 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza > > wrote: > >> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster" >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >>>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >>>>>>> >>>>>> evidence for that statement please >>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>>>> people but not its animals'. >>>> which is not evidence for the statement >>> The statement is based on fact >> Prove it > > > Yeah sure. The signs are there Rudy but I'm not sure you're bright > enough to see the barn door! > > 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its > people but not its animals' Does not support the claim. > (In the US 70% of grain is consumed by livestock. ) Prove it. > > "... to satisfy your addiction to animal fat." ... Not the issue. The issue is how much grain is fed to livestock. > WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? > > The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that around > 840 million people are undernourished. That wouldn't change if we stopped growing grain for livestock. > > Land availability is one of the main constraints on food production. THEIR land availability, not ours. > The earth has only a limited area of viable agricultural land, so how > this land is used is central to our ability to feed the world. At the > moment, the problem is not lack of food - it is widely agreed that > enough food is produced worldwide to feed a global population of 8-10 > billion people - but lack of availability. Poverty, powerlessness, > war, corruption and greed all conspire to prevent equal access to > food, and there are no simple solutions to the problem. Stopping the cultivation of feed grain wouldn't change that in the least. > Hower, Western lifestyles - and diet in particular - can play a > large part in depriving the world's poor of much needed food. No. Only if you assume we were going to take the land currently used to produce livestock feed, and use it instead to produce food for "poor starving African", and *GIVE* it to them for free, does our diet play any role at all. > In 1900 just over 10% of the total grain grown worldwide was fed to > animals; by 1950 this figure had risen to over 20%; by the late 1990s > it stood at around 45%. Over 60% of US grain is fed to livestock. [6] So, *far* from "the lion's share". That poxed whore lesley lied, and you bought it. You're a chump. > This use of the world's grain harvest would be acceptable in terms of > world food production if it were not for the fact that meat and dairy > production is a notoriously inefficient use of energy. The same old tired and invalid argument. This fundamentally misapplies "efficiency". It is not "inefficient" to produce meat and dairy products. What would be inefficient would be if we weren't producing them at their lowest possible cost. > Feedlot-raised beef is an extreme example, being the least > feed-efficient animal product Same problem with misuse. > Efficiency can also be measured in terms of the land required per > calorie of food obtained. Absolutely the wrong concept of efficiency. People don't want mere calories; they want different foods, according to their own preferences. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Julie wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza > > wrote: > >> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster" >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >>>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >>>>>>> >>>>>> evidence for that statement please >>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>>>> people but not its animals'. >>>> which is not evidence for the statement >>> The statement is based on fact >> Prove it > > Sure. Straight from the United Nations themselves. > > The UN advises us to go veggie if we want to save the planet: > Livestock’s long shadow Environmental issues and options > > Livestock’s long shadow > Environmental issues and options > > > [snip lying shitbag troll pete's shit-hemorrhage] Not a proof of anything except your inability to stay on topic. That paper addressed environmental issues, not "efficiency". |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:19:31 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote: >pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza >> > wrote: >> >>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster" >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >>>>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> evidence for that statement please >>>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>>>>> people but not its animals'. >>>>> which is not evidence for the statement >>>> The statement is based on fact >>> Prove it >> >> >> Yeah sure. The signs are there Rudy but I'm not sure you're bright >> enough to see the barn door! >> >> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >> people but not its animals' > >Does not support the claim. Go away dodo you are incapable of basic schooling. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:19:31 -0800, Rudy Canoza > > wrote: > >> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster" >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >>>>>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> evidence for that statement please >>>>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>>>>>> people but not its animals'. >>>>>> which is not evidence for the statement >>>>> The statement is based on fact >>>> Prove it >>> >>> Yeah sure. The signs are there Rudy but I'm not sure you're bright >>> enough to see the barn door! >>> >>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>> people but not its animals' >> Does not support the claim. > > Go away Not going anywhere, lying shitbag pete. I'm staying here, and you'll take it and you'll like it. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote: >pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:19:31 -0800, Rudy Canoza >> > wrote: >> >>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster" >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >>>>>>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> evidence for that statement please >>>>>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>>>>>>> people but not its animals'. >>>>>>> which is not evidence for the statement >>>>>> The statement is based on fact >>>>> Prove it >>>> >>>> Yeah sure. The signs are there Rudy but I'm not sure you're bright >>>> enough to see the barn door! >>>> >>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>>> people but not its animals' >>> Does not support the claim. >> >> Go away > >Not going anywhere, lying shitbag pete. I'm staying >here, and you'll take it and you'll like it. Could you at least take a wash then, the stench is quite overpowering. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza > > wrote: > >> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:19:31 -0800, Rudy Canoza >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied: >>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster" >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >>>>>>>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> evidence for that statement please >>>>>>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>>>>>>>> people but not its animals'. >>>>>>>> which is not evidence for the statement >>>>>>> The statement is based on fact >>>>>> Prove it >>>>> Yeah sure. The signs are there Rudy but I'm not sure you're bright >>>>> enough to see the barn door! >>>>> >>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>>>> people but not its animals' >>>> Does not support the claim. >>> Go away >> Not going anywhere, lying shitbag pete. I'm staying >> here, and you'll take it and you'll like it. > > Could you at least take a wash then, the stench is quite overpowering. Not even lamely amusing, lying shitbag troll pete; just stupid. You're as much an unserious lifelong jerk-off as runny hamilton, pete - an insignificant, impotent, worthless little jerk-off. A complete marginal. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > >> > ... > >> > >> > > >> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is > >> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. > >> > > >> > >> evidence for that statement please > > > > 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its > > people but not its animals'. > > which is not evidence for the statement Evidence that Europe relies on imports for the meat habit. > Europe imports 70% of its protein > > for animal feed . > > which is not evidence for the statement Evidence the lion's share of imported protein is for meat. > > this is on top of using large proportions of > > its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come > > from countries suffering from poverty or environmental > > degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for > > animal feed. > > which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and land is used > to feed animals" Evidence the lion's share of soybeans is for animal flesh, & severe adverse impact on people and the evironment. > In the UK, 39% of our wheat, 51% of our barley > > and 75% of our total agricultural land is used to feed animals. > > ..' > > http://www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david2.html + 442,000 tons imported maize (a *grain*). Source: http://www.nigta.co.uk/content/news/pr070702.htm . *European* frozen corn consumption amounts to 110,000 tons a year. Source: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summ...99-1967576_ITM Reckon we've reached "the lion's share of grain" yet? > > (In the US 70% of grain is consumed by livestock. ) > > yes but you haven't covered Brazil, China or India, never mind Aus and > Canada 'In the most populous nation in the world, China, the share of grain fed to livestock increased between 1978 and 1997 from 8 percent to 26 percent.(8) In the early 1990s, China was a net exporter of grain, but today, thanks to an increasing appetite for meat, China is the world's second largest grain importer, trailing only Japan. (9) "As Chinese eat more grain-fed meat, the country's need for grain will continue to grow. This . . . could quickly make China the world's leading grain importer, overtaking even Japan . . . potentially disrupting world grain markets . . . meaning rising food prices for the entire world. . . . China cannot import the grain it needs without driving world grain prices up, leaving the 1.3 billion people in the world who subsist on $1 a day at risk." - Worldwatch Institute (10) If food prices rise throughout the world, the wealthy will still eat, but the poor will increasingly be left with nowhere to turn. In recent years, grain prices have been kept reasonably stable only through massive overpumping of aquifers worldwide for irrigation. But as a result, water tables are now falling rapidly throughout the world's agriculturally productive areas - including China, India, and the United States, which together produce half the world's food. The International Water Management Institute, the world's premier water research group, estimates that India's grain harvest may before long be reduced by one-fourth as a result of aquifer depletion. (11) Thirty years ago, the U.S.S.R. was self-sufficient in grain; but in the 1990s, the former Soviet Union became the world's third largest grain importer. Russian livestock now eat three times as much grain as Russian people.