"Jill" > wrote in message
...
> Julie wrote:
>>
>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>
> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
> life in the soil.
> Clever one
> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
> quality item around the country.
>

interesting that pete advocates keeping equines as pets.
The one problem with them is that actually their muck only fertilises the
areas they are in. If you haul their muck away, then you have to find
something to replemish the fertility of the area they are grazing

> Then we have seaweed
>
> So you are advocating stripping and decimating our marine environment to
> produce food for too many people, let alone the colossal transportation
> problems and its effect on any carbon footprint.
>
>> etc In fact we could always go back to what farming is really about.
>> Farming and working with nature!

good old fashioned organic rotation, alternating livestock and cropping

>
> Ahhh that is your method of population control :-- starvation and disease.
> I know there had to be some logic somewhere.
>

The interesting bit is what we use in the UK when we can no longer out bid
the Chinese for soya. Ironically they seem happy to pay more to use it for
animal feed than we are to use it for human consumption

Jim Webster

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:29:31 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>"Jill" > wrote in message
...
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>
>>> No. We have a choice?
>>
>> What would you choose to use to replenish the land?
>>
>the sensible recycling option would be to use the sewage sludge from the
>people eating the food to replace the nutrients taken from the land

I agree, and wasn't that done for some time in the past? Although
these days human waste seems to be far more toxic than anything else
on the planet!!! I wonder why!

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:30:40 -0000, "Jill" >
wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>>
>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>
>With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
>life in the soil.

Really where does it say that?

>Clever one
>There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
>quality item around the country.

Try and keep up Jill.

<snip trolling>

If you cant be sensible about it get lost.

"Jill" > wrote in message
...
> Julie wrote:
>>
>> There will always be horses and other livestock. They just wont have
>> to endure the suffering to feed fat faces like yours.
>
> There might be horses, but there would be little else.
> You do not breed if you do not cull.
> Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep.
> [we have already managed to do that to our deer population]

oh goodie, so we have all this land being used to feed livestock that
doesn't actually contribute to human nutrition. Effectively using livestock
as a green manure, meaning that you only get a food crop from it perhaps
three years in ten
Far less efficient that what we do now when at least we eat the livestock
Jim Webster

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:00 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>> livestock.
>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>> footprint than a meat based one.
>
> Not necessarily. But that isn't really their argument about
> efficiency. They're talking about resource use, not environmental
> degradation.
>

There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can
live on land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible
by humans. You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland
in the semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. Sheep and deer, OTOH,
thrive on the food available to them there.

--
Jette Goldie

http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

Pete's minion or maybe it's the asshole Pete herself
blabbered:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:02:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Pete's minion or maybe it's the asshole Pete herself blabbered:
>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:26:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pete's minion or maybe it's the asshole Pete herself blabbered:
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pete's minion or maybe it's the asshole Pete herself blabbered:
>>>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>>> No. We have a choice?
>>>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But
>>>> if "vegans" suppress animal husbandry, there won't be
>>>> any manure.
>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance.
>> There wouldn't be any horses if "vegans" were to
>> succeed in imposing their benighted regime on the rest
>> of us.
>
> There will always be horses and other livestock.

Not if benighted fascistic "vegan" get their way.


>>> In fact the world cannot give
>>> it away these days, more than enough to go round. Then we have seaweed
>>> etc
>> Requires more energy to harvest, transport and convert
>> into fertilizer than is put back into the soil.
>
> That's life Jonny.

That's inefficiency, ****.


>>> In fact we could always go back to what farming is really about.
>>> Farming and working with nature!
>> Farming is about farming - nice little tautology.
>>
>> Farming is about people producing food to feed
>> themselves - the foods they want to eat, not the foods
>> some repressive self-styled "visionaries" think they
>> "ought" to be eating.
>
> Farming is about a sustainable future for us and the planet.

No, it isn't. I correctly defined farming, ****: it's
about growing the foods people want to eat, not the
foods some bloated-ego **** like you thinks they ought
to eat.


> Stop twisting it to suit you weird anti began agenda.

"began"? Anyway, "veganism" is the weird agenda. It's
100% misanthropic.

