> > "'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the
> > primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content."
> >
> > It might be,
>
> "So not only is the Australian Gov. trying to mislead everyone,
> but logic, indeed all rational thought, has just left the building."
>
> Huh, what is this in reference to? Nothing was said about being
> misleading

"Your sleazy little demotion of their **statement of fact** to:

'might .. Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than
may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."

What a silly reaction. "Might" leaves open room for changing ones mind if
evidence should be presented that moves it. This is unlike the food cult
folk for whom the world is black and white with no such room ever ever
possible. That is one major difference between science and food cult propaganda.

> > but how do you then account for the results as mentioned
> > above. This was a controlled experiment from start to end to control
> > all factors with the only difference being level of organic methods
> > used. This control extended from the planting of the plants to the
> end
> > product in animals fed the plants.
>
> How so?

"Huh? Can't you even recognise your own pro-chem'crap crap?"

What a silly remark, you were asked a question about the methodology used
and this is the best you can do?

> Not at all, they used very good scientific methodology.
> Keeping all factors except organic methods as constant as possible they
> varied the degree of organic method. It was in one case all organic, one
> mixed and one not organic at all. If the organic method level was a
> vital factor then one would predict that the outcomes would vary as the
> degree of organic method varied.

"Both organic and organic+pesticides were fertilized the same way."

Not at all, show please the exact text showing this. The article is
available on line, show us.

> It did not and results were constant
> across all cases. It would be hard to think of a methodology that would
> be better then that.

> "Look at the input levels.. they're tipped in favour
> of the ag-chem'..."

Really, the review of the article you present says the oppisite as one of
its observations, more on that below.

> ROTFLOL!! Now grok 'funded by chemical companies', harikari."
>
> Would be happy to see evidence of that in the specific case in question.

"They can't be serious... If discrepancy in inputs wasn't enough....."

Btw, a danish government foundation funded the study, now you may get up off
the floor. As for inputs:

"A review of the study's experimental design, however, raises serious
questions about whether this study's results actually support the more
narrow conclusions stated by the authors. The team grew the fruits and
vegetables in both the "conventional" and organic plots on soils that were
previously managed organically. Accordingly, the conventional crops enjoyed
all the nutrient-enhancing and plant-health benefits of heightened soil
quality from pr The study was carefully conducted and valid for testing the
impacts of the production conditions embedded in its experimental design,
but by virtue of this design, little weight should be placed on its
findings in terms of the differences in conventional and organic management
on crop nutritional quality."

Here is what the actual paper says on this point:

"For each crop, all treatments were carried out on
the same or adjacent experimental fields, which were
divided according to the three cultivation strategies so
that cultivation took place in similar soils and under
similar climatic conditions, and the ingredients were
generally harvested and treated at the same time. All
LIminusP crops were grown on established (>3 years)
organic soil. LIplusP crops were grown on previously
organic soil, except for rapeseed which was grown
on conventional soil. HIplusP crops were grown on
previously conventional soil, except for potato and
apple which were grown on previously organic soil."

The review you presented is wrong on that point, results can not be
attributed alone to having all organic prepared soils in common. Your
previous related remark fails for the same reason.

I do agree with them on one point, one should not conclude that even though
this study of major and trace minerals was found to be no different we
should not reserve judgement about other possible nutrients. In other
words, "it might be" just as I began my discussion in contrast to the food
cultist's black and white.

However that being said, as good science research does, they reviewed
the known literature about the range of nutrients not just minerals
which was the question they asked. They write that in other studies of
plant content of various nutrients and of animal studies results are
mixed according to authors who looked at the broader question.

This includes no doubt the kind of bits from this and that research in
various unknown research contexts you presented previously , but not
those saying otherwise obviously. Food cult folk always cherry pick
results, it is dishonest science.

This is typical in science, over time these questions are sorted out and a
consensus reached based on the entire evidence. "It might be" stands as
the correct observation based on their review and it does not support the
black and white propaganda.

"Happy? ."

Not yet, there is no consensus as above. More important how can one be
happy when the request for a study of the same question of equal quality of
methodology is yet outstanding on your part?



A

> wrote in message u...

> "A review of the study's experimental design, however, raises serious
> questions about whether this study's results actually support the more
> narrow conclusions stated by the authors. The team grew the fruits and
> vegetables in both the "conventional" and organic plots on soils that were
> previously managed organically. Accordingly, the conventional crops enjoyed
> all the nutrient-enhancing and plant-health benefits of heightened soil
> quality from pr

prior organic soil management. Given the series
of studies published in the U.S. in the last three years pointing to soil quality
enhancement in organic systems as the major cause, or explanation of
observed differences in nutritional quality, it is not surprising that this Danish
study found no statistically significant difference in mineral levels in the
organic and "conventional" crops that were harvested and fed to the rats.
In addition, the organic plots were grown under limited nitrogen, whereas the
conventional crop was not. On the basis of the criteria the Center developed
to judge the scientific validity of comparison studies, and used in completing
our March 2008 report on the nutrient content of organic food,
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=126
this Danish study is clearly "invalid" for purposes of comparing the nutrient
content of conventional and organic foods.

> The study was carefully conducted and valid for testing the
> impacts of the production conditions embedded in its experimental design,
> but by virtue of this design, little weight should be placed on its
> findings in terms of the differences in conventional and organic management
> on crop nutritional quality."
>
> Here is what the actual paper says on this point:

No. This is actually from a different, earlier study.

> "For each crop, all treatments were carried out on
> the same or adjacent experimental fields, which were
> divided according to the three cultivation strategies so
> that cultivation took place in similar soils and under
> similar climatic conditions, and the ingredients were
> generally harvested and treated at the same time. All
> LIminusP crops were grown on established (>3 years)
> organic soil. LIplusP crops were grown on previously
> organic soil, except for rapeseed which was grown
> on conventional soil. HIplusP crops were grown on
> previously conventional soil, except for potato and
> apple which were grown on previously organic soil."

