Robert Seago > writes
>In article >, Oz
> wrote:
>>.
>> >
>> >There is another debate to be had here though. In terms of carbon
>> >sequestration, what would the annual laying down of carbon be in each
>> >of these habitats?
>
>> They are stable. Thus there is no net laying down of carbon. Wood rots.
>That may or may not be true in a climax forest. Certainly the coal measure
>swamps must have absorbed carbon for more time than it took to develop an
>equilibrium. Peat bogs do.

Mid latitude pine forests aren't one of them. Actually there are few
areas of net C deposition in the world these days, the deep ocean and
methane clathrates being a notable exception (for the moment).

>
>I have listened to your assertions before that there is an equilibrium of
>deposited carbon in soil,

that is not 'assertion' but reality in a stable system as (give or take
a few percent) most soils on the planet are.

>which you have suggested can't be alterered but
>though I can cite no sourcers, I have no time, I am not convinced.

Don;t be stupid. How many soils manage even 10% OM?
Virtually none. Most are 2-4% and stable.

>I have
>seen a lot of clay, (and light) soils around here which appear to be very
>low in organic matter. I compare them with my allotment which is heavy,
>which I keep workable with green manures and so on, and its texture is
>very much more favourable. No equations but I could demonstrate this to
>you.

You forget I farmed several hundred acres of fen, and several hundred
acres of permanent pasture. My chalk fen is about 10% organic matter and
is jet black and beautifully friable (ask those who saw it), but that's
because it was once lakebed. There is no net deposition of significant
amounts over sensible scales (decades).

>> >There was a report, one that I have not seen confirmed that suggested
>> >forest planting in higher lattitudes put more hydrocarbon greenhouse
>> >gases into the atmosphere than the (greenhouse) equivalent CO2 that was
>> >removed. I find this hard to believe actually.
>
>> They were counting the methane and peats in the permafrost as being lost
>> vs the biomass of the trees (and hopefully roots).
>In fact they claimed that to have a net effect ameliorating greenhouse gas
>content it would need to be < 30degrees lattitude.

que?

>> Ever been to a rainforest? Packed full of high levels of biodiversity
>> but you will be lucky to see any animals and few birds.

>es, and no, the birds have been spectacular.

You didn;t see them (typically) by just a few hours walking through it
without binoculars.

>However in the UK if high grain prices persist, I guess you are right, and
>the only approach to seeing once common birds will be to have hot spot
>farm reserves such as one or two which have already been set up and have
>worked very well. They are a farm equivalent of the large restored
>wetlands and heaths which have become the best hope of seeing other things.

Of course. As I have said many times before, of you want wildlife
farming, club together and buy a farm then run it how you like.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Mar 15, 7:00*am, Oz > wrote:
> Buxqi > writes
>
> >Am I right in thinking that a mixed-diciduous woodland would compare quite
> >favourably from this perspective though? Lot's of biomass and
> >diversity
>
> Mixed deciduous tends to be unstable and end up as one species or
> another. It also tends to tertiary forest and more limited biodiversity.
>
> Ideally you want patches of woodland of mixed species and varying levels
> of maturity interspersed with sunny glades and field edges. You will
> want some very large fields (for hares, skylarks etc), some very large
> open areas, and a wide range of soiltypes.
>
> In the UK regulation of treefelling means that nobody is going to plant
> new woodland, or even replant felled woodland. Typically woodland runs
> at a (substantial) loss. Better to let it go derelict (probably quite
> good for wildlife of some sorts).

I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak.
Are you saying that by making laws against cutting down trees,
the government is putting people off planting them?
>
> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
> without being ploughed up.

And more of the same?
>
> Governments attempt to macromanage micromanaged systems they don't
> understand, and are inclined to use force where persuasion is more
> effective.
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Buxqi" > wrote in message news:14192a9c-0630-4e3f-bbe6-
> In the UK regulation of treefelling means that nobody is going to plant
> new woodland, or even replant felled woodland. Typically woodland runs
> at a (substantial) loss. Better to let it go derelict (probably quite
> good for wildlife of some sorts).

I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak.
Are you saying that by making laws against cutting down trees,
the government is putting people off planting them?
>

of course, trees are a crop, the fact that their commercial life can cover
the period of 12 general elections makes them a rather vulnerable crop.
However they are harvested in due time which pays for the costs of
establishment etc.
If you know that government will ban you from harvesting a crop, it does
rather deter you from planting it in the first place



> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
> without being ploughed up.

And more of the same?
>
Yes, the EU has decided that all grassland that has not been ploughed or
cultivated for the six previous years is permanent pasture. A member state
has to take steps to stop the amount of permanent pasture falling below the
level it was when the SFP came in, basically about five years ago.

Jim Webster

Buxqi > writes
>
>I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak. Are you
>saying that by making laws against cutting down trees, the government is
>putting people off planting them?

Absolutely. Plant a tree and once its above a certain (quite small) size
you need permission to fell, and even if you get such you are invariably
obliged to replant. As an example we planted a small group (about 100
trees) in a corner between two (dirt) tracks. One track fell into disuse
and it would be nice to pull out the small trees and simplify the field
but this is not possible. Equally we would like to plant about 2500 in
various other places but since one cannot see even a few decades into
the future, let alone centuries, we decided not to. This is now typical,
fossilising what was once a dynamic countryside.

On the upside ALL the woods on our downland were planted for shooting,
but were never used because I didn't allow a commercial shoot on. Now I
am semi-retired we do, and they are once again in use. Boy did those old
guys know how to set up a shoot. [NB For info I don't shoot, or fish or
hunt.]

>> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
>> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
>> without being ploughed up.
>
>And more of the same?

Absolutely. Completely nutty but I guess it makes the ecofreaks feel
powerful, they tend to prefer telling people what to do, right or wrong.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Jim Webster > writes
> Yes, the EU has decided that all grassland that has not been ploughed or
>cultivated for the six previous years is permanent pasture. A member state
>has to take steps to stop the amount of permanent pasture falling below the
>level it was when the SFP came in, basically about five years ago.

The problem we have in the UK (uncommon in most of europe, probably due
climate) is that lowland quality arable can and is used for highly
productive grassland (typically, but not confined to, dairying) often
run on long leys for convenience (mine were 4-8+ years). So if a dairy
farm is sold it will most likely be returned to high quality arable by
the buyer. If he can't do this the farm is pretty much worthless, little
more than fell permanent pasture. Equally the expanding dairy farm
cannot easily expand if it means turning quality arable to permanent
pasture with a commitant capital loss.

Basically it means ensuring an arable section through your grassland,
which is a pity because long leys /permanent pasture is best for soils,
production and wildlife.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

In message >, Oz
> writes
>
>You forget I farmed several hundred acres of fen, and several hundred
>acres of permanent pasture. My chalk fen is about 10% organic matter and
>is jet black and beautifully friable (ask those who saw it), but that's
>because it was once lakebed. There is no net deposition of significant
>amounts over sensible scales (decades).

Umm... I have river flood plain with just those black soils. However,
when I first knew it, around 60 years ago, there were clearly visible
rectangular ponds divided by dug out gravel banks. Local history has
them as beds for growing Cress to serve the London market.

During the '60's the river was dredged: lowering the bed and raising the
banks. Occasional flooding then ceased altogether. Over that 60 years,
the ponds have filled with black soil to the point that the separating
banks are invisible and only noticed when driving across with a vehicle.
Apart from grass and grazing cattle, nothing has been done to alter the
geography.

I suppose the sub surface moisture level will be much higher than other
soils which may impact on oxidation?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb > writes
>
>Umm... I have river flood plain with just those black soils. However, when I
>first knew it, around 60 years ago, there were clearly visible rectangular
>ponds divided by dug out gravel banks. Local history has them as beds for
>growing Cress to serve the London market.

Ok, so probably anaerobic for considerable periods.

