"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?

> > 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
devoted to meat production; legumes (beans, peas, lentils) can
produce 10 times more protein and leafy vegetables 15 times more.
..... Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry all over the
world ... brought on by denial of access to land to grow food ...."

'The world's problems on a plate
Meat production is making the rich ill and the poor hungry
Jeremy Rifkin
The Guardian, Friday May 17 2002

In June, agricultural ministers from around the world will gather in
Rome for the World Food Summit. The meeting will focus on how
to create a sustainable approach to development and get food in
the mouths of the nearly 1 billion who are currently undernourished.
More interesting than the agenda, however, will be the menu. At
both the official dinners and at NGO gatherings, expect to see the
consumption of large quantities of meat. And herein lies the
contradiction.

Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry all over the world
because much of the arable land is being used to grow feed grain for
animals rather than for people. Cattle are among the most inefficient
converters of feed. In the US, 157 million metric tons of cereal,
legumes and vegetable protein suitable for human use is fed to
livestock to produce 28 million metric tons of animal protein for
annual human consumption.

The worldwide demand for feed grain continues to grow, as
multinational corporations seek to capitalise on the meat demands of
affluent countries. Two-thirds of the increases in grain production in
the US and Europe between 1950 and 1985, the boom years in
agriculture, went to provide feed grain.

In developing countries, the question of land reform has periodically
rallied peasant populations and spawned populist political uprisings.
But the question of how the land is used has been of less interest.
Yet the decision to use the land to create an artificial food chain has
resulted in misery for hundreds of millions around the world. An
acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre devoted
to meat production; legumes (beans, peas, lentils) can produce 10
times more protein and leafy vegetables 15 times more.

The global corporations that produce the seeds, the farm chemicals
and the cattle and that control the slaughterhouse and the marketing
and distribution channels for beef are eager to tout the advantage
of grain-fed livestock. Advertising and sales campaigns geared to
developing nations are quick to equate grain-fed beef with a
country's prestige. Climbing the "protein ladder" becomes the
mark of success.

Enlarging and diversifying their meat supply appears to be a first
step for every developing country. They start by putting in modern
broiler and egg production facilities - the fastest and cheapest way
to produce nonplant protein. Then, as rapidly as their economies
permit, they climb "the protein ladder" to pork, milk, and dairy
products, to grass-fed beef and finally, if they can, to grain-fed
beef.

Encouraging other nations to do this advances the interests of
American farmers and agribusiness companies. Two-thirds of all
the grain exported from the US to other countries goes to feed
livestock rather than to feed hungry people.

Many developing nations climbed the protein ladder at the height
of the agricultural boom, when "green revolution" technology was
producing grain surpluses. In 1971 the Food and Agricultural
Organisation suggested switching to coarse grains that could be
more easily consumed by livestock. The US government provided
further encouragement in its foreign aid programme, tying food aid
to development of feed grain markets. Companies like Ralston
Purina and Cargill were given low-interest government loans to
establish grain-fed poultry operations in developing countries.
Many nations followed the advice of the FAO and have attempted
to remain high on the protein ladder long after the surpluses of the
green revolution have disappeared.

The shift from food to feed continues apace in many nations, with
no sign of reversal. The human consequences of the transition were
dramatically illustrated in 1984 in Ethiopia when thousands of people
were dying each day from famine. At the very same time Ethiopia
was using some of its agricultural land to produce linseed cake,
cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for export to the UK and other
European nations as feed for livestock. Millions of acres of third
world land are now being used exclusively to produce feed for
European livestock.

Tragically, some 80% of the world's hungry children live in
countries with actual food surpluses, much of which is in the
form of feed fed to animals which will be consumed by only the
well-to-do consumers. In the developing world, the share of
grain fed to livestock has tripled since 1950 and now exceeds
21% of the total grain produced.

The irony of the present system is that millions of wealthy
consumers in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence
(heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer) brought on by gorging
on fatty grain-fed meats, while the poor in the third world are
dying of diseases of poverty brought on by the denial of access
to land to grow food grain for their families. We are long overdue
for a global discussion on how best to promote a diversified,
high-protein, vegetarian diet for the human race.


***********

Jeremy Rifkin wrote Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of
the Cattle Culture.

Jim Webster wrote:
>>>> ------- 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?

Ice would not be far off?

>> "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
>
hmmmm me thinks this has a familiar ring

--

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

"Jill" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Webster wrote:
>>>>> ------- 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?
>
> Ice would not be far off?

then some scrub timber, nothing of any size,

>
>>> "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
>>
> hmmmm me thinks this has a familiar ring
>
I am willing to consider making the offer to any vegan who wishes to prove
that they can live off an acre without buying any food from elsewhere

Jim Webster

In article >,
pearl > wrote:


> Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.

But non intensive grazing can be good for managibng grassland for
conservation. Next week I hope to get a small number of Shetlands on my
reserve for a few weeks.

--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/

Jette wrote:
> 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.

But intensive doesn't equal over-grazing necessarily,
does it? Of course, to the mind of an ignorant,
irrational zealot like lesley ("pearl"), any amount of
grazing is "over-grazing". One thing you have to keep
in mind with lesley is that a) she is a new-age foot
masseuse ("reflexologist", feh) who has no background
in any academic or practical field pertaining to
agriculture, biology, anthropology, or any of the other
fields where she runs her mouth; and b) she has not
read - indeed, *cannot* read - the scientific papers
she misrepresents and miscites.

One comment about your use of the word marginal.
Marginal doesn't mean bad land; it means that land that
is just barely economically viable to use. The land
that is considered marginal can change with market
conditions. Say you're growing corn (maize), and you
have a hectare of land that, at the prevailing prices
for the commodity, is just barely profitable to
cultivate. Now prices drop for whatever reason, but
yields remain the same. That hectare is no longer
profitable to cultivate in corn. It was the marginal
hectare, and it is now taken out of production
(possibly to grow something else, or perhaps to lie
fallow.) It can go the other way, too: if the price
of corn were to increase dramatically, perhaps because
so much of it is being used for bio-fuel, then that
formerly marginal hectare might now be far more
productive than lesser quality land that is brought
under cultivation because the commodity price now makes
previously unprofitable land profitable to use.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
> One comment about your use of the word marginal. Marginal doesn't mean bad
> land; it means that land that is just barely economically viable to use.
> The land that is considered marginal can change with market conditions.
> Say you're growing corn (maize), and you have a hectare of land that, at
> the prevailing prices for the commodity, is just barely profitable to
> cultivate. Now prices drop for whatever reason, but yields remain the
> same. That hectare is no longer profitable to cultivate in corn. It was
> the marginal hectare, and it is now taken out of production (possibly to
> grow something else, or perhaps to lie fallow.) It can go the other way,
> too: if the price of corn were to increase dramatically, perhaps because
> so much of it is being used for bio-fuel, then that formerly marginal
> hectare might now be far more productive than lesser quality land that is
> brought under cultivation because the commodity price now makes previously
> unprofitable land profitable to use.

yes, marginal can be changed by other things than grain prices as well. For
example some heavy land in England was marginal for wheat until it was
drained and we had the first steam ploughs, before that it was too difficult
to plough
Similarly some of our hill land was ploughed with shallow horse ploughs (or
even with ards) but obviously the steel plough goes too deep, and the
ploughable patches between the rock are too small for mechanisation
(measured in square yards not acres)

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> One comment about your use of the word marginal. Marginal doesn't mean bad
>> land; it means that land that is just barely economically viable to use.
>> The land that is considered marginal can change with market conditions.
>> Say you're growing corn (maize), and you have a hectare of land that, at
>> the prevailing prices for the commodity, is just barely profitable to
>> cultivate. Now prices drop for whatever reason, but yields remain the
>> same. That hectare is no longer profitable to cultivate in corn. It was
>> the marginal hectare, and it is now taken out of production (possibly to
>> grow something else, or perhaps to lie fallow.) It can go the other way,
>> too: if the price of corn were to increase dramatically, perhaps because
>> so much of it is being used for bio-fuel, then that formerly marginal
>> hectare might now be far more productive than lesser quality land that is
>> brought under cultivation because the commodity price now makes previously
>> unprofitable land profitable to use.
>
> yes, marginal can be changed by other things than grain prices as well. For
> example some heavy land in England was marginal for wheat until it was
> drained and we had the first steam ploughs, before that it was too difficult
> to plough
> Similarly some of our hill land was ploughed with shallow horse ploughs (or
> even with ards) but obviously the steel plough goes too deep, and the
> ploughable patches between the rock are too small for mechanisation
> (measured in square yards not acres)

Yes, changes in technology can change the margin.
Interestingly and somewhat paradoxically, it can push
formerly utilized land *outside* the margin. Say all
of some hypothetical commodity consumed in Great
Britain can be grown on 1000 hectares of land using
current technology. Now a dramatic technological
improvement allows that quantity to be produced on 1/3
of that area. Even allowing for the fact that a likely
lower commodity price will cause the quantity demanded
to increase some, demand probably isn't going to
increase to the point at which all of the land formerly
used will continue to be used to produce this
commodity. The net result will be that land that used
to be cultivated for this product no longer will be used.

"Jette" > wrote in message
m...
> 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.

The desertification of the Sahara was not caused by goats, it is a result of
a major climatic changes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0712080500.htm

Over-grazing can contribute to desertification, however if managed properly,
livestock grazing is beneficial to grassland. Grass and herbivores become
symbiotic.

On Mar 8, 12:19*am, Oz > wrote:
> 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...

Yeah, I know it probably sounded like a right retard question.
I was just wondering whether there were any human edible crops
that could be grown in such lands that would meet our energy needs?
I doubt blueberries count.

> >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.

So the ecological efficiency angle would suggest using
marginal lands for grazing animals and cultivatable land
just for crops, with fertilizers providing the fertility?

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

On Mar 8, 1:00*am, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> ...
>
> > --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> > wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>
> Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> animals like sheep?
>
> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---

Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
the observation that land has value to animals as well
as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
than the hills and moors?

> 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

Thanks.

> 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...and_garden/veg...
>
> 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 Herbivoreshttp://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_bison_roamed.htm----

Interesting points. However is that not part of the point of
rotations,
so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
season?

