• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Choose anything but BEEF

F

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
30,475
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Some faulty information here.......


http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/beef-s-environmental-costs-called-exceptionally-high-1.2713654

--------------------------------------

http://beefmagazine.com/blog/why-ranchers-should-care-about-documentary-cowspiracy


Amanda Radtke in BEEF Daily counters the information presented in Cowspiracy:

A new documentary entitled, "Cowspiracy," paints the beef business in a very negative light, citing cattle as the sole reason we have sustainability issues on our planet. Ranchers will need to "beef" up on their beef production facts to help balance out the conversation about sustainability and animal agriculture.



HSUS Says Ranchers Don't Care About Animals

I haven't seen the documentary "Cowspiracy" yet, but after viewing the trailer and reading some of the publicity for it, I'm sure it won't be one any cattle producer will enjoy watching. The trailer points to a dark "sustainability secret" which is the "one single industry destroying the planet more than any other." According to the trailer, this industry is responsible for global warming, water shortages, methane emissions, species extinction, and the ocean dead zones. "Cowspiracy" places the blame on livestock production.

In the trailer, the creators insinuate they are taking a big personal risk, even endangering their lives, by making this film. In fact, they claim that the livestock industry is so nefarious, so powerful, that the major established environmental organizations are afraid to take it on. But the film's creators don't have any problem painting ranching as the world's worst environmental villain in the first 10 seconds, and it only gets worse from there.

http://beefmagazine.com/site-files/beefmagazine.com/files/uploads/2014/07/cows.jpg

Of course, Cowspiracy just appears to be regurgitating the common myths the beef industry has worked hard to correct over the years. For example, the Cowspiracy website claims it takes 660 gals. of water to make one hamburger, or the equivalent of 2 months' worth of showers.

Share This Online!


However, according to Facts About Beef, "In reality, it takes 441 gals. of water to produce 1 lb. of boneless beef. Farmers and ranchers are committed to water conservation and have reduced the amount of water used to raise beef by 12% compared to 30 years ago. In comparison, 441 gals. of water is a fraction of what is used to produce other everyday items. It takes over 713 gals. of water to produce one cotton t-shirt; 39,090 gals. to manufacture a new car; and 36 million gals./day is leaked from the New York City water supply system."

http://beefmagazine.com/site-files/beefmagazine.com/files/uploads/2014/07/water1.jpg

So if we really care about water conservation, we should stop wearing clothes, driving cars and using water altogether in our homes and businesses.

An inflated estimate of water use in beef production is just one of the myths being perpetuated by this film. It's clear the film's producers are anti-meat and anti-food animal. The documentary debuts this summer, and I'm sure it will make more than a few viewers feel guilty about consuming their beloved cheeseburger. That's why it's up to us to share the factual information about beef production and the environment.

I encourage everyone to visit reference sites like FactsAboutBeef.com or check out our Earth Day page for resources on this topic.

Will you go view Cowspiracy? Do you think the documentary is something ranchers should worry about? How would you respond to being painted a villain by a couple of guys with a video camera? How can we show our consumers how the beef industry has decreased its use of natural resources while producing more beef? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

The opinions of Amanda Radke are not necessarily those of Beefmagazine.com or the Penton Farm Progress Group.
 
I don't want to get into it with any of you over this, but I do want to state my opinion. I am a firm believer that the current feedlot system of beef production is not sustainable, because it relies 100% on manufactured and processed inputs to do it in any fashion that resembles an efficient business model. It requires petroleum, which is not a finite resource, so it is not sustainable, period.

Is it responsible for ALL of the things in the Cowspiracy documentary, I don't think so. I have seen several video clips and trailers for this thing already by the way.

Is the feedlot beef system responsible for SOME of the harmful effects to the environment portrayed in this documentary, absolutely.

The most common argument in favor of ths sytem is that there is not enough land to have all beef be grass finished. To me that is an unjustifiable statement because there is no research proving it is so. I will provide some examples of mixed diverse farms that do grass finished beef, free range pork and poultry, dozens of varieties of fruit and nut trees, and other value added products as well. Most places in the world, regardless of climate can have their production greatly improved, and I believe thousands of small farmers back on the land, doing this type of soil fertility-building regenerative agriculture is the only way we will SUSTAINABLY feed our population long term:

www.polyfacefarms.com
http://www.newforestfarm.net/our-story.html
http://vimeo.com/95924657
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvVlzUv8D5U&list=PLqPZgDXOa8vdul6QcsTQS_PXgzPEcu5-4#t=78

Read or watch these if you like. These are people from several different regions of the world making land far more productive than others thought possible, and growing far more food than thought possible. Hell, just the bit of soil work and mob grazing improvements we made in Alberta before moving made people stop and pay attention. In an area with 6 months of winter and 12" of annual snow, 12" of annual rainfall, we got to a point where we were running 400+ yearlings on 600 acres for 100 days, and 100+ pairs year round on another 1800 acres of native ground, and we were just starting to make improvements when we sold it.