>During the '60's the river was dredged: lowering the bed and raising the
>banks. Occasional flooding then ceased altogether. Over that 60 years, the
>ponds have filled with black soil to the point that the separating banks are
>invisible and only noticed when driving across with a vehicle. Apart from
>grass and grazing cattle, nothing has been done to alter the geography.

Probably ponding. Surface water runs into them and since their bottom is
clearly impervious, produces the anaerobic situation. At some point it
will start to grow enough stuff that it will dry out and then the
organic matter will start to decline.

>I suppose the sub surface moisture level will be much higher than other
>soils which may impact on oxidation?

Precisely so. However its transient in the scheme of things and the
organic matter levels may be much lower than you think. Our most peaty
soil, which will burn and looks like garden peat is in fact only 35% OM,
the rest of the blackland is 7-12% (surprisingly low).

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Mar 16, 7:43*am, Oz > wrote:
> Buxqi > writes
>
>
>
> >I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak. Are you
> >saying that by making laws against cutting down trees, the government is
> >putting people off planting them?
>
> Absolutely. Plant a tree and once its above a certain (quite small) size
> you need permission to fell, and even if you get such you are invariably
> obliged to replant. As an example we planted a small group (about 100
> trees) in a corner between two (dirt) tracks. One track fell into disuse
> and it would be nice to pull out the small trees and simplify the field
> but this is not possible. Equally we would like to plant about 2500 in
> various other places but since one cannot see even a few decades into
> the future, let alone centuries, we decided not to. This is now typical,
> fossilising what was once a dynamic countryside.
>
> On the upside ALL the woods on our downland were planted for shooting,
> but were never used because I didn't allow a commercial shoot on. Now I
> am semi-retired we do, and they are once again in use. Boy did those old
> guys know how to set up a shoot. [NB For info I don't shoot, or fish or
> hunt.]
>
> >> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
> >> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
> >> without being ploughed up.
>
> >And more of the same?
>
> Absolutely. Completely nutty but I guess it makes the ecofreaks feel
> powerful, they tend to prefer telling people what to do, right or wrong.

It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
legislation
and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the very problem
it is designed to solve...
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Buxqi > writes

>It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of legislation
>and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the very problem it is
>designed to solve...

Its woefully common in agriculture I am afraid.

Its in the nature of land use that it varies and fluctuates over the
decades. Another particularly good example is hedges. Its certainly true
that thousands of miles of hedges were lost during the war and up until
about 1975. Thereafter in many arable areas hedges were being relaid
although there was still losses in the more backward livestock areas
which ran on subsistence farming until the farmers died (jim will give
details). Indeed there was actually an organised effort to relay and
document the results in essex where vast distances of new hedge were
relaid.

Then there was legislation to prevent the removal of hedges. The amount
relaid plummetted and those in poorer areas simply amalgamated fields
regardless of hedges, just leaving them in situ. Over time grazing by
sheep and cattle slowly removes these hedges.

I have never removed a hedge, but then my fields (were) about 70ac in
size whilst jims are more like 7ac or less. Unsurprisingly I could be
hugely more efficient. Why so many people want farmers to be modern day
peasants earning below the minimum wage (many, indeed lately most do)
and still criticise is unfortunate.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
wrote:

>On Mar 16, 7:43*am, Oz > wrote:
>> Buxqi > writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak. Are you
>> >saying that by making laws against cutting down trees, the government is
>> >putting people off planting them?
>>
>> Absolutely. Plant a tree and once its above a certain (quite small) size
>> you need permission to fell, and even if you get such you are invariably
>> obliged to replant. As an example we planted a small group (about 100
>> trees) in a corner between two (dirt) tracks. One track fell into disuse
>> and it would be nice to pull out the small trees and simplify the field
>> but this is not possible. Equally we would like to plant about 2500 in
>> various other places but since one cannot see even a few decades into
>> the future, let alone centuries, we decided not to. This is now typical,
>> fossilising what was once a dynamic countryside.
>>
>> On the upside ALL the woods on our downland were planted for shooting,
>> but were never used because I didn't allow a commercial shoot on. Now I
>> am semi-retired we do, and they are once again in use. Boy did those old
>> guys know how to set up a shoot. [NB For info I don't shoot, or fish or
>> hunt.]
>>
>> >> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
>> >> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
>> >> without being ploughed up.
>>
>> >And more of the same?
>>
>> Absolutely. Completely nutty but I guess it makes the ecofreaks feel
>> powerful, they tend to prefer telling people what to do, right or wrong.
>
>It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>legislation
>and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the very problem
>it is designed to solve...

Oz. A pro hunt, GM,factory farming,cyberstalking nut is hardly the one
to be discussing ethics with. As far as he is concerned the world was
put here so that his kind can have fun abusing it.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:43:46 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Buxqi > writes
>
>>It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of legislation
>>and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the very problem it is
>>designed to solve...
>
>Its woefully common in agriculture I am afraid.
>
>Its in the nature of land use that it varies and fluctuates over the
>decades. Another particularly good example is hedges. Its certainly true
>that thousands of miles of hedges were lost during the war and up until
>about 1975. Thereafter in many arable areas hedges were being relaid
>although there was still losses in the more backward livestock areas
>which ran on subsistence farming until the farmers died (jim will give
>details). Indeed there was actually an organised effort to relay and
>document the results in essex where vast distances of new hedge were
>relaid.
>
>Then there was legislation to prevent the removal of hedges. The amount
>relaid plummetted and those in poorer areas simply amalgamated fields
>regardless of hedges, just leaving them in situ. Over time grazing by
>sheep and cattle slowly removes these hedges.
>
>I have never removed a hedge, but then my fields (were) about 70ac in
>size whilst jims are more like 7ac or less. Unsurprisingly I could be
>hugely more efficient.

That requires work, something you are a tad averse to.

>Why so many people want farmers to be modern day
>peasants earning below the minimum wage (many, indeed lately most do)
>and still criticise is unfortunate.

The reason farmers find themselves in this self inflicted misery is
because we are pulling in the state benefits we used to give you, the
huge handouts and money for nothing culture you were brought up in has
gone. You either need to work for a living like the rest of us or go
and get a job at McDonalds more in keeping with your attitude.

These days the last bastion of the grand handout scams is dairy
farming. Lo and behold every farmer wants to be a dairy farmer, then
complains when no one wants to buy the over production of dairy and
meat.

The great gravy train is crashing down a hill. You either jump or die
with it.

The world is full of cheap rubbish produce and the farm prices reflect
that, we wont pay any more. Supply and demand old chum.

Find something to produce that we want and quit bellyaching.

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Buxqi > writes
> Its in the nature of land use that it varies and fluctuates over the
> decades. Another particularly good example is hedges. Its certainly true
> that thousands of miles of hedges were lost during the war and up until
> about 1975. Thereafter in many arable areas hedges were being relaid
> although there was still losses in the more backward livestock areas
> which ran on subsistence farming until the farmers died (jim will give
> details). Indeed there was actually an organised effort to relay and
> document the results in essex where vast distances of new hedge were
> relaid.

the was the classic case of the Country File (BBC TV programme) that took a
recently discovered German spy plane photo from WW2 and reflew the area in
about 2000 and compared the change in the countryside
The major loss of hedges had been from road widening (each mile of road
rewidened will probaby lead to the loss of at least a mile of hedge) and
urban development, plus Heathrow airport

>
> Then there was legislation to prevent the removal of hedges. The amount
> relaid plummetted and those in poorer areas simply amalgamated fields
> regardless of hedges, just leaving them in situ. Over time grazing by
> sheep and cattle slowly removes these hedges.

shortage of men, no longer time to do it. This farm was farmed in 1965 by my
Grandfather, three men and a lad. I've been running it by myself and also
doing other work to support the family

>
> I have never removed a hedge, but then my fields (were) about 70ac in
> size whilst jims are more like 7ac or less.

our biggest field is eight acres, our average size is about 5

Unsurprisingly I could be
> hugely more efficient. Why so many people want farmers to be modern day
> peasants earning below the minimum wage (many, indeed lately most do)
> and still criticise is unfortunate.

such is life

Jim Webster

On Mar 15, 4:54 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Mar 15, 7:00 am, Oz > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Buxqi > writes
>
> > >Am I right in thinking that a mixed-diciduous woodland would compare quite
> > >favourably from this perspective though? Lot's of biomass and
> > >diversity
>
> > Mixed deciduous tends to be unstable and end up as one species or
> > another. It also tends to tertiary forest and more limited biodiversity.
>
> > Ideally you want patches of woodland of mixed species and varying levels
> > of maturity interspersed with sunny glades and field edges. You will
> > want some very large fields (for hares, skylarks etc), some very large
> > open areas, and a wide range of soiltypes.
>
> > In the UK regulation of treefelling means that nobody is going to plant
> > new woodland, or even replant felled woodland. Typically woodland runs
> > at a (substantial) loss. Better to let it go derelict (probably quite
> > good for wildlife of some sorts).
>
> I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak.
> Are you saying that by making laws against cutting down trees,
> the government is putting people off planting them?