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

The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
consuming animal fats in all circumstances.

> "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"

Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
from cruel animal practices.

> > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
>
> Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
>
> > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
>
> Remind me....
>
> --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> ecological footprint over both land and sea. *Ring a bell?---

Yup. I will try to find it.

> > 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.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
>#
> Yes, changes in technology can change the margin. Interestingly and
> somewhat paradoxically, it can push formerly utilized land *outside* the
> margin. Say all of some hypothetical commodity consumed in Great Britain
> can be grown on 1000 hectares of land using current technology. Now a
> dramatic technological improvement allows that quantity to be produced on
> 1/3 of that area. Even allowing for the fact that a likely lower
> commodity price will cause the quantity demanded to increase some, demand
> probably isn't going to increase to the point at which all of the land
> formerly used will continue to be used to produce this commodity. The net
> result will be that land that used to be cultivated for this product no
> longer will be used.

actually in the UK, if it is comparatively flat the big risk is that it will
probably be built on ;-(
The amount of housing built on flood plains is a scandal

Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 8, 12:19 am, Oz > wrote:
> 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...

Yeah, I know it probably sounded like a right retard question.
I was just wondering whether there were any human edible crops
that could be grown in such lands that would meet our energy needs?
I doubt blueberries count.

-------------
Second generation biofuels would probably be basically cellulose, but they
will still need to be planted on ground where vehicles can work, and the
ground will have to be ploughed.



> >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.

So the ecological efficiency angle would suggest using
marginal lands for grazing animals and cultivatable land
just for crops, with fertilizers providing the fertility?

--------------
Yes, and the old way of finishing livestock on the lowlands on the
by-products of food crops (grain not good enough for human consumption,
sugar beet pulp made from the beet after the sugar has been extracted, maize
Gluten, made after the corn starch has been extracted, that sort of thing)
is also efficient because it is easier and more energy efficient to move the
animal to the food than the food to the animal. Not only that but it
produces a source of animal manure in the arable areas thus helping to
replemish soil organic matter and fertility

Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...


Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
the observation that land has value to animals as well
as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
than the hills and moors?
----------------

yes, because of the higher fertility. The more food that is there the more
things that can be supported on that food. The advantage of the less fertile
areas is they support specialist plants, some of which need grazing pressure
to keep down more vigourous competitors.
It is something that is pretty obviously really, complex ecosystems need
complex management and simple one size fits all solutions aren't going to
work



so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
season?
--------------

not sure where that idea comes from. We ran dairy cows here and cows would
go into a field for a couple of days, then move to the next field while the
first field freshened up again. It might be worth looking up 'Paddock
grazing' on google, althrough the US might have a different system under the
same term
With beef cattle we have kept the same cattle on the same land throughout
the grazing season, just increasing and then decreasing the numbers to match
grass growth.

Jim Webster

On Mar 8, 12:15*am, Oz > wrote:
> 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.

I meant to write "I don't understand why *she* [Julie] appears to
think, etc.
Sorry for the confusion.
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Buxqi > writes
>I meant to write "I don't understand why *she* [Julie] appears to
>think, etc.
>Sorry for the confusion.

No problem.

Note that pearl has long since been killfiled here, so I don't see the
whole thread.

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

Buxqi > writes
>On Mar 8, 12:19*am, Oz > wrote:
>> 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...
>
>Yeah, I know it probably sounded like a right retard question.
>I was just wondering whether there were any human edible crops
>that could be grown in such lands that would meet our energy needs?
>I doubt blueberries count.

Blueberries? er, no.

>So the ecological efficiency angle would suggest using
>marginal lands for grazing animals and cultivatable land
>just for crops, with fertilizers providing the fertility?

That's about right. Funnily that's pretty well what we have in the UK
(and probably elsewhere), with minor but significant movement of
nutrients between the two zones.

Some years ago we did do a paper exercise on very marginal lands and
water usage. It turned out that watering livestock with your water
supply gave the maximum return because in very low rainfall areas you
cannot produce arable crops, but watered livestock can forage over wide
areas essentially harvesting the very low level rainfall. Using the
watering for arable crops gave only a minute percentage of the grazed
system.

Or, put another way, the indigenous people were already using a maximal
system to support themselves and their livestock. This probably wasn't
due to seeing the wide picture, rather it outcompeted alternative
systems. Darwin rules OK?

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

Buxqi > writes
>Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My interest in ecological
>efficiency is based largely upon the observation that land has value to
>animals as well as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast majority
>of cropland could support much more wildlife than the hills and moors?

Yes, of course that is true. Simply on biomass production.

Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
former means more food AND more wildlife.

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

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> pearl > wrote:
>
>
> > Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>
> But non intensive grazing can be good for managibng grassland for
> conservation. Next week I hope to get a small number of Shetlands on my
> reserve for a few weeks.
>
> --
> Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/

Hi Bob. Yes, occasional grazing by free-roaming native herbivores
who co-evolved with the habitat is a whole other story altogether...

