grass fed encouraging?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Twizelby
Full Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 3:56 pm
Diet: Vegan

grass fed encouraging?

Post by Twizelby »

Do you think that the market for grass fed cattle is a recognition of animal welfare or a symptom of elevated health concern? If you think that it is an animal welfare issue is this encouraging for future recognition of animal rights? If it is a symptom of health and environemental concerns is it discouraging or neutral?
User avatar
TheVeganAtheist
Site Admin
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 9:39 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: Canada

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by TheVeganAtheist »

i think its a recognition that you can charge more and create a niche market that appeals to those who think they are doing good by the animal, and who think their health.
I think its neutral to negative in leading to veganism.
Do you find the forum to be quiet and inactive?
- Do your part by engaging in new and old topics
- Don't wait for others to start NEW topics, post one yourself
- Invite family, friends or critics
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

It's a small market, although I'm not so sure the treatment is much better. There seems to be some evidence that it's slightly less unhealthy, but there are a number of reasons meat is unhealthy, and the change from silage to grass is pretty minor.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:I think its neutral to negative in leading to veganism.
There's this idea that we should oppose any measure of animal welfare, or making animals' lives better, because it will make animal liberation less likely in the future because people won't be shocked enough by the horrible treatment to completely give up animal products.

I don't agree with that, and I think it's harmful to the movement itself, and makes vegans look irrational.
User avatar
miniboes
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Netherlands

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by miniboes »

It's a movement in the right direction I guess ,as corn and grains make cows very sick. But nothing stops them from using steroids etc. and abusing the animals.

As far as health goes; I don't think feeding grass reduces saturated fat, animal protein, trans fats or cholesterol. The big problems are still there probably.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by EquALLity »

Does this guy have a point, or is he bullshitting?

Does feeding cows grass and killing them save more animals because of the animals killed for harvesting grains?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote:Does this guy have a point, or is he bullshitting?

Does feeding cows grass and killing them save more animals because of the animals killed for harvesting grains?
It's bullshit. I don't see where he said that, I guess it's above where you cropped it, but there's no reason to believe that.
The argument is parroting an article by Steven Davis from 2003, which has been repeatedly debunked.

Here's a diagram, and explanation of the methods: http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc

1.7 animals per million calories for beef, based on slaughter alone
1.56 animals per million calories in harvesting for grain

And that's based on Davis' numbers for harvest, and ignoring ALL associated animal deaths with managed grazing land.
Which is something not even Davis' does (although he does ignore the difference in land use between the two)
animalvisuals wrote:Davis estimates that 15 wild animals per hectare per year are killed as a result of harvesting annual crops, and guesses that maybe half that, or 7.5 animals per hectare per year, are killed on grazed land with managed perennial forage.
Based on the animals dying in managed grazing land from that guess alone, beef still kills many more animals, because it requires more land.

Here's another good article, which is a little easier to read:
http://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-pos ... for-vegans

Based on the studies, animals killed during harvesting are almost all just temporarily displaced, or killed by predatory birds. The difference there, as compared to a grassland, is mostly going to be that it happens all at once in a huge event, rather than gradually over the year (where in grasslands, predatory birds STILL kill mice constantly).

Are more mice killed per season by predators on farmland than would be over a year on 'natural' grassland?
This is not even clear, and so there's no reason to claim it is. It's just an ignorant assertion without a shred of evidence presented. And even if they are, and even if it's a HUGE difference, beef still loses.
idiot wrote:and a more efficient use of the land.
It's not more efficient. Grain production produces more calories per acre by far than grass. And in either case, cows as middle-men for those calories yield far less still.

It is for this reason that massive tracts of rain forest are burnt down to make room for cattle to graze.
We don't have enough land to be wasting it all grazing cattle, and pretending like that's going to feed any meaningful portion of the world population -- it simply is not, and can not.

There are a few kinds of land that are not suitable for growing crops, due to being too rocky, bad soil, not enough rain, etc. which can grow grass. These kinds of land can be fixed in various ways, and become more productive, but people in third world countries usually don't have the knowledge or ability to do that -- and so they are only able to raise, for instance, goats on that land, because that requires less infrastructure investment and knowledge.

That's not an excuse for those of us in first world countries, who have plenty of perfectly fine farm land, and the ability to build the infrastructure to make non-productive areas productive. We have no need or excuse for relying on such primitive practices.

And none of that is to even mention the many serious health and environmental ramifications of animal agriculture
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by EquALLity »

I see, thanks!^
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by EquALLity »

What about this article? wsj[dot]com/articles/actually-raising-beef-is-good-for-the-planet-1419030738
Is there any truth to it? It says this:
Let’s start with climate change. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, all of U.S. agriculture accounts for just 8% of our greenhouse emissions, with by far the largest share owing to soil management—that is, crop farming. A Union of Concerned Scientists report concluded that about 2% of U.S. greenhouse gases can be linked to cattle and that good management would diminish it further. The primary concern is methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
It goes on to talk about how we can get the percentage lower.

And this one, too: articles [dot] mercola [dot]com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/23/how-grassfed-cows-could-save-the-planet.aspx
Mainly, this part of it:
Grass is a perennial. If cattle and other ruminants are rotated across pastures full of it, the animals' grazing will cut the blades, spurring new growth, while their trampling helps work manure and other decaying organic matter into the soil, turning it into rich humus. And healthy soil keeps carbon dioxide underground and out of the atmosphere.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Ayee, please don't link to those things. They get higher google cred when they're linked to.

These people are either liars, or idiots (OK, maybe both).

2% by mass, maybe. Methane is less massive than CO2, but also much more potent. It's about 16% by potency. Remember I posted a thread on that? (can you find the link, I don't have it on hand).

That would be like saying that bullets made in a year only amount to 0.0000000000000006% of the lethal material humans are killed by impact with, so we shouldn't worry about them. They are, of course, dwarfed by the mass of the Earth (by which some humans die by falling into). [that number is not taking into account cars and other things humans die by impact with]

Technically true, but also incredibly deceptive presentation.

I didn't read (or click) either link since you quoted the important parts (thanks), but as for Mercola, who I know a bit about and is probably a moron, CO2 is not the issue, methane is. Carbon capture into soil humus IS possible (although minimal unless you're building up peat layers as in a rain forest- plains do not do this as far as I know), but doesn't even come close to making up for the effect of methane production.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: grass fed encouraging?

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Ayee, please don't link to those things. They get higher google cred when they're linked to.
Oh, ok.

Thanks!
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
Post Reply