and Organic chickens have been found to be higher to those produced in typical poultry production houses." Footnote 2. [[^[1]]] The above reference states that "there is a lack of published information about the microbiological status of free-range and organic chickens." Also: "Consumers should not assume that free-range or organic conditions will have anything to do with the Salmonella status of the chicken." Footnote 3. ^[2] The above reference states that "FSIS does not know of any valid scientific information that shows that any specific type of chicken has more or less Salmonella bacteria than other poultry." Gonzodab (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some serious work to remove the bias.

"the fact that PETA is mentioned as the first reference confirms the true motive behind the article" Incorrect - the fact that PETA is the source of the first reference confirms that information from PETA was the uppermost material with a citation in the article at the time that you read the article. References are numbered in order of appearance, and are not a ranking of importance or influence. Feel free to add a citation from the NRA to any of the preceding words of the article, if it's relevant (protip: it's not). Charlie Sanders (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.225.5 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

"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]

Agreed - citations are required for such things! and also…

• inclusive of/at least alluding to! the cultural and historical significance of livestock that had/have 'free range' vis-a-vis ranching in North America (and potential disambiguation, as per my new discussion topic)
• definitions from various countries, certification/enforcement organisations, pro- and anti- lobby groups/political/activist organisations, etc.
• history of definition, notable changes, etc.
• a dictionary of any sort? :'D

There's actually a fair bit of work to be done on this page, and it needs a tempered hand due to its sensitive nature (and that of its proponents!) I can see a spreadsheet in my future… wanna come back and create a profile and help? :D Charlie Sanders (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there should be some mention of the purported health benefits of free range meats, to give understanding of why a consumer would seek them out. Tehw1k1 (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC) hi how are you?[reply]

If the terms are distinct, the distinction seems microscopic. Notice the passage in the "free range" article: "All USDA definitions of "free-range" refer specifically to poultry." Agradman ^talk/_contribs 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - First of all "free range" has multiple meanings both free range in a traditional sense (as in roaming around unrestricted in pasture) and in the USDA modern commercial sense of letting the chickens outside into a cement covered yard occasionally. I assume that the traditional sense of this word would apply to non-poultry species as pigs, cows, goats, and sheep were free ranged for most of human history (i.e. kept on open range, not within fences). Pastured poultry is any form of animal husbandry which puts "POULTRY" back on actual pastures in both mobil enclosures or as traditionally free ranged animals (see [1]). Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose The definitions of free-range are not limited to one country, and I (sort-of) resent the constant reinforcement of unconscious sociolinguistic and cultural bias by Americocentric editing practices: 'It says so in the USA, so we won't check what it says anywhere else before we act on that.' FYI, in Australia, 'free-range' refers to those practices in the farming of all animals. We eat free-range bacon and drink milk from free-range cows, for example, and there are four definitions (one Legislative, and three separate certifications) of 'free-range' in chickens, alone; I imagine that the concepts involved are different again in China, France, and Zimbabwe, and if we don't know how, it is our responsibility to find out and publish it in this article rather than turning the whole place into Americopedia. (If you haven't tried it, Australian free-range bacon is freaking delicious - as is a free-range pork roast!

Additionally, (as above) the traditional and historical meanings and cultural significance of livestock that range freely, or have 'free range'/are 'free-ranging', provide an important sociological and sociolinguistic variation and add further complexities to the topic (as I have pointed out for potential disambiguation methods in my discussion topic below) than the narrow definition in a document from a single country's agriculture department.

hurrrumph! Charlie Sanders (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a part quoting the PETA "Fact"sheet. It's a biased source,and remember, PETA wants everyone to be vegan, and will lie until that objetive is achieved. --GuyWithGlasses23 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I removed another part citing a non-existing article. --GuyWithGlasses23 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The passage below is full of mis-information or non-verifiable statements. I suggest it be deleted.

De-beaking does not address the fact that cannibalistic tendencies stem from stress hormone elevation, which results directly from overcrowding conditions, and that these stress hormones inhibit the conditions necessary for the development of omega-3 fatty acids and drastically diminish the nutritive value of both the meat and eggs. As a result of that, the addition of omegas to chicken feed has been an attempt to address the inability of chickens to have enough access to insects and seeds during daily forage. Chicken's peck at each other out of aggression to disperse their population out to more naturally sustainable levels within a given environment. A rule of thumb is that if debeaking is required to address chickens' excessive pecking and cannibalism behavior, the chickens are under stress and the meat and egg products, as a result, are of lesser quality. DrChrissy (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "human" section. I don't feel it is noteworthy, and in any case I feel that it isn't relevant to this article. I'm moving it here (in wiki markup format) in case a consensus is reached that it is relevant and should be included:

