> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > Dave wrote:
> > >> wrote:
> >
> >
> > snip...
> >
> >
> > >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> > >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> > >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> > >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> > >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> > >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> > >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> > >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> > >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> > >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> > >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> > >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> > >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> > > cattle for
> > > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> > > reducing
> > > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> > =========================
> > Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
>
> Do it, then.
>
> > And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
> > eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> > food we eat?
> >
>
> We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily. Probably we
> don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as we
> do. I would support efforts to reform crop production.
'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html
'..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
...'
http://www.cosi.org.uk/web/sa/saweb....Sheets05092001
'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:
Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
...'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm.
> > >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> > >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> > >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> > >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> > >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> > >>
> > >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> > >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> > >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> > >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> > >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> > >> and dairy products but I think the best
> > >> option of all is to source both plant and
> > >> animal products from local organic farms
> > >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> > >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> > >> local woodlands.
> > >
> > > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> > > organic
> > > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> > > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> > ==============================
> > Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> > live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
> > with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> > way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> > pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
> >
>
> Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
> production.
Thanks Rupert. As we've seen:
'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
272,000,000 x 7.5 = 2,040,000,000 animals dying in pasture.
Food crops:
acres
Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
Peanuts 1,436,034
Potatoes 1,309,963
Rice 2,424,864
Total sugar 2,172,550
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html
= 9,484,262 acres = 3,838,280 hectares.
+ 6 million hectares grain, 1,321,080 hectares vegetables
and 1,806,010 hectares orchards, vineyards, and nursery,
gives us a grand total of 12,965,370 hectares land used.
For livestock - 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.
Leaving aside the close-cropping of feed crops for now,
over twice as much land is harvested for livestock, ergo
over twice as many collateral deaths than for food crops.
And add to that the animals that die in pasture, above.
And the nearly 40 million head of cattle slaughtered p/a.
> > The fish is an interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one.
'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same
data to show that commercial fishing had depleted
the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall
abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago.
.....'
http://www.seaotters.org/CurrentIssu....cfm?DocID=279
At 1 fish a week for 6 billion people.., that's 6 billion fish
handlined per week. 24 billion every month. Where are
these massive numbers of fish Dave proposes handlining?