Mini cattle may shrink the hoofprint of eating beef

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Not according to that rancher who used to raise regular cattle.

Where did it say that?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

smaller cow =less meat......... less meat =raise twice as many = no fvckin difference.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

Where did it say that?

the greenhouse-gas-burping equivalent of one regular cow -- can be pastured on the same five acres that previously would support only two full-sized cows

[ValerieA 350]

That is just the amount of land they require, charles!. It doesn't address the fact that there will be more work because there are more cows.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

There is a lot more to maintain cattle than just pasture space. Vet bills and vaccinations come to mind. The act of processing 10 small cattle as opposed to one large one also raises costs.

[HAL 9000 96]

Smaller cow = smaller dosages = higher drug clearances (higher metabolic rate).

Agri vets tend to treat animals by volume, not per animal for most routine care. More volume = more discounts.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Obama gonna open the Bureau of farts and measures?

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

Smaller cow = smaller dosages = higher drug clearances (higher metabolic rate).

Agri vets tend to treat animals by volume, not per animal for most routine care. More volume = more discounts.

also takes less people to handle these - in the past when i'd help eartag cattle, it would take half a dozen at least.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Green cow meat will also cost more.

[HAL 9000 96]

also takes less people to handle these - in the past when i'd help eartag cattle, it would take half a dozen at least.

If only Frank Zappa were alive today... he could sing about the pigmy cattle.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Smaller cow = smaller dosages = higher drug clearances (higher metabolic rate).

Agri vets tend to treat animals by volume, not per animal for most routine care. More volume = more discounts.

Up to a point but I doubt if it would be enough to offset a 10 fold increase in numbers. It would also take more time to treat 10 animals rather than 1. The main cost increase would be when it comes time to butcher. The cost of processing 10 animals rather than 1 would be 10 times more.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Up to a point but I doubt if it would be enough to offset a 10 fold increase in numbers. It would also take more time to treat 10 animals rather than 1. The main cost increase would be when it comes time to butcher. The cost of processing 10 animals rather than 1 would be 10 times more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl2fONPgIJE

:rofl:

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Smaller cow = smaller steak. Don't like it.

Smaller Rocky Mountain oysters...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

We already have a smaller cow.

[HAL 9000 96]

Up to a point but I doubt if it would be enough to offset a 10 fold increase in numbers. It would also take more time to treat 10 animals rather than 1. The main cost increase would be when it comes time to butcher. The cost of processing 10 animals rather than 1 would be 10 times more.

Not unless you employ samurai warriors to quickly dispatch these cute cows.

Also, see Charles' previous post on handling cows. I think the time differences between one large cow vs several smaller ones in that light would be extremely minimal compared to the likely savings of less hands on deck.

Reduced costs could mean more people can get into the business, and drive consumer costs down due to increased competition.