But I love meat!!!

LoupGarouTFTs

A) just because "that's how we always did it" doesn't mean that it's the best way.

every industry is encouraged to modernize and "get with the times" - but not at the expense of living, sentient beings - human and non-human alike.

I'm pretty certain that you're advocating for cows merrily frolicking in daisy-studded pastures and chickens pecking perkily at the ground outside of any enclosures--I thought that was "how we always did it?" The strict biosecurity on modernized farms gives us meat that is typically free of disease or debris. Most beef cows are only "finished" on grain and corn, spending much of their early lives grazing in fields. Chickens experience less predation when they are securely locked within walls. Agricultural antibiotics are frequently (I want to say around 80%?) dissimilar to those used on humans. Animals given antibiotics are taken out of the food chain until the antibiotics have left their systems Chickens have not been fed antibiotics since the 1960s.

And guilt is still poor science. If my doctor ever pushed a diet on me based on an agenda or a personal ethical code that had nothing to do with my health, I'd have that doctor in front of a review board so fast his/her head would swim. My doctor is here to serve my needs. I do not exist to further a misguided agenda that deprives people of all domesticated animals,pets and livestock alike.

That's certainly not what she's advocating. Just because you don't care about the treatment of animals in agriculture and the way factory farming affects the environment doesn't mean others don't.

By the way, if you watch a documentary on farm animal cruelty and can honestly say that you don't believe it's wrong afterward, it's safe to say you are a pretty heartless individual.

Mercy for Animals and other animal liberationists have been shown to encourage or enact some of the cruelty that they record. They also record many hours of activity and edit it down to possibly minutes or seconds of time. If they were so concerned about the animals, wouldn't they see the activity and call the authorities right away--and not sit on it for months at a time.

Yea and animals love to live.

Just try it. It's not hard.

So do people. If I have my choice between making myself happy and making an Angus steer happy, guess which I'll pick? LOL

Ultimately though, I respect the decision to not take another sentient life for your own sustenance, even if I do not personally feel that way.

I support anyone's right to eat the way s/he sees fit, as long as s/he does not force that lifestyle on me. I can't say I respect making the decision, though, since so many people claim moral superiority for doing so.

And . . .

Sea kittens.

Because that's where some of these groups are taking us.

wheird

A) just because "that's how we always did it" doesn't mean that it's the best way.

every industry is encouraged to modernize and "get with the times" - but not at the expense of living, sentient beings - human and non-human alike.

I'm pretty certain that you're advocating for cows merrily frolicking in daisy-studded pastures and chickens pecking perkily at the ground outside of any enclosures--I thought that was "how we always did it?" The strict biosecurity on modernized farms gives us meat that is typically free of disease or debris. Most beef cows are only "finished" on grain and corn, spending much of their early lives grazing in fields. Chickens experience less predation when they are securely locked within walls. Agricultural antibiotics are frequently (I want to say around 80%?) dissimilar to those used on humans. Animals given antibiotics are taken out of the food chain until the antibiotics have left their systems Chickens have not been fed antibiotics since the 1960s.

And guilt is still poor science. If my doctor ever pushed a diet on me based on an agenda or a personal ethical code that had nothing to do with my health, I'd have that doctor in front of a review board so fast his/her head would swim. My doctor is here to serve my needs. I do not exist to further a misguided agenda that deprives people of all domesticated animals,pets and livestock alike.

That's certainly not what she's advocating. Just because you don't care about the treatment of animals in agriculture and the way factory farming affects the environment doesn't mean others don't.

By the way, if you watch a documentary on farm animal cruelty and can honestly say that you don't believe it's wrong afterward, it's safe to say you are a pretty heartless individual.

Vegetable farming would affect the environment quite a bit more.

And most documentaries are disingenuous. Have you ever actually been to a farm? I'm surrounded by them.

Would love for you to elaborate on this.

The acreage needed to farm vegetables would exceed or be similar to the acreage needed to raise cattle. Except with farming you would be destroying many more habitats by plowing grazing fields.

And yes, I'm aware that cattle feed farms could be converted, but unless we're going to eat a hell of a lot of corn, more would be needed.

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

LoupGarouTFTs

The acreage needed to farm vegetables would exceed or be similar to the acreage needed to raise cattle. Except with farming you would be destroying many more habitats by plowing grazing fields.

And yes, I'm aware that cattle feed farms could be converted, but unless we're going to eat a hell of a lot of corn, more would be needed.

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

A lot of the land used for pasture is not arable. It could not be used to grow crops, regardless.

A) just because "that's how we always did it" doesn't mean that it's the best way.

every industry is encouraged to modernize and "get with the times" - but not at the expense of living, sentient beings - human and non-human alike.

