"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "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

Not significantly.. at least, not under *normal* circumstances..

> so you still haven't actually got the figures to back your claim

'The decline in CGF imports was triggered by US authorities
discovering that contaminated CGF (through the unauthorized
GM maize variety BT10) was likely to have been exported
from the US to the EU since 2001. Additionally, the US
authorities informed the EU that the variety BT10 was not
authorized for placing on the market in the US either. Since
then measures have been put into place by the EU Commission
to avoid a repeat of this. These measures are regulated in the
legislation 2005/317/EC and include analysis of imported CGF
and brewers' grain from the US in order to prevent that products
produced from the BT10 maize variety will enter the European
food chain. http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/doc/2005-317-ec.pdf.

As a result CGF imports into the UK have fallen from a high
of around 0.8Mt in 2003/04 to less than 278,760t in 2006/07,
increasing the import of other high-protein feed ingredients
instead. Imports of soymeal and cake into the UK have
increased from 246,075t in 2003/04 to 1.6Mt in 2006/07.
...'
http://www-dev.hgca.com/content.outp...riendly=tru e

278,000 tons corn. And therefore my claim stands.

> >> >> 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

I posted it, jim. And figure's increased since then by 10%.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "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

That's strange thing to say, when you've just disagreed.

'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.
...'
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "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

'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

> > 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

The claim is proven, jim.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "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
>
> Not significantly.. at least, not under *normal* circumstances..

Normal circumstances are weather dependent, we can fluctuate 10% either side
of the average every year because it might or might not rain too much or too
little


>
>> so you still haven't actually got the figures to back your claim
>
> 'The decline in CGF imports was triggered by US authorities
> discovering that contaminated CGF (through the unauthorized
> GM maize variety BT10) was likely to have been exported
> from the US to the EU since 2001. Additionally, the US
> authorities informed the EU that the variety BT10 was not
> authorized for placing on the market in the US either. Since
> then measures have been put into place by the EU Commission
> to avoid a repeat of this. These measures are regulated in the
> legislation 2005/317/EC and include analysis of imported CGF
> and brewers' grain from the US in order to prevent that products
> produced from the BT10 maize variety will enter the European
> food chain. http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/doc/2005-317-ec.pdf.
>
> As a result CGF imports into the UK have fallen from a high
> of around 0.8Mt in 2003/04 to less than 278,760t in 2006/07,
> increasing the import of other high-protein feed ingredients
> instead. Imports of soymeal and cake into the UK have
> increased from 246,075t in 2003/04 to 1.6Mt in 2006/07.
> ..'
> http://www-dev.hgca.com/content.outp...riendly=tru e
>
> 278,000 tons corn. And therefore my claim stands.

no it doesn't you still don't have the figures, corn is only one crop.
Actually your quote rather disproves your point that imports don't change
significantly

>
>> >> >> 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
>
> I posted it, jim. And figure's increased since then by 10%.

and imports and exports don't change significantly?

Jim Webster

>
>

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "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
>
> That's strange thing to say, when you've just disagreed.
>
> '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.
> ..'
> http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf

exactly, too much crop production on inappropriate land, it ought to be
turned over to livestock grazing. Absolutley right, I agree entirely

This would actually help Reduce stocking on other land and solve both
problems.

Cut down the amount of cropping, less of this continuous wheat, more sheep
on turnips to restore fertility

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "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
>
> 'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land >> >

yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?


>> aw poor pearl,
>>
>> Hopefully people will forget the last ten posts you made and believe you
>
> The claim is proven, jim.

people will read it an make their own minds up on that one

Jim Webster

On Mar 7, 12:21*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> 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,

Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
animals like sheep? 2. How do you maintain soil fertility without
using animals. I'm guessing artificial fertilizers are probably more
efficient? What is their environmental impact? Do they contain
animal products?

> and domesticated breeds on restricted pasture could never be
> the ecological equivalent of free-roaming native wild species.

Why not?

> ----
>
> > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>
> I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
>
> ---
> But that's what addicts always say. *It's called "denial".

Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.

> Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?

Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.

> Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?

Remind me....

> Would you be prepared to have done to you what you
> seem to think there's nothing wrong with doing to others?

You mean being killed for food? Nope.

On Mar 7, 7:10*am, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
> "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.

Yeah, so how do the nutrients taken out of the soil
to feed animals get returned? If human manure isn't
sufficient how come animal manure is?
>
> > 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

Our sewage gets 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....
> --------------
> Grave yards hardly help, it can be millennia before they are ploughed over
> again

True. Point is that the nutrients *could* be returned.
>
> > 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-

On Mar 7, 8:34*am, Esra Sdrawkcab > wrote:
> 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.

