 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Who eats corn? Mostly livestock
Just to correct some misconception.....
http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm Livestock Uses of Corn Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually. Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents 57 percent of all of the corn grown in the United States. In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken or 28 pounds of catfish. Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is fed to animals around the world |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. > Just to correct some misconception..... > > http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm > > Livestock Uses of Corn > > Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn > growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually. > Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents 57 percent of > all of the corn grown in the United States. > > In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. > Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. > Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. > As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat > production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on > America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 > pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken or > 28 pounds of catfish. > > Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed > livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is fed > to animals around the world ===================== So what? There is still no need to feed any corn to cows. The fact remains that as a vegan yiou do *nothing* to change the way beef is produced. However, if you were truely concerned with meat production you would be part of the many that try to provide farmers with an alternative way to produce beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, no antibiotics, natually grazed. You won't, because instead, you follow your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Being vegan does not automatically mean fewer animals die for your diet/lifestyle. killer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote: > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message > . .. > >>Just to correct some misconception..... >> >>http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm >> >>Livestock Uses of Corn >> >>Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn >>growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually. >>Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents 57 percent of >>all of the corn grown in the United States. >> >>In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. >>Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. >>Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. >>As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat >>production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on >>America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 >>pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken or >>28 pounds of catfish. >> >>Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed >>livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is fed >>to animals around the world > > ===================== > So what? There is still no need to feed any corn to cows. The fact > remains that as a vegan yiou do *nothing* to change the way beef is > produced. However, if you were truely concerned with meat production you > would be part of the many that try to provide farmers with an alternative > way to produce beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, no antibiotics, natually > grazed. You won't, because instead, you follow your simple rule for your > simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Being vegan does not automatically mean > fewer animals die for your diet/lifestyle. killer. > > Try this. It takes 7 times as much food to grow corn as to eat it. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message .. . > > > rick etter wrote: > >> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message >> . .. >> >>>Just to correct some misconception..... >>> >>>http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm >>> >>>Livestock Uses of Corn >>> >>>Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn >>>growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually. >>>Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents 57 percent >>>of all of the corn grown in the United States. >>> >>>In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. >>>Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. >>>Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. >>>As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat >>>production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on >>>America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 >>>pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken >>>or 28 pounds of catfish. >>> >>>Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed >>>livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is fed >>>to animals around the world >> >> ===================== >> So what? There is still no need to feed any corn to cows. The fact >> remains that as a vegan yiou do *nothing* to change the way beef is >> produced. However, if you were truely concerned with meat production you >> would be part of the many that try to provide farmers with an alternative >> way to produce beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, no antibiotics, natually >> grazed. You won't, because instead, you follow your simple rule for >> your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Being vegan does not automatically >> mean fewer animals die for your diet/lifestyle. killer. >> >> > Try this. It takes 7 times as much food to grow corn as to eat it. ===================== You'd better get off the illegal drugs, fool. Try to make sense next time. It takes *no* food out of your mouth to raise beef cows. In fact in takes *no* food that you could even eat! Are you really too stupid to understand that cattle can graze in areas where you cannot grow your crop foods? Cows can take that land, and the the natural growth and produce healthy, edible foods with *no* inputs from the petro-chemical industry that you appear to dearly love. Why is that? You a major stock-holder or something? You can't be spewing this ignorance because of any so-called caring for animals, as you prove with each inane post that animals really mean nothing to you. Guess you just like all that blood on your hands for your entertainment, eh killer? > > > >> >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message .. . > > > rick etter wrote: > >> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message >> . .. >> >>>Just to correct some misconception..... >>> >>>http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm >>> >>>Livestock Uses of Corn >>> >>>Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn >>>growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually. >>>Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents 57 percent >>>of all of the corn grown in the United States. >>> >>>In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. >>>Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. >>>Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. >>>As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat >>>production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on >>>America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 >>>pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken >>>or 28 pounds of catfish. >>> >>>Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed >>>livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is fed >>>to animals around the world >> >> ===================== >> So what? There is still no need to feed any corn to cows. The fact >> remains that as a vegan yiou do *nothing* to change the way beef is >> produced. However, if you were truely concerned with meat production you >> would be part of the many that try to provide farmers with an alternative >> way to produce beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, no antibiotics, natually >> grazed. You won't, because instead, you follow your simple rule for >> your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Being vegan does not automatically >> mean fewer animals die for your diet/lifestyle. killer. >> >> > Try this. It takes 7 times as much food to grow corn as to eat it. ===================== You'd better get off the illegal drugs, fool. Try to make sense next time. It takes *no* food out of your mouth to raise beef cows. In fact in takes *no* food that you could even eat! Are you really too stupid to understand that cattle can graze in areas where you cannot grow your crop foods? Cows can take that land, and the the natural growth and produce healthy, edible foods with *no* inputs from the petro-chemical industry that you appear to dearly love. Why is that? You a major stock-holder or something? You can't be spewing this ignorance because of any so-called caring for animals, as you prove with each inane post that animals really mean nothing to you. Guess you just like all that blood on your hands for your entertainment, eh killer? > > > >> >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message .. . > > > rick etter wrote: > >> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message >> . .. >> >>>Just to correct some misconception..... >>> >>>http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm >>> >>>Livestock Uses of Corn >>> >>>Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn >>>growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually. >>>Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents 57 percent >>>of all of the corn grown in the United States. >>> >>>In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. >>>Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. >>>Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. >>>As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat >>>production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on >>>America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 >>>pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken >>>or 28 pounds of catfish. >>> >>>Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed >>>livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is fed >>>to animals around the world >> >> ===================== >> So what? There is still no need to feed any corn to cows. The fact >> remains that as a vegan yiou do *nothing* to change the way beef is >> produced. However, if you were truely concerned with meat production you >> would be part of the many that try to provide farmers with an alternative >> way to produce beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, no antibiotics, natually >> grazed. You won't, because instead, you follow your simple rule for >> your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Being vegan does not automatically >> mean fewer animals die for your diet/lifestyle. killer. >> >> > Try this. It takes 7 times as much food to grow corn as to eat it. ===================== You'd better get off the illegal drugs, fool. Try to make sense next time. It takes *no* food out of your mouth to raise beef cows. In fact in takes *no* food that you could even eat! Are you really too stupid to understand that cattle can graze in areas where you cannot grow your crop foods? Cows can take that land, and the the natural growth and produce healthy, edible foods with *no* inputs from the petro-chemical industry that you appear to dearly love. Why is that? You a major stock-holder or something? You can't be