Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you reread I said "ruminant" not cow. Goats and sheep are also ruminants.
What you said was:
We humans do produce methane, but very little compared to a comparably sized ruminant. It certainly isn't the cow's "fault" but we humans have to consider the GHG impact of our farming industry. We should be working to minimize the impact of all anthropogenic GHGs including those from cattle.
Given what you said in its entirety, it's not surprising that I thought you meant "cow" when you referred to ruminants.
We humans do produce methane, but very little compared to a comparably sized ruminant. It certainly isn't the cow's "fault" but we humans have to consider the GHG impact of our farming industry. We should be working to minimize the impact of all anthropogenic GHGs including those from cattle.
Given what you said in its entirety, it's not surprising that I thought you meant "cow" when you referred to ruminants.
I have long since ceased to be surprised a people's mistakes. My statement is exactly correct. Where ruminant was the more appropriate reference I used ruminant. When I was referring back to the previous posters comments I used "cow" because the topic was cow. Attention to detail is an important skill.
Cows are a luxury animal. It takes more resources in terms of food and water and space to get a pound of cow beef than just about any other meat. Interesting that it is our nation's main source of animal protein.
Sheep, goats and piggies are far more economical.
Whoa! Actually, if you go way back in history, cows were standard livestock and chicken was a luxury. Why? Because domestic chickens don't free forage very well so they do have to be supplemented, they don't lay in the winter very often unless you supplement light (it's a pineal gland thing), they are less able to withstand the rigors of climate and predation so require more shelter and protection, and for the amount of feed they require they don't actually give you much meat or eggs. Yes, you can eat a pullet/broiler much sooner than you can eat a calf, but a chicken will only last a family of 4 for two meals and a steer can feed a family of 4 for almost a year after pretty much just eating grass. Cows were also used as pack and draft animals (that's what oxen are) before they got eaten... chickens are really only good for pest control.
I do agree that goats and pigs are probably a bit better bang for the buck because they free forage really well and eat just about anything and everything, plus most can handle climate and predatory issues pretty well on their own and the young can be eaten within the year. Sheep, well, they aren't quite as hardy and are more prone to diseases, but the young can be eaten within the year, so I'd put them about the same level as cows. Goats, sheep and cows all produce comparable amounts of milk for their size (depending on breed). Each goat or sheep would probably feed a family of four for about 6 months. A feeder pig (<500 lbs) slaughtered in the fall would probably feed that same family for almost a year (but less than a steer). Goats (depending on breed) and sheep are good for fiber, and cows give us leather. Pigs are excellent animal tillers and scrap disposals. Goats (usually wethers - castrated males) can also be used as pack and draft animals, as well as being wonderful for brush control.
So, all in all, a farm family of four could easily get by with one cow/sheep/goat for milk a year with two breedings. One cow, two sheep, two goat and a large feeder pig for about a year (if properly preserved) -- as compared to 3 broiler chickens and the eggs from a laying flock of 30 (which would be about 3 dozen eggs) a week. That's why it's very important to have as many varieties of livestock on your land as it will hold and you can use and care for properly... and go fishing and hunting now and then for variety. There's also other domestic fowl and rabbits for protein, too.
I do agree that it is odd that beef seems to be the overwhelmingly prefered meat in the US... but I don't consider it a luxury item at all. It does take more time, space and food... but it provides so much more back.
Yup it is true. For the most part, meat is an inefficient way to feed people. I believe the statistic is that if you were eat the food that the cow eats you would be able to feed 10 people compared to only one person if you just eat the meat.
The reason we feed them corn is because we produce the corn in massive quantities. So corporate farmers can use feed lots to feed the cows. Then the farmer sells the expensive beef products. Easy money.
Quote:
It's we humans that have gotten things out of balance by mass production and mass consumption
A volcano eruption releases the same amount of greenhouse gases that are produced in the last 100 years of human activity....
The earth is far more responsible for the greenhouse gases than some little old factories or a couple million cars.
Not to mention we are coming off a little ice age. The earth has been warming for the past 10,000 years. Humans changed nothing at all.
OH, can we please get real for just a minute? Dang few folks will pass up a sweet and tender steak, their mom's meatloaf, or a quarter-pounder. Beef is a highly versatile meat, from the ground round all the way up to prime rib au jus. Brag about your veggie and turkey burgers all you like, but the truth of the matter is that they taste like moist sawdust, and have to have condiments piled as high as your grandma's sideboard to add anything - moisture or flavor - to them. Soy burgers? Please. Take mine. You can have them. Really. People on the whole demand the bite and flavor, and yes the fat and burnt barbq taste, of beef. So you can pontificate that "we should all" but the fact is that it isn't going to happen - not in the past thousand years, or ever. How are you going to stop it? Legislation? Yeah, that'll work. Ever been to Washington DC and eaten anywhere but Mickey D's? The restaurants there are constantly vying for who has the best steak, prime rib - BEEF. So if they legislate lack of beef, they legislate themselves out of what they chomp on the most - and it isn't the briefly popular 'grazing buffets' or the tiny plates with a sliver of carrot and a twist of parsley.
