What would you like to do?
Does Montana have more cows than people?
No. Pigs are smaller in body size and digestive capacity than cows are.
Montana's landscape is so rugged and rough that it's quite impossible to build or expand any large suburban lots or cities in it. It's not even suitable for growing crops. So,… agricultural-wise, it's best to run livestock like cattle and horses on the land. And those who live in Montana are a bit more tougher than those who live in areas where it's easy to expand cities.
No. The human population is over 6 billion and there are around 1.5 billion cattle in the entire world.
2010 Census Wyoming population: 563626 2002 Cattle population:1.2 million survey says yes. (had to use 2010 as the only info for 2002 was a forecasted estimate)
No. Montana's the state with more cattle than people.
No. Montana does.
I would assume it is because its wt is ditributed over four supports (legs) rather than two. In addition there is more mass around its central gravity.
More than one country has more cows than people. A couple of these countries are Argentina and New Zealand where there are a few cows per every person.
Yes. They're ability to process and digest lower-quality forages than cattle are capable of doing comes with their need to eat more more often.
Montana. Montana is just one of 9. Rank | State | Cattle | People | Cattle/People / 1 | South Dakota | 3,650,000 | 824,082 | 4.429 / 2 | Nebraska | 6,450,000 |… 1,842,641 | 3.500 / 3 | Montana | 2,500,000 | 998,199 | 2.505 / 4 | North Dakota | 1,690,000 | 683,932 | 2.471 / 5 | Wyoming | 1,360,000 | 568,158 | 2.394 / 6 | Kansas | 6,100,000 | 2,871,238 | 2.125 / 7 | Idaho | 2,220,000 | 1,584,985 | 1.401 / 8 | Iowa | 3,900,000 | 3,062,309 | 1.274 / 9 | Oklahoma | 4,500,000 | 3,791,508 | 1.187
Genetic variation, natural or artificial selection, etc.
No, i dont think so cuz there are some places where they are over populated with people and populations are out of control and people are always being born everyday.BUT ALSO p…eople die every day also from murder natural death sickness and soasided cows do not how ever comit soasided oh yea cows are born every day to .
There are nine states in the US that have more cattle than people. They are Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Iowa. Mont…ana has about 2,500,000 head of cattle and 998,000 people.
This is a common misconception from those who oppose the use oflivestock for agricultural purposes, stating that it is a "waste"of grain to feed 1 cow for beef than it is to f…eed several humanswith the same amount. They say that it takes 10 (or 9 [some like touse the exaggerated number of 16]) pounds of grain for a "cow" togain 1 lb of beef (on the hoof, mind you), where several morepeople can use that 10 lbs of grain and split it amongst eachother. To convert that to ready-to-serve beef, that means it tookapproximately 20 lbs of grain to make 1 lb of edible beef (since weare factoring that the carcass weight is ~50% of the liveweight). However, most of these folks don't realize there are holes to thiswhole beef-to-plate efficiency problem. First of all, we humanscannot utilize grain like cows can. We have a much more simplerdigestive system that disables us from consuming such coarse plantmaterial (even though grain is not considered a "roughage" byruminant nutritionists) that cows can literally thrive off of. Weare what scientists call monogastrics , being onlyable to have a single-chambered stomach that is designed toprimarily digest protein, carbohydrates (like starch), sugars andfats--such which is found in meat, eggs, dairy products, nuts, andfruits. This clearly indicates that we are omnivores , not herbivores. We do not have the sametype of bacteria, protozoa nor fungi that are able to break downcellulose and fibre found in forages and grains in our simplestomachs like cows do in their rumen. Such foods simply passthrough without being digested or absorbed. Thus, if we were tolive off of grain and/or grass alone like cows commonly do, we'dliterally starve ourselves to death. Cows, on the other hand, whichare herbivores called ruminants, have amultiple-chambered stomach that naturally and much more efficientlydigest such coarse plant material as forages (like hay, grass, andsilage) and grain (especially when processed to increase surfacearea and expose starch granules and break protein matrixes) allthanks to the bacteria, protozoa and fungi present in their rumens.Such microbes break down these otherwise unusuable coarse plantmaterial into something useful that a cow can use for energy,metabolism, reproduction and growth. In order for us humans to able to utilize and digest these grains,they need to be processed . Processing, in human terms,means