It would be amusing, were it not so sad, to see this shocked reaction
based in appalling ignorance of basic economic principles. Yes, of
course people stop planting the trees. Such laws are a restriction on
people's property rights, and the restrictions can be avoided by not
planting the trees. We have similar laws here in the U.S.; out west
in California, they mostly focus on trying to preserve old indigenous
species, particularly oaks. In most areas of California, residents
may not cut down an oak tree on their property with a trunk diameter
more than three or four inches measured at some height (a foot or two)
above the ground, without obtaining a permit; the permits are costly
and not always granted. As a result, NO ONE plants native species
oaks on their residential properties.

The naive are always shocked by this kind of unintended - but not, to
economists, unforeseen - consequence of do-gooder pandering
legislation. Rent control laws, ostensibly intended to preserve
"affordable" housing for lower income people, have exactly the
opposite effect: vacancy rates plummet, no new housing subject to the
rent control laws is built, means of discriminating other than price
come to be used by landlords, and suddenly people are shocked that
there is no affordable rental housing and racial minorities find
themselves excluded. This is exactly what happened in Santa Monica in
the early 1980s following the imposition of a strict rent control
ordinance.

In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed, and the first president Bush
signed, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). One consequence of
this act is that people with substance abuse problems cannot simply be
fired by firms covered by the act; they must be offered
rehabilitation, not necessarily at the employers' expense but
preserving their positions with the firms. As an entirely foreseeable
consequence, firms now conduct much more rigorous screening of
prospective employees, requiring pre-employment drug testing that
allows the firms not to hire substance abusers in the first place.
People who might otherwise have been given a chance at employment,
because the employers would have known they could get rid of them
easily if their substance abuse problems caused poor job performance,
instead are chronically unemployed due to not being able to get jobs
in the first place. In fact, continental Europe sees this same
phenomenon in its entire labor market due to laws that effectively
forbid firms from discharging redundant employees easily. The
consequence is that firms don't hire as many people as they otherwise
would have done (in the absence of these so-called "job protection"
laws), and so Europe's unemployment rate is chronically several
percentage points higher than in the U.S., where firms may sack
employees more readily.


> > Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
> > who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
> > without being ploughed up.
>
> And more of the same?
>
>
>
> > Governments attempt to macromanage micromanaged systems they don't
> > understand, and are inclined to use force where persuasion is more
> > effective.
>
> > --
> > Oz
> > This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Mar 16, 9:14 am, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 7:43 am, Oz > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Buxqi > writes
>
> > >I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak. Are you
> > >saying that by making laws against cutting down trees, the government is
> > >putting people off planting them?
>
> > Absolutely. Plant a tree and once its above a certain (quite small) size
> > you need permission to fell, and even if you get such you are invariably
> > obliged to replant. As an example we planted a small group (about 100
> > trees) in a corner between two (dirt) tracks. One track fell into disuse
> > and it would be nice to pull out the small trees and simplify the field
> > but this is not possible. Equally we would like to plant about 2500 in
> > various other places but since one cannot see even a few decades into
> > the future, let alone centuries, we decided not to. This is now typical,
> > fossilising what was once a dynamic countryside.
>
> > On the upside ALL the woods on our downland were planted for shooting,
> > but were never used because I didn't allow a commercial shoot on. Now I
> > am semi-retired we do, and they are once again in use. Boy did those old
> > guys know how to set up a shoot. [NB For info I don't shoot, or fish or
> > hunt.]
>
> > >> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
> > >> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
> > >> without being ploughed up.
>
> > >And more of the same?
>
> > Absolutely. Completely nutty but I guess it makes the ecofreaks feel
> > powerful, they tend to prefer telling people what to do, right or wrong.
>
> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
> legislation and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the
> very problem it is designed to solve...

As I wrote in another reply moments ago, these consequences may be
unintended, but the are not unforeseeable.


>
>
>
> > --
> > Oz
> > This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Campaign for Fresh Air wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 16, 7:43 am, Oz > wrote:
>>> Buxqi > writes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak. Are you
>>>> saying that by making laws against cutting down trees, the government is
>>>> putting people off planting them?
>>> Absolutely. Plant a tree and once its above a certain (quite small) size
>>> you need permission to fell, and even if you get such you are invariably
>>> obliged to replant. As an example we planted a small group (about 100
>>> trees) in a corner between two (dirt) tracks. One track fell into disuse
>>> and it would be nice to pull out the small trees and simplify the field
>>> but this is not possible. Equally we would like to plant about 2500 in
>>> various other places but since one cannot see even a few decades into
>>> the future, let alone centuries, we decided not to. This is now typical,
>>> fossilising what was once a dynamic countryside.
>>>
>>> On the upside ALL the woods on our downland were planted for shooting,
>>> but were never used because I didn't allow a commercial shoot on. Now I
>>> am semi-retired we do, and they are once again in use. Boy did those old
>>> guys know how to set up a shoot. [NB For info I don't shoot, or fish or
>>> hunt.]
>>>
>>>>> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
>>>>> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
>>>>> without being ploughed up.
>>>> And more of the same?
>>> Absolutely. Completely nutty but I guess it makes the ecofreaks feel
>>> powerful, they tend to prefer telling people what to do, right or wrong.
>> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>> legislation
>> and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the very problem
>> it is designed to solve...
>
> Oz.

Smarter than you, harder working than you, more
honestly curious than you. Your better, in every way.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:07:12 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Campaign for Fresh Air wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 7:43 am, Oz > wrote:
>>>> Buxqi > writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak. Are you
>>>>> saying that by making laws against cutting down trees, the government is
>>>>> putting people off planting them?
>>>> Absolutely. Plant a tree and once its above a certain (quite small) size
>>>> you need permission to fell, and even if you get such you are invariably
>>>> obliged to replant. As an example we planted a small group (about 100
>>>> trees) in a corner between two (dirt) tracks. One track fell into disuse
>>>> and it would be nice to pull out the small trees and simplify the field
>>>> but this is not possible. Equally we would like to plant about 2500 in
>>>> various other places but since one cannot see even a few decades into
>>>> the future, let alone centuries, we decided not to. This is now typical,
>>>> fossilising what was once a dynamic countryside.
>>>>
>>>> On the upside ALL the woods on our downland were planted for shooting,
>>>> but were never used because I didn't allow a commercial shoot on. Now I
>>>> am semi-retired we do, and they are once again in use. Boy did those old
>>>> guys know how to set up a shoot. [NB For info I don't shoot, or fish or
>>>> hunt.]
>>>>
>>>>>> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
>>>>>> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
>>>>>> without being ploughed up.
>>>>> And more of the same?
>>>> Absolutely. Completely nutty but I guess it makes the ecofreaks feel
>>>> powerful, they tend to prefer telling people what to do, right or wrong.
>>> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>>> legislation
>>> and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the very problem
>>> it is designed to solve...
>>
>> Oz.
>

> Your better, in every way.