'Organic food and health - status and future perspectives
Lauridsen, Charlotte; Jørgensen, Henry; Halekoh, Ulrich and
Christensen, Lars Porskjær (2005)
Organic food and health - status and future perspectives.
Paper presented at Researching Sustainable Systems - International
Scientific Conference on Organic Agriculture, Adelaide, Australia,
September 21-23, 2005
...
Even though most of the measured variables (biomarkers of health)
showed no differences between the experimental diets, the actual
recorded differences were all likely to be in favour of the "organic"
diet contrasted with the "conventional" diet. However, the results
presently obtained cannot be extrapolated to all organic and
conventional cropping systems, mainly because crops were grown
only in one replication.
...'
http://orgprints.org/4370/

>> "For each crop, all treatments were carried out on
>> the same or adjacent experimental fields, which were
>> divided according to the three cultivation strategies so
>> that cultivation took place in similar soils and under
>> similar climatic conditions, and the ingredients were
>> generally harvested and treated at the same time. All
>> LIminusP crops were grown on established (>3 years)
>> organic soil. LIplusP crops were grown on previously
>> organic soil, except for rapeseed which was grown
>> on conventional soil. HIplusP crops were grown on
>> previously conventional soil, except for potato and
>> apple which were grown on previously organic soil."
>
> 'Organic food and health - status and future perspectives
> Lauridsen, Charlotte; Jørgensen, Henry; Halekoh, Ulrich and
> Christensen, Lars Porskjær (2005)

"A paper you haven't read, and are INCOMPETENT to read."

You are right, partly. This is not the paper in question but looking at
a review of it seems to suggest it is an early version published in
another place. The results and the reviewer's comments are similar to
the paper in question. As to my ability to read it you are in no place
to judge as you know next to nothing about me. There are some weeks
when I read several scientific journals and many papers given my
research interests and current work.

"'Organic food and health - status and future perspectives
Lauridsen, Charlotte; Jørgensen, Henry; Halekoh, Ulrich and
Christensen, Lars Porskjær (2005)
Organic food and health - status and future perspectives.
Paper presented at Researching Sustainable Systems - International
Scientific Conference on Organic Agriculture, Adelaide, Australia,
September 21-23, 2005
...
Even though most of the measured variables (biomarkers of health)
showed no differences between the experimental diets, the actual
recorded differences were all likely to be in favour of the "organic"
diet contrasted with the "conventional" diet. However, the results
presently obtained cannot be extrapolated to all organic and
conventional cropping systems, mainly because crops were grown
only in one replication.
...'
http://orgprints.org/4370/"

I looked at that, it appears to be a review of the same research
presented at a meeting before publication in the paper under discussion.
It reaches a similar conclusion as the other review you presented.
However unlike that review we have only a tiny snip here so evaluation
is impossible. Were I to follow your lead here in poor argumentation, I
would point out the inherent bias of an organic sourcedoing the review.
But I will not do so because of the same absence of information.

Poor try, certainly no cigar, organic tobacco or not.

Am I "happy" yet? Nope, you ain't shown us a paper addressing the same
question as in the paper under question with equal quality methodology
used. This regardless of it being requested of you some posts ago.

> you are in no place
> to judge as you know next to nothing about me.

"I wasn't talking about you; I was talking about lesley. I am well
placed to judge lesley's ability to read that kind of material: she has"

I realized that after posting and then reading her post you were
responding to, I ask your pardon for my confusion.

> wrote in message u...
> "'Organic food and health - status and future perspectives
> Lauridsen, Charlotte; Jørgensen, Henry; Halekoh, Ulrich and
> Christensen, Lars Porskjær (2005)
> Organic food and health - status and future perspectives.
> Paper presented at Researching Sustainable Systems - International
> Scientific Conference on Organic Agriculture, Adelaide, Australia,
> September 21-23, 2005
> ..
> Even though most of the measured variables (biomarkers of health)
> showed no differences between the experimental diets, the actual
> recorded differences were all likely to be in favour of the "organic"
> diet contrasted with the "conventional" diet. However, the results
> presently obtained cannot be extrapolated to all organic and
> conventional cropping systems, mainly because crops were grown
> only in one replication.
> ..'
> http://orgprints.org/4370/"
>
> I looked at that, it appears to be a review of the same research
> presented at a meeting before publication in the paper under discussion.

Ok, I've located the 2008 paper at
http://www.okologi.dk/PDFs/Kristensen_et_al_2008.pdf .

Interesting data - and we're back to B12 and the Cobalt Connection....

'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets

Cultivation system

Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
...
Co(µgkg?1) 2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
2002 82.3 76.8 70.6 '

Thanks!

> Am I "happy" yet? Nope, you ain't shown us a paper addressing the same
> question as in the paper under question with equal quality methodology
> used.

Like growing some of the "conventional" crops in organic soil?

> This regardless of it being requested of you some posts ago.

You were given this link some posts ago...
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=126

'"New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based
Organic Foods," State of Science Review, March 2008

Author(s):
Charles Benbrook
Xin Zhao
Jaime Yanez
Neal Davies
Preston Andrews

Forward By: Andrew Weil MD

This is the first major, indepth review of the published scientific literature
on the nutritional benefits of organic food completed since 2003.

Over 40 new studies have come out since the last review was carried out
-- studies that dramatically improve our ability to answer a basic question
-- are organic foods generally more nutritious than conventional foods?

The two-year project leading to this report required the creation of a
large Access database including the results of nearly 100 studies, and
development of methods to identify those studies that were both well-
designed and carefully conducted.

With the benefit of this research tool, which the Center will continuously
update and apply in future studies, we can now offer clearcut answers to
important, common questions about the nutritional superiority of organic
food.

