Quote:
Originally Posted by Zygote
i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying this trivializes the situation. even if we assume you're right and competent studies with little doubts in their results support the idea that generally grain-fed is worse than grass fed (in terms of health of the cow and consumers) it still doesnt tell us everything. Maybe its the quantities of grains? Maybe there are certain food balances that change the situation? What about the types of grains fed and combinations with other foods and lifestyles? What if its fed flax or salba? What if you have cow fed on organic nutritional grains in healthy quantities, while have a healthy lifestyle, and is raised and butchered humanely and efficiently versus a cow that is fed pesticide grass and raised otherwise inefficiently and inhumanely?
lolsemantics. I will rephrase for you:
The methods by which the overwhelming proportion of cattle are fed grain in the United States is bad for the animal's health as well as our own.
Your whole breakdown there doesn't mean much. Corn is cheap, and it makes cows fat quickly. That's why it's used in feedlots. The cattle industry doesn't care about exploring alternate grain sources, humane treatment, antibiotic-free farming, etc. They just want to make the meat cheaply so they can sell it cheaply, and as long as their profits exceed the judgments they dole out from lawsuits, they couldn't give a ****.
Plus, it all goes back to their natural tendency: to eat grass. Why do we need to waste time trying to figure out what it is about certain amounts of certain grains that make them sick, when you could just let them graze on grass and they'd be much healthier?