Why do farmers feed meat to herbivores?

Great Debates
1

  1. Why do farmers still feed the carcases of other animals to animas that wouldn’t normally eat animals?

  2. Aside from the relative costs of grain vs meat, hasn’t it been proven that feeding flesh to herbivores is likely to cause dangerous side-effects?

  3. Isn’t this how the UK suffered from salmonella (chickens being fed chickens) & perhaps even how scrapie was transferred into CJD in cattle & became vCJD (theoretically - not too sure about that) in humans?

  4. Isn’t the farming world at fault for forcing unnatural activities onto animals?

  5. How come farmers get to claim from the Government - If I get vCJD because a farm fed sheep that lived on chicken to cows can I sue the farmer (or the NUF)? It wouldn’t have happened if the animals had led ‘normal’ lives.

Thank you for you time.

2

Your time!

3

Semi-WAG here:

I dimly remember the rationalisation at the time was that modern intensive cattle farming methods require feed which is very …seeks for words… intense/densely packed with nutrients.
Hay/silage/whatever just won’t get the critters big enough, fast enough.

Organicly farmed meat is the way to go.

4

1)Because these foods were highly nutritive , contained necessary elements and because the carcasses woudl have been wasted otherwise, so it was an efficient use for them
2)It’s not a question of cost, as I just pointed out. What they were fed with wouldn’t have been used for human consumption. And it has indeed been proven detrimental by the dreadful mad cow disease (and its human counterpart, the CJD) in Europe and more particulary in the UK.

3)I don’t know for Salmonella, but it can be transmitted otherwise (chicken poo on eggs, for instance). Concerning the scrapies, it has been considered for centuries that it couldn’t be transmitted to humans, hence wasnt a issue (and scrapies existed when sheeps ate only grass). AFAIK, the issue is now studied more closely, but my understanding is that what is suspected is a form of “mad cow disease” with symptoms which could be mistaken for scrapie symptoms. Anyway, I don’t think definitive evidence has been found yet.

4)It wasn’t their fault as long as the consequences weren’t known. Those people who went on selling these products not properly prepared or used them knowingly after the consequences were known were at fault, though.

5

And I don’t think they were feeding them carcasses. That’s to say, I don’t think they were feeding them raw meat. I thought it was more that the dead animals were processed into some sort of meal or protein powder, and then fed to the others.

6

From the pictures I’ve seen on the PBS Nova show about Mad Cow Disease, the recycled-cow cattle feed looks pretty much like dog food.

7

They do it because 'dem farmers are sadistic folk. If humans were like cattle they’d be feeding them their relatives just for chuckles!

Ok seriously Cattle farmers just really hate them pansy vegatarians.

8

Because we as a society have come to demand as our right .99 cent hamburgers and cheap meat in general. We only care how the meat is raised and processed when it makes us ill.

9

I actually have a discussion going on the “General Questions” board about this topic. I think its pretty disgusting what they are doing… feeding dogs, cats, pigs, horses, and all kinds of animals to cows.

Click here to visit the discussion

Here are some exerpts:

"Howard Lyman… is a cattle rancher that decided to ‘expose’ practices in the US meat industry.

Here is a quote by author Howard Lyman:

’ There is simply no such thing in America as an animal too ravaged by disease, too cancerous, or too putrid to be welcomed by the embracing arms of the renderer. Another staple of the renderers diet, in addition to farm animals, is euthanized pets…
the six or seven million dogs and cats that are killed in animal shelters every year. The city of Los Angeles alone, for example, sends some two hundred tons of euthanized cats and dogs to a rendering plant every month. Added to the blend are the euthanized catch of animal control agencies, and roadkill. When the gruesome mix is ground and steam-cooked, the lighter, fatty material floating to the top gets refined for use in such products as cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, candles, and waxes. The heavier protein material is dried and pulverized into a brown powder about a quarter of which consists of fecal material. The powder is used as an additive to almost all pet food as well as to livestock feed. Farmers call it protein concentrates.In 1995, five million tons of processed slaughterhouse leftovers were sold for animal feed in the United States. I used to feed tons of the stuff to my own livestock. ’ "

"I just read the FDA Code of Federal Regulations (21CF589.2000)
that you gave me the link to.

It seems like under the new Code, they can still feed cats and dogs (and other animals) to cows.

The code says:

“Animal proteins [are] prohibited in ruminant feed.
Protein derived from mammalian tissues means
any protein-containing portion of mammalian animals, excluding: Blood and blood products…”

So, the cows could still be eating dog and cat, etc. blood.

Also…

Not pertaining to dogs and cats, but the FDA Code says that the meat industry can still use pig and horse meat in cattle feed:

“any product whose only mammalian protein
consists entirely of porcine or equine protein”

And…

Cats and dogs and other animals can still be fed to ANY animal (ie: pigs, chickens, etc.) as long as it is not a ruminant. FDA says that a ruminant is:

“cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, deer, elk, and antelopes”

Lastly…

The only “inspection” that the licensed meat renderers have to comply with by this FDA Code is:

“Inspection: records retention. (1) Records… are to be made available for inspection and copying”

So, no FDA people are actually going into these plants to test or inspect. Pretty scarey. "

10

Sakurako wrote:

Is cancerous tissue unhealthy for people (or cows) to eat?
It’s just more dead meat, isn’t it?

11

Given that the rendering process likely kills the vast majority of agents of disease, why does it matter if the meat was diseased or putrid prior to being rendered? The resulting protein powder from diseased meat probably can’t be distinguished from that resulting from healthy meat.

