PN Writer: "Feedlots have it right"

[Metsudragon**]

If this has been posted already pardon me

And, I have to say it. If my experience at Magnum is representative of other cattle farms, all those accounts of the dismal, depressing, disastrous cattle conditions seem to be exaggerated.

No, I’m not going to start eating meat again.

However, if I did eat meat, my visit to Magnum would have made me feel great about eating non-organic, non-grass-fed beef. Seriously. I can’t imagine the quality of meat would be substantially better with organic and grass-fed. Nor can I imagine the living conditions would be substantially better for the cattle.

Now, to be clear, we don’t require meat in our diet. And I don’t think we should be using cows for food, doesn’t matter if the cattle are kept on a feedlot or chilling in a waterbed listening to John Tesh. But that’s my own value system and I’m well aware that 97% of people in the U.S. eat meat on a regular basis.

However, considering the amount we procreate in the U.S. (there’s a birth every 8 seconds and a death every 12 seconds); and the amount of meat we eat (222 pounds per person, per year – not including marine life); and the small amount of money we’re willing to spend on food (we spend 9.6% of our disposable income on food, the lowest in the world. India spends 53%, Venezuela 34%, Italy 26%, Japan 19%, France 16%); feedlots have it right.

People want meat. And Magnum’s feedlot system is dialed in. They’re producing safe and cost-effective meat in, arguably, the most cattle-conscious way (short of opening up those pens and letting them run free). Rock on Magnum.

source: Cattle Feedlot: Behind The Scenes | Precision Nutrition

seems a highly irresponsible view to take from just one visit to one feedlot, wanted to get some other thoughts, had to truncate it to make the thread as its a long read.

 

[XTrainer]

Good article. I agree that traditional farm bashing often does go too far, and it seems to be perpetrated most by people who have never set foot on a farm ("But I saw a video on YouTube!"). It would be nice to always have the organic, grass fed, free range, etc., but that's not possible for most people, most of the time. We shouldn't be so dismissive of a far more realistic "second best" that still gets the job done quite well.

 

[Metsudragon**]

^So do you think it's prudent to just research who you buy from? As I'm still wary of companies like Tyson after watching food inc :XX, but I can see his pov too, just didn't like the sortof all inclusiveness of his conclusion

 

[ronin0352]

I think the bold kind of rules out the "all-inclusiveness" you are concerned about.

If my experience at Magnum is representative of other cattle farms, all those accounts of the dismal, depressing, disastrous cattle conditions seem to be exaggerated.

I'm also happy to read that cause Wiggins is only an hour from me if that.

 

[XTrainer]

^So do you think it's prudent to just research who you buy from? As I'm still wary of companies like Tyson after watching food inc :XX, but I can see his pov too, just didn't like the sortof all inclusiveness of his conclusion

If you're worried about it, sure, do your homework, if for no other reason than to put your mind at ease. I think the author's main point is simply that the "worrying" is probably just not warranted as often as we ("we" being people interested in nutrition) might think.

I think the bold kind of rules out the "all-inclusiveness" you are concerned about.

Correct.

 

[MikeMartial]

seems a highly irresponsible view to take from just one visit to one feedlot, wanted to get some other thoughts, had to truncate it to make the thread as its a long read.

Keep in mind this is one cattle feedlot; I basically live in feedlot central in Alberta. What Ryan Andrews describes in his article may not be typical from state to state, and most definitely not from country to country. The varying differences between an actual feedlot (think Walmart parking lot jammed full of cattle) and free range is huge...and this doesn't even take into consideration the micronutrient differences between TRUE grass vs grain/corn fed, of which there's a plethora of comparative studies.

Also, while Andrews is a highly educated person, I'll always be skeptical of pretty much everything he writes because he's a vegetarian.

And I think this thread is fitting for two quotes from guys much stronger and smarter than most folks here:

"Eat more eggs; there'll be less chickens born, and then you'll be forced to eat more beef."---Pavel Tsatsouline

"The shittiest feedlot beef will always have a better amino acid profile than the best free range, organic chicken"---Charles Poliquin

 

[immovablestone]

Assuming that guy can't kick my ass, due to him being a vegetarian and me being a hulking, meat eating adonis, I'd like to shit on his shoes.

 

[Loomy]

obviously a ridiculous piece. you can't figure out much of anything about anything from one sample.

not to mention the alarm bells that should be going off because you should be assuming that only good farms will let visitors inside...

 

[XTrainer]

obviously a ridiculous piece. you can't figure out much of anything about anything from one sample.

He specifically indicated that he's not trying to extrapolate a generalization from his one experience. He is just taking a well-deserved shot at conventional farming alarmism.

 

[enright3060]

He specifically indicated that he's not trying to extrapolate a generalization from his one experience. He is just taking a well-deserved shot at conventional farming alarmism.

But, that is exactly what he is trying to do. The purpose of the article is to get someone to think that if farm X is good, then Farm A, B and C, etc are just like farm X.

 

[XTrainer]

"And, I have to say it. If my experience at Magnum is representative of other cattle farms, all those accounts of the dismal, depressing, disastrous cattle conditions seem to be exaggerated."

"People want meat. And Magnum’s feedlot system is dialed in. They’re producing safe and cost-effective meat in, arguably, the most cattle-conscious way (short of opening up those pens and letting them run free). Rock on Magnum."

He's making it very clear that he's only talking about one experience. It aims to and in fact should provoke people to rethink their preconceived notions about conventional farming.

