All this discussion about grass-fed beef, and the risky
contortions of "vegans" and quasi-"vegans" to avoid
acknowledging that grass-fed beef *could* be a lesser
harm (to animals) food than some vegetables, illustrate
an interesting but disappointing phenomenon. I have to
add "predictable" to the list as well. The phenomenon
is that "vegans" are among the class of people who
suspend all disbelief, as long as the message is one
they are predisposed to accept.

In the discussion, "vegans" and quasi-"vegans" have
said that some beef that is purported to be grass-fed
has in fact been "finished" on some quantity of grain.
One minor problem is that they can't point to any
such beef; rather, they grasp at the thin reed of no
legal definition of grass-fed. The larger problem,
though, is that they have been shown web sites of
sellers of grass-fed beef who explicitly claim that
*their* beef cattle are never fed any grain at all.
One exceptionally moronic pseudo-"vegan" has laughably
said that farmers are liars, and therefore this claim
must be a lie. Another neophyte quasi-"vegan", while
not alleging lying quite so blatantly, hints that she
expects the claims to be lies.

But these same goofs will naively accept at face value
a manufacturer's claim to be producing and selling
"vegan" products, when the idea of a definition of
"vegan" is obviously FAR murkier than a definition of
grass-fed. The reason is obvious: "vegans" are
perfectly willing to be deluded, as long as the claims
they accept are comforting.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:37:01 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

In the discussion, "vegans" and quasi-"vegans" have
said that some beef that is purported to be grass-fed
has in fact been "finished" on some quantity of grain.
One minor problem is that they can't point to any
such beef; rather, they grasp at the thin reed of no
legal definition of grass-fed. The larger problem,
though, is that they have been shown web sites of
sellers of grass-fed beef who explicitly claim that
*their* beef cattle are never fed any grain at all.

And these sites might well be misleading customers
into believing their product is genuine.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

One exceptionally moronic pseudo-"vegan" has laughably
said that farmers are liars

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee you'll
actually be eating it.

"ipse dixit" wrote in message
news
Switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee you'll
actually be eating it.

Most farmers who are into niche markets...and grass fed is one of
them...understand that their customers are skeptical and want to know the
truth. I'm not saying none will lie, but I would venture that most do not.

Most of these producers are also very open to a potential customer visiting
the farm to see for themselves. I don't grass feed my beef (and I don't lie
about it). I do have other claims, such as they do not get antibiotics
(unless they are sick and I know which animals have been treated and which
have not), no hormones and no animal proteins. I also raise pastured
poultry. If someone wanted to come to see for themselves, they would be
welcomed with open arms. Nothing to hide here.

Most producers have the same attitude, at least the ones I have met.

There is a listing of local producers for a variety of products at
localharvest.org. They are not all grass-fed, but these are people who
would welcome questions and visits from those who care.

Jena

On 16 Jan 2004 21:52:51 GMT, "JMartin" wrote:
"ipse dixit" wrote in message news

Switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee you'll
actually be eating it.

Most farmers who are into niche markets...and grass fed is one of
them...understand that their customers are skeptical and want to know the
truth. I'm not saying none will lie, but I would venture that most do not.

Which takes nothing away from the fact that
switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee
you'll actually be eating it. Farmers are likely
to lie to their customers by taking advantage
of the unregulated use of the terms describing
their product. Also, your snipping of the material
I've provided which supports this issue shows
you are equally likely to lie and misinform your
customers as well, else you would have left it
in your reply.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]

Most of these producers are also very open to a potential customer visiting
the farm to see for themselves.

That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
later on in the year. Farmers are notorious liars
who'll even infect their own livestock with deadly,
painful diseases for compensation payments, so
why would anyone trust what a farmer claims
about his business?

On 16 Jan 2004 21:52:51 GMT, "JMartin" wrote:


"ipse dixit" wrote in message
news
Switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee you'll
actually be eating it.

Most farmers who are into niche markets...and grass fed is one of
them...understand that their customers are skeptical and want to know the
truth. I'm not saying none will lie, but I would venture that most do not.

Most of these producers are also very open to a potential customer visiting
the farm to see for themselves.

That makes sense. When people have something good going on, they
are often not too shy about showing it to others.