My grand view point is this - we need to stop staying in the same systems and train ourselves to look for change. There are some huge red flag warning signs everywhere we look in regards to our water supplies, our soil quality and fertility, and our food supplies. If you're not willing to recognize that, and at least ponder what we should be doing about it, you are part of the problem.

Doing the same thing over and over gets you the same results. Who gives a shirt what consumers say or some kids on a spiritual quest to save cows?? Look around you and pay attention to depleting ground water supplies, increasing toxins in water supplies, decreased fertility in soils, increased reliance on chemical and fertilizer, decreased nutrient density in foods that get to the consumers, increased food safety issues, decreased wildlife populations, increased pests and plagues(bubonic plague killed a man in China yesterday), and the list goes on.

I don't criticize these kids for persecuting beef. I blame them for getting some facts wrong. Concrete production taken as a whole is the largest bad guy in the industrialized world. However, I admire these kids for giving a shirt and looking for change. I have no time for those who blindly think we can keep doing beef the way we've always done it.
 
With the surge in interest in Holistic management, especially since the video of the Alan Savory lecture went viral, the anti - grazing lobby have increased their efforts to trash all the proven results of 40 years of practical research. Other similar management practces such as polyface farms and the other links posted by Purecountry, have come up with very similar results, independently of each other - though there is an increasing networking between some of these groups.
 
I'm not a fan of mega feedlots either. The concentration of cattle in one place is just too high. I would rather see all those steers in the hands of individuals, where the pressure on resources can be better managed. Cow calf operations, on the other hand are IMHO some of the most environmentally friendly of all livestock systems. Grasslands are some of the most undervalued yet important pieces of land there are.

My home province, Manitoba, is the last destination of water runoff from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and the northern U.S., above the Missouri watershed. In the past twelve years or so, (and we all know why) literally tens of thousands of acres of pasture, hayland, and the wetlands and bush that grow in the pastures has been broken up in favour of wall to wall grain. Not just here, but all around us as well.

We have become the home of floods of biblical proportions. That's the only way to put it. Those pastures and sloughs were like sponges, holding back runoff from both snow melt and rain. Several weeks ago, we had a rainy week where up to 6 inches of rain fell. This is not the first time it has happened, but the resulting flood was epic to say the least. And unprecidented.

This is a local social media website discussion on the latest flood. It is fifteen pages long, but the pictures on the side tell the real story.

http://www.ebrandon.ca/messagethread.aspx?message_id=844544&cat_id=207

This comes only three years after a one in 300 year flood, and it's higher this time! People like to blame climate change for things like this, but really, there's something very wrong with the land when one rainy spell can cause so much damage. Studies are already coming out that say the damage would have been minimal, had the pastures and wetlands not been cultivated and drained.
 
Oh, great, just when the public gets over the "pink slime" debacle, here comes a piece of work to make them feel like they are killing the planet to eat a hamburger.

Purecountry, I am fine and dandy with alternative methods for raising and finishing beef, but it's hardly accurate to call the current mainstream system "unsustainable". In fact unsustainable is one of those terms like factory farm and monoculture that don't really have a hard definition, just intended to paint a picture in one's mind -- A negative picture.

There is so much incorporated into cattle rations that would be waste product otherwise. That is making wise use of resources, that is "sustainable". And it isn't like most of the land where the cow/calf operations are producing the calf crop, could be used for anything else to produce food for human beings anyway. Nobody is shorting vegetable or grain production to run cows. That is also wise use and sustainable. As far as transporting the feedstuffs to the feedlots, anytime trains are used instead of trucks, that transportation becomes more efficient.

Ever bigger operations, operating on ever tighter margins, are what keeps our food supply from being even more expensive than it is. The efficiency of scale.

How big is too big for a feeding operation? 100 head? 5,000 head? What is the magic number that makes it "sustainable" and not a "factory farm" operation?