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:34:52 -0000, "Jill" >
wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>>
>> There will always be horses and other livestock. They just wont have
>> to endure the suffering to feed fat faces like yours.
>
>There might be horses, but there would be little else.
>You do not breed if you do not cull.

We'll have plenty of livestock for the next fifty years even if
livestock farming was stopped.

>Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep.

The farmers wont let them breed.

>[we have already managed to do that to our deer population]

No we haven't. We have managed to artificially boost many wildlife
especially deer by the constant slaughtering of them. This causes them
to breed at maximum rates and constantly. It throws the whole natural
cycle out of synch. You might think we have a deer problem but I can
assure you the shooters don't!

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>
>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>
>> No. We have a choice?
>
> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
> paradox, eh?

And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over
to growing crops humans can eat.

Or were they planning to just let them just starve to death on the
land that was left?


--
Jette Goldie

http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

Jim Webster wrote:
> "Jill" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Julie wrote:
>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
>> life in the soil.
>> Clever one
>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
>> quality item around the country.
>>
>
> interesting that pete advocates keeping equines as pets.

Took me a while to spot his grubby fingerprints all
over "Julie's" posts.


> The one problem with them is that actually their muck only fertilises the
> areas they are in. If you haul their muck away, then you have to find
> something to replemish the fertility of the area they are grazing
>
>> Then we have seaweed
>>
>> So you are advocating stripping and decimating our marine environment to
>> produce food for too many people, let alone the colossal transportation
>> problems and its effect on any carbon footprint.
>>
>>> etc In fact we could always go back to what farming is really about.
>>> Farming and working with nature!
>
> good old fashioned organic rotation, alternating livestock and cropping
>
>> Ahhh that is your method of population control :-- starvation and disease.
>> I know there had to be some logic somewhere.
>>
>
> The interesting bit is what we use in the UK when we can no longer out bid
> the Chinese for soya. Ironically they seem happy to pay more to use it for
> animal feed than we are to use it for human consumption
>
> Jim Webster
>
>

Jette wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>
>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>
>>> No. We have a choice?
>>
>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
>> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
>> paradox, eh?
>
> And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
> want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over to
> growing crops humans can eat.

Well, we're going to slaughter the livestock anyway, so
that's not really an issue. The big thing for
"vegans"/"aras" is that they don't want any *more*
livestock to exist.

"vegans"/"aras" don't really care about animals, and
they admit it. It's really only their own egos they
care about.


>
> Or were they planning to just let them just starve to death on the land
> that was left?
>
>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:36:39 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"Jill" > wrote in message
...
>> Julie wrote:
>>>
>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>
>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
>> life in the soil.
>> Clever one
>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
>> quality item around the country.
>>
>
>interesting that pete

No such person.

>advocates keeping equines as pets.

Most people love animals and that will never change. I personally
would love two of every creature (at least) and cows, horses, sheep,
goats, pigs make lovely pets as any dumb dog.

>The one problem with them is that actually their muck only fertilises the
>areas they are in. If you haul their muck away, then you have to find
>something to replemish the fertility of the area they are grazing

No wonder you have such great trouble fitting in to a farming
community. You're clueless!

<snip spoiled brat>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:38:15 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"Jill" > wrote in message
...
>> Julie wrote:
>>>
>>> There will always be horses and other livestock. They just wont have
>>> to endure the suffering to feed fat faces like yours.
>>
>> There might be horses, but there would be little else.
>> You do not breed if you do not cull.
>> Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep.
>> [we have already managed to do that to our deer population]
>
>oh goodie, so we have all this land being used to feed livestock that
>doesn't actually contribute to human nutrition. Effectively using livestock
>as a green manure, meaning that you only get a food crop from it perhaps
>three years in ten
>Far less efficient that what we do now when at least we eat the livestock
>Jim Webster

It's quite painful to see the village idiots playing on their own..

Which one are you. Judy?

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:43:46 GMT, Jette >
wrote:

>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>
>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>
>>> No. We have a choice?
>>
>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
>> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
>> paradox, eh?
>
>And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
>want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over
>to growing crops humans can eat.
>Or were they planning to just let them just starve to death on the
>land that was left?

