Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is dairy good or bad?
Replies
-
cushman5279 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »In other news, cows who use antiperspirant get beaten less often but produce milk that glows in the dark.
Well that stinks either way.
Why would you bother putting antiperspirant on a cow, it doesn't have sweat glands on most of its skin, and the manure it produces is already going to cause enough smell.
Because if she smelled better she might attract a mate so the nazi farmer wouldn't have to forcefully inseminate her.
Why is the farmer a Nazi?
You're the one who said he rapes the cow, strips her baby away and forces her into hard labor for the rest of her life.0 -
cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »salembambi wrote: »bad for you
& especially for the calf and mother cows
Those cows would be in a lot of pain if they were unmilked. Dairy cows are upset with you if you fail to milk them on schedule.
Totally wrong.
Cows are forcefully inseminated and the moment they give birth the baby calf is ripped away before it can even walk or open it's eyes. The babies are put into cages (some) for veal and the mother cows are milked, for their milk. The entire process is painful and unethical. But yeah... keep listening to the multi-billion dollar dairy industry when they tell you milk does a body good.
Oh, and momma cows are also upset when their babies are taken away from them.
The words Ethical farming and slaughter just don't make sense.
The literal dozens of local dairy farms with calves in the pasture alongside their mothers says, "you have no clue what you're talking about."
Never said all dairy farms. Mainly just the ones making all the money.
Why is making money off cows a bad thing?
Didn't you know? Making money is bad. Except for when the right people, the people we like, do it.3 -
cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »salembambi wrote: »bad for you
& especially for the calf and mother cows
Those cows would be in a lot of pain if they were unmilked. Dairy cows are upset with you if you fail to milk them on schedule.
Totally wrong.
Cows are forcefully inseminated and the moment they give birth the baby calf is ripped away before it can even walk or open it's eyes. The babies are put into cages (some) for veal and the mother cows are milked, for their milk. The entire process is painful and unethical. But yeah... keep listening to the multi-billion dollar dairy industry when they tell you milk does a body good.
Oh, and momma cows are also upset when their babies are taken away from them.
The words Ethical farming and slaughter just don't make sense.
The literal dozens of local dairy farms with calves in the pasture alongside their mothers says, "you have no clue what you're talking about."
Never said all dairy farms. Mainly just the ones making all the money.
Why is making money off cows a bad thing?
Because they are living beings, not things.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »You have to ask yourself why so many millions of people are lactose intolerant. Some people just simply adapt to digesting the sugar enzymes contained in milk out of survival. Others don't. I wonder about things like this... like if something is giving you heart burn would you just take a pill and continue to eat the item? Personally I feel like that's my body telling me to stop. So many people forgot to listen to their bodies thought it's just sad. A lot of people actually let a computer program and application developers tell them when they should eat instead of trying to figure out if their actually hungry or not
Rather than asking *myself* why millions of people are lactose intolerant, I asked science, specifically genetics. Interestingly, your musings here aren't entirely incorrect, but more along the line of the hazy explanation my 7 year old would provide when asked about the unique preponderance of lactose tolerance among British, Scandinavian, and other northern European populations ("simply adapt...out of survival"), how it helped them survive a harsh climate and genetically out-compete individuals with less-suitable genetic adaptations ("Others don't."), and the subsequent dispersal of the genome across at least seven millennia, while still leaving "so many millions [who are] lactose intolerant" (aka, two-thirds of the world population). You might find the following to be helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
And yes, anyone who has dysentary-esque explosions from their posterior should probably listen to their body and stop drinking milk. It leaves more for those of us with Viking-Celt-Teutonic ancestry and a 90% tolerance rate.
On the question of calves being separated immediately from their mothers, it is actually less stressful for both the cow and calf if the separation happens immediately. The cow rapidly forgets, and the calf doesn't know any different, as opposed to weaning after a month or two, where the stress and grief can last for days for both parties. I am an occasional visitor to both a conventional dairy farm (where the cows enjoy a particularly cushy life, including self-selecting milking, deep sand beds, automated manure clean-up, and fans, massage and misting machines), and a 100% grass-fed raw-milk operation where the cows greatly enjoy being on pasture for most of the year. It doesn't stop most from becoming hamburger at some point in their lives, but we all eventually become hamburger anyway, even the apex predators.
Sorry about my "fuzzy" science. Please see my last post above for the actual science.
Less stressful for the calf and the mother? Really? How about let's make it not stressful by not practicing it at all.
Well, if we don't need the milk or the meat, Why would anyone even bother to feed and raise cows? Taken to the ultimate goal you are advocating for the gradual extinction of the entire species. Seems pretty harsh.