The full report, executive summary, and supplemental information
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=124
are available from this site free of charge, and may be reproduced and
used for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution.
...
"New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based
Organic Foods," 53 page PDF; 19.5 MB)
http://www.organic-center.org/report...R_FINAL_V2.pdf

"New Evidence" Executive Summary
http://www.organic-center.org/report...mary_FINAL.pdf

"About the co-authors"
http://www.organic-center.org/report...co-authors.pdf

http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=126

Go knock yourself out.

> I looked at that, it appears to be a review of the same research
> presented at a meeting before publication in the paper under
discussion.

"Ok, I've located the 2008 paper at
http://www.okologi.dk/PDFs/Kristensen_et_al_2008.pdf . "

I would hope so as it was I who told you could find it online.


" 'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets

Cultivation system

Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
...
Co(µgkg?1)
2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
2002 82.3 76.8 70.6"

The article was not about vit b12, but let us look at it anyway even
knowing it is irrelevant to the topic.

Ah, but what do those numbers mean in the real world? What is the
threshold above which a particular level becomes significant? If you
knew statistics you would know those numbers are not significally
different.

Also, see that levels increased in all fields regardless of method used.
Your claim is that co should decrease with non-organic methods, if I
recall your previous posts. You also did not read carefully, they
discuss why in any type of field levels can change for many reasons.
'
"Thanks!"

My pleasure, always happy to educate others.

> Am I "happy" yet? Nope, you ain't shown us a paper addressing the
same
> question as in the paper under question with equal quality methodology
> used.

"Like growing some of the "conventional" crops in organic soil?"

Two compared to all, if the organic only fields should make such a
difference then their results should literally leap off the page showing
much better results in only those crops where organic and non-organic
fields were used in contrast , they did not. Recall you first claimed,
inaccurately, that the method "tipped" results in favor of non-organic
fields. So which is it?

> This regardless of it being requested of you some posts ago.

"You were given this link some posts ago...
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=126

'"New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based
Organic Foods," State of Science Review, March 2008"

Ah, sorry, no cigar again, regardless of organic tobacco or not.

The two studies are of two very different universes as to methodology.
My request was for a study on your part using the same kind of
methodology where as many factors were controlled as possible while the
organic method varied.

The above is an over view of research. Along side it we should not
forget the survey of literature the authors in the above article
presented, if you did read it as you claim you remain silent on it their
conclusion that there is a range of mixed results. This was one
motivation on their part to do the controlled study under discussion to
answer one part of the question..

So we are left where science most often leaves such questions, results
are mixed and more research is required as definitive results on which
to build a consensus remains to be done.

Sorry the real world is not black and white for you, it might be better
in future.

So sadly, I'm not happy yet, sorry.

> wrote in message u...
> > I looked at that, it appears to be a review of the same research
> > presented at a meeting before publication in the paper under
> discussion.
>
> "Ok, I've located the 2008 paper at
> http://www.okologi.dk/PDFs/Kristensen_et_al_2008.pdf . "
>
> I would hope so as it was I who told you could find it online.

Yes, you've a nasty habit of citing stuff without providing a link.

> " 'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets
>
> Cultivation system
>
> Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
> ..
> Co(µgkg?1) 2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
> 2002 82.3 76.8 70.6"
>
> The article was not about vit b12, but let us look at it anyway even
> knowing it is irrelevant to the topic.

You just can't be for real. What's the Subject line? Still clueless?

> Ah, but what do those numbers mean in the real world?

Potential DEFICIENCY.

> What is the
> threshold above which a particular level becomes significant? If you
> knew statistics you would know those numbers are not significally
> different.

If you knew about the geographical differences in cobalt levels you'd
understand that different farming methods could mean the difference
between there being adequate cobalt (B12 production) or not enough.

> Also, see that levels increased in all fields regardless of method used.

Levels fluctuated from year to year, but were highest in pure organic.

> Your claim is that co should decrease with non-organic methods, if I
> recall your previous posts.

And this study that you've brought to our attention supports that..

> You also did not read carefully, they
> discuss why in any type of field levels can change for many reasons.

So this data is basically meaningless now? Is that what you're saying?

> '
> "Thanks!"
>
> My pleasure, always happy to educate others.

You're doing a better job at entertaining others. Thanks again.

> > Am I "happy" yet? Nope, you ain't shown us a paper addressing the
> same
> > question as in the paper under question with equal quality methodology
> > used.
>
> "Like growing some of the "conventional" crops in organic soil?"
>
> Two compared to all,

Two out of six in 2001 (with rapeseed LIplusP in conventional soil),
then two crops out of the five grown in 2002 (no rapeseed grown).

> if the organic only fields should make such a
> difference then their results should literally leap off the page showing
> much better results in only those crops where organic and non-organic
> fields were used in contrast , they did not.

No? This literally leaps off the page and dances a merry jig...

'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets

Cultivation system

Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
...
Co(µgkg-1) 2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
2002 82.3 76.8 70.6'

How about:

'Fe(mg kg-1) 2001 87.6 81.4 83.1
2002 118 89.6 87.2'

Remember this?:

'"While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional food quality"
says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association food quality report,
"this research, by nutritionist Virginia Worthington, has looked
specifically at the comparative vitamin and mineral contents, reviewing
a similar collection of scientific studies.

"Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic produce
contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium and
phosphorus, and how seemingly small differences in nutrients can
mean the difference between getting the recommended daily allowance
- or failing to."

All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...s10122001.html

> Recall you first claimed,
> inaccurately, that the method "tipped" results in favor of non-organic
> fields.

So how does high input vs. low input represent an even playing field?

> So which is it?

Even growing some "conventional" crops in organic soil didn't suffice.

> > This regardless of it being requested of you some posts ago.
>
> "You were given this link some posts ago...
> http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=126
>
> '"New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based
> Organic Foods," State of Science Review, March 2008"
>
> Ah, sorry, no cigar again, regardless of organic tobacco or not.

