Talk:Feedlot

message: Mentions that there are controversies and negative aspects, but does not give credence to these views. For example,
* "This is a major controversy ... [because] consumers have shown their concern for the welfare of these animals. For farmers, the prioritization of the well-being and care of their animals comes before many other things on the farm." (It isn't a controversy if all sides agree. Since I believe that it is a controversy, I would like to see how the sides come into conflict.)
* "[grain] is often seen as a negative aspect, but close monitoring ... ensures that the perfect amount of grain is being introduced ... to maintain a healthy and efficient growing period." (So, why is it seen as a negative aspect? I know there are reasons, but they aren't being shown.)
In any case, this sort of thing leads to a section which is both confusing to read and fairly biased in the pro-feedlot direction. If anyone has time, this seems like a good thing to fix!
72.82.21.211 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in "Controversies" section

message: A link to a page describing a real live feedlot has now been removed twice by H2O, first because the link was not working, which was my fault (but was easily fixed by removing the trailing slash), and the second time, the link was removed by the same user, this time because it was "commercial".
Wikipedia recently featured an article about the Coca-Cola company, and numerous articles on Wikipedia have external links to web sites that actually sell products directly to the public (checkout the articles on software, such as Microsoft Excel, Doom, or Counterstrike), so I find your behavior rather puzzling.
The link I provided was to a page that does not offer to sell anything (in fact a feedlot is a business that does not normally interact directly with the public). This page offers an interesting explanation of how a real business operates a feedlot.
When I took my family to visit this business on our last vacation, my children found it very educational and asked lots of questions about it later on.
What gives? Is there some subtle nuance to Wikipedia policy that I am unaware of?
Here is the link if you want to check it out for yourself:
:Harris Feeding Company
--DV 13:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: After rereading the information posted on this site, I feel that it offers some value, since it is (according to their site) California's largest cattle feeder.  I restored the link, with an explanatory note. --H2O 14:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is widespread in Canada too. --Arvedui
Feedlots are definately a significant sector of the agribusiness sector in Australia. They are a "farming business" not a "traditional farming enterprise", but in Australia at least, a lot of them are "family farm enterprises".Garrie 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Claims in the video 'Best speech you'll ever hear' that humans are herbivores and that eating meat and drinking cow milk lowers the pH of the blood and causes calcium leaching. Here, the reverse arguement appears to be applied against feeding cows grain in feedlots.
"In a typical feedlot, a cow's diet is roughly 95% grain. A diet this high in grain will lower the pH in the animal's rumen"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.82.124 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I don't think you can automatically add antibiotics to grass ;)  The point is that concentrated feed (corn, etc) upsets the digestive system of the steer, necessitating the addition of far more antibiotics than would be consumed by a pasture-fed steer.  Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gary yourofsky

message: I am trying to add a link to my little idea, FeedlotRadio.com, to raise animals better the same way you can plants, with music, and silence the vegan protest (ideally).
For some reason, this novel idea is being rejected outright every time I try to add the link.  It was suggested I discuss it here, so I am.  I guess I didn't think there'd be an issue, and I'm surprised it wouldn't be included when so many redundant pro-veganism sites are.
It was suggested that I try to post here, so I am.  What's wrong with linking to this?
Repeat2341 08:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedlot Radio

message: Aren't pigs another major feedlot-based animal? There's not a single mention of them here. --Arvedui 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think feedlot implies cattle feedlot.  I'm not sure that there is really an equivalent for pigs - a separate facility where they are finished. ike9898 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there is one, as pork and ham are pretty huge industries too... I always thought feedlot was a generic term for huge-building-full-of-animals-that-aren't-birds... (which raises the question what a chicken-building is called, too!) Hm, so, maybe not quite so generic after all, heh. --Arvedui 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A feedlot isn't a building, it's a lot.  A pig barn isn't a feedlot. ike9898 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've been coming to realize (though I've still seen references to pig feedlots). Of course, the question about what (if anything) those species-specific factory-farm-type buildings are called still stands! --Arvedui 06:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What's a "lot"?  In the UK it's simply a vague word for a large quantity.  Deipnosophista (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Pigs?

message: What about the effect of diet on e-coli levels? Wasn't there a study somewhere that said feedlot practices increased the e-coli in cattle? --Gbleem 06:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  e-coli 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: How about including some statistics? like 77 percent of cattle in feedlots live in a feedlot of one hundred or more cattle, and almost 30 percent live in feedlots of more than a thousand.
also, 70% of the antibiotics in this country are given to cows that live in feedlots. gross!
Redcranberry (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: Hi, I just noticed that the marketing section of this article has conflicting "most common" statements that I couldn't correct without knowing which marketing method is in fact, the most common:
"Spot, or cash, marketing is the traditional and most commonly used method... Another method, formula pricing, is becoming the most popular [if it were so popular would it not also be becoming the most common? maybe this should be "more" common since it might be impossible to know if it will become the "most" common.] process... Finally, live- or carcass-weight based formula pricing is most common..."  Unless these different methods are the most common for separate categories somehow...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.16.228 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many superlatives

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Feedlot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608194023/http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7 to http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617232539/http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm to http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feedlot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428094049/http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=98892fe8-ed63-4840-a7ba-5045d33bd0c5 to http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=98892fe8-ed63-4840-a7ba-5045d33bd0c5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems like this page has had bias issues before, and in general Feedlots are controversial, but as of January 2024 the "Alternatives" section is woefully slanted against alternatives, reading:
"The alternative to feedlots is to allow cattle to graze on grass throughout their lives, but this is not efficient and can be very challenging. For Canada and the Northern USA, year round grazing is not possible due to the severe winter weather conditions. Controlled grazing methods of this sort necessitate higher beef prices and the cattle take longer to reach market weight."
And the only citation is to the Blog section of a company website that sells beef! I think the Feedlot page is generally quite biased and could use some TLC from an unbiased editor. Perhaps "Controversies" should be reinstated as a section, since right now they're kind of scattered throughout other sections of the article like Animal Welfare, but nowhere in the article addresses the general controversy around the practice of feedlots, despite the controversy being the entry I think most people have to this topic. (I ended up here after reading an article about methane and cattle, for example.) 
I also think the "Alternatives" section could link to the wiki page on Organic beef 
I am new to editing so please forgive if I am off-base here LemonadeAndIcedTea (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in "Alternatives" section