OT: Never complain about the cost of meat

[Renegade 13]

In my day to day life, I always hear people complaining about the cost of a nice, juicy T-bone steak, or hamburger or some other variety of tasty beef product. The next time you're in the grocery store, looking at the price of a steak and thinking it's outrageous, first off blame the middle-man (that's what I do ), and second, think about the producer. Someone like, say, me, who has to get up at 3:30 in the morning for an hour because some bloody stupid animal has given birth in -20�C (-4�F) weather and decides they don't want their calf, and has to be forced to decide it is hers after all so it doesn't freeze to death!

[GuyOfDoom]

I take it you must be a farmer/rancher?

I know most of the reasons that beef is expensive. I love beef as much as the next person, but honestly I'd love to see the cattle industry cut to 20% of what it currently is in the US.

[Renegade 13]

GuyOfDoom said:
I take it you must be a farmer/rancher?

Indeed, I do work on a cattle ranch.

I know most of the reasons that beef is expensive. I love beef as much as the next person, but honestly I'd love to see the cattle industry cut to 20% of what it currently is in the US.

For what reason would you want that?

[GuyOfDoom]

1) Beef isn't that healthy for you, for a number of reasons.

2) Like most foods now days it's becoming less natural and more "processed."

3) It takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food than it does to grow plants for food. It's one of the strongest points of the vegetarian philosophy.

Granted I'm not a vegetarian and I need my meat, but the point at which the food industry in general has just gotten ridiculous.

I'll give you a bit more of my perspective when I have time to sit down later this evening.

[Fyron]

2) Like most foods now days it's becoming less natural and more "processed."

In what way is meat "unnatural" today? The fact that they cut up the animals and package it, rather than selling you whole, live animals for your own personal butchery circa 1300 CE? A few growth hormones here and there that have no credible scientific studies indicating any potential side-effects to humans eating the meat? Growth hormones are perfectly natural. So what if the cows mature physically a bit faster than they normally would? It doesn't harm the meat in any way.

3) It takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food than it does to grow plants for food. It's one of the strongest points of the vegetarian philosophy.

Actually, it is one of the most asinine things espoused by some overly-political vegetarians that do not really understand food production and biology. While it is technically true that it "takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food," the claim is rather disingenuous because the food that is used to feed the animals is not suitable for feeding to humans, does not decrease the amount of human-quality grains grown, and in fact raising cattle and other livestock is an important part in the cycle of producing more demanding crops (most of the fruits and vegetables we eat).

The land used for cattle ranching is not suitable for growing human-grade crops (without a ton of fertilizer and nutrients added to it, which comes from the cattle...). Only tough, hardy crops can be grown on it; crops that are really bad to feed to humans, but are fine for herbivorous animals that can actually digest them somewhat well. Most of the grains grown to feed cattle et all are of really low caliber, not suitable for human consumption (think millet, long grasses), which is grown on other tracts of poor quality arable land. Of course, some excess wheat and corn and such is fed to livestock, but this is only done because too much was produced and it can't be sold, and would go to waste otherwise.

There is no particular lack of arable land in the country (or the world as a whole), so any argument related to wasted land usage is completely non-sensible. Pretty much all of the high-quality land that can be used to grow crops for humans either is used to do so, or is left fallow due to not enough demand for more.

We can grow quite a lot of poor-quality grains and such to feed to animals, but we can't really use the land they are grown on to feed humans, without ending up harming them due to malnourishment in the process. If you actually look at the energy efficiency of the food production overall, it is in reality better to have animals processing all of those hardy, malnutritous (in human terms) grains and grasses, than to try to feed them to humans. We can make much better use of it by eating the animals afterwards, and we get huge amounts of natural fertilizer as a by-product.

[Raapys]

I like meat.

[MasterChiToes]

Imperator Fyron said:
In what way is meat "unnatural" today? The fact that they cut up the animals and package it, rather than selling you whole, live animals for your own personal butchery circa 1300 CE? A few growth hormones here and there that have no credible scientific studies indicating any potential side-effects to humans eating the meat? Growth hormones are perfectly natural. So what if the cows mature physically a bit faster than they normally would? It doesn't harm the meat in any way.

Those hormones given to animals end up both in meat and milk... and contribute to premature puberty, and probably a wide variety of health problems. Funny thing that steroids and drugs that are illegal are allowed in food. Why not 100% pure marijuana fed beef?

Livestock feed also commonly includes reclaimed protein... which comes from meat designated unsuitable for human consumption, and by law is treated with creosote at some point, as well as from fido and fluffy when they get euthanized. Say hello to the primary source of mad cow disease.