I don't grass feed my beef (and I don't lie
about it). I do have other claims, such as they do not get antibiotics
(unless they are sick and I know which animals have been treated and which
have not), no hormones and no animal proteins. I also raise pastured
poultry. If someone wanted to come to see for themselves, they would be
welcomed with open arms. Nothing to hide here.

Most producers have the same attitude, at least the ones I have met.

From what I've seen in these groups over the years, the veg*ns/"ARAs"
are the most dishonest group of people I've ever encountered. They are
dishonest about:

· veg*nism helping farm animals
· the concept that "AR" would produce wild populations from domestic animals
· the concept that "AR" would provide rights, better lives, longer lives or anything
at all for domestic animals
· the fact that some types of meat involve far fewer deaths than some types of
vegetable products
· the fact that they contribute to the deaths of animals in crop fields
· being mainly interested in animals, when it is clear from the above two facts
that they don't really care about human influence on animals, but only about
promoting veg*nism regardless of its impact.

There is a listing of local producers for a variety of products at
localharvest.org. They are not all grass-fed, but these are people who
would welcome questions and visits from those who care.

Jena

Those who care certainly leaves out the veg*ns when it comes to promoting
decent lives for farm animals with their lifestyle. I have yet to see anyone in these
ngs who even pretends to promote something like that other than myself. According
to "ARAs" and their supposed opponents--much much more according to their
supposed opponents--we are not to consider the lives of farm animals at all, and
above all should *not* try to contribute to decent lives for them in the future. If you're
like all the rest around here, you believe that no farm animals benefit from farming.
If that's true then you are certainly different from any farmers that I've known over
the years, but not one farmer posting in these ngs appears to believe that his/her
animals benefit from being raised by them. Not only that, but they don't believe any
farm animals anywhere have ever benefitted from being raised by humans. That is
the complete oposite of what I've encountered in discussions with farmers I have
met in person, but it has always been the case in these weird ngs. So. Since no
one is supposed to care about promoting decent lives for future farm animals, why
are there farmers working hard to treat their animals better, and who is paying the
extra buck for their products? It seems that there *must* be some people out there
who want to promote better lives for farm animals as opposed to no lives like the
veg*ns/"ARAs", but where are they?

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit wrote:


That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
later on in the year.

If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
really matter anyway, since according to some of you
the CDs don't really matter. Or do CDs not really matter
only if they are feeding a veg*n, but they do matter if
they are feeding cattle (who also happen to be veg*n)?

Farmers are notorious liars

Veg*ns like yourself are the most dishonest people
I've ever had anything to do with. Farmers have always
been honest even when it hurts. They have to be in
order to have a clear view of the world and make a
living with it.

who'll even infect their own livestock with deadly,
painful diseases for compensation payments, so
why would anyone trust what a farmer claims
about his business?

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit wrote:


That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
later on in the year.

If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
really matter anyway

It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
whatever you believe.

Farmers are notorious liars

Veg*ns like yourself are the most dishonest people
I've ever had anything to do with.

Your opinion of vegans matters nothing, Harrison.

Farmers have always
been honest even when it hurts.

Then why do they intentionally infect their own
cattle with painful, deadly diseases? That's not
being "honest even when it hurts", and neither
is their lying to customers which YOU think
"wouldn't really matter anyway."

[A huge increase in compensation payments being
made for brucellosis infected cattle in Northern
Ireland has been criticised by a Stormont Assembly
committee. The Public Accounts Committee said it
was greatly concerned at the increased payments
and the evidence that some

*farmers were deliberately infecting their herds.*

In a report published on Tuesday, the committee said
there was evidence in five cases where farmers
deliberately introduced the disease to take advantage
of the compensation on offer.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1787931.stm

[LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government's
hope of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease suffered a
setback amid reports that it may have been spread
deliberately.

Rumours have circulated for months that unscrupulous
farmers have been approaching those in the industry
offering infected animals to generate generous
compensation claims.

Last week a farmer in Pembrokeshire, west Wales,
notified authorities saying she had received a telephone
call from someone demanding £2,000 cash in exchange
for infecting her animals with the disease.]
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...britain.sheep/

[THE Government is investigating allegations that
farmers are deliberately infecting their sheep and cattle
with the foot and mouth virus to claim compensation far
in excess of their market value.