'Wild horses munch desolate marshland back to life

By Paul Majendie Fri Apr 13, 6:37 AM ET

CANTERBURY, England (Reuters) - Close to the cathedral city of
Canterbury, wild horses linked to sinister Nazi experiments are helping
to bring wildlife and rare birds back to once desolate marshlands.

In an intriguing ecological exercise that could revitalize the countryside,
naturalistic grazing is the environmental buzzword -- the horses basically
munch the marshes back to life.

The hardy Koniks, bred in Poland from the now extinct European Tarpan,
are superbly adapted to living on wetlands and revitalize reed beds as they
graze.
...
"They are almost like little farmers selecting the plants they want. There is
harmony between the plants and the animals who have evolved together
over millions of years. Man has taken away this harmony," Smith said.

"It is wonderful use of our land which could be teeming with wildlife again.
We have already seen egrets back nesting on the site," he told Reuters.
...
Tarpans roamed all over Britain until hunted to extinction in Neolithic
times. They survived in central Europe until pure breeds finally
disappeared at the turn of the 20th century.

Polish scientists, noticing that Tarpan-colored foals were being born to
local mares, successfully bred back horses with similar characteristics
and called them Koniks -- Polish for pony.
....
So that is how, after a tortuous path through equine history, a herd of
Koniks from Holland ended up in this cathedral city bringing nature
full circle in the land where they were once hunted to extinction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070413/lf_nm/horses_dc

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Seago" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> pearl > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Intensive grazing by domesticated herbivores degrades land.
>>
>> But non intensive grazing can be good for managibng grassland for
>> conservation. Next week I hope to get a small number of Shetlands on my
>> reserve for a few weeks.
>>
>> --
>> Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
>
> Hi Bob. Yes, occasional grazing by free-roaming native herbivores
> who co-evolved with the habitat is a whole other story altogether...

it is, but unfortunately on a massively overcrowed island there are limits
to just how much free roaming the herbivores can do. In the Lake district we
have free roaming sheep who are naturally hefted to sections of the fell
which have the advantage over horses in that not only do they help control
the grasslands but you can eat them as well so they add to the amount of
food available

Jim Webster

Oz wrote:
> Buxqi > writes
>> I meant to write "I don't understand why *she* [Julie] appears to
>> think, etc.
>> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> No problem.
>
> Note that pearl has long since been killfiled here, so I don't see the
> whole thread.
>
I believe you also have Pete killfiled Oz so you won't see Julie either.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

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

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:35:15 +0000, Old Codger
> wrote:

>Oz wrote:
>> Buxqi > writes
>>> I meant to write "I don't understand why *she* [Julie] appears to
>>> think, etc.
>>> Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> No problem.
>>
>> Note that pearl has long since been killfiled here, so I don't see the
>> whole thread.
>>
>I believe you also have Pete killfiled Oz so you won't see Julie either.

You must have a very long tongue if you think it will reach his arse
all the way from Essex?

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:26:06 -0800 (PST), Buxqi >
wrote:

>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.

Wildlife usually lives well within it's means, habitat, food etc. This
means they breed in line with what the habitat/food will cope with.
Some years they have many young, others they will have none. Keep
killing the wildlife and it forces what is known as "the rebound
effect" this means wildlife will breed at maximum density until the
population stabilises again, which never happens with culls and
slaughter.

Despite what pro hunt tell you. It suits them to have maximum numbers
of prey animals as it means they don't have to work too hard to find a
kill. Kills = money and lots of it.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:23:51 -0800 (PST), Buxqi >
wrote:

>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.

Then you're a fool.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:21:32 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"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,

It does.

> but keeping an 'optimum' population means that those individuals
>who are there are healthier.

You don't *keep* anything in nature. It's either natural or not. We
have hundreds of years of pro hunt nuts *controlling* wildlife, and
now the conservationists are complaining we have far too many animals
to live within the available land. This is down to pro hunt mentality
of trying to ensure there are plenty of animals to kill for fun.

> 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.

That's a blatant lie and a very surprising one from the CLA I wonder
what they will have to say about that?

If there is no food/habitat the animals will not breed in the first
place.

>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)

None of which concerns pro hunt like you in the slightest.

Osvald Hotz De Baar wrote:
>
> Wildlife usually lives well within it's means, habitat, food etc.

Pete
I suggest a trip to the library for a basic book on Plant and Animal Ecology
for your education.
Then you would make a little less of a fool of yourself with postings like
this.

--

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

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:35:48 -0000, "Jill" >
wrote:

>Osvald Hotz De Baar wrote:
>>
>> Wildlife usually lives well within it's means, habitat, food etc.
>
>I suggest a trip to the library for a basic book on Plant and Animal Ecology
>for your education.

I'm surprised you know what a library is for jilly as you obviously
don't read much!

"rebound effect" is what you are looking for jilly. Pro hunt loons
like yourself don't want animals living within their means as the
populations would drop by 80% in ten years. This means you'd actually
have to work hard for that fun kill.

In article >,
pearl > wrote:


> Hi Bob. Yes, occasional grazing by free-roaming native herbivores who
> co-evolved with the habitat is a whole other story altogether...
Hi

> The hardy Koniks, bred in Poland from the now extinct European Tarpan,
> are superbly adapted to living on wetlands and revitalize reed beds as
> they graze. .. "They are almost like little farmers selecting the plants
> they want. There is harmony between the plants and the animals who have
> evolved together over millions of years. Man has taken away this
> harmony," Smith said.