My sympathies.

> The two studies are of two very different universes as to methodology.
> My request was for a study on your part using the same kind of
> methodology where as many factors were controlled as possible while the
> organic method varied.

Why should the organic method vary?

> The above is an over view of research.

The above is a

"Major new report comparing the nutrient content in conventional and
organic foods, based on the findings of 97 published, peer-reviewed
studies."

God help me....

> Ah, but what do those numbers mean in the real world?

"Potential DEFICIENCY."

But undemonstrated in this case, that is the point, what do the
numbers tell us?

> What is the
> threshold above which a particular level becomes significant? If you
> knew statistics you would know those numbers are not significally
> different.

"If you knew about the geographical differences in cobalt levels you'd
understand that different farming methods could mean the difference
between there being adequate cobalt (B12 production) or not enough."

Might be, but you have yet to show it in this case. Geography was no
problem as all fields were in the same area.

> Also, see that levels increased in all fields regardless of method used.

"Levels fluctuated from year to year, but were highest in pure organic."

Why, co is not created by plants, it is a function of the soil base.
It increased in all fields.

> Your claim is that co should decrease with non-organic methods, if I
> recall your previous posts.

"And this study that you've brought to our attention supports that.."

No, in the non-organic fields co increased in the second year, your
prediction says it should not.

> You also did not read carefully, they
> discuss why in any type of field levels can change for many reasons.

"So this data is basically meaningless now? Is that what you're
saying?"

No, it is but another example of your black and white thinking. There
were reasons they wanted the reader to know that could change results
other then the organic question. It is called good science. Any study
you bring us for consideration should address these same other
factors. Not knowing what is good science or not is a handicapp.

> '
> "Thanks!"
>
> My pleasure, always happy to educate others.

"You're doing a better job at entertaining others. Thanks again."

Thanks, I could not hope for more, entertain and educate at the same
time. Others will benefit from seeing how your black and white notions
don't fit real world science. If that single fact as education is
realized then all is for not.

> if the organic only fields should make such a
> difference then their results should literally leap off the page
showing
> much better results in only those crops where organic and
non-organic
> fields were used in contrast , they did not.

"No? This literally leaps off the page and dances a merry jig...

'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets

Cultivation system

Element
LIminusP LIplusP
HIplusP
..
Co(µgkg-1) 2001
93.4 72.6
65.1

2002 82.3 76.8 70.6
'

How about:

'Fe(mg kg-1) 2001 87.6 81.4 83.1
2002 118 89.6 87.2'

No dancing in sight. Do the statistical analysis and tell us its
degree of significance. Then show us by your results how the authors
found no such significance. Btw, one of the review articles you
presented said there was no difference in the particular numbrs given.
We await your results showing how both sets of authors were incorrect.

> The two studies are of two very different universes as to methodology.
> My request was for a study on your part using the same kind of
> methodology where as many factors were controlled as possible while the
> organic method varied.

"Why should the organic method vary?"

Because you want to show results vary as organic method varies. Being
unlearned in methodology is a handicapp.

> The above is an over view of research.

"The above is a

"Major new report comparing the nutrient content
in conventional and
organic foods, based on the findings of 97
published, peer-reviewed
studies.""

Yep, two completely different types of studies. I'm not happy yet, we
await as requested your example.

"God help me...."

Amen, let it be so, for all our sakes and education.

> wrote in message u...
> > Ah, but what do those numbers mean in the real world?
>
> "Potential DEFICIENCY."
>
> But undemonstrated in this case, that is the point, what do the
> numbers tell us?

That the cobalt content in the ag-chem system was less by up to 30%.

> > What is the
> > threshold above which a particular level becomes significant? If you
> > knew statistics you would know those numbers are not significally
> > different.
>
> "If you knew about the geographical differences in cobalt levels you'd
> understand that different farming methods could mean the difference
> between there being adequate cobalt (B12 production) or not enough."
>
> Might be, but you have yet to show it in this case.

'There is wide variability in the cobalt content in common Australian
foods and beverages [as elsewhere], ranging from over 1000µg/kg to
undetectable levels (Table 1). The results however, have not been
adjusted for serving size, and hence total intake in some cases may be
negligible, even though the relative amounts are quite high. Further, the
variation in cobalt in food products produced in different States may
reflect variation in soil concentrations as has previously been reported.
...'
http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJC...hed/Hokin1.pdf

Read on.

> Geography was no problem as all fields were in the same area.

Indeed.

> > Also, see that levels increased in all fields regardless of method used.
>
> "Levels fluctuated from year to year, but were highest in pure organic."
>
> Why, co is not created by plants, it is a function of the soil base.

'Investigating soil-cobalt links, we sought perspectives of two researchers:
an expert in agricultural chemistry, another in nutrition. Dan Reeter, chief
researcher at Bio-Systems Labs in Salida, Colorado, is creating one of the
world's most comprehensive computer facilities for soil biology testing.
Reeter, whose lab has served agricultural industry for over 40 years, told
us: "I can say with certainty there's a decline of soil cobalt. Confirm this
for yourself. Simply to pick any Ag magazine - they all push cobalt
supplements, spurred by B12-poor condition of crops."

Reeter said soil bacteria, comprising 20 percent of soil biomass, is
destroyed or inactivated by ag chemicals, inhibiting uptake and
metabolism of cobalt and other trace elements.
...
Asked if current research suggests an across-the-board decline in B12
due to soil demineralization, Kay [Robert Kay, then PhD candidate in
nutrition at the Univ. of Connecticut] responded, "It's complex to study,
and probably premature to make hard conclusions. But subjectively -
yes, I have a sneaking suspicion that speculation is valid."
...
According to "Trace Elements in Agriculture," the cobalt range for U.S.
soils in 1969 was 30 and 50 ppb - well below the ruminant requirement
and "possibly enough to slow legume growth and turn leaves yellow
prematurely," says Maurice Cook, PhD, professor of Soil Science at
North Carolina State Univ. In Micronutrients in Agriculture, Drs. Kubota
and Allaway state, "Forage grasses and cereal grains frequently lack
required concentrations of cobalt, and ruminant diets based on grasses
or grains require cobalt supplements in most areas of the U.S.
...'
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm

> It increased in all fields.