You just let them live their lives out and start afresh when that's
done. Easy really, but that's why we need to act now.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:46:20 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Jette wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>>
>>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>>
>>>> No. We have a choice?
>>>
>>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
>>> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
>>> paradox, eh?
>>
>> And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
>> want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over to
>> growing crops humans can eat.
>
>Well, we're going to slaughter the livestock anyway, so
>that's not really an issue. The big thing for
>"vegans"/"aras" is that they don't want any *more*
>livestock to exist.

I don't think there's any room for you in this matinee jonny, we
already have Punch & Judy!

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:36:39 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jill" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>>>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
>>> life in the soil.
>>> Clever one
>>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
>>> quality item around the country.
>>>
>> interesting that pete
>
> No such person.

Sure thing, pete.


>
>> advocates keeping equines as pets.
>
> Most people love animals and that will never change. I personally
> would love two of every creature (at least) and cows, horses, sheep,
> goats, pigs make lovely pets as any dumb dog.

Then you're no "ara", and probably not even "vegan".

You're just a shitbag, pete.

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:30:40 -0000, "Jill" >
> wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>>
>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot
>>> give it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>
>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the
>> insect life in the soil.
>
> Really where does it say that?

Do you not know about this?
I am surprised.

>
>> Clever one
>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk
>> low quality item around the country.
>
> Try and keep up Jill.

I am keeping up, you seem to have not researched your subject and have no
answers for simple straight forward questions.
>
> <snip trolling>

Not trolling, simply endeavouring to find out how you propose to support
your new ecosystem, only to find you have no answers.

>
> If you cant be sensible about it get lost.

Why, because you are shown to not understand some basic ecology and
logistics?

I am interested to hear how you make your system work, how you sustain food
productivity for all the people now and the growing population in the future
using the circumstances we are in NOW, not those of a time when the common
rural way of life involved subsistance living and no Ipods.
At the same time reducing the carbon footprint, creating a sustainable rural
economy and protecting the land we need to feed ourselves with.

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:46:20 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Jette wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>>> No. We have a choice?
>>>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
>>>> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
>>>> paradox, eh?
>>> And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
>>> want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over to
>>> growing crops humans can eat.
>> Well, we're going to slaughter the livestock anyway, so
>> that's not really an issue. The big thing for
>> "vegans"/"aras" is that they don't want any *more*
>> livestock to exist.
>
> I don't think there's any room for you in this matinee jonny,

I'm here, pete, and you'll take it and you'll like it.
Simple.

Jill wrote:
> Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:30:40 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot
>>>> give it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the
>>> insect life in the soil.
>> Really where does it say that?
>
> Do you not know about this?
> I am surprised.

I'm not. pete the troll really doesn't know about much
of anything.


>>> Clever one
>>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk
>>> low quality item around the country.
>> Try and keep up Jill.
>
> I am keeping up, you seem to have not researched your subject and have no
> answers for simple straight forward questions.

pete the troll never has answers.


>> <snip trolling>
>
> Not trolling, simply endeavouring to find out how you propose to support
> your new ecosystem, only to find you have no answers.
>
>> If you cant be sensible about it get lost.
>
> Why, because you are shown to not understand some basic ecology and
> logistics?
>
> I am interested to hear how you make your system work, how you sustain food
> productivity for all the people now and the growing population in the future
> using the circumstances we are in NOW, not those of a time when the common
> rural way of life involved subsistance living and no Ipods.
> At the same time reducing the carbon footprint, creating a sustainable rural
> economy and protecting the land we need to feed ourselves with.
>

"Jette" > wrote in message
...
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 4:00 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>> livestock.
>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>
>> Not necessarily. But that isn't really their argument about
>> efficiency. They're talking about resource use, not environmental
>> degradation.
>>
>
> There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can live on
> land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible by humans.
> You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland in the
> semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. Sheep and deer, OTOH, thrive on the
> food available to them there.
>

yes, and actually if you follow pre-modern 'folding' techniques where you
bring the animals down from the fell overnight to milk them, then they build
up the fertility of your crop ground around the steading, while being
sparsely stocked and not having a major effect on the ground they graze on

Jim Webster

Jette wrote:

>
> There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can
> live on land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible
> by humans. You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland
> in the semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. Sheep and deer, OTOH,
> thrive on the food available to them there.

They subsist, not thrive.

To thrive they need to come down to good pastures.
Man has taken sheep over to the eastern pastures for many centuries as he
recognised this gave a better carcase.

