Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Mine would be more, "the large field of grass that is used to free-range cattle, supports a very wide and diverse ecosystem of many complex vertebrate animals

*sigh* I'd stayed out of this thread in the past, but this point is so absurd that I need to say something.   
Are you seriously trying to argue that cattle grazing has a positive effect on the environment? Putting aside concerns of methane emissions or whatever, are you perhaps unaware of the long-lasting devastation cattle fields actually cause to any land used for the purpose? Even once they're finally abandoned by cattle farmers and can serve a more positive purpose, it's a huge battle to get anything to grow there afterwards even if there's any soil left to stick plants in.   
And if there's a waterway unfortunate enough to make its way through a cattle paddock, boy, you can forget it.   

Are you perhaps unaware that cattle are keystone species required for the upkeep and maintenance of grasslands?
Perhaps you are likewise unaware that there are only 50 or so (in the entire country) large "dry lot" operations, which is what PETA and pals loves to paint pictures of--- but the vast majority of actual cattle operations have pasturage that looks like this?

All this is irrelevant when most of the arguments in here hinge on "but animals still suffer even if you don't eat them", anyway. That's just dumb. The whole idea is to minimise your impact as best you can, not to somehow magically prevent all suffering, ever. Eating plant-based alternatives is still a helluva lot better than funding the meat industry no matter how many awful pesticides might be involved (as I'm sure others have said, those same fertilisers get used to grow the same damn crops as animal feed anyway).   
I don't see the majority of anti-vegan types getting out there and proselytising for anti-natalism, anyway. They just try to pull all of these arguments out of their collective arses when their outdated views and lifestyles are being challenged.    
NJW2000, I respect your honesty with others and with yourself. Admitting that you don't care about an issue, rather than bending over backwards trying to paint the other side as being wrong, already puts you streets ahead of a lot of folks.   

Yet you think that it's a bad thing to give wheat to livestock, as this entails more insect death for less food.

Hmm, no. I think it's a bad thing to give wheat to livestock because I believe that they should be reared on pasture.

How many folks would you expect to feed with animals fed that way, exactly? Is it going to be an uber-exclusive treat for the hella rich?   
Or are you in favour of clearing, like, the entire planet for pasture?   

NO.  As indicated in the linked studies, the pesticides do not degrade over a year, and instead accumulate in ground and ground water, which then causes unintended exposure to non-crop lands, and systemic exposure to entire food webs.  As further indicated, "realworld concentration" studies showed direct fatalities in studied bird populations in as little as 3 days.

We are talking pesticides that stay in the environment for YEARS at a time.


There is actual research. Go read it.  Don't take the cherry picked rhetoric of your echo chamber companions at face value. Go find the peer reviewed literature that qualifies itself, and asserts its own limitations. Go read that instead.

[Yoink]

I don't have any "echo chamber companions", fam. I used to work in conservation and saw the effects of cattle grazing first-hand.   
But you go on. Anything that can help you sleep at night as the dead animal pieces work their way slowly through your digestive tract, I suppose.    

[wierd]

Perhaps this quotation did not sink in, since you are attempting to interject an opinion I do not actually hold.

I am perfectly down with a stark reduction in the production of meat and poultry products, to be consistent with what is realistically feasible to produce without factory and feedlot conditions/practices. To me, that is perfectly justifiable with solid reasoning based on resource utilization and scientific methods.

However, as the paper about using cattle as a proxy for bison populations to sustain grassland ecosystems points out, the cattle proxies have been integrated in this capacity.  Utilization of actual bison would produce similar levels of greenhouse gasses (assuming the feedlots are taken out of the picture, as I have actually advocated) as using cattle; It's moot.  They are necessary to sustain the habitat.  Without them, the habitat goes into decline, and other species cannot be sustained.

What you are used to seeing is agribiz folks who overgraze, or drylot their animals, because of the economics involved in doing so.  Again, I advocate against that-- but also acknowledge that more sustainable practices do exist, and that meat production can thus be leveraged as a means to sustain these habitats.


So by all means, continue your self-assured absurdity, and continue to jam words into my mouth, to feel better and more confident in your nonsupportable position.

[Yoink]

Are you trolling? That quote of yours has no relevance to the discussion so I am not sure what you're trying to make "sink in"?   

This whole post is kind of bizarre, to be honest. Are you saying I at some point claimed that cattle animals should be exterminated and the pastureland they formerly occupied be left as is? And yet I'm the one jamming words in mouths?    
My position is hardly the "nonsupportable" one here, heh.   

