Texas Ranch Has a New Owner

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, but it is.  I'm afraid you're not factoring in time-tables.

Animals are protein on the hoof, or whatever.  In the short-term we can slaughter food animals immediately to provide sustenance, but crops take months to mature and harvest.

I am factoring in time-tables.  Why are you assuming that plants would not ready to harvest or be preserved and available immediately for use in a famine if we started using ranch land for produce instead of beef production?  

1 acre of land can produce 33,656 kg of produce and grains, versus 3,364 kg of beef.  This doesn't even begin to factor in water consumption.  Plants can feed far more people with far fewer resources with the same amount of land. 

[cacheman]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are endless sources of mineral fertilizers and poop.  I don't think most modern agriculture uses manure fertilizer - maybe some small organic farms.   I am pretty sure a cow eats more hay and other agricultural products, and drinks more water in their life-time than their manure can fertilize.  

This is true.  The current US system of agriculture is only sustainable at its current level with the aid of natural gas, coal, and petroleum used in ammonia plants to synthesize nitrogen.  Of course, the US demand for nitrogen requires much of that nitrogen to be imported.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am factoring in time-tables.  Why are you assuming that plants would not ready to harvest or be preserved and available immediately for use in a famine if we started using ranch land for produce instead of beef production?  

1 acre of land can produce 33,656 kg of produce and grains, versus 3,364 kg of beef.  This doesn't even begin to factor in water consumption.  Plants can feed far more people with far fewer resources with the same amount of land. 

The Joseph of Egypt scenario involved grain, not cattle. If one is preparing for famine rather than just responding to it, seems like food that stores best longest per cost for calorie would be the intelligent route. 

Canned meat can last up to five years. 

Freeze dried beef can last 25 years.  Freeze drying is rather expensive though, 3 times as much as canned. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Calm

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I'm not a fan of the cattle industry.  I think it is one of the most wasteful and inefficient foods to produce.  It is bad for the planet, bad for our health, and it also happens to be against the word of wisdom (unless we are in famine - which we are not).

I don't think the industry is sustainable long-term, personally. 

I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this position, but that is ok.  

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

So when it's cold or winter time is also OK . I tend to think that the Word of Wisdom needs to be considered in the time it was given, when preservation of meats was not as good as it is now.  

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

So when it's cold or winter time is also OK . I tend to think that the Word of Wisdom needs to be considered in the time it was given, when preservation of meats was not as good as it is now.  

I agree that it needs to be considered in the time it was given.  Actually, I think the WoW was worded that way because winter time made it difficult to garden, therefore people relied more on meet.  It could be argued that with fresh produce available year/round now, meet should be avoided all together.  I'm not sure how meet preservation would have an influence in the wording.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Joseph of Egypt scenario involved grain, not cattle. If one is preparing for famine rather than just responding to it, seems like food that stores best longest per cost for calorie would be the intelligent route. 

Canned meat can last up to five years. 

Freeze dried beef can last 25 years.  Freeze drying is rather expensive though, 3 times as much as canned. 

The best way to store beef is to store the whole cow while keeping it alive until it is butchered, then either eat it fresh within a few weeks or make jerky with it.  Jerky is one of my favorite ways to eat beef.  I thank God for telling the Lehites how to make jerky.  

This link gives a few good tips on how to store beef jerky:

https://www.jerkyholic.com/how-long-does-beef-jerky-stay-good/

 

edited to add:  The raw meat the Lehites ate was likely more like the type of jerky Arabians and Egyptians eat today, as described here: http://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2018/10/31/raw-meat-in-the-wilderness-1-nephi-172/

Edited February 13, 2020 by Ahab

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that it needs to be considered in the time it was given.  Actually, I think the WoW was worded that way because winter time made it difficult to garden, therefore people relied more on meet.  It could be argued that with fresh produce available year/round now, meet should be avoided all together.  I'm not sure how meet preservation would have an influence in the wording.

Interesting bit of trivia on D&C 89. The original 1835 edition of the Book of Commandments, leaves out a very important comma in verse 13, causing it to read:
"And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

With the comma gone after the word "used" it now reads that eating of meats should not be restricted to times of winter or famine. No one knows for sure who put the comma in there for subsequent editions , only that it was inserted by an editor (possibly James E. Talmadge in 1921)who was preparing the text for a new printing. Researchers are unaware of any direction from Church authorities to make the change. Regardless of this, the previous verse does say we should eat meat "sparingly".

