Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 01:25 PM
Russ Thompson
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
million.

Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million


*** A total lie. There is not shortage of food for every person in the world
yet people starve. If people are starving now with the huge food surpluses
they would continue to starve with even larger food surpluses.
Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75

Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
85


*** Another lie. Without livestock topsoils losses would be even worse than
they are now.
You should be careful posting things like this. There are well
meaning but uninformed and ignorant people who will read it and think that
it's true.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 05:49 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default ****wit: I am lodging complaints with Mindspring every timeyou forge my name to a post

Zakhar wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...

****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:


OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.


****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.



If Mindspring / Earthlink don't give a shit what you write, then doubt very
much if they mind what DH does.


They do care about forgeries and misuse of domain names.

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 07:03 PM
Ray
 
Posts: n/a
Default ****wit: I am lodging complaints with Mindspring every time you forge my name to a post


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...
Zakhar wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...

****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:


OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.

****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.



If Mindspring / Earthlink don't give a shit what you write, then doubt

very
much if they mind what DH does.


They do care about forgeries and misuse of domain names.


Never mind ~~jonnie~~ yours is only a little complaint.



  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 07:54 PM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.


"Keynes" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:25:22 GMT, "Rubystars"

wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Rubystars wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
...

OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.


That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do

the
right things have to stop.

They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
aren't necessary to feed people.


At the population we have now, I think they are.

If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then

sure,
we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.

-Rubystars


It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as
much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform
of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury
for many (bacon possibly excepted).


Did they go without milk and eggs too?

Now we have an obesity-diabetes problem that's becoming epidemic.
There's an indian tribe split by the mexican border. Those on the US side
are nearly 100% obese and diabetic. Those on the mexican side kept their
traditional diet and don't even have those problems.


I understand that the Standard American Diet is not good, and is unhealthy
and promotes obesity. I just think that many people would starve from
malnutrition if they were suddenly forced to go vegan. There are vegans who
have done all the right things and still had to quit because of
deficiencies. Then there are others who can live for years and years very
healthy on such a diet.

Forcing an entire population to take that risk would be wrong.

There's also the problem with the stink and pollution of
factory farming and the increased likelyhood (near certainty)
of epidemic e coli and salmonella infections. I don't mention the
morality of killing animals. Animals kill animals even if we don't.
All life feeds on other life. Those poor birds, mice, snakes and
bugs in the fields are eating one another. But if I had to kill animals
to eat myself, I would only do it in times of direst emergency.


I'm not entirely convinced that factory farming isn't needed to provide the
supply of meat, milk, and eggs that large populations require.

It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef,
not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed.
(You have to feed a cow for years. That feed is gone away.)


Most cows are "Free range" and "Grass fed." They only go into the feed lots
for finishing.

Purely grass fed beef would be economical, but feeding them
is wasteful. Chickens, turkeys and fish have a 2-3 pound feed
to one pound of meat ratio. Eggs are even more efficient.
(Unfortunately, livestock is chock full of added hormones
and antibiotics. That can't be good in the long run.)


The main problem is that we have such a HUGE population to feed, and not a
very large percentage of those people are farmers. So the farms that are
there have to produce a lot in order to feed everyone.

Most of the US grain goes into feed, with excesses exported to
feed livestock in other countries. If we ate plants directly we'd have
a huge surplus (which would be a bit of an economic problem since
grain is already grown at a loss, requiring subsidies).


The US already has huge surpluses of food.

Most other countries don't eat as much meat as we do.
Devout hindus and buddhists eat no meat. Our diet is too
cheap and calorie rich for our own good. A mosty vegetarian
diet can be nutritionally balanced and quite delicious.


Are those Hindus and Buddhists vegan, or just vegetarian?

It's just not in our western culture these days to even think
about it. I love meat - fatty meat - myself, and eat it often.
But cuban rice and beans is delicious. South Indian cooking
is outstanding. Chinese vegetable stews (sometimes flavored
with a bit of meat) are my specialty. And we often have meat-free
pasta meals around here. Meat is like candy.
You can get too much for your own good.


I think vegetarian food is great too, but I just don't think forcing entire
populations to go vegan would be very responsible.

-Rubystars


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 07:58 PM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...
Rubystars wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...