spewing this ignorance because of any so-called caring for animals, as you prove with each inane post that animals really mean nothing to you. Guess you just like all that blood on your hands for your entertainment, eh killer? > > > >> >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote: > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message > .. . > >> >>rick etter wrote: >> >> >>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message om... >>> >>> >>>>Just to correct some misconception..... >>>> >>>>http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm >>>> >>>>Livestock Uses of Corn >>>> >>>>Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn >>>>growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually. >>>>Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents 57 percent >>>>of all of the corn grown in the United States. >>>> >>>>In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. >>>>Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. >>>>Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. >>>>As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat >>>>production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on >>>>America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 >>>>pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken >>>>or 28 pounds of catfish. >>>> >>>>Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed >>>>livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is fed >>>>to animals around the world >>> >>>===================== >>>So what? There is still no need to feed any corn to cows. The fact >>>remains that as a vegan yiou do *nothing* to change the way beef is >>>produced. However, if you were truely concerned with meat production you >>>would be part of the many that try to provide farmers with an alternative >>>way to produce beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, no antibiotics, natually >>>grazed. You won't, because instead, you follow your simple rule for >>>your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Being vegan does not automatically >>>mean fewer animals die for your diet/lifestyle. killer. >>> >>> >> >>Try this. It takes 7 times as much food to grow corn as to eat it. > > ===================== > You'd better get off the illegal drugs, fool. Try to make sense next time. > It takes *no* food out of your mouth to raise beef cows. In fact in takes > *no* food that you could even eat! Are you really too stupid to understand > that cattle can graze in areas where you cannot grow your crop foods? Cows > can take that land, and the the natural growth and produce healthy, edible > foods with *no* inputs from the petro-chemical industry that you appear to > dearly love. Why is that? You a major stock-holder or something? You > can't be spewing this ignorance because of any so-called caring for animals, > as you prove with each inane post that animals really mean nothing to you. > Guess you just like all that blood on your hands for your entertainment, eh > killer? > Very simply, if people simply ate the food that was produced and fed to cows, there would be much more food and less resources required. Of course we are part of the cycle of life. Rick just happens to be an incredibly nasty part of it, which I will ignore from now on. Most crops grown and exported in the US are used for the manufacture of meat production. It's an inefficient use of land and resources. Rick also ignores the health consequences of consumption of beef on diseases of the arteries and cancer. That's his choice. It's also his choice to enter a forum of where veg*ns discuss their life style, and chooses to be an SOB. That serves some kind of need for him. Sad. I choose to eat healthy, be a better citizen of the world, work out, and not make slanderous accusations. Ignoring him, corn is the most heavily subsidized food in America, which is why it is in almost everything. For example, corn syrup and corn starch are in many products. This greatly contributes to the obesity and health problems American's face. Originally corn producers were paid not to grow corn to keep the price up. Now they get huge subsidizes and grow corn, most of it now genetically altered. It's a sad fact. > > >> >> >>> > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote: > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message > .. . > >> >>rick etter wrote: >> >> >>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message om... >>> >>> >>>>Just to correct some misconception..... >>>> >>>>http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm >>>> >>>>Livestock Uses of Corn >>>> >>>>Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn >>>>growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually. >>>>Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents 57 percent >>>>of all of the corn grown in the United States. >>>> >>>>In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. >>>>Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. >>>>Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. >>>>As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat >>>>production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on >>>>America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 >>>>pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken >>>>or 28 pounds of catfish. >>>> >>>>Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed >>>>livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is fed >>>>to animals around the world >>> >>>===================== >>>So what? There is still no need to feed any corn to cows. The fact >>>remains that as a vegan yiou do *nothing* to change the way beef is >>>produced. However, if you were truely concerned with meat production you >>>would be part of the many that try to provide farmers with an alternative >>>way to produce beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, no antibiotics, natually >>>grazed. You won't, because instead, you follow your simple rule for >>>your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Being vegan does not automatically >>>mean fewer animals die for your diet/lifestyle. killer. >>> >>> >> >>Try this. It takes 7 times as much food to grow corn as to eat it. > > ===================== > You'd better get off the illegal drugs, fool. Try to make sense next time. > It takes *no* food out of your mouth to raise beef cows. In fact in takes > *no* food that you could even eat! Are you really too stupid to understand > that cattle can graze in areas where you cannot grow your crop foods? Cows > can take that land, and the the natural growth and produce healthy, edible > foods with *no* inputs from the petro-chemical industry that you appear to > dearly love. Why is that? You a major stock-holder or something? You > can't be spewing this ignorance because of any so-called caring for animals, > as you prove with each inane post that animals really mean nothing to you. > Guess you just like all that blood on your hands for your entertainment, eh > killer? > Very simply, if people simply ate the food that was produced and fed to cows, there would be much more food and less resources required. Of course we are part of the cycle of life. Rick just happens to be an incredibly nasty part of it, which I will ignore from now on. Most crops grown and exported in the US are used for the manufacture of meat production. It's an inefficient use of land and resources. Rick also ignores the health consequences of consumption of beef on diseases of the arteries and cancer. That's his choice. It's also his choice to enter a forum of where veg*ns discuss their life style, and chooses to be an SOB. That serves some kind of need for him. Sad. I choose to eat healthy, be a better citizen of the world, work out, and not make slanderous accusations. Ignoring him, corn is the most heavily subsidized food in America, which is why it is in almost everything. For example, corn syrup and corn starch are in many products. This greatly contributes to the obesity and health problems American's face. Originally corn producers were paid not to grow corn to keep the price up. Now they get huge subsidizes and grow corn, most of it now genetically altered. It's a sad fact. > > >> >> >>> > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message ... > > > rick etter wrote: > >> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message >> .. . >> >>> >>>rick etter wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Just to correct some misconception..... >>>>> >>>>>http://www.pioneer.com/media/knowhow...stock_uses.htm >>>>> >>>>>Livestock Uses of Corn >>>>> >>>>>Collectively, beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers represent corn >>>>>growers' No. 1 customer - consuming 5.6 billion bushels of corn >>>>>annually. Corn used directly as feed for domestic livestock represents >>>>>57 percent of all of the corn grown in the United States. >>>>> >>>>>In 2003, beef cattle were fed more than 1.4 billion bushels of corn. >>>>>Hogs consumed 1.1 billion bushels. >>>>>Poultry another 1.3 billion bushels. >>>>>As a primary livestock feed source, corn is a key link in the meat >>>>>production chain. More than half of the U.S. corn crop puts meat on >>>>>America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 >>>>>pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 19.6 pounds of chicken >>>>>or 28 pounds of catfish. >>>>> >>>>>Furthermore, most corn sold to other countries also is used to feed >>>>>livestock. In fact, 80 percent of corn raised in the United States is >>>>>fed to animals around the world >>>> >>>>===================== >>>>So what? There is still no need to feed any corn to cows. The fact >>>>remains that as a vegan yiou do *nothing* to change the way beef is >>>>produced. However, if you were truely concerned with meat production >>>>you would be part of the many that try to provide farmers with an >>>>alternative way to produce beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, no >>>>antibiotics, natually grazed. You won't, because instead, you follow >>>>your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Being vegan >>>>does not automatically mean fewer animals die for your diet/lifestyle. >>>>killer. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Try this. It takes 7 times as much food to grow corn as to eat it. >> >> ===================== >> You'd better get off the illegal drugs, fool. Try to make sense next >> time. It takes *no* food out of your mouth to raise beef cows. In fact >> in takes *no* food that you could even eat! Are you really too stupid >> to understand that cattle can graze in areas where you cannot grow your >> crop foods? Cows can take that land, and the the natural growth and >> produce healthy, edible foods with *no* inputs from the petro-chemical >> industry that you appear to dearly love. Why is that? You a major >> stock-holder or something? You can't be spewing this ignorance because >> of any so-called caring for animals, as you prove with each inane post >> that animals really mean nothing to you. Guess you just like all that >> blood on your hands for your entertainment, eh killer? >> > > Very simply, if people simply ate the food that was produced and fed to > cows, there would be much more food and less resources required. ======================= Again fool. Try to read for some comprehension. There are *NO* crops produced for the beef I eat. You delsuional ignorance to the contrary, there is *NO* requirment to feed cows *any* crop food. Of > course we are part of the cycle of life. Rick just happens to be an > incredibly nasty part of it, which I will ignore from now on. =============== Of course you will because you have seen how ignorant and stupid your position is and cannot defend it, or refute what I say. Typical vegan religious intolerence. > > Most crops grown and exported in the US are used for the manufacture of > meat production. It's an inefficient use of land and resources. ================ Which *you* are doing nothing to change. In fact, you support it with the crop food you buy fool. The 'wastes' from the parts of plants you don't eat are used in the production of the meat you claim to want to halt production of. > > Rick also ignores the health consequences of consumption of beef on > diseases of the arteries and cancer. That's his choice. ================= There are vegan diets that can be just as bad, killer. Meat does not make a diet bad, and studies have shown that some meat-included diets beat vegan ones. > > It's also his choice to enter a forum of where veg*ns discuss their life > style, and chooses to be an SOB. That serves some kind of need for him. > Sad. =============== Yes, you terminal, willful ignorance is sad indeed. What's even more sad is all the unnecessary death and suffering of animals you cause because you follow only a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' > > I choose to eat healthy, be a better citizen of the world, work out, and > not make slanderous accusations. ==================== LOL You are doing nothing of the sort, kller. hat's the point. You haven't even compared which veggies you eat agaisn't other vegggies to see which of them cause more/less animal death and suffering. Like all usenet vegans, you automatically believe that vegan means cruelty-free. It part of the 'faith' of the vegan religion. Something you cannot prove. > > > Ignoring him, corn is the most heavily subsidized food in America, which > is why it is in almost everything. For example, corn syrup and corn starch > are in many products. This greatly contributes to the obesity and health > problems American's face. Originally corn producers were paid not to > grow corn to keep the price up. Now they get huge subsidizes > and grow corn, most of it now genetically altered. ===================== Yes, and you *could* be part of the solution. Instead, you follow a simple rule for your simple mind. Sad, truly sad. > > > It's a sad fact. ============= Yes, veganism is sad... that's why it's converts are so full of hate... > > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > Is grass fed beef ecological? > > NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm ================ ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a hoot! Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... "...Grass-fed beef not only is lower in overall fat and in saturated fat, but it has the added advantage of providing more omega-3 fats. These crucial healthy fats are most plentiful in flaxseeds and fish, and are also found in walnuts, soybeans and in meat from animals that have grazed on omega-3 rich grass..." "...In addition to being higher in healthy omega-3s, meat from pastured cattle is also up to four times higher in vitamin E than meat from feedlot cattle, and much higher in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a nutrient associated with lower cancer risk. ..." "...In addition to consuming less energy, grass-fed beef has another environmental advantage - it is far less polluting. The animals' wastes drop onto the land, becoming nutrients for the next cycle of crops..." "...From a humanitarian perspective, there is yet another advantage to pastured animal products. The animals themselves are not forced to live in confinement..." The only real problem I see is that he thinks that cattle are not now pastured for most of their lives. All beef cows are pastured now. They spend most of their lives grazing, and are sent to feedlots for only the last few weeks. So, the "100 million" cows he talks about having to have on pasture are already on pasture. Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking about the whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true vegans around to really make a difference. I'm only talking about what an individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with the meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick etter" > wrote in message k.net... > > "John Coleman" > wrote in message > ... > > Is grass fed beef ecological? > > > > NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm > > > ================ > ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a hoot! I didn't state that Rick, people can buy organic produce. > Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... Funny how you only post the info that makes it look good spin doctor, did you know many parts of Africa are barron desert due to grazing cattle? Didi you know that conservationsists don't like grass-fed beef? Here's the rest: But I wouldn't get too carried away and think that as long as it's grass-fed then it's fine and dandy. Grass-fed products are still high in saturated fat (though not as high), still high in cholesterol, and are still devoid of fiber and many other essential nutrients. They take less toll on the environment, but the land on which the animals graze still must often be irrigated, thus using up dwindling water resources, and it may be fertilized with petroleum-based fertilizers. And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the most destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow basis. Plus there is the tremendous toll grazing cattle takes on the land itself. Even with U.S. beef cattle today spending the last half of their lives in feedlots, seventy percent of the land area of the American West is currently used for grazing livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land area of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho is used for rangeland. Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in places that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads and parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, virtually every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As one environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted more water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the range, and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight on rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months foraging, but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. The USDA's Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 for a single purpose-to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to be detrimental to the western livestock industry. The program has not been popular with its opponents. They have called the ADC by a variety of names, including, "All the Dead Critters" and "Aid to Dependent Cowboys." In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image consultants, the federal government gave a new name to the ADC-"Wildlife Services." And they came up with a new motto-"Living with Wildlife." This is an interesting choice of words. What "Wildlife Services" actually does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten livestock. Its methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and aerial gunning. In "denning" wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into the den and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are badgers, black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, opossum, raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, black birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several threatened and endangered species. All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is "Living with Wildlife," intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals annually. This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private financial interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their livestock. The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing cattle is hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can certainly reduce the damage, but widespread production of grass-fed beef would only multiply this already devastating toll. "Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, are what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in the American West you find hordes of cows. . . . They are a pest and a plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our canyons, valleys, meadows and forests. They graze off the native bluestems and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the exotic cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Even when the cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and the mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, you'll smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle." - Edward Abbey, conservationist and author, in a speech before cattlemen at the University of Montana in 1985 While grass-fed beef certainly has advantages over feedlot beef, another answer is to eat less meat. If as a society we did this, then the vast majority of the public lands in the western United States could be put to more valuable - and environmentally sustainable - use. Much of the western United States is sunny and windy, and could be used for large-scale solar energy and wind-power facilities. With the cattle off the land, photovoltaic modules and windmills could generate enormous amounts of energy without polluting or causing environmental damage. Other areas could grow grasses that could be harvested as "biomass" fuels, providing a far less polluting source of energy than fossil fuels. Much of it could be restored, once again becoming valued wildlife habitat. The restoration of cow burnt lands would help to vitalize rural economies as well as ecosystems. And there is one more thing. When you picture grass-fed beef, you probably envision an idyllic scene of a cow outside in a pasture munching happily on grass. That is certainly the image those endorsing and selling these products would like you to hold. And there is some truth to it. But it is only a part of the story. There is something missing from such a pleasant picture, something that nevertheless remains an ineluctable part of the actual reality. Grass-fed beef does not just come to you straight from God's Green Earth. It also comes to you via the slaughterhouse. The lives of grass-fed livestock are more humane and natural than the lives of animals confined in factory farms and feedlots, but their deaths are often just as terrifying and cruel. If they are taken to a conventional slaughterhouse, they are just as likely as a feedlot animal to be skinned while alive and fully conscious, and just as apt to be butchered and have their feet cut off while they are still breathing - distressing realities that tragically occur every hour in meat-packing plants nationwide. Confronting the brutal realities of modern slaughterhouses can be a harsh reminder that those who contemplate only the pastoral image of cattle patiently foraging do not see the whole picture. > Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking about the > whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true vegans > around to really make a difference. People still have the option, don't blame us again for the lack of compassion of meat eaters. > I'm only talking about what an > individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. > Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with the > meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* > contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. As usual, no figures and no expert opinion to back this claim. Much game is still reared by humans using products from monoculture. John |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, the dust ball was caused by over grazing and poor crop management.