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thinking future is why the industry worries me.  It seems to be ok in the present (kind of, sort of), but as populations increase and demand for water and food supplies increases, beef especially, but meet in general will not be very sustainable.   

I agree- I think you missed my point

What else IN THE FUTURE after the failure of the cattle industry, could that land be used for?

THAT is the point I was trying to make, not about the future of the industry.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

1 acre of land can produce 33,656 kg of produce and grains [...]

But I thought it was written that 'man shall not live by bread alone.'  

 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Interesting bit of trivia on D&C 89. The original 1835 edition of the Book of Commandments, leaves out a very important comma in verse 13, causing it to read:
"And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

With the comma gone after the word "used" it now reads that eating of meats should not be restricted to times of winter or famine. No one knows for sure who put the comma in there for subsequent editions , only that it was inserted by an editor (possibly James E. Talmadge in 1921)who was preparing the text for a new printing. Researchers are unaware of any direction from Church authorities to make the change. Regardless of this, the previous verse does say we should eat meat "sparingly".

I have heard that before.  We should keep in mind also though that these revelations were dictated as a scribe wrote them down.  Punctuation was often missed or added later.  We should not assume that because there was no comma there originally, it was intended to be that way.  Including the comma makes much more sense given the preceding statement - "nevertheless they are to be used sparingly." 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 1 acre of land can produce 33,656 kg of produce and grains, versus 3,364 kg of beef.  This doesn't even begin to factor in water consumption.  Plants can feed far more people with far fewer resources with the same amount of land. 

Would it depend on what kind of land and where it was located?  For example, I grew up in Wyoming and most of the land of that state is not suitable for farming except where people have added irrigation and have put in a lot of time and energy and money to help it along.  But even then only a few things grow well given the type of soil (highly alkaline in a lot of places), especially since the growing season is so short.  There's a reason a good chunk of that state is known as the "badlands".

I have a hard time believing that a Wyoming acre can produce as much as an acre in a different location.

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But I thought it was written that 'man shall not live by bread alone.'  

That's right, we need fruit, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains used in other ways too...and meet sparingly.  And the word of God, of course 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not a fan of the cattle industry.  I think it is one of the most wasteful and inefficient foods to produce.  It is bad for the planet, bad for our health, and it also happens to be against the word of wisdom (unless we are in famine - which we are not).

I don't think the industry is sustainable long-term, personally. 

I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this position, but that is ok.  

My uncle is a cattle rancher.  I sent my aunt and uncle the following Christmas card (going from memory):

"Tell Charles to keep sending us that good cow!  If the environmentalist wackos are right, and if cow farts are gonna destroy the earth as we know it within twelve years anyway, we might as well at least eat good until it finally happens!"

P.S.: Is this the sort of flak you were expecting?

Edited February 13, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Would it depend on what kind of land and where it was located?  For example, I grew up in Wyoming and most of the land of that state is not suitable for farming except where people have added irrigation and have put in a lot of time and energy and money to help it along.  But even then only a few things grow well given the type of soil (highly alkaline in a lot of places), especially since the growing season is so short.  There's a reason a good chunk of that state is known as the "badlands".

I have a hard time believing that a Wyoming acre can produce as much as an acre in a different location.

 The quality of soil will result in different yields, for sure.  But our net production of food, and water resources would be significantly higher, and cheaper, without beef.  Even if you raise cattle on infertile soil, you still have to feed them with produce taken from fertile soil, and it will require WAY more water too.    

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's right, we need fruit, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains used in other ways too...and meet sparingly.  And the word of God, of course 

Thank goodness we don't have to meet very often.  2 hours on Sundays is enough for me with the Church gang and I talk to you folks here on this board because I am doing the "job" thing and I don't have enough "job" work to keep me busy.  Plus I like sharing the gospel.  

The rest of my time I would rather just spend with my wife and our children and occasionally try to help other people by living the gospel.  And eat, occasionally, too.  My wife and I are mostly vegan but we still like to eat meat on occasion.  Especially beef.  The best kind of animal flesh, I think.  Pork is my second best option.  Then fish and other types of seafood.  And then chicken.  And yet for some reason we usually eat more chicken than we eat beef or pork.  Chicken, chicken, chicken.  Sometimes it seems like we eat nothing but chicken.  And yet we are still mostly vegan.  Go figure.

