Food sources. Hunting vs. Farm Raised Meat.. a discussion

[PandaBear]

Now for sure, but before Europeans arrived there was ~30 billion pounds of bison on the hoof in the central plains, and now there is ~4 billion pounds of deer in the US which is probably far more than there was before european settlement. A sustainable annual harvest might be 20% so it starts to add up. If we could go back in time and manage our fisheries properly and not pollute places like Chesapeake bay and the great lakes with agricultural run-off, there might be billions more pounds of wild fish, oysters, crab, lobsters, etc, to eat.


It's an interesting thought anyways, how many people could have been fed sustainably a healthy amount of meat protein on the natural food systems of north america before we wrecked most of them? Probably close to the full 370 million of us if we weren't too picky on what the protein is... I bet Passenger Pigeon tasted a little like chicken...

There were economists who said the only way to make things sustainable is to have a dictator or large business empire to own everything locally. That way the same business destroying the forest with oil extraction would be destroying their fish sources, and the same farm which releases these toxins to the water would be destroying their own water front properties downstream.

40% of our food production is discarded, but enough people want PERFECT food that you have to over produce to get these into the system. You really have to pick a balance between being no waste or not affordable. Or if you have good relationship with other nations in different climate maybe you can ship them around the globe to reduce food waste, by increasing fuel waste.

I would never though that I would say this when I grow up: all you can eat buffet is actually not that wasteful, if managed correctly people finish their food and only cook something that is affordable (i.e. less waste, locally sourced, over produced for the season).

 

[OVERKILL]

I am objected to hunting endangered animal or cutting down significant amount of old forest land without replacing the space with the same sort of plants, due to possible environmental impact (local weather, endanger species, chain reaction that causes pollution, impact to the nearby ocean and destroy the fish sources, etc).

I am not objecting to hunting just because deers are cute or rabbits are cute. I am also not objecting fishing as a sport. As long as they don't leave messes in the water like discarded plastic or lead bullets, accidentally shooting other human, destroying local neighborhood with reckless behaviors, etc, I'm cool with them hunting and fishing with licenses (limiting how much each hunter can hunt and fisher can catch).

I don't think it is cost effective to get meat and fish from these activities though, it is just so much cheaper and easier to get it from the store.

Purely from a butchering perspective, you get a lot of meat from a Canadian deer for the few hundred it costs to get it butchered. That's if you pay someone. Yes, the deer tag cuts into the value somewhat but it is still a good value.

Birds? I don't know.

I would expect something large like moose or elk has excellent ROI.

 

[PandaBear]

Purely from a butchering perspective, you get a lot of meat from a Canadian deer for the few hundred it costs to get it butchered. That's if you pay someone. Yes, the deer tag cuts into the value somewhat but it is still a good value.

Birds? I don't know.

I would expect something large like moose or elk has excellent ROI.

Yes, but did you factor in the hunting labor and tools? I guess if you consider that hunting is a fun activity then it is FREE. If you consider it a job then it probably is pretty bad in ROI.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yes, but did you factor in the hunting labor and tools? I guess if you consider that hunting is a fun activity then it is FREE. If you consider it a job then it probably is pretty bad in ROI.

Yeah, I bought my guns for non-hunting purposes, I primarily target shoot, so I don't consider the money spent there a hunting expense, lol. Never considered the labour side of things though, that's an interesting point.

 

[RDY4WAR]

May want to read my posts above, lol. There are definitely cats that don't have a hunting instinct, we own two of them.

We have 5 of them. lol Well... one of them could probably manage. She was wild before we got her. Three of them I have great doubts if they'd survive. The last one is a 23 lb maine coon who's as lazy as you could possibly imagine.

 

[OVERKILL]

We have 5 of them. lol Well... one of them could probably manage. She was wild before we got her. Three of them I have great doubts if they'd survive. The last one is a 23 lb maine coon who's as lazy as you could possibly imagine.

"Expert hunter" :

 

[IndyIan]

Yes, but did you factor in the hunting labor and tools? I guess if you consider that hunting is a fun activity then it is FREE. If you consider it a job then it probably is pretty bad in ROI.

Farmed deer here seems to be $15-30/lb depending on the cut so compared to that, hunting deer is pretty cheap. My shotgun and scope was $500 a deer tag is $44, a box of sabots in $15, a good knife is $40, meat/bone saw is $20. Last time my deer hunt was about 3 hrs of hunting and a 3 hours of processing for 50lbs of venison for us and about the same amount of bones and meat for the dogs. I have also spent maybe 24 hours over a season hunting with a $350 crossbow in a $200 tree stand waiting for right deer to get close enough at the right angle.
I would say hunting, especially bow hunting, is something more people should try. Just sitting outside in one spot for that long, paying attention to your surroundings and nature is something I'd never done before. Also getting to watch deer, coyote, fox, grouse, turkey, rabbits, birds, etc go about their business gives you a different perspective on wildlife and life in general I think.

 

[y_p_w]

3) Factory farmed food is "less" in every way measurable. It nourishes us less, it tastes less. It is obtained passively and is detrimental to our understanding of and connection to our food. Kids eat healthier when they're connected to their food. If they grew it or killed it they'll eat it and understand its value over bagged or boxed garbage in the aisles. Even knowing the farmer who grew your food properly and who sold it to you mitigates much of the destruction inherent in our current factory model.

But we do have a lot of that with schools having gardens that may even serve their own foodservice. I've gone to farmers markets where I got to speak directly with someone who worked on the farm. I'll buy oysters from a farm serviced by people who actually go to the racks to harvest them.

That being said, I don't really want wild game. It might be intersting, but I realize there's only enough to be a niche with as many people as we have. We would probably be better off if people ate less meat.

 

[Lubener]

You are comparing apples and oranges. What you buy as farm raised isn't going to be running wild except turkeys and rabbits.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

There were economists who said the only way to make things sustainable is to have a dictator or large business empire to own everything locally. That way the same business destroying the forest with oil extraction would be destroying their fish sources, and the same farm which releases these toxins to the water would be destroying their own water front properties downstream.

40% of our food production is discarded, but enough people want PERFECT food that you have to over produce to get these into the system. You really have to pick a balance between being no waste or not affordable. Or if you have good relationship with other nations in different climate maybe you can ship them around the globe to reduce food waste, by increasing fuel waste.

I would never though that I would say this when I grow up: all you can eat buffet is actually not that wasteful, if managed correctly people finish their food and only cook something that is affordable (i.e. less waste, locally sourced, over produced for the season).

Ya. They were wrong. The answer is private property. Since individuals were unable to own waterways it became a tragedy of the commons.

 

[SeaJay]

Population growth results in less land available for wild animals, and increased pollution until slowed down somewhat with the passage of environmental laws. People build houses on and near the shore that result in runoff into the bays and ocean from roads, replacement of natural vegetation with lawns and such. The open plains where the buffalo used to roam are now mostly farmland for vegetables, beef, chicken, pork, etc. People are going to continue to eat meat, and producers will raise it for them.

Shoot, the U.S. population at 330 million today is double what it was the year I was born. The U.S. population has increased at an annual rate 0.6% annually in the past ten years. Another 25 years of this growth rate will get the U.S. over 375 million in population.

 

[kschachn]

Population growth results in less land available for wild animals, and increased pollution until slowed down somewhat with the passage of environmental laws. People build houses on and near the shore that result in runoff into the bays and ocean from roads, replacement of natural vegetation with lawns and such. The open plains where the buffalo used to roam are now mostly farmland for vegetables, beef, chicken, pork, etc. People are going to continue to eat meat, and producers will raise it for them.

Shoot, the U.S. population at 330 million today is double what it was the year I was born. The U.S. population has increased at an annual rate 0.6% annually in the past ten years. Another 25 years of this growth rate will get the U.S. over 375 million in population.

One would have a difficult time making the argument that the overall population density of the US is or will be a problem even at your projected value. Some areas sure, but that is by choice and not because it was forced on them by unrestrained growth.

 

[y_p_w]

You are comparing apples and oranges. What you buy as farm raised isn't going to be running wild except turkeys and rabbits.

Even those aren't really all that great a comparison. Wild or feral turkeys are almost universally black/brown and can live in the wild. Save the occasional heritage turkey, these aren't going to be the ones raised. The typical Thanksgiving turkey white feathered so that they don't have dark spots on the skin. They can't survive in the wild and don't tend to live very long if they're not slaughtered.

I think rabbits are very different too. Same goes with domesticated ducks, geese, etc.

 

[PandaBear]

Ya. They were wrong. The answer is private property. Since individuals were unable to own waterways it became a tragedy of the commons.

There is a thing called greedy algorithm. Basically you are looking at your local minimum or maximum to see where the peak or valley is for optimal outcome, instead of searching for the entire set of data to see it. This is the low hanging fruit most human can pick and it will always results in the best outcome of each individual, but mathematically it is never the best outcome of the whole population. With this kind of "algorithm" it proves that individual choice (freedom, democracy) will never achieve the optimal result for the entire set. It will represent the lowest cost of finding a local optimal (you don't have to buy every lottery ticket combination to guarantee a winning ticket, but you can spend 15 mins to save 15% on your car insurance).

Population growth results in less land available for wild animals, and increased pollution until slowed down somewhat with the passage of environmental laws. People build houses on and near the shore that result in runoff into the bays and ocean from roads, replacement of natural vegetation with lawns and such. The open plains where the buffalo used to roam are now mostly farmland for vegetables, beef, chicken, pork, etc. People are going to continue to eat meat, and producers will raise it for them.