I'm sure we'd all love to eat "boutique" top quality food, produced in smaller quantities with great care, but it's too expensive for the masses to do it that way. Plus, alternative production hasn't evolved enough yet to produce enough food for everybody, at any cost.
 
MO_cows said:
Oh, great, just when the public gets over the "pink slime" debacle, here comes a piece of work to make them feel like they are killing the planet to eat a hamburger.

Purecountry, I am fine and dandy with alternative methods for raising and finishing beef, but it's hardly accurate to call the current mainstream system "unsustainable". In fact unsustainable is one of those terms like factory farm and monoculture that don't really have a hard definition, just intended to paint a picture in one's mind -- A negative picture.

There is so much incorporated into cattle rations that would be waste product otherwise. That is making wise use of resources, that is "sustainable". And it isn't like most of the land where the cow/calf operations are producing the calf crop, could be used for anything else to produce food for human beings anyway. Nobody is shorting vegetable or grain production to run cows. That is also wise use and sustainable. As far as transporting the feedstuffs to the feedlots, anytime trains are used instead of trucks, that transportation becomes more efficient.

Ever bigger operations, operating on ever tighter margins, are what keeps our food supply from being even more expensive than it is. The efficiency of scale.

How big is too big for a feeding operation? 100 head? 5,000 head? What is the magic number that makes it "sustainable" and not a "factory farm" operation?

I'm sure we'd all love to eat "boutique" top quality food, produced in smaller quantities with great care, but it's too expensive for the masses to do it that way. Plus, alternative production hasn't evolved enough yet to produce enough food for everybody, at any cost.
Click to expand...


:clap:
 
I'm perplexed with some of your points, or how you see them as points. Waste products incorporated into rations? In a business sense it's efficient use of resources but most waste products I can think of going into beef rations actually contribute to many problems with beef production - DDG's and such contribute to lowering rumen pH - more acidic - which elevates the incidence of E.Coli 0157H7. And I'd gladly omit that from beef rations and use it elsewhere to avoid the increased risk of more cases of that. I had E. Coli poisoning as a kid, back when they called it "Hamburger Disease". I was a little fart with no extra meat on my bones and I lost a lot of what I had fighting off that bacteria. Sure there's the argument that people need to handle beef properly, cook it thoroughly, blah blah blah - but why have we become complacent producing a product that has these risks and thinking it's okay?

As for the land where cow-calf operations are running, that was part of my whole point - that land can also be rotationally mob grazed with yearlings and two year old stock to grass finish, or do a fast finish on them of 60 days in a feedlot, which would be vast improvement over the 100-150 days many of them spend there now.

This whole argument of "We have to feed the world" is just plain crap. No farmer or country of farmers is responsible for feeding the world. You are responsible for feeding your own family, as is every other parent. That mindset pushes people to sacrifice quality in the name of quantity, and unfortunately it's been bred into generations of farm kids. We don't need larger farms to feed the world. We need better food distribution by governments to get the current global production where it needs to be, and safely. THere is already plenty to go around, but so damn much of it is wasted or deliberately kept from the poor that it paints this false picture that there is not enough to go around.

And how convenient that is for corporate agriculture who wants to sell more inputs to people like you, who gobble up this notion and feel it is your sworn duty to feed the world, so you work harder and harder to produce more and more. We farmers have been trained like soldiers - stand a post and do what's right for your country - oh and by the way, don't ask questions about agendas or motives.
 
Pure Country: On our operation we use DDG s to help balance rumen PH as it has less starch than corn. It works well and contrary to your believe that it unsustainable our soil tests on our farmground show anywhere from 1.5 to 2.7 increase in organic matter in the last 20 years. While our operation is not for everyone it works well here and yes still have improvements to make. We also run a cow/calf to finish operation that uses no hormones or growth promotants.
 
I never said "feed the world", I was thinking of the 300+ million mouths right here in this country.

Again, I have no problem with small producers. I am one! The more people who get involved in agriculture and become part of their own food chain, the better. The more the "generations away from the farm" portion of the public learns about food production, the better.

It chaps me that producers who aren't in the mainstream of ag production so often use negative advertising and fear mongering to push their product, and especially their agenda. It isn't necessary and it isn't right.
 
MO_cows said:
I never said "feed the world", I was thinking of the 300+ million mouths right here in this country.