I have seen the koniks in Redgrave Fen Suffolk, and also in Poland where
they like to call them Tarpan, and fine looking beasts they are.

> "It is wonderful use of our land which could be teeming with wildlife
> again. We have already seen egrets back nesting on the site," he told
> Reuters. .. Tarpans roamed all over Britain until hunted to extinction
> in Neolithic times. They survived in central Europe until pure breeds
> finally disappeared at the turn of the 20th century.

> Polish scientists, noticing that Tarpan-colored foals were being born to
> local mares, successfully bred back horses with similar characteristics
> and called them Koniks -- Polish for pony. ... So that is how, after a
> tortuous path through equine history, a herd of Koniks from Holland
> ended up in this cathedral city bringing nature full circle in the land
> where they were once hunted to extinction.

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070413/lf_nm/horses_dc

--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/

Jill wrote:
> Osvald Hotz De Baar wrote:
>> Wildlife usually lives well within it's means, habitat, food etc.
>
> Pete
> I suggest a trip to the library for a basic book on Plant and Animal Ecology
> for your education.
> Then you would make a little less of a fool of yourself with postings like
> this.

"There's no fool like an old fool" comes to mind
whenever I think of pete. He's beyond the age of
learning to learn from his mistakes. He likes being
stupid.

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:06:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Jill wrote:
>> Osvald Hotz De Baar wrote:
>>> Wildlife usually lives well within it's means, habitat, food etc.
>>
>> Pete
>> I suggest a trip to the library for a basic book on Plant and Animal Ecology
>> for your education.
>> Then you would make a little less of a fool of yourself with postings like
>> this.
>
>He likes being stupid.

You don't have a choice jonny.

"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> ...
>
> > --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> > wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>
> Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> animals like sheep?
>
> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---

Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
the observation that land has value to animals as well
as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
than the hills and moors?

---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.

"An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
vegetables 15 times more."

Currently only 25% of the UK's "agricultural land" is used
to produce human-consumable plant foods. Going by the
above figures, in order to replace the 'food value' of meat:
75% / 10 = an additional 7.5% of current agricultural land.
10% of current total agricultural land is now used to grow
grain crops for livestock, so there's you're needed 7.5% +.

And remember - we've just freed-up vast areas for Nature,
Britain needn't be a vast grass mono-culture animal farm.
------

> 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

Thanks.

--- A pleasure. ----

> 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...and_garden/veg...
>
> 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 ----

Interesting points. However is that not part of the point of
rotations,
so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
season?

----- Again, large herbivores really do need a lot of land,
so with a herd of any size, you require a large acreage of
pasture. That's vast areas of grass, likely seeded as grass
and sprayed with herbicides, and even grazed once a year
will prevent regeneration of natural flora - food and shelter.
In addition, to protect 'livestock' and feed, farmers will
often kill native wild predators, 'competitors' and 'pests'.
----

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

The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
consuming animal fats in all circumstances.

--- Meaning, as a last resort to survive? Are you? ---

> "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"

Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
from cruel animal practices.

--- There's no such thing as "kind slaughter". ---

> > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
>
> Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
>
> > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
>
> Remind me....
>
> --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---

Yup. I will try to find it.

--- Here you go:

'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
of the real situation.

52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
20% are moderately exploited
17% are overexploited
7% are depleted
1% is recovering from depletion

The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
(maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
...
We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
at risk of collapse.
...'
http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_..._a_problem.php
----

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

Look up my post on "Forest Gardening". There are other,
sustainable eco- and wildlife-friendly ways we can produce
food for ourselves. It doesn't have to be this "us or them".

> ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
>
> "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
> an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
> peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
> vegetables 15 times more."
>
> Currently only 25% of the UK's "agricultural land" is used
> to produce human-consumable plant foods. Going by the
> above figures, in order to replace the 'food value' of meat:
> 75% / 10 = an additional 7.5% of current agricultural land.
> 10% of current total agricultural land is now used to grow
> grain crops for livestock, so there's you're needed 7.5% +.
>
> And remember - we've just freed-up vast areas for Nature,
> Britain needn't be a vast grass mono-culture animal farm.
> ------
>
> > 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
>
> Thanks.
>
> --- A pleasure. ----
>
> > 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...and_garden/veg...
> >
> > 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 ----
>
> Interesting points. However is that not part of the point of
> rotations,
> so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
> season?
>
> ----- Again, large herbivores really do need a lot of land,
> so with a herd of any size, you require a large acreage of
> pasture. That's vast areas of grass, likely seeded as grass
> and sprayed with herbicides, and even grazed once a year
> will prevent regeneration of natural flora - food and shelter.
> In addition, to protect 'livestock' and feed, farmers will
> often kill native wild predators, 'competitors' and 'pests'.
> ----
>
> > > > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
> >
> > > I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> > > me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> > > briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
> >
> > > ---
> > > But that's what addicts always say. It's called "denial".
> >
> > Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.
> >
> > --- You transgress your own moral convictions for it.
> >
> > "They have moral rights."
>
> The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
> consuming animal fats in all circumstances.
>
> --- Meaning, as a last resort to survive? Are you? ---
>
> > "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"
>
> Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
> from cruel animal practices.
>
> --- There's no such thing as "kind slaughter". ---
>
> > > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
> >
> > Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
> >
> > > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
> >
> > Remind me....
> >
> > --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> > ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---
>
> Yup. I will try to find it.
>
> --- Here you go:
>
> 'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
> state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
> generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
> problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
> stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
> of the real situation.
>
> 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
> 20% are moderately exploited
> 17% are overexploited
> 7% are depleted
> 1% is recovering from depletion
>
> The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
> are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
> exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
> (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
> total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
> exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
> 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
> ..
> We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
> the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
> at risk of collapse.
> ..'
> http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_..._a_problem.php
> ----
>
> > > 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.
>
>
>

