http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.p...3&d=1373310493
Printable View
Freaky.
Visible nipples!!! This one is going to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
Do you feel any duty of care towards cattle to prevent their mistreatment? E.g. if they are underfed, refused vet treatment, beaten black and blue, or otherwise tortured or harassed especially prior to being killed?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
Didn't you say they were a blight on the landscape? Perhaps you'll have to explain it to me Sharky as I interpreted that to mean that you view them as an eyesore, a blight on the landscape, something to be killed because they are ugly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Heh, a corpulent president, like a bear that needs to hibernate for a couple of years. Obviously that is not the weight range I was focusing on in my analysis, I was focusing on the optimal body weight range for a particular height rather than trying to encourage folks to get so fat that they die prematurely of a heart attack. :LQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
Are you saying that cows should be grateful to the humans that farm them for food; recalling that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
- Beef cattle are killed after only 14-20 months even though the can live for >25 years.
- Dairy cattle are killed after 4 lactations (milk producing periods) meaning that few live beyond 7 years.
- Veal calves are killed after only a few days or months e.g. "Bob veal, from calves that are slaughtered when only a few days old (at most 1 month old) up to 60 lb" - Wiki.
Did you end all black and blue?Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
What's your favourite fly dish Peter?Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
Cows are responsible for more greenhouse gases than motor cars. By eating as many as I can I'm doing my bit for the enviroment.
Also, they're basically just a concentrated form of grass so by eating them I'm engaging in a militant form of vegetarianism.
Ah, I see why you are confused Bambi. You interpreted that as "how they look on the landscape" whereas I meant "how the landscape looks after cows have been there.". Cows destroy a considerable amount of habitat in dry areas like this. Vigorous efforts are needed to keep them out of streams and other water bodies, or else they destroy the banks, increase erosion, kill fish (in several different ways), and so on. When they aren't in the streams, their grazing can make it easier for invasive species to move in, and destroy cover/habitat for lots of native species. Part of this has to do with the number of cows in an area, other parts barely matter as long as there are cows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
Any individual cow will certainly not be grateful, just as any organism killed by some other organism (whether a bacteria, velociraptor, human, or moose) would not be grateful. However, if you believe in the concept of the selfish gene, where the real purpose of evolution is to increase the proliferation of some set of genes, then the strategy that cows have adopted has been a terrific success. Both cows and mammoths appear to have been tasty (though we don't really know about mammoths), but mammoths are extinct, while cows have been spread all over the world and exist in great numbers. They certainly wouldn't suvive very well without humans, either, especially the modern dairy cow, which has been altered so greatly to increase milk production. So, what we have is a strange form of symbiosis at the species level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
I didn't look too far into it but initially it seems that statement is wrong. I have read calculations that show that a standard car driven 12'500 km per year (7'800 miles per year) produces about the same greenhouse gas emissions as a cow in a year. What does seem to be true is that the entire livestock sector, not just cattle, produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the transport sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The problem with that logic is that the number of livestock have grown to help an ever growing number of humans on the planet meaning that the problem will continue to worsen as the number of humans climbs over the next 30 years especially as the livestock also need more land and that means clearing more forests further impacting on the greenhouse gas levels. The only way to remedy the situation is to reduce the number of humans until it reaches a sustainable level that does not stress the planet's resources. In turn the number of livestock will fall substantially. Then humans should also turn to renewable non polluting sources of energy and they are just about in for the win. F.T.W. You can't blame the cows for a problem generated by irresponsible and selfish humans breeding too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I would have thought that you would view yourself as more carnivore than herbivore, but if you want to be viewed as a militant herbivore I won't stop you Herbie. Also you seem to have missed my question above so here it is once again: "Do you feel any duty of care towards cattle to prevent their mistreatment? E.g. if they are underfed, refused vet treatment, beaten black and blue, or otherwise tortured or harassed especially prior to being killed?"Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Yeah, I can see how that critique may apply in the case of some species of animal that root around and tear up the ground like wild boars, but cows, really? I can only envision them gently grazing on grass and only causing any problem in areas where the soil cannot support their weight, and they probably wouldn't be too happy staying in conditions hazardous to their balance anyway and would naturally prefer to move to firmer pastures. Also how does their grazing kill fish and make it easier for invasive species to move in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
No, you are right, it is very sad. :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The problem is that it is not symbiosis, as soon as you include killing beef for food especially after only a short period of time relative to the lifespan of the animal, it is a parasitic/parasitoidal rather than symbiotic relationship. Symbosis meaning "living together" in a mutually beneficial manner rather than one benefiting at the other's expense (parasitism). Thus the cows have only grown in numbers as the host of a murderous parasite. I don't imagine that there are too many humans that would ever desire to become cows or would define the growth in the number of cattle a success; it is a sad loss for the species due to their massively reduced lifespan, their loss of freedom, and the often the poor conditions that they are forced to endure relative to their life in the wild. If cows were only used for milk and vet science was ubiquitously used to extend their lives to say 40+ years of age then perhaps you could call their proliferation a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
For the individual, you are right. Therefore, the typical definition of symbiosis doesn't apply. However, at the population level it does. Our spread has been assisted by cows, and the spred of cows is entirely dependent on us.