I'd sooner get mine from supplements ......... or animal products.

On Mar 7, 7:01*am, Oz > wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand why appears to think that killing members of a
species
cause their numbers to increase.
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Yeah, so how do the nutrients taken out of the soil
to feed animals get returned? If human manure isn't
sufficient how come animal manure is?

------------
Ideally you would minimise the loss by returning the sewage of the person
that ate the animal to the ground, (imagine it as a cycle with opportunities
for leakage but you can reduce the opportunities).
There are other ways of acquiring fertility, the plants (or some of them)
take advantage of break down of subsoil and draw nutrients up, which some
fix nitrogen, and you get measurable abouts of nitrogen fixed by thunder
storms.

You can also apply artificial manures as well, but I wanted to step away
from such an easy 'quick fix' in this discussion. The less you have to apply
in that direction the more sustainable the cycle is.

>
> > 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

Our sewage gets returned to the soil ??!
--------------
Some does but probably not enough.
The EU banned us from just tipping it in the sea due to the damage is was
doing to the sea bed and the marine environment. From memory this leaves
landfill, incineration or recycling as fertiliser.


>
> > 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

True. Point is that the nutrients *could* be returned.
------------
Absolutely. I suspect it will be harder to convince people of that than
sewage, but then again, perhaps not ;-)

Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 7:01 am, Oz > wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand why appears to think that killing members of a
species
cause their numbers to increase.

It doesn't, but keeping an 'optimum' population means that those individuals
who are there are healthier. If you don't have the appropriate level of
predation a species will continue to expand until it gets to the next
limiting factor which is probably going to be the food supply.
This means that the species will have a lot of individuals but these
individuals are probably not really getting enough to eat, and population
densities may well make it easier for disease to rip through them (which of
course is made easier if they aren't quite eating enough)

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > ...
...
> >> >> 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
> >
> > 'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land >> >
>
> yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?

Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.

> >> aw poor pearl,
> >>
> >> Hopefully people will forget the last ten posts you made and believe you
> >
> > The claim is proven, jim.
>
> people will read it an make their own minds up on that one

I'm sure people reading this thread have plenty to mull over.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "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
> >
> > Not significantly.. at least, not under *normal* circumstances..
>
> Normal circumstances are weather dependent, we can fluctuate 10% either side
> of the average every year because it might or might not rain too much or too
> little

But we're talking about imports, which are bought from the
world's grain markets to meet the established requirements.

> >> so you still haven't actually got the figures to back your claim
> >
> > 'The decline in CGF imports was triggered by US authorities
> > discovering that contaminated CGF (through the unauthorized
> > GM maize variety BT10) was likely to have been exported
> > from the US to the EU since 2001. Additionally, the US
> > authorities informed the EU that the variety BT10 was not
> > authorized for placing on the market in the US either. Since
> > then measures have been put into place by the EU Commission
> > to avoid a repeat of this. These measures are regulated in the
> > legislation 2005/317/EC and include analysis of imported CGF
> > and brewers' grain from the US in order to prevent that products
> > produced from the BT10 maize variety will enter the European
> > food chain. http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/doc/2005-317-ec.pdf.
> >
> > As a result CGF imports into the UK have fallen from a high
> > of around 0.8Mt in 2003/04 to less than 278,760t in 2006/07,
> > increasing the import of other high-protein feed ingredients
> > instead. Imports of soymeal and cake into the UK have
> > increased from 246,075t in 2003/04 to 1.6Mt in 2006/07.
> > ..'
> > http://www-dev.hgca.com/content.outp...riendly=tru e
> >
> > 278,000 tons corn. And therefore my claim stands.
>
> no it doesn't you still don't have the figures, corn is only one crop.

45% of domestic wheat + barley. You've added rape..

> Actually your quote rather disproves your point that imports don't change
> significantly

The quote explains why these imports changed significantly.

> >> >> >> 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
> >
> > I posted it, jim. And the figure's increased since then by 10%.
>
> and imports and exports don't change significantly?

Over a period of 8 years, not a huge change, statistically speaking.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "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
> >
> > That's strange thing to say, when you've just disagreed.
> >
> > '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.
> > ..'
> > http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf
>
> exactly, too much crop production on inappropriate land,

45% wheat + barley for feed. Plus rape..