Of course, vegetarians don't fair much better, beyond the obvious pesticides and fertilizers. Much of the world's farmlands were formerly inland seas, and are piss poor in essential nutritious minerals.

Anyway, I suggest putting more research into organics production, as well as spreading out your population to multiple terraformed worlds.

[GuyOfDoom]

Imperator Fyron said:

In what way is meat "unnatural" today? The fact that they cut up the animals and package it, rather than selling you whole, live animals for your own personal butchery circa 1300 CE? A few growth hormones here and there that have no credible scientific studies indicating any potential side-effects to humans eating the meat? Growth hormones are perfectly natural. So what if the cows mature physically a bit faster than they normally would? It doesn't harm the meat in any way.

Alright while Physics might be your area, Biochemistry is one of mine. Starting from the top: Most food, beef is this instance is far from �natural.� Animals are consistently fed hormones, specially derived diets and antibiotics to keep them growing faster and bigger than ever. Those chemicals alter the animal on just about every level possible. The short version is that if it�s in the animals it makes it into us when we eat them. Even if I was being VERY conservative I�d could say we�re getting nanograms of various chemicals everytime we�re eating meat and it often takes less than that to affect a biological system. Then take into account how often people eat meat and how much they tend to eat. Do the math. If you�d like a few references for chemicals that have been PROVEN to show effects I can supply those for you. As for �no� evidence that comes from what it takes to conduct human studies. Again the short version is by the time it�s definitively �proven� in humans it�s 25+ years later and everyone has already been past dramaticaly affected. The FDA is about as good at regulating as the EPA {read WORTHLESS}.

Actually, it is one of the most asinine things espoused by some overly-political vegetarians that do not really understand food production and biology. While it is technically true that it "takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food," the claim is rather disingenuous because the food that is used to feed the animals is not suitable for feeding to humans, does not decrease the amount of human-quality grains grown, and in fact raising cattle and other livestock is an important part in the cycle of producing more demanding crops (most of the fruits and vegetables we eat).

Funny you should mention not fit for humans because guess who gets fed the old antibiotics were banned on humans for adverse side effects.

The land used for cattle ranching is not suitable for growing human-grade crops (without a ton of fertilizer and nutrients added to it, which comes from the cattle...). Only tough, hardy crops can be grown on it; crops that are really bad to feed to humans, but are fine for herbivorous animals that can actually digest them somewhat well. Most of the grains grown to feed cattle et all are of really low caliber, not suitable for human consumption (think millet, long grasses), which is grown on other tracts of poor quality arable land. Of course, some excess wheat and corn and such is fed to livestock, but this is only done because too much was produced and it can't be sold, and would go to waste otherwise.

If you think no potential crop land has been altered to make way for livestock you�d be gravely mistaken. If you�re referring to manure being good fertilizer, cow manure is actually pretty low on the scale. Some of the best fertilizer actually comes from bats.

There is no particular lack of arable land in the country (or the world as a whole), so any argument related to wasted land usage is completely non-sensible. Pretty much all of the high-quality land that can be used to grow crops for humans either is used to do so, or is left fallow due to not enough demand for more.

We can grow quite a lot of poor-quality grains and such to feed to animals, but we can't really use the land they are grown on to feed humans, without ending up harming them due to malnourishment in the process. If you actually look at the energy efficiency of the food production overall, it is in reality better to have animals processing all of those hardy, malnutritous (in human terms) grains and grasses, than to try to feed them to humans. We can make much better use of it by eating the animals afterwards, and we get huge amounts of natural fertilizer as a by-product.

Funny you should mention there is no lack of arable land because at present the demand for ethanol based fuels on top of the already high demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup is driving the demand for Corn through the roof. If you think the world is at 100% efficiency in terms of farmland as well you�re dreaming. There are plenty of plants that can be eaten by humans that can grow in all types of climates. You forget people have been eating plants everywhere before the invention of refrigeration. The plants that are currently considered �core crops� are often the worst for soil and the best for the corporate farming pocketbooks. As I mentioned earlier cow manure isn�t the best fertilizer and as referenced if the cow is eating plenty of chemicals you don�t want, the manure is going to have them as well.

[Will]

Imperator Fyron said:
*snip* A few growth hormones here and there that have no credible scientific studies indicating any potential side-effects to humans eating the meat?
*snip*
There is no particular lack of arable land in the country (or the world as a whole), so any argument related to wasted land usage is completely non-sensible. Pretty much all of the high-quality land that can be used to grow crops for humans either is used to do so, or is left fallow due to not enough demand for more.