"Oz" > wrote in message ...

> Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
> completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
> former means more food AND more wildlife.
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.


'Dust Bowl Writ Large?
By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
1 October 2007

Climate change and endangered species may dominate the headlines about
the planet's health, but a researcher who has been studying soil erosion
warns of a similar crisis beneath our feet. The news is worrisome, he says,
but a worldwide catastrophe is not inevitable--if agricultural nations quickly
adopt the best new farming practices.

Each year, the world's agricultural land loses, on average, about 1 millimeter
of topsoil. That might not seem like much, but it takes 10 years for the soil
to replace that loss, and any topsoil loss at all makes the land less able to
support crops without expensive infusions of chemical fertilizers. To
combat erosion's effects, some farmers have adopted less harmful tilling
methods, but the vast majority has resisted the best practice of all: no-till
farming, which replaces the plow with mechanical seed drills that barely
disturb the surface of the soil (ScienceNOW, 7 August). At present, only
7% of the planet's agricultural land receives no-till farming, most of it in
North America and South America.

To determine how fast soil is being lost and whether anything can be
done to stop or reverse the trend, geomorphologist David Montgomery
of the University of Washington, Seattle, has been analyzing the scientific
literature on erosion. In the September issue of GSA Today, published by
the Geological Society of America, Montgomery draws two conclusions.
First, conventional agriculture, which is still practiced widely, creates
soil-erosion rates that exceed soil-production rates by up to several orders
of magnitude. Second, the application of no-till and organic farming --
which naturally builds topsoil--as well as crop rotation, can sustain
agricultural productivity while maintaining the fertility of soils indefinitely.

"The longevity of our present society depends not so much on intrinsic
limitations to the lifetime of societies, but on the way we treat the land,"
says Montgomery, the author of Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations. One
bright spot, he says, is that the United States and Canada, two of the
world's biggest food producers, have adopted soil-conservation farming
methods to a great extent. It's "one of the few areas of environmental
concern where we are ahead of the curve," Montgomery says. Still, he's
concerned about the promotion of corn for biofuels. If not done with care,
he says, the trend "risks reintroducing very erosive agricultural methods,"
thereby switching "an energy system based on mining oil for one based
on mining soil."

Soil scientist John Reganold of Washington State University in Pullman
calls Montgomery's conclusions "right on" and seconds his warnings
about erosion. We're already feeling the effects of agricultural soil loss,
he says, especially on hillsides. Grain yields, for example, could be
significantly higher if soil erosion rates were cut. Along with no-till
methods, Reganold foresees improved soil conservation with organic
farming systems and via the development of perennial grains, which do
not require reseeding each year.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1001/1

'A study on conventional and alternative farming systems for tomatoes
over four years indicate that organic and low-input agriculture produce
yields comparable to conventional systems. Nitrogen (N) availability
was the most important factor limiting yield in organic systems, and
can be satisfied by biological inputs.

Another experiment examined organic and conventional potatoes and
sweet corn over three years. Results showed that yield and vitamin C
content of potatoes were not affected by the two different regimes.
While one variety of conventional corn out-produced the organic, there
was no difference between the two in yield of another variety or the
vitamin C or E contents. Results indicate that long-term application of
composts is producing higher soil fertility and comparable plant growth.

A review of replicated research results in seven different US Universities
and from Rodale Research Center, Pennsylvania and the Michael Fields
Center, Wisconsin over the past 10 years showed that organic farming
systems resulted in yields comparable to industrial, high input agriculture.

Corn: With 69 total cropping seasons, organic yields were 94% of
conventionally produced corn.

Soybeans: Data from five states over 55 growing seasons showed
organic yields were 94% of conventional yields.

Wheat: Two institutions with 16 cropping year experiments showed
that organic wheat produced 97% of the conventional yields.

Tomatoes: 14 years of comparative research on tomatoes showed no
yield differences.