It appeared to increase in LIplusP and HIplusP, because in 2001
two out of six HIplusP crops were grown in organic soil, but
two out of five in 2002 - thus a higher percentage, and in 2001
a percentage of LIplusP (rapeseed) was grown in conventional
soil (reducing levels) whereas in 2002 no rapeseed was grown.

> > Your claim is that co should decrease with non-organic methods, if I
> > recall your previous posts.
>
> "And this study that you've brought to our attention supports that.."
>
> No, in the non-organic fields co increased in the second year, your
> prediction says it should not.

See above.

> > You also did not read carefully, they
> > discuss why in any type of field levels can change for many reasons.
>
> "So this data is basically meaningless now? Is that what you're
> saying?"
>
> No, it is but another example of your black and white thinking. There
> were reasons they wanted the reader to know that could change results
> other then the organic question. It is called good science. Any study
> you bring us for consideration should address these same other
> factors. Not knowing what is good science or not is a handicapp.

You can't escape the fact that cobalt levels were up to 30% higher.

> > Ah, but what do those numbers mean in the real world?
>
> "Potential DEFICIENCY."
>
> But undemonstrated in this case, that is the point, what do the
> numbers tell us?

"That the cobalt content in the ag-chem system was less by up to 30%."

Why? In your own words tell us the chemistry why this is the case. Tell us
the threshold where it makes a difference while you are at it.

> > What is the
> > threshold above which a particular level becomes significant? If you
> > knew statistics you would know those numbers are not significally
> > different.
>
> "If you knew about the geographical differences in cobalt levels you'd
> understand that different farming methods could mean the difference
> between there being adequate cobalt (B12 production) or not enough."
>
> Might be, but you have yet to show it in this case.

"'There is wide variability in the cobalt content in common Australian"

Not relevant as mentioned, the crops in question were grown on adjacent
fields. Variation geographically is not relevant here.

"Read on."

> Geography was no problem as all fields were in the same area.

"Indeed."

> > Also, see that levels increased in all fields regardless of method used.
>
> "Levels fluctuated from year to year, but were highest in pure organic."
>
> Why, co is not created by plants, it is a function of the soil base.

"'Investigating soil-cobalt links, we sought perspectives of two researchers:

More irrelevant treading of water and tap dancing that does not address the
question.

> It increased in all fields.

"It appeared to increase in LIplusP and HIplusP, because in 2001 two out of
six HIplusP crops were grown in organic soil, but two out of five in 2002
- thus a higher percentage, and in 2001 a percentage of LIplusP (rapeseed)
was grown in conventional soil (reducing levels) whereas in 2002 no
rapeseed was grown."

Smile, but in both years non-organic fertilizer and other chemicals you
claim are the culprit were used. By the second year it could not be said
organic was of any particular significance in those fields. But levels
increased anyway as they did in all fields. Tell us again the chemical
process which causes co to be reduced unless organic is used? Tell us why
any or all of the changes were not due to the several other factors the
authors identified that can cause yearly vaariation?


> > Your claim is that
> co should decrease with non-organic methods, if I > > recall your previous
posts.

> > "And this study that you've brought to our attention supports
that.."
> > No, in the non-organic fields co increased in the second year,
your > prediction says it should not.

"See above."

Response as above.

I'm still unhappy, notseeing the example of the same kind of controlled test where other factors are constant and organic is varied.

Amen, let it be for all our sakes and education.

One is handicapped for not understanding the basic methodology and science
and statistical methods involved in such questions. In such cases one is
easily victum to one's preconcieved black and white agenda driven
thinking. One is uncomfortable when discovering the world is gray and not
black and white as is often the case in the science of such questions. One
understands why some are driven to the false security of black and white
thinking but choose to remaind clueless nonetheless.

This is our education lesson for the day, with no doubt other lessons to
follow.

> wrote in message u...
> > > Ah, but what do those numbers mean in the real world?
> >
> > "Potential DEFICIENCY."
> >
> > But undemonstrated in this case, that is the point, what do the
> > numbers tell us?
>
> "That the cobalt content in the ag-chem system was less by up to 30%."
>
> Why? In your own words tell us the chemistry why this is the case. Tell us
> the threshold where it makes a difference while you are at it.

30 - 50 ppb is well below the ruminant requirement, and I see no
reason to think why it might be any lower for humans. Can you?

> > > What is the
> > > threshold above which a particular level becomes significant? If you
> > > knew statistics you would know those numbers are not significally
> > > different.
> >
> > "If you knew about the geographical differences in cobalt levels you'd
> > understand that different farming methods could mean the difference
> > between there being adequate cobalt (B12 production) or not enough."
> >
> > Might be, but you have yet to show it in this case.
>
> "'There is wide variability in the cobalt content in common Australian"
>
> Not relevant as mentioned, the crops in question were grown on adjacent
> fields. Variation geographically is not relevant here.

So the entire human race is only eating produce from those fields? Twit.

> "Read on."
>
> > Geography was no problem as all fields were in the same area.
>
> "Indeed."
>
> > > Also, see that levels increased in all fields regardless of method used.
> >
> > "Levels fluctuated from year to year, but were highest in pure organic."
> >
> > Why, co is not created by plants, it is a function of the soil base.
>
> "'Investigating soil-cobalt links, we sought perspectives of two researchers:
>
> More irrelevant treading of water and tap dancing that does not address the
> question.

False. It was a direct and comprehensive response to your comment.