Uhm, I don't know. I'm pretty sure cows and calfs just happened long before any human intervention.
This reminds me of the hunters who say they have to kill the deer because we're over-run with them LOL!
I've never heard the argument that we need to shoot deer because we're overrun with them but I can tell you that the management of deer populations by/for hunting has exponentially improved the health and quality of said deer populations.
Without herd management via hunting, deer populations would fluctuate greatly due to increased populations leading to the spread of fatal diseases like Blue Tongue which decimate densely populated deer populations. Then when populations finally recover, the die off again.
Hunting effectively stops that cycle.
Herd management is a man-made idea.
Anyone who hunts has many valid arguments why it's justifiable.
Anyone who doesn't believe in hunting can come up with a million reasons why it's wrong.
To each their own. Personally I don't feel as if hunting is a fair sport, nor is it necessary by any stretch of the imagination. But that's just my opinion.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »In other news, cows who use antiperspirant get beaten less often but produce milk that glows in the dark.
Well that stinks either way.
Why would you bother putting antiperspirant on a cow, it doesn't have sweat glands on most of its skin, and the manure it produces is already going to cause enough smell.
Because if she smelled better she might attract a mate so the nazi farmer wouldn't have to forcefully inseminate her.
Why is the farmer a Nazi?
You're the one who said he rapes the cow, strips her baby away and forces her into hard labor for the rest of her life. [/quotCarlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »In other news, cows who use antiperspirant get beaten less often but produce milk that glows in the dark.
Well that stinks either way.
Why would you bother putting antiperspirant on a cow, it doesn't have sweat glands on most of its skin, and the manure it produces is already going to cause enough smell.
Because if she smelled better she might attract a mate so the nazi farmer wouldn't have to forcefully inseminate her.
Why is the farmer a Nazi?
You're the one who said he rapes the cow, strips her baby away and forces her into hard labor for the rest of her life.
Well those were not my exact words, you're putting words in my mouth (post). But yeah, pretty much... but I still don't know why the farmer would be a Nazi... that's a racist and stereotypical thing to say0 -
cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »salembambi wrote: »bad for you
& especially for the calf and mother cows
Those cows would be in a lot of pain if they were unmilked. Dairy cows are upset with you if you fail to milk them on schedule.
Totally wrong.
Cows are forcefully inseminated and the moment they give birth the baby calf is ripped away before it can even walk or open it's eyes. The babies are put into cages (some) for veal and the mother cows are milked, for their milk. The entire process is painful and unethical. But yeah... keep listening to the multi-billion dollar dairy industry when they tell you milk does a body good.
Oh, and momma cows are also upset when their babies are taken away from them.
The words Ethical farming and slaughter just don't make sense.
The literal dozens of local dairy farms with calves in the pasture alongside their mothers says, "you have no clue what you're talking about."
Never said all dairy farms. Mainly just the ones making all the money.
Why is making money off cows a bad thing?
Didn't you know? Making money is bad. Except for when the right people, the people we like, do it.
Flip flopping... like the Democrats
0 -
cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »salembambi wrote: »bad for you
& especially for the calf and mother cows
Those cows would be in a lot of pain if they were unmilked. Dairy cows are upset with you if you fail to milk them on schedule.
Totally wrong.
Cows are forcefully inseminated and the moment they give birth the baby calf is ripped away before it can even walk or open it's eyes. The babies are put into cages (some) for veal and the mother cows are milked, for their milk. The entire process is painful and unethical. But yeah... keep listening to the multi-billion dollar dairy industry when they tell you milk does a body good.
Oh, and momma cows are also upset when their babies are taken away from them.
The words Ethical farming and slaughter just don't make sense.
The literal dozens of local dairy farms with calves in the pasture alongside their mothers says, "you have no clue what you're talking about."
Never said all dairy farms. Mainly just the ones making all the money.
Why is making money off cows a bad thing?
Because they are living beings, not things.
that is ridiculous...
so then no one should farm, own a butcher shop, or any other food processing plant? What do you propose all these people do for a living?1 -
This content has been removed.
-
cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »salembambi wrote: »bad for you
& especially for the calf and mother cows
Those cows would be in a lot of pain if they were unmilked. Dairy cows are upset with you if you fail to milk them on schedule.
Totally wrong.
Cows are forcefully inseminated and the moment they give birth the baby calf is ripped away before it can even walk or open it's eyes. The babies are put into cages (some) for veal and the mother cows are milked, for their milk. The entire process is painful and unethical. But yeah... keep listening to the multi-billion dollar dairy industry when they tell you milk does a body good.
Oh, and momma cows are also upset when their babies are taken away from them.
