On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:37:33 GMT, Mike Charlton > wrote:

>Hey Rick. This discussion is turning out pretty long. I've snipped it
>all in order to reorder things a bit. Hope that's OK. I've also changed
>the subject line. We seem to be getting off topic, so I'm hoping this
>will help us remember what we're talking about. Speaking of which...
>
>Man, you really seem to be angry. I mean, I think I've treated you
>with respect. I haven't suggested that you change your lifestyle
>at all. But you seem intent on repeating the same things over
>and over again. There's really no point. I get it.

Consider that there may be other people reading. Much of the
time what is written is really directed as much or more at other
readers than it is at the person being replied to.

>Please show
>*me* some respect and before you paint me with the same brush you
>do other people, at least ask me what I think. You are telling me
>what vegans believe. Do *I* believe those things? How would you
>know? You haven't bothered to ask me. Anyway, that's OK. I'm not
>really here to stand on a soap box and tell people what I think.
>I'm sure people can come up with their own conclusions. But, please
>tone down the rhetoric, OK? I'm not your enemy.
>
>Secondly, you seem to think I'm in a debate with you here. I get
>the impression that I'm supposed to be the "protector of the vegan
>flag", as if there was such a thing. I'm just a guy who happens
>not to want to eat animals. I don't want to convince you of anything
>(not that it looks like you are open to other points of view
>on this topic anyway). Why would I want to waste my time like that?
>No, you said I should be worried about collateral deaths of animals
>in farming and I *agreed* with you. I invited you to explain how
>it could be done and you accepted my invitation (or at least you
>seemed to... Am I mistaken?) Anyway, if you don't feel capable of
>entering into this kind of discussion where there isn't a "contest
>of wills", I won't hold you to it. It just seems like you've done
>a lot of research and have some interesting ideas. I don't like
>wasting good opportunities.
>
>Getting on to the point. From what you've said, I get the impression
>that you don't think that there's any impediment to getting people
>to switch from grain fed beef to grass fed beef. You seem to imply
>that the feed lots serve very little purpose and can be dispensed with
>easily. Sounds good to me. Why doesn't it happen (and this isn't an
>accusation -- I just want to understand the dynamic)? Theoretically, *I*
>as an individual could buy grass fed beef if I wanted to (actually, I
>don't think I can -- farmers here aren't allowed to sell beef to the
>public, and I found *no* grass fed beef at either the supermarket or the
>butcher here... Hmmm... maybe it's where I live), but the public at large
>doesn't seem to be exposed to that kind of choice.

That is one of my biggest complaints about veg*nism. We can find
veg*n products in many popular super markets--including many meat
substitutes which contain egg whites and support battery farming of
hens--but I've never seen grass raised animal products. Veg*n food
does nothing to help any animals at all, and grain based products involve
more deaths than grass raised animal products. But if people want to
contribute to less deaths and also decent lives for farm animals, they
don't get the option of doing it a popular food sources. That really seems
odd to me...it seems that it should be easier to persuade most people to
deliberately contribute to decent lives for the animals they consume,
than it should be to persuade them to stop consuming them and contribute
to nothing. But we can see that it's not.

>Given that at least
>some places seem not to sell grass fed beef, how would you encourage the
>change? Again, you've told me what won't work, please tell me what will.
>
>WRT to deaths of rodents in fields... I'm well aware of the numbers
>of rodents that live in fields (heck, there's a corn field practically
>next door to me -- I see them all the time). My question (or actually,
>whimsical thought) was, how many of them actually get killed. I
>*know* some do (the burrowing owl is actually in serious trouble due
>to lost habitat from farming). But, it was a whimsical thought. How many
>lives are we "justified" in killing? Beats the hell out of me... I try
>to avoid moral kunundrums like that. If possible, I'd like to reduce
>the killing and create better habitat for wildlife.
__________________________________________________ _______
More than 40 bird species breed in Wisconsin's hayfields, prairies
and pastures. From 1960 to 1990, populations of birds such as
meadowlarks, savannah sparrows, upland sandpipers and bobolinks
experienced the steepest decline of any group of birds in North
America. Some of the decline in the Midwest can be traced to farmers
who converted grasslands to corn and soybean fields. But the recent
widespread adoption of rotational grazing in America's Dairyland is
giving Wisconsin grassland birds a second chance. With rotational
grazing, pastures are divided into paddocks and graziers let cows graze
one paddock at a time for two days or less before moving them to a
fresh paddock. A team of agronomists and wildlife biologists with the
UW-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has
evaluated techniques that can favor grassland birds on these pastures.
The researchers have identified bird-friendly practices that graziers
can implement at little or no expense. The scientists found, for
example, that moving cows from paddock to paddock frequently, leaving
more grass after grazing a paddock or protecting a couple of paddocks
during the birds' nesting season all increase the nesting success of
grassland birds on these pastures.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/200...THDY2.UWI.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Sooo.... It would
>be nice to have a number -- so I could at least ponder the significance
>of grain farming and habitat loss and put it on my personal priority list.
>
>Oh, just so you know, you can be self-sufficient in veggies and fruit very
>easily from a home garden (especially if you employ hydroponics -- with
>a decent water treatment setup of course). I don't have any papers to
>show you, but I know this from experience. It takes no more than about
>30 minutes a day (plus a few 3-4 hour stints once or twice a month).
>The key is to harvest when you are cooking. Just pick what you're
>going to eat. But like I said, grains and legumes might be a different
>story. I don't know enough on this topic, which is why I'm so eager to get
>other people's opinions.
>
>Unfortunately, it's also illegal for farmers to sell grains directly to
>consumers here. But, I'm not sure it would help me anyway. The farms I'd
>be buying from are all big operations which presumably kill (an unknown
>number of) birds and rodents. I really don't know what to do here.
>Perhaps there's nothing I can do??? I'm going to try growing legumes in
>my hydoponics setup, though. I'm not sure what kind of yield I can get.
>It might not be enough. Plus, there are some technical hitches that I
>might need to iron out (they will almost certainly need a different
>nutrient makeup, which would require that I set up something specifically
>for them). But, you know, I'm not sure hydroponics is for everyone --
>It's not hard or labour intensive, but it can be a bit fiddly (especially
>for people, like me, who don't have a reliable power source for the
>pumps).
>
>What would be nice would be a way to reduce collateral deaths in farming
>in institutional farm systems. Of course there are two issues: first
>to come up with a way to do it, second to convince people that it's a
>good idea. I still haven't really seen anything that will help
>substantially.
>
>As you said in a previous email, it's not really diet that's important
>here... It's everything else as well -- It's climate change due to
>pollution from transportation. It's loss of habitat/migration routes
>due to roads and natural gas pipelines. Etc, etc, etc. That's why I
>think that it's less necessary to discuss what we're eating as opposed
>to where we're getting it from. Local produce is *really* important.
>Do you agree?
>
> Mike
>
>P.S. Just trying to put a name to a face... Are you the Rick Etter that
>plays guitar for Jumping Conclusions?