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:34:52 -0000, "Jill" >
> wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>>
>>> There will always be horses and other livestock. They just wont have
>>> to endure the suffering to feed fat faces like yours.
>>
>> There might be horses, but there would be little else.
>> You do not breed if you do not cull.
>
> We'll have plenty of livestock for the next fifty years even if
> livestock farming was stopped.

If livestock farming was stopped then the livestock would end. Then.
No-one would feed livestock for no reason.

>
>> Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep.
>
> The farmers wont let them breed.

The farmers would not keep them.

>
>> [we have already managed to do that to our deer population]
>
> No we haven't. We have managed to artificially boost many wildlife
> especially deer by the constant slaughtering of them. This causes them
> to breed at maximum rates and constantly. It throws the whole natural
> cycle out of synch. You might think we have a deer problem but I can
> assure you the shooters don't!

I suggest some reading into the subject.

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:43:46 GMT, Jette >
> wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>>
>>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>> No. We have a choice?
>>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
>>> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
>>> paradox, eh?
>> And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
>> want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over
>> to growing crops humans can eat.
>> Or were they planning to just let them just starve to death on the
>> land that was left?
>
> You just let them live their lives out and start afresh when that's
> done. Easy really, but that's why we need to act now.
>

NOT going to happen. You'd want to turn the land over to growing
crops ASAP. Meanwhile you'd have to make sure those animals were fed
and cared for and housed.

Where?



--
Jette Goldie

http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:44:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Jim Webster wrote:
>> "Jill" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>>>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
>>> life in the soil.
>>> Clever one
>>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
>>> quality item around the country.
>>>
>>
>> interesting that pete advocates keeping equines as pets.
>
>Took me a while to spot his grubby fingerprints

Don't be taken in by Jim he is pete the troll and has no interest in
farming.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:53:30 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:36:39 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jill" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>>>>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
>>>> life in the soil.
>>>> Clever one
>>>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>>>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
>>>> quality item around the country.
>>>>
>>> interesting that pete
>>
>> No such person.
>
>Sure thing, pete.
>
>
>>
>>> advocates keeping equines as pets.
>>
>> Most people love animals and that will never change. I personally
>> would love two of every creature (at least) and cows, horses, sheep,
>> goats, pigs make lovely pets as any dumb dog.
>
>Then you're no "ara", and probably not even "vegan".
>
>You're just a shitbag, pete.

Great argument Jonny.

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:54:00 -0000, "Jill" >
wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:30:40 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot
>>>> give it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>>
>>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the
>>> insect life in the soil.
>>
>> Really where does it say that?
>
>Do you not know about this?
>I am surprised.

How long will you be stalling for?

>>> Clever one
>>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk
>>> low quality item around the country.
>>
>> Try and keep up Jill.
>
>I am keeping up, you seem to have not researched your subject and have no
>answers for simple straight forward questions.

They are not questions they are nonsense obstacles proving you are
just a troll.

>> <snip trolling>
>
>Not trolling, simply endeavouring to find out how you propose to support
>your new ecosystem, only to find you have no answers.

You are trolling and it's quite blatant a diversionary tactic to take
us away from the unsustainability of meat production in the modern
world. Which if we don't change quickly will not last much longer.

You can play chase your tail or punch & judy with Jim. When you are
ready for serious discussion come back.

>> If you cant be sensible about it get lost.
>
>Why, because you are shown to not understand some basic ecology and
>logistics?

>I am interested to hear how you make your system work, how you sustain food
>productivity for all the people now and the growing population in the future
>using the circumstances we are in NOW, not those of a time when the common
>rural way of life involved subsistance living and no Ipods.
>At the same time reducing the carbon footprint, creating a sustainable rural
>economy and protecting the land we need to feed ourselves with.

You've already been told and shown easily viable alternatives which
we, the planet will need to adopt if we are to save ourselves for
anything like a decent future. You have no comprehension of what's
involved so I suppose breeding a couple of fluffy chickens doesn't a
farmer make!