The words Ethical farming and slaughter just don't make sense.
The literal dozens of local dairy farms with calves in the pasture alongside their mothers says, "you have no clue what you're talking about."
Never said all dairy farms. Mainly just the ones making all the money.
Why is making money off cows a bad thing?
Because they are living beings, not things.
So is you and me.
So are vegetables.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »You have to ask yourself why so many millions of people are lactose intolerant. Some people just simply adapt to digesting the sugar enzymes contained in milk out of survival. Others don't. I wonder about things like this... like if something is giving you heart burn would you just take a pill and continue to eat the item? Personally I feel like that's my body telling me to stop. So many people forgot to listen to their bodies thought it's just sad. A lot of people actually let a computer program and application developers tell them when they should eat instead of trying to figure out if their actually hungry or not
Rather than asking *myself* why millions of people are lactose intolerant, I asked science, specifically genetics. Interestingly, your musings here aren't entirely incorrect, but more along the line of the hazy explanation my 7 year old would provide when asked about the unique preponderance of lactose tolerance among British, Scandinavian, and other northern European populations ("simply adapt...out of survival"), how it helped them survive a harsh climate and genetically out-compete individuals with less-suitable genetic adaptations ("Others don't."), and the subsequent dispersal of the genome across at least seven millennia, while still leaving "so many millions [who are] lactose intolerant" (aka, two-thirds of the world population). You might find the following to be helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
And yes, anyone who has dysentary-esque explosions from their posterior should probably listen to their body and stop drinking milk. It leaves more for those of us with Viking-Celt-Teutonic ancestry and a 90% tolerance rate.
On the question of calves being separated immediately from their mothers, it is actually less stressful for both the cow and calf if the separation happens immediately. The cow rapidly forgets, and the calf doesn't know any different, as opposed to weaning after a month or two, where the stress and grief can last for days for both parties. I am an occasional visitor to both a conventional dairy farm (where the cows enjoy a particularly cushy life, including self-selecting milking, deep sand beds, automated manure clean-up, and fans, massage and misting machines), and a 100% grass-fed raw-milk operation where the cows greatly enjoy being on pasture for most of the year. It doesn't stop most from becoming hamburger at some point in their lives, but we all eventually become hamburger anyway, even the apex predators.
Sorry about my "fuzzy" science. Please see my last post above for the actual science.
Less stressful for the calf and the mother? Really? How about let's make it not stressful by not practicing it at all.
Well, if we don't need the milk or the meat, Why would anyone even bother to feed and raise cows? Taken to the ultimate goal you are advocating for the gradual extinction of the entire species. Seems pretty harsh.
Uhm, I don't know. I'm pretty sure cows and calfs just happened long before any human intervention.
This reminds me of the hunters who say they have to kill the deer because we're over-run with them LOL!
I've never heard the argument that we need to shoot deer because we're overrun with them but I can tell you that the management of deer populations by/for hunting has exponentially improved the health and quality of said deer populations.
Without herd management via hunting, deer populations would fluctuate greatly due to increased populations leading to the spread of fatal diseases like Blue Tongue which decimate densely populated deer populations. Then when populations finally recover, the die off again.
Hunting effectively stops that cycle.
That seems unnatural. I bet they'd probably just develop a natural immunity to Blue Tongue if they had time. Developing immunity to those kind of things happens a lot faster in wild animals because their immune systems can focus on just the diseases and don't have to work to remove man-made compounds. I bet Blue Tongue even seemed overblown because they're probably survey the deer close to human populations that have their immune system exposed to chemicals.
Mass instinction IS natural. Ever heard of the dinosaurs?
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »You have to ask yourself why so many millions of people are lactose intolerant. Some people just simply adapt to digesting the sugar enzymes contained in milk out of survival. Others don't. I wonder about things like this... like if something is giving you heart burn would you just take a pill and continue to eat the item? Personally I feel like that's my body telling me to stop. So many people forgot to listen to their bodies thought it's just sad. A lot of people actually let a computer program and application developers tell them when they should eat instead of trying to figure out if their actually hungry or not
Rather than asking *myself* why millions of people are lactose intolerant, I asked science, specifically genetics. Interestingly, your musings here aren't entirely incorrect, but more along the line of the hazy explanation my 7 year old would provide when asked about the unique preponderance of lactose tolerance among British, Scandinavian, and other northern European populations ("simply adapt...out of survival"), how it helped them survive a harsh climate and genetically out-compete individuals with less-suitable genetic adaptations ("Others don't."), and the subsequent dispersal of the genome across at least seven millennia, while still leaving "so many millions [who are] lactose intolerant" (aka, two-thirds of the world population). You might find the following to be helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
And yes, anyone who has dysentary-esque explosions from their posterior should probably listen to their body and stop drinking milk. It leaves more for those of us with Viking-Celt-Teutonic ancestry and a 90% tolerance rate.