I'm pretty certain that you're advocating for cows merrily frolicking in daisy-studded pastures and chickens pecking perkily at the ground outside of any enclosures--I thought that was "how we always did it?" The strict biosecurity on modernized farms gives us meat that is typically free of disease or debris. Most beef cows are only "finished" on grain and corn, spending much of their early lives grazing in fields. Chickens experience less predation when they are securely locked within walls. Agricultural antibiotics are frequently (I want to say around 80%?) dissimilar to those used on humans. Animals given antibiotics are taken out of the food chain until the antibiotics have left their systems Chickens have not been fed antibiotics since the 1960s.

And guilt is still poor science. If my doctor ever pushed a diet on me based on an agenda or a personal ethical code that had nothing to do with my health, I'd have that doctor in front of a review board so fast his/her head would swim. My doctor is here to serve my needs. I do not exist to further a misguided agenda that deprives people of all domesticated animals,pets and livestock alike.

Really? Didn't Tyson get sued around 2008 for feeding their chickens antibiotics, despite using a "raised without antiobiotics" label?

It's illegal to give chickens antibiotics routinely. It is legal to give them antibiotics if they are sick, provided they are given a certain amount of time off antibiotics before being slaughtered. I dunno about any lawsuits regarding the practice.

Also, hormones are strictly prohibited for poultry and swine.

Yes, I should have said "routinely." But there's a difference between being "fed" antibiotics and being "treated with" antibiotics. I guess I figured the difference was clear.

And I'm still not getting why guilt makes good science or why the OP should listen to a doctor who espouses a radical diet change that might not have any effect on her health.

jonnythan

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

wheird

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

The second one seems to suggest it takes 6x less land?

All right, I'll eat crow.

jonnythan

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

The second one seems to suggest it takes 6x less land?

All right, I'll eat crow.

I have a lot of vegetarian friends, and study public health. Believe me, this comes up a lot :laugh:

jofjltncb6

A) just because "that's how we always did it" doesn't mean that it's the best way.

every industry is encouraged to modernize and "get with the times" - but not at the expense of living, sentient beings - human and non-human alike.

I'm pretty certain that you're advocating for cows merrily frolicking in daisy-studded pastures and chickens pecking perkily at the ground outside of any enclosures--I thought that was "how we always did it?" The strict biosecurity on modernized farms gives us meat that is typically free of disease or debris. Most beef cows are only "finished" on grain and corn, spending much of their early lives grazing in fields. Chickens experience less predation when they are securely locked within walls. Agricultural antibiotics are frequently (I want to say around 80%?) dissimilar to those used on humans. Animals given antibiotics are taken out of the food chain until the antibiotics have left their systems Chickens have not been fed antibiotics since the 1960s.

And guilt is still poor science. If my doctor ever pushed a diet on me based on an agenda or a personal ethical code that had nothing to do with my health, I'd have that doctor in front of a review board so fast his/her head would swim. My doctor is here to serve my needs. I do not exist to further a misguided agenda that deprives people of all domesticated animals,pets and livestock alike.

Damn. Testify!

:drinker:


(Something good actually came out of this thread. This should teach me not to give up on threads early. Meanwhile, back to what will inevitably be some youtube videos of a chicken processing plant in China in the 80s as "evidence" from the other side.)

wheird

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

The second one seems to suggest it takes 6x less land?

All right, I'll eat crow.

I have a lot of vegetarian friends, and study public health. Believe me, this comes up a lot :laugh:

Hey if I am wrong, I'm wrong. Guess I didn't think that one through well enough. :laugh:

stevencloser

Just throwing in that cows eat grass. And grasses are the single most abundant plants on the planet. And also not eaten by humans.

jofjltncb6

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

What if you adjust for the vegetation that is pasture grasses? Does this source of feed still have the same negative environmental consequences of tilled land? (Genuine, not loaded, question because while I've wondered about the answer, I haven't researched it to know...and what I *do* know of raising cattle from my family's farm, I can't easily calculate all of the environmental impacts.)

ETA:
LOL. :laugh: Saw this after I posted:

Just throwing in that cows eat grass. And grasses are the single most abundant plants on the planet. And also not eaten by humans.

which is the same idea I'm asking about.

LoupGarouTFTs

Just throwing in that cows eat grass. And grasses are the single most abundant plants on the planet. And also not eaten by humans.

Precisely. Humans are incapable of efficiently digesting cellulose, which is why salad makes the average person poo pretty quickly--all that roughage.

Oh, and chickens aren't vegetarians, either.

wheird

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

What if you adjust for the vegetation that is pasture grasses? Does this source of feed still have the same negative environmental consequences of tilled land? (Genuine, not loaded, question because while I've wondered about the answer, I haven't researched it to know...and what I *do* know of raising cattle from my family's farm, I can't easily calculate all of the environmental impacts.)

ETA:
LOL. :laugh: Saw this after I posted:

Just throwing in that cows eat grass. And grasses are the single most abundant plants on the planet. And also not eaten by humans.

which is the same idea I'm asking about.

That is a good question. What if we're talking about grass raised cattle?