[wierd]

look, the position I have is not new or sudden.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=176188.msg8166212#msg8166212

I have pulled many sources of data up to substantiate the position.  The problem I have encountered, is that EVERY GODDAMNED FUCKING TIME, you self righteous vegan bastards have attempted to strawman the discussion, because you either cannot understand the information provided, or that you cannot comprehend of a position that advocated total conservation, like mine.

So, get off the fucking pedestal, go read the studies, go read the actual data collected by the scientists, stop listening to what feels right to you, and make an actual informed decision.

Goodnight.

[Yoink]

Pass.   
There was a time, and it wasn't so long ago, when I would have carried on with this until the cows came home (pun not intended). These days, though, I've learned to value my time enough not to waste it on an internet argument with a dyed-in-the-wool (again, no pun intended) speciesist.   

I've said what I came to say re: grazing and made a few other points besides, and those who appreciate facts and thought as opposed to regurgitated indoctrination may do with it what they may. In the meantime, I'mma bail on this thread again. I'm just mad that y'all had to drag me in here to begin with. *sigh*   

[wierd]

Bruh.


I have infodumped exactly how much of cattle production is on drylots vs natural pasture.  The figure I cited did not come from my asshole. It came up in the discussion thread exchange at the date/time stamp I cited.  It is from real facts and figures reported by the USDA.

My position is based on data, not opinion.

If you have conflicting data, by all means, CITE IT.

[MaxTheFox]

Let's just say that yes, I am an a "dyed-in-the-wool speciesist". A large part of my ideology is fairly extreme anthropocentrism-- technically sapiocentrism but it pretty much amounts to that as we don't know of any other sapient species. I care about humans, domestic animals (if their entire purpose is to die or be milked then so be it so I don't give a damn about cows and pigs but I genuinely care about cats and dogs etc), non-domestic but cute or otherwise useful animals, and particularly intelligent or endangered animals. So yes I support conservation as long as it benefits humans or species I care about. We need to take extreme measures if we want to save the climate and not make our lives painful.

[Caz]

Mine would be more, "the large field of grass that is used to free-range cattle, supports a very wide and diverse ecosystem of many complex vertebrate animals

*sigh* I'd stayed out of this thread in the past, but this point is so absurd that I need to say something.   
Are you seriously trying to argue that cattle grazing has a positive effect on the environment?  Putting aside concerns of methane emissions or whatever, are you perhaps unaware of the long-lasting devastation cattle fields actually cause to any land used for the purpose? Even once they're finally abandoned by cattle farmers and can serve a more positive purpose, it's a huge battle to get anything to grow there afterwards even if there's any soil left to stick plants in.   

Are you guys able to make an argument without resorting to theatrical outrage? Let's try to stay focused on the facts.

Grazing animals are essential for grassland ecosystem biodiversity, this has never been a contentious issue. Without grazing animals, biodiversity decreases and the grassland environment will succeed to forest. I don't know what pastures you've seen but if they are overgrazed to the point of being reduced to bare earth then the farmer has overstocked, failed to rotate or fucked up in some other capacity and probably won't be in their profession for much longer.

[WealthyRadish]

It's reasonable to say that marginal grazing land should be used to raise animals and reduce the need for intensive agriculture (compared to doing nothing with the land), and just about everybody seems to be in agreement that using intensive agriculture to grow crops dedicated for animal feed is inefficient from an environmental and resource-use perspective. The biodiversity argument of cattle ranching being preferable to doing nothing with the land seems to be of marginal importance compared to everything else, at least to me, but it's a plausible benefit.

What these points create together is a possible future direction where meat is still a part of the western diet, albeit much smaller, while being ecologically and economically preferable to an alternative future direction of "universal veganism". It's fine to compare those two versions of reality and say the one with responsible meat production is preferable, although as an aside I think the issue of zoonotic diseases adds another dimension.

However, the other critical point is to recognize that neither of these possible directions reflect reality as it currently exists. Most of the crops grown in the US and Europe are for dedicated animal feed, and the leading cause of ecological destruction today is expansion of grazing lands and agriculture generally. Even if you go to the grocery store and pick out a nice, if pricey, "free range" bit of beef, you're still a part of that global system destroying natural environments to make room for cattle grazing, either by directly consuming meat raised on that land or by substituting for other consumers who would in a market that doesn't distinguish between that and natural grassland use.