The most remarkable results of organic farming, however, have come
from small farmers in developing countries. Case studies of organic
practices show dramatic increases in yields as well as benefits to soil
quality, reduction in pests and diseases and general improvement in
taste and nutritional content. For example, in Brazil the use of green
manures and cover crops increased maize yields by between 20%
and 250%; in Tigray, Ethiopia, yields of crops from composted plots
were 3-5 times higher than those treated only with chemicals; yield
increases of 175% have been reported from farms in Nepal adopting
agro-ecological practices; and in Peru the restoration of traditional
Incan terracing has led to increases of 150% for a range of upland crops.
.....'
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicAgriculture.php

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> pearl > wrote:

> > The hardy Koniks, bred in Poland from the now extinct European Tarpan,
> > are superbly adapted to living on wetlands and revitalize reed beds as
> > they graze. .. "They are almost like little farmers selecting the plants
> > they want. There is harmony between the plants and the animals who have
> > evolved together over millions of years. Man has taken away this
> > harmony," Smith said.
>
> I have seen the koniks in Redgrave Fen Suffolk, and also in Poland where
> they like to call them Tarpan, and fine looking beasts they are.

Pics: http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/horsesinhistory/konik.shtml .

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

Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
contention anyhow.

> "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
> an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
> peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
> vegetables 15 times more."

I've seen a spread of estimates. Growing crops for animals
is an inefficient use of land. Grazing animals is also inefficient
*assuming* that the land in question is cultivatable...

> Currently only 25% of the UK's "agricultural land" is used
> to produce human-consumable plant foods. *Going by the
> above figures, in order to replace the 'food value' of meat:
> 75% / 10 = an additional 7.5% of current agricultural land.
> 10% of current total agricultural land is now used to grow
> grain crops for livestock, so there's you're needed 7.5% +.

Two problems with the analysis though correcting the
first would actually make your case stronger. A: You should
be measuring calories per acre rather than protein per acre.
B: You should consider the % of world agricultural land or if
you want to consider just the food needs of the UK, the %
of agricultural land used to grow food for consumption in
the UK. % agricultural land in the UK is meaningless in
this context given how much crosses national borders.

> And remember - we've just freed-up vast areas for Nature,
> Britain needn't be a vast grass mono-culture animal farm.

If we stopped growing mono-crops for animal feed it would
indeed free up vast areas for nature. If we use marginal lands
to raise animals it would free up fertile areas for nature.
Admittedly the acreage of fertile areas would be considerably
smaller than the acreage of marginal lands taken up but
then again the fertile areas can support more wildlife per acre
than the marginal. No?

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

How is the killing of native wild predators, 'competitors'
and pests to protect livestock different to farmers killing
pests to protect their crops?

> > > > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>
> > > I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> > > me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> > > briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
>
> > > ---
> > > But that's what addicts always say. It's called "denial".
>
> > Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.
>
> > --- You transgress your own moral convictions for it.
>
> > "They have moral rights."
>
> The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
> consuming animal fats in all circumstances.
>
> --- Meaning, as a last resort to survive?

I guess when I talk of animals having rights I mean that
we have an obligation to high welfare standards for the
animals we raise. I don't treat animal life as sanctitious.

>*Are you? ---
>
> > "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"
>
> Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
> from cruel animal practices.
>
> --- There's no such thing as "kind slaughter". ---

Compared with natural deaths?

> > > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
>
> > Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
>
> > > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
>
> > Remind me....
>
> > --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> > ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---
>
> Yup. I will try to find it.
>
> --- Here you go:
>
> 'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
> state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
> generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
> problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
> stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
> of the real situation.
>
> 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
> 20% are moderately exploited
> 17% are overexploited
> 7% are depleted
> 1% is recovering from depletion
>
> The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
> are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
> exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
> (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
> total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
> exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
> 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
> ..
> We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
> the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
> at risk of collapse.
> ..'http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php
> ----
This is not an indication that we can't fish sustainably but
that in many cases we don't. It seems highly improbable that
from an area of over 1 billion cubic kilometres of water, there is
not enough fish to make a meaningful contribution to our diet.
Indeed we have harvested the oceans for millenia and it's only
in recent years that overfishing has become a problem.

Nor is the problem simply down to population growth - if it were
we could simply reduce fish consumption per person so that
total fish consumption remained constant. Problems: fishing
is now highly efficient, and can easily locate and wipe out whole
swarms at a time. Modern methods: (a) have significant bycatch,
which is wasteful if nothing else, (b) in some cases damage the
seabed thus harming populations not directly affected (c) target
a limited number of species heavily. There are over 100 edible
species surrounding the UK shores. How many do we eat in
significant quantities? (d) frequently target long-living,
slow-reproducing species


However just as with meat and vegetables, one can choose
which fish to eat thus avoiding the problems described above.
At the very least we can eat less popular species and/or
species with greater reproduction rates. We can choose line
caught fish or hand picked shellfish. We can choose fish that
is recognized by the marine stewardship conservastion trust
as being from sustainable sources.
>
>
> > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Mar 9, 8:53*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in .. .
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
> > On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> > > On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > > > --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> > > > wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>
> > > Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> > > that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> > > animals like sheep?
>
> > > ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> > > wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> > > Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>
> > Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
> > interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
> > the observation that land has value to animals as well
> > as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> > majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
> > than the hills and moors?
>
> Look up my post on "Forest Gardening".

