On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 01:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:03:01 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 28, 5:26*am, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Jun 24, 8:10 am, dh@. wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
>>>> >> than cattle do by eating grass.
>>>>
>>>> >But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
>>>> >to take into account.
>>>>
>>>> * * The cattle and the wildlife. What else is there? I doubt cats and chickens
>>>> die very much because of raising cattle, though now that you mention it I do
>>>> know that dogs get killed for chasing cattle, and that dogs will pack together
>>>> and kill cattle which is one reason the dogs are killed. They also chase them
>>>> through fences, which is again reason for them to be killed. But another of the
>>>> factors you won't like is that when you raise animals like that you are
>>>> responsible for their safety, since you're the one who put them in the
>>>> situation. So people can't afford to care too much about the dogs who are trying
>>>> to kill their cattle, when the cattle are getting killed by dogs that they never
>>>> did anything to hurt and that shouldn't even be in the area. I say that goes for
>>>> wolves too. And racoons. And possums. And foxes. And weasles. And skunks. And
>>>> etc...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly how many deaths do you think are caused by soybean production?
>>
>> Exactly? LOL! The number varies with the environment. See below:
>>
>>>> >> >For
>>>> >> >example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
>>>> >> >associated with the production of grass fed beef
>>>>
>>>> >> No.
>>>>
>>>> >> >and some sources of
>>>> >> >information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
>>>> >> >killed to protect the cattle.
>>>>
>>>> >> It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
>>>> >> soy beans are not generally predators, btw.
>>>>
>>>> >> >I will be interested to hear what the
>>>> >> >farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
>>>> >> >research about the matter.
>>>>
>>>> * * She was kind enough to write back again. I believe she and I will eventually
>>>> reach a point where we can agree, which imo would mean we would/will have
>>>> developed a more realistic interpretation of the big picture. In the first
>>>> message she said:
>>>>
>>>> "The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife" friendly.
>>>> Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less wildlife is
>>>> killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of wildlife (I
>>>> assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the argument down to
>>>> deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
>>>> *animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is
>>>> too many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid. I
>>>> do wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a
>>>> world would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human
>>>> consumption."
>>>>
>>>> It was not until her second message that I thought it through to the point that
>>>> she had, when she said:
>>>>
>>>> "Perhaps they need to visit the farming areas particularly in the US where their
>>>> beloved soy comes from to see a totally lifeless monoculture and compare it with
>>>> a functioning biodiverse cattle farm.
>>
>> She referred to an area where there would not be many deaths any more,
>>because the local wildlife in general was killed off years ago.
>>
>>>> In biodynamics we deal with the whole - the viewing of the food system in its
>>>> entirety is what is lacking. Back to my point regarding the pointlessness of
>>>> deaths per mouthful......."
>>>>
>>>> Notice as I do that she encourages you to consider the big picture,
>>
>>
>> Try to keep that part in mind. Move on....
>>
>>>> and in other
>>>> places she did agree that a problem with eliminationists in general is only
>>>> thinking about the things that support what they/you want to believe. I'm not
>>>> lying to you about any of this, and never have.
>>
>> Learning to think openly about the big picture could change your life for
>>the better.
>>
>>>> In contrast...there's Goo...
>>>> Back to the point about where I thought she and I did not agree: I don't agree
>>>> that deaths per mouthful is pointless. All of it has its relevance. But from her
>>>> pov it is because she's thinking of more extreme situations than I am. She's
>>>> thinking of situations where it's pretty much nothing but the crops and no
>>>> animals at all to speak of, like this:
>>>>
>>>> http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect3/RDC-2...ial-20View.jpg
>>>>
>>>> I've never been "in" places like that, but have only flown over them. Flying
>>>> over still gives an idea what she means though, and I've flown over where
>>>> everything looks like that for many many miles around. What I've been around was
>>>> soybean fields that are mixed in around grazing fields and areas with woods. So
>>>> animals who do get out of the way have a place where they can go and survive
>>>> unlike where she's talking about...kind of like when rice fields can get full of
>>>> life because it comes in with the river water when the fields are flooded...
>>>> . . .
>>
>> Different numbers of animals die depending on the different types of
>>situations.
>
>Well, can you give me a range, then?

I don't care about that, but if you think it's significant then let me know
what you find out about it and what the significance is.