OT: Never complain about the cost of meat

[Renegade 13]

In my day to day life, I always hear people complaining about the cost of a nice, juicy T-bone steak, or hamburger or some other variety of tasty beef product. The next time you're in the grocery store, looking at the price of a steak and thinking it's outrageous, first off blame the middle-man (that's what I do ), and second, think about the producer. Someone like, say, me, who has to get up at 3:30 in the morning for an hour because some bloody stupid animal has given birth in -20°C (-4°F) weather and decides they don't want their calf, and has to be forced to decide it is hers after all so it doesn't freeze to death!

[GuyOfDoom]

I take it you must be a farmer/rancher?

I know most of the reasons that beef is expensive. I love beef as much as the next person, but honestly I'd love to see the cattle industry cut to 20% of what it currently is in the US.

[Renegade 13]

GuyOfDoom said:
I take it you must be a farmer/rancher?

Indeed, I do work on a cattle ranch.

I know most of the reasons that beef is expensive. I love beef as much as the next person, but honestly I'd love to see the cattle industry cut to 20% of what it currently is in the US.

For what reason would you want that?

[GuyOfDoom]

1) Beef isn't that healthy for you, for a number of reasons.

2) Like most foods now days it's becoming less natural and more "processed."

3) It takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food than it does to grow plants for food. It's one of the strongest points of the vegetarian philosophy.

Granted I'm not a vegetarian and I need my meat, but the point at which the food industry in general has just gotten ridiculous.

I'll give you a bit more of my perspective when I have time to sit down later this evening.

[Fyron]

2) Like most foods now days it's becoming less natural and more "processed."

In what way is meat "unnatural" today? The fact that they cut up the animals and package it, rather than selling you whole, live animals for your own personal butchery circa 1300 CE? A few growth hormones here and there that have no credible scientific studies indicating any potential side-effects to humans eating the meat? Growth hormones are perfectly natural. So what if the cows mature physically a bit faster than they normally would? It doesn't harm the meat in any way.

3) It takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food than it does to grow plants for food. It's one of the strongest points of the vegetarian philosophy.

Actually, it is one of the most asinine things espoused by some overly-political vegetarians that do not really understand food production and biology. While it is technically true that it "takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food," the claim is rather disingenuous because the food that is used to feed the animals is not suitable for feeding to humans, does not decrease the amount of human-quality grains grown, and in fact raising cattle and other livestock is an important part in the cycle of producing more demanding crops (most of the fruits and vegetables we eat).

The land used for cattle ranching is not suitable for growing human-grade crops (without a ton of fertilizer and nutrients added to it, which comes from the cattle...). Only tough, hardy crops can be grown on it; crops that are really bad to feed to humans, but are fine for herbivorous animals that can actually digest them somewhat well. Most of the grains grown to feed cattle et all are of really low caliber, not suitable for human consumption (think millet, long grasses), which is grown on other tracts of poor quality arable land. Of course, some excess wheat and corn and such is fed to livestock, but this is only done because too much was produced and it can't be sold, and would go to waste otherwise.

There is no particular lack of arable land in the country (or the world as a whole), so any argument related to wasted land usage is completely non-sensible. Pretty much all of the high-quality land that can be used to grow crops for humans either is used to do so, or is left fallow due to not enough demand for more.

We can grow quite a lot of poor-quality grains and such to feed to animals, but we can't really use the land they are grown on to feed humans, without ending up harming them due to malnourishment in the process. If you actually look at the energy efficiency of the food production overall, it is in reality better to have animals processing all of those hardy, malnutritous (in human terms) grains and grasses, than to try to feed them to humans. We can make much better use of it by eating the animals afterwards, and we get huge amounts of natural fertilizer as a by-product.

[Raapys]

I like meat.

[AgentZero]

Meat is tasty.

[Randallw]

From what I gather since Australia is a cattle raising country we get beef cheaper than elsewhere. On side note my sisters father in law was here last week and he bought oysters for much cheaper than on the mainland as one of Tasmanias specialties is oysters. Same thing I guess, like going to France through the Chunnel to buy wine.

I sort of prefer Chicken myself. Can't stand beef that is overcooked, and incidentally I like meat blue so anything beyond killing off the germs is overcooked to me.

Meat is such a part of Australian life it is not rare (haha rare ) to see ads on tv espousing the merits of meat eating. Anyone know Sam Neill, the actor in Jurassic park, Red October, Piano etc. He has an ad where he shows how we came down from the trees and our brains grew because of the nutrients we get from Meat. Basically you need meat if you expect to have any intelligence.

[MasterChiToes]

Imperator Fyron said:
In what way is meat "unnatural" today? The fact that they cut up the animals and package it, rather than selling you whole, live animals for your own personal butchery circa 1300 CE? A few growth hormones here and there that have no credible scientific studies indicating any potential side-effects to humans eating the meat? Growth hormones are perfectly natural. So what if the cows mature physically a bit faster than they normally would? It doesn't harm the meat in any way.