Asking people to reconsider their ideas and offering an example as to why that reconsideration might be a good thing is a far cry from saying "Magnum was good, so therefore all other conventional farms are good, too."

 

[enright3060]

"And, I have to say it. If my experience at Magnum is representative of other cattle farms, all those accounts of the dismal, depressing, disastrous cattle conditions seem to be exaggerated."

"People want meat. And Magnum’s feedlot system is dialed in. They’re producing safe and cost-effective meat in, arguably, the most cattle-conscious way (short of opening up those pens and letting them run free). Rock on Magnum."

He's making it very clear that he's only talking about one experience. It aims to and in fact should provoke people to rethink their preconceived notions about conventional farming.

Asking people to reconsider their ideas and offering an example as to why that reconsideration might be a good thing is a far cry from saying "Magnum was good, so therefore all other conventional farms are good, too."

Yes, he says it is only his experience, and then he goes on to infer that maybe we should not be so hard on commercial farming, but you can't make that inference without trying to make too much of his own experience at one farm.

When you say that people ought to "reconsider their ideas" about factory farming, and you rely on what is presented in the article, you are also implicitly making the same fallacious inference. The article only gives us a reason to reconsider feed lots as a whole if we assume that most are like the one presented in the article.

If I had to reconstruct what you said in this thread as an argument, it would goes as follows:

Premise one: Article's author says a feedlot is not all that bad;
Conclusion: We ought worry about factory farms as much as some people want us too or we ought to consider the fact that factory farms are not as bad as presented.

You cannot get to the conclusion without making a second premise that holds: Most feedlots are like the one the author saw.

The proper stance to the evidence presented in the article is that it is one man's experiences, and it tells us nothing useful. It's an anecdote and that is all.

 

[XTrainer]

He's asking people to question the conventional dogma, and yes, providing an illustrative, sympathetic anecdote to explain why. I do not see that as at all synonymous with "most feedlots are like the one (I, the author) saw." He deliberately and explicitly leaves that question open.

 

[enright3060]

He's asking people to question the conventional dogma, and yes, providing an illustrative, sympathetic anecdote to explain why. I do not see that as at all synonymous with "most feedlots are like the one (I, the author) saw." He deliberately and explicitly leaves that question open.

How can you question "conventional dogma" without making an inference that most feedlots are like the one in the article?

 

[turbozed]

How can you question "conventional dogma" without making an inference that most feedlots are like the one in the article?

If you accept the proposition that "conventional dogma" states that ALL feedlots are bad, then finding just one that is NOT bad accomplishes this without making the inference that you argue is necessary.

 

[enright3060]

If you accept the proposition that "conventional dogma" states that ALL feedlots are bad, then finding just one that is NOT bad accomplishes this without making the inference that you argue is necessary.

Ok. Holding such as view would be a pretty big hasty generalization or sweeping generalization that itself would be fallacious to hold without sufficient evidence. I don't think anyone holds who thinks seriously about these issues holds such a view a public health perspective, which should be of interest to most people who care about diet and health. Feedlots have both good and bad consequences. Escherichia coli O157:H7, for example is a bad consequence. Cheap food is a positive.

At best, such an article is evidence against a universal generalization made about feedlots, which is basically just a straw-position. It still provides nothing more than in anecdote story for anyone who thinks seriously about the issue. And to try to draw anything more than from this story requires one to make a fallacious inference (If feedlot X is good, then all feedlots are probably just as good).

Some people, like Peter Singer, hold that feedlots are bad from a moral perspective because they cause unnecessary suffering to animals, and causing unnecessary suffering is a moral wrong. But, the article does not address the concerns for people like Singer except in the most superficial way.

 

[turbozed]

Ok. Holding such as view would be a pretty big hasty generalization or sweeping generalization that itself would be fallacious to hold without sufficient evidence. I don't think anyone holds who thinks seriously about these issues holds such a view a public health perspective, which should be of interest to most people who care about diet and health. Feedlots have both good and bad consequences. Escherichia coli O157:H7, for example is a bad consequence. Cheap food is a positive.

At best, such an article is evidence against a universal generalization made about feedlots, which is basically just a straw-position. It still provides nothing more than in anecdote story for anyone who thinks seriously about the issue. And to try to draw anything more than from this story requires one to make a fallacious inference (If feedlot X is good, then all feedlots are probably just as good).

Some people, like Peter Singer, hold that feedlots are bad from a moral perspective because they cause unnecessary suffering to animals, and causing unnecessary suffering is a moral wrong. But, the article does not address the concerns for people like Singer except in the most superficial way.

I probably agree with you on the substantive things. I'm just giving you an interpretation in which an inference doesn't have to be made to address 'conventional dogma,' which wasn't really defined in the thread anyway.

I know people that would agree with the statement that 'all feed lots are bad.' So if this is the sort of 'conventional dogma' that XTrainer was talking about, he wouldn't be wrong in saying that the story at least 'questions' it.

 

[XTrainer]

I quit when Peter Singer enters a thread


j/k

To rephrase what I've said above, "not all feedlots are bad" is a much more reasonable conclusion to draw from this article than "all feedlots are good." Considering all of his qualifying statements about his particular experience, I think it's pretty obvious the author is going for the former.

 

[GhostDog]

Also, while Andrews is a highly educated person, I'll always be skeptical of pretty much everything he writes because he's a vegetarian.

This.