Again, I have no problem with small producers. I am one! The more people who get involved in agriculture and become part of their own food chain, the better. The more the "generations away from the farm" portion of the public learns about food production, the better.

It chaps me that producers who aren't in the mainstream of ag production so often use negative advertising and fear mongering to push their product, and especially their agenda. It isn't necessary and it isn't right.
Click to expand...

:tiphat: :tiphat:

I too feed a few critters. While I tend to agree with some of the principals of mob grazing, I am not set up with water, nor fences to do it. I would like to think I am a good enough student of the land, cattle and humans, that I can take bits and pieces of what everyone is doing, and improve my situation. I will be the first to admit, there are days, weeks, months and years, where I can get bull headed, and not learn a thing. If you come to me TELLING me YOUR way is the ONLY way, I am pretty sure I will not only ignore you this time, but I seriously doubt that I will put much faith in anything you say. If you just quietly go on doing what you have been doing, and I can see positive changes, I will most likely take at least part of what you are doing and apply it to my operation.
 
MO_cows said:
I never said "feed the world", I was thinking of the 300+ million mouths right here in this country.

Again, I have no problem with small producers. I am one! The more people who get involved in agriculture and become part of their own food chain, the better. The more the "generations away from the farm" portion of the public learns about food production, the better.

It chaps me that producers who aren't in the mainstream of ag production so often use negative advertising and fear mongering to push their product, and especially their agenda. It isn't necessary and it isn't right.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
An interesting if for some, a controversial article by Johann Zietsmann who developed the concept of high density grazing, presently on a lecture tour in the USA;

THE NEED FOR AFRICAN BREED COMPOSITES IN THE USA

JOHANN ZIETSMAN

I have never seen as many heat stressed cattle as I saw during my travel through the United States in the summer of 2013. Such a statement may seem strange coming from someone who has lived their entire life in the tropics. There are several reasons contributing to heat stress amongst American cattle:
•• The extremes between winter and summer temperatures.
•• High summer humidity in the Midwest and Southeast.
•• A predominance of European breeds.
•• The reluctance of breeders to use anything other than "improved" breeds.
•• The photoperiodic effect which should be a mitigating factor (sleek summer coats) seems to have an aggravating effect. Long summer days increase ambient temperature and animals have difficulty cooling down during the short nights.

In addition to the problems of stress from heat and horn fly the vast majority of cattle are further handicapped by a large frame. The overall result is poor grass conversion efficiency and inherently poor body condition. Ranchers now seem to realise (thanks to Allan Savory) that they need to manage their cattle in a way that will result in range improvement and efficient grass utilisation. Many are now doing this. How many ranchers realise that they also have to do an about-turn in terms of cattle breeding in order to produce cattle that can efficiently convert grass into beef?

If the goal is economically and ecologically sustainable production then the American beef production model is seriously flawed. How can anyone in their right mind believe that trying to genetically modify an efficient grass converting ruminant into an inefficient grain converting "hog" is progress? Is ranching for real or is it just a game? What is fact and what is fiction? Has science given way to superstition? To add to the current sorry state of affairs is the fact that the rest of the world imitates America.

There is potentially a very simple solution to the problem – the infusion of African breed blood. I use the word potentially, because the human mind is an enigma. How can the "unimproved" cattle from Africa improve the "improved" cattle of America? Well, the answer is also simple: The "unimproved" breeds are the product of "survival of the fittest" whereas the "improved" breeds are the product of "survival of the prettiest".

The African breeds (Sanga and Zebu) are unique in the sense that they are the survivors of aggravated natural selection - aggravated in the sense that they not only had to survive the rigours of nature, but also the demands of tribal society. Cattle are not only used for pulling carts and ploughs they also have to be corralled in order to produce manure for crop fields. Such animals have a very limited grazing period. The result is genotypes with a very large relative intake and high inherent body condition – just what the doctor ordered for the "sick" survivors of show judging and EPD juggling.

The African breeds of the Sanga grouping (Bos taurus africanus) that are currently available in the United States are the Mashona and Tuli. Both breeds originate in Zimbabwe and both are predominantly polled. Although neither breed can be considered to be adapted to cold winters the Mashona has survived very low temperatures in New Mexico (the herd founded by Jim Weaver is now performing extremely well in Florida). There is also a small herd in Missouri that is doing very well. An important characteristic that enables cattle to survive cold is inherently good body condition – fat is both an insulator and a valuable source of energy. The African breeds excel in terms of inherent body condition and heat adaptation. The Sanga breeds also have meat quality comparable to the European breeds.

