Ban Meat? Never!!!!!

[Riot]

Do you really believe it costs more to turn out a cow in a field of grass that requires little to no maintenance ...

I had to comment on this:

You think fields of grass that cattle are turned out upon - managed pastures of 1000 acres or less - require "little to no maintenance" ?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not empty desert, but certainly not Iowa prairie. The US is a vast and varied place. And we have cattle in a whole lot of it, and yes, how cattle are raised sure varies in the various parts of the country.

So, don't raise cattle in areas where it's not efficient.
Though, I'm curious as to what would be grown in those places, if anything at all.

Originally Posted by Riot

Not at all, but that depends. We don't have enough land to raise all our cattle free range in the US. Period.

You mean if you don't count the land that would be reclaimed for such beef production if we no longer 'needed' to grow the vast amounts of corn that feedlots use?

Cause, uhm, if you do count that land, then there would be plenty. Most of the total land that is used for beef production is indeed in the form of corn production to feed the beef. It's a pretty obvious and simple 2+2=4 sorta thing to figure out.

Originally Posted by Riot

The losses on free range cattle from disease, predation, broken legs, dying during birth (varies of course by the type of herd one is running) can be significant out west when cattle are running on several square miles and are rounded up once a year for market.

Right. I suppose routine use of antibiotics in feedlot beef because they live in their own **** is a much better way to go. I guess also that those animals in feedlots never break their legs, except for those that do.

Predation? You mean those packs of hungry grizzly bears that no longer exist?

I also didn't know that 'dying during birth' was something cured by being in a feedlot! What a miracle!

Originally Posted by Riot

It's a very straightforward calculation process, if you want to grow beef, to look at your land, check out the nutritional value of what you have there, and see how many pounds of beef you can grow per year.

And if not favorable? Don't grow there! What a concept.

Originally Posted by Riot

Again, my point is, is that if someone wants to eliminate all "factory farming" - we as a country will absolutely not be able to grow enough beef to feed ourselves. We do not have the land to do so, nor would we be able to afford to do so.

Again, my point is, if you take everything into account, there is plenty of space.

Not only do we have the space, but if you eliminate the non BLM subsidies (cash incentives, tax breaks, etc) from the cost of supermarket beef, only the rich would be eating beef.

Except for those people buying grassfed beef that costs next to nothing to raise.

[Riot]

So, don't raise cattle in areas where it's not efficient.
Though, I'm curious as to what would be grown in those places, if anything at all.

Why do you think cattle are being raised now, in areas that are not efficient?

You mean if you don't count the land that would be reclaimed for such beef production if we no longer 'needed' to grow the vast amounts of corn that feedlots use?

We do use alot of land for feed corn. Not only for cattle, but for ongoing seed, other species, and sale out of country.

So we can only talk about land currently in use to produce feed corn for our feedlots. How many acres is that?

And hay/silage. Don't forget the acres used for that.

Cause, uhm, if you do count that land, then there would be plenty. Most of the total land that is used for beef production is indeed in the form of corn production to feed the beef. It's a pretty obvious and simple 2+2=4 sorta thing to figure out.

You think there is a direct and equal correlation between the weight of beef produced by one square foot of corn, versus one square foot of grass? And the one square foot of grass also has to support not only the nutritional needs of the animal, but allow the animal to stand upon it? (defecate, urinate, crush, etc)

Go to an extension or cattle website, and calculate that out, for 1000 head, going from 200lbs to market weight, what the various costs are in various areas of the country, using various types of feeding programs and management (corn, silage, pastures of various species, etc)

Right. I suppose routine use of antibiotics in feedlot beef because they live in their own **** is a much better way to go. I guess also that those animals in feedlots never break their legs, except for those that do.

Antibiotics are used far less in feedlot beef than they used to be, and that's a good thing.

Animals in large feedlots have virtually constant supervision. Any animal that broke it's leg would be discovered and attended to (killed) very quickly.

Animals in pasture are usually checked twice, once, or every few days (dependent upon the farmer).

Animals out in large free-range areas die of dehydration, starvation, predation as they are down or crippled with their broken legs.

Predation? You mean those packs of hungry grizzly bears that no longer exist?

No, I mean the most common predator of cattle east and west of the Mississippi: coyotes and feral dogs.

I also didn't know that 'dying during birth' was something cured by being in a feedlot! What a miracle!

Cattle are not born in feedlots. Cattle in free-range situations are genetically engineered to usually have birthweights less than 50 pounds, so they can calve without problems unsupervised (except for the coyotes). Cattle of different breeds in intensively-managed cow-calf operations are often 100 pounds or even more, as the presence of a few men and a calf-puller gives breeders a bit of freedom to get a birthweight gain on final market weight.

Again, my point is, if you take everything into account, there is plenty of space.

I haven't seen any argument to convince me.

Except for those people buying grassfed beef that costs next to nothing to raise.

Compare the price, to a New Yorker, of a pound of beef from a Kansas feedlot, to a pound of beef from an Oklahoma range.

Why do you think, over the past 200 years of this country's existence, that we have gone to growing food in feedlots? Cattle, chicken, pigs, etc.?

If free-range operations are cheaper, more cost effective - how come they are not being used?