On the question of calves being separated immediately from their mothers, it is actually less stressful for both the cow and calf if the separation happens immediately. The cow rapidly forgets, and the calf doesn't know any different, as opposed to weaning after a month or two, where the stress and grief can last for days for both parties. I am an occasional visitor to both a conventional dairy farm (where the cows enjoy a particularly cushy life, including self-selecting milking, deep sand beds, automated manure clean-up, and fans, massage and misting machines), and a 100% grass-fed raw-milk operation where the cows greatly enjoy being on pasture for most of the year. It doesn't stop most from becoming hamburger at some point in their lives, but we all eventually become hamburger anyway, even the apex predators.
Sorry about my "fuzzy" science. Please see my last post above for the actual science.
Less stressful for the calf and the mother? Really? How about let's make it not stressful by not practicing it at all.
Well, if we don't need the milk or the meat, Why would anyone even bother to feed and raise cows? Taken to the ultimate goal you are advocating for the gradual extinction of the entire species. Seems pretty harsh.
Uhm, I don't know. I'm pretty sure cows and calfs just happened long before any human intervention.
This reminds me of the hunters who say they have to kill the deer because we're over-run with them LOL!
I've never heard the argument that we need to shoot deer because we're overrun with them but I can tell you that the management of deer populations by/for hunting has exponentially improved the health and quality of said deer populations.
Without herd management via hunting, deer populations would fluctuate greatly due to increased populations leading to the spread of fatal diseases like Blue Tongue which decimate densely populated deer populations. Then when populations finally recover, the die off again.
Hunting effectively stops that cycle.
That seems unnatural. I bet they'd probably just develop a natural immunity to Blue Tongue if they had time. Developing immunity to those kind of things happens a lot faster in wild animals because their immune systems can focus on just the diseases and don't have to work to remove man-made compounds. I bet Blue Tongue even seemed overblown because they're probably survey the deer close to human populations that have their immune system exposed to chemicals.
Mass instinction IS natural. Ever heard of the dinosaurs?
The dinosaurs went extinct because they were out hunted by humans. It wasn't natural.
Don't judge. The cavemen had to hunt dinos because they were on the Cretaceous Diet. Quite a fad back then.
5 -
This content has been removed.
-
cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »salembambi wrote: »bad for you
& especially for the calf and mother cows
Those cows would be in a lot of pain if they were unmilked. Dairy cows are upset with you if you fail to milk them on schedule.
Totally wrong.
Cows are forcefully inseminated and the moment they give birth the baby calf is ripped away before it can even walk or open it's eyes. The babies are put into cages (some) for veal and the mother cows are milked, for their milk. The entire process is painful and unethical. But yeah... keep listening to the multi-billion dollar dairy industry when they tell you milk does a body good.
Oh, and momma cows are also upset when their babies are taken away from them.
The words Ethical farming and slaughter just don't make sense.
The literal dozens of local dairy farms with calves in the pasture alongside their mothers says, "you have no clue what you're talking about."
Never said all dairy farms. Mainly just the ones making all the money.
Why is making money off cows a bad thing?
Because they are living beings, not things.
that is ridiculous...
so then no one should farm, own a butcher shop, or any other food processing plant? What do you propose all these people do for a living?
Hell, using her metric, I'd take it a step further. All business models that make a profit off of the labor of others are bad. So pretty much all of them.1 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »You have to ask yourself why so many millions of people are lactose intolerant. Some people just simply adapt to digesting the sugar enzymes contained in milk out of survival. Others don't. I wonder about things like this... like if something is giving you heart burn would you just take a pill and continue to eat the item? Personally I feel like that's my body telling me to stop. So many people forgot to listen to their bodies thought it's just sad. A lot of people actually let a computer program and application developers tell them when they should eat instead of trying to figure out if their actually hungry or not
Rather than asking *myself* why millions of people are lactose intolerant, I asked science, specifically genetics. Interestingly, your musings here aren't entirely incorrect, but more along the line of the hazy explanation my 7 year old would provide when asked about the unique preponderance of lactose tolerance among British, Scandinavian, and other northern European populations ("simply adapt...out of survival"), how it helped them survive a harsh climate and genetically out-compete individuals with less-suitable genetic adaptations ("Others don't."), and the subsequent dispersal of the genome across at least seven millennia, while still leaving "so many millions [who are] lactose intolerant" (aka, two-thirds of the world population). You might find the following to be helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
And yes, anyone who has dysentary-esque explosions from their posterior should probably listen to their body and stop drinking milk. It leaves more for those of us with Viking-Celt-Teutonic ancestry and a 90% tolerance rate.