Those hormones given to animals end up both in meat and milk... and contribute to premature puberty, and probably a wide variety of health problems. Funny thing that steroids and drugs that are illegal are allowed in food. Why not 100% pure marijuana fed beef?

Livestock feed also commonly includes reclaimed protein... which comes from meat designated unsuitable for human consumption, and by law is treated with creosote at some point, as well as from fido and fluffy when they get euthanized. Say hello to the primary source of mad cow disease.

Of course, vegetarians don't fair much better, beyond the obvious pesticides and fertilizers. Much of the world's farmlands were formerly inland seas, and are piss poor in essential nutritious minerals.

Anyway, I suggest putting more research into organics production, as well as spreading out your population to multiple terraformed worlds.

[GuyOfDoom]

Imperator Fyron said:

In what way is meat "unnatural" today? The fact that they cut up the animals and package it, rather than selling you whole, live animals for your own personal butchery circa 1300 CE? A few growth hormones here and there that have no credible scientific studies indicating any potential side-effects to humans eating the meat? Growth hormones are perfectly natural. So what if the cows mature physically a bit faster than they normally would? It doesn't harm the meat in any way.

Alright while Physics might be your area, Biochemistry is one of mine. Starting from the top: Most food, beef is this instance is far from “natural.” Animals are consistently fed hormones, specially derived diets and antibiotics to keep them growing faster and bigger than ever. Those chemicals alter the animal on just about every level possible. The short version is that if it’s in the animals it makes it into us when we eat them. Even if I was being VERY conservative I’d could say we’re getting nanograms of various chemicals everytime we’re eating meat and it often takes less than that to affect a biological system. Then take into account how often people eat meat and how much they tend to eat. Do the math. If you’d like a few references for chemicals that have been PROVEN to show effects I can supply those for you. As for “no” evidence that comes from what it takes to conduct human studies. Again the short version is by the time it’s definitively “proven” in humans it’s 25+ years later and everyone has already been past dramaticaly affected. The FDA is about as good at regulating as the EPA {read WORTHLESS}.

Actually, it is one of the most asinine things espoused by some overly-political vegetarians that do not really understand food production and biology. While it is technically true that it "takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food," the claim is rather disingenuous because the food that is used to feed the animals is not suitable for feeding to humans, does not decrease the amount of human-quality grains grown, and in fact raising cattle and other livestock is an important part in the cycle of producing more demanding crops (most of the fruits and vegetables we eat).

Funny you should mention not fit for humans because guess who gets fed the old antibiotics were banned on humans for adverse side effects.

The land used for cattle ranching is not suitable for growing human-grade crops (without a ton of fertilizer and nutrients added to it, which comes from the cattle...). Only tough, hardy crops can be grown on it; crops that are really bad to feed to humans, but are fine for herbivorous animals that can actually digest them somewhat well. Most of the grains grown to feed cattle et all are of really low caliber, not suitable for human consumption (think millet, long grasses), which is grown on other tracts of poor quality arable land. Of course, some excess wheat and corn and such is fed to livestock, but this is only done because too much was produced and it can't be sold, and would go to waste otherwise.

If you think no potential crop land has been altered to make way for livestock you’d be gravely mistaken. If you’re referring to manure being good fertilizer, cow manure is actually pretty low on the scale. Some of the best fertilizer actually comes from bats.

There is no particular lack of arable land in the country (or the world as a whole), so any argument related to wasted land usage is completely non-sensible. Pretty much all of the high-quality land that can be used to grow crops for humans either is used to do so, or is left fallow due to not enough demand for more.

We can grow quite a lot of poor-quality grains and such to feed to animals, but we can't really use the land they are grown on to feed humans, without ending up harming them due to malnourishment in the process. If you actually look at the energy efficiency of the food production overall, it is in reality better to have animals processing all of those hardy, malnutritous (in human terms) grains and grasses, than to try to feed them to humans. We can make much better use of it by eating the animals afterwards, and we get huge amounts of natural fertilizer as a by-product.

Funny you should mention there is no lack of arable land because at present the demand for ethanol based fuels on top of the already high demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup is driving the demand for Corn through the roof. If you think the world is at 100% efficiency in terms of farmland as well you’re dreaming. There are plenty of plants that can be eaten by humans that can grow in all types of climates. You forget people have been eating plants everywhere before the invention of refrigeration. The plants that are currently considered “core crops” are often the worst for soil and the best for the corporate farming pocketbooks. As I mentioned earlier cow manure isn’t the best fertilizer and as referenced if the cow is eating plenty of chemicals you don’t want, the manure is going to have them as well.