Some evidence has already been found in Cumbria,
where rumours have been circulating about infected
ears and tails from farms stricken with foot and mouth
being offered to owners of healthy livestock.

At least one suspect lamb's tail has been found on a farm
in the area. Officers of the Department for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs' investigation unit are looking into the
find and police will be called in if the unit is satisfied there is
a case to answer.]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../30/nfnm30.xml

You might think farmers are "honest even when it hurts",
even while lying to their customers and infecting their
own cattle, but don't expect me to.

Dreck wrote:
That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
later on in the year.

If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
really matter anyway

It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
whatever you believe.

Yes, but how many do lie to consumers? Buy locally-produced foods and
there's less risk for lies.

snip
Farmers have always
been honest even when it hurts.

Then why do they intentionally infect their own
cattle with painful, deadly diseases? That's not
being "honest even when it hurts", and neither
is their lying to customers which YOU think
"wouldn't really matter anyway."

The article tells why: because compensation rates for sick animals are
higher than market prices. You get more of what you subsidize and less
of what you tax. Stop paying farmers in excess of market price for sick
animals and they'll try to keep their livestock from becoming ill. Or
tax them for sick animals (use the tax money to pay for more
inspections) and you'll see much healthier herds.

[A huge increase in compensation payments being
made for brucellosis infected cattle in Northern
Ireland has been criticised by a Stormont Assembly
committee. The Public Accounts Committee said it
was greatly concerned at the increased payments
and the evidence that some

*farmers were deliberately infecting their herds.*

In a report published on Tuesday, the committee said
there was evidence in five cases where farmers
deliberately introduced the disease to take advantage
of the compensation on offer.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1787931.stm

[LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government's
hope of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease suffered a
setback amid reports that it may have been spread
deliberately.

Rumours have circulated for months that unscrupulous
farmers have been approaching those in the industry
offering infected animals to generate generous
compensation claims.

Last week a farmer in Pembrokeshire, west Wales,
notified authorities saying she had received a telephone
call from someone demanding £2,000 cash in exchange
for infecting her animals with the disease.]
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...britain.sheep/

[THE Government is investigating allegations that
farmers are deliberately infecting their sheep and cattle
with the foot and mouth virus to claim compensation far
in excess of their market value.

Some evidence has already been found in Cumbria,
where rumours have been circulating about infected
ears and tails from farms stricken with foot and mouth
being offered to owners of healthy livestock.

At least one suspect lamb's tail has been found on a farm
in the area. Officers of the Department for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs' investigation unit are looking into the
find and police will be called in if the unit is satisfied there is
a case to answer.]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../30/nfnm30.xml

You might think farmers are "honest even when it hurts",
even while lying to their customers and infecting their
own cattle, but don't expect me to.

They generally don't lie to consumers. Setting up a scheme whereby they
get more money for sick animals than healthy ones only leads to more
sick cattle. It also works for humans and you're living proof, you
bone-idle dole scrounger.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:34:29 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Dreck wrote:
That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
later on in the year.

If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
really matter anyway

It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
whatever you believe.

Yes, but how many do lie to consumers?

Enough for USDA to make note of it and comment.
You can never tell, especially where farmers are
concerned.

Buy locally-produced foods and there's less risk for lies.

The risk remains the same wherever the customer
buys his meat. The farmer might take his animals
far from home to finish them in a feedlot on corn.

snip
Farmers have always
been honest even when it hurts.

Then why do they intentionally infect their own
cattle with painful, deadly diseases? That's not
being "honest even when it hurts", and neither
is their lying to customers which YOU think
"wouldn't really matter anyway."

The article tells why: because compensation rates for sick animals are
higher than market prices. You get more of what you subsidize and less
of what you tax. Stop paying farmers in excess of market price for sick
animals and they'll try to keep their livestock from becoming ill. Or
tax them for sick animals (use the tax money to pay for more
inspections) and you'll see much healthier herds.

So, you're blaming the market, consumers and the
government for the farmer's intentional lies and
dishonesty, not to mention the intentional infecting
of his animals for compensation. Anyone but the
farmer himself. How transparent you are.

