#How to Answer Behavioral Questions | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bonefall · 29 days ago

Text

[ID: Ask from @storiesandsquirrels, transcribed in alt text]

also: link to Cow Lore

There's one major misconception here I've gotta correct before answering earnestly; Holsteins do need Super Duper Food. This is one of their major problems as a breed, you need to give them high quality feed for high quantity, low quality milk.

But! That said! These are valid questions that deserve real responses. In spite of the quick correction, I actually want to answer them as you phrased them because I think it would be more illuminating. I'm going to try and summarize them as I go along;

Question 1: "Why wouldn't we want to use The Most Efficient Cow?"

The simplest answer is disease. My ""prediction"" came true, and bird flu has mutated to spread extremely easily through the infected udders of Holsteins. No one has died of bovine-contracted HPAI yet, but with Brainworm Bobby and his love of raw milk in charge of the CDC...

well. my last prediction was prophetic. let's hope this one's not.

Minmaxing a breed for one specific purpose always means intensive inbreeding. Like I mentioned, 9 million Holsteins are genetically equivalent to 60 individuals. A more genetically diverse population is one that will be better at preventing disease outbreaks, and reducing their severity when they do.

And what even is the Most Efficient Milk Cow? If you're only selecting for pure milk production to drive down its cost, you get a breed of cattle that lacks every other important trait that would make it good livestock;

They get sick more often, due to inbreeding depression and lack of physical fitness, requiring more antibiotics and veterinary care.

They are bad parents who will need more human intervention to birth and raise calves

They won't be good grazers, meaning they need a specific food grown for them, increasing how much "functional" land is actually dedicated to cattle husbandry.

Their carcass won't yield as much meat, so more cattle have to be raised and slaughtered to meet demand.

Their bodies will burn out much quicker than a healthier animal, meaning you need to replace your livestock more often.

When it comes to living beings, "efficiency" is "fragility." It's not a stable system to begin with.

Even with the pure logic aside, just, step back here and look at the situation with a heart. We'd be making unhealthy, short-lived animals lacking critical instincts to lead good social lives. AND we probably haven't even fixed the "less land" problem, just shifted the land off-site.

For what? For more milk? We have SO MUCH milk we don't even know what to do with it!

Question 2: "Isn't an overabundance of cheap milk a good thing?"

no.

Under the infinite genius of Capitalism, thousands of gallons of milk just gets poured into the sewer daily because there's too much of it. Transporting it to a processor would cost more than it's worth, sometimes the processors turn milk away because they don't want to overproduce products, and even the US government can't subsidize every last drop; it still has 1.4 billion pounds of cheese in various caves and warehouses across the country.

The price of milk cannot get any lower because it's already being sold below the cost it takes to produce it, and yet, we're still here literally pouring it down the drain.

[photo from bill ulrich who photographed a farmer dumping milk back during the pandemic. this isn't even a recent photo. this happens every time there's a milk surplus. im using this photo because i like the farmer's cunty little pose. look at him. "just ain't right"core.]

And milk being dumped into the sewer is more than just wasteful. It's a biohazard.

Milk doesn't stop rotting when it's dumped. If you live downstream of a milkhouse, improper milk disposal reeks.

It's full of nutrients, too, which causes diatoms, cyanobacteria, and other types of algae to go into overdrive-- causing a Harmful Algal Bloom event in the water, or HAB.

HABs are horrific. There's HUNDREDS of different types. They can suck up oxygen and create "dead zones" which kills all aquatic life, they can poison the water supply for an entire town, and some can even cause toxic fumes that make it hard to breathe on land.

Now, listen, I don't want to scare you into never dumping out rotten milk or anything! It's that on an industrial scale, it's REALLY REALLY bad if a farm overproduces milk-- especially crummy milk that can't be made into decent cheese or other dairy products.

In fact, if we did produce milk on a smaller scale, it would be better for everyone! Unless you're a Milk Guzzling Fiend like I am, you probably wouldn't need to buy a whole gallon at a time. In countries like Italy, it's sold fresh and in smaller containers, and you're just expected to pick it up as you need it.