> > It increased in all fields.
>
> "It appeared to increase in LIplusP and HIplusP, because in 2001 two out of
> six HIplusP crops were grown in organic soil, but two out of five in 2002
> - thus a higher percentage, and in 2001 a percentage of LIplusP (rapeseed)
> was grown in conventional soil (reducing levels) whereas in 2002 no
> rapeseed was grown."
>
> Smile, but in both years non-organic fertilizer and other chemicals you

<grin>

> claim are the culprit were used.

And in both years cobalt levels were lower than in pure organic.

> By the second year it could not be said
> organic was of any particular significance in those fields.

The application of pesticides clearly caused a reduction in uptake
of cobalt in year one (in LIplusP), but it would take years for
past organically managed nutrient-rich soil to become exhausted.

> But levels increased anyway as they did in all fields.

'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets

Cultivation system

Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
...
Co(µgkg?1) 2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
2002 82.3 76.8 70.6 '

The lower level in LIminusP (organic) is likely a reflection of
natural yearly variation. By rights similar lower levels should
have been seen in crops from the other two fields, but weren't.
I've already explained to you why the results are as they are.

> Tell us again the chemical
> process which causes co to be reduced unless organic is used?

After you've just snipped it - again?

> Tell us why
> any or all of the changes were not due to the several other factors the
> authors identified that can cause yearly vaariation?

The same factors should have similarly affected all crops, or perhaps
you'd like to argue that the application of pesticides increased levels?

> "That the cobalt content in the ag-chem system was less by up to 30%."
>
> Why? In your own words tell us the chemistry why this is the case.
Tell us
> the threshold where it makes a difference while you are at it.

"30 - 50 ppb is well below the ruminant requirement, and I see no
reason to think why it might be any lower for humans. Can you?"

Which had 30 or less in your chart? Sure there are many reasons to
doubt
cross species variation. Can you tell us why?

> Not relevant as mentioned, the crops in question were grown on
adjacent
> fields. Variation geographically is not relevant here.

So the entire human race is only eating produce from those fields?
"Twit."

Irellevant, as so much of your remarks often are. Geographical
variation does not apply when fields are in the exact same area. The

"application of pesticides clearly caused a reduction in uptake of
cobalt in year one (in LIplusP), but it would take years for past
organically managed nutrient-rich soil to become exhausted."

Silly special pleading. The burden is your's to support this off the
cuff claim for either point. Tell us again in your own words exactly
what chemistry is involved in co levels.

> But levels increased anyway as they did in all fields.
> Tell us again the chemical
> process which causes co to be reduced unless organic is used?

After you've just snipped it - again?
""

I snipped a section that did not address the question. It was not in
your words and it did not even then answer the question.

> Tell us why
> any or all of the changes were not due to the several other factors
the
> authors identified that can cause yearly vaariation?

The same factors should have similarly affected all crops, or perhaps
"you'd like to argue that the application of pesticides increased
levels?"

Nope, that is your special pleading. Killing insects does not change
the co
soil base. All levels in all fields regardless increased in both years.
We don't know why and you did not explain what among the other reasons
for yearly variation they cite might have been at work. The increase in
non-organic fields refuted your prediction that co levels should go
down.


What have we learned today, that being reduced to special pleading
quibbling is now the level to which you are reduced, and as usual
retreat . That clinging to a black and white world view fails you in
all respects because the usual state of science in such things is a
mixed situation as to explanation. That you go against the two reviews
of the aricle you presented who say its authors made their point but the
results were limited to minerals alone. That to make a response, any
response, is confused with having a good response just as it makes it
look sas though one can say something, anything at all. That to be
fundimentally ignorant of the science and methods and statistics used
makes one an instant expert because the ignorant don't have to be
limited by the reality of what they don't understand.

The whole question of what advantage in what areas organic methods might
provide are still up in the air in many cases. Starting with a food
cult agenda and then working backwards to make round peg fit in square
hole does not serve. Letting the evidence over time lead the way does,
it is called science in contrast to propaganda.

> wrote in message u...
> > "That the cobalt content in the ag-chem system was less by up to 30%."
> >
> > Why? In your own words tell us the chemistry why this is the case.
> Tell us
> > the threshold where it makes a difference while you are at it.
>
> "30 - 50 ppb is well below the ruminant requirement, and I see no
> reason to think why it might be any lower for humans. Can you?"
>
> Which had 30 or less in your chart?

According to "Trace Elements in Agriculture," the cobalt range for U.S.
soils in 1969 was 30 and 50 ppb - well below the ruminant requirement.
...'
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm

'Less than 0.07 ppm (70 ppb) cobalt in the soil results in cobalt
deficiency in animals and people who eat crops grown from those
soils; 0.11 ppm cobalt in the soil prevents and cures Cobalt deficiency.
...'
http://www.dcnutrition.com/Minerals/...ecordNumber=68

'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets

Cultivation system

Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
...
Co(µgkg?1) 2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
2002 82.3 76.8 70.6 '

> Sure there are many reasons to doubt
> cross species variation. Can you tell us why?

In non-carnivorous species? Go for it..

> > Not relevant as mentioned, the crops in question were grown on
> adjacent
> > fields. Variation geographically is not relevant here.
>
> So the entire human race is only eating produce from those fields?
> "Twit."
>
> Irellevant, as so much of your remarks often are. Geographical
> variation does not apply when fields are in the exact same area. The

I'm arguing with an idiot apparently. Go take some B12.

> "application of pesticides clearly caused a reduction in uptake of
> cobalt in year one (in LIplusP), but it would take years for past
> organically managed nutrient-rich soil to become exhausted."
>
> Silly special pleading. The burden is your's to support this off the
> cuff claim for either point.

Look at the data from your own "quality" study, fer Chris' sake.

> Tell us again in your own words exactly
> what chemistry is involved in co levels.

"Us"? Go read what you've repeatedly snipped.