> it ought to be turned over to livestock grazing.

Grazing feed crop land doesn't really help you much..

'75% of UK agricultural land is devoted to livestock (67% grass
plus 10% feed crops, including 39% of wheat and 51% of barley)
...
http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/animalfarmenv.html

Negative area when you also stop importing feed..

'the UK imports feed from the equivalent of 1.75 million hectares
of land outside the EU each year ('ghost acres'), an area equivalent
to 28% of the UK's arable land.
...'
http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/animalfarmenv.html

Buxqi > writes
>On Mar 7, 7:01*am, Oz > wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I don't understand why appears to think that killing members of a
>species
>cause their numbers to increase.

eh? I didn't say that.

I said that wildlife populations will be controlled, if not by predation
then by disease or hunger.

Then I said that populations below the carrying capacity are fitter and
healthier.

If this isn't clear, then ask a more detailed question.

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

Buxqi > writes
>
>Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land that is too
>marginal to cultivate crops but which can support animals like sheep?

Christ yes. Indeed that is true of the majority of land on the planet.
Soils too shallow, too rocky, too wet, too dry, too steep...

>2. How
>do you maintain soil fertility without using animals.

Recycle all your wastes and don't export natural products.

>I'm guessing
>artificial fertilizers are probably more efficient?

They are easier and cheaper to apply, yes.

>What is their
>environmental impact?

Used properly, quite low.

>Do they contain animal products?

Not usually.

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

pearl wrote:
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>> ...
> ..
>>>>>> 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
>>> 'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land >> >
>> yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?
>
> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.

Prove it.


>>>> aw poor pearl,
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully people will forget the last ten posts you made and believe you
>>> The claim is proven, jim.
>> people will read it an make their own minds up on that one
>
> I'm sure people reading this thread have plenty to mull over.

Yes, your appalling dishonesty.

"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
....
> --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,

Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
animals like sheep?

------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---

2. How do you maintain soil fertility without
using animals. I'm guessing artificial fertilizers are probably more
efficient? What is their environmental impact? Do they contain
animal products?

-- Here are a few links for you to explo

Vegan organic gardening - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Soil fertility is maintained by the use of green manures and
composted ... The Kenneth Dalziel O'Brien Veganic Gardening
Method is a distinct system that ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_organic_gardening

Veganic Gardening
With the exception of green manures, digging is not necessary
for incorporating ... Mulch can be applied at any time except
when the soil is frozen or dry. ...
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/peo..._gardening.php

Green Manure
Obviously, if you are using strict no-dig, veganic gardening
methods, .... They also produce a very useful leaflet called
'Gardening with Green Manures'. ...
http://www.btinternet.com/~bury_rd/green.htm

Veganic Gardening
Next season we will plant a green manure cover crop. ...
Veganic gardening in our magnificent setting in New Zealand
has been fulfilling to my soul and ...
http://www.vegfamily.com/gardening/v...-gardening.htm

Vegan-Organic Gardening, Farming, Veganic
The 'Veganic' gardening system avoids chemicals, as well
as livestock manures ... Green Manures or Nitrogen-fixing
crops - 'Green Manure' is a cover crop of ...
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/env_veganorganic.htm

ACL - ACountryLife.Com - Grow Your Own Manure
Use one bed for growing Comfrey, its leaves are used as a
green mulch and ... enjoy veganic gardening , you will see
the benefits time and time again. ...
http://www.acountrylife.com/page.php?id=57 ----

> and domesticated breeds on restricted pasture could never be
> the ecological equivalent of free-roaming native wild species.

Why not?

---- Britain would be largely forest, but with regards to large
herbivores on grassland...

'The common argument that cattle are the ecological equivalents
of bison is erroneous. Bison, being wanderers, are less likely to
regraze a given site in a single season than are cattle. Bison can
use drier, rougher forage than cattle and can forage more
effectively in deep snow. And whereas cattle are well known for
their ability to lay waste to riparian areas, bison typically go to
water only once a day. 7

Some of the comparisons of bison with cattle are done from a
strictly managerial perspective - that is, how specific traits can
"be more effectively exploited in land management." 8 But Glenn
Plumb and Jerrold Dodd, who studied bison and cattle in a fenced
"natural area," did admit that "bison reflect a greater degree of
evolutionary context to a grassland natural area [and that] differences
between the influence of free-roaming bison on pristine grasslands
and semi-free-roaming bison on a fenced natural area must be much
greater than those of the latter and domestic cattle." This admission
is not only a concession to the importance of scale but also an
invitation to question the use of "natural" in their fenced "natural areas."
Others also have alluded to issues of scale and freedom of movement
when they acknowledged that the change from "nomadic bison to
resident cattle herds" coincided with subdivision of the land into
fenced areas with managed watering and feeding situations, thus
altering the spatial and temporal patterns of grazing and its impacts
on vegetation. 9 ..
....'
The Impacts of Cattle and Sheep on Native Herbivores
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/h...son_roamed.htm ----

> > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>
> I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
>
> ---
> But that's what addicts always say. It's called "denial".

Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.

--- You transgress your own moral convictions for it.

"They have moral rights."

"Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"

---

> Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?

Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.

> Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?

Remind me....

--- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---

> Would you be prepared to have done to you what you
> seem to think there's nothing wrong with doing to others?

You mean being killed for food? Nope.

"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
>> >> > ...
>> >>
>> >> > 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
>> >
>> > Not significantly.. at least, not under *normal* circumstances..
>>
>> Normal circumstances are weather dependent, we can fluctuate 10% either
>> side
>> of the average every year because it might or might not rain too much or
>> too
>> little
>
> But we're talking about imports, which are bought from the
> world's grain markets to meet the established requirements.

yes, and the market requirements change because home production (and world
production are weather dependent and can fluctuate 10% either side of
normal. On a world scale this years wheat crop is estimated to be between
613 and 642 million tonnes depending on who is doing the guessing and will
almost certainly fall between these two figures

>
>> >> so you still haven't actually got the figures to back your claim
>> >
>> > 'The decline in CGF imports was triggered by US authorities
>> > discovering that contaminated CGF (through the unauthorized
>> > GM maize variety BT10) was likely to have been exported
>> > from the US to the EU since 2001. Additionally, the US
>> > authorities informed the EU that the variety BT10 was not
>> > authorized for placing on the market in the US either. Since
>> > then measures have been put into place by the EU Commission
>> > to avoid a repeat of this. These measures are regulated in the
>> > legislation 2005/317/EC and include analysis of imported CGF
>> > and brewers' grain from the US in order to prevent that products
>> > produced from the BT10 maize variety will enter the European
>> > food chain. http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/doc/2005-317-ec.pdf.
>> >
>> > As a result CGF imports into the UK have fallen from a high
>> > of around 0.8Mt in 2003/04 to less than 278,760t in 2006/07,
>> > increasing the import of other high-protein feed ingredients
>> > instead. Imports of soymeal and cake into the UK have
>> > increased from 246,075t in 2003/04 to 1.6Mt in 2006/07.
>> > ..'
>> > http://www-dev.hgca.com/content.outp...riendly=tru e
>> >
>> > 278,000 tons corn. And therefore my claim stands.
>>
>> no it doesn't you still don't have the figures, corn is only one crop.
>
> 45% of domestic wheat + barley. You've added rape..

you are, alas mistaken, the corn in the previous passage quoted is maize,
wheat and barley don't figure

>
>> Actually your quote rather disproves your point that imports don't change
>> significantly
>
> The quote explains why these imports changed significantly.

yep, annual production alters every year

>
>> >
>> > I posted it, jim. And the figure's increased since then by 10%.
>>
>> and imports and exports don't change significantly?
>
> Over a period of 8 years, not a huge change, statistically speaking.

they change every year pearl, every year, because the weather is different
don't you understand natural events?

Jim Webster

>
>
>

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "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
>> >
>> > That's strange thing to say, when you've just disagreed.
>> >
>> > '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.
>> > ..'
>> > http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf
>>
>> exactly, too much crop production on inappropriate land,
>
> 45% wheat + barley for feed. Plus rape..

funny, you used exactly the same words in the post above, you are getting
sloppy with your copy/pasting, so please try and get it right

>
>> it ought to be turned over to livestock grazing.
>
> Grazing feed crop land doesn't really help you much..

it does, vastly reduces the erosian you are worried about, absolutely ideal,
you have convinced me

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?
>
> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.

you have evidence for this in the UK?

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> ...
>> --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
>> wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>
> Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> animals like sheep?
>
> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---

nonsense, you forget these landscapes were created by grazing, in the UK
water meadows, grazing marshes and the Lakeland fells and uplands are all
created by grazing animals

>
> 2. How do you maintain soil fertility without
> using animals. I'm guessing artificial fertilizers are probably more
> efficient? What is their environmental impact? Do they contain
> animal products?
>
> -- Here are a few links for you to explo

And when you explore them, note that you have a population increasing by 70
million a year to support, not a garden

Jim Webster

Jim Webster > writes
>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>
>>> yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?
>>
>> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>
>you have evidence for this in the UK?

