ok, I believe you and I agree that GW is evil incarnate. What am I supposed to be doing? I can barely keep the herd fed as it is. I've been shafted by the system (government ag programs) and now I'm broke, with four kids to feed. What do I do to "prepare"?
By the way, don't know somebody with a cool million to invest in premium Iowa farmland, 340 acres with silos and cattle feeding facilities? I would love to feed cattle for myself again. I would like to find an investor to buy this place and rent it from him. I can make it return 5 percent, even at todays inflated land price. Beats what leaving that moldy money in a CD would return.
How do you reconcile the question Bush asked with your limited government beliefs?
I suppose I'd reconcile the question with my beliefs about limited government the same way I'd reconcile Bush asking for more Pralines and Cream ice cream with my beliefs about limited government. They're about as related. See, Nate, the problem is not the question, he gets paid to ask things like that. The problem, potentially, is the answer.
And, I'd like to point out that the troops in N'awlins were the only ones behaving themselves. They refused to confiscate guns, and they refused to evict people. In fact, they publicly countermanded the mayors "orders" to do so.
Bill,
How bad does GWB actually have to act before you quit believing in him?
I do mean act, not just say in a speech, or wonder wistfully about as he ponders the other great leaders whose example he strives to emulate, Stalin, Hitler, Abraham Lincoln. What would it take?
Having peaceful American protesters arrested for caring signs that were uncomplimentary of him?
Refusing to do his constitutionally sworn duty?
Spending money on socialist programs as fast as Ted Kennedy spends money on beer and chicken wings at Hooters?
Refusing to lift one finger to save a defenseless women from her adulterous murder husband?
Subjecting the sovereign nationality of the United States to the un-American, unelected and constitutionally unauthorized United Nations?
Protecting Iraq’s border more zealously than our southern broader?
Pledging billions to African nations while our yet unborn great great grandchildren will have no means to pay back the interest on the loans gleefully signed by congress?
Will it take using armed force by federal authorities against citizens of a state for failure to comply with a bureaucrat’s wishes?
How about the BATF unlawfully exceeding its authority and interfering with the Second Amendment rights of citizens?
Bill, when I die and face God on the Day of Judgment, I hope He looks me straight in the eye and says, “Well done my good and faithful servant, you had as much faith in Jesus Christ as Bill had in the Republican Party and GWB”.
"I stongly suggest you begin networking my friends. Who do you know that thinks like you? Who is prepared, and who will be dead weight? "
No one Nate, they will make short work of people like us. Who cares? I spent the weekend in bed with tears streaminbg down my face from the pain of diabetic nueropathy. I am ready to go anyway.
No. They won't Gregg. If they could, they'd be making short work of the poorly equipped insurgents in Iraq, who by the way, have much less to fight for.
We suck at urban warfare.
FarmerTom
Hrmm.. 50,000 per year to the investor total?
Nate wrote "We suck at urban warfare."
I agree: even the urban police can't kill after shooting hundreds of bullets at (well protected) gunmen at North Hollywood bank (Phillips killed himself while Matasareanu was bleed to death) or an innocent SUV driver (Winston Hayes). (But is good at killing the "criminals" shooting them in the back (Rochas) or up close (de Menezas).)
On the other hand, places like http://www.idpa.com/ seems like one way to get trained....
"Tell me Billy Boy..."
*Not to be confused with me.
Nate,
Despsite your public animosity to our President, I think it is cute the way you named your son after his brother.
"American troops fire 250,000 bullets for every local they kill"
More here...
And more from the "evil one"...
In a nationally televised address, President George W. Bush said, "As long as I sit in this chair, all future catastrophes will be planned by me."
Source...
Near the bottom...
INH
JEB Bush is not named Jeb.
J.E.B. are his initials. So.. calling him Jeb Bush is actually redundant.
I think his first name is actually John.
My son's name is Jebidiah.
I'm thinkin a good enduro as a bug-out-bike - will need some barb wire cutters as well
I get it. You have come up with a code to hide your admiration. Don't worry, I'll keep it under my hat.