> > But levels increased anyway as they did in all fields.
> > Tell us again the chemical
> > process which causes co to be reduced unless organic is used?
>
> After you've just snipped it - again?
> ""
>
> I snipped a section that did not address the question. It was not in
> your words and it did not even then answer the question.

Stupid timewaster.

> > Tell us why
> > any or all of the changes were not due to the several other factors
> the
> > authors identified that can cause yearly vaariation?
>
> The same factors should have similarly affected all crops, or perhaps
> "you'd like to argue that the application of pesticides increased
> levels?"
>
> Nope, that is your special pleading. Killing insects does not change
> the co
> soil base. All levels in all fields regardless increased in both years.

<plonk>

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > wrote in message u...

> > > "That the cobalt content in the ag-chem system was less by up to 30%."
> > >
> > > Why? In your own words tell us the chemistry why this is the case.
> > Tell us
> > > the threshold where it makes a difference while you are at it.
> >
> > "30 - 50 ppb is well below the ruminant requirement, and I see no
> > reason to think why it might be any lower for humans. Can you?"
> >
> > Which had 30 or less in your chart?
>
> According to "Trace Elements in Agriculture," the cobalt range for U.S.
> soils in 1969 was 30 and 50 ppb - well below the ruminant requirement.
> ..'
> http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm
>
> 'Less than 0.07 ppm (70 ppb) cobalt in the soil results in cobalt
> deficiency in animals and people who eat crops grown from those
> soils; 0.11 ppm cobalt in the soil prevents and cures Cobalt deficiency.
> ..'
> http://www.dcnutrition.com/Minerals/...ecordNumber=68
>
> 'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets
>
> Cultivation system
>
> Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
> ..
> Co(µgkg?1) 2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
> 2002 82.3 76.8 70.6 '

Continued..

'Class of Animal Cobalt Requirement in Total Diet (ppm)
Dairy Cattle 0.1 [- 100 ppb]
Beef Cattle 0.1 (0.07-0.11)
Sheep 0.1-0.2
Goats 0.1-0.2
...
If the diet of non-ruminants is adequate in vitamin B12, there is no evidence
to indicate a need for cobalt. It is possible, however, that if dietary vitamin
B12 is limiting, a need for cobalt for intestinal synthesis of B12 will be of
some importance with non-ruminant animals. All-plant diets contain little
or no vitamin B12. Therefore, non-ruminant animals consuming all-plant
diets would need some dietary cobalt in order to enable their microflora to
synthesize vitamin B12. This fact causes many producers of non-ruminants
to supplement diets with 0.1 ppm cobalt just in case the diet might not
supply all the vitamin B12 required (87, 92, 93, 95, 141). Therefore, in
practice, trace mineralized salt that provides cobalt, which is needed by
ruminants, is also used for non-ruminant animals.
...'
http://www.saltinstitute.org/47r.html

"Stupid timewaster."

Now you are really onto something. The ignorant are free to become
instant experts because they are not limited by the boundries having
knowledge about a subject requires.

Both the reviews of the article in question agree with the results but
hasten to mention they apply only to the limited question asked. You as
an instant expert however are in a position to argue (quibble) with your
own review articles that you posted.

I agree with the review articles.

Ain't happy yet, question not yet answered.

No doubt your education, in spite of yourself, will continue in the near
future as it has been for some time now. See you soon.

> wrote in message u...

> "Stupid timewaster."
>
> Now you are really onto something.

Yup.

"Rudy Canoza"

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

"You don't know science, or logic, or statistics. You're a dishonest
ideologue, and a marginal - a foot-rubber."

You go too far, she might be a competent foot rubber and held in high
esteem in her profession.

Smile.

"Stupid timewaster."

Now you are really onto something. The ignorant are free to become
instant experts because they are not limited by the boundries having
knowledge about a subject requires.

Both the reviews of the article in question agree with the results but
hasten to mention they apply only to the limited question asked. You as
an instant expert however are in a position to argue (quibble) with your
own review articles that you posted.

I agree with the review articles.

Ain't happy yet, question not yet answered.

No doubt your education, in spite of yourself, will continue in the near
future as it has been for some time now. See you soon.

In reply:

"yup"

See, education leads to common understanding after all.

DragonBreath wrote:

> You know what they say: you are what you eat. I'd prefer being an
> animal instead of being a fruit, nut or a vegetable.
Yet, you can not refute ANYthing I say with facts and logic.
You are an intellectual FRAUD! A mindless meatarian propagandist.

Laurie

wrote:

> It might be, but how do you then account for the results as
> mentioned above. This was a controlled experiment from start to
> end to control all factors with the only difference being level of
> organic methods used. This control extended from the planting of
> the plants to the end product in animals fed the plants.
NO protocols of the alleged study was given, the article was not
referenced --
THAT does not meet the scientific criteria needed for a.f.v.SCIENCE.
Do not pollute a.f.v.SCIENCE with this propaganda.
--

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

On 18 Sep, 23:10, Laurie > wrote:
> DragonBreath wrote:
> > You know what they say: you are what you eat. I'd prefer being an
> > animal instead of being a fruit, nut or a vegetable.
>
> * * * * Yet, you can not refute ANYthing I say with facts and logic.
> * * * * You are an intellectual FRAUD! *A mindless meatarian propagandist.

I have noted with considerable interest your complete absence from the
threads where I have posted real scientific studies. Do you feel too
incompetent to handle such issues, hmmm?

> It might be, but how do you then account for the results as
> mentioned above. This was a controlled experiment from start to
> end to control all factors with the only difference being level of
> organic methods used. This control extended from the planting of
> the plants to the end product in animals fed the plants.

" NO protocols of the alleged study was given, the article was not
referenced --
THAT does not meet the scientific criteria needed for
a.f.v.SCIENCE.
Do not pollute a.f.v.SCIENCE with this propaganda.
--

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE."

