Cornfed Beef - Why I'm not eating it anymore
- Thread starter Flavour
- Start date
ShiftyBagLady
Thinks she is a flower to be looked at
i feel sick just looking at that monstrosity
what is it, brains?
what is it, brains?
AnnaKarpik
Queen of all she surveys
Flavour said:
I don't pretend to know anything about actually raising beef around the world; far as I know the UK rears beef on grass -a few supplements as required, natch, otherwise grass or hay. Sure, the dairy calves need feeding, but they aren't stuffed full of corn.
Whole thing sounds like an ancient,and discredited, argument for vegetarianism; 'you must not eat animals because the stuff the animals eat could be used for human comsumption'. Bollocks. if that stuff is grass; so the argument needs proof that stock animals don't eat grass.
Bit pissed. And need o sleep.
story
Gone for a Burton
Gavin Bl said:this is why I reckon lamb/mutton is the greatest, tastes the best, grass fed, out in the open, usually on land thats too bleak for crops...
True, but a lot of traditonal sheep pasture has now gone under the plough - Romney Marshes, for instance. It's gorgeous rich land, that.
Unfortunately, it's now being used for intensive agribusiness rather than more sustainable hippy-type farming.
AnnaKarpik
Queen of all she surveys
Well, maybe, depends what you call pasture. Let's think about it, in terms of Britain, where the thing that grows best is grass. And remember, grass grows everywhere and is a good 'binder' for steep ground which might otherwise be prone to flash-flooding and the associated soil erosion.story said:
First off, you've got rough mountain country which is only good for grazing in milder weather. No good for food crops and you need good grazing lower down within economic transport distance to use it at all.
Second there's exposed scrub and moorland; land's too poor for cropping and not too great for grazing either - think Bodmin Moor.
Third is the low level, rich meadow land that is flood plain. Excellent grazing but common-sense and eco-friendly land use suggest that this should never be used for anything but grazing.
If these three areas are to be used for food production at all, it has to be raising meat and/or milk; there is no other possiblity.
Where you have land that could be used for either grazing or cropping, consider this; running animals on grass land some years converts grass quickly into a rich fertiliser and more closely mimics the 'wilderness' model (animals wandering around eating vegetation and crapping everywhere, disturbing the ground, supporting a large range of insects) than what might be described as the 'allotment' model which assumes that an equivalent of the composted waste of the crop is dug back in regularly (which is much more unlikely than animals crapping all over).
None of the above applies to modern, intensive animal rearing (pigs, chickens) where the animals are not left to wander and forage - no shock there - but it is plain wrong to assume that every place that can support grazing can support crops.
As you were.
story
Gone for a Burton
I made no such assumption, AnnaKarpik
I said the land should not be used for agribusiness, but for more sustainable farming methods.
I said there is rich pasture available as well as poor pasture.
It seems sensible (to me) that so long as the beasts are reared and farmed responsibly, there is no sin in farming them for meat, dairy etc.
The sin and scandal is in the waste and abuse and exploitation, of the land, of the animals, and of the consumer.
The way that we Moderns use meat - as a throw away commodity - is shocking, wasteful, and immoral.
I said the land should not be used for agribusiness, but for more sustainable farming methods.
I said there is rich pasture available as well as poor pasture.
It seems sensible (to me) that so long as the beasts are reared and farmed responsibly, there is no sin in farming them for meat, dairy etc.
The sin and scandal is in the waste and abuse and exploitation, of the land, of the animals, and of the consumer.
The way that we Moderns use meat - as a throw away commodity - is shocking, wasteful, and immoral.
story
Gone for a Burton
I'm not fully vegetarian. However, I eat a mostly vegetarian diet.
I mean that I eat fish occasionally, when I know the fisherman, or that the fish comes from sustainable sources.
I haven't eaten animal meat for many years, not because I'm against the eating of flesh, but because I'm against the abuse and exploitation of animals. For this reason, I also largely avoid dairy. I try to stick to sheep and goat products (they cannot be milked continuously throughout the year). I do, however, eat free range organic eggs.
I know there are holes in my system, but I am too old to be a radical. I do what I can while still honouring myself and my own needs and desires.
We do not need as much protein as we think we do.
Growing children, atheletes, people recovering from illness or injury need a fair amount of protein, but otherwise our protein needs are pretty modest. think of a serving about the size of an egg - that's a good daily allowance for protein.
There is protein in lots of non-animal foods. Potatoes have protein, so do rice, quinoa, beans and pulses, grains, artichokes, beetroot, broccoli, brussels sprouts, aubergine, cabbage, kale, mushrooms, tomatoes, courgettes, apple, bananas, avocado, nuts and seeds.... etc. there is plenty of protein about.
Combining a wholegrain with a pulse ensures a fully protein meal. So baked beans on wholemeal toast is a protein meal. Humous and cornchips is protein.
I mean that I eat fish occasionally, when I know the fisherman, or that the fish comes from sustainable sources.
I haven't eaten animal meat for many years, not because I'm against the eating of flesh, but because I'm against the abuse and exploitation of animals. For this reason, I also largely avoid dairy. I try to stick to sheep and goat products (they cannot be milked continuously throughout the year). I do, however, eat free range organic eggs.
I know there are holes in my system, but I am too old to be a radical. I do what I can while still honouring myself and my own needs and desires.
We do not need as much protein as we think we do.
Growing children, atheletes, people recovering from illness or injury need a fair amount of protein, but otherwise our protein needs are pretty modest. think of a serving about the size of an egg - that's a good daily allowance for protein.