I know jonny.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
>> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>> legislation and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the
>> very problem it is designed to solve...
>
> As I wrote in another reply moments ago, these consequences may be
> unintended, but the are not unforeseeable.
>

that is probably a very fair comment. They were told, they just didn't wish
to take any notice of the warnings

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>>> legislation and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the
>>> very problem it is designed to solve...
>> As I wrote in another reply moments ago, these consequences may be
>> unintended, but the are not unforeseeable.
>>
>
> that is probably a very fair comment. They were told, they just didn't wish
> to take any notice of the warnings

Par for the course with Noo Labor and not unknown amongst previous
governments.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Campaign for Fresh Air wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:07:12 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Campaign for Fresh Air wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 16, 7:43 am, Oz > wrote:
>>>>> Buxqi > writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak. Are you
>>>>>> saying that by making laws against cutting down trees, the government is
>>>>>> putting people off planting them?
>>>>> Absolutely. Plant a tree and once its above a certain (quite small) size
>>>>> you need permission to fell, and even if you get such you are invariably
>>>>> obliged to replant. As an example we planted a small group (about 100
>>>>> trees) in a corner between two (dirt) tracks. One track fell into disuse
>>>>> and it would be nice to pull out the small trees and simplify the field
>>>>> but this is not possible. Equally we would like to plant about 2500 in
>>>>> various other places but since one cannot see even a few decades into
>>>>> the future, let alone centuries, we decided not to. This is now typical,
>>>>> fossilising what was once a dynamic countryside.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the upside ALL the woods on our downland were planted for shooting,
>>>>> but were never used because I didn't allow a commercial shoot on. Now I
>>>>> am semi-retired we do, and they are once again in use. Boy did those old
>>>>> guys know how to set up a shoot. [NB For info I don't shoot, or fish or
>>>>> hunt.]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much the same now applies to permanent pasture. Nobody with any sense
>>>>>>> who can avoid it will allow any grassland to go more than 6 years
>>>>>>> without being ploughed up.
>>>>>> And more of the same?
>>>>> Absolutely. Completely nutty but I guess it makes the ecofreaks feel
>>>>> powerful, they tend to prefer telling people what to do, right or wrong.
>>>> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>>>> legislation
>>>> and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the very problem
>>>> it is designed to solve...
>>> Oz.
>
>> Smarter than you, harder working than you, more honestly curious than you.
>> Your better, in every way.
>
> I know Rudy.

You should know, ass-hat, but you don't.

In article >, Oz
> wrote:
> Robert Seago > writes
> >> You don't have to be a genius to figure out that 4T (/ac) biomass is
> >> going to be much more energy than a few hundred kg of oil.
> >
> >Well it's not one of your usula equations quite Oz.
> >
> >Pity you mixed metric and imperial here.

> Not really, a metric tonne is so close to an imperial that everyone uses
> T for metric tonne. Imperial tons are so passe.
But (kilo)joules would be best for both.
> >Let's use metric ton and 100kg. So you have a factor of 40.
> >
> >Now feed it to animals and divide by at least 10.

> Whats that got to do with it? You have to say just the same with organic
> food too.
You can raise cattle on grass.
> >(Broilers have all sorts of other energy inputs.) And manufacture the
> >machines etc.....
> >
> >Not so far off.

> Because you aren't comparing like with like. A fools example.

I am well aware of that, and don't for a minute think that the UK can feed
60million or the world to feed 6.5 billion to a reasonable standard with
organic. However if you want to compare energy as I had attempted to, it
is trivially easy to see that a high proportion of the energy in modern
food production does not come from the sun, while in organic systems it
can be very low. (In much of the world indeed it is.)

> >The material I cited (in my project) had very much more favourable
> >figures for other more primitive systems, as they would!
> >
> >While I accept that my research for a university project was not as
> >balanced as it ought to have been, your estimate does not seem to make
> >my suggestions then so mind bogglingly incorrect.

> It most certainly does. In fact high intensity animal farming is much
> more efficient than low intensity because of the effect of maintenance.
> In true (old fashioned) organic systems the cattle only really whanged
> on weight during three or four months of spring. The rest of the time
> they were close to maintenance with lots of food energy going in (grass
> etc) with zero gain in weight for an efficiency of 0%.

> As one whose survival depended on sorting out how to produce in the most
> efficient manner in reality, vs a (pseudo) academic exerci se, you would
> be wise to be careful bandying real figures with me. As a semi-academic
> myself I did them for real, and actually used them. If it didn't work, I
> went bust.
I accept the equations you are prone to post here, with additions of
things in different units on each side of the equakls sign; as long as I
can add my own pinch of salt.

> I would be delighted to run you through the economic realities of
> feeding livestock at the most efficient manner.
I don't think you understand where i was comking from.

In article >, Oz
> wrote:
<snip>


> >In fact they claimed that to have a net effect ameliorating greenhouse
> >gas content it would need to be < 30degrees lattitude.

> que?
The tropics
> >> Ever been to a rainforest? Packed full of high levels of biodiversity
> >> but you will be lucky to see any animals and few birds.

> >es, and no, the birds have been spectacular.

> You didn;t see them (typically) by just a few hours walking through it
> without binoculars.
I accept thatin essence your principle is correct but in practice I sat at
a little centre on the edge of such a forest with an open hilly view where
a large number of very colourful birds at least were seen.

> >However in the UK if high grain prices persist, I guess you are right,
> >and the only approach to seeing once common birds will be to have hot
> >spot farm reserves such as one or two which have already been set up
> >and have worked very well. They are a farm equivalent of the large
> >restored wetlands and heaths which have become the best hope of seeing
> >other things.

> Of course. As I have said many times before, of you want wildlife
> farming, club together and buy a farm then run it how you like.
We do.

"Old Codger" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Webster wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>>>> legislation and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the
>>>> very problem it is designed to solve...
>>> As I wrote in another reply moments ago, these consequences may be
>>> unintended, but the are not unforeseeable.
>>>
>>
>> that is probably a very fair comment. They were told, they just didn't
>> wish to take any notice of the warnings
>
> Par for the course with Noo Labor and not unknown amongst previous
> governments.
>
one of the dangers of the consultation process. If you ignore those you
consult and they turn out to be right all along then you end up having a bit
of explaining to do.

Jim Webster

Jim Webster > writes

>one of the dangers of the consultation process. If you ignore those you
>consult and they turn out to be right all along then you end up having a bit
>of explaining to do.

Actually you don't.

The ecofreaks are happy because they have forced stuff on those stupid
farmers.

The politicians don't understand the problem anyway.

The farmers generally keep quiet to avoid further stupid
counterproductive regulation.

The perverse thing is that the only people who actually care about the
wildlife and what their farm offers are the farmers. After all nobody
else will do it.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:41:20 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Jim Webster > writes
>
>>one of the dangers of the consultation process. If you ignore those you
>>consult and they turn out to be right all along then you end up having a bit
>>of explaining to do.
>
>Actually you don't.

Actually you do.

>The ecofreaks are happy because they have forced stuff on those stupid
>farmers.

No we are happy because it's the right thing to do. You are unhappy
because you cannot cut corners at the expense of the planet. The
solution is simple get a job you can do rather than one you are
obviously incapable of doing properly.

>The politicians don't understand the problem anyway.
>
>The farmers generally keep quiet to avoid further stupid
>counterproductive regulation.
>
>The perverse thing is that the only people who actually care about the
>wildlife and what their farm offers are the farmers. After all nobody
>else will do it.

We don't have to. We just ensure people like you are compliant or you
get run out of town.

Once the handouts have gone you'll have to sell the farm to someone
who can run it properly. Willing farmers are always so much more
productive than the whiners and shirkers.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:50:13 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"Old Codger" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Jim Webster wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>>>>> legislation and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the
>>>>> very problem it is designed to solve...
>>>> As I wrote in another reply moments ago, these consequences may be
>>>> unintended, but the are not unforeseeable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> that is probably a very fair comment. They were told, they just didn't
>>> wish to take any notice of the warnings
>>
>> Par for the course with Noo Labor and not unknown amongst previous
>> governments.
>>
>one of the dangers of the consultation process. If you ignore those you
>consult and they turn out to be right all along then you end up having a bit
>of explaining to do.

