Ban Meat? Never!!!!!
 

Guns or meat? Meat wins!

Got to give props to Chuck, whether it came to him in a dream or on the backstretch he seems to be have been right in more ways than one...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6891362.ece

PS had a wonderful 3/4 lb ground sirloin burger stuffed w/blue cheese and topped w/merkts cheddar ( Must be Merkts) , bacon and Famous Daves Rich and Sassy B-BQ sauce on a toasted gonella bun on a traditional Webber CHARCOAL grill. MMMMMMMMM and no fries needed.

To be fair, there's absolutely nothing in this article about "banning" meat.

It's basically a statement of fact that we all already know -- the amount of water and energy that goes into producing meat for mass consumption. Whether you feel that contributes to climate change is totally an individual call, but it's not like he's just making up this stuff about meat production being somewhat wasteful in the big picture.

And unless I missed something, he seemed to suggest that societal pressure and peer pressure would lead to a significant decrease in meat consumption, without ever coming close to insinuating that it would be "banned" or even that he thinks it should be "banned."

when he was quoted, "Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

This is no 'deal' as he puts it, but yet another tax that will be solely paid by meat consumers and providers. Indirectly it acts as a ban if meat is taxed enough. IMO

Well they tax the crap out of other things like cigarettes and alcohol and gas, yet those are not "banned."

It's not that I don't completely understand the idea of high taxation as a deterrent, but it's nothing close to a "ban" and to call it one is totally misleading. Banned things are actually illegal...not just discouraged.

But discouragement is often the start in the process that eventually leads to banishment. Remember when restaurant/bar owners were assured they would be able to ultimately make the decision to smoke or not smoke?

When seat belt fastenng was a 'secondary offense' and not a sole reason to make a stop or be cited at a roadblock (safety check)?

Why not go about this meat reduction thing in a logical manner like producing dishes that are tastier than a T-Bone or a rack of baby backs etc. Not even to mention bacon

Well when they actually start trying to ban meat, then let's talk about the meat ban, okay?

In the meantime, let's talk about possible taxes, possible deterrents, and the honestly high cost of meat production from an environmental perspective, which are in fact, what this article is ACTUALLY about, Dell, not banning meat.

Meat is not something that could, or would, ever be banned barring some catastrophic worldwide disease outbreak in meat products. Seriously.

For some reason this thread sounds strangely similar to one occuring in the paddock right now.

Just substitute meat and takeout.

What, someone wants to ban takeout?

I love it!

In that case, I fully accept Dell's misreading of the article.

that would be amazing. But it was equivalent to banning meat = raising takeout.

So it's never ever in a million years going to happen is what you're saying?

I'm so confused.

well its a different situation but your one post to del sounded just like a post by kasept.

Well when they actually start trying to ban meat, then let's talk about the meat ban, okay?

In the meantime, let's talk about possible taxes, possible deterrents, and the honestly high cost of meat production from an environmental perspective, which are in fact, what this article is ACTUALLY about, Dell, not banning meat.

Meat is not something that could, or would, ever be banned barring some catastrophic worldwide disease outbreak in meat products. Seriously.


and the other one was basically "no sky is falling.. when they start trying to raise takeout, then lets talk about raising takout" "in the meantime, lets talk about how raising takeout could help California"



unfortunately.. takeout will probably be raised, where of course meat will never be banned...

Eat more chkin

These environmental people are quacks. They eventually will go down as the flat earth society of our times.

if you believe that, you're in the modern day flat earth society chuck.

I'm sure thats what they said then too. It is 98% bs and the other 2% is misrepresented.

A cow that eats nothing but grass out in the field uses a tiny percentage of the resources used in producing a factory farmed cow.

People are unbelievably dumb.

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.

where in the desert? On the side of a mountain? 40 acres one cow! LOL That's one expensive cow!!! And how hard is growing hay on the enviro? The diesel to run the tractor, cutter and bailer? Or do they water and fertilize their hay by air in your area of KY? Where they pay out of pocket rather than bother their health insurance companies?

I've said before create a better tasting substitute w/o poisoning the consumer. Problem solved!

I wish you made a bit more sense so I could follow along :rolleyes:

Yes, out west it takes alot of land to put weight on one cow. New Mexico, western Texas, Wyoming? Not everything is lush prairie. If it weren't for federal BLM land, cattle ranchers would be screwed.

Yes, my point was that IS one expensive cow. Which is why feedlots exist. We don't have enough land to raise enough cow pounds to feed us all, at a price we can afford.

I don't follow what you are talking about regarding hay. How hard is growing hay? Pretty easy, unless you get drought. Hay takes land, too.

a lot of land or 40 acres?

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.

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.

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" ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

I haven't seen any argument to convince me.

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?