There is protein in lots of non-animal foods. Potatoes have protein, so do rice, quinoa, beans and pulses, grains, artichokes, beetroot, broccoli, brussels sprouts, aubergine, cabbage, kale, mushrooms, tomatoes, courgettes, apple, bananas, avocado, nuts and seeds.... etc. there is plenty of protein about.
Combining a wholegrain with a pulse ensures a fully protein meal. So baked beans on wholemeal toast is a protein meal. Humous and cornchips is protein.
AnnaKarpik
Queen of all she surveys
story said:
Hang on, I want to be sure I've got this straight. When you said 'Pasture could be used to grow all kinds of food for humans to eat' what exactly did you mean? You see I thought you meant that land used for grazing could be used to grow other foods for people, cos that's what pasture is - it's grazing. And that's why I talked a little about different kinds of grazing and why you can't grow crops on them.
But it seems you meant something entirely different and I don't understand what it is. We probably agree about the nastiness of modern farming practices (unless you don't mean they're vile when you talk about 'the sin and the scandal...') but I can't be sure....
story
Gone for a Burton
AnnaKarpik: I was responding to your post that said:
I interpreted this to mean
The point about corn-fed beef being cruel to the cattle sounds like another version of an old and outdated argument in support of vegetarianism.
This argument states that the land used to raise animals would be better used to feed humans.
I (AnnaKarpik) think this is bollocks, since humans cannot eat grass. The argument falls down, since the animals themselves only eat grass, and we cannot eat grass. Someone has to eat the grass, and since humans cannot eat it, and animals can, then let's eat the animals.
That's what it looked like you were saying, to me.
I responded to your post by saying that the "old and outdated" argument you alluded to does not suggest that humans eat grass. And that pasture could be turned into land that grows food for humans. I meant that it could be used to grow not grass, but legumes and vegetables and grains and fruit and so forth.
In my next post, in response to Gavin Bl's assertion that much grazing land is too bleak to be put to crops, I said that there is also plenty of very rich grazing land that has already gone under the plough. I gave the Romney Marshes as an example of such land.
I also stated that it was unfortunate that such land was given over to agribusiness rather than more sustainable forms of farming.
You then posted about land that was too poor or inaccessible to be put to crops, saying "but it is plain wrong to assume that every place that can support grazing can support crops."
I then said that I had made no such assumption, and repeated my earlier point about how some grazing land could be used to produce food for humans, but that sustainable farming was preferable to agribusiness.
Then you asked me
I meant just what I said - that there is grazing land/pasture land/land where animals are raised that could be used to grow crops. To be sure, much pasture is too scrubby, isolated, steep, bleak, inconvenient, whatever. There is also plenty of land that is flat, accessible, temperate, etc. where crops could easily be grown.
That is what I said - where is the confusion?
And I am not arguing with you on this point. I am merely pointing out, again, that there is also plenty of good grazing land that could easily be used to grow crops.
I hope I've managed to clear it up.
Yes - I might use the term "vile practices" to describe modern farming methods.
It saddens me to see the ancient grazing lands like the Marshes put under the plough for agribusiness. It would be far better for the land to be used for smallholdings, permaculture farming, and other small-scale sustainable types of food production. Sadly, this won't happen in my lifetime.
I hope it's more clear now....
I interpreted this to mean
The point about corn-fed beef being cruel to the cattle sounds like another version of an old and outdated argument in support of vegetarianism.
This argument states that the land used to raise animals would be better used to feed humans.
I (AnnaKarpik) think this is bollocks, since humans cannot eat grass. The argument falls down, since the animals themselves only eat grass, and we cannot eat grass. Someone has to eat the grass, and since humans cannot eat it, and animals can, then let's eat the animals.
That's what it looked like you were saying, to me.
I responded to your post by saying that the "old and outdated" argument you alluded to does not suggest that humans eat grass. And that pasture could be turned into land that grows food for humans. I meant that it could be used to grow not grass, but legumes and vegetables and grains and fruit and so forth.
In my next post, in response to Gavin Bl's assertion that much grazing land is too bleak to be put to crops, I said that there is also plenty of very rich grazing land that has already gone under the plough. I gave the Romney Marshes as an example of such land.
I also stated that it was unfortunate that such land was given over to agribusiness rather than more sustainable forms of farming.
You then posted about land that was too poor or inaccessible to be put to crops, saying "but it is plain wrong to assume that every place that can support grazing can support crops."
I then said that I had made no such assumption, and repeated my earlier point about how some grazing land could be used to produce food for humans, but that sustainable farming was preferable to agribusiness.
Then you asked me
I meant just what I said - that there is grazing land/pasture land/land where animals are raised that could be used to grow crops. To be sure, much pasture is too scrubby, isolated, steep, bleak, inconvenient, whatever. There is also plenty of land that is flat, accessible, temperate, etc. where crops could easily be grown.
That is what I said - where is the confusion?
And I am not arguing with you on this point. I am merely pointing out, again, that there is also plenty of good grazing land that could easily be used to grow crops.
I hope I've managed to clear it up.
Yes - I might use the term "vile practices" to describe modern farming methods.
It saddens me to see the ancient grazing lands like the Marshes put under the plough for agribusiness. It would be far better for the land to be used for smallholdings, permaculture farming, and other small-scale sustainable types of food production. Sadly, this won't happen in my lifetime.
I hope it's more clear now....
