Kansas Crimson

lol...phd trying so hard

zsn makes good and legit points in both threads your trying to call him out in, imo

It's the condesension.

Do you seriously believe that there are no pig farmers who want to run their business in an environmentally friendly way? They're ALL just stuck in the mud rubes who want nothing more than to ruin farmland? Give me a break. That's the most arrogant condescending thing I've heard in a while.

I mean, a Bay area rancher might care, but not one from fuckin idiot fly-over country, like Utah.

Excuse me for thinking that the life-long vegetarian from the bay area might not be an unbiased opinion on how a hog farmer should run his/her business.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:16 am lol...phd trying so hard

zsn makes good and legit points in both threads your trying to call him out in, imo

The best part is phd calling out another poster for acting like they’re better/smarter than everyone else.

Cascadia wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:27 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:16 am lol...phd trying so hard

zsn makes good and legit points in both threads your trying to call him out in, imo

The best part is phd calling out another poster for acting like they’re better/smarter than everyone else.

I'll work on being more humble, like you.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:26 am It's the condesension.

Do you seriously believe that there are no pig farmers who want to run their business in an environmentally friendly way? They're ALL just stuck in the mud rubes who want nothing more than to ruin farmland? Give me a break. That's the most arrogant condescending thing I've heard in a while.

I mean, a Bay area rancher might care, but not one from fly-over country.

Excuse my for thinking that the life-long vegetarian from the bay area might not be an unbiased opinion on how a hog farmer should run his/her business.

yes, i do think there are some that want to, and do, “farm” more responsibly

i also thing those few are a tiny minority when it comes to overall impact

much like electric cars and recycling, if the industrial complex doesn’t get behind the change, the average consumer or ma and pa operation isn’t going to tip the scales much with their changes in behavior

unless the tyson chickens of the world decide they’re going to do better, not much will change, imo

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:30 am

Cascadia wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:27 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:16 am lol...phd trying so hard

zsn makes good and legit points in both threads your trying to call him out in, imo

The best part is phd calling out another poster for acting like they’re better/smarter than everyone else.

I'll work on being more humble, like you.

That’s a good goal to have

GM is doing something nobody else has, as of yet, had the guts to do

they are still in the minority of “responsible” members of the industrial complex

I was thinking Iowa, but if it helps with your theories, sure . Think about all the crap that said charlatans had to make up in order to paint Biden as anti-meat! “OMG, we’ll be reduced to drinking plant-based beer!!!!!”

On a serious note though TDub is absolutely right that just increasing crop productivity is likely to worsen the problems. However, it’s not a simple solution to just flip to grazing.

zsn wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:31 am Actually livestock (fed, not grazing) may be the problem. Part of the reason the soil was/is tilled to death is because of the need to feed a lot of livestock, fast. Poultry and hog farmers are never going to allow the sensible solutions you suggest. Also grazed-meat would become expensive due to the limited supply (too slow to attain slaughter ready), and lead to potentially a change in eating habits. The collective explosion of heads on Faux News and the Republican Party would have to be measured in Gigatons!

This is incorrect but expected from a vegetarian.

The grazing livestock...key point is grazing and not fed....need to be kept on the move such as to never eat more than 50% of the growth.

Studies have shown that grasses that are ripped and eaten regrow faster than those same grasses cut. Allowing 50% to remain keeps the soil and keeps the temperature down.

The moving livestock are fertilizing as they move and eliminate the need to fertilizer, the promotion if regrowth and stomping keep the weeds down and reduce/eliminate the nees for chemical weed control. The millions of hoofprints act as miniature pools to collect water and pull it into the soil as opposed to it running to a drainage. The undergrowth is eaten and trampled which reduces the amount of burn ready tinder.

The grazing eliminates fertilizer, weeds, reduces fire threat, and allows for improved collection of water. Keeps things greener, increases CO2 absorption, keeps the rising temperatures down, the water helps with bot only promoting regrowth but also allows for better evaporation and we will regain part of our annual rainfall (of which 40% is from over land 60% overwater/ocean).

zsn wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:38 am I was thinking Iowa, but if it helps with your theories, sure . Think about all the crap that said charlatans had to make up in order to paint Biden as anti-meat! “OMG, we’ll be reduced to drinking plant-based beer!!!!!”

On a serious note though TDub is absolutely right that just increasing crop productivity is likely to worsen the problems. However, it’s not a simple solution to just flip to grazing.

Its not a flip, its an integration. The specialization of the industry was a bad deal for the natural balance

Additionally there ARE absolutely farmers and ranchers who are concerned..its their livelihood. I was talking to one yesterday about all of this...he went to no till farming 7 years ago and now uses 75%! Less diesel per bushel of wheat and his returns per acre are nearly double whatvhis neighbors land (who still tills)...do uou think the neighbor might consider it given it will also increase his production and pocketbook?

TDub - I think you misunderstood my original post. I am 100% agreeing with you but pointing out that “fed” livestock (as in grow grain on cultivated land and fed to animals) is a necessary evil due to scalability. I was merely pointing out that any meaningful reduction in fed livestock would cause severe disruption to the sheer scale of availability of the product, in this case meat. My comment about hogs are based on my limited understanding that hogs don’t graze?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:30 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:26 am It's the condesension.

