"Rogi Surta" > wrote in message
...
> Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed.
====================
No, I'm not.

Cattle are one of the most
> destructive food sources Americans use.
======================
You obviously can't read for comprehension, can you?

The calorie per bushel of grain invested
> to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same
grain.
=====================
Again, there is *NO* need or requirement to feed grain to cattle. Period.


> The number of acres of rain forests cleared each year in south america to
raise
> the cattle for fast food industries alone (a notoriously empty calorie
food
> source) is nothing more than rape of the earth.
====================
More emtpy rhetoric without basis.

>
> The areas you refer to that cattle graze on are devastated by the input of
> cattle.
=================
No, they are not. They are areas of land that are marginal at best for crop
production. That your ignornat mantra requires you to repeat ignorant lys
doesn't make those lys true.


Your statement that I seem to be in support of petro chem companies
> indicates you did not read my comments.
======================
Yes, I did. You advocate a food source totally dependent on the
petro-chemical industry instead of substituting some of your calories with
very efficient, very environmentally friendly ones from specific meats.


Grain raised cattle requires MORE petro
> chems. That is a fact. You seem to see what you want just to argue your
beliefs
> with no regard for reality!
==========================
Again, your religious mantra of hate and misinformation has you blinded to
one small fact. There is *NO* need, nor any requirment to feed grain to
cattle. You do know that cattle can, and do live and grow quite well on
grass, don't you? Grass that does not need any massive petro-chemical
industry inputs in the form of mechinazation, pesticides, fertilizers, or
herbicides. All these are needed in massive quantituies to produce your
veggies, killer.


>
> How do you think a billion south east asians and a billion Chinese
survive? Do
> you think they are eating more meat or more grain? They live with less
land and
> less cash and they do it with way less meat. Why? Because it is the most
> efficient way to live.
=====================
BS

>
> Deny this all you want.
=====================
I will, because you are wrong...

Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
> NOT and never have been) live longer and cost less tax dollars in medical
care.
> Heart disease is the number one killer in the country and the largest
chunk of
> medical costs that your tax dollars pay for. Your defense of meat is based
not
> on common sense but group identity. Perhaps you should just watch sports
on tv
> instead.
==========================
maybe that's your pasttime. I watch very little. I'm too busy out doors
most of the time.
Your ignorance is amazing. You've watched too many lame TV shows
apparently.


>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > "Rogi Surta" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > You make a post using a persons false assumption about bushels of food
per
> > acre;
> > > plants versus animal.
> > ===============
> > And your assumptions are what?
> >
> > >
> > > Being a vegetarian is about less fat and cholesterol in your diet. It
is
> > about
> > > living longer with less medical costs. Forget the fact that it takes
more
> > farming
> > > to grow grain and feed to animals and then eat the animals.
> > ===========================
> > No, it does not. It takes *zero* amounts of grains or other crops to
raise
> > many meat animals...
> > Animals can, and do live, thrive, and grow in areas that crops are not
> > easily grown without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry.
An
> > industry you appear to really support... Trying to grow human edible
crops
> > where the land is minimal takes far more resourses, and causes far more
> > environmental damage than from eating meat raised in the same area.
> >
> > It is about less
> > > farming needs and therefore less herbicides, pesticides and
fertilizers in
> > the
> > > rivers I catch trout and salmon in.
> > ======================
> > Sure, but if veg*ns would replace 100s of 1000s of calories from their
> > mono-culture crop foods with the same amount of calories from one
grass-fed
> > animal, or game animal, then the impact from farming would be less.
> >
> > Your entire premise is exactly backwards and
> > > embarrassingly stupid!
> > =======================
> > You've made a few false claims of your own here...
> >
> > >
> > > You have made a fool of yourself. For the vast majority of people that
> > live on a
> > > plant only diet it is not because they love Bambi in her forest home,
it
> > is because
> > > of poverty. They have little land and the implements to grow with. The
> > huge list of
> > > claims are made by misinformed person, much like yourself!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your
> > >
> > > LizH228 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is a letter to the editor taken out of yesterday's Denver paper
> > (Rocky
> > > > Mountain News):
> > > > Letters to the Editor, February 10
> > > > February 10, 2004
> > > >
> > > > Worldwide vegan diet would be catastrophic
> > > >
> > > > With the recent mad cow disease scare I've noticed a lot of people
have
> > > > suggested that we all eat vegetarian. Let's think about that for a
> > minute. Here
> > > > are a few reasons why a total vegetarian planet would be a horrific
> > idea:
> > > >
> > > > 1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,
> > national
> > > > parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, goats, etc., would wreak havoc on those
> > crops
> > > > because their natural food source would no longer be available to
them.
> > We
> > > > would not like that and we would insist that someone do something
about
> > it.
> > > > What do we do? Shoot them? Chase them away? To where? We would come
to
> > look at
> > > > them as "pests." These predators would eventually become extinct due
to
> > lack of
> > > > natural prey.
> > > >
> > > > Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations,
deer,
> > elk,
> > > > etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
> > becoming
> > > > extinct themselves.
> > > >
> > > > 4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like
wool
> > and
> > > > dairy products, will no longer be available.
> > > >
> > > > 5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the
vegetarians I
> > know
> > > > eat fish and seafood.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of
control,
> > creating
> > > > floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.
> > > >
> > > > 7. What would happen if we had a drought? A lot of human deaths
would
> > occur, of
> > > > course, but our crops will die, too. The planet will become a
desiccated
> > > > tinderbox waiting for something to ignite it.
> > > >
> > > > Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts
.. .
> > . and
> > > > meat. If you wish to eat vegetarian, fine. In fact, if we all
decided to
> > be
> > > > totally carnivorous (eating only meat products) a similar worldwide
> > catastrophe
> > > > would occur. We need to be omnivorous. Otherwise, this planet will
die.
> > > >
> > > > We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.
> > >
>