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:54:14 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:46:20 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Jette wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>>>> No. We have a choice?
>>>>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
>>>>> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
>>>>> paradox, eh?
>>>> And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
>>>> want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over to
>>>> growing crops humans can eat.
>>> Well, we're going to slaughter the livestock anyway, so
>>> that's not really an issue. The big thing for
>>> "vegans"/"aras" is that they don't want any *more*
>>> livestock to exist.
>>
>> I don't think there's any room for you in this matinee jonny,
>
>I'm here,

No Jonny you're not. You're like a bad smell, a waft of something we
cant put our finger on!

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:01:29 -0000, "Jill" >
wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:34:52 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There will always be horses and other livestock. They just wont have
>>>> to endure the suffering to feed fat faces like yours.
>>>
>>> There might be horses, but there would be little else.
>>> You do not breed if you do not cull.
>>
>> We'll have plenty of livestock for the next fifty years even if
>> livestock farming was stopped.
>
>If livestock farming was stopped then the livestock would end. Then.
>No-one would feed livestock for no reason.

Yes we, society would. You are obviously so far removed it's painful.

>>> Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep.
>>
>> The farmers wont let them breed.
>
>The farmers would not keep them.

Nothing new there then!

>>> [we have already managed to do that to our deer population]
>>
>> No we haven't. We have managed to artificially boost many wildlife
>> especially deer by the constant slaughtering of them. This causes them
>> to breed at maximum rates and constantly. It throws the whole natural
>> cycle out of synch. You might think we have a deer problem but I can
>> assure you the shooters don't!
>
>I suggest some reading into the subject.

Great idea when will you start?

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:14:30 GMT, Jette >
wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:43:46 GMT, Jette >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>>> No. We have a choice?
>>>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
>>>> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
>>>> paradox, eh?
>>> And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
>>> want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over
>>> to growing crops humans can eat.
>>> Or were they planning to just let them just starve to death on the
>>> land that was left?
>>
>> You just let them live their lives out and start afresh when that's
>> done. Easy really, but that's why we need to act now.
>>
>
>NOT going to happen. You'd want to turn the land over to growing
>crops ASAP. Meanwhile you'd have to make sure those animals were fed
>and cared for and housed.
>
>Where?

Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.

Julie wrote:

>>
>> I am keeping up, you seem to have not researched your subject and
>> have no answers for simple straight forward questions.
>
> They are not questions they are nonsense obstacles proving you are
> just a troll.

But they are not, they are extremely serious issues that have to be
addressed before anyone will take such a drastic change in direction
seriously.
If you cannot answer simple queries about the basics of fertility, ecology
and logistics without turning to abuse because you have nothing to
contribute, you cannot ever expect anyone to believe the system is robust
enough to work. Therefore its a non starter.
So far, its been shown that your proposals are unsustainable at the most
elemental level, but if there is more that you can offer to change this it
would be interesting to hear.

>
>>> <snip trolling>
>>
>> Not trolling, simply endeavouring to find out how you propose to
>> support your new ecosystem, only to find you have no answers.
>
> You are trolling and it's quite blatant a diversionary tactic to take
> us away from the unsustainability of meat production in the modern
> world.

Not at all, I am interested in your alternatives.
Jumping up and down saying something is wrong is to no effect unless you can
offer a viable alternative.

>
> You can play chase your tail or punch & judy with Jim. When you are
> ready for serious discussion come back.

I am trying to get a serious discussion with you but you are evading at
every turn and then turn abusive and childish.

>
>>> If you cant be sensible about it get lost.
>>
>> Why, because you are shown to not understand some basic ecology and
>> logistics?
>
>> I am interested to hear how you make your system work, how you
>> sustain food productivity for all the people now and the growing
>> population in the future using the circumstances we are in NOW, not
>> those of a time when the common rural way of life involved
>> subsistance living and no Ipods.
>> At the same time reducing the carbon footprint, creating a
>> sustainable rural economy and protecting the land we need to feed
>> ourselves with.
>
> You've already been told and shown easily viable alternatives

But they are not viable in the 21st century UK situation.

which
> we, the planet will need to adopt if we are to save ourselves for
> anything like a decent future. You have no comprehension of what's
> involved so I suppose breeding a couple of fluffy chickens doesn't a
> farmer make!

I have a strong idea what is involved, coupled with a hefty dose of reality.
So far you have given fluffy ideals but nothing that is a robust strategy to
put food on the tables of the populace for the next 100 years.