Jim, we have been over this with pearl several times in the past.

She is of the discipline that if she tells a lie often enough it becomes
true. You are wasting your time discussing with her, she learns nothing,
ever.

NB
We all know that intensive grazing means very well managed land with
high inputs and high outputs.

She thinks you are talking about damaging overgrazing, which is pretty
well confined to semi-arid areas when stock numbers increase during
periods of high rainfall and then destroy all the vegetation in periods
of low rainfall (periods here means several years with).

Since she has absolutely no knowledge of land management, farming or (it
seemed to me) the natural world and how it works, you are wasting your
time.

Pop her in the killfile with the other miscreants, you know it makes
sense.

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

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Webster > writes
>>
>>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>
>>>> yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?
>>>
>>> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>>
>>you have evidence for this in the UK?
>
> Jim, we have been over this with pearl several times in the past.
>
> She is of the discipline that if she tells a lie often enough it becomes
> true. You are wasting your time discussing with her, she learns nothing,
> ever.
>
> NB
> We all know that intensive grazing means very well managed land with
> high inputs and high outputs.
>
> She thinks you are talking about damaging overgrazing, which is pretty
> well confined to semi-arid areas when stock numbers increase during
> periods of high rainfall and then destroy all the vegetation in periods
> of low rainfall (periods here means several years with).
>
> Since she has absolutely no knowledge of land management, farming or (it
> seemed to me) the natural world and how it works, you are wasting your
> time.
>
> Pop her in the killfile with the other miscreants, you know it makes
> sense.
>

ah but one day she will read what is written and then the revelation will
strike her, she will achieve enlightenment and become a fully rounded human
being

Jim Webster

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> pearl wrote:
>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>> ..
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> 'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land >> >
>>> yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?
>>
>> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>
> Prove it.
>

Ah, actually it's right in this case, Rudy. On marginal land,
over-grazing by sheep and goats leads to deserts increasing - the
Sahara used to be smaller.


--
Jette Goldie

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

"Jette" > wrote in message
m...

>>> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>
> Ah, actually it's right in this case, Rudy. On marginal land,
> over-grazing by sheep and goats leads to deserts increasing - the Sahara
> used to be smaller.
>

not much desert in the UK. The current worry in the Lake District National
Park is actually we may be heading for undergrazing. Whilst overgrazing was
the bug bear a few years ago, some of the more perceptive commentators are
saying it is now going the other way.
Mind you on marginal land ploughing can actually do more damage. the great
blow in the American mid west wasn't caused by over grazing but over
ploughing, returning the land to grass undoes the damage

Jim Webster

Jette > writes

rudy
>>> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>
>Ah, actually it's right in this case, Rudy. On marginal land, over-grazing
>by sheep and goats leads to deserts increasing - the Sahara used to be
>smaller.

Note that intensive grazing is NOT over-grazing.

The former is high input, high output managed grassland with plentiful
supply of water and facilities.

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

Jim Webster > writes
>ah but one day she will read what is written and then the revelation will
>strike her, she will achieve enlightenment and become a fully rounded human
>being

Dream on ....

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

Jim Webster wrote:
> "Jette" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>>> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, actually it's right in this case, Rudy. On marginal land,
>> over-grazing by sheep and goats leads to deserts increasing - the
>> Sahara used to be smaller.
>>
>
> not much desert in the UK. The current worry in the Lake District
> National Park is actually we may be heading for undergrazing.

AOL for parts of Scotland too.

--

regards
Jill Bowis

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

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Webster > writes
>>ah but one day she will read what is written and then the revelation will
>>strike her, she will achieve enlightenment and become a fully rounded
>>human
>>being
>
> Dream on ....
>

in an infinite universe everything is possible

Jim Webster

Oz wrote:
> Jim Webster > writes
>> ah but one day she will read what is written and then the revelation
>> will strike her, she will achieve enlightenment and become a fully
>> rounded human being
>
> Dream on ....

