Climate Change and Meat Eating

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

Grass fed beef is fine and dandy and I’m sure it carries its share of nutritional benefits. However, it is not practical to replace our current beef producing system with grass fed beef. In fact it would be impossible.

Also, in our global economy any beef production capabilities lost in the US due to hysteria about the alleged health hazards in feedlots would quickly be replaced by South American countries, Australia and places in Asia.

If you understood farming, ranching and the beef business beyond what some folks at the Smithsonian might tell you, you’d know what I mean.[quote]

You’re absolutely kidding yourself if you think you can hang with me on this one.

[/quote]You kid.
[/quote]

I’ve spent way too much time thinking about this topic to have someone belittle my opinion down to the product of a regurgitated PETA webpage. Sorry for calling you ignorant, but you were a tad insulting.

Of course I understand this argument is much more complicated than just the facts that you initially denied. However, I’ve yet to present my solution to the problem so I don’t know why you would think otherwise. In any case, i can’t post any more on this right now.

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

I’ve spent way too much time thinking about this topic

[/quote]

O.K., so what is the product of this thought?

An eminent mind in this field such as yours must have volumes published.

I would like to see them.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

I’ve spent way too much time thinking about this topic

[/quote]

O.K., so what is the product of this thought?

An eminent mind in this field such as yours must have volumes published.

I would like to see them.
[/quote]

I don’t care if he spent a year thinking about how the world is flat, he’s still retarded.

I am going to disagree with you Push, I think you could replace (or supplement a large percentage) of the current system with grass based meat. Mainly because the areas that currently raise feedlot feed would convert to grazing and those areas are generally speaking much more productive that our western ranges. The largest obstacle to this would be consumer preference most folks prefer grain fed beef to grass fed. I certaintly do although I like grass fed deer,elk and antelope.

I strongly disagree. First of all, the potential caloric energy that comes from feeding cattle grains such as oats, corn, or potato is much greater than that in a comparable weight of grass. As a result, switching to a grass based feed for commercial cattle would be incredibly inefficient and not only cause beef costs to skyrocket due to the increase cost of feeding them, but because of less calories per pound in grass compared to the rich endosperm found in a kernel of corn, the ranchers would not be able to pack on as much weight and would need to produce MORE beef to satisfy their current sales (by weight).

Second, I highly doubt that typical consumer could distinguish between grass fed and grain fed beef if they weren’t completely aware of what they were buying. The ones that notice a difference are probably the ones that are aware of what they are buying and have a biased position when they say that corn fed beef tastes better than grass fed beef. I would be very interested on the results of a taste test in which all the participant knew was that they were eating part of a steak and didn’t even know that one steak was from grass fed and one from corn.

[quote]GVkid wrote:

I strongly disagree. First of all, the potential caloric energy that comes from feeding cattle grains such as oats, corn, or potato is much greater than that in a comparable weight of grass. As a result, switching to a grass based feed for commercial cattle would be incredibly inefficient and not only cause beef costs to skyrocket due to the increase cost of feeding them, but because of less calories per pound in grass compared to the rich endosperm found in a kernel of corn, the ranchers would not be able to pack on as much weight and would need to produce MORE beef to satisfy their current sales (by weight).

Second, I highly doubt that typical consumer could distinguish between grass fed and grain fed beef if they weren’t completely aware of what they were buying. The ones that notice a difference are probably the ones that are aware of what they are buying and have a biased position when they say that corn fed beef tastes better than grass fed beef. I would be very interested on the results of a taste test in which all the participant knew was that they were eating part of a steak and didn’t even know that one steak was from grass fed and one from corn.[/quote]

The potential caloric energies of the feed are different? Perhaps you could elaborate on this statement because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I think you mean that there is more fat content in grain feed? in any case, their may be more calories in the feed they give cows on a grain fed diet, but that’s because they supplement it with potato chips, chocolate milk mix, and other dead cows… Cow’s stomachs are not designed to eat that crap and will eat more efficiently on a grass diet. And your right, grass fed beef is lower in calories because it leaner and healthier meat.

I think you’re also missing the factor of sustainability. The whole idea of grass fed beef is that you aren’t harvesting grass in mass, you raise a relatively small amount of animals on a patch of earth and let them graze from what grows from the ground. That’s free feed, sustainable feed, and ethical feed. Your trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, grass fed beef can’t and shouldn’t be commercialized.

