View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:02:53 +0100, "John Coleman" > wrote:

>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
>> of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
>> buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.

>
>True to an extent, yes all human activity involve "collateral damage", i.e.
>animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck some raspberries
>you must kill thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what
>veganism is about.
>
>> What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>> to avoid the following in order to be successful:

>
>No, we do not "have" to avoid,


You would have to in order to be successful. You're not successful.

>we just _should_ avoid where we can when it
>is practical - being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know
>many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention BTW, and would avoid
>more if they could.
>
>You are creating a false definition of veganism and then attempting to
>discredit it on that basis.


I'm pointing out facts you don't like.

>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised

>8<
>
>This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even raise it.


It's another fact you don't like.

>Just
>about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat consumption eating isn't
>sustainable or environmentally friendly,


Of course, because they don't care about human influence on
animals--like yourself--they only care about promoting veg*nism.
There's another fact you don't like. But you SHOULD be proud
of it, and proudly proclaim that you will support veg*nism even
in cases when it involves more animal deaths than eating meat.
And also that you will oppose contributing to life for farm animals,
even when it provides them with decent lives.

>as will any ecologist.

__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