Silly remark, you obviously did not keep up with the thread. Please be
advised ascorbic nor citric acids were mentioned. What passes for
science or not is not up to you anyway, we will be happy to entertain
your individual opinion on that matter but otherwise it does not rise
above opinion.

pearl wrote:

> http://www.organic-center.org/

Thanks for the link.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

wrote:

>
> "A paper you haven't read, and are INCOMPETENT to read."

DO NOT POST ANY INSULTS TO A.F.V.S.

IF YOU REFUSE TO BE POLITE, LEAVE!


alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

wrote:
>> I ask your pardon for my confusion.

Ask PARDON for your personal insults!

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

wrote:

> "Twit."
STOP THE INSULTS. OR LEAVE!!

> The burden is your's to ..
Stop insults, be polite, or LEAVE!!

> Nope, that is your special pleading. Killing insects does not
> change the co soil base.
Pesticides DO kill the microbes that produce B-12; you should know
this, but making believe you don't is the same as lying, STOP lying.
HINT: "Co" is the chemical symbol for cobalt; this is 8th grade
science, please try to function at that level or leave.

> That to be fundimentally [sic] ignorant of ...
Is that like being fundamentally ignorant of spelling?

> ... it is called science in contrast to propaganda.
You have presented NO science to substantiate your propaganda.

--

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

>> I ask your pardon for my confusion.

" Ask PARDON for your personal insults!"

No, that was in reply to another poster where order of reading messages
led me to a wrong conclusion.

Do you feel insulted? Happy to review posts about which you find most
touchy

wrote:

>
> "A paper you haven't read, and are INCOMPETENT to read."

" DO NOT POST ANY INSULTS TO A.F.V.S.

IF YOU REFUSE TO BE POLITE, LEAVE!"

Silly, that was part of another post quoated, read more carefully.

Don't insult others by demanding anything of them, especially that about
which you are in no position to demand having no standing on the matter.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

For those newcomers who don't know noBalls' background and
schizophrenic personality:
Ye shall know them by their works.
http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

wrote:
> "You don't know science, or logic, or statistics. You're a dishonest
> ideologue, and a marginal - a foot-rubber."
>
> You go too far, she might be a competent foot rubber and held in high
> esteem in her profession.

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT "NO INSULTS"??

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

Dragonblaze wrote:

> I have noted with considerable interest your complete absence from the
> threads where I have posted real scientific studies. Do you feel too
> incompetent to handle such issues, hmmm?

I have not been on the ng lately due to more pressing matters.
Further LIES about me, or INSULTS against ANYONE. will get you shunned
on a.f.v.s.

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

> "You don't know science, or logic, or statistics. You're a dishonest
> ideologue, and a marginal - a foot-rubber."
>
> You go too far, she might be a competent foot rubber and held in high
> esteem in her profession.

" WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT "NO INSULTS"??"

What I do understand is that you don't read carefully and/or snip on
purpose to decieve. The last sentence above was my reply to the first.

> "Rudy Canoza" http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

"For those newcomers who don't know noBalls' background and
schizophrenic personality:
Ye shall know them by their works.
http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt"

It seems we have at last an example of an insult, on the part of two
posters. Now where is our dear leader when we need him?

On 05 Oct 2008 20:36:31 GMT, wrote:

>> "You don't know science, or logic, or statistics. You're a dishonest
>> ideologue, and a marginal - a foot-rubber."
>>
>> You go too far, she might be a competent foot rubber and held in high
>> esteem in her profession.
>
>" WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT "NO INSULTS"??"
>
>What I do understand is that you don't read carefully and/or snip on
>purpose to decieve. The last sentence above was my reply to the first.

Larry is an eliminationist. I've never encountered an eliminationist
who is very honest. His "ar" brother Goo is the most dishonest person
I've ever encountered.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:26:20 -0400, Laurie > wrote:

wrote:
>> "You don't know science, or logic, or statistics. You're a dishonest
>> ideologue, and a marginal - a foot-rubber."
>>
>> You go too far, she might be a competent foot rubber and held in high
>> esteem in her profession.
>
> WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT "NO INSULTS"??
>
>alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
>ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
>Please cooperate.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:09:46 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On 05 Oct 2008 20:36:31 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>> "You don't know science, or logic, or statistics. You're a dishonest
>>>> ideologue, and a marginal - a foot-rubber."
>>>>
>>>> You go too far, she might be a competent foot rubber and held in high
>>>> esteem in her profession.
>>>
>>>" WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT "NO INSULTS"??"
>>>
>>>What I do understand is that you don't read carefully and/or snip on
>>>purpose to decieve. The last sentence above was my reply to the first.
>>
>> Larry is an eliminationist. I've never encountered an eliminationist
>>who is very honest. His "ar" brother Goo

>False. You know I am an opponent of "ar"

Goober your supposed "opposition" to the misnomer can only
support it to a certain extent before it can no longer be considered
opposition but instead considered support. Yours crosses WAAAAY
over that line deep into the heart of misnomer advocacy, Goob:

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the
first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"."
- Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise
the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results
from killing them." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

>, Goo - unlike you.

I suggest that decent AW is ethically equivalent or superior
to the misnomer, and you oppose consideration of the suggestion,
Goo. LOL...did you forget what you think you think and what you're
trying to do, Goo?

>>is the most dishonest person I've ever encountered.
>
>False again. You know that you are the dishonest one, forging quotes
>and lying about people's positions. I am scrupulously honest, and you
>know it.

Let's turn on the lie detector and run that one through, Goob:

>False

That's a lie.

>again.

That's a lie.

>You know that you are the dishonest one,

That's a lie.

>forging quotes

That's a lie.

>and lying about people's positions.

That's a lie.

>I am scrupulously honest,

That's a lie.

>and you know it.

That's a lie.

Wow Goo. No one else I'm familiar with lies as much
as you, making you STILL the most dishonest person
I've ever encountered.