It's an intruiging idea. Where can I buy the produce of
forest gardening? Could any of the products reasonably
become dietary staples like grain or beans?

>*There are other,
> sustainable eco- and wildlife-friendly ways we can produce
> food for ourselves. *It doesn't have to be this "us or them".

A given amount of land can produce a finite amount of food
and all animals, human and nonhuman need to eat.....

> > ---- *That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
>
> > "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
> > an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
> > peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
> > vegetables 15 times more."
>
> > Currently only 25% of the UK's "agricultural land" is used
> > to produce human-consumable plant foods. *Going by the
> > above figures, in order to replace the 'food value' of meat:
> > 75% / 10 = an additional 7.5% of current agricultural land.
> > 10% of current total agricultural land is now used to grow
> > grain crops for livestock, so there's you're needed 7.5% +.
>
> > And remember - we've just freed-up vast areas for Nature,
> > Britain needn't be a vast grass mono-culture animal farm.
> > ------
>
> > > 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
>
> > Thanks.
>
> > --- A pleasure. *----
>
> > > 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...and_garden/veg...
>
> > > 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...roamed.htm----
>
> > Interesting points. However is that not part of the point of
> > rotations,
> > so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
> > season?
>
> > ----- Again, large herbivores really do need a lot of land,
> > so with a herd of any size, you require a large acreage of
> > pasture. *That's vast areas of grass, likely seeded as grass
> > and sprayed with herbicides, and even grazed once a year
> > will prevent regeneration of natural flora - food and shelter.
> > In addition, to protect 'livestock' and feed, farmers will
> > often kill native wild predators, 'competitors' and 'pests'.
> > ----
>
> > > > > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>
> > > > I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> > > > me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> > > > briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
>
> > > > ---
> > > > But that's what addicts always say. It's called "denial".
>
> > > Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.
>
> > > --- You transgress your own moral convictions for it.
>
> > > "They have moral rights."
>
> > The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
> > consuming animal fats in all circumstances.
>
> > --- Meaning, as a last resort to survive? *Are you? ---
>
> > > "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"
>
> > Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
> > from cruel animal practices.
>
> > --- There's no such thing as "kind slaughter". ---
>
> > > > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
>
> > > Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
>
> > > > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
>
> > > Remind me....
>
> > > --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> > > ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---
>
> > Yup. I will try to find it.
>
> > --- Here you go:
>
> > 'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
> > state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
> > generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
> > problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
> > stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
> > of the real situation.
>
> > 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
> > 20% are moderately exploited
> > 17% are overexploited
> > 7% are depleted
> > 1% is recovering from depletion
>
> > The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
> > are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
> > exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
> > (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
> > total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
> > exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
> > 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
> > ..
> > We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
> > the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
> > at risk of collapse.
> > ..'
> >http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_..._a_problem.php
> > ----
>
> > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
>> completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
>> former means more food AND more wildlife.
>>
>> --
>> Oz
>> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
> 'Dust Bowl Writ Large?

yep, the original dust bowl was caused by arable agriculture replacing
grazing. If the Americans had just been happy to eat the meat and not insist
on growing crops, they would have been fine.
Ironically modern No-till systems which do reduce this erosian if you are
forced into arable, are so much better with GM crops (indeed it is one of
the reasons they were developmed)
Or of course, organic agriculture, where you integrate ploughing and grazing
to replemish the nutrients also works
The paper you quote actually backs up everything we have been trying to tell
you

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
> news:ab0f0832-283c-411c-b7b9- .
>
> "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
> an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
> peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
> vegetables 15 times more."

And I hereby offer pearl the use of an acre so that she can prove to us all
how she can survive on an acre in the UK with an vegan diet purely off that
patch of land

Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message news:59efd2f5-c0db-4189-a512-
>

Look up my post on "Forest Gardening".

It's an intruiging idea. Where can I buy the produce of
forest gardening? Could any of the products reasonably
become dietary staples like grain or beans?

--------------------

the problem with forest gardening is the yields are too low for sustaining
world populations and it doesn't happen in any significant extent

Jim Webster

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:47:47 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>> news:ab0f0832-283c-411c-b7b9- .
>>
>> "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
>> an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
>> peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
>> vegetables 15 times more."
>
>And I hereby offer pearl the use of an acre so that she can prove to us all
>how she can survive on an acre in the UK with an vegan diet purely off that
>patch of land

You sort of miss the point Jumbo but no surprises there.

Is that an official CLA statement?

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:48:48 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"Buxqi" > wrote in message news:59efd2f5-c0db-4189-a512-
> >
>
>Look up my post on "Forest Gardening".
>
>It's an intruiging idea. Where can I buy the produce of
>forest gardening? Could any of the products reasonably
>become dietary staples like grain or beans?
>
> --------------------
>
>the problem with forest gardening is the yields are too low for sustaining
>world populations

Crap, half the world lives on their own produce!

> and it doesn't happen in any significant extent

That's not to say it cant.

The trouble with you Jim is you have been brought up on a handout
culture where to live you think holding your hand out does it! If you
actually had to work to survive you'd soon find you don't need a 1000
head of cattle, or a 1000 tonnes of wheat.

Your duff advice is astounding.