5 ms·
> For one, you can simply eat the cows It could be more resource intensive to get a new cow each time rather than milk the same cow over and over for a longer
by pan69 6y ago
> For one, you can simply eat the cows
It could be more resource intensive to get a new cow each time rather than milk the same cow over and over for a longer period of time.
- hinkley 6y agoMilk production is also a continuum of data samples over the life of the animal. Eating the animal is one data sample and you can’t duplicate the animal after collecting the data. Selecting for milk production would be a lot more accurate than selecting for meat tastiness, longevity or even, to an lesser extent, health.
- solstice 6y agoI can't decide whether that first para is satire or not
- simcop2387 6y agoActually we select for both depending on the line of the stock and have been doing so for a rather long time. You do lose the animal after killing it of course but we have a huge amount data from cattle breeding charts that lets a branch be trimmed if there's some fault with it that will damage the genetic tree.
- hinkley 6y agoYou can’t use the lens of modern agriculture and data collection to look at the birth and growth of animal husbandry. We have enough now that the conversation isn’t about if we can afford to eat our cows but how fast we can eat them. The top of this thread was discussing how we got into milk harvesting so broadly when so few have the genes for it. It was more efficient for people handing down knowledge through oral tradition.
- GuB-42 6y agoNot denying it but in order for a cow to produce milk, it has to give birth to a calf every year. So you are getting new cows as a byproduct. Today, male calves are usually separated from their mother early and slaughtered for their meat, while females can be used to replenish stock. But if you prefer you can slaughter them later for more meat and less milk.
- bluGill 6y agoYou get milk every day in a reasonable quantity. Before refrigeration killing a cow meant inviting the whole town to a feast at your house. Smaller animals can be eaten by one family before it spoils, but not a cow.
- smabie 6y agoIt's relatively easy to preserve meat by making jerky or through fermentation. Cultures have known about these methods for a long long time.
- adrianN 6y agoSalting, drying and various other methods for preserving meat have been known for a long time.
- rrobukef 6y agoYes, even with preserving there is too much meat. DDG says one cow has about 250 kg of meat. This is enough to feed a family for over a year. There is also enough edible meat that cannot be preserved: the head, some organs. These are prepared immediately, hence the feast for the village.
- rsj_hn 6y agosure, so 400 families can support a population that kills a cow per day, eats some of the meat in the family and sells the rest of the meat.
- sangnoir 6y agoYou could also harvest and consume the blood[1], without having to kill any cattle. 1. https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/cow-blood-kenya-maasai https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/cow-blood-kenya-maasai
- kaesar14 6y agoThis must be more dangerous disease transmission wise?
- sangnoir 6y agoIf you choose to consume the blood raw, then yes, it can be a vector for pathogens. However, most pastoralist societies know how to keep their herds healthy.
- eru 6y agoThat's for the vector from cow to human. But cutting into your cow also makes it more likely for your cow to catch something, doesn't it?
- scns 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet
- AniseAbyss 6y agoEurope doesn't have the huge steppes that North America and North Asia had for unlimited and ever replenishing cattle.