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.
We feed our dairy cows a ration of 60% grass silage and 40% corn silage as per the cow nutritionist's recommendations. This is deemed the ideal split between energy and protein. A problem is created when you do not maintain this mix. It is no different then a analogy of a Weight Lifter and a Farmer.
The grass fed only livestock is like the weight lifter. They bulk up from all the protein, but without energy in which to move, they are simply big and lethargic. Here we jokingly refer to grass fed only livestock as "Baloney cows" because they have no substance to them.
Of course giving way too much grain and corn is not healthy either as it does not put enough roughage into the rumen and can inflame it. Because we use silage corn that consists of stalk, tassel, husk, cobs, etc, we are getting what we call roughage so it is not the same as grain feeding. At the same time we must allow the corn to "dry down" in the field which changes the entire process. Its not sugar at all because the plant has been converted by the time of harvest and is reduced even more through the ensiling process.
So what the 60%/40% mix does is give the cow the perfect ratio of protein and energy. How many of us have seen weight lifters that have the big bulky look, and yet when you put them to a real world test, they lack the stamina to do anything for any practical length of time. Yet when you put a farmer up against something, they may be small but they can pack a mean punch...
As for the taste of milk, the ensiling process of both corn and haylage comes into play. That not only flavors the taste of milk, it can flavor the taste of meat. That is why on my sheep I stop silage feeding 30 days prior to slaughter.
PS: Don't get energy confused as being sugar. In the livestock word they use the term "energy" for the human equivilent of what we call calories. When I say corn has a lot of energy, what I am saying is, corn has a lot of calories. On very cold winter nights, I always give my sheep a bit of corn silage to ensure their stomachs are like mini-furnances which will keep them warm from within.
Well, let's put it this way, Broken Tap. Grass fed beef tastes a heck of a lot better, in my opinion, than corn-fed (it has actual flavor, imagine that), it's what the cows are designed to eat, and based on my having to bring my grass-fed cows home sometimes when they go walkabout, and the way they come running when they see me (they've on occasion been known to beat the horses), "lethargic" is not a term that I would use to describe them.
We don't have dairy cows. However, did you read the link to the experiments they're doing? Apparently the cows were producing as much, if not more, milk on the non-corn diet, and according to at least one dairy farmer, were healthier (before he even got the results of the tests) on that diet. So apparently there's the "traditional" (depending on whose tradition you're talking about) nutritionist's viewpoint (that you are evidently using) and osme others, as well.
So you're saying that cooking 1 hamburger takes as much water as 365 7-minute showers?
I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Absolutely absurd.
Yes that's what I'm saying. I didn't make it up. I believe the calculation to determine that statistic was determined by taking the average amount of water required to grow the crops that feed the cows for their average life span before they are slaughtered for meat. If I'm not mistaken, the equivalent amount of calories in a vegetable form requires about 1/100th the amount of water. Raising meat is an extremely inefficient means of growing food. "Life cycle Assessments" (LCA) is becoming more popular to determine the carbon footprint of a product. Recent LCA's have revealed that meat and animal products have a much larger carbon footprint than vegetable/ grain consumption. Although I agree that soy "products" aren't ideally healthy, from a carbon footprint standpoint, they have less impact than cattle. Again, for further insight, please read "The End of Food" by Paul Roberts. He is not a vegetarian and it is not a book about becoming a vegetarian for those close-minded about changing their eating habits. It addresses the original question of the post much more eloquently and in more detail.
He is not a vegetarian and it is not a book about becoming a vegetarian for those close-minded about changing their eating habits.
I find this to be the most eloquent illustration of your viewpoint of any of the things you write in this post, and an excellent example of closed-mindedness.
If someone doesn't wish to become a vegetarian for whatever reason, they're "closed-minded about changing their eating habits"? Interesting assumption, that people who choose not to become vegetarian haven't tried it and rejected it or thought about it and analyzed the pros and cons beefore making the decision not to become a vegetarian for reasons that are good and sufficient for them.
Well, let's put it this way, Broken Tap. Grass fed beef tastes a heck of a lot better, in my opinion, than corn-fed (it has actual flavor, imagine that), it's what the cows are designed to eat, and based on my having to bring my grass-fed cows home sometimes when they go walkabout, and the way they come running when they see me (they've on occasion been known to beat the horses), "lethargic" is not a term that I would use to describe them.
We don't have dairy cows. However, did you read the link to the experiments they're doing? Apparently the cows were producing as much, if not more, milk on the non-corn diet, and according to at least one dairy farmer, were healthier (before he even got the results of the tests) on that diet. So apparently there's the "traditional" (depending on whose tradition you're talking about) nutritionist's viewpoint (that you are evidently using) and osme others, as well.
The key word is------"apparently"-----
When data is readily available to prove a claim, I am always curious why it is not used.
If a grain farmer said he got better yields trying a new method, I would expect documented bushels per acre to basck his claim up.
If a dairy farmer says--------" I get as much milk if not more doing it this way "------I would expect data to back that up, also.
DHIA records or milk pounds per cow per day verefied by the bulk tank reciepts.
------talk is cheap, especially when no one asks for proof of claims.
...if anything we can hope the more safer and advanced technology helps farmers get the most out of the land they have...the soy route for her is the only way...Here is the best brand of soy products sold here in Scandinavia. Though I'd rather have milk, these Alpro Soy Mjölk Products really are'nt that bad.
Some soy tastes just horrible, that's for sure. But brand quality varies in soy milk as much as it varies in anything else. I've never heard of Alpro, but there must be many different brands available.
(bluepacific, has your wife tried hemp milk? I think hemp is delicious, also rice milk is easy on your stomach. Very easy for farmers to grow hemp as a crop...)
BTW, for those of you who think you're not eating soy, here's a gentle reminder. Soy is in virtually every mass-produced foodstuff we eat. Unless you grow and process your own food, you are eating and drinking soy.
Interesting how well human children have done on cow's milk for generations. And, of course, on the many other things that some folks now have decided must be "bad" for us wholesale (rather than bad for the occasional person who has an allergy or other individual physiological idiosyncracy).
It would be best if we all paid attention to what our bodies tell us about what we're eating and ate accordingly and stopped right there, without generalizing our own experiences to the entire human race.
Occasional person who has an allergy? You mean like the 30-50 million people in this country who are lactose intolerant? (Ref: Post #5) I'd hardly call those numbers idiosyncratic.
"Interesting how well human children have done on cow's milk for generations." Is that one of the reasons we've produced such a fit and healthy nation? For as many cites as you can give supporting that generalization I can give citing the opposite.
Cow milk is intended for calves; human milk, for human children. I don't care whether anyone likes cow milk, drinks it or makes their living producing it. But neither commercial soy production nor cow milk production is a better choice over the other, as far as I understand it.
Artichomesteader: "A vegetarian or vegan diet probably indirectly kills more animals than my own diet." What??? Talk about wild generalizations
If someone doesn't wish to become a vegetarian for whatever reason, they're "closed-minded about changing their eating habits"? Interesting assumption, that people who choose not to become vegetarian haven't tried it and rejected it or thought about it and analyzed the pros and cons beefore making the decision not to become a vegetarian for reasons that are good and sufficient for them.
Again, not trying to change anyone's eating habits here. I'm just trying to drive home the point that from an ecological standpoint, consuming soy is less harmful to the planet than consuming milk. I think there are plenty of books and studies that speak to this.
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.
Talk about wild generalizations 