No fear of consulting oz on anything.

Robert Seago > writes
>In article >, Oz
> wrote:
>> Robert Seago > writes
>> >> You don't have to be a genius to figure out that 4T (/ac) biomass is
>> >> going to be much more energy than a few hundred kg of oil.
>> >
>> >Well it's not one of your usula equations quite Oz.
>> >
>> >Pity you mixed metric and imperial here.
>
>> Not really, a metric tonne is so close to an imperial that everyone uses
>> T for metric tonne. Imperial tons are so passe.

>But (kilo)joules would be best for both.

GJ, you mean. I think that's perhaps overkill for usegroup.

>> >Let's use metric ton and 100kg. So you have a factor of 40.
>> >
>> >Now feed it to animals and divide by at least 10.
>
>> Whats that got to do with it? You have to say just the same with organic
>> food too.
>You can raise cattle on grass.
>> >(Broilers have all sorts of other energy inputs.) And manufacture the
>> >machines etc.....
>> >
>> >Not so far off.
>
>> Because you aren't comparing like with like. A fools example.
>
>I am well aware of that, and don't for a minute think that the UK can feed
>60million or the world to feed 6.5 billion to a reasonable standard with
>organic. However if you want to compare energy as I had attempted to, it
>is trivially easy to see that a high proportion of the energy in modern
>food production does not come from the sun,

Of course it does. You are confusing efficiency with production.
Its just that the energy cost of meat is relatively high, more than its
energy content. Actually so is wheat or vegetables because the TOTAL
energy intercepted is HUGE. Take 10,000m^2, sunlight for 5hrs/day
(summer but allowing clouds) for 200 days that's 10M sunlightm^2 or

10^7 x 3600 x 10^3J = 36TW of incident energy /growing Ha-yr.

It produces say 10T wheat + 5T straw = 15x17GJ = 259GJ

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html

Looked at this way the % energy supplied by intensive agriculture is a
MINUTE proportion of the total energy required to grow wheat.

>while in organic systems it
>can be very low. (In much of the world indeed it is.)

Not at all, see above. I still get an energy return on my inputs
EXCLUDING sunlight.

>> As one whose survival depended on sorting out how to produce in the most
>> efficient manner in reality, vs a (pseudo) academic exerci se, you would
>> be wise to be careful bandying real figures with me. As a semi-academic
>> myself I did them for real, and actually used them. If it didn't work, I
>> went bust.

>I accept the equations you are prone to post here, with additions of
>things in different units on each side of the equakls sign; as long as I
>can add my own pinch of salt.

Some example figures would be nice, then they can be criticised.

>> I would be delighted to run you through the economic realities of
>> feeding livestock at the most efficient manner.

>I don't think you understand where i was comking from.

Oh, but I do. You had an agenda to feed.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Robert Seago > writes
>In article >, Oz
> wrote:
><snip>
>
>
>> >In fact they claimed that to have a net effect ameliorating greenhouse
>> >gas content it would need to be < 30degrees lattitude.
>
>> que?
>The tropics
>> >> Ever been to a rainforest? Packed full of high levels of biodiversity
>> >> but you will be lucky to see any animals and few birds.
>
>> >es, and no, the birds have been spectacular.
>
>> You didn;t see them (typically) by just a few hours walking through it
>> without binoculars.
>I accept thatin essence your principle is correct but in practice I sat at
>a little centre on the edge of such a forest with an open hilly view where
>a large number of very colourful birds at least were seen.

Try the australian outback...

Few trees, little cover and birds easily seen.
Much the same on arid savannah.
Bloody near impossible in biospecies rich rainforest.

>> Of course. As I have said many times before, of you want wildlife
>> farming, club together and buy a farm then run it how you like.

>We do.

Excellent.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Julie" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:41:20 +0000, Oz >
> wrote:

> >The ecofreaks are happy because they have forced stuff on those stupid
> >farmers.

'According to spokesmen for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
as well as private industry, the same six companies that dominate
the international grain trade also dominate the international trade in
soybeans and by-products.
...
Feed and seed: The cartel also controls feed for animals and seed
for planting.
...
The cartel exercises an iron hand over the domestic agricultural
economies of nations, especially those that comprise the four export
source regions of the food cartel. This is exercised through the
processing industries: If one controls the processing industries, one
controls domestic trade. Except for use as animal feed, corn, wheat,
and soybean cannot be eaten in their unrefined form (excluding sweet
corn, which is eaten by humans, but which is a minuscule percentage
of the annual corn harvest). The grain, or soybean (which is a legume),
must be processed. The same is true of meat, which must be
slaughtered and cut, before it is fit for human consumption.

This is where the processing-milling industries, in the case of grains
and soybean, and the packing/slaughtering industries, in the case of
meat, come in.

Taking America as the test case, in order to make the case generally,
one can see the cartel's domination.
......................'
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/199...dsor_food.html

> No we are happy because it's the right thing to do. You are unhappy
> because you cannot cut corners at the expense of the planet. The
> solution is simple get a job you can do rather than one you are
> obviously incapable of doing properly.

'Farming practices have intensified over the last 60 years and resulted
in a powerful and destructive industry based on 'intensive' or 'factory'
farming. Its aim is to increase yields while decreasing the cost of
production. The welfare of animals is rarely considered, so they are
kept in tightly packed and frequently inhumane conditions to ensure
maximum profit.

More animals mean more crops are needed to feed them so there is
pressure on agricultural farmers to increase crop yields. Over 70 per
cent of the land in the UK is used for agriculture, and 66 per cent of
this is used as permanent pasture (1) while a high proportion of the
remainder is used to grow crops to feed livestock. In the US a typical
cow will consume about two tons of grain while it is at a feedlot, just
to gain 400 pounds in weight (2).

The world production of grain has more than tripled in the past 40 years,
(during the same period the production of livestock has also tripled (3)),
yet famine is still widespread across the globe. In the developing world,
the share of grain fed to livestock has tripled since mid-century and
now stands at 21 per cent. This percentage is likely to grow further as
developing nations strive to emulate the model of industrial nations,
where nearly 70 per cent of grain is fed to livestock.

If the 670 million tons of the world's grain used for feed were reduced
by just 10 per cent, this would free up enough grain to sustain 225 million
people or keep up with world population growth for the next three years.
If each American reduced his or her meat consumption by only 5 per cent,
roughly equivalent to eating one less dish of meat each week, 7.5 million
tons of grain would be saved; this is enough to feed 25 million people -
roughly the number estimated to go hungry in the United States each day
(4).

Forests are cleared, ponds are dried, hedgerows ripped up, precious
water supplies are wasted in order to provide food and grazing for cattle.
This is proven to be an inefficient use of land. Ten hectares of land will
provide enough meat to feed only two people compared to providing
enough maize for 10 people, grain for 24 people or soya for 61 people (5).

Animal feed crops are often products of monoculture - a practice that
involves growing the same single crops in the same field year after year
with no fallowing or rotation. Soil cannot sustain such intense demands,
so chemical fertilisers are used to promote crop growth as a matter of
course. Growing feed for industrial animal agriculture systems changes
land use and harms biodiversity through habitat loss and ecosystem
damage (6).

Improper grazing has caused extensive environmental damage and
rangeland degradation in the Western US; top soil erosion is a serious
problem in the US and in other countries. The application of pesticides
and chemical fertilisers has led to a depletion of organic matter; loss of
soil biological communities, vital for recycling and distributing nutrients.