Mr. Goodyear,
Your story is inaccurate.
The total ammunition expendature your story cites includes training ammunition. Every unit undergoes extensive live fire training before deployment. This is especially true for the National guard and reserve units being called up, since they are at greatest risk of being "unskilled" with weapons.
Further, in combat, each shot is not intended to kill. Many are intended to make the target cover up, so freindlies can maneuver.
Machine guns spray ammunition into a cone of fire. Depending on the range, only a few will hit the target accurately. This is a design characteristic and why Machine guns are called "area fire" weapons.
I'm with INH on this one. Full-auto is not ment to kill or wound. It's supression fire. You using it to make sure the enemy keeps their heads down while your boys are manuevering.
HOWEVER..
I don't buy this shit about how awesome our military is. I know to many folks who've come out of basic fat and sloppy. Can't shoot at all... know nothing about weapons.
I've got buddies in the reserve right now who I know for a fact can't shoot worth a damn... and don't even know how to clean the beretta 92 that they carry around.
Pathetic.
INH,
From a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/
americas/article314944.ece">here...
"The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine."
and...
"John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO's figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005. "How many evil-doers have we sent to their maker using bullets rather than bombs? I don't know," he said.
"If they don't do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let's round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating."
and...
"Pointing out that officials say many of these bullets have been used for training purposes, he said: "What are you training for? To kill insurgents."
From the Library of Congress...
"In terms of economics, the innovative use of snipers in Vietnam meant that virtually every bullet produced a body count—a statistic drastically different from bullet-to-body ratios for other wars and other infantrymen in Vietnam. Studies of frontline combat during World War II reveal that U.S. troops expended 25,000 small arms rounds for every enemy soldier they killed. In the Korean War the number doubled to 50,000 rounds per enemy death. By the time the United States went to war in Southeast Asia, technological advances in weapons had made it possible to place a fully automatic rifle in the hands of every American infantryman, and the firepower of fully automatic “rock and roll” resulted in the expenditure of 200,000 rounds of ammunition for every enemy body."
IMHO, if we are spending so much on ammo for training that we must import more ammunition for the actual war, someone is really screwed up about warfare.
Say....
INH... There was a prophet in the Bible named Nathan... What was it he told David to name Solomon again?
Nate,
No more of your bible code jibber-jabber.
IMHO, if we are spending so much on ammo for training that we must import more ammunition for the actual war, someone is really screwed up about warfare.
Why is importing ammunition any more troubling for you than importing flashlight batteries?
The training demands have increased as a direct result of operations in IRAQ and Afghanistan. Every unit gets trained prior to going into action. That training takes ammunition. The ammunition factories in the USA (only one left) are cranking out at 100% capacity and can't keep up. (this is because we shut down many of these plants at the end of the cold war). Expanding capacity will cost $$$ and not show improvement for at least a year. Importing is a practical and economic choice.
Military operations are not a series of one-on-one duels, as your sniper mentality suggests. When it is about winning, wasting ammo is not important.
We are not keeping track of ammunition expended per enemy killed. So this 250,000 statistic is wrong AND pointless.
...and don't even know how to clean the beretta 92 that they carry...
If they are carrying a baretta, they are not supposed to be killing anyone.
Full-auto is not ment to kill ...
Which is why modern combat rifles no longer have this choice.
I don't buy this shit about how awesome our military is. I know to many folks who've come out of basic fat and sloppy.
I can't argue your observations. The army is a big place and only a relative few are trained soldiers. The infantry units I have observed are hot stuff. Most training for combat takes place in the unit. Basic training only hits the high points (uniform wearing, saluting, marching in step and consideration of others--useless stuff all).
INH
Are Rangers trained to kill? Cause my boy James... well... he knew jack shit about tactical fighting. Clearing a room... situational awareness... it was all for shit. I could shoot rings around him, and that was back before I got good.
Farmer Tom,
Have you considered raising organic, strictly grass fed beef, organic chickens, and selling raw (unpastuerized) milk products? Some farmers sell the milk and others run cow-share programs. There is an increasing demand for all of these and many people I know wind up mail ordering their meat and dairy or else drive hours to get it, because there are so few suppliers. Also, many wind up buying 1/4 of a cow at a time to keep the price down to around $4-5/lb.