I would be more concerned about the large quantities of antibiotics that are fed to livestock, and the increasing number of resistant-strain bacteria that are emerging as a result. What guyofdoom already mentioned of the hormones fed to livestock is serious, but not the main problem. Even if the hormones are not the same as human hormones, and even if they are broken down by our metabolism, it still can (and probably does) cause some fluctuations in body chemistry. Which is minor compared to slowly losing the use of antibiotic drugs.

Also, it is not the case that the world is awash with more arable land than people know what to do with. The US has more than we need, but that is partially due to extensive use of irrigation; a topic you should be very familiar with, being in Riverside. If water from the Colorado River stops, agriculture in southern California stops. In South America, rather than using sustainable farming practices to make use of what arable land is there, people are using up the land and then razing more forests to make up for it.

As for land laying fallow, the only reason that happens in the US is because the Federal Government pays farmers to not grow food. Otherwise, everyone would be trying to grow something to cash in on all the money being thrown around for ethanol development.

[Renegade 13]

Oh man...I leave the forum for a day, and look at all the farming/ranching misconceptions that come up! Remember, I'm a cattle rancher, so I have intimate knowledge of what goes on on such ranches... And so, without further ado:

GuyOfDoom said:
1) Beef isn't that healthy for you, for a number of reasons.

Beef most certainly is healthy for you, as my sister (who is a registered dietitian) will tell you. Beef, and meat in general, contains a load of compounds that are good for, and even essential to, a healthy human diet. Vegetarians often aren't as healthy as meat-eaters, unless they load up on the artificial supplements.

2) Like most foods now days it's becoming less natural and more "processed."

Completely bogus. The cattle we raise are naturally conceived, born (unless the cow's having trouble), grown, raised and butchered.

3) It takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food than it does to grow plants for food. It's one of the strongest points of the vegetarian philosophy.

I think Fyron covered this quite well, so I'll leave this one alone.

Those hormones given to animals...[snip]

On our end of the production pipeline, which lasts from conception, through birth, all the way up until the animal is around 600 pounds, absolutely zero hormones are given to the animals. Now, I can't say what happens after we sell them, because I don't have knowledge of that subject.

Livestock feed also commonly includes reclaimed protein... which comes from meat designated unsuitable for human consumption, and by law is treated with creosote at some point, as well as from fido and fluffy when they get euthanized. Say hello to the primary source of mad cow disease.

This is a load of (if you'll pardon the pun) complete bull ****e. Since 1997, when Britain had the massive outbreak of the so-called Mad Cow Disease (more properly, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or BSE), there was a ban placed on any source of animal protein from being fed to cattle. Note that the term "Mad Cow Disease" really pisses me off, because it was an invention of the media to freak people out, and is really a misnomer. BSE does not harm people, and does not lead to CJD (the human version of BSE) unless someone is eating part of the central nervous system of an infected animal. Also note that human involvement and the previous practice of feeding animal protein to animals (which I find totally gross by the way) is not the only way diseases such as BSE develop; for example, the wild deer in parts of Canada have their own version of BSE...and you can't tell me they were busy eating the corpses of infected cows... I'm sorry if I seem a little steamed about this statement, but it's misconceptions such as this that drive people to become vegetarians, when such facts no longer hold true.

Animals are consistently fed hormones, specially derived diets and antibiotics...[snip]

Again, this misconception. We *do not* feed our animals any hormones, specially derived diets or antibiotics (unless the animal is sick, in which case we will use antibiotics in an attempt to make them well again). Our cattle are given x number of acres to wander around on and eat grass, leaves, whatever the hell they want to their heart's content. However, as a caveat to that statement, I again don't know what happens after we sell the animals, so I can't make a statement as to that.

If you�re referring to manure being good fertilizer, cow manure is actually pretty low on the scale.

In my personal experience, cow manure works beautifully as a fertilizer; just ask our vegetable garden

Funny you should mention there is no lack of arable land because at present the demand for ethanol based fuels on top of the already high demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup is driving the demand for Corn through the roof.

Of course, the fact that ethanol has been proven to be just a pipe dream has nothing to do with the matter...no, of course not. If the entire arable landmass of the US was taken up with corn crops, and all that corn was converted to ethanol, it would still only supply a fraction of the US's demand for fuels...now which use of the land is more inefficient, ethanol or livestock?

I would be more concerned about the large quantities of antibiotics that are fed to livestock...

See my pervious statement regarding antibiotics.

Note that recent news article about a scientist being offered a job if he guaranteed he'd come out against the existence of global warming.

This is totally off-topic, but if I were you, I'd look at the political affiliation of whoever made the claim that this happened...But that's a discussion for another day.

The amount of misconceptions that people have is just staggering...I guess it just goes to show that we all may think we know a lot, but we all really just know what we've been lead to believe.