The Sahara Dessert was caused by over grazing. Much of the Amazon Rain forest is chopped down to make grazing land for cattle. We could go on. John Coleman wrote: > "rick etter" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... >> >>>Is grass fed beef ecological? >>> >>>NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm >> >> >>================ >>ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a > > hoot! > > I didn't state that Rick, people can buy organic produce. > > >>Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... > > > Funny how you only post the info that makes it look good spin doctor, did > you know many parts of Africa are barron desert due to grazing cattle? Didi > you know that conservationsists don't like grass-fed beef? Here's the rest: > > But I wouldn't get too carried away and think that as long as it's grass-fed > then it's fine and dandy. Grass-fed products are still high in saturated fat > (though not as high), still high in cholesterol, and are still devoid of > fiber and many other essential nutrients. They take less toll on the > environment, but the land on which the animals graze still must often be > irrigated, thus using up dwindling water resources, and it may be fertilized > with petroleum-based fertilizers. > > And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the most > destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually 24 > times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its > concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason > that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were > when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on > pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow > basis. > > Plus there is the tremendous toll grazing cattle takes on the land itself. > Even with U.S. beef cattle today spending the last half of their lives in > feedlots, seventy percent of the land area of the American West is currently > used for grazing livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land area of > Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho is > used for rangeland. Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in places > that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible > areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, > extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads and > parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, virtually > every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As one > environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted more > water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and > destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." > > Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current > system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the range, > and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight on > rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months foraging, > but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. > > The USDA's Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 for a > single purpose-to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to be > detrimental to the western livestock industry. The program has not been > popular with its opponents. They have called the ADC by a variety of names, > including, "All the Dead Critters" and "Aid to Dependent Cowboys." > > In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image consultants, the > federal government gave a new name to the ADC-"Wildlife Services." And they > came up with a new motto-"Living with Wildlife." > > This is an interesting choice of words. What "Wildlife Services" actually > does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten livestock. Its > methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and aerial > gunning. In "denning" wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into the den > and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. > > Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are badgers, > black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, opossum, > raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, black > birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by > Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several > threatened and endangered species. > > All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is "Living with > Wildlife," intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals annually. > This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private financial > interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their livestock. > > The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing cattle is > hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can certainly > reduce the damage, but widespread production of grass-fed beef would only > multiply this already devastating toll. > "Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, are > what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in > the American West you find hordes of cows. . . . They are a pest and a > plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our > canyons, valleys, meadows and forests. They graze off the native bluestems > and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They > trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the exotic > cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Even when the > cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and the > mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, you'll > smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle." - Edward Abbey, > conservationist and author, in a speech before cattlemen at the University > of Montana in 1985 > While grass-fed beef certainly has advantages over feedlot beef, another > answer is to eat less meat. If as a society we did this, then the vast > majority of the public lands in the western United States could be put to > more valuable - and environmentally sustainable - use. Much of the western > United States is sunny and windy, and could be used for large-scale solar > energy and wind-power facilities. With the cattle off the land, photovoltaic > modules and windmills could generate enormous amounts of energy without > polluting or causing environmental damage. Other areas could grow grasses > that could be harvested as "biomass" fuels, providing a far less polluting > source of energy than fossil fuels. Much of it could be restored, once again > becoming valued wildlife habitat. The restoration of cow burnt lands would > help to vitalize rural economies as well as ecosystems. > > And there is one more thing. When you picture grass-fed beef, you probably > envision an idyllic scene of a cow outside in a pasture munching happily on > grass. That is certainly the image those endorsing and selling these > products would like you to hold. And there is some truth to it. > > But it is only a part of the story. There is something missing from such a > pleasant picture, something that nevertheless remains an ineluctable part of > the actual reality. Grass-fed beef does not just come to you straight from > God's Green Earth. It also comes to you via the slaughterhouse. > > The lives of grass-fed livestock are more humane and natural than the lives > of animals confined in factory farms and feedlots, but their deaths are > often just as terrifying and cruel. If they are taken to a conventional > slaughterhouse, they are just as likely as a feedlot animal to be skinned > while alive and fully conscious, and just as apt to be butchered and have > their feet cut off while they are still breathing - distressing realities > that tragically occur every hour in meat-packing plants nationwide. > Confronting the brutal realities of modern slaughterhouses can be a harsh > reminder that those who contemplate only the pastoral image of cattle > patiently foraging do not see the whole picture. > > >>Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking about > > the > >>whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true > > vegans > >>around to really make a difference. > > > People still have the option, don't blame us again for the lack of > compassion of meat eaters. > > >> I'm only talking about what an >>individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. >>Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with the >>meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* >>contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. > > > As usual, no figures and no expert opinion to back this claim. Much game is > still reared by humans using products from monoculture. > > John > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, the dust ball was caused by over grazing and poor crop management.
The Sahara Dessert was caused by over grazing. Much of the Amazon Rain forest is chopped down to make grazing land for cattle. We could go on. John Coleman wrote: > "rick etter" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... >> >>>Is grass fed beef ecological? >>> >>>NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm >> >> >>================ >>ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a > > hoot! > > I didn't state that Rick, people can buy organic produce. > > >>Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... > > > Funny how you only post the info that makes it look good spin doctor, did > you know many parts of Africa are barron desert due to grazing cattle? Didi > you know that conservationsists don't like grass-fed beef? Here's the rest: > > But I wouldn't get too carried away and think that as long as it's grass-fed > then it's fine and dandy. Grass-fed products are still high in saturated fat > (though not as high), still high in cholesterol, and are still devoid of > fiber and many other essential nutrients. They take less toll on the > environment, but the land on which the animals graze still must often be > irrigated, thus using up dwindling water resources, and it may be fertilized > with petroleum-based fertilizers. > > And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the most > destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually 24 > times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its > concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason > that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were > when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on > pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow > basis. > > Plus there is the tremendous toll grazing cattle takes on the land itself. > Even with U.S. beef cattle today spending the last half of their lives in > feedlots, seventy percent of the land area of the American West is currently > used for grazing livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land area of > Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho is > used for rangeland. Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in places > that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible > areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, > extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads and > parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, virtually > every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As one > environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted more > water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and > destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." > > Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current > system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the range, > and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight on > rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months foraging, > but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. > > The USDA's Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 for a > single purpose-to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to be > detrimental to the western livestock industry. The program has not been > popular with its opponents. They have called the ADC by a variety of names, > including, "All the Dead Critters" and "Aid to Dependent Cowboys." > > In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image consultants, the > federal government gave a new name to the ADC-"Wildlife Services." And they > came up with a new motto-"Living with Wildlife." > > This is an interesting choice of words. What "Wildlife Services" actually > does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten livestock. Its > methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and aerial > gunning. In "denning" wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into the den > and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. > > Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are badgers, > black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, opossum, > raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, black > birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by > Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several > threatened and endangered species. > > All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is "Living with > Wildlife," intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals annually. > This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private financial > interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their livestock. > > The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing cattle is > hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can certainly > reduce the damage, but widespread production of grass-fed beef would only > multiply this already devastating toll. > "Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, are > what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in > the American West you find hordes of cows. . . . They are a pest and a > plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our > canyons, valleys, meadows and forests. They graze off the native bluestems > and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They > trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the exotic > cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Even when the > cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and the > mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, you'll > smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle." - Edward Abbey, > conservationist and author, in a speech before cattlemen at the University > of Montana in 1985 > While grass-fed beef certainly has advantages over feedlot beef, another > answer is to eat less meat. If as a society we did this, then the vast > majority of the public lands in the western United States could be put to > more valuable - and environmentally sustainable - use. Much of the western > United States is sunny and windy, and could be used for large-scale solar > energy and wind-power facilities. With the cattle off the land, photovoltaic > modules and windmills could generate enormous amounts of energy without > polluting or causing environmental damage. Other areas could grow grasses > that could be harvested as "biomass" fuels, providing a far less polluting > source of energy than fossil fuels. Much of it could be restored, once again > becoming valued wildlife habitat. The restoration of cow burnt lands would > help to vitalize rural economies as well as ecosystems. > > And there is one more thing. When you picture grass-fed beef, you probably > envision an idyllic scene of a cow outside in a pasture munching happily on > grass. That is certainly the image those endorsing and selling these > products would like you to hold. And there is some truth to it. > > But it is only a part of the story. There is something missing from such a > pleasant