Assuming that we are staying on the original topic of this thread – namely the allegation that Methane From Cattle Contributes To Total Planetary Disaster – why argue for feeding grass instead of corn, when methane production is GREATER from grass-feeding than corn-feeding?

I agree about the caloric difference createing a better average daily gain, however much of that gain is also a result in the sedentary lifestyle that feedlot cattle experience. Joel Salatin has demonstrated some rather remarkable beef production using only grass.

Many areas in the South and East that were traditional row crops are being converted back to pasture, cattle from the Midwest and West are being sent to these areas for finishing on green grass. I think that a shift towards a lessening of the time on grain would open a different set of options for producers and consumers. I don’t believe that this would cause a severe decline in the available supply.

As far as consumers taste, I think that many people can tell the difference and they know something is up based on the color of the fat, white vs. yellow

I’ll agree to disagree with you. Do you work in the cattle industry? I notice Montana in your avatar. I am just a few miles off the line.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[/quote]

O.K., so what is the product of this thought?

An eminent mind in this field such as yours must have volumes published.

I would like to see them.
[/quote]

I will indulge you. Here’s a segment from a research paper I wrote in high school. If you don’t want to read it just skip to the end where I talk about what we can do about all this.

The biggest difference between the â??foodsâ?? we eat today and everything prior to the 1900â??s is that almost everything used to come from one very import man know as the traditional farmer. He grew crops, raised healthy animals, and made quality dairy products that fed and provided nutrients for a small part of the nation while also maintaining the health of the soil and animals. However the food of today is driven by commercialism and profit, not nutrition. Three of Americas largest food makers and distributors are also some of the largest and most powerful fortune 500 companies in the world including Walmart, Kroger, and Sysco (CNN). Because food industries are primarily invested in profit, they arenâ??t environmentally sustainable, and more importantly produce inferior and less healthy products for Americans to eat. Is it any wonder why Americanâ??s struggle with obesity/morbidity rates and child mortality as much as we do? The answer is in the food we eat, if America wants to solve nutritional problems in the western diet we must go back to environmentally sustainable and organic practices in the agriculture and meat.
There can be no doubt that America has had a loving relationship with meat for a very long time. â??Whereâ??s the beef?â?? was a popular advertising slogan by Wendyâ??s in the 80â??s and 90â??s. The first ad depicted a group of elderly women questioning the size of a certain fast food chains hamburger before an image of a massive Wendyâ??s burger slathered in oil was shown on the screen. This ad literally depicted our confessed love for meat, but is Americaâ??s obsession with beef such a healthy relationship? A study done in Japan in an effort to mimic the Western diet discovered that men who ate larger quantities of conventionally raised and processed meat had almost double the normal rates of colon cancer (Oba). In fact, the article describes colon cancer as a â??western diseaseâ??, suggesting that our high level of meat consumption is likely responsible for our high rates of colon cancer. Because of this striking evidence, if we can limit the amount of meat we eat to what is also environmentally sustainable we will likely see an improvement in colon cancer cases as well as a myriad of health issue related to meat consumption…

This segment of my paper is important because it shows that health problems in America like Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer are directly tied to the food we eat. In fact, this pattern of disease in America can be tracked to anywhere in the world that has a western diet as shown in the japan study. This is unacceptable. We are not making, raising, and growing food the right way.

So what is the right way? Certainly the healthiest way is to localize the food industry as much as possible and increase the number of small farms in the U.S. Studies have shown that sustainable foods grown on farms like these are universally healthier as I’ve mentioned. However the main problem with relying on these farms for food is that the demand for complex products like beef and milk are incredibly high. Not to mention that despite grass fed beef tasting better, people like to eat lots of cheap meat. As push has mentioned, it would literally be impossible to switch to a local farming model overnight.

As a nation we have several options where we can go from this grain fed debacle. One way is to continue our reliance on cheap processed meat and other inferior food products from large corperations and enjoy the benefits of cheap food. If we continue to do this, our nations health will become so atrocious that eventually we will be forced to think about where our food comes from. We can continue to walk this way, or we can start thinking about our nations future health today. If we want to do this, we have to start by eating less meat in general. Once we’ve done that, we have to start subsidizing small farms instead of massive mega farms. Both of these steps are easily accomplished and would have an incredible effect. Where we go is up to us, I’ve already made my decision.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]handlebar wrote:
Grain fed beef is the norm because the taste of the meat is largely derived from the fat in it and that taste has made grain fed beef preferential. I wonder if Tanker has ever even taken a bite of grass fed beef. [/quote]

I have, it is basically the only beef I eat. This summer I will be purchasing a small freezer to store a large quantity of grass fed beef raised right in my own town. I know the man that raised the animals, I know how he treated them, and I know i will be purchasing an excellent product.