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

Thank goodness we don't have to meet very often.  2 hours on Sundays is enough for me with the Church gang and I talk to you folks here on this board because I am doing the "job" thing and I don't have enough "job" work to keep me busy.  Plus I like sharing the gospel.  

The rest of my time I would rather just spend with my wife and our children and occasionally try to help other people by living the gospel.  And eat, occasionally, too.  My wife and I are mostly vegan but we still like to eat meat on occasion.  Especially beef.  The best kind of animal flesh, I think.  Pork is my second best option.  Then fish and other types of seafood.  And then chicken.  And yet for some reason we usually eat more chicken than we eat beef or pork.  Chicken, chicken, chicken.  Sometimes it seems like we eat nothing but chicken.  And yet we are still mostly vegan.  Go figure.

Good job being mostly vegan.  Me too.  I consider myself a pescatarian (mostly).  I will eat a small serving fish 2-3 times a week as a good source of vitamin B-12 and omega 3's, but am mostly vegan the rest of the time.  I try to eat sustainable and clean fish like wild caught Alaskan salmon (my favorite), or wild caught sardines (one of the healthiest and most sustainable meats on the planet - and tasty with dijon!).  I love beef too.  I won't turn down a good steak or burger at a family gathering or BBQ, but I try to limit my intake for health and other factors mentioned.  

Edited February 14, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

 The quality of soil will result in different yields, for sure.  But our net production of food, and water resources would be significantly higher, and cheaper, without beef.  Even if you raise cattle on infertile soil, you still have to feed them with produce taken from fertile soil, and it will require WAY more water too.    

In Wyoming a lot of ranchers put their stock on BLM land and don’t have to supplement (especially in the mountains) but they do have to in the winter of course, but the cattle don’t eat the people grade produce.  They eat field corn and not sweet corn, for example. 

And in the winter they mostly eat silage. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by bluebell

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good job being mostly vegan.  Me too.  I consider myself a pescatarian (mostly).  I will eat a small serving fish 2-3 times a week as a good source of vitamin B-12 and omega 3's, but am mostly vegan the rest of the time.  I try to eat sustainable and clean fish like wild caught Alaskan salmon (my favorite), or wild caught sardines (healthiest and most sustainable meet on the planet - and tasty with dijon!).  I love beef too.  I won't turn down a good steak or burger at a family gathering or BBQ, but I try to limit my intake for health and other factors mentioned.  

My wife doesn't like fish or seafood, generally, but she will eat salmon and tuna if she prepares it just right.  I am the seafood lover and she wouldn't touch it if it were not for the fact that I like it.  One of the first meals she made for me was baked salmon encrusted with lots and lots of herbs and spices, the only way she thought she would be able to eat it, and it is now my favorite way to eat salmon.  We served it at our home at our wedding party when we were married and we don't eat it very often but our 18th wedding anniversary is coming up soon, tomorrow, and we'll be having that for our Sunday dinner.  We'll be in Seattle tomorrow and Saturday and will get some fresh salmon at the Pike Place Market there.  Then it will probably be a while before we will have it again.

Smoked BBQ is one of my favorite ways to eat most meats.  I smoke brisket and pork butt or shoulder on occasions and try to keep it on hand in our freezers.  Ribeye steak is my favorite steak and we also eat hamburgers on occasions.  I like occasions. The times when I eat animal flesh.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Ahab

[strappinglad]

In case you have missed it, it is quite cold in much of the Northern States and Canada and Scandinavia  and Russia and...

Red meat fuels the inner fires . I had a prof from India who taught us Canucks  and he was always cold. We suggested he eat beef . He continued to shiver. He was a vegetarian . 

I live near a very large Church owned ranch. They farm crops everywhere the soil allows and raise cattle where it doesn't. Where they raise cattle the land has soil just a few inches deep under which is several feet of gravel left by the ice age glaciers. Only tough prairie grasses can grow there.

It is true that we eat way more meat than we need to and anyone who has seen the industrial work of raising beef or pork or chicken etc. usually gets put off quickly. Most ,however, never think about where the beef for their Big Mac comes from , or just how the chicken McNuggets are made. We would not be able to supply large cities  of 200,000 plus without such industrial level processes so pick your poison. Cut the worlds population in half and all will be well … for a few years anyway. 

