Ban Meat? Never!!!!!

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Riot

True, but in the far west, one cow needs about 40 acres to get enough nutrition . In Kentucky, you can put 10 cows on a 40-acre field for the summer, but have to rotate to another field and supplement with hay for the winter.

Factory farming has a big upside - it produces inexpensive food, in high volume. As a hugely overpopulated country, we need that. Not that most of America couldn't stand to eat noticably less And we definitely have a taste for plumped up, overfed, "not like nature makes it" meat.

That is just flat out wrong. Unless you are talking about empty dessert with poor soil and water brought in.

The only, and I mean only reason feedlot beef is less expensive than grassfed is because of the massive subsidies those producers receive from you know who.

Do you really believe it costs more to turn out a cow in a field of grass that requires little to no maintenance than it does to grow the grains, process it, load it up with antibiotics and ship it before finally feeding the feedlot animals?

I know several ranchers here that would strongly disagree.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

a lot of land or 40 acres?

Sigh ... try to concentrate really hard on what I said. Yes, there are places where it does take, really, 40 acres for a cow. Yes, they are scrubby, bad places. I gave examples: west Texas (near Amarillo), eastern and north eastern New Mexico, etc. How do I know? I've been there, talked to the ranchers, etc. The high plains of western Kansas, eastern Colorado are different than Nebraska, the Dakotas, too.

And as I said, yes, there are other places where you can place alot of beef cattle on 40 acres - KY would be one, our grass is so lush cows gain weight by looking at it. As long as there is no drought.

My POINT was that we don't have enough land to free-range enough cattle to feed this country.

[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" ?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sigh ... try to concentrate really hard on what I said. Yes, there are places where it does take, really, 40 acres for a cow.

So there actually is a rancher who has one cow per 40 acres? Or are you just trying to make the point a lot of land out west isn't suitable for grazing? The moon has a lot of acres too but not enough on the entire planet for even one cow, not to mention the lack of oxygen.

Incidentally most cows around here are supplemented with 'less than perfect' hay so in effect they are recycling what would have been left out to further mold and house rat nests. Next we'll be hearing pets are horrible because of all the resources used in the manufacturing of their food and that horrible gas Spot and Fluffy put out after being supplemented with table food. Hope that never happens.

Besides 'all natural / free-range' beef tastes gamy to me. Personally I wish we could make a effort to raise more Wagyu cows and bring down the cost of their meat, supperior to anything else.

[Danzig]

In the West, one cow and calf need an average of nearly 14 acres per month to feed themselves on arid public lands. In the East, the same cow-calf pair requires one-sixth of an acre of average private farmland for forage.


that was in an article about subsidizing grazing. and of course factory farming supplies our meat, just like factory farming supplies rice, corn, beans and our other produce. it's not as tho everyone is going to start having a small farm in their backyards.

[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?