Fields have been made larger to accommodate bigger machinery. England
has lost over half of its hedgerows - over 330,000 km - since 1947 (7).
This combined with continuous pesticide spraying has decimated the
primary food sources of many birds and small mammals. The RSPB
report a 50 per cent decline in the number of farmland species of bird in
Britain and knock on effects of pesticide applications can be felt
throughout the food chain (8). The constant saturation of our countryside
with poisons has had some unexpected consequences, with some
organisms developing resistance to chemicals, so even more powerful
concoctions have been developed.

This chemical warfare has led to a system completely dependant on
pesticides. About 400 different chemicals are available to non-organic
farmers and 4.5 billion litres of pesticides are sprayed on to UK land
every year (9). They not only remain in foodstuffs, but accumulate in the
soil and leach into waterways. Some are carcinogenic, while others
promote allergies, birth defects and various health problems (10). Water
companies spend £120m each year removing pesticides from our water
(11).

Water - The Fountain of Life

Water Eutrophication

The high nitrogen content of fertilisers causes algae to thrive and has
led to algal blooms so toxic that they have killed healthy dogs who
have swum through them. The sheer density of algae can block out
sunlight, denying it to other plants and fish. When the algae dies, its
remains are broken down by bacteria that remove oxygen from the
water in the process and can suffocate most life.

This process is called eutrophication and even the seas are not safe
from it. In 1981, '83 and '86, large quantities of flatfish were found
dead in the North Sea where this process had led to an 80 per cent
oxygen decrease in bottom waters (12). A 'dead' zone in the Gulf of
Mexico of up to 7,700 square miles that can no longer support most
aquatic life is linked to nutrients from farm runoff - including animal
waste. This type of pollution is also believed to be linked to Pfiesteria
outbreaks and massive fish kills in the coastal waters of North Carolina
and Maryland (13). Although Pfiesteria, a dinoflagellate, normally exists
in water in non-toxic forms, scientists believe excrement in the water
triggers it to produce toxins. These stun fish, make them lethargic,
and break down the skin tissue - opening lesions and bleeding sores
(14). There are now 150 of these 'dead zones' worldwide, and the
United Nations Environment Programme believes they will soon
damage fish stocks even more than overfishing (15).

Farming was the largest source of eutrophication in the UK between
1989 - 1997 with up to 3000 different freshwater bodies affected by
algal blooms (16).

Bio-accumulation

The chemical cocktail sprayed on agricultural land is accumulating
and contaminating reservoirs, rivers, lakes and ponds, and its residues
can be found throughout the food chain. Just as with heavy metals,
these residues are increasingly concentrated the higher up the food
chain you go by a process of bio-accumulation. Chemicals present in
waterways are absorbed by microorganisms. Aquatic life feeds on
huge quantities of these organisms, which are then eaten by fish and
the residues they contain are stored in their fatty tissues.

Fish is used as fertiliser or eaten by humans, and the residues continue
to concentrate up the food chain - and the higher you go, the larger the
dose of toxins you receive. A similar process takes place with livestock,
who consume vast quantities of residue-containing food. It is particularly
marked in meat and dairy products, which can contain 14 times more
contaminants than plant foods. The way to reduce your level of ingestion
of these chemicals is to choose your diet from low down the food chain
- from plants - preferably organic plants.

Nitrogen pollution

The amount of nitrogen used as fertiliser globally is 120 million tonnes
a year, much of which cannot be absorbed by the crops (17). The
excess nitrogen leaches from the soil into underground reservoirs - the
source of much of our water supply. Nitrogen in drinking water is
associated with 'blue baby syndrome' - a potentially fatal destruction
of the red blood cells in new-born children (18).

Nitrogen can also transform into nitrites, which can combine with
proteins in food to form nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic -
cancer promoting. Millions of pounds are spent by water companies
in the UK to treat the water in order to bring the nitrate levels down
to a legally acceptable level; this cost is of course passed on to us
the customer.
.................................'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message ...

> You can raise cattle on grass.

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

<..>
> I am well aware of that, and don't for a minute think that the UK can feed
> 60million or the world to feed 6.5 billion to a reasonable standard with
> organic.

'Organic farming could feed the world
13:46 12 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic

A switch to organic farming would not reduce the world's food supply
and could also increase food security in developing countries, say the
authors of a new study.

They claim their findings lay to rest the debate over whether organic
farming could sustainably feed the world. Organic farming avoids or
heavily restricts the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, as well
as livestock feed additives.

Numerous studies have compared the yields of organic and
conventional methods for individual crops and animal products
(see 20-year study backs organic farming
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...c-farming.html ).

Now, a team of researchers has compiled research from 293 different
comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the
two agricultural systems.

Available materials

Ivette Perfecto of the University of Michigan in the US and her
colleagues found that, in developed countries, organic systems on
average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture.
In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more
than conventional farms.

Perfecto points out that the materials needed for organic farming are
more accessible to farmers in poor countries.

Those poor farmers may buy the same seeds as conventional farms use
in rich countries, but they cannot afford the fertilisers and pesticides
needed for intensive agriculture. However, "organic fertiliser doesn't cost
much - they can produce it on their own farms", says Perfecto.

Using data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the team
then estimated what would happen if farms worldwide were to switch to
organic methods today.

The world currently produces the equivalent of 2786 calories per person
per day. The researchers found that under an organic-only regime, farms
could produce between 2641 and 4381 calories per person per day.

Misplaced debate

Perfecto's colleague Catherine Badgley says she believes the calculations
they carried out to arrive at the upper number are more realistic. These
took into account the higher yields that would be obtained in developing
countries, and the details of which crops are grown where.

She points out that even the lower number is sufficient to feed the world.
Nutritionists recommend that people consume between 2100 and 2500
calories a day.

The debate over whether the world can produce enough organic food
is misplaced, argues Perfecto: "We are producing enough food - it's a
question of distribution of that food."

The researchers also found that small farms tend to produce more per
hectare of land. "An increase in the number of small farms would
enhance food production," they say. They also note that although
organic production tends to require more labour, this labour is often
spread out more evenly over the growing season, making it easier to
manage.

Precision farming

Carl Pray, at University of Rutgers, New Jersey, US, says there is
good evidence that small-scale farming in developing countries is more
efficient. This is probably because small farms put more effort in the
precise management of small areas of land.

But, he says, "the likelihood of all farms reverting to 'small farmerdom'
is a big question in an age in which labour is becoming more and more
expensive. Take China and India, for instance: the demand for labour
is such that people are continually being pulled out of the countryside".

Perfecto, however, maintains that the idea that conventional farming is
cheap is a fallacy. "That is not including the real costs. Once you
incorporate the cost to the health of people, once you incorporate the
environment cost - then organic agriculture is a much superior system."

Pesticides are associated with a number of diseases, including cancer -
a fact that was first brought to public attention in Rachel Carson's book
Silent Spring. Organic farming is thought to benefit biodiversity and the
environment, as well as human health.

Journal reference: Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (vol 22, p 86)

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12245

"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 13, 1:20 am, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> On Mar 9, 8:42 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> > > On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > > > --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> > > > wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>
> > > Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> > > that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> > > animals like sheep?
>
> > > ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> > > wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> > > Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>
> > Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
> > interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
> > the observation that land has value to animals as well
> > as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> > majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
> > than the hills and moors?
>
> > ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
>
> Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
> contention anyhow.
>
> --- With certainty, a substantial area could be woodland...

Probably. It's still not as fertile as most of our cropland though...

--- Left alone it will gradually recover as natural growth
produces organic matter needed to restore soil fertility.
Grazing prevents re-growth of native shrubs and trees. ---

and...
> 'Data on new woodland planting can give an indication of
> the growth in woodland area across the country, which has
> an important influence on landscape, biodiversity and water.
> ___________________________ ========________
> It is likely that a greater proportion of marginal land on
> which production has become less profitable will be entered
> into Environmental Stewardship, set-aside or left fallow.
> Another alternative for this land is woodland.
> ..
> 'http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ace/df2_fact.htm -----
>
> > "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
> > an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
> > peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
> > vegetables 15 times more."
>
> I've seen a spread of estimates. Growing crops for animals
> is an inefficient use of land. Grazing animals is also inefficient
> *assuming* that the land in question is cultivatable...
>
> --- Even if not, when needs can be met without grazing. ---

I'm not arguing any imperative for animal farming.