Rubystars wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
...


OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.


That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do

the
right things have to stop.

They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
aren't necessary to feed people.



At the population we have now, I think they are.


No, absolutely not. Farm animals consume more calories
than they yield in food value. More agriculture is
devoted to feeding animals than to feeding humans.


People need the nutrients in meat, and without education, they won't know
how to get it from other sources. Farm animals also produce eggs and milk.
Forcing large populations to go vegan WILL result in malnutrition.

Remember: this isn't the point. People want meat, and
there's nothing wrong with expending resources to
produce it. But if the goal is the most calories from
the smallest possible input of resources, meat is
absolutely unnecessary.


I'd say most people can live on a vegetarian diet just fine, but I'm not
convinced that everyone can live on a vegan diet.

If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then

sure,
we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.


Population density doesn't have a thing to do with it.


It has everything to do with it. In a village of 50-100 people, you could
educate the lot on how to properly nourish themselves without animal
products from farm animals. Even within such a small group, there would be
people who might have deficiencies if they didn't follow the instructions
right.

Now multiply that times all the people in the U.S.

-Rubystars




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 08:17 PM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.


"Jahnu" wrote in message
snip

Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing people
to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
and at least some deaths from starvation.

-Rubystars


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 08:18 PM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default ****wit: I am lodging complaints with Mindspring every time you forge my name to a post


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...
****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:

OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.


****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.


It's easy to tell your posts from theirs.

-Rubystars


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 08:25 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default ****wit: I am lodging complaints with Mindspring every timeyou forge my name to a post

Rubystars wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...

****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:


OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.


****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.



It's easy to tell your posts from theirs.


Actually, ****WIT's forgeries were to take two comments
I did make, and to post them as separate posts, under
my name. It is irrelevant that I made the comments in
other legitimate posts; ****WIT's posting under my name
is prohibited by Mindspring's terms-of-use agreement.

*I* know they're forgeries because they began new
threads, which I almost never do, and because I looked
at the message headers. In both cases, they came from
an IP address ****WIT used just moments earlier to post
under his own ****witted pseudonym. There is another
giveaway that I won't reveal, but which is conclusive
evidence to the abuse team at Mindspring.

I can guarantee that ****WIT will receive at least a
warning from Mindspring to stop doing it. If he does
it after his warning, his account will be terminated.

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 08:40 PM
Russ Thompson
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing
people
to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
and at least some deaths from starvation.

-Rubystars


*** Not to mention that a little thing like the US Constitution would get in
the way of enforcment.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 09:02 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

Russ Thompson wrote:

Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing people
to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
and at least some deaths from starvation.

-Rubystars



*** Not to mention that a little thing like the US Constitution would get in
the way of enforcment.


That's but a minor impediment to the irrational
religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists".



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 11:55 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:49:38 -0600, Keynes wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:25:22 GMT, "Rubystars" wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
thlink.net...
Rubystars wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
...

OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.


That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
right things have to stop.

They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
aren't necessary to feed people.


At the population we have now, I think they are.

If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.

-Rubystars


It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as
much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform
of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury
for many (bacon possibly excepted).

Now we have an obesity-diabetes problem that's becoming epidemic.
There's an indian tribe split by the mexican border. Those on the US side
are nearly 100% obese and diabetic. Those on the mexican side kept their
traditional diet and don't even have those problems.

There's also the problem with the stink and pollution of
factory farming and the increased likelyhood (near certainty)
of epidemic e coli and salmonella infections. I don't mention the
morality of killing animals.


The biggest diference between raising animals for food and
not doing so is the animals' lives, not their deaths. They don't
exist before they're born, or (as far as we know) after they are
killed, so their lives are what is important. Raising animals for
food provides life, not just "killing" for billions of animals. Veg*nism
on the other hand doesn't provide life for any farm animals, it only
contributes to the death of wildlife.

Animals kill animals even if we don't.
All life feeds on other life. Those poor birds, mice, snakes and
bugs in the fields are eating one another. But if I had to kill animals
to eat myself, I would only do it in times of direst emergency.

It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef,
not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed.