This is why milkmen used to exist, and still do in places that are cool; they'd deliver your supply fresh from the creamery. Less waste, less stress! The "subscription model" is actually sooooooooooo much better for milk production, since it helps to stagger out those "surges and drops" of demand that leads to milk dumps.

Question 3: "If the cow eats less, doesn't that mean less land for pasture, which is a good thing?"

There's a lot to unpack within this sentiment. It's actually based on a couple of common assumptions on a few levels, which are incorrect in fascinating ways. Challenging this means opening up your worldview on how complex keeping livestock actually is!

I'll start with the simpler part;

You could cut fresh pasture out of the equation entirely and shove a cow into a concrete pen with a food box-- but are you counting the land growing the fodder?

When you grow corn the way that we do on industrial farms in the US, it's unbelievably destructive. Unending oceans of monoculture. Fogged with pesticide, pumped full of fertilizer which causes HABs like dumped milk does, sprayed with thousands of gallons of wasted water.

When you look at this image, I need you to understand you are looking at a dead zone. Like a suburban lawn, just because it's green doesn't mean it's good. Nothing grows here but corn and pests of corn, which gets poisoned and dies without returning any of that energy to the ecosystem.

This is usually what is being given to "grain-fed cattle," either when they're sent to a feedlot to hit their slaughter weight, or when they're lactating so they need the extra nutrition. It's also so nasty it's inedible to human beings.

Now, a lot of cattle farmers will just supplement their cow's diet, doing a mix of pasture feeding (much cheaper) and grain feeding (quicker gains). But the facts on this are clear; pasture-kept cattle result in LESS emissions and need LESS total space than cows in confinement.

In fact, there were a LOT of benefits!

Overall gas emissions from the cows dropped by 8%

Ammonia pollution was down by 30%

Not needing to run farm equipment for fodder planting and harvest reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 10%

Rotated crop fields didn't sequester carbon; but the newly converted perennial grasslands store as much as 3,400 pounds per acre.

The outside cows did produce less milk volume, but the milk they did produce was higher quality. So, looking at all the benefits here, it's clear that pasture is actually something that should be embraced for ecological reasons, not rejected.

In FACT, it should be EMPHASIZED. Because, this is the mind-blowing part,

Pasture can ALSO be an ecosystem.

In fact, I'm a Warrior Cats guy who once did a deep dive on moorlands just so I could write WindClan better. There are entire biomes that only exist because of grazing, and British lowland heath is one of them!

Keeping cattle in a sustainable, ecologically sound way is going to look different depending on where in the world you're doing it. So many earnest, good-willed people have bought into the lie that humans are a problem, and that everything "associated" with us becomes a barren wasteland as if we are tainted. YOU are not the problem! The problem is, and always has been, exploitation. Unsustainable relationships with the land we're part of.

Indigenous people in Europe, Asia, and Africa have been keeping cattle for thousands of years. In North America, cattle can be used to maintain ecosystems that have been badly affected by the colonial eradication of the American Bison. In South America, Brazil specifically has been making incredible advances with highly efficient integrated crop-livestock-forestry farming.

Generally, pastures here in the US are not as intensely managed as an equivalent crop field. Some people fertilize them, or water them mid-summer, but absolutely not to the same extent as industrial corn farms. Cattle are typically rotated between pastures, allowing each to re-grow before they come back to graze again.

Obviously, yes, overgrazing can be an issue. Not every open space should be converted into a pasture, and the destruction of other environments to turn into cow land is a problem. But that is an issue of bad land stewardship, not the mere practice of keeping livestock.

Bottom line, though? Cattle who can graze and survive outside are better for the environment than cattle that can't.

...but hey, you know what Holsteins happen to be really bad at?

EVERYTHING. GRAZING.

They are notoriously terrible grazers. They can't do megan THEEEEE thing that cows are known for. Fragile frames, a lack of fat to keep them warm outside, increased demand for food, distaste for any rough forage, horrible mothering instincts, the list goes on. Holsteins are a NIGHTMARE to try and keep outside all year round compared to other breeds.