(12) Hardly existent in Russia 20 years ago, hunger and human starvation are now widespread and severe. Throughout the world, increases in grain-fed livestock have forced countries to import more feed. Twenty years ago, only 1 percent of Thailand's grain was fed to animals. Today the figure has risen to 30 percent.(13) At the same time, a growing number of people in Thailand and throughout Asia live on the perilous edge of food deprivation. Millions are dying from lack of adequate food. Many watch their children starve. Vandana Shiva is the director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Natural Resource Policy, and one of the world's foremost experts on global food issues. She says we are seeing "the McDonaldization of the world. .. . . As more grain is traded globally, more people go hungry in the Third World." (14) Middle Eastern countries similarly maintain high levels of meat consumption only by depending heavily on imported grain. Twenty years ago, Egypt was self-sufficient in grain. Then, livestock ate only 10 percent of the nation's grain. Today, livestock consume 36 percent of Egypt's grain, and the country must import 8 million tons every year. (15) Jordan now imports 91 percent of its grain, Israel 87 percent, Libya 85 percent, and Saudi Arabia 50 percent. (16) As livestock industries pour grain into producing animal products for the wealthy, almost all Third World nations must now import grain. That more and more countries are looking to the world market for food can only translate into food scarcity for the world's poor. Remarkably, the world's nations depend massively on one nation for grain. The United States is responsible for half of the world's grain exports, shipping grain to more than 100 countries. Yet the U.S. grain harvest is notoriously sensitive to climate conditions, including droughts. In a time of global warming and climate destabilization, the possibility of a weather-induced drop in U.S. grain harvest is all too real.(17) And with the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer, experts are predicting that before long the United States will lose much, if not all, of its grain surplus.(18) With the world's agricultural economy devouring rapidly increasing quantities of grain for livestock production, the consequences to the world's less fortunate people could be tragic. "Higher meat consumption among the affluent frequently creates problems for the poor, as the share of farmland devoted to feed cultivation expands, reducing production of food staples. In the economic competition for grain fields, the upper classes usually win." - Worldwatch Institute (19) .........................' http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/22/fo...hunger-part-i/ > > "... to satisfy your addiction to animal fat." ... > > not my addiction, my Chinese Yours, theirs.. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> ... >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >> > ... >> >> >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in >> >> > message >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > >> >> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >> >> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >> >> > >> >> >> >> evidence for that statement please >> > >> > 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >> > people but not its animals'. >> >> which is not evidence for the statement > > Evidence that Europe relies on imports for the meat habit. which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," > >> Europe imports 70% of its protein >> > for animal feed . >> >> which is not evidence for the statement > > Evidence the lion's share of imported protein is for meat. which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," No mention of protein at all > >> > this is on top of using large proportions of >> > its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come >> > from countries suffering from poverty or environmental >> > degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for >> > animal feed. >> >> which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and land is >> used >> to feed animals" > > Evidence the lion's share of soybeans is for animal flesh, > & severe adverse impact on people and the evironment. "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," no mention of protein at all > >> In the UK, 39% of our wheat, 51% of our barley >> > and 75% of our total agricultural land is used to feed animals. >> > ..' >> > http://www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david2.html > > + 442,000 tons imported maize (a *grain*). Source: > http://www.nigta.co.uk/content/news/pr070702.htm . > > *European* frozen corn consumption amounts to > 110,000 tons a year. Source: > http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summ...99-1967576_ITM > > Reckon we've reached "the lion's share of grain" yet? No, because you still haven't covered Former soviet union, China and India never mind entire Americas > >> > (In the US 70% of grain is consumed by livestock. ) >> >> yes but you haven't covered Brazil, China or India, never mind Aus and >> Canada > > 'In the most populous nation in the world, China, the share > of grain fed to livestock increased between 1978 and 1997 > from 8 percent to 26 percent.(8) 26% now the lions share? >> > "... to satisfy your addiction to animal fat." ... >> >> not my addiction, my Chinese not my addiction, my Chinese customers new found love. After generations of being trapped in vegetarianism by poverty they have broken free and in their prosperity are eating more meat, Lord love 'em. Jim Webster |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Tim Lamb" > wrote in message ... > In message >, David G. Bell > > writes >>Nitrogen fixing in legumes is down to a bacteria, isn't it? You might >>have the GM both the wheat plant and the bacteria, and that's really >>going to be popular. > > How about improving couch grass to give a useful yield of edible seed:-) > And a fibre producing stem as well? Jim Webster > regards >> > > -- > Tim Lamb |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > >> > ... > >> >> > >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in > >> >> > message > >> >> > ... > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is > >> >> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> evidence for that statement please > >> > > >> > 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its > >> > people but not its animals'. > >> > >> which is not evidence for the statement > > > > Evidence that Europe relies on imports for the meat habit. > > which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed > animals," In the UK. > >> Europe imports 70% of its protein > >> > for animal feed . > >> > >> which is not evidence for the statement > > > > Evidence the lion's share of imported protein is for meat. > > which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed > animals," No mention of protein at all Grain.. protein.. land.. > >> > this is on top of using large proportions of > >> > its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come > >> > from countries suffering from poverty or environmental > >> > degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for > >> > animal feed. > >> > >> which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and land is > >> used > >> to feed animals" > > > > Evidence the lion's share of soybeans is for animal flesh, > > & severe adverse impact on people and the evironment. > > "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," no mention of > protein at all Protein isn't significant? People and the environment? Jim? > >> In the UK, 39% of our wheat, 51% of our barley > >> > and 75% of our total agricultural land is used to feed animals. > >> > ..' > >> > http://www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david2.html > > > > + 442,000 tons imported maize (a *grain*). Source: > > http://www.nigta.co.uk/content/news/pr070702.htm . > > > > *European* frozen corn consumption amounts to > > 110,000 tons a year. Source: > > http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summ...99-1967576_ITM > > > > Reckon we've reached "the lion's share of grain" yet? > > No, because you still haven't covered Former soviet union, China and India > never mind entire Americas That's the situation in 'developed' countries, and the trend elsewhere. It's a fundamentally unsustainable system, and predictably crashing. > >> > (In the US 70% of grain is consumed by livestock. ) > >> > >> yes but you haven't covered Brazil, China or India, never mind Aus and > >> Canada > > > > 'In the most populous nation in the world, China, the share > > of grain fed to livestock increased between 1978 and 1997 > > from 8 percent to 26 percent.(8) > > 26% now the lions share? It doesn't need to be. "As Chinese eat more grain-fed meat, the country's need for grain will continue to grow. This . . . could quickly make China the world's leading grain importer, overtaking even Japan . . . potentially disrupting world grain markets . . . meaning rising food prices for the entire world. . . . China cannot import the grain it needs without driving world grain prices up, leaving the 1.3 billion people in the world who subsist on $1 a day at risk." - Worldwatch Institute (10)' .... from the very hard truths you uncomfortably snipped. > >> > "... to satisfy your addiction to animal fat." ... > >> > >> not my addiction, my Chinese > not my addiction, my Chinese customers new found love. Your addiction, and theirs. > After generations of being trapped in vegetarianism by poverty 'China has developed a unique system of decentralized planning which has recently incorporated private initiative in agriculture, industry, and trade. From the early 1950s to the mid-1970s the Chinese government had strict control over agricultural production and trade. It gave priority to staple foods over preferred foods (legumes, meats, fruits) in order to ensure an adequate supply of essential grain for all provinces. Until recently government policy favored direct consumption of grain over consumption of animal products requiring feedgrains (Jamison and Piazza, 1987). However, policy has changed markedly in the last few years. With the consolidation of the new 'production responsibility system' the government expects a rapid growth in the livestock sector (World Bank, 1985). Cattle production will be limited by the carrying capacity of China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed. Poultry and pig production are more dependent on the availability of feed concentrates. Such production has been increasing for the last ten years, and there is now a concern that it might be necessary to monitor the consumption of high-animal-fat food to prevent deleterious effects both economic and nutritional. ....' http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china2.html > they have > broken free and in their > prosperity are eating more meat, Lord love 'em. 08/06/2006 - ... China's Meat Association will jointly organize a seminar in Beijing next month with the World Meat Organization to discuss China's meat development strategy and promotion of meat consumption. ...' http://www.meatprocess.com/news/ng.a...288-china-meat 