Also, how do gov. regulations (not subsidies) contribute to large scale cattle confined feed lots vs small scale roaming lots?
Wikipedia could have answered your question:
Cattle in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are typically fed corn, soy and other types of feed that can include “by-product feedstuff”. As a high-starch, high-energy food, corn decreases the time to fatten cattle and increases yield from dairy cattle. These cattle are called corn-fed or grain-fed. In the United States, most grass fed cattle are raised for beef production. Dairy cattle are usually supplemented with grain to increase the efficiency of production and reduce the area needed to support the energy requirements of the herd. A growing number of health and environmental proponents in the United States such as the Union of Concerned Scientists advocate raising cattle on pasture and other forage.
As per your second question, that is probably the product of capitalism. Most libertarians probably believe that given lack of rationality cattle do not own themselves, and therefore are property of the farm owner. So, to a libertarian factory farming is not unethical.
let me change my question…subsidies obviously increase cows eating corn…
let me change my question to government regulations (not including subsidies)…as this to me, is not very obvious or known…
Jonathan M. F. Catalán, I guess what I’m really trying to find out, is how has the government contributed to the negative changes in our agricultural industry? Subsidies are obvious…I guess I would like to know how they are creating negative changes with their laws and regulations, etc.
I assume as more and more people look to the damaging effects of corn fed cattle and corn sweeteners, they will simply blame it on the free market and institute more government regulation…which anyone here knows will only cause more and possibly worse nagative effects on the ag. industry.
Most libertarians probably believe that given lack of rationality cattle do not own themselves, and therefore are property of the farm owner. So, to a libertarian factory farming is not unethical.
Most children don’t have rationality; based on that logic, the children don’t own themselves.
Is child labor considered ethical?
I don’t mean to be condescending, I just don’t follow the logic that you used.
M1ThinkTank says,
Most children don’t have rationality; based on that logic, the children don’t own themselves.
I don’t want to get into this again, but I believe this to be blatantly false. Children are rational thinkers. Having imperfect knowledge, even if it is a lack of knowledge of possible exogenous consequences to your actions, does not mean that you are irrational. When a child throws a rock at another child he does it because he believes the end result of that action will be better than the end result of inaction, or another action.
You write,
Most children don’t have rationality; based on that logic, the children don’t own themselves.
Admittedly, there are some on this forum that believe that forced child prostitution is ethical on the grounds that children are irrational. But, children are not irrational.
I don’t know about for infants, but I can agree that a child’s actions can be the results of decisions about perceived opportunity costs, regardless of the accuracy of those perceptions. Whether or not that is rational behavior is debateable.
That’s another topic though, thanks for the reply.
what damaging effects? To my knowledge there are no harmful effects on corn fed beef or for the consumer. The jury is still out, it seems, on high fructose corn syrup, though it does seem that it causes your body more issues than regular sugar…but this latter isn’t a voluntary problem so much as it is a government problem; we currnetly subsidize the living daylights out of corn and we have a sugar quota to protect sugar-farmers…the result being that companies use the artificially cheap sweeteners over the artificially more expensive ones.
“what damaging effects? To my knowledge there are no harmful effects on corn fed beef or for the consumer. The jury is still out, it seems, on high fructose corn syrup, though it does seem that it causes your body more issues than regular sugar…but this latter isn’t a voluntary problem so much as it is a government problem; we currnetly subsidize the living daylights out of corn and we have a sugar quota to protect sugar-farmers…the result being that companies use the artificially cheap sweeteners over the artificially more expensive ones.”
Cows die alot quicker when they are fed corn diets. It increases the acidity in their systems. They develop many more diseases, so they have to put antibiotics in the corn feed. Also, this cheap corn feed has led to huge imobile feed lots. Which in turn increases the fat content in the cows.
A T-bone steak has gone from 1.5% fat…to about 9% fat.
I’d like to see the specific information that shows that, as agricultural myths come a dime a dozen here in the States.