Shoot, the U.S. population at 330 million today is double what it was the year I was born. The U.S. population has increased at an annual rate 0.6% annually in the past ten years. Another 25 years of this growth rate will get the U.S. over 375 million in population.

Except that US produce way more food than we can consume, and we end up having to rely on export to consume them all. We also end up with so much food we need to throw away just to avoid it collapsing the prices on the market. Just look at how many farmers are going bankrupt and committing suicides, and you will realize we have a surplus but not a shortage. The pollution problem is really a side effect that the cost is not paid by the polluter. If algae boom is from excessive farm discharge then pollution control is the solution, but everyone knows it is a politician's career suicide to mess with the farmers in swing states.

One would have a difficult time making the argument that the overall population density of the US is or will be a problem even at your projected value. Some areas sure, but that is by choice and not because it was forced on them by unrestrained growth.

Most farmers would gladly sell their lands to home development and then invest the payout elsewhere (i.e. in S&P 500 fund). Density in the US is quite low compare to the rest of the developed world. We never ran out of farmland to build on, the housing shorting is always in the suburb or urban area near non farm jobs.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

There is a thing called greedy algorithm. Basically you are looking at your local minimum or maximum to see where the peak or valley is for optimal outcome, instead of searching for the entire set of data to see it. This is the low hanging fruit most human can pick and it will always results in the best outcome of each individual, but mathematically it is never the best outcome of the whole population. With this kind of "algorithm" it proves that individual choice (freedom, democracy) will never achieve the optimal result for the entire set. It will represent the lowest cost of finding a local optimal (you don't have to buy every lottery ticket combination to guarantee a winning ticket, but you can spend 15 mins to save 15% on your car insurance).


Except that US produce way more food than we can consume, and we end up having to rely on export to consume them all. We also end up with so much food we need to throw away just to avoid it collapsing the prices on the market. Just look at how many farmers are going bankrupt and committing suicides, and you will realize we have a surplus but not a shortage. The pollution problem is really a side effect that the cost is not paid by the polluter. If algae boom is from excessive farm discharge then pollution control is the solution, but everyone knows it is a politician's career suicide to mess with the farmers in swing states.


Most farmers would gladly sell their lands to home development and then invest the payout elsewhere (i.e. in S&P 500 fund). Density in the US is quite low compare to the rest of the developed world. We never ran out of farmland to build on, the housing shorting is always in the suburb or urban area near non farm

Actually the greedy algorithm alleges that it MAY yield a close approximation of the globally optimal solution. In any case it has zero to do with the concept of private property rights. These rights protect YOUR property from agression such as pollution.

 

[BrianF]

Overkill, I have some welfare cats as well.

 

[y_p_w]

Except that US produce way more food than we can consume, and we end up having to rely on export to consume them all. We also end up with so much food we need to throw away just to avoid it collapsing the prices on the market. Just look at how many farmers are going bankrupt and committing suicides, and you will realize we have a surplus but not a shortage. The pollution problem is really a side effect that the cost is not paid by the polluter. If algae boom is from excessive farm discharge then pollution control is the solution, but everyone knows it is a politician's career suicide to mess with the farmers in swing states.


Most farmers would gladly sell their lands to home development and then invest the payout elsewhere (i.e. in S&P 500 fund). Density in the US is quite low compare to the rest of the developed world. We never ran out of farmland to build on, the housing shorting is always in the suburb or urban area near non farm jobs.

That depends on the location. Funny you mention a lot of this since I've taken an interest in Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County. That was a case where the cattle and dairy ranchers didn't necessarily want to sell out to developers. They wanted to keep their ranches. However, the ranchers didn't all own their own land, and there was talk about the landowners selling out. There was a huge uproar to keep them there because the local dairy industry needed enough critical mass to justify the costs of the dairy processing facilities in the area. Marin is very interesting with a lot of the land dedicated as permanent farmland that will never be turned into housing development. Of course Marin has very little land that can be developed and there's been all sorts of controversies over whether George Lucas would develop new filmmaking facilities or later build low income housing. Also talk about closing San Quentin State Prison where the land would be extremely valuable for its views of San Francisco Bay.

There's plenty of runoff from all the cattle grazing in Marin County too. One of the solutions used to be the farmed oysters in Tomales Bay and Drakes Bay, which would clarify the water. I know it sounds kind of gross, but they're filter feeders that help to reduce a lot of those issues. The oyster farm in Drakes Bay is gone, but the ones in Tomales Bay are still there.

 

[JT20]

 

[JT20]

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

WHEW WEEEE! Look at all of those chicken nuggets roaming around!