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

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:38:25 +0000, Reynard > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:
>
>>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.

>
>You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
>and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.


"that results from their own food production"

>>>[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.