--- A much softer landing this side of the fence. ---

> > Currently only 25% of the UK's "agricultural land" is used
> > to produce human-consumable plant foods.

--Looking at the figures from DEFRA below - less than that.--

> > Going by the
> > above figures, in order to replace the 'food value' of meat:
> > 75% / 10 = an additional 7.5% of current agricultural land.
> > 10% of current total agricultural land is now used to grow
> > grain crops for livestock, so there's you're needed 7.5% +.
>
> Two problems with the analysis though correcting the
> first would actually make your case stronger. A: You should
> be measuring calories per acre rather than protein per acre.
>
> --- lol. If measured in calories, you'd ask for protein...

Why would I do that - are energy requirements measured in protein?

--- Protein 'requirements' are measured in protein.. ---

Anyway by using protein instead you are actually understating your
case....

> 'For every 3,000 calories in the form of corn that are fed
> to a cow, only 600 are returned in milk; if the meat is
> eaten, only 120 calories are available for human use.
> ..'http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-7409377.html
>
> - 1/25th.
>
> Here's a direct estimate of land needed:
>
> 'Depending on the type of meat, it takes 6-17 times more
> land to feed the average American meat eater than to feed
> a vegetarian.30
> ..
> 30 L. Reijinders and Sam Soret, PhDs 2003,
> ..'http://www.massanimalrights.org/enviroflier.html-----

Ok.

--- Imagine the immense benefit to the natural world? ---

> B: You should consider the % of world agricultural land or if
> you want to consider just the food needs of the UK, the %
> of agricultural land used to grow food for consumption in
> the UK. % agricultural land in the UK is meaningless in
> this context given how much crosses national borders.
>
> --- It's not meaningless to consider the current situation
> within the UK, and what the alternatives would look like.
> As for the imports, we'd calculate using the same ratios of
> protein, calories or land, substituting animal feed with food. ---

> > And remember - we've just freed-up vast areas for Nature,
> > Britain needn't be a vast grass mono-culture animal farm.
>
> If we stopped growing mono-crops for animal feed it would
> indeed free up vast areas for nature. If we use marginal lands
> to raise animals it would free up fertile areas for nature.
> Admittedly the acreage of fertile areas would be considerably
> smaller than the acreage of marginal lands taken up but
> then again the fertile areas can support more wildlife per acre
> than the marginal. No?
>
> --- What do you mean by 'marginal'? Any of the following?
>
> 'Around 37% of the land on agricultural holdings is considered
> to be croppable land, i.e. land currently under crops, set-aside,
> bare fallow or temporary grass. Almost half of this croppable
> area is occupied by cereal crops. Horticultural crops (including
> vegetables, orchards, soft fruit and crops grown under glass)
> account for just 1% of the area on agricultural holdings.
> Permanent grassland and sole right rough grazing accounts for
> 57% of the area on agricultural holdings - see Figure 1.
>
> Cereal crops 17%
> Other arable crops 8%
> Horticultural crops 1%
> Fallow land 1%
> Set-aside 3%
> Temporary grass 7%
> Permanent grassland 33%
> Sole right rough grazing 24%
> Woodland 4%
> All other land 2%
>
> Figure 1: A breakdown of the total area on agricultural holdings
> as at June 2007
> ..
> 'http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/june_uk.pdf
>
> More detailed figures at link.

Marginal in this context is any food not suitable for arable farming.

--- That's what I sorta suspected. Pretty much as it is, except
the 'farmers' will have to graze that arable to replace the grain.. ---

> <..>
>
> > Interesting points. However is that not part of the point of
> > rotations,
> > so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
> > season?
>
> > ----- Again, large herbivores really do need a lot of land,
> > so with a herd of any size, you require a large acreage of
> > pasture. That's vast areas of grass, likely seeded as grass
> > and sprayed with herbicides, and even grazed once a year
> > will prevent regeneration of natural flora - food and shelter.
> > In addition, to protect 'livestock' and feed, farmers will
> > often kill native wild predators, 'competitors' and 'pests'.
> > ----
>
> How is the killing of native wild predators, 'competitors'
> and pests to protect livestock different to farmers killing
> pests to protect their crops?
>
> --- Can you give some examples of that in the UK? --

Oh come on Pearl, you can't seriously believe that it doesn't
happen. Try asking an arable farmer what pesticides are for
and how he prevents rabbits from eating his crops.

--- Pesticides do target insects, but not mammals or birds.

As for rabbits.. if humankind gave them space, they could be
frolicking in their own habitat, & trying to outwit ol' brer fox. ---

> > > > > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>
> > > > I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> > > > me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> > > > briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
>
> > > > ---
> > > > But that's what addicts always say. It's called "denial".
>
> > > Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.
>
> > > --- You transgress your own moral convictions for it.
>
> > > "They have moral rights."
>
> > The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
> > consuming animal fats in all circumstances.
>
> > --- Meaning, as a last resort to survive?
>
> I guess when I talk of animals having rights I mean that
> we have an obligation to high welfare standards for the
> animals we raise. I don't treat animal life as sanctitious.
>
> --- There's no such word. If you mean "sanctified"...

I just coined one
>
> 'sanc·ti·fy
> ..
> 4. To give social or moral sanction to.
> ..'http://www.answers.com/sanctified&r=67
>
> 'sanc·tion
> ..
> 3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates
> an ethical choice.
> ..http://www.answers.com/sanction
>
> The moral rights you claim they have conveniently end
> at the point where you get to have your fat fix, isn't it. ----
>
> > Are you? ---
>
> > > "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"
>
> > Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
> > from cruel animal practices.
>
> > --- There's no such thing as "kind slaughter". ---
>
> Compared with natural deaths?
>
> --- Compared to not slaughtering animals. ---

OK.
>
> > > > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
>
> > > Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
>
> > > > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
>
> > > Remind me....
>
> > > --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> > > ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---
>
> > Yup. I will try to find it.
>
> > --- Here you go:
>
> > 'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
> > state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
> > generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
> > problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
> > stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
> > of the real situation.
>
> > 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
> > 20% are moderately exploited
> > 17% are overexploited
> > 7% are depleted
> > 1% is recovering from depletion
>
> > The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
> > are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
> > exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
> > (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
> > total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
> > exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
> > 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
> > ..
> > We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
> > the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
> > at risk of collapse.
> > ..'http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php
> > ----
>
> This is not an indication that we can't fish sustainably but
> that in many cases we don't. It seems highly improbable that
> from an area of over 1 billion cubic kilometres of water, there is
> not enough fish to make a meaningful contribution to our diet.
> Indeed we have harvested the oceans for millenia and it's only
> in recent years that overfishing has become a problem.
>
> --- There are over 6 billion humans now. ---
>
> Nor is the problem simply down to population growth - if it were
> we could simply reduce fish consumption per person so that
> total fish consumption remained constant.
>
> --- ~6 billion fish a week? You think that's acceptable? ---

Most probably, assuming sufficient variety and appropriate fishing
methods.

--- Doesn't catching the equivalent number to the entire human
population (each week!) strike you as being likely to finish off
entire populations of fish? How would you catch all these fish
if not with nets, and by trawling, or the miles of hooked lines?
Seems the laissez-faire attitude leading to species extinction. ---

> Problems: fishing
> is now highly efficient, and can easily locate and wipe out whole
> swarms at a time. Modern methods: (a) have significant bycatch,
> which is wasteful if nothing else, (b) in some cases damage the
> seabed thus harming populations not directly affected (c) target
> a limited number of species heavily. There are over 100 edible
> species surrounding the UK shores. How many do we eat in
> significant quantities? (d) frequently target long-living,
> slow-reproducing species
>
> --- We don't need any. Marine life *needs to recover*. ---

I realise we don't need to eat marine life but if we don't we need
more land....