Jim is ever the optimist

--

regards
Jill Bowis

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

"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
> >> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> > Not significantly.. at least, not under *normal* circumstances..
> >>
> >> Normal circumstances are weather dependent, we can fluctuate 10% either
> >> side
> >> of the average every year because it might or might not rain too much or
> >> too
> >> little
> >
> > But we're talking about imports, which are bought from the
> > world's grain markets to meet the established requirements.
>
> yes, and the market requirements change because home production (and world
> production are weather dependent and can fluctuate 10% either side of
> normal. On a world scale this years wheat crop is estimated to be between
> 613 and 642 million tonnes depending on who is doing the guessing and will
> almost certainly fall between these two figures

I see.

> >> >> so you still haven't actually got the figures to back your claim
> >> >
> >> > 'The decline in CGF imports was triggered by US authorities
> >> > discovering that contaminated CGF (through the unauthorized
> >> > GM maize variety BT10) was likely to have been exported
> >> > from the US to the EU since 2001. Additionally, the US
> >> > authorities informed the EU that the variety BT10 was not
> >> > authorized for placing on the market in the US either. Since
> >> > then measures have been put into place by the EU Commission
> >> > to avoid a repeat of this. These measures are regulated in the
> >> > legislation 2005/317/EC and include analysis of imported CGF
> >> > and brewers' grain from the US in order to prevent that products
> >> > produced from the BT10 maize variety will enter the European
> >> > food chain. http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/doc/2005-317-ec.pdf.
> >> >
> >> > As a result CGF imports into the UK have fallen from a high
> >> > of around 0.8Mt in 2003/04 to less than 278,760t in 2006/07,
> >> > increasing the import of other high-protein feed ingredients
> >> > instead. Imports of soymeal and cake into the UK have
> >> > increased from 246,075t in 2003/04 to 1.6Mt in 2006/07.
> >> > ..'
> >> > http://www-dev.hgca.com/content.outp...riendly=tru e
> >> >
> >> > 278,000 tons corn. And therefore my claim stands.
> >>
> >> no it doesn't you still don't have the figures, corn is only one crop.
> >
> > 45% of domestic wheat + barley. You've added rape..
>
> you are, alas mistaken, the corn in the previous passage quoted is maize,
> wheat and barley don't figure

Here are up-to-date figures:

'On October 11, 2007 the UK Government's Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) released provisional
estimates of the 2007 cereal production harvest. At 19.35 MMT,
it is 7 percent lower than the 2006 harvest of 20.82 MMT. The
most notable drop is for wheat, which at 13.36 MMT is 9 percent
down on the previous year's crop of 14.74 MMT.
...
This has redeemed the total barley harvest such that it has fallen
just 2 percent on 2006 to 5.15 MMT.
...'
http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200710/146292714.pdf.

'Wheat
...
About 40% of the UK crop is used to feed animals such as pigs,
chickens and cows.

Barley
...
50-60% of the UK crop is used to feed animals.
...
Oats

The UK produces around 700,000 tonnes of oats a year.
...
More than a third of British oats are fed to animals,
including as a specialist feed for racehorses.
...'
http://www.grainchain.com/14-to-16/f...at-market.aspx

Wheat (average 06/07) 14MMT. 14 * 40% = 5.60MMT

Barley 5.2MMT * 55% . = 2.86MMT.

Oats 0.7MMT * 35% = 0.25MMT

5.60 + 2.86 + 0.25 = 8.71MMT (wheat + barley + oats).

Average 06/07 total grain harvest - 20MMT.

Feed = 44% of UK domestic grain harvest 06/07.

+ 1.88MMT imported feed - soybeans and corn.

> >> Actually your quote rather disproves your point that imports don't change
> >> significantly
> >
> > The quote explains why these imports changed significantly.
>
> yep, annual production alters every year

Nope. Unapproved GM maize.

> >> > I posted it, jim. And the figure's increased since then by 10%.
> >>
> >> and imports and exports don't change significantly?
> >
> > Over a period of 8 years, not a huge change, statistically speaking.
>
> they change every year pearl, every year, because the weather is different
> don't you understand natural events?

'The UK Government has released provisional estimates of the 2007
UK cereals harvest. Wheat production is put at just 13.4 MMT and
that for barley at 5.1 MMT. These are down 9 and 2 percent,
respectively, on 2006 production levels and are below most previous
trade estimates. The year-on-year falls are thought to be due to the
unusual weather conditions experienced by the UK over the summer,
which saw flooding in some parts of England and reduced sunshine
hours over much of the country. The reduced crop and high cereal
prices have put a strong focus on the animal feed sector. Most
market commentators are suggesting that the availability, or
otherwise, of reasonably priced alternate feedstock will now be a
determinate factor for the UK cereal balance this season.
...'
http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200710/146292714.pdf

'The food crisis is being compounded by growing populations,
extreme weather and ecological stress, according to a number of
recent reports. This week the UN Environment Programme said
the planet's water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks were
all in "inexorable decline". According to the UN's World Food
Programme (WFP) 57 countries, including 29 in Africa, 19 in
Asia and nine in Latin America, have been hit by catastrophic
floods. Harvests have been affected by drought and heatwaves
in south Asia, Europe, China, Sudan, Mozambique and Uruguay.

