Chmee wrote:On the whole energy-consumption issue ...
Isn't most Aussie and Canadian beef range-fed, making the primary energy source for them the Sun? Unless the Soylent Brown factories are solar powered, aren't they going to require more power-generation than the current systems?
What about the equipment used to maintain the ranch ? What about the slaughterhouse ? Those take power, and there are probable other things I haven't thought of.
Besides, arable land is a limited and shrinking resource, and every acre spent feeding a cow is a acre taken out of circulation.
There's no maintenance of the Soylent Brown factory? There's no energy spent in 'harvesting' the product? What I'm seeing is that there's no 'energy-saving' argument to be made at the moment because it's guesswork as to whether it requires more or less net input from the grid than existing systems.
As for 'arable land' ... sure, in some places that's an argument. But from what I recall of Aussie free-range ranching, you have a very low cattle-per-acre ratio (in fact it may be acres-per-head) because of the relatively poor quality of the land, it's not like you could grow soybeans or corn on the same land without massive improvements in irrigation and fertilization and .... we're back to not saving a thing but instead requiring new resource/energy inputs.
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer.
Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon" Operation Freedom Fry
Chmee wrote:]There's no maintenance of the Soylent Brown factory? There's no energy spent in 'harvesting' the product? What I'm seeing is that there's no 'energy-saving' argument to be made at the moment because it's guesswork as to whether it requires more or less net input from the grid than existing systems.
A factory can be designed with efficiency in mind; there only so much you can do with a natural creature like a cow, especially if you want to treat them humanely. No, we can't be sure it'll be more efficient, but it sure seems likely to me.
Chmee wrote:As for 'arable land' ... sure, in some places that's an argument. But from what I recall of Aussie free-range ranching, you have a very low cattle-per-acre ratio (in fact it may be acres-per-head) because of the relatively poor quality of the land, it's not like you could grow soybeans or corn on the same land without massive improvements in irrigation and fertilization and .... we're back to not saving a thing but instead requiring new resource/energy inputs.
If the land is that bad, I doubt it could supply the world's desire for meat. Something needs to supplement it; why not a meat factory ?
Chmee wrote:As for 'arable land' ... sure, in some places that's an argument. But from what I recall of Aussie free-range ranching, you have a very low cattle-per-acre ratio (in fact it may be acres-per-head) because of the relatively poor quality of the land, it's not like you could grow soybeans or corn on the same land without massive improvements in irrigation and fertilization and .... we're back to not saving a thing but instead requiring new resource/energy inputs.
If the land is that bad, I doubt it could supply the world's desire for meat. Something needs to supplement it; why not a meat factory ?
The key for Australia is that there may not be many cows per acre, but there's a shitload of acres that can't be used for much else.
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer.
Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon" Operation Freedom Fry
Cows also consume an enormous amount of water, require expensive medical monitoring, are prone to disease which takes them out of circulation for consumption, can be ravaged by predators or accidents-- the liability alone can be daunting.
Not only do the cows require lots of water, but so does the alfalfa that is needed to give the cows something to eat in the meantime. Not as much of a problem with free-range cattle, but they still require food which requires its own resource chain, especially if there is a drought.
Then there's the whole poop issue. It requires clean-up and is not always used for fertilizer. Other meat animals-- pigs, for instance-- produce tons of waste. And farm methane is a large contributor to greenhouse gasses.
The purpose behind free-range farming is to lessen the impact on resources. Vat grown meat will take the impact away almost entirely.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Coyote wrote:Cows also consume an enormous amount of water, require expensive medical monitoring, are prone to disease which takes them out of circulation for consumption, can be ravaged by predators or accidents-- the liability alone can be daunting.
Not only do the cows require lots of water, but so does the alfalfa that is needed to give the cows something to eat in the meantime. Not as much of a problem with free-range cattle, but they still require food which requires its own resource chain, especially if there is a drought.
Then there's the whole poop issue. It requires clean-up and is not always used for fertilizer. Other meat animals-- pigs, for instance-- produce tons of waste. And farm methane is a large contributor to greenhouse gasses.
The purpose behind free-range farming is to lessen the impact on resources. Vat grown meat will take the impact away almost entirely.
If that were true, you might get me on board ... just don't expect me to be an early adopter on this one.
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer.
Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon" Operation Freedom Fry
I wonder if farmers would already have the necessary knowledge to operate these plants, or if any special skills are needed. If people can't start working at these places immediately, there will be a short term economic vacuum, with hundreds of ranches suddenly becoming worthless.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
wolveraptor wrote:... there will be a short term economic vacuum, with hundreds of ranches suddenly becoming worthless.
Massive tracts of growing areas will be kept as a "strategic food reserve" for growing in the event of a national catastrophe. So some ranchers (this wouldn't affect farmers, unless we get vat-grown bread and vegetables as well) will survive, getting paid to maintain their land "just in case". Good work, if you can get it. It'll definitely go to the fat-cat corporate ranches, though, so don't go out and buy your 40 acres expecting to kick back.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Even if the taste were indistinguishable from natural beef and even if the public were 100% convinced of long-term health & safety of the product, there would be a long transitional period of Soylent Brown factories starting up and large cattle operations shutting down .... people who resisted Soylent Brown would still have a boutique cattle industry to purchase from at a higher price.
I'd probably be buying all of my beef from Misty Isle's local herd of Angus instead of 75%.
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer.
Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon" Operation Freedom Fry
Ending the massive government subsidizing of the beef industry would be nice, though. Talk about corporate welfare. Of course, you'll need financing to enjoy a slab o'sirloin in a restaurant, and there will always be holdovers. It won't catch on totally for awhile, but hopefully it'll be cheap enough that the poorest households can have access to something vaguely resembling protein.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
The ecological damage wrought by clear-cutting millions of acres of land to make way for cattle grazing is a huge environmental issue in and of itself, regardless of any other issues. Topsoil erosion, destruction of forests, etc. are all heavily influenced by cattle farming.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
According to the site I linked toon the previous page, cattle are apparently good against stuff like soil erosion
Cattle are an important element in a balanced and sustainable agriculture system. They utilize the forages and legumes which are part of a crop rotation system to improve soil fertility and decrease soil erosion . Forage crops used for cattle feed are an important part of most sustainable cropping systems. They help to decrease soil erosion, improve soil fertility, and assist in pest management.
Ofcourse this page deals with canadian cattle farming so it might not apply to all countries, especially third world places.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
His Divine Shadow wrote:According to the site I linked toon the previous page, cattle are apparently good against stuff like soil erosion
Cattle are an important element in a balanced and sustainable agriculture system. They utilize the forages and legumes which are part of a crop rotation system to improve soil fertility and decrease soil erosion . Forage crops used for cattle feed are an important part of most sustainable cropping systems. They help to decrease soil erosion, improve soil fertility, and assist in pest management.
Ofcourse this page deals with canadian cattle farming so it might not apply to all countries, especially third world places.
--I don't know about this site, but they are full of shit! Cattle and other herd animals are horrible in terms of land errosion (and the environment in general in any significant numbers). If you have ever been to a brushland, grassland, or forest where farm herds are allowed to graze and where there are plots of this land fenced off (for whatever reason) it is immediately obvious. The fenced off areas have all the little shrubs, trees, full length grass, etc. that one would expect to keep erosion down and maintain a normal habitat. However, the grazed areas are usually devoid of all these things and only have older treas and grass that looks like someone went over it with a lawn mower. The grazed areas will often have barren dirt gullies running through them where the soil is litterally being washed away in large quantities unlike the normal little streams with vegitation growing around it, a nice rocky bottom, and little erosion one finds in a healthy habitat.
His Divine Shadow wrote:According to the site I linked toon the previous page, cattle are apparently good against stuff like soil erosion
Cattle are an important element in a balanced and sustainable agriculture system. They utilize the forages and legumes which are part of a crop rotation system to improve soil fertility and decrease soil erosion . Forage crops used for cattle feed are an important part of most sustainable cropping systems. They help to decrease soil erosion, improve soil fertility, and assist in pest management.
Ofcourse this page deals with canadian cattle farming so it might not apply to all countries, especially third world places.
Off course that site is also pro beef industry propaganda; a glance at the Acknowledgments tells you that
an unusually upfront about it propagandist wrote:* The American National CattleWomen
* University of Arizona, Dept of Animal Sciences, Tucson, Arizona
* Eli Lilly & Company, Indianapolis, Indiana
* Iowa State University, Meat Export Research Center, Ames, Iowa
* National Renderers Association, Washington, D.C.
* Canadian Cattlemen's Association
* Alberta Beef Producers
* Canadian Cattlemen Magazine
* Beef Information Center
and as such any claims it makes about the beneficent effects of having a cow based monoculture shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Broomstick wrote:Maybe, maybe not - at least in the US, a lot of the land used for cattle ranching is not suitable to most crops, usually due to low water availability. If you remove the cattle that doesn't automatically mean you'll get vegetable gardens popping up.
As long as a grilled vat-steak is just as tasty as a normal one, then I'd be fine with ditching the cattle industry. But if not, the Amazon Forest can burn.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
darthdavid wrote: Large Portions of the Australian Outback,
Ironically our areas with stupid people isnt in agricultural heartlands of Australia, but the outer suburbs of the cities.
"Okay, I'll have the truth with a side order of clarity." ~ Dr. Daniel Jackson.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ~ Stephen Colbert
"One Drive, One Partition, the One True Path" ~ ars technica forums - warrens - on hhd partitioning schemes.
Broomstick wrote:Maybe, maybe not - at least in the US, a lot of the land used for cattle ranching is not suitable to most crops, usually due to low water availability. If you remove the cattle that doesn't automatically mean you'll get vegetable gardens popping up.
Part of the degradatio/erosion problem with cattle is not inherent to the cattle themselves, but to their numbers and the restriction of their movement.
In the US, the bison used to number in the millions, and they're much bigger animals than beef cattle, requiring more food and water per head than a cow or steer. Yet the Great Plains were not eroded or destroyed by their presence. Then again, the bison roamed freely, they weren't fenced, corralled, or herded on horseback (except for the occassional hunt).
It's the concentration of cattle in large numbers in restricted space with no predation that has a lot to do with their destructiveness.
I agree cows aren’t necessarily an environmental problem, the farming of cattle especially by those who find it difficult to think long term however is.
This isn't going to put all ranchers out of business. What it will do is take up the niche that factory farms currently fill. They're not going to be able to replicate Kobe or Angus beef.
High quality steaks are still going to grown in the "traditional way." Like wine or any grown product, it's the complex diet that changes the flavor. You'll still be able to get your high-end beef if that's what you want. But lower quality stuff will be cheaper and more plentiful, thus ensuring people who can't afford to care about marbling still get protein.
This could have some interesting ramifications in everyday life too. Cheaper hamburgers, beef in Cup o' Noodles. Yay Soylent Brown!
"Remember, being materialistic means never having to acknowledge your feelings"-Brent Sienna, PVP
"In the unlikely event of losing Pascal's Wager, I intend to saunter in to Judgement Day with a bookshelf full of grievances, a flaming sword of my own devising, and a serious attitude problem."- Rick Moen
