I notice that a lot of bread seems to have stearoyl and mono- and di-
glycerides in it. What are these derived from? Are there any sites
that list vegetarian-safe breads?

"Alessandro Sojack" > wrote in message
...
> I notice that a lot of bread seems to have stearoyl and mono- and di-
> glycerides in it. What are these derived from? Are there any sites
> that list vegetarian-safe breads?

from what i understand, mono- and di-glycerides could be synthetic, animal,
or vegetable in origin, so the only way to really tell is to phone up the
manufacturer. i called dempsters once, and they told me that all of their
stuff is vegetable. so that was good to know. also, if you go to
www.vegsource.com, and go on the grassroots veganism board, there's an
option on the upper right pulldown menu called 'animal substances,' where
you can see a whole list of stuff that is definitely & maybe of animal
origin. plus, on that board, people ask about stuff like this all the time,
or when they call up a company, they post the results, so that not everyone
has to call. so that's cool.

Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some
types of vegetable products. If you eat bread with grass raised
meat or meat which was hunted, the bread most likely involves
more animal deaths than the meat does. If you care about stuff
like that.

· 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 meal of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:40 GMT, wrote:

> Grass raised cattle products
>contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

Hi, if your a vegetarian bread should be okay, but if your a vegan
then try to find bread without whey. Whey is dairy.
- Matt

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:24:21 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:40 GMT, wrote:
>
>> Grass raised cattle products
>>contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>
>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>deaths like any other beef.
>
>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>western livestock.
>
>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>"nuisance" animals each year.

How would it be better if they did not?

>In 1989, a partial list
>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>animals in their dens.]
>http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>
>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>them, just like

a human who eats grain

>any other steer in the feedlot.
>
>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>that is what is motivating the consumer.

Why would you care, since you would never
promote grass raised beef even in cases where
you know it involves fewer animal deaths than
vegetable products?

>While the intent of this language would suggest
>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>website comments.]
>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>
>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>their product.

"ARAs" lie to children and tell them that veg*nism
helps farm animals:
__________________________________________________ _______
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!

http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE CHICKENS?

Life for chickens on factory farms is awful!
Chickens can feel things just as dogs and
cats do. Please help animals and stay healthy
by becoming a vegetarian! Call or write to
PETA for free recipes.

[...]

HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE PIGS?

Pigs value their lives just as much as you
and I value ours. So please don't eat them!
Call or write to PETA for free animal-
friendly, vegetarian recipes.

http://www.peta-online.org/pdfs/Lchickid.pdf
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>
>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>how many years it took to achieve a national
>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>anyone does.]
>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>
>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.
__________________________________________________ _______
More than 40 bird species breed in Wisconsin's hayfields, prairies
and pastures. From 1960 to 1990, populations of birds such as
meadowlarks, savannah sparrows, upland sandpipers and bobolinks
experienced the steepest decline of any group of birds in North
America. Some of the decline in the Midwest can be traced to farmers
who converted grasslands to corn and soybean fields.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/200...THDY2.UWI.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:13:46 GMT, wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:24:21 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:40 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>> Grass raised cattle products
>>>contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>>better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>>deaths like any other beef.
>>
>>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>>western livestock.
>>
>>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>>"nuisance" animals each year.
>
> How would it be better if they did not?

Whether it's better or not to kill predators isn't being
discussed here at this moment. What IS being discussed
are the many collateral deaths surrounding grass fed beef
and your readiness to ignore them.

>>In 1989, a partial list
>>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>>animals in their dens.]
>>http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>>
>>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>>them, just like
>
> a human who eats grain

Or..

>>any other steer in the feedlot.
>>
>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>
> Why would you care, since you would never
>promote grass raised beef

Because you're trying to claim grass fed beef is
collateral death-free, and I'm showing you it isn't.

>even in cases where
>you know it involves fewer animal deaths than
>vegetable products?

I don't "know" that it does. For all anyone knows
grass fed beef accumulates more collateral deaths
than veg, especially since they're finished on grains
like any other "beef animal."