Do you seriously believe that there are no pig farmers who want to run their business in an environmentally friendly way? They're ALL just stuck in the mud rubes who want nothing more than to ruin farmland? Give me a break. That's the most arrogant condescending thing I've heard in a while.

I mean, a Bay area rancher might care, but not one from fly-over country.

Excuse my for thinking that the life-long vegetarian from the bay area might not be an unbiased opinion on how a hog farmer should run his/her business.

yes, i do think there are some that want to, and do, “farm” more responsibly

i also thing those few are a tiny minority when it comes to overall impact

much like electric cars and recycling, if the industrial complex doesn’t get behind the change, the average consumer or ma and pa operation isn’t going to tip the scales much with their changes in behavior

unless the tyson chickens of the world decide they’re going to do better, not much will change, imo

Right, but then we're talking more about big business and assholes who only care about bottom lines, not what most of us call farmers/ranchers.

The overwhelming majority of traditional ranchers would prefer more environmentally friendly ways of running their business.

Admittedly I know more about the sheep industry than I do the hog industry, but the vast majority of people producing and feeding sheep are doing it on small farms/ranches and would like nothing more than to do it in a sustainable way.

If the argument is that giant industrial companies are bad, that's fine, I'm on board. But let's stop throwing farmers/ranchers under the bus because you don't like to eat meat.

Hogs dont graze because we pin them. What do you think Feral hogs do?

I also believe it IS scalable but will take a fundamental change in how we view our livestock. We will be more ok with seeing them, more ok with fenceless free grazing, more ok with them integrating into the natural habitat.

The mass fencing of the west created a problem that became ingrained in society but isnt irreversible

chickens

https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php ... /pid/47465




https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bi ... ms-at-all/

...A 2013 Department of Agriculture report, for instance, found that, in 2001, farms of 1,000 acres or more accounted for 5.6 percent of all farms and controlled 46.8 percent of all cropland. 3 In 2011, those large farms still represented 5.6 percent of all farms, but now they controlled 53.7 percent of cropland...

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:48 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:30 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:26 am It's the condesension.

Do you seriously believe that there are no pig farmers who want to run their business in an environmentally friendly way? They're ALL just stuck in the mud rubes who want nothing more than to ruin farmland? Give me a break. That's the most arrogant condescending thing I've heard in a while.

I mean, a Bay area rancher might care, but not one from fly-over country.

Excuse my for thinking that the life-long vegetarian from the bay area might not be an unbiased opinion on how a hog farmer should run his/her business.

yes, i do think there are some that want to, and do, “farm” more responsibly

i also thing those few are a tiny minority when it comes to overall impact

much like electric cars and recycling, if the industrial complex doesn’t get behind the change, the average consumer or ma and pa operation isn’t going to tip the scales much with their changes in behavior

unless the tyson chickens of the world decide they’re going to do better, not much will change, imo

Right, but then we're talking more about big business and assholes who only care about bottom lines, not what most of us call farmers/ranchers.

The overwhelming majority of traditional ranchers would prefer more environmentally friendly ways of running their business.

Admittedly I know more about the sheep industry than I do the hog industry, but the vast majority of people producing and feeding sheep are doing it on small farms/ranches and would like nothing more than to do it in a sustainable way.

If the argument is that giant industrial companies are bad, that's fine, I'm on board. But let's stop throwing farmers/ranchers under the bus because you don't like to eat meat.

i appreciate where you’re coming from, but i don’t think valid conclusions can be drawn about the meat industry by looking a sheep ranchers...the wool industry maybe.

and it isn’t the absolute number of ranchers that matters, but rather the sizes of their ranches and herds

we’ve known for decades that rotational planting is more beneficial for numerous reasons, yet relatively few farmers (particularly those that are large-scale) actually do it

mixed vegetation in and around crop land is beneficial, yet rarely practiced

fertilizer and pesticides are still the norm, despite there being “better” ways

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 11:05 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:48 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:30 am
yes, i do think there are some that want to, and do, “farm” more responsibly

i also thing those few are a tiny minority when it comes to overall impact

much like electric cars and recycling, if the industrial complex doesn’t get behind the change, the average consumer or ma and pa operation isn’t going to tip the scales much with their changes in behavior

unless the tyson chickens of the world decide they’re going to do better, not much will change, imo

Right, but then we're talking more about big business and assholes who only care about bottom lines, not what most of us call farmers/ranchers.

The overwhelming majority of traditional ranchers would prefer more environmentally friendly ways of running their business.

Admittedly I know more about the sheep industry than I do the hog industry, but the vast majority of people producing and feeding sheep are doing it on small farms/ranches and would like nothing more than to do it in a sustainable way.

If the argument is that giant industrial companies are bad, that's fine, I'm on board. But let's stop throwing farmers/ranchers under the bus because you don't like to eat meat.

i appreciate where you’re coming from, but i don’t think valid conclusions can be drawn about the meat industry by looking a sheep ranchers...the wool industry maybe.

and it isn’t the absolute number of ranchers that matters, but rather the sizes of their ranches and herds

Then we need to use words like meat industrial complex, and not farmers/ranchers.

You probably wouldn't like all people in the STEM field being lumped in with the actions of Elon Musk and the other 10-15 richest billionaires in the STEM field because they control the important tech.

I dont think the size of the ranches nor who owns them is the issue (for what I'm talking about....it is for the logistics side of it)...its more about a change in practice and perception.