Even if these accusations are true, I really don’t see how cows becoming deceased more quickly is a bad thing in this situation; cattle raised for meat are slaughtered around one year of age, where as the maximum life span of a cow seems to be around 15 years, or more—seems to me being a deliciously edible product is the cause of their premature death and not the corn =p
I’m not disputing your fact (yet) that corn causes them to live shorter lives, but you have to take like for like.
the increased fat content for cattle is intentional on a two-part basis (and why we have feed lots); by keeping cattle immobile you keep their meat from becoming tough and bruised, which is, naturally, a desirable quality in a product that is meant for consumption; the increased fat content isn’t as bad either–a little fat increases the quality of taste meat possesses.
Even if we cut the corn subsidies, I doubt a single thing would change in the modern beef industry–the price just might be a tad bit higher.
“seems to me being a deliciously edible product is the cause of their premature death and not the corn”
that’s because you get your info from making it up…
in the documentary King Corn, the facts I spoke about come straight from Cattle farmers…
“I doubt a single thing would change in the modern beef industry”
well, for one, cattle farmers wouldn’t have access to artifially low cost corn feed…
they might actually let the cows eat what they normally eat…which is grass…
There are likely laws on the books regarding the feed content-- that is probably something worth researching.
Beef itself is subsidized. This might mean an overall increase in the demand for grains meaning farmers use more corn to lower costs. Other meats might otherwise be more readily eaten giving beef farmers incentive to increase quality to compete. More farmers invest in a larger variety of livestock which do not depend on grain, lowering costs to grain feed. This would also change the nature of how farmers develop land. For example, grains grown in place of corn or more land for cattle to graze because more people might eat fish now.
Inspections and animal raising regulations are no doubt barriers for entry into the market. The added cost per head of cattle is likely smaller for large scale cattle operations therefore making them more competitive against smaller farms.
I’ve always been interested in how the chicanery of the government has affected food quality. Despite the American appetite for food, the quality and diets would appear to be on the decline (nutritionally speaking, the use of HFCS remains controversial but from the ag-biz/gov interference in the market it is necessarily true that traditional diets have artificially been distorted). I remain hopeful though. I sense even leftists are increasingly against food subsidies and there is a growing contingent of people doing business directly with small farmers or even more people growing their own foods.
How many? A lot of these are nothing more than muckraking documentaries that pick something, sensationalize it, then turn it into a political agenda. I know Food Inc. is one of these such documenatries; I wouldn’t be surprised if King Corn falls into the same category. If corn truly were killing so many cows and shortening their lifespans drastically (enough to effect meat production), you’d see farmers moving away from corn to another type of feed for economic reasons.
Highly highly unlikely–the cost benefits of corn go way back to even 1911: http://books.google.com/books?id=e2BDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=elementary+treatise+on+stock+feeds+and+feeding&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
I’ll admit I’m not an expert on when corn became so heavily subsidized, but I have my doubts it began back in 1911.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if King Corn falls into the same category.”
but you have no evidence at all…at the very least, King Corn has some evidence and testimony from actual cattle farmers…
“you’d see farmers moving away from corn to another type of feed”
not if corn subsidies make the feed plus antibiotics cheaper…
what do you call the link I provided?
now you’re arguing a separate manner entirely—at first you were arguing agaisnt corn for the sake of corn because of the supposed effects on cattle; I responded to this point and you seem to be ignoring it. Even if I take on your argument that you’re presenting, you still have to ignore what I said; the link I provides shows the benefits to grains as early as 1911, which I’m pretty sure, predates corn subsidies.
“what do you call the link I provided?”
I’ll have to go back and read that…although, you said it was a cost benefit…does your link talk about health benefits from eating GMO corn feed? Because all the evidence I have seen shows that has a negative effect on the cow’s health and our health.
“supposed effects on cattle”
those cattle farmers are sure wishing those negative effects were supposed…because as far as they can tell, they are very real…