On the question of calves being separated immediately from their mothers, it is actually less stressful for both the cow and calf if the separation happens immediately. The cow rapidly forgets, and the calf doesn't know any different, as opposed to weaning after a month or two, where the stress and grief can last for days for both parties. I am an occasional visitor to both a conventional dairy farm (where the cows enjoy a particularly cushy life, including self-selecting milking, deep sand beds, automated manure clean-up, and fans, massage and misting machines), and a 100% grass-fed raw-milk operation where the cows greatly enjoy being on pasture for most of the year. It doesn't stop most from becoming hamburger at some point in their lives, but we all eventually become hamburger anyway, even the apex predators.
Sorry about my "fuzzy" science. Please see my last post above for the actual science.
Less stressful for the calf and the mother? Really? How about let's make it not stressful by not practicing it at all.
Well, if we don't need the milk or the meat, Why would anyone even bother to feed and raise cows? Taken to the ultimate goal you are advocating for the gradual extinction of the entire species. Seems pretty harsh.
Uhm, I don't know. I'm pretty sure cows and calfs just happened long before any human intervention.
This reminds me of the hunters who say they have to kill the deer because we're over-run with them LOL!
I've never heard the argument that we need to shoot deer because we're overrun with them but I can tell you that the management of deer populations by/for hunting has exponentially improved the health and quality of said deer populations.
Without herd management via hunting, deer populations would fluctuate greatly due to increased populations leading to the spread of fatal diseases like Blue Tongue which decimate densely populated deer populations. Then when populations finally recover, the die off again.
Hunting effectively stops that cycle.
That seems unnatural. I bet they'd probably just develop a natural immunity to Blue Tongue if they had time. Developing immunity to those kind of things happens a lot faster in wild animals because their immune systems can focus on just the diseases and don't have to work to remove man-made compounds. I bet Blue Tongue even seemed overblown because they're probably survey the deer close to human populations that have their immune system exposed to chemicals.
Mass instinction IS natural. Ever heard of the dinosaurs?
The dinosaurs went extinct because they were out hunted by humans. It wasn't natural.
Don't judge. The cavemen had to hunt dinos because they were on the Cretaceous Diet. Quite a fad back then.
I'm not sure you follow. Dinosaurs were much to big to hunt
The photograph I posted proves otherwise.
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »You have to ask yourself why so many millions of people are lactose intolerant. Some people just simply adapt to digesting the sugar enzymes contained in milk out of survival. Others don't. I wonder about things like this... like if something is giving you heart burn would you just take a pill and continue to eat the item? Personally I feel like that's my body telling me to stop. So many people forgot to listen to their bodies thought it's just sad. A lot of people actually let a computer program and application developers tell them when they should eat instead of trying to figure out if their actually hungry or not
Rather than asking *myself* why millions of people are lactose intolerant, I asked science, specifically genetics. Interestingly, your musings here aren't entirely incorrect, but more along the line of the hazy explanation my 7 year old would provide when asked about the unique preponderance of lactose tolerance among British, Scandinavian, and other northern European populations ("simply adapt...out of survival"), how it helped them survive a harsh climate and genetically out-compete individuals with less-suitable genetic adaptations ("Others don't."), and the subsequent dispersal of the genome across at least seven millennia, while still leaving "so many millions [who are] lactose intolerant" (aka, two-thirds of the world population). You might find the following to be helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
And yes, anyone who has dysentary-esque explosions from their posterior should probably listen to their body and stop drinking milk. It leaves more for those of us with Viking-Celt-Teutonic ancestry and a 90% tolerance rate.
On the question of calves being separated immediately from their mothers, it is actually less stressful for both the cow and calf if the separation happens immediately. The cow rapidly forgets, and the calf doesn't know any different, as opposed to weaning after a month or two, where the stress and grief can last for days for both parties. I am an occasional visitor to both a conventional dairy farm (where the cows enjoy a particularly cushy life, including self-selecting milking, deep sand beds, automated manure clean-up, and fans, massage and misting machines), and a 100% grass-fed raw-milk operation where the cows greatly enjoy being on pasture for most of the year. It doesn't stop most from becoming hamburger at some point in their lives, but we all eventually become hamburger anyway, even the apex predators.
Sorry about my "fuzzy" science. Please see my last post above for the actual science.
Less stressful for the calf and the mother? Really? How about let's make it not stressful by not practicing it at all.
