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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 01:25 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

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

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 02:00 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.


"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.

You'd have mass malnutrition and at least some starvation.

-Rubystars


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 02:22 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

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.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 02:25 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.


"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.

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


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 03:49 AM
Keynes
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

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).

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. 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.
(You have to feed a cow for years. That feed is gone away.)
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.)

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).

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.
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.








  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 04:43 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

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.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 04:56 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default ****wit: I am lodging complaints with Mindspring every timeyou forge my name to a post

****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.

  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 06:50 AM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
...
OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.


yes, we could feed people on the sad individuals who insist on massive cross
posting


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 10:04 AM
Jahnu
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:00:44 GMT, "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.

You'd have mass malnutrition and at least some starvation.

-Rubystars



HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER

The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989



The Hunger Argument

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

Human beings in America: 243 million

Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80

Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95

Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99

How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds

Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO

Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165

Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56

Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16



The Environmental Argument

Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect

Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
diet: 50 times more

Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75

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

Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
meat-centered diet: 260 million

Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds

Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
housecat.

Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
sq.ft.

Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year



The Cancer Argument

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
vs. less than once a week: 4 times

For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times



The Natural Resources Argument

Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
livestock portion.

Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
float a destroyer.

Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25

Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500

Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound

Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
longer subsidized: 89 dollars

Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
meat-centered diet: 13

Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260

Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million

Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
factory farming of meat: 34.5

Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8

Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
meat-centered diet: 33



The Cholesterol Argument

Number of U.S. medical schools: 125

Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30

Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
years in medical school: 25 hours

Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack

How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds

Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.

Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.

Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
cholesterol if it is: normal

Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.



The Antibiotic Argument

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55

Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in
1960: 13

Percentage resistant in 1988: 91

Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of
antibiotics to livestock: ban

Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding
of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support


The Pesticide Argument

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains:
1

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits:
4

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy
products: 23

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55

Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs.
non meat-eating: 35 times higher

What USDA tells us: meat is inspected

Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin
chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004



The Ethical Argument

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000

Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker

Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in
U.S:slaughterhouse worker

Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before
slaughter.: 1 cent

Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive



The Survival Argument

Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time
winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian

Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex

Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C.


Famous pop stars - vegetarians:
-------------------------------
Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet
Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting

'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.'
--William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3


www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 11:15 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.


"Jahnu" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:00:44 GMT, "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.

You'd have mass malnutrition and at least some starvation.

-Rubystars



HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER

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





The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989



The Hunger Argument

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

==================
Nope. There is already more than enough food produced to feed the world.
that there are tin-horn dictators that want to keep their people starving
doesn't mean that even more food will alleviate their problems.



snip of rest of strawmen...




  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 11:16 AM
Zakhar
 
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.


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

Though shit ~~jonnie~~ LOL.





  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 11:34 AM
Tim
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
...
OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.


Try living in a Northern climate without farm animals or meat. Fact: Eskimos
who cannot procure themselves with meat starve to death. Cour de bois (sp?)
( French fur traders) starved to death in Canada's wilderness despite the
fact that they ate rabbits. The rabbits did not provide enougn fat to allow
the traders to fight the cold. Siberian dwellers on a recent Discovery
channel show dealing with extreme climates laughed in the face of the host
when he asked them if they would become vegans. They pointed out that
veganism wouldn't be too healthy if it killed them from failure to provide
fat.


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 11:35 AM
Nick Hull
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.

In article ,
Jahnu wrote:

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


The world needs more people to die of starvation, that is why I went to
the Adkins diet to eat more meat

How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds


Not fast enough, the world is still overpopulated. Famine, war or
pestilence will solve the problem, which would you prefer? The laws of
nature are not subject to repeal.

Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuels.


Wrong. Primary cause is water vapor from oceans, CO2 from volcanos is
2nd.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2004, 01:03 PM
Patrick Sonnek
 
Posts: n/a
Default No need for farm animals.



Jonathan Ball wrote:

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.

Necessary and desireable are two different things. Your right, more
food value would be available if we took our field crops and placed them
directly on our tables, rather than converting grains into meat. But
I, for one, am not willing to give up my steaks (or chops, or ham, etc...)

--
For good laugh at computer security, go to
http://www.vseasy.com/Security_Humor.html

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

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! =-----


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 02:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017