If your image of cows is a nice green field, picture cows in a desert, as that's what we have. You can't have all that many cows per square KM, because there isn't all that much forage, but there is enough to sustain cows. The soil is fairly fragile, as a single car track across a desert can take decades to fade away (the wagon tracks from the Oregon Trail are still visible where development hasn't wiped them out). So, the hoofprints of cattle will remain for years. Their pies last at least a year, and probably a couple years, too, but they dry out thoroughly, and can probably be used as firewood (it is used in some places).Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
Streams in this environment are the major location of water, so along streams are the only places where vegetation grows thick and green year round. Trees only grow along the banks of permanent streams, too. The vegetation shades and cools the water, while the streams form undercut banks. Both the vegetation and the undercut banks provide shade and cover for fish, while keeping the water temperatures cool enough for the fish to survive. Once cows get to the stream, they trample and consume the vegetation on the banks. If that was brief, it would be survivable, but unfenced banks are destroyed in short order. All the vegetation goes away, the banks cave in, the water temperature rises, and sedimentation increases. This suffocates the fish, destroys redds, and heats the water to the point where fish can't live there anymore.
One of the biggest challenges we face are getting ranchers to fence off streams so that cows can't get near them. The fact that salmon and steelhead are endangered has made it more urgent, but also somewhat more possible in areas where those species spawn. Generally, ranchers are pretty supportive once they see how much nicer the streams become once fenced, and we've gotten lots of them on board. It's not all that cheap to build cow-proof fences, though, so it's hard to get ranchers to do that on their own. They don't often have huge profit margins. Still, there are lots of fenced off areas around water on public lands grazing, and the water that is protected is dramatically better quality than the water that isn't fenced off.
You are right the typical definition of symbiosis doesn't apply because it is a form of parasitism that happens to include the death of the host rather than symbiosis, and I still don't view it as a success for the cows due to all of my aforementioned reasons, and a good check is to ascertain if you could ever be happy or tolerate being changed into a cow. I don't think many would ever be happy being turned into a cow and that reflects very badly on the human race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The spread of humans and the growth in the number of humans to unsustainable levels is not something to be proud of, it really has to be actioned or it is likely to generate all manner of problems for the planet. Everyone, although some quite reluctantly, seems to want to work out how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet very few are bringing the much more serious problem of having too many humans on the planet to the fore. How hard is it to say look just keep it in you pants, have a cold shower, read a book, or work on something positive rather than making too many more humans?
Some farmers power their entire milking operations from the methane generated from cow dung.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Fish need shade? Not in the ocean. If they do there must be underwater plants and even shade from underwater overhangs that can provide the fish with the relief they need. Also I highly doubt that cows kill the trees along the banks and they probably only eat some of the species of plants that grow by the streams. Also there has always been animal life, even in the desert, and such animals have to drink a certain amount of water every day to survive meaning that river banks always have to endure some degree of animal traffic every day. As a result I still find it difficult to believe that cows are somehow the river bank vandals that you make them out to be. Don't they tend to use the same watering spots/holes to drink from on a regular basis leaving most of the river bank untouched?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
It's not the cows, I ate all the salmon. =)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Fencing is expensive, an eyesore, and can even put humans off. If the cows aren't getting their water from the streams where do they get a nice cool drink from in the desert?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
CyberSurfer's last postQuote:
Been about 2 years since I last posted on VBF, glad to see my greatest contribution is still going http://www.vbforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
He started what turned out to be the greatest VBForum thread.. :D
Are you kidding me ? We are the ultimate apex predator. They're our food, simple as that. What is up with all this sappy tree-hugging hippie stuff you're on about ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
Man you Americans are so weird with all your feelings. You guys take it too far sometimes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of cruelty towards animals for the sake of cruelty but I'm certainly not sorry some cow got butchered for me to eat. This is the natural order of things. Every creature on this planet with the exception of green plants sustains itself by consuming some other creature and every creature itself is a potential meal for another creature. This has been true for billions of years, why do we have to arrogance to question this ? We're just a blip in this planet's history where things have been eating other things far longer than humans have been around. Its a bit ridiculous to feel sorry for cows simply because someone wants to kill and eat them.
I guess CyberSurfer could turn up at any time and it is the longest running V.B.F. thread I have ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by KGComputers
You say it like you believe that humans are the ultimate killing machines designed to dominate and enslave all life on the planet. Humans are actually quite soft compared to the skin of alligators, fish, and especially crustaceans. Humans aren't the fastest or the strongest creatures on the planet, nor do they have any obvious weaponry on display like wolverine's claws, fearsome protruding teeth, tusks, horns, or poisonous fangs. Basically they look like they have evolved to operate in quite a civilised rather than savage manner (sorry Mythbusters). What's up with all of your 10 foot tall and bullet proof banter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Cows are a relatively placid species of non threatening herbivore that are capable of symbiotically producing large amounts of milk and shouldn't be viewed or treated as a source of meat. They are definitely our allies not our enemies and should be treated as such. Don't murder teh cows. (._.)