This week the Australian government said drought had slashed
predictions of winter harvests by nearly 40%, or 4m tonnes.
"It is likely to be even smaller than the disastrous drought-ravaged
2006-07 harvest and the worst in more than a decade," said the
Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

According to Josette Sheeran, director of the WFP, "There are
854 million hungry people in the world and 4 million more join
their ranks every year. We are facing the tightest food supplies
in recent history. For the world's most vulnerable, food is
simply being priced out of their reach."
...'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

'Another Inconvenient Truth: Meat is a Global Warming Issue
...
The editors of World Watch concluded in the July/August 2004
edition that "the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force
behind virtually every major category of environmental damage
now threatening the human future - deforestation, erosion, fresh
water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity
loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the
spread of disease."
...'
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3312

"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
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >> > That's strange thing to say, when you've just disagreed.
> >> >
> >> > '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.
> >> > ..'
> >> > http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf
> >>
> >> exactly, too much crop production on inappropriate land,
> >
> > 45% wheat + barley for feed. Plus rape..
>
> funny, you used exactly the same words in the post above, you are getting
> sloppy with your copy/pasting, so please try and get it right

44% of the UK domestic grain crop 06/07. See other post.

> >> it ought to be turned over to livestock grazing.
> >
> > Grazing feed crop land doesn't really help you much..
>
> it does, vastly reduces the erosian you are worried about, absolutely ideal,
> you have convinced me

It wouldn't.

Jim Webster > writes
>
>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
>> Jim Webster > writes
>>>ah but one day she will read what is written and then the revelation will
>>>strike her, she will achieve enlightenment and become a fully rounded
>>>human
>>>being
>>
>> Dream on ....
>>
>
>in an infinite universe everything is possible

We probably aren't in such a universe though.

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

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>
> >> yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?
> >
> > Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>
> you have evidence for this in the UK?

".. considerable areas of the UK have been affected
by the erosional impacts of grazing animals. ..."

'Applied Geography
Volume 17, Issue 2, April 1997, Pages 127-141
doi:10.1016/S0143-6228(97)00002-7

Soil erosion in the UK initiated by grazing animals
A need for a national survey
Robert Evans
Department of Geography, Anglia Polytechnic University,
East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
Revised 9 December 1996. Available online 9 June 1998.

Abstract
Range managers often consider 'overgrazing' only in the light of
its impacts on vegetation and animal productivity, but they also
need to take account of soil erosion initiated by the grazing animal.
The exposure and maintenance of bare soil in the UK by grazing
animals, especially sheep, is outlined. Some soil/ vegetation
associations are more sensitive to the creation of bare soil by
animals than others. In the uplands, erosion of peat, however
initiated, is exacerbated by grazing animals, and such erosion can
be very difficult to control, even when animals are excluded from
the area by fencing. In such localities erosion may have to run its
course until all the peat has been stripped off. Grazing pressures
in many localities have increased since the late 1940s for political,
economic and social reasons, and considerable areas of the UK
have been affected by the erosional impacts of grazing animals.
No consideration was given to the erosional and ecological
impacts of grazing when the regulations subsidizing sheep grazing
were passed. It is now time to amend these regulations and to
institute a national survey of erosion initiated by grazing animals.
...'
http://tinyurl.com/2g34q4