LoupGarouTFTs

That is a good question. What if we're talking about grass raised cattle?

Many, if not most, beef cattle are raised in fields and not fed a lot of corn/feed concentrate until about two months or so before they are slaughtered. It's the "finishing" that helps develop the marbling that people like in their beef.

jofjltncb6

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

What if you adjust for the vegetation that is pasture grasses? Does this source of feed still have the same negative environmental consequences of tilled land? (Genuine, not loaded, question because while I've wondered about the answer, I haven't researched it to know...and what I *do* know of raising cattle from my family's farm, I can't easily calculate all of the environmental impacts.)

ETA:
LOL. :laugh: Saw this after I posted:

Just throwing in that cows eat grass. And grasses are the single most abundant plants on the planet. And also not eaten by humans.

which is the same idea I'm asking about.

That is a good question. What if we're talking about grass raised cattle?

And more precisely, grass-fed *and* grass-finished...because *all* beef is grass-fed for most of its life. I just struggle to see any significant adverse environmental costs from cows eating grass that grows naturally (but I'm sure there are substantial environmental costs I'm not considering).

stevencloser

That is a good question. What if we're talking about grass raised cattle?

Many, if not most, beef cattle are raised in fields and not fed a lot of corn/feed concentrate until about two months or so before they are slaughtered. It's the "finishing" that helps develop the marbling that people like in their beef.

So that means cows eat food that humans can't eat anyway, on land (as has been said by someone else) that apparently can't be used for something else to begin with.
So where's the problem then?

wheird

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

What if you adjust for the vegetation that is pasture grasses? Does this source of feed still have the same negative environmental consequences of tilled land? (Genuine, not loaded, question because while I've wondered about the answer, I haven't researched it to know...and what I *do* know of raising cattle from my family's farm, I can't easily calculate all of the environmental impacts.)

ETA:
LOL. :laugh: Saw this after I posted:

Just throwing in that cows eat grass. And grasses are the single most abundant plants on the planet. And also not eaten by humans.

which is the same idea I'm asking about.

That is a good question. What if we're talking about grass raised cattle?

And more precisely, grass-fed *and* grass-finished...because *all* beef is grass-fed for most of its life. I just struggle to see any significant adverse environmental costs from cows eating grass that grows naturally (but I'm sure there are substantial environmental costs I'm not considering).

I should have specified, but that is what I meant. I would love to see a timeline on the cost of raising a cow from calf to market on a timeline.

LoupGarouTFTs

That is a good question. What if we're talking about grass raised cattle?

Many, if not most, beef cattle are raised in fields and not fed a lot of corn/feed concentrate until about two months or so before they are slaughtered. It's the "finishing" that helps develop the marbling that people like in their beef.

So that means cows eat food that humans can't eat anyway, on land (as has been said by someone else) that apparently can't be used for something else to begin with.
So where's the problem then?

Apparently, methane gas. You know, because people who eat a lot of indigestible cellulose pass rainbows instead.

I think that the plowing under of acres of land to grow vegetables and destroying many animal habitats is equally egregious. However, short of thinning the human population--and seeing that we all have to eat *something*--I would think it would make more sense to make food production of all kinds more efficient instead of forcing one lifestyle on everyone (or growing fake meat in labs or whatever).

Kymmu

Changing habit that lead you to needing to see a cardiologist seems like a great idea.
Cardiologists don't get their licence without many many years of study. I'm sure they are very experienced with all things heart related.
You should take the bitter pill of their advice and maybe learn that there are a lot of food choices you might just like.
It might just save your life.

jofjltncb6

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low.

In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

I'd be interested in seeing any literature on the vegetation calorie to animal protein conversion rate.

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000496

What if you adjust for the vegetation that is pasture grasses? Does this source of feed still have the same negative environmental consequences of tilled land? (Genuine, not loaded, question because while I've wondered about the answer, I haven't researched it to know...and what I *do* know of raising cattle from my family's farm, I can't easily calculate all of the environmental impacts.)

ETA:
LOL. :laugh: Saw this after I posted:

Just throwing in that cows eat grass. And grasses are the single most abundant plants on the planet. And also not eaten by humans.

which is the same idea I'm asking about.

That is a good question. What if we're talking about grass raised cattle?

And more precisely, grass-fed *and* grass-finished...because *all* beef is grass-fed for most of its life. I just struggle to see any significant adverse environmental costs from cows eating grass that grows naturally (but I'm sure there are substantial environmental costs I'm not considering).

I should have specified, but that is what I meant. I would love to see a timeline on the cost of raising a cow from calf to market on a timeline.

(I figured that's what you meant, but thought I'd clarify to try to prevent any misunderstandings.)

dtimedwards

...my doctor favorite saying is does it have a mother if so don't eat it.

I buy my meat from a family farm, and they assure me that all the animals there are orphans.

That's not a family farm, that's an orphanage.

A tasty, tasty orphanage.