I was almost certain you were American Niya. I know you hate all creatures, some more than others, but I actually get warm fuzzies when I think of cats, cows and other similar creatures and I only get all wrathful when I think of fish, dragons, snakes, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
If you are happy killing cows, why not a bit of rough treatment to put the animal in its place and let them really know that Niya is the boss, until they cower and tremble whenever you walk anywhere near them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
What? You seem to have blown your head gasket right off there Niya. Not every creature on the planet eats other creatures, you completely forget to mention herbivores which only consume plants and do not usually kill the plant i.e. they are symbiotic plant grazers rather than plant killers, and you also forgot the entire range of carnivorous plants that love nothing better than feasting on the flesh of insects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Humans are supposed to be intelligent enough to discriminate between the innocent, including cows, and the guilty, including fish and snakes. Thus it is not arrogance to question which animals, if any, should be killed for food, it is actually a marker of wit and sanity. Why is it ridiculous to feel sorry for cows if somebody wants to kill and eat them when humans have already deemed it illegal for humans to be viewed and used as a food source; surely every species of animal should receive the benefit of doubt and the innocent species spared from the slaughterhouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
All this talk of cows is making me hungry.
°o° *hides the cows*
largest != greatestQuote:
Originally Posted by KGComputers
Or for you VB folks:
largest <> greatest
There have been many classic chit-chat threads over the years. This one has its moments, but it's mostly nonsense.
I would have to agree.
There are lots of great chit chat threads... anyone by moti barski for example. Who can forget classics such as this one
I've actually seen that one, which was.... blah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
They don't need shade for the reasons we need shade. We use shade as relief from the sun, but lots of light doesn't penetrate all that far into water, and heat gets absorbed pretty quickly. What shade does for the fish is keeps the water cooler, which is what keeps the fish cooler. There is also a certain amount of protection from predators, but that often depends on how the vegetation is arranged. In the ocean, the fish can always move around, and the heating from the sun has a different impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
On the other hand, underwater vegetation does provide cover for lots of fish, so they do use it, though it isn't quite the same thing.
A single cow is unlikely to kill a tree. They don't eat them, and they don't kick them into kindling, or anything like that. Lots of cows in an area can trample the banks to the point that the roots of the tree get damaged, or the cows could rub against them until they wear off the bark, but neither of those is all that common. What the cows tend to do is wipe out any new shoots and any brush. A mature tree can take it, young trees die, so as the old trees die from whatever reason, they are not replaced by new trees, and the result is a barrent stream bank.Quote:
Also I highly doubt that cows kill the trees along the banks and they probably only eat some of the species of plants that grow by the streams.
You are right that there are animals in the desert. In our deserts, the largest animal is generally the antelope. There are places with some elk, places with deer, and places with bighorn sheep. In all cases, the numbers of animals are VERY rare. While crossing 60 miles of desert, I saw about 5 antelope. I also saw several hundred cows. That's roughly the ratio you find on grazing areas. So, while there are other animals, their density is around 1-3% that of grazing cows, and possibly even less. If cow populations were reduced to that of antelope, no rancher could afford it. After all, a cow is several times the size of an antelope, sheep, or deer. Only elk are in the same size range, and I didn't see any of them in the desert. I'm not even sure they live out where I was, though they do live in desert-like areas with more elevation.Quote:
Also there has always been animal life, even in the desert, and such animals have to drink a certain amount of water every day to survive meaning that river banks always have to endure some degree of animal traffic every day. As a result I still find it difficult to believe that cows are somehow the river bank vandals that you make them out to be. Don't they tend to use the same watering spots/holes to drink from on a regular basis leaving most of the river bank untouched?
As for cows using the same watering holes, I believe they do tend to, yet the damage they do ends up being widespread due to their density on the land. This can be seen within a couple years by fencing off the banks.
From cattle tanks. The use of cattle tanks and the fencing of streams moves cows away from the banks of the streams and puts them somewhere that can be used as sacrificial land. You can generally tell where a cattle tank is, too, if you have any elevation to view from, because the area around the tank is pounded into dust with nothing but flies living in it.Quote:
Fencing is expensive, an eyesore, and can even put humans off. If the cows aren't getting their water from the streams where do they get a nice cool drink from in the desert?
I agree that fencing has all the attributes you mention. Get the cows off the land and you wouldn't need any fencing.
We can solve the human population problem easily: Provide education and career opportunities for women. Birth rates are at or below replacement level in every country where this is done.
Why stop at women. I was actually thinking about how terrible the education system is in Louisiana literally like 9.342 minutes ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Because educating women reduces the birthrate whereas educating men doesn't appear to have any big impact. It's a remedy with lots of evidence that it works, works well, and doesn't produce the controversies that things like the Chinese one-child policy do.
I don't know why or how Louisiana's education system could be so terrible. It's almost as if it's setup to fail.
Not to mention educated people are a lot more interesting to be around.
I currently live in hayseed USA.
I cannot take a walk outside without thinking...
"Morons! I'm surrounded by morons!"
Followed by. "And they breed like rabbits."
Just be glad you're not Mississippi.Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9