'In many developing nations there has been a rapid increase in the incidence of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, lung cancer and a host of other health disorders concomitant with a rise in economic affluence (Pellett, 1989). In contrast with the communicable and infectious diseases affecting the rural poor, the more economically privileged urban sectors in these countries suffer from a rising prevalence of chronic degenerative diseases appropriately referred to as 'diseases of misdevelopment' by Dumont (1989). Not only do these chronic diseases have a debilitating effect on a productive segment of the active elite but also the costs of treating these diseases tend to absorb a disproportionate share of the public health resources in favor of an already privileged social group. It is therefore of utmost importance to developing nations to avoid creating a new and costly pathology soon after emerging from the scourge of infectious and nutritional deficiency diseases (Pellett, 1989). ...' http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china2.html 'Water tables are dipping throughout the northern half of the country. As aquifers are emptied and irrigation wells go dry, farmers either revert to low-yield dryland fanning or, in the more arid regions, abandon it altogether. In the competition for water, cities and industry invariably get first claim, leaving farmers with a shrinking share of a shrinking supply. Losing water often means losing land. Farmers are forfeiting real estate for other reasons as well. Expanding deserts, such as the Gobi, which is consuming 4,000 square miles of new territory each year, are devouring farmland. Paying farmers in the north and west to plant their grainland to trees in an effort to halt the advancing deserts is another factor reducing the grain area. ... In a country where farms average an acre and a half, a shift is under way to higher value fruits and vegetables to boost income. In each of the last 11 years, the area in fruits and vegetables has increased. ... China is the first major grain-producing country where a combination of environmental and economic trends have combined to reverse the historical growth in production. This decline in a country containing more than one-fifth of the world's population undoubtedly will trigger global effects. For instance, China's likely need for such imports of grain comes at a time when world stocks already are at their lowest level in 30 years and U.S. farmers are losing irrigation water to aquifer depletion and cities. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...32/ai_n6021789 Wake up, Jim. Your dream is really and truly a hellish nightmare. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> ... >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >> > ... >> >> >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in >> >> > message >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> >> >> ... >> >> >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in >> >> >> > message >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >> >> >> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence for that statement please >> >> > >> >> > 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >> >> > people but not its animals'. >> >> >> >> which is not evidence for the statement >> > >> > Evidence that Europe relies on imports for the meat habit. >> >> which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to >> feed >> animals," > > In the UK. next time qualify your statements, rather than making such far reaching claims So have you evidence for 2007 in the UK ? > >> >> Europe imports 70% of its protein >> >> > for animal feed . >> >> >> >> which is not evidence for the statement >> > >> > Evidence the lion's share of imported protein is for meat. >> >> which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to >> feed >> animals," No mention of protein at all > > Grain.. protein.. land.. oh dear, protein crops are such things as rape, soya, To his friend Candidianus* A. D. 468 [1] You congratulate me on my prolonged stay at Rome, though I note the touch of irony, and your wit at my expense. You say you are glad your old friend has at last seen the sun, since on the Saône his chances of |21 a good look at it are few and far between. You abuse my misty Lyons,1 and deplore the days so cloaked by morning fog that the full heat of noon can scarcely unveil them. [2] Now does this nonsense fitly come from a native of that oven of a town Cesena? You have shown your real opinion of your charming and convenient natal soil by leaving it. The midges of Po may pierce your ears; the city frogs may croak and swarm on every side, but you know very well that you are better off in exile at Ravenna than at home. In that marsh of yours the laws of everything are always the wrong way about; the waters stand and the walls fall, the towers float and the ships stick fast, the sick man walks and the doctor lies abed, the baths are chill and the houses blaze, the dead swim and the quick are dry, the powers are asleep and the thieves wide awake, the clergy live by usury and the Syrian chants the Psalms, business men turn soldiers and soldiers business men, old fellows play ball and young fellows hazard, eunuchs take to arms and rough allies to letters.2 [3] And that is the kind of city you choose to settle in, a place that may boast a territory but little solid ground. Be kinder, therefore, to Transalpines who never provoked you; their climate wins too cheap a triumph if it shines only by comparison with such as yours. Farewell. * Partly translated by Hodgkin, i. 860, and by Chaix, i. 273. Cf. Letter V. > >> >> > this is on top of using large proportions of >> >> > its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come >> >> > from countries suffering from poverty or environmental >> >> > degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for >> >> > animal feed. >> >> >> >> which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and land >> >> is >> >> used >> >> to feed animals" >> > >> > Evidence the lion's share of soybeans is for animal flesh, >> > & severe adverse impact on people and the evironment. >> >> "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," no mention of >> protein at all > > Protein isn't significant? People and the environment? Jim? if it is so significant why did you ignore it? After all it is your wide ranging unsubstantiated claim we are exploring To his friend Campanianus A. D. 468 [1] THE Intendant of Supplies 2 has personally presented the letter in which you commend him as your old friend to my new judgement. I am greatly indebted to him, but most of all to yourself for this evidence of your resolve to assume my friendship certain and proof against all suspicion. I welcome, I eagerly embrace this opportunity of acquaintance, and of intimacy, since my desire to oblige you cannot but draw closer the bonds which already unite us. [2] But please commend me in my turn to his vigilant care, commend, that is, my cause and my repute. For I rather fear that there may be an uproar in the theatres if the supplies of grain run short, and that the hunger of all the Romans will be laid to my account. I am on the point of dispatching him immediately to the harbour in person, because news is to hand that five ships from Brindisi have put in at Ostia laden with wheat and honey. |26 A stroke of energy on his part, and we should have these cargoes ready in no time for the expectant crowds; he would win my favour, I the people's, and he and I together yours. Farewell. Jim Webster |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:15:13 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote: > >"pearl" > wrote in message ... >> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >> ... >>> >>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >>> > ... >>> >> >>> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >>> >> ... >>> >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in >>> >> > message >>> >> > ... >>> >> >> >>> >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >>> >> >> ... >>> >> >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in >>> >> >> > message >>> >> >> > ... >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is >>> >> >> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> evidence for that statement please >>> >> > >>> >> > 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its >>> >> > people but not its animals'. >>> >> >>> >> which is not evidence for the statement >>> > >>> > Evidence that Europe relies on imports for the meat habit. >>> >>> which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to >>> feed >>> animals," >> >> In the UK. > >next time qualify your statements, rather than making such far reaching >claims Cant do any more than hand it to you on a plate. Don't blame others for your unwillingness to listen. Try taking your hands away from your head? |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > >> > ... > >> >> > >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in > >> >> > message > >> >> > ... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in > >> >> >> > message > >> >> >> > ... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is > >> >> >> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> evidence for that statement please > >> >> > > >> >> > 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its > >> >> > people but not its animals'. > >> >> > >> >> which is not evidence for the statement > >> > > >> > Evidence that Europe relies on imports for the meat habit. > >> > >> which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to > >> feed > >> animals," > > > > In the UK. > > next time qualify your statements, rather than making such far reaching > claims I didn't making a far reaching claim. You misunderstood. > So have you evidence for 2007 in the UK ? 2008. ... desperate for feed... and there's heap big trouble .. 