Steggles is running an 'off-peak' advertising campaign about how they don't use steroids in their chickens. However, I don't think anyone does as steroids are expensive. What they do use is antibiotics, which upsets a few people. One of the biggest risks here is that it encourages the growth of atibiotic resistant bacteria. They create elaborate strategies that they pretend eliminates this risk, but the truth is that you can never eleiminate it, except by not feeding antibiotics to chickens.

The steggles website is a bit misleading on this issue.

http://steggles.com.au/index.php/quality/do-donts

We Don't

Keep any of our chickens and turkeys in cages

Use any antibiotics, hormones or steroids to promote or enhance the growth of our chickens and turkeys

Use any imported chicken & turkey within the business

There is contradictory information - but only available in google's cache at the moment:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6JyO60g6YEgJ:www.steggles.com.au/quality/page%3Fpage_id%3Dchickens+steggles+and+antibiotics&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a

(google steggles antibiotics)

Antibiotics are rarely used in chicken feed. However, when antibiotics are administered...

I will stick with the few companies that ONLY produce certified organic free range chooks and eggs- adelcrow

Same here!!!

Oh no - I'm in trouble here. I work in a Chicken Hatchery 

I've kept chooks in my backyard for the last few years, and you can taste the difference between their eggs and 'free range' store bought eggs.  Once youve had em straight from the chooks asre, you'll never go back....Free eggs every day, free fertilizer, and virtually no care required.

Next time I have an infection I'll skip the quack and go the cluck.

http://www.infowars.com/rockefeller-foundation-conceptualized-anti-hormone-vaccine-in-the-1920s-and-30s-reports-reveal/

Rockefeller Foundation Conceptualized “Anti-Hormone” Vaccine in the 1920s and 30s, Reports Reveal
                                    
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 10, 2010
Rockefeller Foundation minion Max Mason, who acted as president in the mid-1930s, on multiple occasions expressed his master’s desire for an “anti-hormone” that would reduce fertility worldwide. Now keep in mind, this is more than 35 years before the Foundation actually mentioned funding “anti-fertility vaccines” in subsequent annual reports from 1969 onward.

Having traveled far beyond the realm of rumor and speculation, research into the admitted funding of anti-fertility vaccines has uncovered more and more sinister revelations along the way.
By the mid-1930s, Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation thought that “the ultimate solution of the problem [of birth control] may well lie in the studies of endocrinology, particularly antihormones.” The Foundation’s 1934 annual report states:
“The Rockefeller Foundation has decided to concentrate its present effort in the natural sciences on the field of modern experimental biology, with special interest in such topics as endocrinology, nutrition, genetics, embryology, problems centering about the reproductive process, psychobiology, general and cellular physiology, biophysics, and biochemistry.”
“(…) research work is being conducted on the physiology of reproduction in the monkey. This work was begun at the Johns Hopkins University in 1921, and since 1923 has been continued at the University of Rochester. It involves observational and experimental studies of the reproductive cycle in certain species of the higher primates, in which this cycle closely resembles that of the human species. The effect of the various interrelated reproductive hormones is being studied.”
In the annual report of the previous year (1933), the Foundation stresses the fact that work on the reproductive hormones of primates serves to experiment on man in the future:
“(…) much work has been done in the formulation and solution of basic problems in the general biology and physiology of sex in organisms other than man. It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”

adelcrow wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:09am:



Well I 'would'....but I can't afford to pay $6.00 for a dozen eggs and $15.00 for a size 12 chook...

So I'll stay with the 'cage eggs' for $2.70 per doz and the Steggles frozen chook for $5.99..


Posibly the 'best' example I've ever seen was 'Free Range Bacon' at a Coles supermarket deli.....$19.00 per kilo, sitting right beside 'non-organic' bacon for $7.98 per kilo.....

Can you guess which sort I bought???

Quote:


I used to be a vegetarian for a year when I was about 18. High carbohydrate diets cause my body to react in such a way that I am craving food nearly all the time. Vegetarianism is definitely a f*cked diet, as are high carbohydrate diets in generall. I cut out all bread, pasta and sugars recently and only eat vegetables, meat, fruit and sometimes cheese. I eat so much saturated fat, bacon, and steak tartare now and have actually LOST weight doing so. Nobody overeats this stuff. It's just not addictive and doesn't make you crave it.

The stigmatisation of fats in modern nutritional thought is one of the primary causes of the obesity epidemic, IMO. Carbs, particularly sugars, are the real culprit of our fat woes, as they change the way the body reacts to food. They shut down your natural appetite suppression system causing you to crave more and more. The food pyramid is f*cked.