Grass raised beef and dairy products contribute to fewer animal
deaths than grain based substitutes...a fact which veg*ns won't
accept much less point out to others.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-01-2004, 12:05 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 07:17:56 -0600, "Russ Thompson" wrote:

Remember: this isn't the point. People want meat, and
there's nothing wrong with expending resources to
produce it. But if the goal is the most calories from
the smallest possible input of resources, meat is
absolutely unnecessary.


*** If that was really our goal (and it certainly is not at this time) then
farm animals would be absolutly necessary. Cattle and sheep have the
abiliety to turn rough pasture that is unsuitable for farming into valuable
meat, milk, and fiber. They are also capable of converting what would
otherwise be a waste product into milk meat and fiber. Things like cotton
seed, soy huls, wheat mids, to name but a few are by products of the process
of turning crops into a form usable to humans. All of these thing can be
eated by livestock and converted from a waste product to something valuable.
There is also the issue of animals being necessary for sustainable
agriculture.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, WI USA


There is also the fact that animal by-products are used in production
of many of the things used in production of all types of food, like:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Soaps, Photographic film, Paints, Paper, Fabric printing/dying,
Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Glue, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Asphalt, lubricants, high-performance greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
cleaning and polishing compounds,
glues for paper and cardboard cartons, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Adhesive Tape,
Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
how many of those things could we do without? How many of them
could be made without animal by-products? What would it do to the
price of food if there were no farm animals?
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-01-2004, 12:43 AM
Ray
 
Posts: n/a
Default ****wit: I am lodging complaints with Mindspring every time you forge my name to a post


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Rubystars wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...


wrote in message
news: J.ball.is a spastic
[email protected]****


----------------snip------------

Stop crying into your glass ~~jonnie~~ He was only having 'a bit of a larf'

Cast your mind back about three years ago ~~jonnie~~. I remember you called
me 'Crybaby Ray' when I reported you to 'EarthLink'. BTW it usually takes
three warnings before your account is terminated. You also reported me to
NTL last year.

I also stopped you from posting from Remember?

If you can't take the crap ~~jonnie~~, stop sending it.



  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-01-2004, 12:50 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

****WIT David Harrison wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:49:38 -0600, Keynes wrote:



If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.

-Rubystars


It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as
much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform
of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury
for many (bacon possibly excepted).

Now we have an obesity-diabetes problem that's becoming epidemic.
There's an indian tribe split by the mexican border. Those on the US side
are nearly 100% obese and diabetic. Those on the mexican side kept their
traditional diet and don't even have those problems.

There's also the problem with the stink and pollution of
factory farming and the increased likelyhood (near certainty)
of epidemic e coli and salmonella infections. I don't mention the
morality of killing animals.



The biggest diference between raising animals for food and
not doing so is the animals' lives, not their deaths. They don't
exist before they're born, or (as far as we know) after they are
killed, so their lives are what is important.


No, their lives are utterly without moral meaning.

It is MEANINGLESS that they "get to experience life".
On a moral level, no one cares. It does not in any way
justify our use of them. If we may ethically use them,
as I believe we may, it is not because we "provided
them with life".

Raising animals for food provides life,


That is morally meaningless.



Animals kill animals even if we don't.
All life feeds on other life. Those poor birds, mice, snakes and
bugs in the fields are eating one another. But if I had to kill animals
to eat myself, I would only do it in times of direst emergency.

It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef,
not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed.



Grass raised beef


Is something you, ****WIT, do not eat. Stop talking
about it.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-01-2004, 10:12 AM
Jahnu
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:15:58 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Jahnu" wrote in message


HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER

===============
Your 'argument' is lost from the beginning, loser...


Hey meathead, you wouldn't know a sound argument if it fell on your
head in broad daylight.


www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lab-Grown Meat May Save a Lot More than Farm Animals’ Lives U.S. Janet B. General Cooking 25 09-04-2017 05:26 PM
How producing “ethical, zero-harm” plant food for vegans and vegetarians kills more animals than, well, actually killing animals for the purpose of eating them. ImStillMags General Cooking 87 05-01-2012 11:14 PM
"Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe Fred C. Dobbs[_3_] Vegan 13 24-06-2010 08:36 PM
Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals [email protected] Vegan 70 10-02-2005 03:58 AM
A day on the farm Boron Elgar General Cooking 30 05-11-2003 05:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017