(especially heritage breeds, like the Milking Devon, Florida Cracker, or Texas Longhorn. Between these three, you'd be totally covered in 80% of American climates.)

I've already explained why it's not actually very good or important that we minmax milk volume, but even if that was actually something we should value, there are so many downsides that they would absolutely not be the dominant cow breed in a truly "efficient" system.

"Less cows means less cow food and cow land" is sound logic, but Holsteins are not the right cow for that job.

Question 4: "How could this be done in a way that doesn't increase cost of living?"

I'm not sure how to answer this question, simply because I'm not Bonestar, Leader of AmericaClan. Wish I was. I would rule tyrannically.

It's worth noting that Brazil is the second largest producer of beef in the entire world, AND the number one largest exporter of it, AND only puts 30% of its land to total agricultural use. The USA dedicates over 50%. And also Brazil is net reducing its amount of agricultural land while increasing output.

It seems clear to me that the USA actually has a massive food waste and resource distribution problem, to the point where the price we pay for stuff is actually wildly disconnected from the actual value of the goods and labor.

I think the way that us Americans tend to frame our conversations on these topics as "growth" vs "cuts" instead of asking how to minimize waste by making existing systems more efficient prevents us from solving problems. We're also just... really culturally resistant to the idea of anything being more "expensive," even if it ends up costing us a lot more money in waste or mismanagement later.

Penny wise and dollar foolish ass country.

Question 5: "What can we personally do about this?"

I mean, I wasn't making a call to action in Cow Lore, I was just explaining to one of my regulars why I don't like Holsteins LMAO. Since you're asking though...

I don't think we can change the wider trend in the dairy industry without actual government intervention and regulation, though, and that's very unlikely in the current political environment. they just sent random dudes to Ausalvador-Birkenau and when the Supreme Court said "bring this specific person back" they said "nuh uh." fellas I don't think we're getting better dairy regulations in the foreseeable future.

So I think the most productive thing to do is focusing on supporting small farms and heritage breeds. Get involved in your community garden or heritage society if you have one.

Not only is that generally a very rewarding thing, but it will be helpful to you in case The Situation Gets Worse. Knowing your neighbors and having real human connection is your best defense against economic recession.

Supporting the locals is always a great thing to do, which can be as simple as going to farmer's markets. You don't need to buy fancy food every day to make an impact on your community-- it can be a treat sometimes!

You could also subscribe to the Livestock Conservancy's free newsletter, where they talk about the work they're doing and upcoming events. If you're a knitter, crocheter, or any other kind of fiber artist, you could even join in on a challenge they're running where you make items out of rare wool for prizes!

Should you end up liking the work they do, you can become a member for 4$ a month, or go to one of their educational events.

Even just talking about the problem can do a lot! Did you know the Highland Cow was actually critically endangered in the USA within the past 10 years? It was the work of the Livestock Conservancy, plus a surge in their popularity, that helped to bring their numbers up. Word of mouth is a powerful thing.

All that said, remember, you can't solve every problem. It's a big world and there's a lot of them. Being made aware of an issue doesn't mean you have to drop what you were previously doing-- just care a lot about something that you want to improve, and let that guide you.

#Funfact: My great-something-grammy boinked the milkman #and that's how my great-something-grandparent happened lmaoo #Straightup parody level family drama #queen behavior tho ngl #Perhaps I simply respect my Milkmancestor's game too much #got milk in my blood #bone babble #cows #i like. tried not to say it TOO much besides the powerpuff girls meme. but.#capitalism is the core problem under everything here #it doesn't actually encourage efficiency on a large scale; it *encourages* overproduction and *incentivizes* artificial scarcity #under a capitalist system it is a good thing to crush your small farm competition by literally flooding the market with cheap milk #because it's more profitable to dump sour milk onto the nearest poor community than lose sales to Meemaw Moomoo And Her Heritage Herd #and yeah the cows are sick and dying from genetic issues and infections. but it's cheaper to feed them antibiotics #because it's not like the dairy industry is the one who pays for the medical care of antibiotic-resistant superbugs that jump to humans!#the questions were genuine tho so I was trying to answer them without a Degrowth Rant lmaooooooooooo #will say as an aside though that when Cost of Living comes up as a concern there's a red part of me that is like #''comrade. ANY cost to live is too high.''