Well, if we don't need the milk or the meat, Why would anyone even bother to feed and raise cows? Taken to the ultimate goal you are advocating for the gradual extinction of the entire species. Seems pretty harsh.
Uhm, I don't know. I'm pretty sure cows and calfs just happened long before any human intervention.
This reminds me of the hunters who say they have to kill the deer because we're over-run with them LOL!
I've never heard the argument that we need to shoot deer because we're overrun with them but I can tell you that the management of deer populations by/for hunting has exponentially improved the health and quality of said deer populations.
Without herd management via hunting, deer populations would fluctuate greatly due to increased populations leading to the spread of fatal diseases like Blue Tongue which decimate densely populated deer populations. Then when populations finally recover, the die off again.
Hunting effectively stops that cycle.
That seems unnatural. I bet they'd probably just develop a natural immunity to Blue Tongue if they had time. Developing immunity to those kind of things happens a lot faster in wild animals because their immune systems can focus on just the diseases and don't have to work to remove man-made compounds. I bet Blue Tongue even seemed overblown because they're probably survey the deer close to human populations that have their immune system exposed to chemicals.
Mass instinction IS natural. Ever heard of the dinosaurs?
The dinosaurs went extinct because they were out hunted by humans. It wasn't natural.
Don't judge. The cavemen had to hunt dinos because they were on the Cretaceous Diet. Quite a fad back then.
It's all true.
4 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »You have to ask yourself why so many millions of people are lactose intolerant. Some people just simply adapt to digesting the sugar enzymes contained in milk out of survival. Others don't. I wonder about things like this... like if something is giving you heart burn would you just take a pill and continue to eat the item? Personally I feel like that's my body telling me to stop. So many people forgot to listen to their bodies thought it's just sad. A lot of people actually let a computer program and application developers tell them when they should eat instead of trying to figure out if their actually hungry or not
Rather than asking *myself* why millions of people are lactose intolerant, I asked science, specifically genetics. Interestingly, your musings here aren't entirely incorrect, but more along the line of the hazy explanation my 7 year old would provide when asked about the unique preponderance of lactose tolerance among British, Scandinavian, and other northern European populations ("simply adapt...out of survival"), how it helped them survive a harsh climate and genetically out-compete individuals with less-suitable genetic adaptations ("Others don't."), and the subsequent dispersal of the genome across at least seven millennia, while still leaving "so many millions [who are] lactose intolerant" (aka, two-thirds of the world population). You might find the following to be helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
And yes, anyone who has dysentary-esque explosions from their posterior should probably listen to their body and stop drinking milk. It leaves more for those of us with Viking-Celt-Teutonic ancestry and a 90% tolerance rate.
On the question of calves being separated immediately from their mothers, it is actually less stressful for both the cow and calf if the separation happens immediately. The cow rapidly forgets, and the calf doesn't know any different, as opposed to weaning after a month or two, where the stress and grief can last for days for both parties. I am an occasional visitor to both a conventional dairy farm (where the cows enjoy a particularly cushy life, including self-selecting milking, deep sand beds, automated manure clean-up, and fans, massage and misting machines), and a 100% grass-fed raw-milk operation where the cows greatly enjoy being on pasture for most of the year. It doesn't stop most from becoming hamburger at some point in their lives, but we all eventually become hamburger anyway, even the apex predators.
Sorry about my "fuzzy" science. Please see my last post above for the actual science.
Less stressful for the calf and the mother? Really? How about let's make it not stressful by not practicing it at all.
Well, if we don't need the milk or the meat, Why would anyone even bother to feed and raise cows? Taken to the ultimate goal you are advocating for the gradual extinction of the entire species. Seems pretty harsh.
Uhm, I don't know. I'm pretty sure cows and calfs just happened long before any human intervention.
This reminds me of the hunters who say they have to kill the deer because we're over-run with them LOL!
I've never heard the argument that we need to shoot deer because we're overrun with them but I can tell you that the management of deer populations by/for hunting has exponentially improved the health and quality of said deer populations.
Without herd management via hunting, deer populations would fluctuate greatly due to increased populations leading to the spread of fatal diseases like Blue Tongue which decimate densely populated deer populations. Then when populations finally recover, the die off again.
Hunting effectively stops that cycle.
That seems unnatural. I bet they'd probably just develop a natural immunity to Blue Tongue if they had time. Developing immunity to those kind of things happens a lot faster in wild animals because their immune systems can focus on just the diseases and don't have to work to remove man-made compounds. I bet Blue Tongue even seemed overblown because they're probably survey the deer close to human populations that have their immune system exposed to chemicals.