'Biofuels News February 15, 2008 Europe facing meat crisis over GM wrangle By Carl Mortished Europe is facing a crisis in the supply of meat because of delays and political resistance in Brussels to the use of genetically modified protein in animal feed. Shortages in grain for animal feed and soaring prices are wreaking havoc in the livestock sector, causing pig and poultry farmers to reduce their output, according to animal feed compounders and livestock associations. The problem has been identified in an internal European Union report on the effect of EU policy towards the use of GM products in animal feed. A failure by the EU to speed up the approval of GM soya imports will significantly raise meat prices, an outcome that is directly attributable to European policies, the report concludes. Europe is struggling to find enough vegetable protein to feed its livestock, causing feed prices to rise. The EU imports 80 per cent of its feed protein needs - mainly new traits of GM soya and corn. Outside Europe, farmers increasingly are turning to GM crop varieties to get better yields, but the speed of the transition is leaving Europe stranded with fewer sources of supply, the European Feed Manufacturers Association (Fefa) said. The problem is acute and is forcing farmers to cut back on the number of animals they rear, raising the threat of reduced meat supply. "We are looking at the collapse of the livestock industry," Alexander Doring, the association's secretary-general, said. The emerging crisis over animal feed and meat supply is creating conflict within the European Commission, setting the directorate- general of agriculture against the health and environment directorates, which are responsible for the approval of GM foods. The row erupted last year when economists in the Commission's agriculture directorate-general produced a report predicting a catastrophic surge in the cost of animal feed if Europe continued to delay the approval of new traits of genetically modified grain. The imported protein feed, mainly soya and corn, is sourced from the United States, Argentina and Brazil. New GM varieties are being developed rapidly, but EU policies have imposed delays of 2 years in the approval of the new GM grains for consumption. Moreover, the EU has adopted a zero-tolerance policy on GM, meaning that a single grain of non-approved GMO in a shipment can render it unfit for use. A shift by American, Argentinian and Brazilian soya growers to non-EU approved crops would lead to soaring feed prices. On a worst-case scenario, the cost of feed would rise 600 per cent, according to the report Economic impact of unapproved GMOs on EU feed imports and livestock production. "The short-term impacts in the pig meat and poultry sectors would be a substantial reduction in production, exports and consumption, and a very significant increase in imports," the report said. The cost burden would affect employment and incomes in agriculture and would lead to "significant increases in meat prices for consumers". The threat emerges at a time when demand for grain is acute. Feed prices have doubled in the past year, Tony Bell, of BOCM Pauls, Britain's largest feed compounder, said. But the delays in approving GM traits will worsen the tight cereal market. The introduction of new GM maize traits in America means that the EU can no longer import it. The extra cost burden on EU farmers is expected to be ?3.6billion (£2.6billion) for 2007-08. Poultry producers are facing a separate dilemma in the UK because supermarkets refuse to accept chickens reared on GM feed. "The position of the retailers is unsustainable," Peter Bradnock, chief executive of the British Poultry Council, said. "Initially, non-GM fed chickens will become much more expensive. They will become scarcer, but eventually they won't be available. We will not be able to supply them," he said. The risk facing Europe is that its own livestock production will dwindle, Mr Doring said, and it will be forced to import more meat from Latin America and the United States. The irony, he added, is that these imported animals will have been fed almost exclusively on GM feed: "We are strangling our livestock industry and the EU is increasing imports. The Brazilians are happy, they can sell us chicken fed on GM." © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_Ne...infoId=1697 2 It's reasonable to ask what the British meat-eating public would say if they knew they'd been surreptitiously landed in a GM food-chain. > >> >> Europe imports 70% of its protein > >> >> > for animal feed . > >> >> > >> >> which is not evidence for the statement > >> > > >> > Evidence the lion's share of imported protein is for meat. > >> > >> which isn't what you claimed "lion's share of grain and land is used to > >> feed > >> animals," No mention of protein at all > > > > Grain.. protein.. land.. > > oh dear, protein crops are such things as rape, soya, Yes, we know. 'Europe is struggling to find enough vegetable protein to feed its livestock, causing feed prices to rise. The EU imports 80 per cent of its feed protein needs - mainly new traits of GM soya and corn. ' ibid. > To his friend Candidianus* > A. D. 468 > > [1] You congratulate me on my prolonged stay at Rome, though I note the > touch of irony, and your wit at my expense. You say you are glad your old > friend has at last seen the sun, since on the Saône his chances of |21 a > good look at it are few and far between. You abuse my misty Lyons,1 and > deplore the days so cloaked by morning fog that the full heat of noon can > scarcely unveil them. [2] Now does this nonsense fitly come from a native of > that oven of a town Cesena? You have shown your real opinion of your > charming and convenient natal soil by leaving it. The midges of Po may > pierce your ears; the city frogs may croak and swarm on every side, but you > know very well that you are better off in exile at Ravenna than at home. In > that marsh of yours the laws of everything are always the wrong way about; > the waters stand and the walls fall, the towers float and the ships stick > fast, the sick man walks and the doctor lies abed, the baths are chill and > the houses blaze, the dead swim and the quick are dry, the powers are asleep > and the thieves wide awake, the clergy live by usury and the Syrian chants > the Psalms, business men turn soldiers and soldiers business men, old > fellows play ball and young fellows hazard, eunuchs take to arms and rough > allies to letters.2 [3] And that is the kind of city you choose to settle > in, a place that may boast a territory but little solid ground. Be kinder, > therefore, to Transalpines who never provoked you; their climate wins too > cheap a triumph if it shines only by comparison with such as yours. > Farewell. > > * Partly translated by Hodgkin, i. 860, and by Chaix, i. 273. Cf. Letter V. > > > > > >> >> > this is on top of using large proportions of > >> >> > its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come > >> >> > from countries suffering from poverty or environmental > >> >> > degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for > >> >> > animal feed. > >> >> > >> >> which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and land > >> >> is > >> >> used > >> >> to feed animals" > >> > > >> > Evidence the lion's share of soybeans is for animal flesh, > >> > & severe adverse impact on people and the evironment. > >> > >> "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," no mention of > >> protein at all > > > > Protein isn't significant? People and the environment? Jim? > > if it is so significant why did you ignore it? That's the question *you* need to answer. > After all it is your wide > ranging unsubstantiated claim we are exploring So, you're predictably going to lie in an effort to discredit the facts. Unbelievable. > To his friend Campanianus > A. D. 468 > > [1] THE Intendant of Supplies 2 has personally presented the letter in which > you commend him as your old friend to my new judgement. I am greatly > indebted to him, but most of all to yourself for this evidence of your > resolve to assume my friendship certain and proof against all suspicion. I > welcome, I eagerly embrace this opportunity of acquaintance, and of > intimacy, since my desire to oblige you cannot but draw closer the bonds > which already unite us. [2] But please commend me in my turn to his vigilant > care, commend, that is, my cause and my repute. For I rather fear that there > may be an uproar in the theatres if the supplies of grain run short, and > that the hunger of all the Romans will be laid to my account. I am on the > point of dispatching him immediately to the harbour in person, because news > is to hand that five ships from Brindisi have put in at Ostia laden with > wheat and honey. |26 A stroke of energy on his part, and we should have > these cargoes ready in no time for the expectant crowds; he would win my > favour, I the people's, and he and I together yours. Farewell. > > > > Jim Webster > > |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >> >> next time qualify your statements, rather than making such far reaching >> claims > > I didn't making a far reaching claim. You misunderstood. I just read the words you wrote > >> So have you evidence for 2007 in the UK ? > > 2008. ... desperate for feed... and there's heap big trouble .. > no so you don't actually have any figures for 2007 then to back up your claim >> oh dear, protein crops are such things as rape, soya, > > Yes, we know. so your claim was just sloppy wording on your part > > 'Europe is struggling to find enough vegetable protein to feed its > livestock, causing feed prices to rise. The EU imports 80 per cent > of its feed protein needs - mainly new traits of GM soya and corn. ' > ibid. > >> To his friend Candidianus* >> A. D. 468 >> >> [1] You congratulate me on my prolonged stay at Rome, though I note the >> touch of irony, and your wit at my expense. You say you are glad your old >> friend has at last seen the sun, since on the Saône his chances of |21 a >> good look at it are few and far between. You abuse my misty Lyons,1 and >> deplore the days so cloaked by morning fog that the full heat of noon can >> scarcely unveil them. [2] Now does this nonsense fitly come from a native >> of >> that oven of a town Cesena? You have shown your real opinion of your >> charming and convenient natal soil by leaving it. The midges of Po may >> pierce your ears; the city frogs may croak and swarm on every side, but >> you >> know very well that you are better off in exile at Ravenna than at home. >> In >> that marsh of yours the laws of everything are always the wrong way >> about; >> the waters stand and the walls fall, the towers float and the ships stick >> fast, the sick man walks and the doctor lies abed, the baths are chill >> and >> the houses blaze, the dead swim and the quick are dry, the powers are >> asleep >> and the thieves wide awake, the clergy live by usury and the Syrian >> chants >> the Psalms, business men turn soldiers and soldiers business men, old >> fellows play ball and young fellows hazard, eunuchs take to arms and >> rough >> allies to letters.2 [3] And that is the kind of city you choose to settle >> in, a place that may boast a territory but little solid ground. Be >> kinder, >> therefore, to Transalpines who never provoked you; their climate wins too >> cheap a triumph if it shines only by comparison with such as yours. >> Farewell. >> >> * Partly translated by Hodgkin, i. 860, and by Chaix, i. 273. Cf. Letter >> V. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > this is on top of using large proportions of >> >> >> > its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come >> >> >> > from countries suffering from poverty or environmental >> >> >> > degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for >> >> >> > animal feed. >> >> >> >> >> >> which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and >> >> >> land >> >> >> is >> >> >> used >> >> >> to feed animals" >> >> > >> >> > Evidence the lion's share of soybeans is for animal flesh, >> >> > & severe adverse impact on people and the evironment. >> >> >> >> "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," no mention >> >> of >> >> protein at all >> > >> > Protein isn't significant? People and the environment? Jim? >> >> if it is so significant why did you ignore it? > > That's the question *you* need to answer. ah, you mean it is only me that is responsible? Surely it is the responsibility of everyone who uses scarce resources, everyone who lives in a house, has food transported to them, uses electricity, internet There is a sustainable level of population and production http://tinyurl.com/2q8wg3 Jim Webster Jim Webster |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