There WILL BE beef. Now, let's discuss the pollutants and methane all you like; but if you're going to propose a solution, please try to make it a viable one, not one where the midget is running around pointing and screaming, "Da plane! It's Da Plane, boss!"
BTW; I 've never heard that you couldn't build a housing tract on a dairy farm or cattle ranch; but you sure as heck can't build one on a pig farm - no, not even one that has lain fallow for 50 or 100 years - because of the methane-producing elements that have leached into the soil. If you want to answer a question, riddle me that one, please.
However, don't forget, the cow (and goats even moreso) can forage on land that crops cannot be grown on. Chickens can free range, and eat bugs and mice and such. There's a lot that's not figured into that "10 people versus 1 person" figure, for some odd reason.
Yup it is true. For the most part, meat is an inefficient way to feed people. I believe the statistic is that if you were eat the food that the cow eats you would be able to feed 10 people compared to only one person if you just eat the meat.
Well, I suppose that if humans hadn't evolved to be omnivorous and we were rumanent herbavores that might be true. But natural deemed it most efficient for our species to eat meat and plants, and that's how we've evolved. There are several macro and micronutrients that the human digestive system can only efficiently absorb from animal products. Sure those nutrients may exist in a plant, but they are in a less useful form for humans or bound into cellulose that we can't digest. The same things applies to other nutrients that are either absent in meat or not in high enough levels, so we need to eat vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds and grain.
If a human ate a strictly herbiverous diet with no supplementation of any kind they would get sick. If a human ate a strictly carnivorous diet without supplementation of any kind they would get sick. Period. So meat is not an inefficient way to feed people at all. If it were, we wouldn't have evolved the way we did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killer2021
The reason we feed them corn is because we produce the corn in massive quantities. So corporate farmers can use feed lots to feed the cows. Then the farmer sells the expensive beef products. Easy money.
True, we do mass produce corn in this country and that's why we end up trying to feed it to all sorts of animals that didn't evolve to eat it. However, the average farmer or rancher doesn't make bank selling his beeves, maybe a mega-agribusiness corporation does, but an average farmer had to spend all his "profit" buying that corn in the first place.
The people that make bank in that situation are the distributors and the end producers. If you don't believe me, go to an auction and buy the whole cow. Even with the cost of transportation and butchering, the cost per pound is almost nothing compared to that juicy steak that is polypropelyne and plastric-wrapped in your supermarket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killer2021
A volcano eruption releases the same amount of greenhouse gases that are produced in the last 100 years of human activity....
The earth is far more responsible for the greenhouse gases than some little old factories or a couple million cars.
Not to mention we are coming off a little ice age. The earth has been warming for the past 10,000 years. Humans changed nothing at all.
Yes, nature is definitely the largest producer of methane. That's a normal cycle and there isn't much we can do about it. Whether you believe that humans have anything to do with global climate or not, we're still emitting a large amount methane through our activities that could potentially be dangerous. It's not a matter of Global Warming, it's a matter of reducing toxic and polluting activities (or finding a less polluting way to do them). Trust me, it's not nice or particularly healthy living near a volcano that just erupted!
Yup it is true. For the most part, meat is an inefficient way to feed people. I believe the statistic is that if you were eat the food that the cow eats you would be able to feed 10 people compared to only one person if you just eat the meat.
The reason we feed them corn is because we produce the corn in massive quantities. So corporate farmers can use feed lots to feed the cows. Then the farmer sells the expensive beef products. Easy money.
A volcano eruption releases the same amount of greenhouse gases that are produced in the last 100 years of human activity....
The earth is far more responsible for the greenhouse gases than some little old factories or a couple million cars.
Not to mention we are coming off a little ice age. The earth has been warming for the past 10,000 years. Humans changed nothing at all.
Boy sounds like you worry on so many things that you see fit that no matter on what we do we are doomed to disaster.
There is no such thing as the corporate farmer as you are describing. The feedlots are where the corn products are being pushed and where they are making cheap beef and selling for a profit. They aren't farmers either they are owned by several chemical companies for the most part. A very small part is actually owned by the farmers. The farmer usually gets the short end of the stick when it comes to getting paid. Should check sources before giving the blame to farmers. After all they were all mislead starting from the FDA and USDA on how and/or what to feed animals to make a living. The problem is the chemical and feedlot companies control the price and control the amount of income a farmer and his family can make on the end product.
Don't get me wrong I don't believe in feeding grain either. I eat a very healthy living of grassfed beef only and organic produce.
THANK YOU Organic Cowboy!!! So very true. Of course the city folk are told it is the farmers' and ranchers' fault, because the corporations that own the feedlots are financed not only by Monsanto but the FedGov. Why would THEY tell the truth about anything to the populace?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
