I just found this while browsing facebook. :O

If a good artificial shuttlecock is produced I would gladly see feather shuttlecocks go, the feather plucking on an industrial scale is cruel and inhumane. Feather shuttlecocks still play better than regular nylon shuttlecocks but for ethical reasons (as opposed to monetary) I always use nylon when I have the choice (e.g. not in a tournament).

If the Mizuno shuttles were still in production I might've bought a tube to try, but unfortunately it seems they're not. Are there any other alternatives?

 

Live plucking is extremely rare and forbidden in most places. Ducks and geese are not raised for badminton purpose, the feathers used for shuttlecocks are just a very minor biproducts. ( Meet and down are 100 times more important) So using plastic feathers just lead to waste the wing feathers - the wing feathers are burnt if not used, which is a lack of respect for the lives taken from the animals.
Besides, feathers are ecological, while artificial feathers ans nylon are a source of polution.
The real meaningful choice is to encourage real feather shuttlcocks.

 

First of all, what's your source regarding the prevalence of live plucking? These quotes are about down feathers, but are likely as applicable to shuttlecock feathers: "a 2009 Swedish documentary reported that it might be as much as 50–80% of the total supply", "Although live-plucking is illegal in the United States and Europe, it is known to occur in two European countries (Poland and Hungary) and in China" (and as far as I'm aware most shuttlecocks are produced in China).

Secondly, lack of respect for the lives taken from the animals? Surely the keeping of the animals under poor conditions and then taking their lives in the first place is what's really disrespectful. I disagree with your other assessments as well---paying for the feathers indirectly supports the practise and funds the continued industrialisation of killing geese.

Regarding the ecological aspect, certainly the feathers being by-products from killing the geese for their flesh lessens the impact, if you can separate the two, but looking at the whole cycle I'm not entirely convinced that it's actually the more ecologically sound choice. A lot of water and food is used to raise the geese before the feathers are plucked, and the feather shuttlecocks can't be recycled. Meanwhile the amount of oil/chemicals used for shuttlecocks would be comparatively minuscule on a global scale and they can be more readily recycled. Regardless, the ecology can never excuse the sheer immorality of harvesting live beings in the manner in which it is done, if acceptable alternatives can be produced.

 

Hungary had to change its plucking method in order to sell its production to Europe. But anyway all feathers used for shuttlecocks come from China. Chinese shuttlecock producers prefer feathers plucked lived but they cannot afford it. It is a tiny minority of the feathers. The reason is that it is difficult to pluck the feather on a live duck or goose, and you can damage them.

You must think about your argument. Duck and goose are raised in farm for their meat, not for their feathers. And inside the industry concerned by their feathers, the wing feathers are absolutely marginal. The price for down is ten time higher.
So even if badminton would not have been created, there would be as much duck and goose raised by mankind. The option is only : do you throw away the wing feathers or use them?
If you throw them away, I say it is disrepectful for the animal. Its life was taken, and to put part of it in the garbage is morally wrong.
Finally, feathers are much better then plastic for the environment, as plastic is made of petrol. Don't forget the duck and goose are raised anyway, so adding the manufacturing of plastic shuttlecocks only add to the ecological cost of duck and goose farming.

 

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/for...e-of-goose-feathers-a-dilemma-for-vegetarians

That turns out is not even the old topic I wanted to refer to but indeed, why only pluck the feathers once before the goose is killed when you can do it more times. If it it possible you can certainly bet on it happening.
Depends on how long it takes to 'raise' the geese before ready for consumption ...

 

Thanks for refering to this old tread. Most of the arguments are there already but some arguments are still not well-developped, so it leads to false conclusion. Some say using feather-shuttlecock is "indirectly supporting" an industry that kills animal. What is the validity of this "indirect support" argument?
The meat for a duck is worth about 100$. Its down feather about 10$. Its wing feathers about 0.1$. So we use the feather or not has absolutely no effect on this industry. As someone said, using the feathers is about recycling, not killing.
About plucking many times the feathers on a goose before killing it : considering the value of the meat and the wing feathers ratio, as soon as the animal is big enough, it is killed. To wait for some extra-time because of the feather is a huge loss for the industry. Just feeding the animal cost more then what the wing feathers bring in.
All this argument sounds like a something designed to make us feel good, but the reality have nothing to do with our good conscience or will to do good.

 

Are all the persons concerned over feathers in shuttlecock even Vegan ? If not then it is height of hipocrisy. Again I also know some undian shuttlecock factory and feathers ate bi product since the meat is the main product. One of prime owner even said that since not many eat duck or goose meat feathers are not readily available and hence costly. No one rears duck or goose for shuttlecock. However going by vegan ideology I would resist feathers .

 

The Ashaway Bird2 plastic shuttle is supposed to be designed to have the feel and flight of feathers.

 

You don't have to be 'vegan' to support biological produce/better welfare for animals . If you see the many undercover videos about farm animal treatment in for example Indonesia (but also in the west) you might start to reconsider a thing or two yourself ...

Anyhoo, all attempts at synthetic feathers have sucked so far, even the Mizuno's ...

 

I believe in " Live and let them live " . If I am eating meat by choice , I for myself consider having no moral or logical ground for raising animal concerns .

 

What one could do, if one had moral issues with using animal product, would be to use only very high-end shuttlecocks. They last much longer. If everyone was using this grade of shuttles, much less feathers would be used.
Not that it would change anything about how many animal would be farmed, but at least one could say he limits his use of feathers.

 

PETA complaining about badminton now lol

 

It is fine as long as PETA members are vegan

 

What does it matter if the people who complain are vegan or not? Sure, it's hypocrisy, but the goal in the end is minimising suffering and to stop using some animal products (even if you continue using others) still contributes and is surely appreciated by the animals that now don't have to suffer. Is going completely vegan even better? Of course it is, but that's not the point.

 

Going 100% or not is a matternof personal opinion . Like nature if human being. I have my way of living and thinking .

 

Re nylons being a source of pollution as they are made from petrochemicals, this may be true of some nylons but Bird2 uses high grade PA11 which is uniquely made from castor oil seed so to that extent is sustainable.