Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Feedyard Board
GMO Feed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fargus" data-source="post: 741083" data-attributes="member: 13480"><p>Alright, I'll answer your questions. But you need to answer mine.</p><p></p><p>I prefer real sugar, buttar to margarine and we drink whole milk. I won't argue that grass-fed beef CAN be healthier than the grain-fed beef you buy at the store. But amongst all your rhetoric you haven't defended why you think GMOs are the culprit. I have demonstrated the remarkable grey area that exists between transgenic and "natural" plant breeding, but I have seen no response to that. Now, I don't usually stoop to this level of rhetoric, but what makes natural better? The regulations exist the way they do because you need to draw a line in the sand, that is how laws operate. Is cyanide not natural? When you compare LD 50s Atrazine is safer than Aspirin (a natural product, don't deny it) and Roundup is safer than table salt. </p><p></p><p>The issue of taste has already been addressed. It is a matter of preference, and in most things it is an acquired taste. The odds are against consumer acceptance of grass-fed beef from a taste perspective because we've been hard-wired by evolution to crave fats, oils, salt and sugar. There is more fat in grain-fed beef, so we instinctively crave it.</p><p></p><p>I understand your concerns regarding the industrialization of our food processing system, but that has indirect and tenous links to GMOs at best. In fact, lets discard GMO, because you are making a liar out of yourself by continuing to use that term. We'll look like educated people and refer to them as transgenics from here on out. I didn't see anybody argue that transgenics are natural. I am a university educated person, in genetics, nutrition and soil management. I question the economics of transgenics, but not the equivillancy of the product produced. </p><p></p><p>I read the article you posted a link to. I limit my chemical inputs here. Why? Because when the situation demands that I use them I want the most bang for my buck. I choose to improve my cashflow by not outlaying for expensive inputs, but forgoing the incremental gains that go along with them. We have an "industrial style" hog barn. I hate it. I agree that not allow a pig to express its natural behaviours is cruel, and unnecesary. Do we need to feed antibiotics as a growth promotant? No. But to not treat a sick animal when we have the ability to to do so, just to keep an arbitrary organic or natural designation is its own brand of cruelty. I'm not attacking how you choose to do things, as we are more similar than I think you realize, but blindly clinging to either side of the arguement is the height of folly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fargus, post: 741083, member: 13480"] Alright, I'll answer your questions. But you need to answer mine. I prefer real sugar, buttar to margarine and we drink whole milk. I won't argue that grass-fed beef CAN be healthier than the grain-fed beef you buy at the store. But amongst all your rhetoric you haven't defended why you think GMOs are the culprit. I have demonstrated the remarkable grey area that exists between transgenic and "natural" plant breeding, but I have seen no response to that. Now, I don't usually stoop to this level of rhetoric, but what makes natural better? The regulations exist the way they do because you need to draw a line in the sand, that is how laws operate. Is cyanide not natural? When you compare LD 50s Atrazine is safer than Aspirin (a natural product, don't deny it) and Roundup is safer than table salt. The issue of taste has already been addressed. It is a matter of preference, and in most things it is an acquired taste. The odds are against consumer acceptance of grass-fed beef from a taste perspective because we've been hard-wired by evolution to crave fats, oils, salt and sugar. There is more fat in grain-fed beef, so we instinctively crave it. I understand your concerns regarding the industrialization of our food processing system, but that has indirect and tenous links to GMOs at best. In fact, lets discard GMO, because you are making a liar out of yourself by continuing to use that term. We'll look like educated people and refer to them as transgenics from here on out. I didn't see anybody argue that transgenics are natural. I am a university educated person, in genetics, nutrition and soil management. I question the economics of transgenics, but not the equivillancy of the product produced. I read the article you posted a link to. I limit my chemical inputs here. Why? Because when the situation demands that I use them I want the most bang for my buck. I choose to improve my cashflow by not outlaying for expensive inputs, but forgoing the incremental gains that go along with them. We have an "industrial style" hog barn. I hate it. I agree that not allow a pig to express its natural behaviours is cruel, and unnecesary. Do we need to feed antibiotics as a growth promotant? No. But to not treat a sick animal when we have the ability to to do so, just to keep an arbitrary organic or natural designation is its own brand of cruelty. I'm not attacking how you choose to do things, as we are more similar than I think you realize, but blindly clinging to either side of the arguement is the height of folly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Feedyard Board
GMO Feed
Top