Mass instinction IS natural. Ever heard of the dinosaurs?
The dinosaurs went extinct because they were out hunted by humans. It wasn't natural.
Don't judge. The cavemen had to hunt dinos because they were on the Cretaceous Diet. Quite a fad back then.
I'm not sure you follow. Dinosaurs were much to big to hunt, and predators like the one pictured would be risky to confront even in groups with fire tactics. Instead, early humans hunted out their prey and they died out that way.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/rising-temperatures-and-humans-were-deadly-combo-ancient-south-american-megafauna
Dinosaurs were, in fact, tamed and milked. It was the most nutritious milk available, much like cockroach milk today. The first superfood.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »The dinosaurs went extinct because they were out hunted by humans. It wasn't natural.
Those humans were ahead of their time! LOL!!!
1 -
being out-hunted by bigger/better/stronger/faster/smarter hunters is ENTIRELY natural3
-
-
Sometimes I feel bad for livestock. Then I remember the video of those baboons just riping an antelopes leg out while it still lives and I think that what we're doing with livestock isn't half bad.8
-
jmbmilholland wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »You have to ask yourself why so many millions of people are lactose intolerant. Some people just simply adapt to digesting the sugar enzymes contained in milk out of survival. Others don't. I wonder about things like this... like if something is giving you heart burn would you just take a pill and continue to eat the item? Personally I feel like that's my body telling me to stop. So many people forgot to listen to their bodies thought it's just sad. A lot of people actually let a computer program and application developers tell them when they should eat instead of trying to figure out if their actually hungry or not
Rather than asking *myself* why millions of people are lactose intolerant, I asked science, specifically genetics. Interestingly, your musings here aren't entirely incorrect, but more along the line of the hazy explanation my 7 year old would provide when asked about the unique preponderance of lactose tolerance among British, Scandinavian, and other northern European populations ("simply adapt...out of survival"), how it helped them survive a harsh climate and genetically out-compete individuals with less-suitable genetic adaptations ("Others don't."), and the subsequent dispersal of the genome across at least seven millennia, while still leaving "so many millions [who are] lactose intolerant" (aka, two-thirds of the world population). You might find the following to be helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
And yes, anyone who has dysentary-esque explosions from their posterior should probably listen to their body and stop drinking milk. It leaves more for those of us with Viking-Celt-Teutonic ancestry and a 90% tolerance rate.
On the question of calves being separated immediately from their mothers, it is actually less stressful for both the cow and calf if the separation happens immediately. The cow rapidly forgets, and the calf doesn't know any different, as opposed to weaning after a month or two, where the stress and grief can last for days for both parties. I am an occasional visitor to both a conventional dairy farm (where the cows enjoy a particularly cushy life, including self-selecting milking, deep sand beds, automated manure clean-up, and fans, massage and misting machines), and a 100% grass-fed raw-milk operation where the cows greatly enjoy being on pasture for most of the year. It doesn't stop most from becoming hamburger at some point in their lives, but we all eventually become hamburger anyway, even the apex predators.
Sorry about my "fuzzy" science. Please see my last post above for the actual science.
Less stressful for the calf and the mother? Really? How about let's make it not stressful by not practicing it at all.
Well, if we don't need the milk or the meat, Why would anyone even bother to feed and raise cows? Taken to the ultimate goal you are advocating for the gradual extinction of the entire species. Seems pretty harsh.
Uhm, I don't know. I'm pretty sure cows and calfs just happened long before any human intervention.
This reminds me of the hunters who say they have to kill the deer because we're over-run with them LOL!
I've never heard the argument that we need to shoot deer because we're overrun with them but I can tell you that the management of deer populations by/for hunting has exponentially improved the health and quality of said deer populations.
Without herd management via hunting, deer populations would fluctuate greatly due to increased populations leading to the spread of fatal diseases like Blue Tongue which decimate densely populated deer populations. Then when populations finally recover, the die off again.
Hunting effectively stops that cycle.
That seems unnatural. I bet they'd probably just develop a natural immunity to Blue Tongue if they had time. Developing immunity to those kind of things happens a lot faster in wild animals because their immune systems can focus on just the diseases and don't have to work to remove man-made compounds. I bet Blue Tongue even seemed overblown because they're probably survey the deer close to human populations that have their immune system exposed to chemicals.
Mass instinction IS natural. Ever heard of the dinosaurs?
The dinosaurs went extinct because they were out hunted by humans. It wasn't natural.
Don't judge. The cavemen had to hunt dinos because they were on the Cretaceous Diet. Quite a fad back then.
