View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit and false.

>>
>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>> than soy or rice products. ·

>
>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>deaths like any other beef.


Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
something else.

>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>western livestock.
>
>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>animals in their dens.]
>
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>
>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.
>
>[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
>
>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>
>[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
>
>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.