In article >,
Jim Webster > wrote: > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy > > organic matter, > now prove you understand what your talking about > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy > organic matter > Jim Webster I think it is fair to say that that action will pretty soon fundamentally change the balance of the different types of bacteria and fungi there, in terms of the loss of groundcover, increase in amount of air present, drying out, exposure to sun at surface level etc. Not that I think we have much choice to do things a lot different. -- Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/ |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Robert Seago > writes
>In article >, > Jim Webster > wrote: > >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> ... >> > >> > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil >> > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy >> > organic matter, > >> now prove you understand what your talking about > >> explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy >> organic matter > >> Jim Webster >I think it is fair to say that that action will pretty soon fundamentally >change the balance of the different types of bacteria and fungi there, in >terms of the loss of groundcover, increase in amount of air present, >drying out, exposure to sun at surface level etc. > >Not that I think we have much choice to do things a lot different. > The explanation is quite simple and well known in agriculture for decades. I am rather surprised the ecofreaks can't immediately state what happens and why. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:33:21 +0000, Oz > wrote:
>Robert Seago > writes >>In article >, >> Jim Webster > wrote: >> >>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> > >>> > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil >>> > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy >>> > organic matter, >> >>> now prove you understand what your talking about >> >>> explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy >>> organic matter >> >>> Jim Webster >>I think it is fair to say that that action will pretty soon fundamentally >>change the balance of the different types of bacteria and fungi there, in >>terms of the loss of groundcover, increase in amount of air present, >>drying out, exposure to sun at surface level etc. >> >>Not that I think we have much choice to do things a lot different. >> > >The explanation is quite simple and well known in agriculture for >decades. I am rather surprised the ecofreaks can't immediately state >what happens and why. I'd be more surprised if anyone bothered to reply to your stupid questions that serve as a mere diversionary tactic, and a poor one at that. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Oz" > wrote in message ... > Robert Seago > writes >>In article >, >> Jim Webster > wrote: >> >>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> > >>> > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil >>> > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy >>> > organic matter, >> >>> now prove you understand what your talking about >> >>> explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy >>> organic matter >> >>> Jim Webster >>I think it is fair to say that that action will pretty soon fundamentally >>change the balance of the different types of bacteria and fungi there, in >>terms of the loss of groundcover, increase in amount of air present, >>drying out, exposure to sun at surface level etc. >> >>Not that I think we have much choice to do things a lot different. >> > > The explanation is quite simple and well known in agriculture for > decades. I am rather surprised the ecofreaks can't immediately state > what happens and why. > ah but they've never actually ploughed The first thing you do is actually increase the organic matter in the soil as you turn the top over. Indeed with a good rotation you will add even more organic matter, ploughing out of ley for example. Then again we are specifically adding 3 tons to the acre of muck before the plough runs through it as farmers have done whenever possible from time immemorial. Jim Webster |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pete the lying kiddie-fiddler lied:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:33:21 +0000, Oz > wrote: > >> Robert Seago > writes >>> In article >, >>> Jim Webster > wrote: >>> >>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil >>>>> is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy >>>>> organic matter, >>>> now prove you understand what your talking about >>>> explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy >>>> organic matter >>>> Jim Webster >>> I think it is fair to say that that action will pretty soon fundamentally >>> change the balance of the different types of bacteria and fungi there, in >>> terms of the loss of groundcover, increase in amount of air present, >>> drying out, exposure to sun at surface level etc. >>> >>> Not that I think we have much choice to do things a lot different. >>> >> The explanation is quite simple and well known in agriculture for >> decades. I am rather surprised the ecofreaks can't immediately state >> what happens and why. > > I'd be more surprised if anyone bothered to reply to your stupid > questions That's really funny coming from you, pete. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Mar 5, 2:26*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in ... > > > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil > > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy > > > organic matter, > > > now prove you understand what your talking about > > > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy > > organic matter > > "Cultivation" also includes the application of agricides, in sum.. > > ' kill[ing] much of the soil fauna and leav[ing] the soil at risk of > erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and, > with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted > and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and > obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go > and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the > muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our > valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the > sea.' It's a very sad state of affairs! > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is > used to feed animals, Sure, but let's also not forget that this is not being seriously challenged. The issue I am interested in is whether vegan diets are still more efficient for those whose diets are based on food grown according to more responsible farming methods. > 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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Mar 5, 7:18*am, "Jim Webster"
> wrote: > "Buxqi" > wrote in message > > ... > On Mar 4, 5:48 pm, Julie > wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:38:15 -0000, "Jim Webster" > > Perhaps there is a way of maintaining adequate soil fertility on > a large scale (it is easy enough to do on a small scale) without > animals. If all the food waste that currently goes to landfill were > to be used as compost instead would that work perhaps? > > ----------------- > It would be useful, but the problem is that as we waste 'only' a third of > the food, then we would still need to replace at *least two thirds of the > nutrients that go into making the food that is eaten. > To a certain extent if we returned the sewage produced by the population to > the land this would also go to help cover the gap left by the missing two > thirds, Oh now you mention it I do remember reading about a self-sufficient, organic vegan community. They use human compost and I assume it works effectively enough for them. I'm not sure I'd want to eat their veggies though.... > althrough even here so of the food you eat actually goes to make > 'more you' That raises a question: Is it not the same with animal compost. We eat the animals so their corpses don't get receycled. How are all the nutrients returned to the soil? > and whilst we could technically deal with that by shredding and > recycling corpses as well I don't advocate that. Mind you, our corpses are gradually recycled when we are buried in the ground, are they not? Admittedly we get buried in graveyards rather than farms but I suppose it doesn't have to be that way.... > Because we import food, if all human sewage was returned to the land, then > the land would probably gain fertility because we would import it with the > food Although that certainly wouldn't solve the issue globally... > > Jim Webster |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Mar 5, 4:43*pm, Julie > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:03:34 -0800 (PST), Buxqi > > wrote: > > > > > > >On Mar 4, 5:48*pm, Julie > wrote: > >> 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? > > >From the evidence of this thread I think you should start taking > >Jill and Jim more seriously. > > That would be hilarious even from a sock puppet! Neither are real > farmers Are you a farmer? If no does that prevent you from taking an interest and trying to learn about where your food comes from? > and neither have any interest in improving things for > themselves or the planet. Have they actually said as much. It may be that they care but have a different opinion of what them and their planet needs than you do. > How can you take people like that seriously! Because what they are saying is relevant to the debate and they come across like they know what they are talking about. Of course I'd have to do more independant research to be sure but they certainly provide food for thought... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Mar 4, 5:42*pm, 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. Not likely. > > >Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep. > > The farmers wont let them breed. Would that be compatible with animal rights in your opinion? > >[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! Would a population of natural predators throw the whole natural system out of synch the same way? If not, what is the relevant difference between them and us? |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Buxqi > writes