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>


>> yes, and the market requirements change because home production (and
>> world
>> production are weather dependent and can fluctuate 10% either side of
>> normal. On a world scale this years wheat crop is estimated to be between
>> 613 and 642 million tonnes depending on who is doing the guessing and
>> will
>> almost certainly fall between these two figures
>
> I see.
>
>> >> >> so you still haven't actually got the figures to back your claim
>> >> >
>> >> > 'The decline in CGF imports was triggered by US authorities
>> >> > discovering that contaminated CGF (through the unauthorized
>> >> > GM maize variety BT10) was likely to have been exported
>> >> > from the US to the EU since 2001. Additionally, the US
>> >> > authorities informed the EU that the variety BT10 was not
>> >> > authorized for placing on the market in the US either. Since
>> >> > then measures have been put into place by the EU Commission
>> >> > to avoid a repeat of this. These measures are regulated in the
>> >> > legislation 2005/317/EC and include analysis of imported CGF
>> >> > and brewers' grain from the US in order to prevent that products
>> >> > produced from the BT10 maize variety will enter the European
>> >> > food chain. http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/doc/2005-317-ec.pdf.
>> >> >
>> >> > As a result CGF imports into the UK have fallen from a high
>> >> > of around 0.8Mt in 2003/04 to less than 278,760t in 2006/07,
>> >> > increasing the import of other high-protein feed ingredients
>> >> > instead. Imports of soymeal and cake into the UK have
>> >> > increased from 246,075t in 2003/04 to 1.6Mt in 2006/07.
>> >> > ..'
>> >> > http://www-dev.hgca.com/content.outp...riendly=tru e
>> >> >
>> >> > 278,000 tons corn. And therefore my claim stands.
>> >>
>> >> no it doesn't you still don't have the figures, corn is only one crop.
>> >
>> > 45% of domestic wheat + barley. You've added rape..
>>
>> you are, alas mistaken, the corn in the previous passage quoted is maize,
>> wheat and barley don't figure
>
> Here are up-to-date figures:
>
> 'On October 11, 2007 the UK Government's Department for
> Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) released provisional
> estimates of the 2007 cereal production harvest. At 19.35 MMT,
> it is 7 percent lower than the 2006 harvest of 20.82 MMT. The
> most notable drop is for wheat, which at 13.36 MMT is 9 percent
> down on the previous year's crop of 14.74 MMT.

see what I mean about the way yields fluctuate

> ..
> This has redeemed the total barley harvest such that it has fallen
> just 2 percent on 2006 to 5.15 MMT.
> ..'
> http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200710/146292714.pdf.
>
> 'Wheat
> ..
> About 40% of the UK crop is used to feed animals such as pigs,
> chickens and cows.

yep because it is feed wheat, you know the difference between feed wheats
and bread making wheat don't you?

>
> Barley
> ..
> 50-60% of the UK crop is used to feed animals.

yes, but 40 to 50 percent is wasted by being turned into beer which feeds no
one, most inefficient. at least that used to feed animals does at least act
as a feed

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> it does, vastly reduces the erosian you are worried about, absolutely
>> ideal,
>> you have convinced me
>
> It wouldn't.
>

but it did, you have convinced me with the links you posted, we have to cut
down on the arable area and turn more over to grassland for livestock to
graze, cut down on this erosian

Jim Webster

>
>
>

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>
>> >> yep and we were talking about the UK, so your point is?
>> >
>> > Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>>
>> you have evidence for this in the UK?
>
> ".. considerable areas of the UK have been affected
> by the erosional impacts of grazing animals. ..."
>
> 'Applied Geography
> Volume 17, Issue 2, April 1997, Pages 127-141
> doi:10.1016/S0143-6228(97)00002-7
>
> Soil erosion in the UK initiated by grazing animals
> A need for a national survey
> Robert Evans
> Department of Geography, Anglia Polytechnic University,
> East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
> Revised 9 December 1996. Available online 9 June 1998.

thanks for that, you've provided me with the evidence I was looking for when
I posted to Jette

not much desert in the UK. The current worry in the Lake District National
Park is actually we may be heading for undergrazing. Whilst overgrazing was
the bug bear a few years ago, some of the more perceptive commentators are
saying it is now going the other way.
Mind you on marginal land ploughing can actually do more damage. the great
blow in the American mid west wasn't caused by over grazing but over
ploughing, returning the land to grass undoes the damage

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
>> >> wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>> >
>> > Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
>> > that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
>> > animals like sheep?
>> >
>> > ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
>> > wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
>> > Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>>
>> nonsense, you forget these landscapes were created by grazing, in the UK
>> water meadows, grazing marshes and the Lakeland fells and uplands are all
>> created by grazing animals
>
> What was there before?

when?

>
>> > 2. How do you maintain soil fertility without
>> > using animals. I'm guessing artificial fertilizers are probably more
>> > efficient? What is their environmental impact? Do they contain
>> > animal products?
>> >
>> > -- Here are a few links for you to explo
>>
>> And when you explore them, note that you have a population increasing by
>> 70
>> million a year to support, not a garden
>
> "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre

fine pearl, here is the offer, I can put at your disposal one acre, show us
how it is done

Jim Webster