Cow dying in a local pasture. No one is doing....UPDATE on #260

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667361]
This is “the truth of pasture raised cattle” in excessive numbers.

That’s the whole point.

Truly sustainable operations are integrated systems of animals and plants that efficiently utilize animal manures as assets rather waste. That’s what the word “sustainable” means.[/QUOTE]
This is the truth of all outside cattle. Where do you think the runoff goes?

But anyway where is cattle raised on pasture in excess? You would be hard pressed not to call the cow calf herd on my farm sustainable. They eat hay raised on the farm as well as forage in the pastures and forage from row crops after harvest. The hay is organic. The corn and bean stalks are not, however running the cattle on the fields post harvest does provide some nutrients to the ground so you do have your key word of sustainability. But there is still manure runoff into one to four creeks and one pond that the cattle have access to. Would you suggest that I fence those off and then utilize a well that uses the water table for their water needs.

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=moving to dc;8667441]
Totally a fact.

If you TRULY are agriculture knowledgeable and/or educated and/or experienced, you would know it is a fact.

But you are proving to be just as much of a sheeple as the others.

Tell me again? Where did you go to college? What was your major? How many generations of your family have been farming/ranching as a SOLE source of income. (Growing a garden in the backyard and living next to a field with cattle do not qualify as “experienced”.)[/QUOTE]

Neither does posting on an internet forum.

:lol:

Beef consumption has been declining. There are plenty of more sustainable ways to get red meat besides buying CAFO-raised stuff from the grocery store. I know plenty of people here at home to not only buy half a cow from the local farmer but also hunt their own deer (because there’s so many and it’s cheaper).

Red meat isn’t even that healthy, so getting people dependent on a broken system that will literally destroy their health over time isn’t really ethically, morally, scientifically, environmentally, or medically right for anyone.

Why do you think people are so removed from their food? It all goes full circle.

[blackhorse]

Rodeo, Do you even know what you are talking about? Or are you just spouting drivel with no concrete facts to back you up? Honestly,some people just spew hostile opinions without really researching ALL sources.Please make sure that you don’t attack others with food on your plate and in your fridge.The innovations that are being made in agriculture in many cases help the surrounding land and provide a product that feeds many. Everyone has an opinion wether well informed or not… Rosey, I have to agree, there is a place for all forms of agriculture.

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667313]
Commercial agriculture as it stands right now will always be attacked because it is literally killing our planet. It will not last, it destroys our resources, and it only works at the exploitation of certain economic groups. A lot of people are just not interested in financially funding that and no amount of defensiveness is going to change that.[/QUOTE]

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=blackhorse;8667469]
Rodeo, Do you even know what you are talking about? Or are you just spouting drivel with no concrete facts to back you up? Honestly,some people just spew hostile opinions without really researching ALL sources.Please make sure that you don’t attack others with food on your plate and in your fridge.The innovations that are being made in agriculture in many cases help the surrounding land and provide a product that feeds many. Everyone has an opinion wether well informed or not… Rosey, I have to agree, there is a place for all forms of agriculture.[/QUOTE]

Just because I don’t drink the kool-aide doesn’t mean I’m not informed.

Do you know what you’re talking about? Hmm. Kinda a rude question, isn’t it?

[blackhorse]

Yes, may come across a bit harsh. But you paint the ag industry with a very broad brush. I know many farmers and ranchers who are very good stewards of the land. Without them we wouldn’t have the wildlife corridors that we have. They care about their land, the crops and the animals in their care. Much more so than the ill informed suburbanite.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667313]
Commercial agriculture as it stands right now will always be attacked because it is literally killing our planet. It will not last, it destroys our resources, and it only works at the exploitation of certain economic groups. A lot of people are just not interested in financially funding that and no amount of defensiveness is going to change that.[/QUOTE]

After you’ve destroyed commercial agriculture what’s your plan for feeding 8 billion plus people?

G.

[Red_Barn]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8667466]
This is the truth of all outside cattle. Where do you think the runoff goes?

But anyway where is cattle raised on pasture in excess? You would be hard pressed not to call the cow calf herd on my farm sustainable. They eat hay raised on the farm as well as forage in the pastures and forage from row crops after harvest. The hay is organic. The corn and bean stalks are not, however running the cattle on the fields post harvest does provide some nutrients to the ground so you do have your key word of sustainability. But there is still manure runoff into one to four creeks and one pond that the cattle have access to. Would you suggest that I fence those off and then utilize a well that uses the water table for their water needs.[/QUOTE]
I don’t even understand your question.

If your animals are actually polluting a public water source, then, yes, of course, you should do something about it, and no, that’s certainly not “sustainable”.

What is it you’re trying to get at?

[Alagirl]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8667488]
After you’ve destroyed commercial agriculture what’s your plan for feeding 8 billion plus people?

G.[/QUOTE]
Only the rich get to live. :winkgrin:

Let’s not look at the ever shrinking farmland, the outsourcing of food production (hell with them Incas, we want their food staples, because it’s good for us!!!) to other, more vulnerable countries, because when rich folk move to the country, they don’t want farms as neighbors!
Urban sprawl…and yeah, the private yards and golf courses account for morefertilizers and pesticide use than farms, and run off!
But yeah, the farmers destroy the planet! :lol:

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667491]
I don’t even understand your question.

If your animals are actually polluting a public source, then, yes, of course, you should do something about it, and no, that’s certainly not “sustainable”.

What is it you’re trying to get at?[/QUOTE]

There is always manure making its way into creeks and ponds with all outside cattle from basic rain and runoff. They do not wear diapers and do not know not to poop and pee in the pond.