My favorite " quote " from an animal rights activist is " There is no need to raise cows for milk  when everyone can just go to the store and get it " 

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In Wyoming a lot of ranchers put their stock on BLM land and don’t have to supplement (especially in the mountains) but the do have to in the winter of course. 

Grazing is definitely one of the more sustainable ways to raise beef.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good job being mostly vegan.  Me too.  I consider myself a pescatarian (mostly).  I will eat a small serving fish 2-3 times a week as a good source of vitamin B-12 and omega 3's, but am mostly vegan the rest of the time.  I try to eat sustainable and clean fish like wild caught Alaskan salmon (my favorite), or wild caught sardines (one of the healthiest and most sustainable meets on the planet - and tasty with dijon!).  I love beef too.  I won't turn down a good steak or burger at a family gathering or BBQ, but I try to limit my intake for health and other factors mentioned.  

Do you worry about mercury?  I was just reading an article about an actress who is a pescatarian but found out she’s suffering from mercury poisoning. 

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Red meat fuels the inner fires

That's what whiskey is for!  Or layers of clothing.

16 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

My favorite " quote " from an animal rights activist is " There is no need to raise cows for milk  when everyone can just go to the store and get it " 

Oh man, that is bad!  It is sometimes embarrassing to be associated with such nut cases. 

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I live near a very large Church owned ranch. They farm crops everywhere the soil allows and raise cattle where it doesn't. Where they raise cattle the land has soil just a few inches deep under which is several feet of gravel left by the ice age glaciers. Only tough prairie grasses can grow there.

One of the benefits of raising cattle on land that isn't good for farming is that the cows will eventually make that land good for farming.  Lots of cow poo will do that.  One of the best fertilizers and things to add for doing that job.  Lots and lots of cow poo.  The more the better.  And until then it helps the grass to grow better too until the land can eventually also be used for farming.

 

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you worry about mercury?  I was just reading an article about an actress who is a pescatarian but found out she’s suffering from mercury poisoning. 

I do worry about mercury.  That's why I mostly eat wild caught salmon and sardines.  Generally speaking, wild caught fish have less mercury.  You also want to eat fish at the bottom of the food chain which eat plankton, like sardines.  Wild caught Alaskan salmon and sardines are known to be some of the lowest sources of mercury in fish.  Eating 2 to 3 servings/week of these low-mercury fish is considered to be far below what is considered safe.   Tuna fish, farmed king mackerel, or cod on the other hand - no way! 

Edited February 13, 2020 by pogi

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Another big Texas ranch has traded but the buyer isn’t the usually city slicker or wannabe cowboy.
The 15,000-acre spread southeast of Dallas in Leon and Freestone counties was put up for sale more than a year ago by one of Fort Worth's prominent families.
The KB Carter Ranch is east of Interstate 45 midway between Dallas and Houston and has riverfront woodlands, farm fields, cattle grazing land and acres of lakes.
The property has been in the same hands since the 1800s — owned by Fort Worth's Kimbell, Carter and Fortson families.
Dallas-based Icon Global Group listed the grand property priced at just almost $50 million.
The KB Carter Ranch was purchased by an arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“They are one of the largest cattle ranch operators in the U.S.,” said Icon Global founder Bernard Uechtritz. “They have a lot of ranches across the country.”
Uechtritz said the new owners want to keep the property intact.
“They are good land stewards, which is what the Fortson’s wanted,” he said.
The KB Carter Ranch t has a 3,500-square-foot manager's house, office, horse barn, workshop and two employee homes. I has a private air strip.
The ranch is used to run more than 10,000 head of cattle and grows sorghum and corn crops.

Sprawling Texas ranch southeast of Dallas has a new owner

Well we know where the beef is now. I assume they use it to fill the Bishop's storehouses and send out for humanitarian aid. Most likely they also sell it in the marketplace.

Meh... still nothing compared to Deseret Ranch in Florida.   This Texas property is one-twentieth the size of Deseret.

And, to put it in context, $50m is probably less than one percent of the annual gain from the Church's EPA/PRI investment portfolio.

Likely a good purchase, no objection here, but relatively small.