>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>website comments.]
>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>>
>>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>>their product.
>
> "ARAs" lie to children

And what does that have to do, if true, concerning
farmers who lie to their customers? It doesn't
refute the fact that farmers lie, and it does nothing
to say that such lying is acceptable, either.

>>Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>>
>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>anyone does.]
>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>
>>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.
>_________________________________________________ ________
>More than 40 bird species breed in Wisconsin's hayfields

Marvelous.

wrote in message >. ..
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:24:21 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:40 GMT, wrote:
> >
> >> Grass raised cattle products
> >>contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >>better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
> >
> >No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
> >deaths like any other beef.
> >
> >[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
> >is administered by the U.S. Department of
> >Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
> >Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
> >biggest and most controversial activities is killing
> >coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
> >western livestock.
> >
> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
> >exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
> >"nuisance" animals each year.
>
> How would it be better if they did not?

Well when you kill the resident coyote population, you often get
coming into the region many more coyotes filling the territiry that
was defended by the coyote pair you killed there! They often kill
sheep and calves! Also on many ranches like the Lasater Ranch in
Colorado, they don't kill and eliminate ground squirrels! Ranchers
who do this often force coyotes into killing sheep and calves!


>
> >In 1989, a partial list
> >of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
> >Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
> >and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
> >beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
> >bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
> >killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
> >include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
> >animals in their dens.]
> >http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
> >
> >Also, though a customer might switch to grass
> >fed beef on the understanding that he would be
> >reducing the collateral deaths associated with
> >his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
> >" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
> >and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
> >fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
> >collateral death from the feed grown to feed
> >them, just like
>
> a human who eats grain
>
> >any other steer in the feedlot.
> >
> >[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
> >most commented upon topic in this docket. We
> >will not belabor all the points of concern which
> >are addressed but will focus on the areas of
> >concern to our cooperative of growers. While
> >Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
> >IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
> >NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
> >you need to define both as what they ARE since
> >that is what is motivating the consumer.
>
> Why would you care, since you would never
> promote grass raised beef even in cases where
> you know it involves fewer animal deaths than
> vegetable products?
>
> >While the intent of this language would suggest
> >that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
> >especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
> >not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
> >80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
> >the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
> >animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
> >70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
> >fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
> >these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
> >consumer expectations as is borne out in the
> >website comments.]
> >http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
> >
> >Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
> >their product.
>
> "ARAs" lie to children and tell them that veg*nism
> helps farm animals:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Here you come to save the day!
> [...]
> And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
> their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
> make milk for their babies, not for people!
> [...]
> Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
> be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
> your life cheese-free!
>
> http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE CHICKENS?
>
> Life for chickens on factory farms is awful!
> Chickens can feel things just as dogs and
> cats do. Please help animals and stay healthy
> by becoming a vegetarian! Call or write to
> PETA for free recipes.
>
> [...]
>
> HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE PIGS?
>
> Pigs value their lives just as much as you
> and I value ours. So please don't eat them!
> Call or write to PETA for free animal-
> friendly, vegetarian recipes.
>
> http://www.peta-online.org/pdfs/Lchickid.pdf
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
> >finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
> >
> >[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
> >animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
> >including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
> >feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
> >surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
> >that roam where they please or to animals kept in
> >barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
> >No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
> >how many years it took to achieve a national
> >definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
> >anyone does.]
> >http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
> >
> >You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
> >cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
> >than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.
> __________________________________________________ _______
> More than 40 bird species breed in Wisconsin's hayfields, prairies
> and pastures. From 1960 to 1990, populations of birds such as
> meadowlarks, savannah sparrows, upland sandpipers and bobolinks
> experienced the steepest decline of any group of birds in North
> America. Some of the decline in the Midwest can be traced to farmers
> who converted grasslands to corn and soybean fields.
>
> http://www.newswise.com/articles/200...THDY2.UWI.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Environmental Benefits
>
> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
> erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
> and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.
>
> Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
> average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
> Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
> was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
> pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
> pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
> also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
> whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
> limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
> the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
> crop production. It will also protect our water quality.
>
> High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
> can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
> several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
> pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
> waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
> wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
> phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
> low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).
>
> Wildlife Advantages
>
> Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
> meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
> the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
> thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
> 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
> frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
> populations are now at risk.
>
> Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
> because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
> (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
> rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
> detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
> until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
> as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
> bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
> benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
> cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
> provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.