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=Alagirl;8667495]
Only the rich get to live. :winkgrin:

Let’s not look at the ever shrinking farmland, the outsourcing of food production (hell with them Incas, we want their food staples, because it’s good for us!!!) to other, more vulnerable countries, because when rich folk move to the country, they don’t want farms as neighbors!
Urban sprawl…and yeah, the private yards and golf courses account for morefertilizers and pesticide use than farms, and run off!
But yeah, the farmers destroy the planet! :lol:[/QUOTE]

Although I read a story that the Incas were pretty excited to NOT to have to eat quinoa as they were quite tired of it and happy to ship it off to us and eat other grains and even MEAT!

[Alagirl]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8667498]
Although I read a story that the Incas were pretty excited to NOT to have to eat quinoa as they were quite tired of it and happy to ship it off to us and eat other grains and even MEAT![/QUOTE]

Yeah, but it is questionable to introduce changes like this on that scale.
I am sure there are plenty who still cannot afford the other foods nor the meat, and now are priced out of the staple.
On the bright side, I have seen seeds for that grain for less extreme climates in a new catalog. I doubt it will grow in Ala, but other places, outside of Peru.

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8667488]
After you’ve destroyed commercial agriculture what’s your plan for feeding 8 billion plus people?

G.[/QUOTE]

Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

There’s your answer.

[Red_Barn]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8667496]
There is always manure making its way into creeks and ponds with all outside cattle from basic rain and runoff. They do not wear diapers and do not know not to poop and pee in the pond.[/QUOTE]
I still don’t follow you.

If the number of animals isn’t excessive, then this isn’t a problem. If it is a a problem, then the number is, by definition, excessive.

. . . Right?

[RodeoFTW]

@Alagirl;8667495

Only the rich get to live. :winkgrin:

You know most of the world besides the fat US of A doesn’t live off of beef, right? Backyard chickens are an amazing thing (as well as eggs and rabbits) and most people manage just that and live just fine. Or they fish and hunt.

Also, there’s such thing as gardens. In case you’ve never been informed.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667510]
Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

There’s your answer.[/QUOTE]

If all the world were IL or Minas Gerais or other rich ag areas this might work. But when you subtract the mountains, swamps, forests, and other non-productive land you’ve got a problem. I live on 177 acres. Of that about 70 is suitable for row cropping. Another 25 could likely be an orchard. The balance is too rocky for any sort of plant based agriculture. But it is suitable for some animal agriculture.

Three weeks ago I spent almost a week in San Angelo, TX. Nice town. But surrounded by what was once the Great Plains. Did you know that a historic name for that area was also The Great American Desert because it’s so arid? And the reason it is productive for any sort of agriculture beyond subsistence farming is the invention of the gasoline powered pump that permitted the deep aquifer to be tapped for livestock tanks and row cropping?

The program you propose is based upon wishful thinking, not geography.

G.

[skyon]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8667496]
There is always manure making its way into creeks and ponds with all outside cattle from basic rain and runoff. They do not wear diapers and do not know not to poop and pee in the pond.[/QUOTE]

well…now you are bad…,unless that is you sell to whole-foods.

Pretty sure the NIMBY by me is categorized by this - we have pet chickens. They are PETS. Yes we eat chicken But please don’t do that by us. .It’s gross and keeping chickens for slaughter is just wrong and those birds are a mess.

And we can’t find fresh hog any where. But we are going to protest the guy who raises one hog a year, because you aren’t suppose to play with a piglet, treat it like a pet and then eat it. That is breaking a bond and please do not roast it whole. It must not look like the animal.

I’m all for small farms and sustainability but I would rather deal with a bigger ag that is working towards sustainability and can verify some kind of security than the raw milk guru who tells the suburbanite they are wholesome and sustainable while they mix the milk from a couple of cows in a used pot.

[JBD]

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667510]
Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

There’s your answer.[/QUOTE]

3533 kcal/person/day?

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=JBD;8667540]
3533 kcal/person/day?[/QUOTE]

Some people need that much food in their diets. I don’t know why they didn’t base the average at just 2,000, but I’m not Cornell University.

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8667529]
If all the world were IL or Minas Gerais or other rich ag areas this might work. But when you subtract the mountains, swamps, forests, and other non-productive land you’ve got a problem. I live on 177 acres. Of that about 70 is suitable for row cropping. Another 25 could likely be an orchard. The balance is too rocky for any sort of plant based agriculture. But it is suitable for some animal agriculture.

Three weeks ago I spent almost a week in San Angelo, TX. Nice town. But surrounded by what was once the Great Plains. Did you know that a historic name for that area was also The Great American Desert because it’s so arid? And the reason it is productive for any sort of agriculture beyond subsistence farming is the invention of the gasoline powered pump that permitted the deep aquifer to be tapped for livestock tanks and row cropping?

The program you propose is based upon wishful thinking, not geography.

G.[/QUOTE]

Did you read the study?

People managed to not starve before intensive farming. A lot of countries that aren’t meat based have no problem doing it, either. Going to South East Asia, literally no one eats red meat for the majority of their meals and chicken/fish is the main protein in the diet, along with eggs. With the water wasted on feeding cattle, you could make aqua farms that go from fish to plant and back. Geography would no longer matter. At all.

I’m surprised you wouldn’t know about that.

[Red_Barn]

. . . I’m not Cornell University.

Well, they’re clearly a bunch of agri-terrorists over there anyway, so that’s probably just as well.

But why do you think all these stalwart Champions of Free Enterprise keep gliding right over all my references to government subsidies, without which America’s flabtastic eating habits wouldn’t exist to begin with?

Seems a bit strange to me.