Sorry again for being days late but here goes.
Imo it is all a matter of making the most profit possible in as
short a time as possible but this is fairly new.
There are many areas in the world where old fashioned pastoralism
was a matter of people surviving. I think I have explained before
that being active outside with our climate and aiming to be self
sufficient means we have to have some meat. And that was never a
problem since our climate is extremely suitable for grass growth
which is not directly suitable for human nutrition.
Traditionally all the grains grown here were for human consumption
and a little bit for horses and poultry. And for horses only when
they were doing heavy work. 50 years ago people would have called
you crazy for feeding grains to cattle or sheep.
But things have changed. If you follow a natural cycle of Spring
births of your livestock you are already a looser for most money was
to be made from grants. And for most grants you needed to maintain a
certain number of livestock for a limited period of the year, say
from 22nd of April till the 30th of August. Most "grant farmers"
would buy animals the 21 of April and sell these on the 1st of
September.
These people did not need hay to feed their animals over th winter
and they were not saddled with needing a bull for breeding.
Another thing is that you need to sell your livestock surplusses as
early as possible in the year.
If you can sell 40-50 kilo lambs in April you make money. A 40 kilo
lamb in August makes one third of the price of an April lamb and by
September-October the prices may have dropped by half again. This is
the time that free range lamb on the mountains is ready for sale and
most sheep farmer still work this way. Supply and demand.
But it is probably obvious that a lamb born at around two kilo live
weight in January is not going to be 40 kilos in 2-3 months by
natural means. And the same is true for beef that makes a very bad
price once it is over two years old. Where just a few years ago 4
year old beef was called prime.
What I object to in the official figures is that the forced growth
by any means legal and often illegal (growth promoters) is now taken
as the only way possible. Grass fed, free range animals do not
require any agricultural land devoted to growing their feed.
John
On 09/12/14 01:16, herb farmer wrote:
54864D81.3030603@lobo.net" type="cite">
Right, no disagreement there. I do want to connect some more dots
tho. Of course I'm talking about the extreme overconsumption of
beef in the U.S., and CAFOs, commercial feedlots, not free range
or grazing. Small family farms can grow what they want without
being a problem. In a nutshell:
Hard facts.
We have global scarcity of unpolluted & accessible freshwater,
and it's getting worse fast.
We don't have enough cropland to feed the world at current rates
with current methods.
So consider:
2/3 of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for
livestock, only 8 % to grow food for direct human consumption.
AND it takes ten times the water to produce beef as to produce
wheat.
We're not even looking here at the health, environmental, energy
and climate disasters of industrial farming.
Conclusion: The numbers tell us if we produced only a small
fraction of the vast feedlots for beef, saving most land from
grain & forage, then we'd have enough cropland to grow far
more food for people directly, and feed far bigger populations,
and we'd have the water to do it with.
"2/3 of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for
livestock, only 8 % to grow food for direct human consumption"
https://woods.stanford.edu/environmental-venture-projects/consequences-increased-global-meat-consumption-global-environment
"it takes about 5300 liters of water to grow and process a
dollar’s worth of grain"
in Agriculture Consumes 92% of Freshwater Used Globally - US Leads
Per Capita Consumption
http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-agriculture/agriculture-consumes-92-all-freshwater-used-globally-and-us-leads-capita-consumption.html
Infographics
Water shortages resulting
from food production
http://sputniknews.com/infographics/20130322/180181240/Water-shortages-resulting-from-food-production.html
-------------------
On 12/8/2014 2:02 PM, John D'hondt
wrote:
548611F4.2010002@eircom.net" type="cite">We
have had a disagreement about this before Paul but I think I
have seen where the difficulty is. I may have to do with the
first article you sent on today with which I completely agree.
The name of the TED speaker explaining how grazers are essential
for the sustainability of an environment and the growing and
thriving of natural vegetation slips my mind right now but I
completely agree with the man. I doubt very much that a cow on
grass with enough space to roam is polluting. Made an attempt
this summer to determine what lived in and on a cow pat and I
found a minimum of 15 species of beetle,3 different worms and 3
different diptera. A cow pat is not waste but an ecosystem!
Birds, frogs and newts know where to get their next meal here.
Of course that is not the way modern meat farming is done. A few
years ago we got saddled with the nitrate directive here that
forces a farmer to collect all the waste from animals in
"slurry" pits where a lot of nutrients are off gassed and where
a toxic, evil smelling brew is made. I think that this year
about a dozen people found their death in Ireland by "falling"
into a slurry tank and "drowning". I think it is highly likely
that people can loose consciousness by just coming too close to
an open tank and then drop in. After all, some of the released
gasses were used in WW1 to wipe out large numbers of soldiers.
I think the real reason farmers were forced to go this way was
to get rid of the small ones and to aim for more industrial
farming. After all, a cow bedded down on fresh straw in a stable
can be kept clean with a 4 pronged fork and a wheelbarrow. In a
modern, officially approved cow stable the cows are restricted
in movement and excrement is removed with a ram scraper full
automatically. Quite a few new born calves have ended up in
slurry tanks thanks to these automatic scrapers.
Then there are particular periods of the year that a farmer has
to empty his slurry tanks and for that big machines are
necessary. Normally a farmer here aims to get the slurry out
just before rain because in a dry period the evil liquid will
blacken and kill all the grass and most soil dwellers. This
ensures maximum run off into water ways. Of course many slurry
tanks have a hidden and illegal overflow pipe that ends straight
in the nearest stream as well.
Once again the bureaucrats in government ensure maximal
pollution and green house gas production by their stupid
regulations and this is the real problem. Not meat as such but
meat industrially produced is most definitely a problem for the
environment apart from the fact that it is probably rather
unhealthy to eat. Free range animals have a beneficial omega 3-6
ratio and they are not full of E. coli H17 that is lethal for a
consumer to name but two things.
John
On 08/12/14 15:00, herb farmer wrote:
Thanks to meat, farming emissions set
for 80% rise
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2653583/thanks_to_meat_farming_emissions_set_for_80_rise.html
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
|