Moving to a "graze only" system alone would greatly reduce the need for intensive agriculture by eliminating the dedicated growth of forage crops, but in the current market system would also increase the pressure to expand grazing lands and accelerate the ongoing environmental destruction for new grazing land. You would need global trade regulations enforcing both a ban on crop-fed beef (ignoring other animals for the moment) and an enforceable ban on expansion of agriculture for grazing (and ideally a return to forest for land recently cleared). Even if this is possible, there's essentially zero current political will to meaningfully achieve it, in fact quite the opposite given the forecasted growth of demand for meat globally.


To reiterate, it's fine to compare the hypothetical "universal veganism" and "graze-only with conservation" directions and say the option with a responsible meat industry is possible and preferable (although I think the zoonotic disease angle is really worth considering). What I don't think is fine is commuting that into "vegans are hypocrites" for doing *something* now, where not eating meat within the system as it currently exists really is preferable when compared to both the factory farm (resource inefficient and cruel) and "free range" (destroying the world's forests) options of today. It's possible that the global grass-fed market and perhaps even the factory-produced market could be done responsibly from an environmental perspective, but right now neither are.

[Rolan7]

Huh, thanks for that summary.  That sounds like where I stand - I don't mind grazing cattle for meat and dairy.  I just don't support the particularly painful milking techniques, and I don't support human-edible crops being used to produce and harvest meat.

...Well, I technically support it in fact because I do occasionally eat meat products, but I try to be conscious of it.  Sometimes I don't plan my meals or I want a treat.  It's the habit of having some meat in every meal that seems extravagant and even unnatural to me.  Come to think of it, my brother's still on a particularly high-meat diet because he finds it easier to to control his diabetes that way.  I just take his word for that and rarely think about it, it doesn't seem to bother me.

Anyway, grazing cattle and then eating them is cool by me.  I'm very concerned with pigs and chickens, though.  I'd be surprised to find out that hog farms or battery hens serve an ecological purpose.  The animals basically aren't allowed to move, for their entire lives.  I'm uncomfortable with such conditions even for chickens, but pigs are very intelligent animals.  I honestly hope I don't have to cite details because the information is very easy to find and very, well, emotional.

But even if we discount animal suffering completely, which is a point of view I theoretically understand, running these factory farms takes gross amounts of energy (refrigeration to offset body heat), edible crops that could go to people (not always of sufficient quality, but mostly), and produce large amounts of biological waste.  Sure poop is fertilizer and all, but hog farms here in NC rely on these rather unpleasant pools which have a habit of overflowing in the rain.  Tight profit margins, and all.  These overflows are not good for the local ecology.

This is complicated by pork and chicken being by far my favorite meats to eat (except for lamb I guess, and fish).  It has been a looong time since I've eaten pork other than a family member's sausage balls at Christmas.  I just can't do it, I guess I live too close.  And yet I do eat chicken in fast food sometimes, and fish at home.  A little goes a very long way, both in taste and protein, supported of course by beans and rice.

(And I couldn't finish that quart of milk last month - it was just *strange* to drink, after abstaining so long.  A lot of cultures survived just fine without a concept of animal dairy, and I don't even miss cheese nearly as much as I used to)

Sorry that this became a ramble, I didn't really sleep last night.  Thanks for keeping things pretty civil for me y'all

[Caz]

It's reasonable to say that marginal grazing land should be used to raise animals and reduce the need for intensive agriculture (compared to doing nothing with the land), and just about everybody seems to be in agreement that using intensive agriculture to grow crops dedicated for animal feed is inefficient from an environmental and resource-use perspective. The biodiversity argument of cattle ranching being preferable to doing nothing with the land seems to be of marginal importance compared to everything else, at least to me, but it's a plausible benefit.

What these points create together is a possible future direction where meat is still a part of the western diet, albeit much smaller, while being ecologically and economically preferable to an alternative future direction of "universal veganism". It's fine to compare those two versions of reality and say the one with responsible meat production is preferable, although as an aside I think the issue of zoonotic diseases adds another dimension.

However, the other critical point is to recognize that neither of these possible directions reflect reality as it currently exists. Most of the crops grown in the US and Europe are for dedicated animal feed, and the leading cause of ecological destruction today is expansion of grazing lands and agriculture generally. Even if you go to the grocery store and pick out a nice, if pricey, "free range" bit of beef, you're still a part of that global system destroying natural environments to make room for cattle grazing, either by directly consuming meat raised on that land or by substituting for other consumers who would in a market that doesn't distinguish between that and natural grassland use.

