wrote in message ...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?
yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?
If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
deaths caused by rice production.
diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
There's no doubt that your
source--and especially YOU yourself--are trying to create the false
impression that thousands of animals are not being killed when
they really are. "ara" dishonesty is undoubtedly the more disgusting
and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish...diderot encourages
people to consider human influence on animals involved in rice
production, while YOU encourage people NOT TO!
WHY should anyone take his 'estimate' over that of a rice farmer?
There's no doubt that your source--and especially YOU yourself--
are trying to create the false impression that thousands of animals
are being killed when they really aren't. Your anti AR dishonesty is
undoubtedly disgusting and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish.