This isn’t "bad Science’ … rather a well written counter argument to something I hear from time to time … mormally from vegans but I’ve heard the same argument from some individuals on this forum. The argument basically states that “Cows are Bad for the Environment”. More often than not … though not always … the argument leads to a discussion of the vegan way of eating. Attached is a link to an article that I think offers some points to ponder. I refuse to argue the merits of the article … first off because there are people who simply enjoy an argument … find someone else. I don’t necessarily agree with some of the words chosen … but I do agree with the basic tenet … specifically there ae places on this planet that you’re not going to do much else with.
I got to thinking aboutthis while driving through the area around Lake Okeechobie … towards the Southern part of Florida. This was shortly after hurricane Irma came through … I was watching miles and miles of flat Florida scrub land pass by with cows everywhere … depending on where they were staning … some were standing in water left behind by the hurricane. I had the chance to talk to a few cattle men while I was there … one of the things I wondered about was what they did with all the cows when the hurricane blew through. Short answer was largely nothing. They weren’t going to blow away. There was little in the miles and miles of scrubland tha twould be a hazard to the cows.
Found out that most of the time, the round is dry, hard, with only Florida scrub grasses growing on it … the cows like it … not much else does. There were enough water holes/ponds on the roperty to keep the cows watered. As I looked at this I wondered "what else would you do with this property (that didn’t involve developers/builders)? Not much. Can’t cultivate it … nothing will grow there except scrub … useless to anything but a few animals. Trying to irrigate that land would be a bad idea. Those of us who have lived in Florida … at least since the Viet Nam war was in the news can remember various times times when teams of highly trained, highly skilled engineers irreversibly ruined large parts of natural Florida by rerouting water for whatever reason. The point being is, this land the cattle are content grazing on … you’re not going to do much else with it in terms of food production. Cattlemen … the ones who financially survive are an increasingly sharp bunch who try and use everything cow related.
I would agree that there may be areas where land is a scarce resource that perhaps other ways of growing food would be a better use of resources. There are huge stretches of Texas and to a lesser degree in Florida where cattle are very appropriate. I find it amusing (initially, ignorance becomes annoying) when people living in and whose frame of reference is an urban or at best suburban area categorically condemns raising beef cattle.
The article linked below explains the idea far better than I can. Trying to find ways to condemn raising animals for food based on their environmenttal impact is a form of colonialism. “We don’t live where you do … we don’t know the area where you live like you do, but we know what is best for you … so top what you’re doing and pay attention”. I don’t think so.
https://qz.com/1311884/is-promoting-vegetarianism-a-form-of-colonialism/
) So if you want more W3, eat some salmon or sardines. The Ruminati (Dr. Peter Ballerstedt) says the amount of W3 from high-end grass fed beef is tiny compared to a what you get in wild caught salmon.