And this is exactly what the Lasater's do!


Predator Friendly Grass Fed and Finished Beef and Lamb:

http://www.lasatergrasslandsbeef.com

http://www.lambandwool.com

http://www.ervins.com






>
> Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
> the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
> (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
> wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
> future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
> invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
> also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
> may serve as wildlife habitat.
>
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 8 Aug 2004 04:59:08 -0700, (Donald L Ferrt) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:24:21 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:40 GMT, wrote:
>> >
>> >> Grass raised cattle products
>> >>contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> >>better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>> >
>> >No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>> >deaths like any other beef.
>> >
>> >[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>> >is administered by the U.S. Department of
>> >Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>> >Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>> >biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>> >coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>> >western livestock.
>> >
>> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>> >exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>> >"nuisance" animals each year.
>>
>> How would it be better if they did not?
>
>Well when you kill the resident coyote population, you often get
>coming into the region many more coyotes filling the territiry that
>was defended by the coyote pair you killed there! They often kill
>sheep and calves!

So somehow the solution is to never kill predators and
nuisance animals?

>Also on many ranches like the Lasater Ranch in
>Colorado, they don't kill and eliminate ground squirrels! Ranchers
>who do this often force coyotes into killing sheep and calves!

I believe humans will always have to kill other animals in order
to maintain our position. If we don't, I believe some type of
animal(s) will populate to the point that they destroy our way of
life.

On 8 Aug 2004 04:59:08 -0700, (Donald L Ferrt) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:24:21 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:40 GMT, wrote:
>> >
>> >> Grass raised cattle products
>> >>contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> >>better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>> >
>> >No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>> >deaths like any other beef.
>> >
>> >[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>> >is administered by the U.S. Department of
>> >Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>> >Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>> >biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>> >coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>> >western livestock.
>> >
>> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>> >exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>> >"nuisance" animals each year.
>>
>> How would it be better if they did not?
>
>Well when you kill the resident coyote population, you often get
>coming into the region many more coyotes filling the territiry that
>was defended by the coyote pair you killed there! They often kill
>sheep and calves!

So somehow the solution is to never kill predators and
nuisance animals?

>Also on many ranches like the Lasater Ranch in
>Colorado, they don't kill and eliminate ground squirrels! Ranchers
>who do this often force coyotes into killing sheep and calves!

I believe humans will always have to kill other animals in order
to maintain our position. If we don't, I believe some type of
animal(s) will populate to the point that they destroy our way of
life.

wrote in message >. ..
> On 8 Aug 2004 04:59:08 -0700, (Donald L Ferrt) wrote:
>
> wrote in message >. ..
> >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:24:21 +0100, Derek > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:41:40 GMT, wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Grass raised cattle products
> >> >>contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> >>better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
> >> >
> >> >No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
> >> >deaths like any other beef.
> >> >
> >> >[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
> >> >is administered by the U.S. Department of
> >> >Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
> >> >Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
> >> >biggest and most controversial activities is killing
> >> >coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
> >> >western livestock.
> >> >
> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
> >> >exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
> >> >"nuisance" animals each year.
> >>
> >> How would it be better if they did not?
> >
> >Well when you kill the resident coyote population, you often get
> >coming into the region many more coyotes filling the territiry that
> >was defended by the coyote pair you killed there! They often kill
> >sheep and calves!
>
> So somehow the solution is to never kill predators and
> nuisance animals?

That assumes they are a nuisance! The Sheepman's spokesman early in
the 20th Century admitted that wolves were not the problem that they
had made them out to be!


>
> >Also on many ranches like the Lasater Ranch in
> >Colorado, they don't kill and eliminate ground squirrels! Ranchers
> >who do this often force coyotes into killing sheep and calves!
>
> I believe humans will always have to kill other animals in order
> to maintain our position. If we don't, I believe some type of
> animal(s) will populate to the point that they destroy our way of
> life.

Sounds like Dalekism to me!