--- Would current horticultural land * 800%+ suffice?
(Vegetables, fruits, legumes, greens, seeds, nuts, ...). ---

> However just as with meat and vegetables, one can choose
> which fish to eat thus avoiding the problems described above.
> At the very least we can eat less popular species and/or
> species with greater reproduction rates. We can choose line
> caught fish or hand picked shellfish. We can choose fish that
> is recognized by the marine stewardship conservastion trust
> as being from sustainable sources.
>
> --- You think ~60 million fish a week for the UK is ok? ---

Given appropriate choice of species and fishing methods, most
probably.

---- 'Depletion of fisheries closer to shore and a rising demand
for seafood have led to a rapid expansion of deep-sea fisheries.
As much as 40 per cent of the world's trawling grounds are now
in waters deeper than 200 metres and are threatening many deep
water species.'
http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000001061.asp

Think again. ----

> > > > Would you be prepared to have done to you what you
> > > > seem to think there's nothing wrong with doing to others?
>
> > > You mean being killed for food? Nope.
>
> So tell me now, Dave.. how can you so easily have done
> to others what you wouldn't want to have done to you?

Partly because I don't value human and animal life at the same.
I won't try to put a finger on precisely what it is and maybe it is
simply that I know the umwelt of a human but not of a cow but
our lives seem to have more "depth". I kind of think of animal life
as precious but on the collective rather than the individual level.

--- You know that each individual has the capacity to suffer. ---

That said, you have asked a very good question. Eating meat is
a violation of the golden rule, or at least some version of it so I
need
some sort of justification to consider it a special case. My favourite
rationalising is that a herbivorous animal propulation needs some
method of keeping numbers in control and why is predation by
humans a worse choice than predation by natural predators,
starvation or disease?

--- The natural predator-prey relationship is mutually beneficial, but
Man *cannot* in any way, shape or form replace natural predators.
Our natural niche is that of woodland gardeners, ..not world police. ---

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Seago" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> You can raise cattle on grass.
>
> http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
>

whoopie, pearl, in spite of discussions with people who actually do raise
cattle in the UK, still keeps on with the same old figures
Nice to know some things never change

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Julie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:41:20 +0000, Oz >
>> wrote:
>
>> >The ecofreaks are happy because they have forced stuff on those stupid
>> >farmers.
>
> 'According to spokesmen for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
> as well as private industry, the same six companies that dominate
> the international grain trade also dominate the international trade in
> soybeans and by-products.

congratulations for the most irrelevent contribution to the debate
these six companies are the ones who also feed most of the worlds
vegetarians

Jim Webster

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:03:12 +0000, Campaign for Fresh Air > wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, the Goober wrote:
>
>>Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>blabbered:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, the Goober wrote:
>>>
>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>> blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>>>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>>Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
>>obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
>>or understand science.
>
>Neither can chimps.

Neither can Goo:

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo
__________________________________________________ _______
Ron asked:

>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?

Goo replied:

Yes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ron pointed out:

>You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become
>PET FOOD.

Goo replied:

Some are.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I'm right about all of it." - Goo
"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
"Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
"I'm not stupid." - Goo
"I know exactly what I think" - Goo
"I educated the public" - Goo
"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
"You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert Seago" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> You can raise cattle on grass.
> >
> > http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
> >
>
> whoopie, pearl, in spite of discussions with people who actually do raise
> cattle in the UK, still keeps on with the same old figures
> Nice to know some things never change

What "figures" are you talking about?

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Julie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:41:20 +0000, Oz >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >The ecofreaks are happy because they have forced stuff on those stupid
> >> >farmers.
> >
> > 'According to spokesmen for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
> > as well as private industry, the same six companies that dominate
> > the international grain trade also dominate the international trade in
> > soybeans and by-products.
>
> congratulations for the most irrelevent contribution to the debate
> these six companies are the ones who also feed most of the worlds
> vegetarians

Those congratulations rightly belong to you.. Congratulations!

pearl wrote:
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Julie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:41:20 +0000, Oz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The ecofreaks are happy because they have forced stuff on those stupid
>>>>> farmers.
>>> 'According to spokesmen for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
>>> as well as private industry, the same six companies that dominate
>>> the international grain trade also dominate the international trade in
>>> soybeans and by-products.
>> congratulations for the most irrelevent contribution to the debate
>> these six companies are the ones who also feed most of the worlds
>> vegetarians
>
> Those congratulations rightly belong to you..

No, to you. Your copypasta shit hemorrhages are always
full of irrelevant bullshit.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:08:11 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>> "Robert Seago" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> You can raise cattle on grass.
>>
>> http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
>>
>
>whoopie, pearl, in spite of discussions with people who actually do raise
>cattle in the UK, still keeps on with the same old figures
>Nice to know some things never change

You can hardly class yourself a *normal* farmer of cattle. Your lazy,
work shy and you don't have a clue. That's the trouble when farms are
handed down to the kids who have no practical skills in farming, or in
your case no real interest. You're just running it in to the ground.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:09:54 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>> "Julie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:41:20 +0000, Oz >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >The ecofreaks are happy because they have forced stuff on those stupid
>>> >farmers.
>>
>> 'According to spokesmen for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
>> as well as private industry, the same six companies that dominate
>> the international grain trade also dominate the international trade in
>> soybeans and by-products.
>
>congratulations for the most irrelevent contribution to the debate
>these six companies are the ones who also feed most of the worlds
>vegetarians

That makes it OK does it!! dodo.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:15:07 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:03:12 +0000, Campaign for Fresh Air > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, the Goober wrote:
>>
>>>Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>blabbered:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, the Goober wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Campaign for Willful Stupidity and Self-Marginalization
>>>>> blabbered:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lesley pretends to be citing science texts, you stupid smelly ****, not history books.
>>>>>> Make you look like a chimp?
>>>>> No, she pretends to be citing science
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>>Yes. She pretends to be citing science, and it is
>>>obviously only a pretense. The stupid **** cannot read
>>>or understand science.
>>
>>Neither can chimps.
>
> Neither can Goo:

Yes I think we have all gathered by now goo is a chimp!

>"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
>saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
>hallucinating." - Goo
>
>"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
>the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo
>
>"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
>any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
>
>"Anticipation requires language." - Goo
>
>"No animals anticipate." - Goo
>
>"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
>
>"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
>
>"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
>disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
>to feel either." - Goo
>
>"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
>the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo
>
>"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
>
>"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo
>
>"I have examined the question at length, and feel
>there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
>is not a benefit." - Goo
>
>"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>I was before." - Goo
>
>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
>benefit from farming." - Goo
>
>"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
>pet food. " - Goo
>_________________________________________________ ________
>Ron asked:
>
>>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>>supplying the pet food industry?
>
>Goo replied:
>
>Yes.
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>_________________________________________________ ________
>Ron pointed out:
>
>>You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become
>>PET FOOD.
>
>Goo replied:
>
>Some are.
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>"I'm right about all of it." - Goo
>"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
>"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
>"Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
>"I'm not stupid." - Goo
>"I know exactly what I think" - Goo
>"I educated the public" - Goo
>"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
>"You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo

Jim Webster wrote:
> "Old Codger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Webster wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> It's a right sorry state of affairs A well meaning piece of
>>>>> legislation and yet it apparantly has a detrimental impact on the
>>>>> very problem it is designed to solve...
>>>> As I wrote in another reply moments ago, these consequences may be
>>>> unintended, but the are not unforeseeable.
>>>>
>>> that is probably a very fair comment. They were told, they just didn't
>>> wish to take any notice of the warnings
>> Par for the course with Noo Labor and not unknown amongst previous
>> governments.
>>
> one of the dangers of the consultation process. If you ignore those you
> consult and they turn out to be right all along then you end up having a bit
> of explaining to do.

Not Noo Labor. They will ponce about shouting how successful they have
been even as it all falls to pieces around their ears.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]