Although numbers are limited, the use of AI can expedite the use of the African breeds in improving the overall adaptation of American cattle. The other advantage of using semen is that bulls with exceptionally high meat: bone ratio (generally lacking in African breeds) can be used to complement, and even enhance, the breeds in general use in the US. The result will be a composite excelling in the following attributes:
1.1. Nutritional adaptation – high inherent body condition (efficient grass conversion) resulting from:
•• Optimum frame size
•• Climatic adaptation
•• Parasite and disease resistance
•• Large appetite
1.2. High practical fertility as determined by high inherent body condition and a desirable balance of sex and growth hormones – early sexual maturity and a high conception rate
2.3. Optimum milk – approximately 40 to 50% mature at weaning
3.4. High meat: bone ratio (high carcase dressing percent)
4.5. High quality meat
5.6. Easy-care:
•• Low input requirement
•• Ease of calving – the result of natural selection
•• Mothering ability
•• Affinity for man – workable temperament
•• Herd instinct – expedites high density grazing
•• Polled
•• Healthy immune system

Composite breed formation is not the sole domain of colleges and experimental stations. Anyone with an entrepreneurial spirit can succeed. Three very important steps have to be followed:
1.1. The appropriate breed combinations
2.2. The appropriate types within the breeds
3.3. The use of appropriate selection criteria

There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that all cattle herds in the major ranching areas of the United States will benefit by the infusion of some degree (¼ to ¾) of African breed blood. Those breeders who realise this and do the obvious (breed composites) will be at the forefront of a genuine ranching revolution where cattle will efficiently convert grass into quality beef in addition to being the agents of range improvement.

Johann Zietsman

Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe

[email protected]

www.profitableranching.com

 Show message history
 
I never meant to insinuate that my way or or 1 way is the only way. If that's how it was perceived that's unfortunate, as it was not my intention. And if you're insinuating that I am not a mainstream ag producer and I'm sticking my nose where it doesn't belong or something, I disagree. Maybe I'm interpreting your post wrong Mo_Cows, so let me know if I am. I went away from conventional "ranching" to an organic grass finishing system for my own reasons. But I have been in most every part of traditional beef production. Finished cattle in feedlots for value-added niche markets, sold some through Cargill on the grid, and for many years sold our calves at auction pre-sort sales straight off the cows. I chose to leave "mainstream" beef production and do something different for economic and environmental reasons.

I don't see the point of carrying on with this. All I'll say is that I have no issue with the traditional cow-calf production model, just with feedlot finishing. As an industry, we beef producers should be looking at ways to do it better, because feedlot finishing is far from what we can call doing our best. That is all.
 
Having been 'computerless' for a couple of weeks, thanks for posting that information about yet another attack on beef production, FH. Not fun to read that while trying to 'catch up' with what everyone is doing lately!

And worse yet to read posts from ranchers criticizing others' methods of producing beef. Last I knew, feeders were producing some mighty fine beef, too.

We are a cow/calf ranch using native grass pastures for year round grazing in a VERY challenging climate: about 12" ANNUAL precip. with most of it USUALLY in the growing season, all four to five months of it! Temps range from +117% to -50+ that I've witnessed within my 57 years on this ranch. We also have a less than 1000 head feedlot where we background our calves for a few weeks to several months.

Those critical of all feedlots must not know some of the owner-managers we are privileged to know. They do an exceptional job of managing and feeding cattle to produce top quality beef.

We really don't need 'our own' helping the work of those who dedicate their lives to ending all uses of animals! Can't we understand that there are many viable methods of producing cattle? Isn't it wiser to make use of the terrain, climate, and even the dreams available to us to decide HOW to raise cattle than to attempt to denigrate those with whose methods we do not necessarily agree?
 
The model of beef production in the USA is seriously flawed and in the end unsustainable. Cattle hauled in big trucks to feed yards a thousand miles away and fed grain then slaughtered and shipped back to a store in the original town makes no sense at all. Cows eat grass or should and the Ma and Pa butcher shop needs to make a comeback. Grass fed cattle on land managed to produce grass that in many cases would not be farmable otherwise is the model of the future as it was in the past. The pendulum is swinging back. Medium framed, easy calving, climate hardy cattle is what the range needs and they need to produce protein to compete with the other sources of meet. More low cost cuts and less input costs America is becoming a "Hamburger Nation" google it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top