[A huge increase in compensation payments being
made for brucellosis infected cattle in Northern
Ireland has been criticised by a Stormont Assembly
committee. The Public Accounts Committee said it
was greatly concerned at the increased payments
and the evidence that some

*farmers were deliberately infecting their herds.*

In a report published on Tuesday, the committee said
there was evidence in five cases where farmers
deliberately introduced the disease to take advantage
of the compensation on offer.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1787931.stm

[LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government's
hope of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease suffered a
setback amid reports that it may have been spread
deliberately.

Rumours have circulated for months that unscrupulous
farmers have been approaching those in the industry
offering infected animals to generate generous
compensation claims.

Last week a farmer in Pembrokeshire, west Wales,
notified authorities saying she had received a telephone
call from someone demanding £2,000 cash in exchange
for infecting her animals with the disease.]
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...britain.sheep/

[THE Government is investigating allegations that
farmers are deliberately infecting their sheep and cattle
with the foot and mouth virus to claim compensation far
in excess of their market value.

Some evidence has already been found in Cumbria,
where rumours have been circulating about infected
ears and tails from farms stricken with foot and mouth
being offered to owners of healthy livestock.

At least one suspect lamb's tail has been found on a farm
in the area. Officers of the Department for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs' investigation unit are looking into the
find and police will be called in if the unit is satisfied there is
a case to answer.]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../30/nfnm30.xml

You might think farmers are "honest even when it hurts",
even while lying to their customers and infecting their
own cattle, but don't expect me to.

They generally don't lie to consumers.

I disagree with your opinion. I believe they generally
do lie to their customers.

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
snip BS

Why can you not comprehend the difference between "some" and "all" ?

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah" wrote:

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
snip BS

That material you snipped away showing the
fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
before you proceed to show where USDA are
lying.

unsnip
[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah"
wrote:

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
snip BS

That material you snipped away showing the
fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
before you proceed to show where USDA are
lying.

i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times. i'm not
saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm just saying that its illogical
for you to infer that *all* managers of livestock are lying simply becasue
*some* are.



unsnip
[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0500, "Saerah" wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah" wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message ...
snip BS

That material you snipped away showing the
fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
before you proceed to show where USDA are
lying.

i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times.

Then you have no excuse for your error in thinking
I wrote *all* farmers are lying, have you?

i'm not
saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm just saying that its illogical
for you to infer that *all* managers of livestock are lying simply becasue
*some* are.

And where have I written *all* farmers are lying?
If you took the time to read the threads more
thoroughly before jumping in and making an arse
of yourself you might have noticed I've addressed
your point before now.

[start usual suspect]
Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all.
[me]
That's right, and I've never said otherwise.
[end]

unsnip
[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0500, "Saerah"
wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah"
wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message ...
snip BS

That material you snipped away showing the
fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
before you proceed to show where USDA are
lying.

i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times.

Then you have no excuse for your error in thinking
I wrote *all* farmers are lying, have you?

i'm not
saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm just saying that its
illogical
for you to infer that *all* managers of livestock are lying simply becasue
*some* are.

And where have I written *all* farmers are lying?
If you took the time to read the threads more
thoroughly before jumping in and making an arse
of yourself you might have noticed I've addressed
your point before now.

[start usual suspect]
Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all.
[me]
That's right, and I've never said otherwise.
[end]


yes, but then you follow up the quoted material by saying "farmers lie".
whcih implies that "all farmers lie", if you dont qualify your statement.




unsnip
[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:57:55 -0500, "Saerah" wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0500, "Saerah" wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah" wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message ...
snip BS

That material you snipped away showing the
fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
before you proceed to show where USDA are
lying.

i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times.

Then you have no excuse for your error in thinking
I wrote *all* farmers are lying, have you?

Well?

i'm not saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm
just saying that its illogical for you to infer that *all*
managers of livestock are lying simply becasue *some* are.

And where have I written *all* farmers are lying?
If you took the time to read the threads more
thoroughly before jumping in and making an arse
of yourself you might have noticed I've addressed
your point before now.

[start usual suspect]
Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all.
[me]
That's right, and I've never said otherwise.
[end]

yes, but then you follow up the quoted material by saying "farmers lie".

And that is true, they do. It would be wrong to
claim they *don't* lie in light of all the evidence
against them.

whcih implies

You're implying it rather than I.

that "all farmers lie", if you dont qualify your statement.

I'll leave you to make all the false assumptions
and implications. You've already got a head
start on me in that anyway.

unsnip
[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]