picture, something that nevertheless remains an ineluctable part of > the actual reality. Grass-fed beef does not just come to you straight from > God's Green Earth. It also comes to you via the slaughterhouse. > > The lives of grass-fed livestock are more humane and natural than the lives > of animals confined in factory farms and feedlots, but their deaths are > often just as terrifying and cruel. If they are taken to a conventional > slaughterhouse, they are just as likely as a feedlot animal to be skinned > while alive and fully conscious, and just as apt to be butchered and have > their feet cut off while they are still breathing - distressing realities > that tragically occur every hour in meat-packing plants nationwide. > Confronting the brutal realities of modern slaughterhouses can be a harsh > reminder that those who contemplate only the pastoral image of cattle > patiently foraging do not see the whole picture. > > >>Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking about > > the > >>whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true > > vegans > >>around to really make a difference. > > > People still have the option, don't blame us again for the lack of > compassion of meat eaters. > > >> I'm only talking about what an >>individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. >>Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with the >>meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* >>contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. > > > As usual, no figures and no expert opinion to back this claim. Much game is > still reared by humans using products from monoculture. > > John > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > k.net... >> >> "John Coleman" > wrote in message >> ... >> > Is grass fed beef ecological? >> > >> > NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm >> >> >> ================ >> ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a > hoot! > > I didn't state that Rick, people can buy organic produce. ====================== And organic does not mean creulty-free or any more environmentally friendly, killer. that's the myth. The production is the same, and some pesticides used are just as tosic, or even more so that some sythetics. > >> Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... > > Funny how you only post the info that makes it look good spin doctor, ================== LOL Why not fool, the whole exercise was about spin. that was the point. did > you know many parts of Africa are barron desert due to grazing cattle? > Didi > you know that conservationsists don't like grass-fed beef? Here's the > rest: > > But I wouldn't get too carried away and think that as long as it's > grass-fed > then it's fine and dandy. Grass-fed products are still high in saturated > fat > (though not as high), still high in cholesterol, and are still devoid of > fiber and many other essential nutrients. They take less toll on the > environment, but the land on which the animals graze still must often be > irrigated, thus using up dwindling water resources, and it may be > fertilized > with petroleum-based fertilizers. > > And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the most > destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually > 24 > times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its > concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason > that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were > when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on > pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow > basis. > > Plus there is the tremendous toll grazing cattle takes on the land itself. > Even with U.S. beef cattle today spending the last half of their lives in > feedlots, seventy percent of the land area of the American West is > currently > used for grazing livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land area > of > Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho > is > used for rangeland. Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in > places > that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible > areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, > extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads > and > parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, virtually > every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As > one > environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted more > water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and > destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." > > Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current > system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the > range, > and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight on > rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months > foraging, > but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. > > The USDA's Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 for > a > single purpose-to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to > be > detrimental to the western livestock industry. The program has not been > popular with its opponents. They have called the ADC by a variety of > names, > including, "All the Dead Critters" and "Aid to Dependent Cowboys." > > In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image consultants, > the > federal government gave a new name to the ADC-"Wildlife Services." And > they > came up with a new motto-"Living with Wildlife." > > This is an interesting choice of words. What "Wildlife Services" actually > does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten livestock. > Its > methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and > aerial > gunning. In "denning" wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into the > den > and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. > > Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are badgers, > black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, opossum, > raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, > black > birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by > Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several > threatened and endangered species. > > All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is "Living > with > Wildlife," intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals > annually. > This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private > financial > interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their > livestock. > > The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing cattle is > hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can certainly > reduce the damage, but widespread production of grass-fed beef would only > multiply this already devastating toll. > "Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, are > what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in > the American West you find hordes of cows. . . . They are a pest and a > plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our > canyons, valleys, meadows and forests. They graze off the native bluestems > and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They > trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the exotic > cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Even when > the > cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and the > mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, you'll > smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle." - Edward Abbey, > conservationist and author, in a speech before cattlemen at the University > of Montana in 1985 > While grass-fed beef certainly has advantages over feedlot beef, another > answer is to eat less meat. If as a society we did this, then the vast > majority of the public lands in the western United States could be put to > more valuable - and environmentally sustainable - use. Much of the western > United States is sunny and windy, and could be used for large-scale solar > energy and wind-power facilities. With the cattle off the land, > photovoltaic > modules and windmills could generate enormous amounts of energy without > polluting or causing environmental damage. Other areas could grow grasses > that could be harvested as "biomass" fuels, providing a far less polluting > source of energy than fossil fuels. Much of it could be restored, once > again > becoming valued wildlife habitat. The restoration of cow burnt lands would > help to vitalize rural economies as well as ecosystems. > > And there is one more thing. When you picture grass-fed beef, you probably > envision an idyllic scene of a cow outside in a pasture munching happily > on > grass. That is certainly the image those endorsing and selling these > products would like you to hold. And there is some truth to it. > > But it is only a part of the story. There is something missing from such a > pleasant picture, something that nevertheless remains an ineluctable part > of > the actual reality. Grass-fed beef does not just come to you straight from > God's Green Earth. It also comes to you via the slaughterhouse. > > The lives of grass-fed livestock are more humane and natural than the > lives > of animals confined in factory farms and feedlots, but their deaths are > often just as terrifying and cruel. If they are taken to a conventional > slaughterhouse, they are just as likely as a feedlot animal to be skinned > while alive and fully conscious, and just as apt to be butchered and have > their feet cut off while they are still breathing - distressing realities > that tragically occur every hour in meat-packing plants nationwide. > Confronting the brutal realities of modern slaughterhouses can be a harsh > reminder that those who contemplate only the pastoral image of cattle > patiently foraging do not see the whole picture. > >> Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking about > the >> whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true > vegans >> around to really make a difference. > > People still have the option, don't blame us again for the lack of > compassion of meat eaters. > >> I'm only talking about what an >> individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. >> Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with the >> meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* >> contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. > > As usual, no figures and no expert opinion to back this claim. Much game > is > still reared by humans using products from monoculture. ================== You really are this stupid, aren't you? Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html And, an extra, just because it's 'organic' doesn't make it safe. Special potatoes and celery were bred to increase their resistance pest, and create one where pesticides were not needed. The results were good, as to not needing extra pesticides, however.... "...Breeding methods and other "substitutes" used as alternatives to pesticide chemicals can expose consumers to greater risks. This is a recognized problem particularly in cases where farmers breed plants to become more insect-resistant, a "natural" substitute to using synthetic pesticides. In one particular case, breeders grew a special type of highly insect-resistant celery to avoid using pesticides. It wasn't until after the people handling the celery developed a serious rash that it was discovered the special celery contained 6,200 parts per billion of carcinogenic psoralens, a natural chemical that heightens sensitivity to the sun's rays; conventionally grown celery protected with synthetic pesticides contains approximately 800 parts per billion. The same occurred when scientists bred a "pest-free" potato. The breeders found that the potato "was so full of natural pesticides that it was acutely poisonous to humans." By using synthetic pesticides, therefore, farmers and food producers often are indirectly protecting consumers from potential risks from natural pesticides which scientists have found can be carcinogenic..." http://www.consumeralert.org/pubs/research/CRFeb00.htm > > John > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message news  > Yes, the dust ball was caused by over grazing and poor crop management. > The Sahara Dessert was caused by over grazing. > Much of the Amazon Rain forest is chopped down to make grazing land for > cattle. ====================== Try again fool. Just because you repaet your stupidity doesn't make it any less a ly, killer. > > We could go on. ================ Not with any facts you can't.... > > > John Coleman wrote: > >> "rick etter" > wrote in message >> k.net... >> >>>"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>>Is grass fed beef ecological? >>>> >>>>NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm >>> >>> >>>================ >>>ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a >> >> hoot! >> >> I didn't state that Rick, people can buy organic produce. >> >> >>>Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... >> >> >> Funny how you only post the info that makes it look good spin doctor, did >> you know many parts of Africa are barron desert due to grazing cattle? >> Didi >> you know that conservationsists don't like grass-fed beef? Here's the >> rest: >> >> But I wouldn't get too carried away and think that as long as it's >> grass-fed >> then it's fine and dandy. Grass-fed products are still high in saturated >> fat >> (though not as high), still high in cholesterol, and are still devoid of >> fiber and many other essential nutrients. They take less toll on the >> environment, but the land on which the animals graze still must often be >> irrigated, thus using up dwindling water resources, and it may be >> fertilized >> with petroleum-based fertilizers. >> >> And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the most >> destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually >> 24 >> times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its >> concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason >> that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were >> when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on >> pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow >> basis. >> >> Plus there is the tremendous toll grazing cattle takes on the land >> itself. >> Even with U.S. beef cattle today spending the last half of their lives in >> feedlots, seventy percent of the land area of the American West is >> currently >> used for grazing livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land area >> of >> Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho >> is >> used for rangeland. Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in >> places >> that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible >> areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, >> extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads >> and >> parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, virtually >> every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As >> one >> environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted >> more >> water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, >> and >> destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." >> >> Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current >> system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the >> range, >> and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight >> on >> rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months >> foraging, >> but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. >> >> The USDA's Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 >> for a >> single purpose-to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to >> be >> detrimental to the western livestock industry. The program has not been >> popular with its opponents. They have called the ADC by a variety of >> names, >> including, "All the Dead Critters" and "Aid to Dependent Cowboys." >> >> In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image consultants, >> the >> federal government gave a new name to the ADC-"Wildlife Services." And >> they >> came up with a new motto-"Living with Wildlife." >> >> This is an interesting choice of words. What "Wildlife Services" actually >> does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten livestock. >> Its >> methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and >> aerial >> gunning. In "denning" wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into the >> den >> and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. >> >> Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are >> badgers, >> black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, >> opossum, >> raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, >> black >> birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by >> Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several >> threatened and endangered species. >> >> All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is "Living >> with >> Wildlife," intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals >> annually. >> This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private >> financial >> interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their >> livestock. >> >> The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing cattle >> is >> hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can certainly >> reduce the damage, but widespread production of grass-fed beef would only >> multiply this already devastating toll. >> "Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, >> are >> what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in >> the American West you find hordes of cows. . . . They are a pest and a >> plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our >> canyons, valleys, meadows and forests. They graze off the native >> bluestems >> and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They >> trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the >> exotic >> cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Even when >> the >> cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and the >> mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, you'll >> smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle." - Edward Abbey, >> conservationist and author, in a speech before cattlemen at the >> University >> of Montana in 1985 >> While grass-fed beef certainly has advantages over feedlot beef, another >> answer is to eat less meat. If as a society we did this, then the vast >> majority of the public lands in the western United States could be put to >> more valuable - and environmentally sustainable - use. Much of the >> western >> United States is sunny and windy, and could be used for large-scale solar >> energy and wind-power facilities. With the cattle off the land, >> photovoltaic >> modules and windmills could generate enormous amounts of energy without >> polluting or causing environmental damage. Other areas could grow grasses >> that could be harvested as "biomass" fuels, providing a far less >> polluting >> source of energy than fossil fuels. Much of it could be restored, once >> again >> becoming valued wildlife habitat. The restoration of cow burnt lands >> would >> help to vitalize rural economies as well as ecosystems. >> >> And there is one more thing. When you picture grass-fed beef, you >> probably >> envision an idyllic scene of a cow outside in a pasture munching happily >> on >> grass. That is certainly the image those endorsing and selling these >> products would like you to hold. And there is some truth to it. >> >> But it is only a part of the story. There is something missing from such >> a >> pleasant picture, something that nevertheless remains an ineluctable part >> of >> the actual reality. Grass-fed beef does not just come to you straight >> from >> God's Green Earth. It also comes to you via the slaughterhouse. >> >> The lives of grass-fed livestock are more humane and natural than the >> lives >> of animals confined in factory farms and feedlots, but their deaths are >> often just as terrifying and cruel. If they are taken to a conventional >> slaughterhouse, they are just as likely as a feedlot animal to be skinned >> while alive and fully conscious, and just as apt to be butchered and have >> their feet cut off while they are still breathing - distressing realities >> that tragically occur every hour in meat-packing plants nationwide. >> Confronting the brutal realities of modern slaughterhouses can be a harsh >> reminder that those who contemplate only the pastoral image of cattle >> patiently foraging do not see the whole picture. >> >> >>>Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking about >> >> the >> >>>whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true >> >> vegans >> >>>around to really make a difference. >> >> >> People still have the option, don't blame us again for the lack of >> compassion of meat eaters. >> >> >>> I'm only talking about what an >>>individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. >>>Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with the >>>meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* >>>contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. >> >> >> As usual, no figures and no expert opinion to back this claim. Much game >> is >> still reared by humans using products from monoculture. >> >> John >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick etter" > wrote in message nk.net>...
> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message > news > > Yes, the dust ball was caused by over grazing and poor crop management. > > The Sahara Dessert was caused by over grazing. > > Much of the Amazon Rain forest is chopped down to make grazing land for > > cattle. > ====================== > Try again fool. Just because you repaet your stupidity doesn't make it any > less a ly, killer. > "IT'S ALL LYS!!!!... AND YOU'RE ALL HATE-SPEWING KILLERS!!" squeals etter in teeth gnashing, foaming-at-the-mouth frustration. > > > > > > We could go on. > ================ > Not with any facts you can't.... > > > > > > > > John Coleman wrote: > > > >> "rick etter" > wrote in message > >> k.net... > >> > >>>"John Coleman" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>>>Is grass fed beef ecological? > >>>> > >>>>NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm > >>> > >>> > >>>================ > >>>ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a > >> > >> hoot! > >> > >> I didn't state that Rick, people can buy organic produce. > >> > >> > >>>Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... > >> > >> > >> Funny how you only post the info that makes it look good spin doctor, did > >> you know many parts of Africa are barron desert due to grazing cattle? > >> Didi > >> you know that conservationsists don't like grass-fed beef? Here's the > >> rest: > >> > >> But I wouldn't get too carried away and think that as long as it's > >> grass-fed > >> then it's fine and dandy. Grass-fed products are still high in saturated > >> fat > >> (though not as high), still high in cholesterol, and are still devoid of > >> fiber and many other essential nutrients. They take less toll on the > >> environment, but the land on which the animals graze still must often be > >> irrigated, thus using up dwindling water resources, and it may be > >> fertilized > >> with petroleum-based fertilizers. > >> > >> And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the most > >> destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually > >> 24 > >> times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its > >> concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason > >> that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were > >> when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on > >> pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow > >> basis. > >> > >> Plus there is the tremendous toll grazing cattle takes on the land > >> itself. > >> Even with U.S. beef cattle today spending the last half of their lives in > >> feedlots, seventy percent of the land area of the American West is > >> currently > >> used for grazing livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land area > >> of > >> Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho > >> is > >> used for rangeland. Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in > >> places > >> that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible > >> areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, > >> extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads > >> and > >> parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, virtually > >> every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As > >> one > >> environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted > >> more > >> water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, > >> and > >> destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." > >> > >> Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current > >> system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the > >> range, > >> and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight > >> on > >> rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months > >> foraging, > >> but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. > >> > >> The USDA's Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 > >> for a > >> single purpose-to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to > >> be > >> detrimental to the western livestock industry. The program has not been > >> popular with its opponents. They have called the ADC by a variety of > >> names, > >> including, "All the Dead Critters" and "Aid to Dependent Cowboys." > >> > >> In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image consultants, > >> the > >> federal government gave a new name to the ADC-"Wildlife Services." And > >> they > >> came up with a new motto-"Living with Wildlife." > >> > >> This is an interesting choice of words. What "Wildlife Services" actually > >> does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten livestock. > >> Its > >> methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and > >> aerial > >> gunning. In "denning" wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into the > >> den > >> and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. > >> > >> Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are > >> badgers, > >> black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, > >> opossum, > >> raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, > >> black > >> birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by > >> Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several > >> threatened and endangered species. > >> > >> All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is "Living > >> with > >> Wildlife," intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals > >> annually. > >> This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private > >> financial > >> interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their > >> livestock. > >> > >> The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing cattle > >> is > >> hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can certainly > >> reduce the damage, but widespread production of grass-fed beef would only > >> multiply this already devastating toll. > >> "Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, > >> are > >> what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in > >> the American West you find hordes of cows. . . . They are a pest and a > >> plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our > >> canyons, valleys, meadows and forests. They graze off the native > >> bluestems > >> and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They > >> trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the > >> exotic > >> cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Even when > >> the > >> cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and the > >> mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, you'll > >> smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle." - Edward Abbey, > >> conservationist and author, in a speech before cattlemen at the > >> University > >> of Montana in 1985 > >> While grass-fed beef certainly has advantages over feedlot beef, another > >> answer is to eat less meat. If as a society we did this, then the vast > >> majority of the public lands in the western United States could be put to > >> more valuable - and environmentally sustainable - use. Much of the > >> western > >> United States is sunny and windy, and could be used for large-scale solar > >> energy and wind-power facilities. With the cattle off the land, > >> photovoltaic > >> modules and windmills could generate enormous amounts of energy without > >> polluting or causing environmental damage. Other areas could grow grasses > >> that could be harvested as "biomass" fuels, providing a far less > >> polluting > >> source of energy than fossil fuels. Much of it could be restored, once > >> again > >> becoming valued wildlife habitat. The restoration of cow burnt lands > >> would > >> help to vitalize rural economies as well as ecosystems. > >> > >> And there is one more thing. When you picture grass-fed beef, you > >> probably > >> envision an idyllic scene of a cow outside in a pasture munching happily > >> on > >> grass. That is certainly the image those endorsing and selling these > >> products would like you to hold. And there is some truth to it. > >> > >> But it is only a part of the story. There is something missing from such > >> a > >> pleasant picture, something that nevertheless remains an ineluctable part > >> of > >> the actual reality. Grass-fed beef does not just come to you straight > >> from > >> God's Green Earth. It also comes to you via the slaughterhouse. > >> > >> The lives of grass-fed livestock are more humane and natural than the > >> lives > >> of animals confined in factory farms and feedlots, but their deaths are > >> often just as terrifying and cruel. If they are taken to a conventional > >> slaughterhouse, they are just as likely as a feedlot animal to be skinned > >> while alive and fully conscious, and just as apt to be butchered and have > >> their feet cut off while they are still breathing - distressing realities > >> that tragically occur every hour in meat-packing plants nationwide. > >> Confronting the brutal realities of modern slaughterhouses can be a harsh > >> reminder that those who contemplate only the pastoral image of cattle > >> patiently foraging do not see the whole picture. > >> > >> > >>>Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking about > >> > >> the > >> > >>>whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true > >> > >> vegans > >> > >>>around to really make a difference. > >> > >> > >> People still have the option, don't blame us again for the lack of > >> compassion of meat eaters. > >> > >> > >>> I'm only talking about what an > >>>individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. > >>>Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with the > >>>meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* > >>>contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. > >> > >> > >> As usual, no figures and no expert opinion to back this claim. Much game > >> is > >> still reared by humans using products from monoculture. > >> > >> John > >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick etter" > wrote in message nk.net>...
> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message > news > > Yes, the dust ball was caused by over grazing and poor crop management. > > The Sahara Dessert was caused by over grazing. > > Much of the Amazon Rain forest is chopped down to make grazing land for > > cattle. > ====================== > Try again fool. Just because you repaet your stupidity doesn't make it any > less a ly, killer. > "IT'S ALL LYS!!!!... AND YOU'RE ALL HATE-SPEWING KILLERS!!" squeals etter in teeth gnashing, foaming-at-the-mouth frustration. > > > > > > We could go on. > ================ > Not with any facts you can't.... > > > > > > > > John Coleman wrote: > > > >> "rick etter" > wrote in message > >> k.net... > >> > >>>"John Coleman" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>>>Is grass fed beef ecological? > >>>> > >>>>NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm > >>> > >>> > >>>================ > >>>ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a > >> > >> hoot! > >> > >> I didn't state that Rick, people can buy organic produce. > >> > >> > >>>Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... > >> > >> > >> Funny how you only post the info that makes it look good spin doctor, did > >> you know many parts of Africa are barron desert due to grazing cattle? > >> Didi > >> you know that conservationsists don't like grass-fed beef? Here's the > >> rest: > >> > >> But I wouldn't get too carried away and think that as long as it's > >> grass-fed > >> then it's fine and dandy. Grass-fed products are still high in saturated > >> fat > >> (though not as high), still high in cholesterol, and are still devoid of > >> fiber and many other essential nutrients. They take less toll on the > >> environment, but the land on which the animals graze still must often be > >> irrigated, thus using up dwindling water resources, and it may be > >> fertilized > >> with petroleum-based fertilizers. > >> > >> And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the most > >> destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually > >> 24 > >> times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its > >> concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason > >> that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were > >> when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on > >> pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow > >> basis. > >> > >> Plus there is the tremendous toll grazing cattle takes on the land > >> itself. > >> Even with U.S. beef cattle today spending the last half of their lives in > >> feedlots, seventy percent of the land area of the American West is > >> currently > >> used for grazing livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land area > >> of > >> Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho > >> is > >> used for rangeland. Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in > >> places > >> that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible > >> areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, > >> extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads > >> and > >> parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, virtually > >> every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As > >> one > >> environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted > >> more > >> water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, > >> and > >> destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." > >> > >> Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current > >> system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the > >> range, > >> and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight > >> on > >> rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months > >> foraging, > >> but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. > >> > >> The USDA's Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 > >> for a > >> single purpose-to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to > >> be > >> detrimental to the western livestock industry. The program has not been > >> popular with its opponents. They have called the ADC by a variety of > >> names, > >> including, "All the Dead Critters" and "Aid to Dependent Cowboys." > >> > >> In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image consultants, > >> the > >> federal government gave a new name to the ADC-"Wildlife Services." And > >> they > >> came up with a new motto-"Living with Wildlife." > >> > >> This is an interesting choice of words. What "Wildlife Services" actually > >> does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten livestock. > >> Its > >> methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and > >> aerial > >> gunning. In "denning" wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into the > >> den > >> and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. > >> > >> Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are > >> badgers, > >> black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, > >> opossum, > >> raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, > >> black > >> birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by > >> Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several > >> threatened and endangered species. > >> > >> All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is "Living > >> with > >> Wildlife," intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals > >> annually. > >> This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private > >> financial > >> interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their > >> livestock. > >> > >> The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing cattle > >> is > >> hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can certainly > >> reduce the damage, but widespread production of grass-fed beef would only > >> multiply this already devastating toll. > >> "Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, > >> are > >> what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in > >> the American West you find hordes of cows. . . . They are a pest and a > >> plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our > >> canyons, valleys, meadows and forests. They graze off the native > >> bluestems > >> and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They > >> trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the > >> exotic > >> cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Even when > >> the > >> cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and the > >> mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, you'll > >> smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle." - Edward Abbey, > >> conservationist and author, in a speech before cattlemen at the > >> University > >> of Montana in 1985 > >> While grass-fed beef certainly has advantages over feedlot beef, another > >> answer is to eat less meat. If as a society we did this, then the vast > >> majority of the public lands in the western United States could be put to > >> more valuable - and environmentally sustainable - use. Much of the > >> western > >> United States is sunny and windy, and could be used for large-scale solar > >> energy and wind-power facilities. With the cattle off the land, > >> photovoltaic > >> modules and windmills could generate enormous amounts of energy without > >> polluting or causing environmental damage. Other areas could grow grasses > >> that could be harvested as "biomass" fuels, providing a far less > >> polluting > >> source of energy than fossil fuels. Much of it could be restored, once > >> again > >> becoming valued wildlife habitat. The restoration of cow burnt lands > >> would > >> help to vitalize rural economies as well as ecosystems. > >> > >> And there is one more thing. When you picture grass-fed beef, you > >> probably > >> envision an idyllic scene of a cow outside in a pasture munching happily > >> on > >> grass. That is certainly the image those endorsing and selling these > >> products would like you to hold. And there is some truth to it. > >> > >> But it is only a part of the story. There is something missing from such > >> a > >> pleasant picture, something that nevertheless remains an ineluctable part > >> of > >> the actual reality. Grass-fed beef does not just come to you straight > >> from > >> God's Green Earth. It also comes to you via the slaughterhouse. > >> > >> The lives of grass-fed livestock are more humane and natural than the > >> lives > >> of animals confined in factory farms and feedlots, but their deaths are > >> often just as terrifying and cruel. If they are taken to a conventional > >> slaughterhouse, they are just as likely as a feedlot animal to be skinned > >> while alive and fully conscious, and just as apt to be butchered and have > >> their feet cut off while they are still breathing - distressing realities > >> that tragically occur every hour in meat-packing plants nationwide. > >> Confronting the brutal realities of modern slaughterhouses can be a harsh > >> reminder that those who contemplate only the pastoral image of cattle > >> patiently foraging do not see the whole picture. > >> > >> > >>>Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking about > >> > >> the > >> > >>>whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true > >> > >> vegans > >> > >>>around to really make a difference. > >> > >> > >> People still have the option, don't blame us again for the lack of > >> compassion of meat eaters. > >> > >> > >>> I'm only talking about what an > >>>individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. > >>>Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with the > >>>meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* > >>>contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. > >> > >> > >> As usual, no figures and no expert opinion to back this claim. Much game > >> is > >> still reared by humans using products from monoculture. > >> > >> John > >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message om... > "rick etter" > wrote in message > nk.net>... >> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message >> news > > >> > Yes, the dust ball was caused by over grazing and poor crop management. >> > The Sahara Dessert was caused by over grazing. >> > Much of the Amazon Rain forest is chopped down to make grazing land for >> > cattle. >> ====================== > > >> Try again fool. Just because you repaet your stupidity doesn't make it >> any >> less a ly, killer. >> > > > > "IT'S ALL LYS!!!!... AND YOU'RE ALL HATE-SPEWING KILLERS!!" squeals > etter in teeth gnashing, foaming-at-the-mouth frustration. ================ I see that all you have still is your hate and stupidity. Never can quite discuss the issues, can you killer? > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > We could go on. >> ================ >> Not with any facts you can't.... >> >> >> > >> > >> > John Coleman wrote: >> > >> >> "rick etter" > wrote in message >> >> k.net... >> >> >> >>>"John Coleman" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> >> >>>>Is grass fed beef ecological? >> >>>> >> >>>>NO http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/54.htm >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>================ >> >>>ROTFLMAO But massive petro-chemical mono-culture crops are? What a >> >> >> >> hoot! >> >> >> >> I didn't state that Rick, people can buy organic produce. >> >> >> >> >> >>>Here though, read and weep, from you own site, killer... >> >> >> >> >> >> Funny how you only post the info that makes it look good spin doctor, >> >> did >> >> you know many parts of Africa are barron desert due to grazing cattle? >> >> Didi >> >> you know that conservationsists don't like grass-fed beef? Here's the >> >> rest: >> >> >> >> But I wouldn't get too carried away and think that as long as it's >> >> grass-fed >> >> then it's fine and dandy. Grass-fed products are still high in >> >> saturated >> >> fat >> >> (though not as high), still high in cholesterol, and are still devoid >> >> of >> >> fiber and many other essential nutrients. They take less toll on the >> >> environment, but the land on which the animals graze still must often >> >> be >> >> irrigated, thus using up dwindling water resources, and it may be >> >> fertilized >> >> with petroleum-based fertilizers. >> >> >> >> And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the >> >> most >> >> destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is >> >> actually >> >> 24 >> >> times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its >> >> concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary >> >> reason >> >> that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they >> >> were >> >> when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised >> >> on >> >> pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a >> >> per-cow >> >> basis. >> >> >> >> Plus there is the tremendous toll grazing cattle takes on the land >> >> itself. >> >> Even with U.S. beef cattle today spending the last half of their lives >> >> in >> >> feedlots, seventy percent of the land area of the American West is >> >> currently >> >> used for grazing livestock. More than two-thirds of the entire land >> >> area >> >> of >> >> Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and >> >> Idaho >> >> is >> >> used for rangeland. Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in >> >> places >> >> that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible >> >> areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, >> >> extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, >> >> roads >> >> and >> >> parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, >> >> virtually >> >> every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. >> >> As >> >> one >> >> environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted >> >> more >> >> water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, >> >> and >> >> destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." >> >> >> >> Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the >> >> current >> >> system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the >> >> range, >> >> and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market >> >> weight >> >> on >> >> rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months >> >> foraging, >> >> but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western >> >> ecosystems. >> >> >> >> The USDA's Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 >> >> for a >> >> single purpose-to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered >> >> to >> >> be >> >> detrimental to the western livestock industry. The program has not >> >> been >> >> popular with its opponents. They have called the ADC by a variety of >> >> names, >> >> including, "All the Dead Critters" and "Aid to Dependent Cowboys." >> >> >> >> In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image >> >> consultants, >> >> the >> >> federal government gave a new name to the ADC-"Wildlife Services." And >> >> they >> >> came up with a new motto-"Living with Wildlife." >> >> >> >> This is an interesting choice of words. What "Wildlife Services" >> >> actually >> >> does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten >> >> livestock. >> >> Its >> >> methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and >> >> aerial >> >> gunning. In "denning" wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into >> >> the >> >> den >> >> and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. >> >> >> >> Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are >> >> badgers, >> >> black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, >> >> opossum, >> >> raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, >> >> black >> >> birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by >> >> Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several >> >> threatened and endangered species. >> >> >> >> All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is "Living >> >> with >> >> Wildlife," intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals >> >> annually. >> >> This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private >> >> financial >> >> interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their >> >> livestock. >> >> >> >> The price that western lands and wildlife are paying for grazing >> >> cattle >> >> is >> >> hard to exaggerate. Conscientious management of rangelands can >> >> certainly >> >> reduce the damage, but widespread production of grass-fed beef would >> >> only >> >> multiply this already devastating toll. >> >> "Most of the public lands in the West, and especially the Southwest, >> >> are >> >> what you might call 'cow burnt.' Almost anywhere and everywhere you go >> >> in >> >> the American West you find hordes of cows. . . . They are a pest and a >> >> plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest >> >> our >> >> canyons, valleys, meadows and forests. They graze off the native >> >> bluestems >> >> and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. >> >> They >> >> trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the >> >> exotic >> >> cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass. Even >> >> when >> >> the >> >> cattle are not physically present, you see the dung and the flies and >> >> the >> >> mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don't see it, >> >> you'll >> >> smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle." - Edward Abbey, >> >> conservationist and author, in a speech before cattlemen at the >> >> University >> >> of Montana in 1985 >> >> While grass-fed beef certainly has advantages over feedlot beef, >> >> another >> >> answer is to eat less meat. If as a society we did this, then the vast >> >> majority of the public lands in the western United States could be put >> >> to >> >> more valuable - and environmentally sustainable - use. Much of the >> >> western >> >> United States is sunny and windy, and could be used for large-scale >> >> solar >> >> energy and wind-power facilities. With the cattle off the land, >> >> photovoltaic >> >> modules and windmills could generate enormous amounts of energy >> >> without >> >> polluting or causing environmental damage. Other areas could grow >> >> grasses >> >> that could be harvested as "biomass" fuels, providing a far less >> >> polluting >> >> source of energy than fossil fuels. Much of it could be restored, once >> >> again >> >> becoming valued wildlife habitat. The restoration of cow burnt lands >> >> would >> >> help to vitalize rural economies as well as ecosystems. >> >> >> >> And there is one more thing. When you picture grass-fed beef, you >> >> probably >> >> envision an idyllic scene of a cow outside in a pasture munching >> >> happily >> >> on >> >> grass. That is certainly the image those endorsing and selling these >> >> products would like you to hold. And there is some truth to it. >> >> >> >> But it is only a part of the story. There is something missing from >> >> such >> >> a >> >> pleasant picture, something that nevertheless remains an ineluctable >> >> part >> >> of >> >> the actual reality. Grass-fed beef does not just come to you straight >> >> from >> >> God's Green Earth. It also comes to you via the slaughterhouse. >> >> >> >> The lives of grass-fed livestock are more humane and natural than the >> >> lives >> >> of animals confined in factory farms and feedlots, but their deaths >> >> are >> >> often just as terrifying and cruel. If they are taken to a >> >> conventional >> >> slaughterhouse, they are just as likely as a feedlot animal to be >> >> skinned >> >> while alive and fully conscious, and just as apt to be butchered and >> >> have >> >> their feet cut off while they are still breathing - distressing >> >> realities >> >> that tragically occur every hour in meat-packing plants nationwide. >> >> Confronting the brutal realities of modern slaughterhouses can be a >> >> harsh >> >> reminder that those who contemplate only the pastoral image of cattle >> >> patiently foraging do not see the whole picture. >> >> >> >> >> >>>Again, his presentation is an all or nothing perspective, talking >> >>>about >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >>>whole world. Typical vegan deversion, as there are not enough true >> >> >> >> vegans >> >> >> >>>around to really make a difference. >> >> >> >> >> >> People still have the option, don't blame us again for the lack of >> >> compassion of meat eaters. >> >> >> >> >> >>> I'm only talking about what an >> >>>individual *could* do right now to decrease their bloody footprints. >> >>>Replacing 100s of 1000s of calories from the veggies you now eat with >> >>>the >> >>>meat from 1 grass-fed cow, or game animal would result in *your* >> >>>contributing to the death and suffering of fewer animals. >> >> >> >> >> >> As usual, no figures and no expert opinion to back this claim. Much >> >> game >> >> is >> >> still reared by humans using products from monoculture. >> >> >> >> John >> >> |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Vegetarian Bill Gates: 'Livestock produces 51% of world's greenhouse gases' | Vegan | |||
| Livestock falling ill in fracking regions | General Cooking | |||
| The Logic of Livestock Hatred | Vegan | |||
| The livestock auction | General Cooking | |||
| Further reflections on the bogus "efficiency" critique of feedinggrain to livestock | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