>Oh now you mention it I do remember reading about a >self-sufficient, organic vegan community. They use human >compost and I assume it works effectively enough for them. >I'm not sure I'd want to eat their veggies though.... Veganism hasn't been about long enough to know how sustainable that is. It took perhaps 1000 years to deplete the english downland and a few hundred to deplete the breklands. Certainly if you do recycle all your nutrients you can keep going for a very long time. What you can't do is sell anything off (food, clothing, wood etc). >> althrough even here so of the food you eat actually goes to make >> 'more you' > >That raises a question: Is it not the same with animal compost. >We eat the animals so their corpses don't get receycled. How >are all the nutrients returned to the soil? They mostly go out to sea (potassium) or get buried in landfill/burned (phosphorus). For about 20 years we used large amounts of sewage sludge here and that did provide significant nitrogen and phosphorus. Personally I think it should be illegal NOT to spread ALL sewage sludge onto land. >> and whilst we could technically deal with that by shredding and >> recycling corpses as well I don't advocate that. > >Mind you, our corpses are gradually recycled when we are >buried in the ground, are they not? Admittedly we get >buried in graveyards rather than farms but I suppose it >doesn't have to be that way.... No. One could have human compost, with rather tight phytosanitary controls I suspect. Burning is bad because you lose many volatile elements, particularly phosphorus. >> Because we import food, if all human sewage was returned to the land, then >> the land would probably gain fertility because we would import it with the >> food > >Although that certainly wouldn't solve the issue globally... Depends. There are vast deposits of potassium around the world, but high grade phosphorus is a little limiting in the very long term (a few hundred years). Of course the sea contains essentially unlimited quantities of nearly every element. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Buxqi > writes
>Would a population of natural predators throw the whole natural system out >of synch the same way? If not, what is the relevant difference between them >and us? In the UK wild populations of larger animals (say rabbits and bigger) are controlled by starvation. Some places they may be controlled and of course that's where you find well-fed and healthy wildlife populations because the population density is relatively low. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Buxqi" > wrote in message ... On Mar 5, 2:26 pm, "pearl" > wrote: > "Jim Webster" > wrote in > ... > > > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil > > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy > > > organic matter, > > > now prove you understand what your talking about > > > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy > > organic matter > > "Cultivation" also includes the application of agricides, in sum.. > > ' kill[ing] much of the soil fauna and leav[ing] the soil at risk of > erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and, > with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted > and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and > obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go > and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the > muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our > valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the > sea.' It's a very sad state of affairs! And not actually true. We have discussed soil erosian in the UK on UBA many times and it is not the major issue it is made out to be. The best way of dealing with it is to leave certain land under grass and graze meat producing animals on it. > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is > used to feed animals, Sure, but let's also not forget that this is not being seriously challenged. Actually it is, Pearl couldn't actually come up with evidence to back her claim which became far more equivocal Jim Webster |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Buxqi" > wrote in message ... On Mar 5, 7:18 am, "Jim Webster" > wrote: > "Buxqi" > wrote in message > > ... > On Mar 4, 5:48 pm, Julie > wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:38:15 -0000, "Jim Webster" > > Perhaps there is a way of maintaining adequate soil fertility on > a large scale (it is easy enough to do on a small scale) without > animals. If all the food waste that currently goes to landfill were > to be used as compost instead would that work perhaps? > > ----------------- > It would be useful, but the problem is that as we waste 'only' a third of > the food, then we would still need to replace at least two thirds of the > nutrients that go into making the food that is eaten. > To a certain extent if we returned the sewage produced by the population > to > the land this would also go to help cover the gap left by the missing two > thirds, Oh now you mention it I do remember reading about a self-sufficient, organic vegan community. They use human compost and I assume it works effectively enough for them. I'm not sure I'd want to eat their veggies though.... ------------- So how are you going to get the nutrients back into the soil,the laws of thermodynamics are pretty pressing on this point, take something out, you have to put it back. > althrough even here so of the food you eat actually goes to make > 'more you' That raises a question: Is it not the same with animal compost. We eat the animals so their corpses don't get receycled. How are all the nutrients returned to the soil? -=----------------------- Your sewage, the same if you eat bread > and whilst we could technically deal with that by shredding and > recycling corpses as well I don't advocate that. Mind you, our corpses are gradually recycled when we are buried in the ground, are they not? Admittedly we get buried in graveyards rather than farms but I suppose it doesn't have to be that way.... -------------- Grave yards hardly help, it can be millennia before they are ploughed over again > Because we import food, if all human sewage was returned to the land, then > the land would probably gain fertility because we would import it with the > food Although that certainly wouldn't solve the issue globally... ----------------- No, the only thing that solves the issue globally is reducing population It isn't the fact that an increased population needs to be fed, it is they also want all the toys as well, which puts a strain on the worlds energy and mineral resources, that is why you have to look at the big picture Jim Webster |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Buxqi" > wrote in message ... |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Jim Webster > writes
>And not actually true. We have discussed soil erosian in the UK on UBA many >times and it is not the major issue it is made out to be. The best way of >dealing with it is to leave certain land under grass and graze meat >producing animals on it. Frankly england doesn't have a problem with excessive erosion. Of course every landscape naturally has erosion and the english one is no exception. If you wnat to see the erosion people get rightly agitated about then you need to go to tropical and sub-tropical enviromments where rainfall is very high and primodial forest is being removed (for the first time notice). The problems I have seen with erosion in england have all been associated with walkers. Typically on fragile upland peats (peak district in particular) and scree in the lake district. These can be really severe locally. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Buxqi wrote:
> On Mar 5, 7:18 am, "Jim Webster" > > wrote: >> "Buxqi" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> On Mar 4, 5:48 pm, Julie > wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:38:15 -0000, "Jim Webster" >> Perhaps there is a way of maintaining adequate soil fertility on >> a large scale (it is easy enough to do on a small scale) without >> animals. If all the food waste that currently goes to landfill were >> to be used as compost instead would that work perhaps? >> >> ----------------- >> It would be useful, but the problem is that as we waste 'only' a third of >> the food, then we would still need to replace at least two thirds of the >> nutrients that go into making the food that is eaten. >> To a certain extent if we returned the sewage produced by the population to >> the land this would also go to help cover the gap left by the missing two >> thirds, > > Oh now you mention it I do remember reading about a > self-sufficient, organic vegan community. They use human In Iran, the one I read about > compost and I assume it works effectively enough for them. > I'm not sure I'd want to eat their veggies though.... You'd be best advised to do so: that's where they get their B12 from. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
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. > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process, > there must be agreement on what the end product is > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If > you're looking at the production of consumer > electronics, for example, then the output is > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc. > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to > discontinue the production of television sets, because > they require more resources to produce (which they do), > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality > television set is going to cost several hundred > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you > can easily pay $3000 or more for large plasma TV > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.) > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end > product whose efficiency of production we want to > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism", > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet, > without introducing meat into the discussion at all. > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce - > use less resources per nutritional unit of output - > than others. > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient, > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE > higher priced because they use more resources to > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food > production efficiency, they would only be buying the > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable, > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on. > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency" > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt, > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production. > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe, > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates. > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product, > then see if that product can be produced using fewer > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment > devices. > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake, > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for > meat production falls to the ground. > > I hope this helps. Think in terms of how much food/protein could actually be produced on one acre of land...the most efficent might be vegan only, or a mix with animals, but its very unlikely to be animals only. (Also factor in resource uses from outside). There is a big and boring bias towards livstock farming in many areas of the UK - I found rural/mountainous wales like some sort of hammer house film - no sir, we don't like trees here, we kill them silently at night (type thing). Its really that bad - totally fuked up colonialised nightmare. The druids would go absolutely mental. Now, of course, in mid wales, around Pumlumon you have so called conservationists saying that the current cleared (of people and trees) waste of the welsh mountains is a 'wilderness'. Too fuking much! (thus blocking Forestry Commission native tree regeneration grants also in many areas of previously wildness forest with this false designation). **** off and die fuking idiots, I've had it with you. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...tre/index.html |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Oz" > wrote in message ...