The taste of grain fed beef has not made it preferential, it’s the price. The taste of grain fed beef is like the taste of shit in comparison to grass fed beef. I highly doubt you have ever had quality grass fed beef, if you did you would have had a meatgasm.

The potential caloric energies of the feed are different? Perhaps you could elaborate on this statement because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I think you mean that there is more fat content in grain feed? in any case, their may be more calories in the feed they give cows on a grain fed diet, but that’s because they supplement it with potato chips, chocolate milk mix, and other dead cows… Cow’s stomachs are not designed to eat that crap and will eat more efficiently on a grass diet. And your right, grass fed beef is lower in calories because it leaner and healthier meat.

I think you’re also missing the factor of sustainability. The whole idea of grass fed beef is that you aren’t harvesting grass in mass, you raise a relatively small amount of animals on a patch of earth and let them graze from what grows from the ground. That’s free feed, sustainable feed, and ethical feed. Your trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, grass fed beef can’t and shouldn’t be commercialized.[/quote]

Grain is generally more calorically dense than grass because of the endosperm that is contained within each kernel of corn. The actual corn plant needs all the nutrients within the endosperm in order to grow a new plant from the seed. Grass is already the mature plant, and while it still has calories in it, it doesn’t have the nutrient density of a seed.
I won’t argue that it is more sustainable, however to keep up with current demands in beef, it would be impossible to let cattle graze from what’s on the ground AND harvest enough to make hay for the winter.

I would agree with you that grass fed couldn’t/shouldn’t be commercialized though. I didn’t say it outright but that was the gist of my point.

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[/quote]

O.K., so what is the product of this thought?

An eminent mind in this field such as yours must have volumes published.

I would like to see them.
[/quote]

I will indulge you. Here’s a segment from a research paper I wrote in high school. [/quote]

Just as I knew would be the case. You haven’t published anything, and you still think that research means quoting sources who present information, regardless of accuracy.

Thank you for the indulgence, but you seem to be about as learned and qualified to speak on this topic as any given random person.

The simple notion that you put a lot of thought into this topic doesn’t mean anything without some sort of product. That you choose to put your own unlearned opinion above people who have actually worked in the industry is ridiculous.

Next time you try to present yourself as an authority on something, you should at least take in to consideration the people who actually produce information from raw data (researchers) and give them the respect and courtesy of not lumping yourself in with them until you actually are one of them.(which you are not)

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[/quote]

O.K., so what is the product of this thought?

An eminent mind in this field such as yours must have volumes published.

I would like to see them.
[/quote]

I will indulge you. Here’s a segment from a research paper I wrote in high school. [/quote]

Just as I knew would be the case. You haven’t published anything, and you still think that research means quoting sources who present information, regardless of accuracy.

Thank you for the indulgence, but you seem to be about as learned and qualified to speak on this topic as any given random person.

The simple notion that you put a lot of thought into this topic doesn’t mean anything without some sort of product. That you choose to put your own unlearned opinion above people who have actually worked in the industry is ridiculous.

Next time you try to present yourself as an authority on something, you should at least take in to consideration the people who actually produce information from raw data (researchers) and give them the respect and courtesy of not lumping yourself in with them until you actually are one of them.(which you are not)

[/quote]
I gave absolutely no indication that i was an authority in this field, nor would i expect to be given that I just turned 20! Just because i write with an authoritative tone doesn’t necessarily make me an authority, it makes me a compelling writer. Case in point, you actually thought I might have had a PHD when I mentioned nothing of the kind. This is a Politics forum on a lifting website, I enjoy sharing my opinion here because most everyone thinks differently than me. Tell me, what do you think of my argument?

As for “indulging” you with my opinion, I merely assumed your honest intention to hear my say.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]GVkid wrote:

…their may be more calories in the feed they give cows on a grain fed diet, but that’s because they supplement it with potato chips, chocolate milk mix, and other dead cows…
[/quote]

You are hereby dismissed from the discussion.
[/quote]

Push… that’s what they actually put in the animals feed on many commercial farms… It’s a fact, and it’s disgusting.