If you did this, a good way to advertise would be through homeschooling email lists, family-integrated churches, and local Weston A. Price chapters. Average Americans wouldn't be very interested, so you have to advertise to groups that tend to read and care about their health much more.
I have to back Nate’s observation on Rangers. I’ve known 2 that couldn’t shoot worth a crap, hand gun or riffle. I’m far from being great with firearms myself as its just a hobby, but I would think that coming out of advanced infantry training and what every they call ranger school that a guy could hit more than 50% of the time in slow fire drills.
Side note to Underwater Operator:
Can you tell us what required marksmanship standards were for you and your former associates?
Nate,
Sorry to hear about your boy being useless. You are right, the Rangers should do better. They have the budget for excellent training plus being able to use the SOCOM command structure to bypass stupid Army stuff.
They also have a reputation to uphold for excellence. That used to mean something.
"Why is importing ammunition any more troubling for you than importing flashlight batteries?"
And where, pray tell, did I say that imported flashlight batteries didn't trouble me?
I am more concerned about the trade deficit than I am about American soldiers being able to hit anything. In fact, I consider it quite comforting that when military ops expand in the US, I will be able to out-shoot 80% of the infantry.
...am more concerned about the trade deficit
Why?? They send us a boat load of ball ammunition, we send them a boat load of paper with pictures of our dead presidents. They make more ammo. We make more paper. Seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.
trade deficit
Economic imbecile alert!
Sooo, we have a "trade deficit" because they send us more stuff than we send them? And the problem is...? Let me see if I understand the word "trade", two parties agree to swap something. In this case they're trading machines for dollars. As long as both sides think they're getting a good deal, where does the "deficit" come in? By this logic I'm running a hell of a trade deficit with Giant Foods, Sunoco, and Grizzly. I get all kinds of stuff from them and NEVER, EVER ship them anything in return.
Bill,
Please tell us where you studied economics. Then go get a refund...
The U.S.'s Record Trade Deficit: Why it Matters
"But the American trade deficit and the foreign borrowing that funds it, as the Federal Reserve Board points out, "could not be sustained indefinitely." The deficit and debt show, reports economist Nigel Gault, that the "U.S. is just living way beyond its means." At some point in the not too distant future, foreign investors are going to reach the same conclusion and decide that it is not wise to lend their money at low interest rates so that Americans can buy large quantities of low-priced foreign goods and have a high standard of living.
When that happens, the value of the dollar will plummet, interest rates will rise, and Americans will have to pay considerably more for their foreign-made cars, computers, clothing, drugs, and all the other manufactured goods we import. At the same time they will have to pay off some of the interest and principle on the trillions they have borrowed from abroad. Even worse, with domestic industries destroyed, Americans will not find it easy to substitute their manufactures for the now expensive foreign imports. The net result will be a dramatic decline in consumption and a significant drop in the standard of living for working Americans."
Penciloid, I don't know where to start on your questions.
First, I work for a family farm operation, I do not own any land, so I have no place to do any of the things you suggested.
Second, I live in the middle of North Central Iowa, there is no human habitation here, its a joke OK. However,it is a least two hours travel time to a city big enough to support the kind of niche marketing you are talking about. You are talking about people paying a premium for products readily available in the grocery store at half the price. The local wage scale can not support those kind of prices. We homeschool and only three families in our group of thirty could even consider paying the kind of prices the typical organic producer charges.
Third, I've said this before ask Nate if it an't so, Someone has been feeding you a line of bovine excrement about grass fed beef. It is tough, it tastes like crap and its not even natural. Why do you think God made the corn plant? Corn was designed as the perfect food for feeding to cattle, grass is for mother cows to make milk for their calves, corn is for feeding to the calves to finish them to be butchered for food. Grass fed beef is a joke, perpetuated by people who are trying to scam consumers into buying an inferior product.