12

The intent of this new code seems to be avoiding the MCD. It forbid to use the meat of animals which could transmit the MCD to feed animals which could catch it.

A more serious concern than the fate of cat’s corpses, IMO…

13

I see two major problems with feeding euthanized dog and cat blood, etc. to cows.

  1. Cows are herbivores and should not eat meat. It causes cows to be sickly and I think it can’t rationally be healthy for us as humans to eat meat from sickly cows. Also, to keep the cows from being ‘sickly’ they are fed tons of antibiotics. This is causing antibiotic resistance in cows as well as in the general human population.

  2. Cows are like filters. They are eating blood poisoned by the chemicals used to euthanize the dogs and cats. They are eating the putrid or diseased bodies of horses, pigs, etc. Thus, they are taking all of this disease and pollution into their body. It is stored in their fat. And we end up eating it.

I think cows should be fed grass and grain. Its their natural diet. And it would likely make their meat healthier for us to eat.

14

They aren’t eating meat, they are eating protein.

They are not eating blood, nor are they eating putrid or diseased bodies of anything. Once again, everything gets rendered down to a protein powder. And you can read here about methods which can be used to neutralize any pathogens. Also, according to the FDA,

15

Ahem! Cite, please?

Protein is protein, whether derived from soy beans or from meat. For purposes of protein supplements for animal feed it hardly makes a difference in the cow’s health or the ultimate consumer’s health.

The great bulk of slaughtered and tanked animals either die of disease, trauma in shipping or from a sledge hammer blow to the head. Animals that are put down are put down with anesthetics, not strychnine. A concern for a build up of “harmful chemicals” working through the food chain is just fanciful.

A cow, or a sheep, or a pig will willingly eat anything you put in front of it as long as the animal can conveniently chew it and swallow it, whether it’s nice green grass, dry brown hay or the ground, powdered and cooked remains of its second cousin. The cow will be just as happy and healthy as it could be eating commercial feed containing animal protein. She’s good eating, too…

16

SG-

What specifically do you need a cite for?

The info. about the antibiotics is common knowledge, and usually you don’t have to cite common knowledge.

The other information is already cited above in my other posts.

So, if you could be more specific…

17

As for the “harmful chemicals” just being fanciful, I think you’re completely wrong. Just look at any study concerning DDT, or any other powerful agricultural pesticides, and how extremely young human babies already have a high buildup of these nasty chemicals, as they are getting them from their mother’s breast milk.

Now, look at dairy cows. Same basic principle. They eat some nasty crap (toxin and bacteria-laden fecal matter, harsh antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, pesticides, etc.) it ends up in their milk. Who drinks the milk? Our children, and ourselves. So, yes, harmful chemicals can make their way down the food chain. If a lion ate you, he or she would ingest all of the toxins that are stored in your muscle and fat cells.

And no, you can’t just put anything down in front of a farm animal, and it will just start munching away. The rendered feed, and everything they’re fed, is disguised with artificial flavors and artificial scents, just like pretty much any item you buy at any fast food restaurant.

As for the cow being happy? You’re way out of line, suggesting that. After you take a visit to a slaughterhouse, or a factory farm, or watch a video, or even just visit here, then get back to us about your “happy cows.”

18

Here are three propositions boldly and baldly asserted that I would like to see some authority for, and in particular for the idea that feeding animal protein to beef and dairy cattle is a danger to the public health:

I will accept the idea that feeding animal protein from animals that might possibly have Mad Cow Disease is a bad idea because, as remote as the chance of human infection is, the consequences of infection are catastrophic, and the chance of animal infection, again while remote, is economically disastrous.

This is not to accept the idea that animal protein feeds present any generalized public or animal health risk. The resource is readily available and is economically feasible. It ought to be used. I have some trouble thinking that the LA animal shelters are shipping car loads of dead cats and dogs to the great feed mills of the Midwest for processing into calf starter, bone meal, fish meal and high protein animal feed.

Antibiotics present another problem, but it does not have anything to do with the supposed ill effects of animal protein feeds. The vast number of meat animals and dairy animals are keep in confinement lots and buildings, not on the open range. Once a disease breaks out in one of these facilities it goes through the whole heard like corn through a goose. Antibiotics are routinely given as a prophylactic. Antibiotics have been over done and there are resistant strains of disease developing which requires even greater amounts of antibiotic to supress. It becomes a vicious cycle that will cause major trouble sooner or later. In the mean time the farmer is confronted with following a practice that will cause trouble at some time in the unknown future or abandoning the practice and watching disease destroy his heard and his hope for any financial security. I do not accept that there is any connection between the practice of feeding animal based feeds and the use of antibiotics.

19

Friend, you may be missing the point here. This discussion is about the use of animal protein in animal feeds. You may talk about DDT and insecticides and herbicides all you want, but it is off point. Other than the Mad Cow Disease problem, I am not aware of any reputable study that suggest any connection between animal protein feed and a public health risk. All that has been offered here is supposition and faulty analogy.

As far as “happy cows” are concerned, my statement was that the beasts happily eat animal protein feeds. You have transformed my statement into one that the beasts are happy to be slaughtered. This is not an honest debating tactic.

20

Friend, you may be missing the point here. This discussion is about the use of animal protein in animal feeds. You may talk about DDT and insecticides and herbicides all you want, but it is off point. Other than the Mad Cow Disease problem, I am not aware of any reputable study that suggest any connection between animal protein feed and a public health risk. All that has been offered here is supposition and faulty analogy.

As far as “happy cows” are concerned, my statement was that the beasts happily eat animal protein feeds. You have transformed my statement into one that the beasts are happy to be slaughtered. This is not an honest debating tactic.