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
Beginners Board
Question from one of my wife's friends
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="djinwa" data-source="post: 795294" data-attributes="member: 8265"><p>For those feeling the entire food production system and their way of life is under attack, I'm not against feeding grain. I, and many more consumers just don't think it should happen at the maximum rate an animal can tolerate, with a significant percentage suffering. The dose makes the poison. I actually talked a guy into feeding grain a couple weeks ago to some pot-bellied young calves not getting enough energy from their hay. He had learned all grain is bad, but I mentioned as others here have, that grass seed in his hay has carbohydrate and is somewhat of a grain. Told him to just limit their intake.</p><p></p><p>Seems that feedlot veterinarians who took an oath to protect animal health and prevent suffering could insist that grain levels be taken down a notch or two to find a better balance between animal welfare and economics. But I've heard some of them say their income depended on the health problems.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guarantee you that I'm all for making money and am more right-wing free market than you. But there has to be a limit on what we put animals through to make that money. Most of us would object to our neighbor consistently starving their cattle to supposedly save money. Seems we also should have a problem with making them sick.</p><p></p><p>Besides, if healthier cattle keep the consumers happy, then it does mean more money in the long run. Fortunately right now, most consumers are ignorant, but guys like Michael Pollan are changing that. We might think he and consumers are idiots and we can only do things the way they're done. Reminds me of the guy here who swore he could only get cattle out of the brush with a shotgun. Lead in meat resulted in countries like S. Korea banning U.S. beef. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture.</p><p></p><p>Note that in the Animal Science article, there is no mention of animal well-being. It is purely an economics problem in the narrow view:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My daughter is now taking an Animal Welfare class in the Animal Science department of WSU (WA State). They don't even talk about this stuff. I sense the goal is to try and keep everyone ignorant and then react when the problem is discovered. Instead, it would be better to get ahead of the consumers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because cattle gain much better on grain because it is energy dense, and grain is cheap, due to government subsidies and cheap energy. Even if they're sick to some extent, they might gain more than if on grass/hay.</p><p></p><p>We have a family friend with a feedlot my brother helped build and he worked at for years. I worked there some. You can make money with cheap feed despite a good sized dead pile.</p><p></p><p>Rather than feeling threatened, you'd almost think the cow-calf guy would be happy if grain was less subsidized and desired. After all, they are the ones with the grass and there would be more demand for beef from them. Maybe start grazing a few more golf courses to meet demand.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="djinwa, post: 795294, member: 8265"] For those feeling the entire food production system and their way of life is under attack, I’m not against feeding grain. I, and many more consumers just don’t think it should happen at the maximum rate an animal can tolerate, with a significant percentage suffering. The dose makes the poison. I actually talked a guy into feeding grain a couple weeks ago to some pot-bellied young calves not getting enough energy from their hay. He had learned all grain is bad, but I mentioned as others here have, that grass seed in his hay has carbohydrate and is somewhat of a grain. Told him to just limit their intake. Seems that feedlot veterinarians who took an oath to protect animal health and prevent suffering could insist that grain levels be taken down a notch or two to find a better balance between animal welfare and economics. But I’ve heard some of them say their income depended on the health problems. I guarantee you that I’m all for making money and am more right-wing free market than you. But there has to be a limit on what we put animals through to make that money. Most of us would object to our neighbor consistently starving their cattle to supposedly save money. Seems we also should have a problem with making them sick. Besides, if healthier cattle keep the consumers happy, then it does mean more money in the long run. Fortunately right now, most consumers are ignorant, but guys like Michael Pollan are changing that. We might think he and consumers are idiots and we can only do things the way they’re done. Reminds me of the guy here who swore he could only get cattle out of the brush with a shotgun. Lead in meat resulted in countries like S. Korea banning U.S. beef. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. Note that in the Animal Science article, there is no mention of animal well-being. It is purely an economics problem in the narrow view: My daughter is now taking an Animal Welfare class in the Animal Science department of WSU (WA State). They don’t even talk about this stuff. I sense the goal is to try and keep everyone ignorant and then react when the problem is discovered. Instead, it would be better to get ahead of the consumers. Because cattle gain much better on grain because it is energy dense, and grain is cheap, due to government subsidies and cheap energy. Even if they’re sick to some extent, they might gain more than if on grass/hay. We have a family friend with a feedlot my brother helped build and he worked at for years. I worked there some. You can make money with cheap feed despite a good sized dead pile. Rather than feeling threatened, you’d almost think the cow-calf guy would be happy if grain was less subsidized and desired. After all, they are the ones with the grass and there would be more demand for beef from them. Maybe start grazing a few more golf courses to meet demand. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Beginners Board
Question from one of my wife's friends
Top