that what goes in comes out in two forms: "stuff" we canactually use, and "waste" that we can't use. the "stuff" that comesout of the milling and grinding of grain comes out as flour. Thisflour cannot be eaten right away, and must be mixed with otheringredients like water and yeast to make bread and other pastriesand pasta goods. The waste is dumped in some corner of the millplant to be thrown away. This waste includes the hull and seedcoating of the grain we cannot eat. That's a heck of a lot of work to do just to "eat" these grainsthat some of us are claiming are less efficient going through thecow than through our bellies. Approximately, the hull and seedcoating that is removed during the milling and grinding process,takes up about 1/3 of the seed. If we were to process 20 lbs ofgrain that has been considered a "waste" feeding to a cow that hasonly a 50% carcass weight of its liveweight and use it forourselves, we would be throwing away 7 lbs of that 20 lbs of grain.That means we're only using 13 lbs of that grain. Sure, that canmake quite a few loaves of bread, feeding a whole lot of people,but what about that waste? Well, it can be fed to that cow, and beconverted into beef--or even milk. The "garbage" that comes from,in this example, the milling industry, is considered as"by-product." Such by-products were never made to be used as feedfor livestock, but if you stop and think about it, it is far betterto be "re-using" this "garbage" as something else--in terms offeed--instead of letting it rot and be true waste in a land-fill. As far as grain alone is concerned, though, even though it is notconsidered a "natural" feed source by any means (heck, neither ishay nor silage a "natural" feed!), it should be obvious by now thatit is not more efficient to feed grain to people than to cows. Eventhough you can feed more people on a pound of grain than you can tocattle, you are still having to waste much of what is going to be"fed" to people when the cow can utilize it all quite easily. Agruably, it is also apparent that processing grain to expose itsstarchy form from the endosperm of a grain kernel or seed is badfor people's health: Feeding more grain to people mean that peopleare more likely to get sick from it than if they were to consumemeat, eggs, dairy along with a high and healthy amount ofvegetables and some fruit. The common misconception is that toomuch meat is bad for your health. In fact, too much grain is moreof a health concern than too much meat due to its high carbohydratecontent: carbohydrate equates to energy, and when energy intake isabove and beyond what someone will use in a day, that energy willget converted into fat (adipose tissue). Too much fat makes aperson obese, and also leads to cardiac issues, diabetes(carbohydrates can easily convert into sugar with the right enzymeprocesses), and other health issues. Current health studies haveshown that meat does not contribute to such significant and serioushealth problems. Additionally, grain is also a cause for concern for cattle.However, it is not so serious a concern or that much of somethingto be opposed to when you understand how it's used properly andwhat it can be used for. Many claim that grain is unhealthy andunnatural for cattle to eat because it causes acidosis. The problemwith that statement is three-fold: Grain is in fact healthy foranimals that have problems digesting roughage and forage alone,such as very young, very old, underweight, or high-metabolic-rateanimals. Grain provides a needed energy (and some protein) sourcethat such animals will not be able to obtain from grass or foragealone, and is an excellent supplement to fall back on when forageis low in energy. Grain is just as natural as hay or silage; grainfrom cereal crops are just grass seeds. Grass is a natural plantcattle eat on a regular basis, and tamed grasses used inmonoculture crops like corn, wheat, barley, oats, triticale, ryeand sorghum are fed to cattle in the grain, or grain + plant form.Finally, grain alone does not cause acidosis. Introducing ahigh-concentrate (i.e., high energy) ration too much too quickly tocattle on a high-forage diet is what induces acidosis. To gofurther, cattle on a high-forage ration that are supplemented witha low amount of grain will not get acidosis compared to those thatgorge themselves on grain or a high-concentrate ration the firstday they come off of pasture. To conclude, it is hoped you can know clearly see why the fact thatfeeding cows grain is less efficient than feeding grain to humansis false due to differences in utilization based on digestivemorphology, utilization of waste products by ruminant animals, andthe truths behind the health effects and consequences of feedinggrain to both humans and cows.