Moving to a "graze only" system alone would greatly reduce the need for intensive agriculture by eliminating the dedicated growth of forage crops, but in the current market system would also increase the pressure to expand grazing lands and accelerate the ongoing environmental destruction for new grazing land. You would need global trade regulations enforcing both a ban on crop-fed beef (ignoring other animals for the moment) and an enforceable ban on expansion of agriculture for grazing (and ideally a return to forest for land recently cleared). Even if this is possible, there's essentially zero current political will to meaningfully achieve it, in fact quite the opposite given the forecasted growth of demand for meat globally.


To reiterate, it's fine to compare the hypothetical "universal veganism" and "graze-only with conservation" directions and say the option with a responsible meat industry is possible and preferable (although I think the zoonotic disease angle is really worth considering). What I don't think is fine is commuting that into "vegans are hypocrites" for doing *something* now, where not eating meat within the system as it currently exists really is preferable when compared to both the factory farm (resource inefficient and cruel) and "free range" (destroying the world's forests) options of today. It's possible that the global grass-fed market and perhaps even the factory-produced market could be done responsibly from an environmental perspective, but right now neither are.

Yeah, I'd agree with most of this. Important to note my 'vegans are hypocrites' statement is aimed at the vegans that act like veganism is the only acceptable practice to reduce suffering. Reducing consumption is sensible enough.

[Caz]

Anyway, grazing cattle and then eating them is cool by me.  I'm very concerned with pigs and chickens, though.  I'd be surprised to find out that hog farms or battery hens serve an ecological purpose.  The animals basically aren't allowed to move, for their entire lives.  I'm uncomfortable with such conditions even for chickens, but pigs are very intelligent animals.  I honestly hope I don't have to cite details because the information is very easy to find and very, well, emotional.

Yeahh, chickens and pigs have an equivalence of intelligence to dogs and other animals. It's well-known that humans will underestimate the intelligence of animals used as food. Hence we usually think animals like dog, cat etc are more intelligent than duck, sheep, etc, when there's no real intelligence correlation in this (we don't know hardly enough about it, imo). Then again, humans underestimate the intelligence of pretty much every animal around.

[wierd]

Pretty much, that is indeed the case.  (humans routinely underestimating animal intelligence, either because it is different from theirs, is not highly pro-social like theirs, or the animal has a convenient material utility, which accepting the intelligent nature of the animal would make difficult to exploit.)


I would again point out the data presented by the USDA concerning total cattle operations, and the number of actual factory dry feedlots in the country. It really is around 50 total.  They just happen to also be basically concentration camps for cows.  (and naturally, I am strongly against their use)

Those 50 or so drylots produce a very alarming amount of beef in the US, but it is not upwards of 50%. (I will need to re-read the figures-- it HAS been over a year, and we HAVE had an international pandemic up our asses. Lots of stuff on my mind chasing things out lately.)  Removing the drylots would reduce beef availability, but not by the seemingly expected amounts imagined by vegans.  People need to eat less meat anyway, and the subsequent rise in beef prices would only be beneficial in cementing the natural pasturage operations: The beef production would be the most profitable use of that land. (and if coupled with quality regulations prohibiting the destruction of other kinds of habitat to produce cattle, and similar methods to prevent people being idiots, and destroying farmland to raise cattle, seeking that high high price per pound of flesh, it not be a significant source of problems.) Most of the issues with zoonotic pathogens comes from people feeding cattle absurd amounts of corn and silage, which is highly acidic, and basically gives the cows dietary distress, which makes them susceptible to diseases. To combat that, they shoot the cattle full of lots of antibiotics, because those are cheap, and proper pasturage is expensive.  Proper regulation to prohibit drylot operations, would make it nonsensical to continue such practices.  This would have a naturally correlated reduction in the amount of antibiotics shot into cattle, and thus strongly reduce the capacity for the cattle ranching operations to produce antibiotic-resistant superbugs.


Beef and other meat products SHOULD be expensive.  That is kinda necessary, since the demand for the product is not going to go down. (Only the supply, through regulation.)  I do not consider that a bad thing, since again, a high unit price means highly profitable cattle ranching operations on appropriate grazelands, and would be a strong incentive to not over-extend the pasturage (since drylotting would be illegal, and overpasturage results in drylot conditions.)

You would have lots of angry cattle farmers looking at "how much they COULD be making if you would just allow drylotting again", but that is not the same thing as cattle ranching being unprofitable. If there is any lesson this century should have writ large, it is that unregulated capitalist enterprises fuck the commons faster than anything else.  Regulation is a good thing. Embrace it. Demand it. That very same regulation should also prohibit the clearcutting or conversion of inappropriate biomes to convert them into pasture.

[MrRoboto75]

I wonder how much impact there is in Americans' general aversion to organ meat over meat... meat.