> Jim Webster > writes > > >And not actually true. We have discussed soil erosian in the UK on UBA many > >times and it is not the major issue it is made out to be. The best way of > >dealing with it is to leave certain land under grass and graze meat > >producing animals on it. > > Frankly england doesn't have a problem with excessive erosion. > > Of course every landscape naturally has erosion and the english one is > no exception. If you wnat to see the erosion people get rightly agitated > about then you need to go to tropical and sub-tropical enviromments > where rainfall is very high and primodial forest is being removed (for > the first time notice). > > The problems I have seen with erosion in england have all been > associated with walkers. Typically on fragile upland peats (peak > district in particular) and scree in the lake district. These can be > really severe locally. 'The negative impacts of soil erosion due to inappropriate land management have become increasingly apparent in England and Wales since the 1970s. A number of factors are responsible for this increase, including animal and crop production on inappropriate land, overstocking, bad timing of agricultural practices, degradation of river banks by stock, and lack of ground cover in winter months. Soil erosion has significant social, economic and environment impacts. In addition to reduced future farm productivity, soil entering freshwater ecosystems can cause major damage, for example choking spawning gravels used by fish. Soil pollution can often carry increased leads of phosphates into freshwater bodies and the marine environment, exacerbating the problems of eutrophication. Soil on roads blocks drains leading to localised flooding, while soil entering strategic reservoirs and ports can result in high dredging and disposal costs. .....' http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in message > ... > On Mar 5, 2:26 pm, "pearl" > wrote: > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in > > ... > > > > > "pearl" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil > > > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy > > > > organic matter, > > > > > now prove you understand what your talking about > > > > > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy > > > organic matter > > > > "Cultivation" also includes the application of agricides, in sum.. > > > > ' kill[ing] much of the soil fauna and leav[ing] the soil at risk of > > erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and, > > with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted > > and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and > > obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go > > and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the > > muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our > > valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the > > sea.' > > It's a very sad state of affairs! > > And not actually true. We have discussed soil erosian in the UK on UBA many > times and it is not the major issue it is made out to be. The best way of > dealing with it is to leave certain land under grass and graze meat > producing animals on it. 'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land has so deteriorated that it has lost at least 25 percent of its animal carrying capacity. - UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999. ...' http://tinyurl.com/29dn62 'The negative impacts of soil erosion due to inappropriate land management have become increasingly apparent in England and Wales since the 1970s. A number of factors are responsible for this increase, including animal and crop production on inappropriate land, overstocking, bad timing of agricultural practices, degradation of river banks by stock, and lack of ground cover in winter months. Soil erosion has significant social, economic and environment impacts. In addition to reduced future farm productivity, soil entering freshwater ecosystems can cause major damage, for example choking spawning gravels used by fish. Soil pollution can often carry increased leads of phosphates into freshwater bodies and the marine environment, exacerbating the problems of eutrophication. Soil on roads blocks drains leading to localised flooding, while soil entering strategic reservoirs and ports can result in high dredging and disposal costs. .....' http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf > > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is > > used to feed animals, > > Sure, but let's also not forget that this is not being seriously > challenged. > > Actually it is, Pearl couldn't actually come up with evidence to back her > claim which became far more equivocal I've provided evidence that proves my claim - as it was meant. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 5, 2:26 pm, "pearl" > wrote: > "Jim Webster" > wrote in ... > > > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil > > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy > > > organic matter, > > > now prove you understand what your talking about > > > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy > > organic matter > > "Cultivation" also includes the application of agricides, in sum.. > > ' kill[ing] much of the soil fauna and leav[ing] the soil at risk of > erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and, > with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted > and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and > obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go > and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the > muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our > valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the > sea.' It's a very sad state of affairs! --- That's still an understatement. --- > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is > used to feed animals, Sure, but let's also not forget that this is not being seriously challenged. The issue I am interested in is whether vegan diets are still more efficient for those whose diets are based on food grown according to more responsible farming methods. --- 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, and domesticated breeds on restricted pasture could never be the ecological equivalent of free-roaming native wild species. ---- > 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". Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"? Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion? Would you be prepared to have done to you what you seem to think there's nothing wrong with doing to others? |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > >> > >> next time qualify your statements, rather than making such far reaching > >> claims > > > > I didn't making a far reaching claim. You misunderstood. > > I just read the words you wrote In the context you snipped, following reference to the UK. > >> So have you evidence for 2007 in the UK ? > > > > 2008. ... desperate for feed... and there's heap big trouble .. > > > > no Yes, jim. The shite's well-and-truly now hitting the fan. > so you don't actually have any figures for 2007 then to back up your > claim Why would you think imports of corn significantly changed during 2007? You're really not making any sense, jim, at all. > >> oh dear, protein crops are such things as rape, soya, > > > > Yes, we know. > > so your claim was just sloppy wording on your part 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its people but not its animals'. Europe imports 70% of its protein for animal feed .. this is on top of using large proportions of its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come from countries suffering from poverty or environmental degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for animal feed. In the UK, 39% of our wheat, 51% of our barley and 75% of our total agricultural land is used to feed animals. ...' http://www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david2.html Nothing sloppy about that. But now jim's reminded us of rape. Care to give us some figures, jim, e.g. the number of hectares? > > 'Europe is struggling to find enough vegetable protein to feed its > > livestock, causing feed prices to rise. The EU imports 80 per cent > > of its feed protein needs - mainly new traits of GM soya and corn. ' > > ibid. No comment GM in the British meat-eaters' food-chain, jim? <.> > >> > > >> >> >> > this is on top of using large proportions of > >> >> >> > its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come > >> >> >> > from countries suffering from poverty or environmental > >> >> >> > degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for > >> >> >> > animal feed. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and > >> >> >> land > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> used > >> >> >> to feed animals" > >> >> > > >> >> > Evidence the lion's share of soybeans is for animal flesh, > >> >> > & severe adverse impact on people and the evironment. > >> >> > >> >> "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," no mention > >> >> of > >> >> protein at all > >> > > >> > Protein isn't significant? People and the environment? Jim? > >> > >> if it is so significant why did you ignore it? > > > > > > That's the question *you* need to answer. > > ah, you mean it is only me that is responsible? You produce meat - causing scarce resources, and you promote it. > Surely it is the responsibility of everyone who uses scarce resources, > everyone who lives in a house, has food transported to them, uses > electricity, internet http://www.simondale.net/house/index.htm 'The way forward Somehow, as dozens of green writers have already pointed out, we need new policies that conserve nature while encouraging people to choose and build their own homes. We need to reverse the flow of people from the land to the cities, and to give people something worthwhile to do. We must grow more of our own food, organically, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels and techno-fixes. Will there be humans living here in a thousand years? Birds, trees, hedgehogs,apples too? If so, we have to move fast now. Why the relatively young discipline of permaculture offers so much hope in this context is because it