If this sounds harsh I'm sorry, but I have been raising beef for forty years and this line of BS is as old as the hills. It is not true!!!! Grass fed beef is an inferior product and always will be because it goes against the very nature of raising cattle.
I would love to discuss it with you further, but be prepared to bring facts, because the stuff you have been being shoveled is BS.
Nate, This is honest to God premium, some of the best in the world row crop farm land. Current rental rates in the same area are running $180 dollars per acre per year. I don't know what taxes on the property are, I can find out, but this farm is absolutely the best quality money can buy.
Not much to add, except that this was a good post, Nate.
Hehe, it is so easy to get off topic.
IMHO, people that take posts like this off topic are under Satan's influence (said slightly tongue in cheek).
They would rather have us think about X then think about getting and being prepared. Whether that means making things right between yourself and the Lord, buying another case of .308, practicing home protection scenarios or talking "What Ifs" with your spouse and family.
Sad.
Was that directed at me? My first question on this thread was, what should I be doing?
If I offended you I am deeply sorry. I will go away.
FT,
Do you have any references for me? If I'm being lied to, I'd like to know.
I meant, if I am being lied to about grass fed beef being healthier, I'd like to know.
What makes corn the perfect food for finishing cattle? Are they healthier if they eat a lot of it than if they don't? What about the millenia that people raised cattle before corn was discovered in the Americas? Did they feed them some other grain?
"What makes corn the perfect food for finishing cattle?"
Not what. Who. The answer is God.
"Are they healthier if they eat a lot of it than if they don't?"
Yes. And the meat is far, far more tender and tastey.
"What about the millenia that people raised cattle before corn was discovered in the Americas?"
Umm.. do what? Assuming this is even true, which I doubt, why would the fact that they did make the meat better? Why would you assume that their meat tasted better than ours?
Sometimes you freak me out Dude.
Maybe I should rephrase: what is it about corn that makes it a better choice than grass?
And the meat is far, far more tender and tastey.
Is this true even if the cattle are slaughtered at the same age? I have read about people trying to sell grass-fed dairy cows as meat and that since the cows are so much older, they are tougher.
Why would you assume that their meat tasted better than ours?
We know they had oxen in Old Testament times. As far as I know, they didn't have corn. I'm not assuming their meat tasted better. Since I haven't had much experience with steaks, I can't comment on taste. I am asking about the health of the cattle and the nutrition content of the meat. Are people lying when they say that grass fed beef has higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and other nutrients that conventionally raised cows?
Penciloid, I'm on my lunch break, I have to be quick,
Are people lying when they say that grass fed beef has higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and other nutrients that conventionally raised cows?
I have never seen any scientific evidence to back these claims. I believe they are in fact lying. Their premise is that the corn feed beef is a different kind of fat, that assertion has never been proved, to my knowledge.
You need to understand the design of the bovine digestive system to realize the fallicy of this grass fed logic. A bovine has four stomachs. Each stomach digests a finer ground level of feed. This is why a cow chews her cud. If the particles are not small enough to be digested, she bring them back up and chews them again until they are smaller. Each different stomach absorbs different types of nutrients. Grass is mostly protien, and it requires that the cow spend a great deal of time re-grinding it before it can pass all the way through the system. Corn on the other hand is mostly starch, a substance that the system can quickly turn to sugar(energy). The amount of energy in a pound of corn is on the order of 10x the energy in a pound of grass. So the bovine fed a diet high in corn will gain weight(add muscle and fat) far faster than an animal fed only grass. The taste and texture of the meat is greatly affected by the fat content of the meat, good taste requires fat, little fat equals little taste.
If I feed a steer a high corn diet, he will gain weight at a rate of 3.3 to 3.7 pounds per day and in some cases much better. The same steer fed a strictly grass diet can not eat the volumne(lbs) of grass necessary to gain weight that quickly. A normal rate of gain on a grass fed diet would be 1.9 to 2.4 lbs per day.
I will show you more numbers latter but the cost of feeding a steer(cow) strictly a grass diet becomes foolish when one considers the cost of time. The animal will be old by the time it is fat, and it will still not have the taste and texture that corn fed beef will have. It will be flavorless and tough. That does not sound appetizing to me and it shouldn't to you.