206 notes · View notes

letmetellyouaboutmyfeels · 1 year ago

Note

"We do want Buddie to be canon, nonny, and in my opinion we are going to get it. All this recent PR supports that, (again: in my opinion)"

Can you go into this if you don't mind, honestly I think Ryan at the premiere all but confirmed it and even now he says so much without saying anything at all. His expressions give away so much lol. He has a terrible poker face. But i would love to hear your thoughts on this if possible.

I'm gonna be honest nonny you really answered your own question there: Ryan's behavior and the fact that they're continuing to let him do press.

As I discussed previously, it's very difficult to promote a couple of characters that fandom ships without falling into queerbaiting. Because of this it would be the smart thing for ABC to keep Ryan and Oliver separate, disallow Buddie or Buddie-related questions, and so on.

Instead they are allowing Ryan to do press, Ryan to do press with Oliver, and are allowing these questions while trusting Oliver and Ryan (on a leash) to handle them. Now, part of it is probably the Barbra Streisand effect i.e. the more attempts you make to hide something the more people notice the very thing you don't want them to notice, but given the sheer AMOUNT that Buck and Eddie's relationship has been put front and center and the fact that Oliver and Ryan have been doing all these interviews together, I am hopeful and see that as a positive sign for Buddie because I trust ABC not to want to shit the bed by being accused of queerbaiting.

I think also as I've mentioned in another ask I answered a week or so ago, Ryan being in PR jail was a joke for a reason. Now, please note, EVERYONE except Oliver was pushed to the side in PR by FOX. FOX seriously pushed Oliver to do all the promo and be the "face" of the show, something nobody in the cast appreciated (including Oliver). So Ryan not doing interviews nearly as much was, in part, this issue by FOX.

However, Ryan also historically is... bad at keeping his mouth shut. He never quite spills the beans but he tends to throw his personal opinion out and hint/tease at stuff he shouldn't be hinting/teasing at. He likes to be goofy, to tease fans, to have fun. Which not only gives public relations managers migraines and anxiety, but in the case of a queer ship can land the show in trouble if Ryan's saying stuff that fans think is hinting at Buddie and then Buddie doesn't happen.

As we have all seen, the second they let Ryan open his mouth on live camera, his cute tipsy little puppy face word vomited all over the carpet. I suspect the fear of god was put into Oliver that it was his job to Make Ryan Behave.

Now, there are actors who have ignored this and enjoyed teasing about a ship anyway and the network has let them because they only cared about getting people to watch the show, they didn't care about being respectful or not. But nowadays that's not something you can get away with and most networks understand they'll get a lot of backlash that's just not worth it. AND most actors understand that even if they personally want a ship to happen, it's only going to hurt the feelings of fans if they (the actor) try to hint at it and then it doesn't happen.

It's more often that an actor will later say after the fact "yeah I would've liked it if X happened, but the writers chose to go in a different direction." Past-tense. They have a lot more freedom to speak on past things than on present storylines or possible future ones.

ABC is taking a risk in letting Ryan do all these video interviews, and to do video interviews with Oliver because the second those two are doing anything together everyone assumes it hints at Buddie. The latter, that's not really on ABC so much as on the fans, but either way, the solution is to keep 'em separate and keep Ryan locked up. Instead, they're allowing the actors to do things they know will get fans excited over Buddie, without crossing any lines into disrespect.

#lincoln answers things #911 spec #I guess?#I appreciate people wanting my opinions and to elaborate on stuff #but I'm really not sure what else/more there is to say #please remember to search my ask tag on my blog #in case I have already explained everything about your question(s) in previous asks #honestly the tl;dr of this ask is 'yeah nonny you answered your own question'#but I am aware there are new people in the fandom #and so I want to try and explain how PR works and what actors are and are not allowed to do #to sketch out a picture of how Ryan's behavior is risky for the PR team #and why it's making us all excited

10 notes · View notes