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

Julie wrote:
>>
>> If livestock farming was stopped then the livestock would end. Then.
>> No-one would feed livestock for no reason.
>
> Yes we, society would.

But society is not prepared to pay for that, they are not prepared to pay
for what is needed to protect the countryside now, feeding some ancient
sheep is just not going to happen.

>
>>>> Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep.
>>>
>>> The farmers wont let them breed.
>>
>> The farmers would not keep them.
>
> Nothing new there then!

That answer does not answer the problem. There would be none to breed.

>
>>>> [we have already managed to do that to our deer population]
>>>
>>> No we haven't. We have managed to artificially boost many wildlife
>>> especially deer by the constant slaughtering of them. This causes
>>> them to breed at maximum rates and constantly. It throws the whole
>>> natural cycle out of synch. You might think we have a deer problem
>>> but I can assure you the shooters don't!
>>
>> I suggest some reading into the subject.
>
> Great idea when will you start?

Been there, done that, and studied with some of the best in the country.

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:44:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Jim Webster wrote:
>>> "Jill" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>>>>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
>>>> life in the soil.
>>>> Clever one
>>>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>>>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
>>>> quality item around the country.
>>>>
>>> interesting that pete advocates keeping equines as pets.
>> Took me a while to spot his grubby fingerprints
>
> Don't be taken in by Jim he is pete the troll

You're pete the shitbag troll, ****.

Julie wrote:
>
> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.

Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
needed for crops however unviable, and how are you going to collect and
transport their "input" to the crop land?

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

pete the **** lied:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:53:30 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:36:39 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jill" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
>>>>>> it away these days, more than enough to go round.
>>>>> With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
>>>>> life in the soil.
>>>>> Clever one
>>>>> There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
>>>>> increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
>>>>> quality item around the country.
>>>>>
>>>> interesting that pete
>>> No such person.
>> Sure thing, pete.
>>
>>
>>>> advocates keeping equines as pets.
>>> Most people love animals and that will never change. I personally
>>> would love two of every creature (at least) and cows, horses, sheep,
>>> goats, pigs make lovely pets as any dumb dog.
>> Then you're no "ara", and probably not even "vegan".
>>
>> You're just a shitbag, pete.
>
> Great argument Jonny.

It's good enough, shitbag - you don't have any.

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:54:14 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:46:20 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jette wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>>>>> No. We have a choice?
>>>>>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But if "vegans"
>>>>>> suppress animal husbandry, there won't be any manure. Kind of a
>>>>>> paradox, eh?
>>>>> And for those who claim to care about the animals, it seems callous to
>>>>> want to slaughter all the livestock so that you can turn pasture over to
>>>>> growing crops humans can eat.
>>>> Well, we're going to slaughter the livestock anyway, so
>>>> that's not really an issue. The big thing for
>>>> "vegans"/"aras" is that they don't want any *more*
>>>> livestock to exist.
>>> I don't think there's any room for you in this matinee jonny,
>> I'm here, pete, and you'll take it and you'll like it.
>
> No Jonny you're not.

Yes, shitbag pete, I am - and you'll take it and you'll
like it.

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>>
>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>
>Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>needed for crops

Don't be silly Jill.

pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
> wrote:
>
>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>> needed for crops
>
> Don't be silly Jill.

Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>>> needed for crops
>>
>> Don't be silly Jill.
>
>Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.

Go away Jonny the games up and we're wise to you. Go and play with
yourself in a corner and take punch & judy with you.

pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>>>> needed for crops
>>> Don't be silly Jill.
>> Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.
>
> Go away Jonny

I'm here, shitbag pete, and you'll take it and you'll
like it.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:32:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>>>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>>>>> needed for crops
>>>> Don't be silly Jill.
>>> Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.
>>
>> Go away Jonny
>
>I'm here, in alt.bullshit

Yeah I had noticed you trying to lure us in to your home group Jonny,
but no one was fooled.

pete the lying shitbag troll blabbered:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:32:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>>>>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>>>>>> needed for crops
>>>>> Don't be silly Jill.
>>>> Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.
>>> Go away Jonny
>> I'm here, shitbag pete, and you'll take it and you'll like it.
>
> Yeah I had noticed you trying to lure us

No.

Why don't you just **** off, pete?