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.

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 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.

> 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




-----= 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! =-----

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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Asphalt, lubricants, high-performance greases, brake fluid

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

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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?

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.

I've been waiting for someone to point this out. As a farmer you know
that farming is taking soil and managing it to produce food. People who
have never been really involved in agriculture don't seem to realize that
not all land is suitable for raising human edible crops and that
non-human animals can make that ground more productive than it would be
on its own.


> There is also the issue of animals being necessary for sustainable
> agriculture.
>
> 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! =-----

"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