integrates care of the earth with care of people and an awareness of natural limits. It takes account of the effect of a settlement on the community around it, and of the needs of wildlife at all times and levels. If, therefore, people can be educated in the principles of permaculture design before they develop a site, and if it is a requirement that certain agreements be kept during its development, we would be certain to see biodiversity increase along with human settlement - the opposite trend to normal housing development. We could also expect to see no net increase in demand on the common utilities. It is perfectly possible to build new eco-homes nowadays that require no mains electricity - especially if these homes are in clusters that can take advantage of joint biomass composting or community heat and power schemes, and are well located for wind, water or solar power. We could even plan for a net exporting of electricity from renewable sources, thereby generating a profit. ............' http://www.simondale.net/house/context.htm |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > ... > Why would you think imports of corn significantly changed > during 2007? You're really not making any sense, jim, at all. no, you are just being ignorant, imports change every year so you still haven't actually got the figures to back your claim > >> >> oh dear, protein crops are such things as rape, soya, >> > >> > Yes, we know. >> >> so your claim was just sloppy wording on your part > > 'The European parliament has stated that but Pearl didn't 2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves. 3. Accordingly Matthias, the son of Asamoneus, one of the priests who lived in a village called Modin, armed himself, together with his own family, which had five sons of his in it, and slew Bacchides with daggers; and thereupon, out of the fear of the many garrisons [of the enemy], he fled to the mountains; and so many of the people followed him, that he was encouraged to come down from the mountains, and to give battle to Antiochus's generals, when he beat them, and drove them out of Judea. So he came to the government by this his success, and became the prince of his own people by their own free consent, and then died, leaving the government to Judas, his eldest son. 4. Now Judas, supposing that Antiochus would not lie still, gathered an army out of his own countrymen, and was the first that made a league of friendship with the Romans, and drove Epiphanes out of the country when he had made a second expedition into it, and this by giving him a great defeat there; and when he was warmed by this great success, he made an assault upon the garrison that was in the city, for it had not been cut off hitherto; so he ejected them out of the upper city, and drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel. He then got the temple under his power, and cleansed the whole place, and walled it round about, and made new vessels for sacred ministrations, and brought them into the temple, because the former vessels had been profaned. He also built another altar, and began to offer the sacrifices; and when the city had already received its sacred constitution again, Antiochus died; whose son Antiochus succeeded him in the kingdom, and in his hatred to the Jews also. 5. So this Antiochus got together fifty thousand footmen, and five thousand horsemen, and fourscore elephants, and marched through Judea into the mountainous parts. He then took Bethsura, which was a small city; but at a place called Bethzacharis, where the passage was narrow, Judas met him with his army. However, before the forces joined battle, Judas's brother Eleazar, seeing the very highest of the elephants adorned with a large tower, and with military trappings of gold to guard him, and supposing that Antiochus himself was upon him, he ran a great way before his own army, and cutting his way through the enemy's troops, he got up to the elephant; yet could he not reach him who seemed to be the king, by reason of his being so high; but still he ran his weapon into the belly of the beast, and brought him down upon himself, and was crushed to death, having done no more than attempted great things, and showed that he preferred glory before life. Now he that governed the elephant was but a private man; and had he proved to be Antiochus, Eleazar had performed nothing more by this bold stroke than that it might appear he chose to die, when he had the bare hope of thereby doing a glorious action; nay, this disappointment proved an omen to his brother [Judas] how the entire battle would end. It is true that the Jews fought it out bravely for a long time, but the king's forces, being superior in number, and having fortune on their side, obtained the victory. And when a great many of his men were slain, Judas took the rest with him, and fled to the toparchy of Gophna. So Antiochus went to Jerusalem, and staid there but a few days, for he wanted provisions, and so he went his way. He left indeed a garrison behind him, such as he thought sufficient to keep the place, but drew the rest of his army off, to take their winter-quarters in Syria. 6. Now, after the king was departed, Judas was not idle; for as many of his own nation came to him, so did he gather those that had escaped out of the battle together, and gave battle again to Antiochus's generals at a village called Adasa; and being too hard for his enemies in the battle, and killing a great number of them, he was at last himself slain also. Nor was it many days afterward that his brother John had a plot laid against him by Antiochus's party, and was slain by them. |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"pearl" > wrote in message ... http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf absolutely, stop ploughing put everything down to grass and keep more livestock couldn't agree with you more Pearl Jim Webster |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Buxqi" > wrote in message >> ... >> On Mar 5, 2:26 pm, "pearl" > wrote: >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in >> > ... >> > >> > > "pearl" > wrote in message >> > ... >> > >> > > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil >> > > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to >> > > > destroy >> > > > organic matter, >> > >> > > now prove you understand what your talking about >> > >> > > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can >> > > destroy >> > > organic matter >> > >> > "Cultivation" also includes the application of agricides, in sum.. >> > >> > ' kill[ing] much of the soil fauna and leav[ing] the soil at risk of >> > erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and, >> > with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted >> > and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and >> > obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go >> > and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the >> > muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our >> > valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the >> > sea.' >> >> It's a very sad state of affairs! >> >> And not actually true. We have discussed soil erosian in the UK on UBA >> many >> times and it is not the major issue it is made out to be. The best way of >> dealing with it is to leave certain land under grass and graze meat >> producing animals on it. > > 'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land by heck, UK has 73 percent of worlds grazing land, fancy that > I've provided evidence that proves my claim - as it was meant. > aw poor pearl, Hopefully people will forget the last ten posts you made and believe you Jim Webster > |
|
Posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Mar 7, 12:56 pm, "Jim Webster"
> wrote: > "pearl" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message > ... > > >> "Buxqi" > wrote in message > ... > >> On Mar 5, 2:26 pm, "pearl" > wrote: > >> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in > >> > ... > > >> > > "pearl" > wrote in message > >> > ... > > >> > > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil > >> > > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to > >> > > > destroy > >> > > > organic matter, > > >> > > now prove you understand what your talking about > > >> > > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can > >> > > destroy > >> > > organic matter > > >> > "Cultivation" also includes the application of agricides, in sum.. > > >> > ' kill[ing] much of the soil fauna and leav[ing] the soil at risk of > >> > erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and, > >> > with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted > >> > and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and > >> > obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go > >> > and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the > >> > muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our > >> > valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the > >> > sea.' > > >> It's a very sad state of affairs! > > >> And not actually true. We have discussed soil erosian in the UK on UBA > >> many > >> times and it is not the major issue it is made out to be. The best way of > >> dealing with it is to leave certain land under grass and graze meat > >> producing animals on it. > > > 'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land > > by heck, UK has 73 percent of worlds grazing land, fancy that > > > I've provided evidence that proves my claim - as it was meant. > > aw poor pearl, > > Hopefully people will forget the last ten posts you made and believe you > > Jim Webster > > Solutions: http://www.permaculture.org/nm/index.php/site/index/ The government will probably at long last start actively promoting this concept - in 2 or 3 years I would guess, too late, in total panic, never mind :~ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
| "Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" | General Cooking | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
| + Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + | General Cooking | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
![Rudy Canoza[_3_] is offline](https://www.foodbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
