this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2022
7 points (88.9% liked)
Science
5 readers
2 users here now
Posts must present a serious debate topic or research to discuss.
Additional Rules
- Claims should be substantiated with evidence.
- Please link papers on scihub, arxiv, medrxiv, or some other free source to promote free discussion.
For general discussion see: [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This makes several incorrect assumptions.
That you can grow something that isn't grass in those locations. There actually exist places in which you can grow grass but you can't grow "corn,wheat,grains". Many places in fact. We should be expanding our cows, goats, sheep into all those areas.
That there isn't supposed to be cows in those locations. Grass needs ruminant animals to eat it in order to grow. Ruminants and grass have a symbiotic relationship. Having cows graze land will actually make it easier to grow corn and wheat in those locations in the future. This is called regenerative agriculture.
That there isn't other things animals eat that we can't or don't want to. Chickens eat bugs. I don't want to eat bugs but I do want to eat chicken. Let them eat the bugs and let me eat the chicken.
Again, the solution is the same either way. The only solution is to not use antibiotics. Whether you accomplish that by not eating animals or not giving animals antibiotics doesn't make a difference so this isn't even a point worth considering.
All of that may be true, but most cattle and chicken currently don't graze on that land. Rather, the plants (grass, grain or plant remains) are brought to facilities where the animals live. This means that symbiotic relationship needn't hold anymore.
You're also assuming that those grasslands should actually be used that way. Nowadays, much of the land has been obtained by deforestation, and an increased demand for energy and protein, combined with the inefficiency of animals, is an important factor contributing to this.
Plus, I doubt that the fraction of those grasslands usable for crops is less than 5%. Even 20% seems like a stretch, plus the remaining 80% could return to their native state.
As for antibiotics, I believe you're partially missing my point. While reducing the number of animals reduces resistant organism spread proportionally, applying counter-resistance policies would only have an effect if a very large proportion of the animals are under that policy, that is, if nearly every country enforces it.
Also, not using antibiotics at all is not an option. They can be vastly reduced, and their utilization can be subjected to some conditions, but having so many animals living together with untreated diseases is a recipe for disaster.
Incorrect, most cows in the U.S. Are raised on grass most of their life.
In fact, more than 97 percent of U.S. beef cattle farms and ranches are family farms. It's a myth and one that has really gotten out of control. Vegans will hunt for the worst farm and take a picture at the worst time to make it look like all those farms are that way. False, fiction.
Again this isn't really true. Pre colonial America, the Buffalo were everywhere. Grass lands everywhere. America is where horses evolved. That is how much grass land is here. (they left but came back long story). Grass lands are very common naturally.
Again I think you missed my point here. There is only one option either way. Stop using Antibiotics.
You can either stop using antibiotics by not eating meat or stop using antibiotics wile using meat. In either case you would have to force it in every country and in either case you will fail.
Yes it is. And actually, feeding animals more of their natural diet would make it more possible. One of the reasons cows get bacteria over growth is when they are fed to much corn. It messes with the ph balance of their stomach. If you feed them only grass, they won't need antibiotics at nearly the amount the do now.
So antibiotics is a non issue.
The only source I can find for the claim that beef is 97% family farms is the Kansas Livestock Association.
Most others say 98% of farms are family farms - not cattle farms, just farms, and then use a weird definition of family farm. Small family farms are 89% but there is no indication of how much of the cattle farms are family owned.
USDA says "Finally, large-scale and non-family farms dominate production of beef production and high value crops which include vegetables, fruits/tree nuts, and nursery/greenhouse products."
What's your source? Save me from digging, I'm tired lol
Source: I own cows, they eat grass.
https://www.neogen.com/neocenter/blog/fast-facts-state-of-u-s-cattle-ranching/
https://ussoy.org/97-the-percentage-of-u-s-farms-that-are-family-owned/
thx for forwarding the links
I didn't know this and it was fascinating to learn