FT
You rule.
"Was that directed at me? My first question on this thread was, what should I be doing?"
farmerTom, no definately not, it was not directed towards you.
You were asking how you should prepare, you don't get much more on topic than that.
"FT You rule."
farmerTom, I just recently acquired a cousin in law, or something... the husband of my wife's cousin who is a dairy farmer in eastern PA. He his brother and dad own about 600 head of cattle (are dairy cows called cattle?).
The farm has in his family for the last 7 generations.
Anyways, I got to spend some time with him recently and the amount of knowledge he has is incredible. He talked a little about what you posted, cows diets and such.
He also talked about cutting holes in them, to take stuff (I can't recall what now) out of their stomach and then feeding? it to another cow. Something to do with digestion, when a cow gets sick they have to do it. Also about poking a hole in a cow so they won't explode, if they have eaten too much.
Sorry I can't recall the term(s) and all the details... but it was truly utterly fascinating!
cattle yes
I don't recognize the first thing you talked about but the second is bloat, excess gas in the stomachs caused by an inbalance of diet. Too much of something not enough of another.
To Penciloid, I just typed out about a thousand words on cattle diets and the computer ate it. My computer needs a new diet.
I'll try again. Do you eat a diet of strictly bread, nothing else? Of course not! You eat a balanced healthy diet, don't you? Why would we consider it normal to feed a steer(cow) a diet of strictly grass? It is neither healthy or normal in my opinion. We feed our steers a diet of 50% earlage(ground ear corn) 25% shelled corn, 12.5% dried distillers grains and 12.5% hay. We also include the essential mineral and salt that the steer needs to be in optimum health. doesn't that sound alot better than the strictly grass diet?
In my opinion the whole grass fed beef thing is a fraud in the same vein as global warming. Some guys don't raise corn have come up with a marketing plan to make their grass fed beef sound like a good deal when in reality its just a really poor mans way to raise beef.
By the way I hope you understand that this is not personal, I get fired up about the things that pass for facts concerning the food chain.
one more on this topic and I will shut up.
We feed a TMR(total mixed ration) see above. The TMR is figured out with a formuala that includes the TDN(total digestable nutrient) content of the ration. Grass has a number corn has a number etc. We what to feed that animal a totaly balanced ration for optimal growth and health. A steer that weighs 1000 lbs may eat up to 25 lbs of TMR a day. If the number of TDN in that ration was ( this is a guess) 2500, the steer would have to eat 75 lbs of hay to get the same TDN. That is a physical impossiblity.
Again, it seems crazy to me that feeding an inadequate ration or feed will make a better product.
Not to step on your toes fT and I happen to agree with most of what you are saying regarding the assumed fallacy of grass fed beef. I don't, however, agree that cattle need a balanced diet. They are grazers by nature and design and do not need corn or other grains to survive. This is a largely human construct designed so that we can more effienciantly use cattle, whether to eat or milk. Now, I don't think there is a thing wrong with that or that it makes the animal in anyway unhealthy to eat, in fact it makes them MUCH more tasty!
SB, I understand what your saying about the term balanced diet, but in fact the animals are healthier when fed a ration that does not consist of grass alone. Their disease tolerance is higher, they grow faster and in the case of milk cows, they give much, much more milk on a TMR. I did not mean to imply that grass fed beef is unhealthy to eat, only that the animal is healthier when fed a ration that consists of more than just grass.
I agree completely with the gist of what you are saying fT. It was just that particular term that caught my attention is all.
Anecdotal evidence--take it as you will--but I have eaten grass-fed beef (my mother purchased 1/4 cow from a ranch in Winkelman AZ) and found it to be substantially better tasting than the usual fare from the grocery store, and easily a cut above the premium "angus beef" that is also available.
Why that is, I don't know. Maybe it's a personal preference. I also happen to love venison, which is not a "grain fed" meat. If it weren't for the cost premium, I would eat it exclusively.
Commenting by HaloScan