==Humans== Many libertarian people consider themselves as treated like animals in a nation state, which they consider identical to a free range farm, e.g. Stefan Molyneux has several of his philosophy programs devoted to this.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A The history of your enslavement]</ref>

--Witan (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I changed the level of heading for this section of text, but I did so rather reluctantly at the time because I felt very unsure about its relevance to this article. I now feel more sure that it is NOT relevant.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Witan. Good call. Steven Walling • talk 00:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Soft Disagree If this *is* a real philosophical 'movement' (is that how philosophy works?), and 'free-range' farms or farming practices are a key part of the idea, then it makes sense to have a small reference to it (as above) on this page - if it passes the noteworthy test, it *does* technically fall under this subject, and we oughtn't isolate it just because we don't ascribe to it. That said, if it is noteworthy, it should qualify for its own page, non? Or are the noteworthy rules lesser for headings in articles than for articles themselves? Either way, I say it's up to the Noteworthy Gods - shall I refer it?

Charlie Sanders (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following sentence from the section on "Australian certified organic" chicken meat because the implications of it are ambiguous and either way it is not neutral POV: Also worth noting is the increased lifespan of birds in such organic systems, as much as double those in other conventional systems.

The sentence seems to imply that having double the lifespan is a good thing, but since these are meat chickens the only reason I can see for having double the lifespan is because organic farming is less efficient and so the chickens cannot be slaughtered for a longer time. Whether or not this is a good thing and whether a longer lifespan means better animal welfare are questions I don't feel up to dealing with right now but if anyone can think of a way to reword this sentence to make it more neutral, possibly by expanding it to point out why organic chickens live longer, that would be good. Also it really should have a reference since it is making a quantitative claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganrah (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that organic and other free range broilers have an extended lifespan is that they are a different breed than those reared indoors. These outdoors breeds have been bred specifically to grow more slowly. Organics growth may be slowed further by the withholding of routine aniti-biotics and other feed additives. Like User:Loganrah, I have doubts about whether an extended lifetime improves welfare. The outdoors/organics develop the same problems, only more slowly. It should be remembered that meat chickens attain slaughter weight at 6 weeks (indoors) or 12 weeks (outdoors): compare the weight of a broiler chicken at these ages with the weight of a layer hen (chick) at the same ages. Remember these are the same species, just different breeds.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's free range? Miltontnyagono (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animals naturally live in 'habitats' (or 'ecosystems', depending on the context). 'Free range' is explained in the text of this article. Charlie Sanders (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free range. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106095841/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_sheets/Meat_%26_Poultry_Labeling_Terms/index.asp to http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Meat_%26_Poultry_Labeling_Terms/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206075536/http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt to http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, humans. Thought there should be a place to list parts of the articles which need citation. That is all. Charlie Sanders (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing from History or United States is discussion of the "Free Range" history of the American plains and mountainous West. Cattle and sheep ranching and droving generally preceded and range laws favored the rancher. Particularly, ranchers had no responsibility for crop damage, especially in fields that were not fenced. It would be nice to have that written up and added or linked in here. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is a cultural difference happening here with editors and discussionners who are from the USA, where the term 'range' has a more delicate? meaning and historical significance than it does in common usage elsewhere. Given that many Wikipedia users are from or live in North America (just as there are many users from other places which equally deserve cultural allowances :D ), it might behoove us to create a disambiguation page or a short explanation of the specific meaning referred-to in this article, and to edit the content to use the hyphenated 'free-range' when referring to the pro-"humane" practices in modern farming (and to use the non-hyphenated [ooo I just got to hyphenate the word 'hyphenated' - twenty points to Gryffindor!] 'free range' when referring to e.g. cattle ranching so as to disambiguate the individual terms 'free' and 'range' - this would require the use of 'free-ranging' as an adjectival variant, but not everyone is as obsessive about hyphens as I am, and 'free-ranging' is not a term used in the practice of 'free-range farming'). Would anyone mind if I did this? It would allow the culturally-significant 'range' to have its own article (or space in an existing article on ranching?) and for each article to address the mostly-discrete issues involved in each subject without appearing critical because of a linguistic misunderstanding, or isolating people whose perspectives don't feel relevant *to us* (whoever we are!) I'm going to save this discussion topic here, and then find a specialist sociolinguistics editor to advise. Charlie Sanders (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'd just like to see consistency. Let's decide which is the standard formatting: hyphenate free-range, or don't, and stick with it through the entire article. It's very confusing to utilize both styles. Once decided, move the article if necessary. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it will help, I noticed Free range egg → Free-range egg on 10 April 2006, citing compound adjective, then later pluralized to Free-range eggs on 12 March 2007. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]