I'm not sure you follow. Dinosaurs were much to big to hunt, and predators like the one pictured would be risky to confront even in groups with fire tactics. Instead, early humans hunted out their prey and they died out that way.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/rising-temperatures-and-humans-were-deadly-combo-ancient-south-american-megafauna
Dinosaurs were, in fact, tamed and milked. It was the most nutritious milk available, much like cockroach milk today. The first superfood.
t-rex milk is the cleanest...6 -
Hate to disturb the dinosaur meme, but ants milk aphids. Because they are smart enough, they are organized, and heck, they deserve it. 100% natural.6
-
This content has been removed.
-
cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »salembambi wrote: »bad for you
& especially for the calf and mother cows
Those cows would be in a lot of pain if they were unmilked. Dairy cows are upset with you if you fail to milk them on schedule.
Totally wrong.
Cows are forcefully inseminated and the moment they give birth the baby calf is ripped away before it can even walk or open it's eyes. The babies are put into cages (some) for veal and the mother cows are milked, for their milk. The entire process is painful and unethical. But yeah... keep listening to the multi-billion dollar dairy industry when they tell you milk does a body good.
Oh, and momma cows are also upset when their babies are taken away from them.
The words Ethical farming and slaughter just don't make sense.
The literal dozens of local dairy farms with calves in the pasture alongside their mothers says, "you have no clue what you're talking about."
Never said all dairy farms. Mainly just the ones making all the money.
The ones not making money generally get out of the business pretty quick.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sometimes I feel bad for livestock. Then I remember the video of those baboons just riping an antelopes leg out while it still lives and I think that what we're doing with livestock isn't half bad.
Or the nature programs of chimpanzees catching baby monkeys.
0 -
If we're arguing about whether something is "good" or "bad", this is a question proper to philosophy and religion. Here is some relevant text from one of the oldest written documents addressing this issue:Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.1
-
cushman5279 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »You have to ask yourself why so many millions of people are lactose intolerant. Some people just simply adapt to digesting the sugar enzymes contained in milk out of survival. Others don't. I wonder about things like this... like if something is giving you heart burn would you just take a pill and continue to eat the item? Personally I feel like that's my body telling me to stop. So many people forgot to listen to their bodies thought it's just sad. A lot of people actually let a computer program and application developers tell them when they should eat instead of trying to figure out if their actually hungry or not
Rather than asking *myself* why millions of people are lactose intolerant, I asked science, specifically genetics. Interestingly, your musings here aren't entirely incorrect, but more along the line of the hazy explanation my 7 year old would provide when asked about the unique preponderance of lactose tolerance among British, Scandinavian, and other northern European populations ("simply adapt...out of survival"), how it helped them survive a harsh climate and genetically out-compete individuals with less-suitable genetic adaptations ("Others don't."), and the subsequent dispersal of the genome across at least seven millennia, while still leaving "so many millions [who are] lactose intolerant" (aka, two-thirds of the world population). You might find the following to be helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
And yes, anyone who has dysentary-esque explosions from their posterior should probably listen to their body and stop drinking milk. It leaves more for those of us with Viking-Celt-Teutonic ancestry and a 90% tolerance rate.
On the question of calves being separated immediately from their mothers, it is actually less stressful for both the cow and calf if the separation happens immediately. The cow rapidly forgets, and the calf doesn't know any different, as opposed to weaning after a month or two, where the stress and grief can last for days for both parties. I am an occasional visitor to both a conventional dairy farm (where the cows enjoy a particularly cushy life, including self-selecting milking, deep sand beds, automated manure clean-up, and fans, massage and misting machines), and a 100% grass-fed raw-milk operation where the cows greatly enjoy being on pasture for most of the year. It doesn't stop most from becoming hamburger at some point in their lives, but we all eventually become hamburger anyway, even the apex predators.
Sorry about my "fuzzy" science. Please see my last post above for the actual science.
Less stressful for the calf and the mother? Really? How about let's make it not stressful by not practicing it at all.
Well, if we don't need the milk or the meat, Why would anyone even bother to feed and raise cows? Taken to the ultimate goal you are advocating for the gradual extinction of the entire species. Seems pretty harsh.
Uhm, I don't know. I'm pretty sure cows and calfs just happened long before any human intervention.
This reminds me of the hunters who say they have to kill the deer because we're over-run with them LOL!
Yes because the dairy cows of today are just like the they were 10,000 years ago. Where would they live? Why would farmers let cows they could neither milk or cull for meat just wander on their land?
Oh and the town I grew up on with family run dairies that treated their cows very well were pretty well off. You could always pick out the Dutch dairy farmers kid. They drove the nicest cars at school.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions