 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"rick" > wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>> their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>> ============== >>>>> Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>> course you're going to try to convince us that there are >>>>> only >>>>> 558 farms total in the UK. >>> >>> I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>> can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>> of the UK. >>====================== >>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% represents. > > It represents the percentage of "beef animals > reared for slaughter and housed for their entire > lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains > from birth to market weight." ===================== No fool, it does not. Isuggest you read or comprehension sometime, killer. This evidence shows > that the information supplied (below) by 'usual liar' > is false. > > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the > beef industry know that this does not occur." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > It also shows that you've lied as well when > claiming, > > "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of > those go on to finish lots." > rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly ================== Which I showed cites for, fool. That you are too stupid to read them, and understand them is your problem, kille. > > and > > "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." > rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 > ==================== Show that that was a false statement, fool. > and, more recently > > "You do know don't you that all beef cattle > start out on pasture." > rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv ================== Disprove the cite I gave fool... > > You meat pushers just don't know when to > stop lying, do you? ================== No, apparently you don't, killer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >> >>> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>> pound of beef. >>================== >>Read your site again > > It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; > ==================== The site YOU provided was the one under discussion, and it told you what the animals were eating. But then, I can understand why you would now to distance yourself from it, killer. > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the > beef industry know that this does not occur." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > The information I provided shows that over 6% > of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held > their entire lives in feedlots, ================ No fool, your data did NOT say that. Try again, fool. Read it without you blinders, killer. which contradicts this > obvious lie. Go to the page and read where it > defines intensive rearing and finishing systems > above table 4. > > "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef > animals reared for slaughter and housed for > their entire lives." > > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm > > It also confirms that such animals do in fact > require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound > of meat. > > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > You, on the other hand, lie when claiming; ============= Nope, I provided cites that I understand. > > "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of > those go on to finish lots." > rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly > > and > > "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." > rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 > > and, more recently > > "You do know don't you that all beef cattle > start out on pasture." > rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv ================ All true, fool. Too bad you can't provide data asgood, eh killer? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:23:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> >>>>>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>> their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>> ============== >>>>>> Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>> course you're going to try to convince us that there are >>>>>> only >>>>>> 558 farms total in the UK. >>>> >>>> I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>> can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>> of the UK. >>>====================== >>>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% represents. >> >> It represents the percentage of "beef animals >> reared for slaughter and housed for their entire >> lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains >> from birth to market weight." >===================== >No fool, it does not. Yes it does. Go to the links provided and see for yourself. >> This evidence shows >> that the information supplied (below) by 'usual liar' >> is false. >> >> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >> market weight could a value as great as 16 >> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >> beef industry know that this does not occur." >> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >> >> It also shows that you've lied as well when >> claiming, >> >> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >> those go on to finish lots." >> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >================== >Which I showed cites for, fool. And which obviously lied as well when we consider the FACT that evidence shows the percentage of "beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight" can be as high as 6%. You lied when claiming 100% of beef cattle are pasture fed, and so did 'usual suspect's' source when making that same claim. >> and >> >> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >> ==================== >Show that that was a false statement, fool. The information I provided shows that over 6% of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held their entire lives in feedlots. That FACT alone proves that your statement is a lie. Go to the page and read where it defines intensive rearing and finishing systems above table 4. "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives." http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> and, more recently >> >> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >> start out on pasture." >> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >================== >Disprove the cite I gave fool... Do as above. >> You meat pushers just don't know when to >> stop lying, do you? >================== >No Exactly. So why do you do it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:27:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>> pound of beef. >>>================== >>>Read your site again >> >> It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >> ==================== > >The site YOU provided No. 'usual suspect' provided the cite below this line. I supplied the other one which refutes it. >> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >> market weight could a value as great as 16 >> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >> beef industry know that this does not occur." >> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >> >> The information I provided shows that over 6% >> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >> their entire lives in feedlots, >================ >No Yes, it does. Read on below this line and then go to the link I provided. >> which contradicts this >> obvious lie. Go to the page and read where it >> defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >> above table 4. >> >> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >> their entire lives." >> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> >> It also confirms that such animals do in fact >> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >> of meat. >> >> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >> market weight could a value as great as 16 >> pounds be obtained." >> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >> >> You, on the other hand, lie when claiming; >============= >Nope, I provided cites that I understand. Then those cites lied to you, Etter, because the information before you shows that over 6% of the farms surveyed practice intensive rearing and finishing systems. This evidence proves that your claim, and the claims made by pro-meat propagandists such as yourself are lying. "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives." http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >> those go on to finish lots." >> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >> >> and >> >> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >> >> and, more recently >> >> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >> start out on pasture." >> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >================ >All true, fool. Clearly not, liar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:23:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message s.earthlink.net... >>>>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>> their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>>> ============== >>>>>>> Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>>> course you're going to try to convince us that there are >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> 558 farms total in the UK. >>>>> >>>>> I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>> can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>> of the UK. >>>>====================== >>>>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% represents. >>> >>> It represents the percentage of "beef animals >>> reared for slaughter and housed for their entire >>> lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains >>> from birth to market weight." >>===================== >>No fool, it does not. > > Yes it does. Go to the links provided and see for > yourself. ================= I went there stupid. I even quted rom there. You truely are this stupid aen't you? But, the 6.1% is not the percent of "all beef" cattle in the UK. Again, try reading or comprehension. > >>> This evidence shows >>> that the information supplied (below) by 'usual liar' >>> is false. >>> >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>> It also shows that you've lied as well when >>> claiming, >>> >>> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >>> those go on to finish lots." >>> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >>================== >>Which I showed cites for, fool. > > And which obviously lied as well when we consider > the FACT that evidence shows the percentage of > "beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for > their entire lives" while "fed diets composed largely > of grains from birth to market weight" can be as > high as 6%. You lied when claiming 100% of beef > cattle are pasture fed, and so did 'usual suspect's' > source when making that same claim. ================ And you still haven't proven your 6.1% claim fool. > >>> and >>> >>> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >>> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >>> ==================== >>Show that that was a false statement, fool. > > The information I provided shows that over 6% > of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held > their entire lives in feedlots. That FACT alone > proves that your statement is a lie. Go to the page > and read where it defines intensive rearing and > finishing systems above table 4. ================ Doesn't disprove the statement above, killer. Too bad your 2 remaining braincells are on vaation, eh fool? > > "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef > animals reared for slaughter and housed for > their entire lives." > > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm > >>> and, more recently >>> >>> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >>> start out on pasture." >>> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >>================== >>Disprove the cite I gave fool... > > Do as above. ================== I have fool. Your 6.1% claim is false. Try reading your own cite, fool. > >>> You meat pushers just don't know when to >>> stop lying, do you? >>================== >>No > > Exactly. So why do you do it? ================== More dishonet fools spew. Nice try, killer. Too bad all you have are your lys.... Again, prove your 6.1% of all beef in the UK is in feedlots... Large ones at that, you claim... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:27:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>> >>>>> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>> pound of beef. >>>>================== >>>>Read your site again >>> >>> It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>> ==================== >> >>The site YOU provided > > No. 'usual suspect' provided the cite below this > line. I supplied the other one which refutes it. ================ No fool, I'm sending you back to YOUR site, which you claim supports you. I calling you on your lys, because it says what the cows your referened eat, and it wasn't all grain crops. Too bad you can't keep up, eh killer? > >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>> their entire lives in feedlots, >>================ >>No > > Yes, it does. Read on below this line and then > go to the link I provided. ====================== LOL Again, you cannot read for comprehension. Try taking your blinders off, and look at the table again, fool. > >>> which contradicts this >>> obvious lie. Go to the page and read where it >>> defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>> above table 4. >>> >>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>> their entire lives." >>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>> >>> It also confirms that such animals do in fact >>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >>> of meat. ================= No, it does not, liar. Provide the quote or this one, fool... >>> >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>> You, on the other hand, lie when claiming; >>============= >>Nope, I provided cites that I understand. > > Then those cites lied to you, Etter, because > the information before you shows that over > 6% of the farms surveyed practice intensive > rearing and finishing systems. ==================== Ahhh, now you're catching on to your ly, fool. Now, tell me where it says 6.1% of all cattle are raised intensivly, fool. This evidence > proves that your claim, and the claims made > by pro-meat propagandists such as yourself > are lying. =============== Nope. Read my cite fool. It's specific. You, on the other hand, can't read your own data for comprehension... > > "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef > animals reared for slaughter and housed for > their entire lives." > > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm > >>> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >>> those go on to finish lots." >>> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >>> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >>> >>> and, more recently >>> >>> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >>> start out on pasture." >>> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >>================ >>All true, fool. > > Clearly not, liar. =============== Yep... Too bad you're still lying about 6.1%, killer. You almost had it... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:03:09 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:23:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>>>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>>> their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>>>> ============== >>>>>>>> Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>>>> course you're going to try to convince us that there are >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> 558 farms total in the UK. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>>> can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>>> of the UK. >>>>>====================== >>>>>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% represents. >>>> >>>> It represents the percentage of "beef animals >>>> reared for slaughter and housed for their entire >>>> lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains >>>> from birth to market weight." >>>===================== >>>No fool, it does not. >> >> Yes it does. Go to the links provided and see for >> yourself. >================= >I went there Did you go to table 4 and see where it shows that 6.1% of the beef raised on those farms are raised in intensive rearing and finishing systems, meaning "beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight."? >>>> This evidence shows >>>> that the information supplied (below) by 'usual liar' >>>> is false. >>>> >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>> >>>> It also shows that you've lied as well when >>>> claiming, >>>> >>>> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >>>> those go on to finish lots." >>>> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >>>================== >>>Which I showed cites for, fool. >> >> And which obviously lied as well when we consider >> the FACT that evidence shows the percentage of >> "beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for >> their entire lives" while "fed diets composed largely >> of grains from birth to market weight" can be as >> high as 6%. You lied when claiming 100% of beef >> cattle are pasture fed, and so did 'usual suspect's' >> source when making that same claim. >================ >And you still haven't proven your 6.1% claim fool. It as clear as can be on table 4. Follow this link; http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm Now, compare that FACT to 'usual suspect's' lies and your obvious lies below this paragraph, and ask yourself why I and others like myself have no option but to doubt everything you both write on these issues raised here, liar Etter. >>>> and >>>> >>>> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >>>> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >>>> ==================== >>>Show that that was a false statement, fool. >> >> The information I provided shows that over 6% >> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >> their entire lives in feedlots. That FACT alone >> proves that your statement is a lie. Go to the page >> and read where it defines intensive rearing and >> finishing systems above table 4. >================ >Doesn't disprove the statement above, killer. It certainly does. Contrary to your lies there are many beef systems in the USA that house beef animals their entire lives. Do you know what an "LLR system" is? Try http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM >> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >> their entire lives." >> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> >>>> and, more recently >>>> >>>> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >>>> start out on pasture." >>>> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >>>================== >>>Disprove the cite I gave fool... >> >> Do as above. >================== >I have fool. Your 6.1% claim is false. Try reading your own >cite, fool. You're lying again, Etter, and anyone can verify that for themselves by clicking on the link I supplied and finding the 6.1% figure in table 4. >>>> You meat pushers just don't know when to >>>> stop lying, do you? >>>================== >>>No >> >> Exactly. So why do you do it? >================== >More dishonet I know it is, but you still haven't explained why you do it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:09:26 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:27:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>> >>>>>> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>>> pound of beef. >>>>>================== >>>>>Read your site again >>>> >>>> It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>>> ==================== >>> >>>The site YOU provided >> >> No. 'usual suspect' provided the cite below this >> line. I supplied the other one which refutes it. >================ >No Yes. >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>> >>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>> their entire lives in feedlots, >>>================ >>>No >> >> Yes, it does. Read on below this line and then >> go to the link I provided. >====================== >LOL Again, you cannot read for comprehension. Try taking your >blinders off, and look at the table again, fool. It still reads exactly as it did yesterday and gives a 6.1%. >>>> which contradicts this >>>> obvious lie. Go to the page and read where it >>>> defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>>> above table 4. >>>> >>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>> their entire lives." >>>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>> >>>> It also confirms that such animals do in fact >>>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >>>> of meat. >================= >No, it does not Yes, it does. Read 'usual suspect's' cite again below this line and see for yourself. >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained." >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm Now, what part in that are you having so much difficulty with, dummy? >>>> You, on the other hand, lie when claiming; >>>============= >>>Nope, I provided cites that I understand. >> >> Then those cites lied to you, Etter, because >> the information before you shows that over >> 6% of the farms surveyed practice intensive >> rearing and finishing systems. >==================== >Ahhh, now you're catching on to your ly, fool. Now, tell me >where it says 6.1% of all cattle are raised intensivly, fool. On table 4 on the page I gave you. "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives." http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> This evidence >> proves that your claim, and the claims made >> by pro-meat propagandists such as yourself >> are lying. >=============== >Nope. Yes it does, liar Etter.Your meat pushing on these vegetarian-related forums is clearly seen for what it is. >> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >> their entire lives." >> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> >>>> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >>>> those go on to finish lots." >>>> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >>>> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >>>> >>>> and, more recently >>>> >>>> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >>>> start out on pasture." >>>> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >>>================ >>>All true, fool. >> >> Clearly not, liar. >=============== >Yep While claiming 100% of all beef cattle are pasture fed, my figures tell you you're wrong, and evidence describing [L]andless [L]ivestock [R]uminant production systems proves you're a liar as well. http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:07:00 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > >>"Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >> >>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:57:34 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:04:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>2) It confirmed that such animals do in fact >>>>>> >>>>>>Where >>>>> >>>>>If you left my post intact without snipping away >>>>>the damning evidence >>>> >>>>I left the evidence which >>> >>>1) clearly lied and duped you into believing no >>> beef animals are kept their entire lives in a >>> feedlot. >>> >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>> >>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>their entire lives in feedlots. Go to the page and >>>read where it defines intensive rearing and >>>finishing systems above table 4. >> >>============================= >>they aren't at feedlots fool. they are on the farm still. > > > Yes, in large feedlots, No, indoors. > "fed diets composed largely > of grains from birth to market weight", Ipse dixit and false. Your source did NOT say they're fed grains from birth to slaughter. >>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>> their entire lives." >>> >>>http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>> >>>2) confirmed that such animals do in fact >>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a >>> pound of meat. >>> >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>>Notice the term "are fed diets composed >>>*largely* of grains.." That doesn't mean to >>>say they are fed exclusively on grains, as >>>you keep insisting I claim, but rather that >>>they are fed diets composed mostly of >>>grains and other foods which I've already >>>previously described. >> >>====================== >>Why do you leave out the fact that most beef operations in the UK >>are not specifically in the business of beef > > It wasn't necessary Yes, it was. > Those animals, then, according to his source, > require 16 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound > of meat. False. That source does NOT say any cattle require 16 pounds per pound of meat. You're wrongly inferring from two disparate sources something which contradicts BOTH sources. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:07:00 GMT, "rick" > >> wrote: >> >>>"Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk" > >>>wrote in message ... >>> >>>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:57:34 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>> >>>>>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:04:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2) It confirmed that such animals do in fact >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Where >>>>>> >>>>>>If you left my post intact without snipping away >>>>>>the damning evidence >>>>> >>>>>I left the evidence which >>>> >>>>1) clearly lied and duped you into believing no >>>> beef animals are kept their entire lives in a >>>> feedlot. >>>> >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>> >>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>their entire lives in feedlots. Go to the page and >>>>read where it defines intensive rearing and >>>>finishing systems above table 4. >>> >>>============================= >>>they aren't at feedlots fool. they are on the farm still. >> >> >> Yes, in large feedlots, > > No, indoors. > >> "fed diets composed largely >> of grains from birth to market weight", > > Ipse dixit and false. Your source did NOT say they're fed > grains from birth to slaughter. > >>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>> their entire lives." >>>> >>>>http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>> >>>>2) confirmed that such animals do in fact >>>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a >>>> pound of meat. >>>> >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained." >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>> >>>>Notice the term "are fed diets composed >>>>*largely* of grains.." That doesn't mean to >>>>say they are fed exclusively on grains, as >>>>you keep insisting I claim, but rather that >>>>they are fed diets composed mostly of >>>>grains and other foods which I've already >>>>previously described. >>> >>>====================== >>>Why do you leave out the fact that most beef operations in the >>>UK are not specifically in the business of beef >> >> It wasn't necessary > > Yes, it was. > >> Those animals, then, according to his source, >> require 16 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound >> of meat. > > False. That source does NOT say any cattle require 16 pounds > per pound of meat. You're wrongly inferring from two disparate > sources something which contradicts BOTH sources. =========== Don't you just love when these ools post a site they didn't even read? I think he's finally catching on to his 6.1% of "all beef" in the UK... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:00:42 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:07:00 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:57:34 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:04:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2) It confirmed that such animals do in fact >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Where >>>>>> >>>>>>If you left my post intact without snipping away >>>>>>the damning evidence >>>>> >>>>>I left the evidence which >>>> >>>>1) clearly lied and duped you into believing no >>>> beef animals are kept their entire lives in a >>>> feedlot. >>>> >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>> >>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>their entire lives in feedlots. Go to the page and >>>>read where it defines intensive rearing and >>>>finishing systems above table 4. >>> >>>============================= >>>they aren't at feedlots fool. they are on the farm still. >> >> Yes, in large feedlots, > >No, indoors. Most feedlots are indoors. >> "fed diets composed largely >> of grains from birth to market weight", > >Ipse dixit and false. Your source did NOT say they're fed grains from >birth to slaughter. Yours did, and then went on to confirm that such animals would indeed require 16 lbs of feed to produce 1 lb of beef; "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained." http://tinyurl.com/93mwm Thanks for supplying that. >>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>> their entire lives." >>>>http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>> >>>>2) confirmed that such animals do in fact >>>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a >>>> pound of meat. >>>> >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained." >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>> >>>>Notice the term "are fed diets composed >>>>*largely* of grains.." That doesn't mean to >>>>say they are fed exclusively on grains, as >>>>you keep insisting I claim, but rather that >>>>they are fed diets composed mostly of >>>>grains and other foods which I've already >>>>previously described. >>> >>>====================== >>>Why do you leave out the fact that most beef operations in the UK >>>are not specifically in the business of beef >> >> It wasn't necessary > >Yes, it was. Not in showing where your source lied, it wasn't. Contrary to what it implied, a large percentage of beef animals are raised their entire life indoors rather than pastured in bucolic surroundings. >> Those animals, then, according to his source, >> require 16 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound >> of meat. > >False. According to your source; "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained." http://tinyurl.com/93mwm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:03:09 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:23:18 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:riq8c1ti0optb7fgh8r7c59eii62gfgt90@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message . pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>>>> their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>>>>> ============== >>>>>>>>> Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> course you're going to try to convince us that there >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>> 558 farms total in the UK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>>>> can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>>>> of the UK. >>>>>>====================== >>>>>>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% >>>>>>represents. >>>>> >>>>> It represents the percentage of "beef animals >>>>> reared for slaughter and housed for their entire >>>>> lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains >>>>> from birth to market weight." >>>>===================== >>>>No fool, it does not. >>> >>> Yes it does. Go to the links provided and see for >>> yourself. >>================= >>I went there > > Did you go to table 4 ================ Yes, I did. The diference is that I read the table, fool. Something you failed to do... and see where it shows that 6.1% > of the beef raised on those farms are raised in intensive > rearing and finishing systems, meaning "beef animals > reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives" > while "fed diets composed largely of grains from birth > to market weight."? ====================== To bad for you that quote isn't on that site, fool. What it does say, fool is, "...a beef enterprise would typically be used either to exploit arable by-products in intensive or semi-intensive systems..." For those like you that are compehension impaired, that means waste material from the parts o crops that YOU don't eat, killer. Making you even more complicit than I said before, hypocrite. > >>>>> This evidence shows >>>>> that the information supplied (below) by 'usual liar' >>>>> is false. >>>>> >>>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>> >>>>> It also shows that you've lied as well when >>>>> claiming, >>>>> >>>>> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >>>>> those go on to finish lots." >>>>> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >>>>================== >>>>Which I showed cites for, fool. >>> >>> And which obviously lied as well when we consider >>> the FACT that evidence shows the percentage of >>> "beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>> their entire lives" while "fed diets composed largely >>> of grains from birth to market weight" can be as >>> high as 6%. You lied when claiming 100% of beef >>> cattle are pasture fed, and so did 'usual suspect's' >>> source when making that same claim. >>================ >>And you still haven't proven your 6.1% claim fool. > > It as clear as can be on table 4. Follow this link; > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm ==================== I did, and I read it, something you haven't done, killer. > > Now, compare that FACT to 'usual suspect's' lies > and your obvious lies below this paragraph, and > ask yourself why I and others like myself have > no option but to doubt everything you both write > on these issues raised here, liar Etter. > >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >>>>> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >>>>> ==================== >>>>Show that that was a false statement, fool. >>> >>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>> their entire lives in feedlots. That FACT alone >>> proves that your statement is a lie. Go to the page >>> and read where it defines intensive rearing and >>> finishing systems above table 4. >>================ >>Doesn't disprove the statement above, killer. > > It certainly does. =\================ No ool, it doesn't. Contrary to your lies there are many > beef systems in the USA that house beef animals their > entire lives. Do you know what an "LLR system" is? > Try http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM ============== Too bad it doesn't support your ly, fool. > >>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>> their entire lives." >>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>> >>>>> and, more recently >>>>> >>>>> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >>>>> start out on pasture." >>>>> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >>>>================== >>>>Disprove the cite I gave fool... >>> >>> Do as above. >>================== >>I have fool. Your 6.1% claim is false. Try reading your own >>cite, fool. > > You're lying again, Etter, and anyone can verify that > for themselves by clicking on the link I supplied and > finding the 6.1% figure in table 4. ================ I encourage them to fool!!! They'll see how you've been lying. I'm sure through total ignorance and the inability to read with comprehesion, but a ly none the less. If you read it right, you could even make a better argument, but since you're just an ignorant fool, I don't see that happening. > >>>>> You meat pushers just don't know when to >>>>> stop lying, do you? >>>>================== >>>>No >>> >>> Exactly. So why do you do it? >>================== >>More dishonet > > I know it is, but you still haven't explained why > you do it. =============== Thanks for continuing to prove your dishonesty, hypocrite. You have to ly, even when it's not called or. What a hoot!!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > >>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >> >>>"Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>> >>>============== >>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are only >>>558 farms total in the UK. > > I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure > can't be carried forward to represent the rest > of the UK. There are almost 17x as many farms as the 6.1% which don't keep their animals indoors 24/7. > What's important to remember here > is that, contrary to the obvious meat propaganda > 'usual suspect' put forward which states, > > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the > beef industry know that this does not occur." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > a large percentage of beef animals Is 6.1% of *British* farms a large percentage? No. > are raised > in exactly that way. No, they are not. Your source didn't say anything incongruent with mine in terms of what cattle eat. > This information tells us > two things; > > 1) 'usual suspect's' meat propagandists lied > when claiming, "Those familiar with the > beef industry know that this does not occur." Your source did NOT say the cattle on 6.1% of British farms are fed exclusively on grains their entire lives. > 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one > pound of beef. Your article did NOT say it takes five times more feed per pound gained on ANY kind of farm. Nitwit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:09:26 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:27:15 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:riq8c1ti0optb7fgh8r7c59eii62gfgt90@4ax. com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>>>> pound of beef. >>>>>>================== >>>>>>Read your site again >>>>> >>>>> It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>>>> ==================== >>>> >>>>The site YOU provided >>> >>> No. 'usual suspect' provided the cite below this >>> line. I supplied the other one which refutes it. >>================ >>No > > Yes. ========================== restoe dishonest snipping... No fool, I'm sending you back to YOUR site, which you claim supports you. I calling you on your lys, because it says what the cows your referenced eat, and it wasn't all grain crops. Too bad you can't keep up, eh killer? > >>>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>> >>>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>> their entire lives in feedlots, >>>>================ >>>>No >>> >>> Yes, it does. Read on below this line and then >>> go to the link I provided. >>====================== >>LOL Again, you cannot read for comprehension. Try taking your >>blinders off, and look at the table again, fool. > > It still reads exactly as it did yesterday and gives > a 6.1%. ======================= I agree, there is a number o 6.1% there. It doesn't indicate what you have been lying about, fool. > >>>>> which contradicts this >>>>> obvious lie. Go to the page and read where it >>>>> defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>>>> above table 4. >>>>> >>>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>>> their entire lives." >>>>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>>> >>>>> It also confirms that such animals do in fact >>>>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >>>>> of meat. >>================= >>No, it does not > > Yes, it does. Read 'usual suspect's' cite again below > this line and see for yourself. ================= No, it does not, liar. Provide the quote or this one, fool... Show the quote you made above in reference to the site you posted. You're a liar, fool. > >>>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>> pounds be obtained." >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > Now, what part in that are you having so much > difficulty with, dummy? ================= Becuase it's not relevent to the lys you have been telling about the site you posted, fool. Do try to keep up... > >>>>> You, on the other hand, lie when claiming; >>>>============= >>>>Nope, I provided cites that I understand. >>> >>> Then those cites lied to you, Etter, because >>> the information before you shows that over >>> 6% of the farms surveyed practice intensive >>> rearing and finishing systems. >>==================== >>Ahhh, now you're catching on to your ly, fool. Now, tell me >>where it says 6.1% of all cattle are raised intensivly, fool. > > On table 4 on the page I gave you. > "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef > animals reared for slaughter and housed for > their entire lives." > > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm > ======================== So, it also says what they eat, and where they are likely to be located. Why haven't you mentioned that, fool? It also does not say "...over 6% of all beef in the UK", which is your claim fool. The cite you gave doesn't say that... >>> This evidence >>> proves that your claim, and the claims made >>> by pro-meat propagandists such as yourself >>> are lying. >>=============== >>Nope. > > Yes it does, liar Etter.Your meat pushing on these > vegetarian-related forums is clearly seen for what > it is. =============== Nope. Read my cite fool. It's specific. You, on the other hand, can't read your own data for comprehension... > >>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>> their entire lives." >>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>> >>>>> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >>>>> those go on to finish lots." >>>>> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >>>>> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >>>>> >>>>> and, more recently >>>>> >>>>> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >>>>> start out on pasture." >>>>> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >>>>================ >>>>All true, fool. >>> >>> Clearly not, liar. >>=============== >>Yep > > While claiming 100% of all beef cattle are pasture > fed, my figures tell you you're wrong, and evidence > describing [L]andless [L]ivestock [R]uminant > production systems proves you're a liar as well. > http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM =========================== You haven't disproved the cite I gave fool. Try better... Again, you cant read what you post... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's morbidly obese Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > >>"Claire's morbidly obese Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >> >>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>> >>>>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>> >>>>>"Claire's morbidly obese Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>> >>>>>============== >>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are only >>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>> >>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>of the UK. >> >>====================== >>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% represents. > > It represents the percentage of "beef animals > reared for slaughter and housed for their entire > lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains > from birth to market weight." Your source does *NOT* say they're fed grains from birth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > >>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >> >> >>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>> pound of beef. >> >>================== >>Read your site again > > > It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; > > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the > beef industry know that this does not occur." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > The information I provided shows that over 6% > of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held > their entire lives in feedlots, No, not in feedlots. In intensive, indoor farms. > which contradicts this > obvious lie. It doesn't contradict anything. You've only made false inferences. As usual. > Go to the page and read where it > defines intensive rearing and finishing systems > above table 4. > > "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef > animals reared for slaughter and housed for > their entire lives." There's NOTHING in that which calls those systems "feedlots" and NOTHING about how or what they're fed. > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm > > It also confirms that such animals do in fact > require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound > of meat. No, it doesn't. You're jumping to conclusions on your false inferences. > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm Your source does NOT say intensively-raised cattle are fed grains from birth, fat ****. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick wrote:
<...> > ================ > Doesn't disprove the statement above, killer. Too bad your 2 > remaining braincells are on vaation, eh fool? Two brain cells? Is Derk pregnant? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... snippage... > According to your source; > > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm ================= You really are this stupid, aren't you killer? You can't even understnad that you've been had by that quote, do you, fool? The site you provded told you what was fed to the cattle, so there is NO need to assume anything. You've yet to provide any evidence that a system like above is in use... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:03:09 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > >>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >> >>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:23:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>> >>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>============== >>>>>>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are >>>>>>>>>only >>>>>>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>>>>can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>>>>of the UK. >>>>>> >>>>>>====================== >>>>>>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% represents. >>>>> >>>>>It represents the percentage of "beef animals >>>>>reared for slaughter and housed for their entire >>>>>lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains >>>>>from birth to market weight." >>>> >>>>===================== >>>>No fool, it does not. >>> >>>Yes it does. Go to the links provided and see for >>>yourself. >> >>================= >>I went there > > > Did you go to table 4 and see where it shows that 6.1% > of the beef raised on those farms are raised in intensive > rearing and finishing systems, meaning "beef animals > reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives" > while "fed diets composed largely of grains from birth > to market weight."? I can find the part about "beef animals raised for slaughter and housed for their entire lives" but can you be kind enough to point out where it says they're "fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight"? No? I didn't think you could, you insufferable, shit-stirring fat ****. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Claire's morbidly obese Uncle Derk wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > >> wrote: >> >>>"Claire's morbidly obese Uncle Derk" > >>>wrote in message ... >>> >>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>"rick" > wrote in message .earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>>>"Claire's morbidly obese Uncle Derk" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:em45c19rljal4c4s8tjtbum2fhsapg0uch@4ax. com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>> >>>>>>============== >>>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are >>>>>>only >>>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>>> >>>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>of the UK. >>> >>>====================== >>>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% represents. >> >> It represents the percentage of "beef animals reared for >> slaughter and housed for their entire lives" while "fed diets >> composed largely of grains from birth to market weight." > > Your source does *NOT* say they're fed grains from birth. ================ He's desperate now. He's toast, as usual, and he knows it. He can't read without his blinders, and justs reads what he wants it to say, regardless of the words. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:21:44 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>> >>>>============== >>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are only >>>>558 farms total in the UK. >> >> I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >> can't be carried forward to represent the rest >> of the UK. > >There are almost 17x as many farms as the 6.1% which don't keep their >animals indoors 24/7. At least you now concede that your source did lie after all. As we can see, a large percentage of beef is raised indoors and fed feed instead of pastured. >> What's important to remember here >> is that, contrary to the obvious meat propaganda >> 'usual suspect' put forward which states, >> >> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >> market weight could a value as great as 16 >> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >> beef industry know that this does not occur." >> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >> >> a large percentage of beef animals > >Is 6.1% of *British* farms a large percentage? No. It a huge percentage compared to the zero percentage implied by you, your source and Etter. >> are raised in exactly that way. > >No, they are not. Yes, they certainly are, as my information shows. >> This information tells us two things; >> >> 1) 'usual suspect's' meat propagandists lied >> when claiming, "Those familiar with the >> beef industry know that this does not occur." > >Your source did NOT say the cattle on 6.1% of British farms are fed >exclusively on grains their entire lives. It says 6.1% of the 558 surveyed are, and I see no reason why this percentage can't be carried through to represent the UK. What's important here is that while you, Etter and your source imply "no beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight", by writing, "Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur.", evidence shows that a large percentage are and that those familiar with the beef industry DO know that this occurs. In short, they lie to their customers. >> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >> pound of beef. > >Your article did NOT say it takes five times more feed per pound gained >on ANY kind of farm. Nitwit. I didn't say that it did. That evasion aside, your source confirms that it takes 16 lbs of feed to produce 1 lb of beef, so thanks for that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message news  > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:21:44 GMT, usual suspect > > wrote: >>Derek wrote: >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"rick" > wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>> >>>>>============== >>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are >>>>>only >>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>> >>> I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>> can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>> of the UK. >> >>There are almost 17x as many farms as the 6.1% which don't keep >>their >>animals indoors 24/7. > > At least you now concede that your source did > lie after all. As we can see, a large percentage > of beef is raised indoors and fed feed instead > of pastured. > >>> What's important to remember here >>> is that, contrary to the obvious meat propaganda >>> 'usual suspect' put forward which states, >>> >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>> a large percentage of beef animals >> >>Is 6.1% of *British* farms a large percentage? No. > > It a huge percentage compared to the zero percentage > implied by you, your source and Etter. > >>> are raised in exactly that way. >> >>No, they are not. > > Yes, they certainly are, as my information shows. > >>> This information tells us two things; >>> >>> 1) 'usual suspect's' meat propagandists lied >>> when claiming, "Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >> >>Your source did NOT say the cattle on 6.1% of British farms are >>fed >>exclusively on grains their entire lives. > > It says 6.1% of the 558 surveyed are, ======================== No fool, try again. It doesn't say 6.1% of cattle are.... and I see > no reason why this percentage can't be carried > through to represent the UK. What's important > here is that while you, Etter and your source > imply "no beef animals are fed diets composed > largely of grains from birth to market weight", ================== Your site doesn't say that fool. It doesn't say they are fed grains at all. And the cites I presented are still the truth. You've yet to disprove them, fool... > by writing, "Those familiar with the beef industry > know that this does not occur.", evidence shows > that a large percentage are and that those familiar > with the beef industry DO know that this occurs. > In short, they lie to their customers. ================= Far less than you do... > >>> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>> pound of beef. >> >>Your article did NOT say it takes five times more feed per >>pound gained >>on ANY kind of farm. Nitwit. > > I didn't say that it did. That evasion aside, your > source confirms that it takes 16 lbs of feed to > produce 1 lb of beef, so thanks for that. ================= No fool, it does not. Try again... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:03:09 GMT, "rick" > >> wrote: >> >>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > wrote >>>in message ... >>> >>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:23:18 GMT, "rick" > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > >>>>>wrote in message om... >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > >>>>>>>wrote in message >>>>>>>news:riq8c1ti0optb7fgh8r7c59eii62gfgt90@4ax .com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message .pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > >>>>>>>>>>wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:em45c19rljal4c4s8tjtbum2fhsapg0uch@ 4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>============== >>>>>>>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless >>>>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there >>>>>>>>>>are >>>>>>>>>>only >>>>>>>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>>>>>can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>>>>>of the UK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% >>>>>>>represents. >>>>>> >>>>>>It represents the percentage of "beef animals >>>>>>reared for slaughter and housed for their entire >>>>>>lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains >>>>>>from birth to market weight." >>>>> >>>>>===================== >>>>>No fool, it does not. >>>> >>>>Yes it does. Go to the links provided and see for >>>>yourself. >>> >>>================= >>>I went there >> >> >> Did you go to table 4 and see where it shows that 6.1% >> of the beef raised on those farms are raised in intensive >> rearing and finishing systems, meaning "beef animals reared >> for slaughter and housed for their entire lives" while "fed >> diets composed largely of grains from birth to market >> weight."? > > I can find the part about "beef animals raised for slaughter > and housed for their entire lives" but can you be kind enough > to point out where it says they're "fed diets composed largely > of grains from birth to market weight"? No? I didn't think you > could, you insufferable, shit-stirring fat ****. ================ Oh it's better than that, it does tell him what they are fed. "..a beef enterprise would typically be used either to exploit arable by-products in intensive..." ie, waste from the crops that dreck doesn't eat! Making him even more complicit than before, since we now have proof that he supports farmers that raise cattle on the parts of crops he won't eat, and he STILL knowingly buys their products. What a hoot! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > rick wrote: > <...> >> ================ >> Doesn't disprove the statement above, killer. Too bad your 2 >> remaining braincells are on vaation, eh fool? > > Two brain cells? Is Derk pregnant? ================ Man, what a terrible picture that was..... pleeeeease make it stttttooooooppppp |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:32:10 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>> pound of beef. >>> >>>================== >>>Read your site again >> >> It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >> >> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >> market weight could a value as great as 16 >> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >> beef industry know that this does not occur." >> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >> >> The information I provided shows that over 6% >> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >> their entire lives in feedlots, > >No, not in feedlots. In intensive, indoor farms. And "fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight", which is exactly what your source implies doesn't exist by writing, "Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur." >> which contradicts this obvious lie. > >It doesn't contradict anything. They say that, "Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur.", while evidence shows that a large percentage of beef animals ARE kept in such fashion. They lied, and so did you. >> Go to the page and read where it >> defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >> above table 4. >> >> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >> their entire lives." >> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm > >There's NOTHING in that which calls those systems "feedlots" and NOTHING >about how or what they're fed. They are "fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight", which is exactly what your source implies doesn't exist by writing, "Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur." It DOES occur, and those "familiar with the beef industry know that this does [] occur." They lied, and so did you. >> It also confirms that such animals do in fact >> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >> of meat. > >No, it doesn't. "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained." http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >> market weight could a value as great as 16 >> pounds be obtained." >> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > >Your source does NOT say intensively-raised cattle are fed grains from >birth, It says they are fed grains and other materials, and according to your source such animals would indeed require 16 lbs of feed to produce 1 lb of beef. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:00:42 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:07:00 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:57:34 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:04:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>2) It confirmed that such animals do in fact >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Where >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you left my post intact without snipping away >>>>>>>the damning evidence >>>>>> >>>>>>I left the evidence which >>>>> >>>>>1) clearly lied and duped you into believing no >>>>> beef animals are kept their entire lives in a >>>>> feedlot. >>>>> >>>>>"Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>>> >>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. Go to the page and >>>>>read where it defines intensive rearing and >>>>>finishing systems above table 4. >>>> >>>>============================= >>>>they aren't at feedlots fool. they are on the farm still. >>> >>>Yes, in large feedlots, >> >>No, indoors. > > Most feedlots are indoors. You're still leaping to conclusions, fatso. Just because a farm is run indoors doesn't mean it's a feedlot. The two operations are distinct; the feedlot is PART of livestock production, not all there is to livestock production. >>>"fed diets composed largely >>>of grains from birth to market weight", >> >>Ipse dixit and false. Your source did NOT say they're fed grains from >>birth to slaughter. > > Yours did, Not. > and then went on to confirm that > such animals would indeed require 16 lbs of > feed to produce 1 lb of beef; No, you've made a phony inference that because some animals are kept indoors, they therefore are fed grains from birth. Your source did not say that. I challenge you to find a source that does. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:21:44 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's fat self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>> >>>>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>> >>>>>Claire's fat self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>> >>>>>============== >>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are only >>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>> >>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>of the UK. >> >>There are almost 17x as many farms as the 6.1% which don't keep their >>animals indoors 24/7. > > At least You've been wrong to infer that because some cattle are kept their whole lives indoors, they therefore are fed a finishing diet from birth. Your source did not even come close to saying that, nor has any other we've discussed. Your own source notes that these cattle are fed silage and other byproducts resulting from the 'normal' farming operations. There is NOTHING in your source which suggests these indoor cattle consume sixteen pound of feed per pound of growth. > As we can see, a large percentage > of beef Six-percent is not large, fatso. >>>What's important to remember here >>>is that, contrary to the obvious meat propaganda >>>'usual suspect' put forward which states, >>> >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>>a large percentage of beef animals >> >>Is 6.1% of *British* farms a large percentage? No. > > It a huge percentage No, it's a drop in the bucket -- an exception to the norm. >>>are raised in exactly that way. >> >>No, they are not. > > Yes, No, they are not. Your information does not say what you're claiming. >>>This information tells us two things; >>> >>>1) 'usual suspect's' meat propagandists lied >>> when claiming, "Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >> >>Your source did NOT say the cattle on 6.1% of British farms are fed >>exclusively on grains their entire lives. > > It says 6.1% of the 558 surveyed are, No, it does NOT. It says they're fed silage and other byproducts, dummy. >>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>> pound of beef. >> >>Your article did NOT say it takes five times more feed per pound gained >>on ANY kind of farm. Nitwit. > > I didn't say that it did. You are when you claim it takes 16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat. > That evasion aside, It's not an evasion, fatso, it's the issue at hand -- and it's something which stands despite your feeble attempts to infer things from your source which contradicts that source. > your source confirms that it takes 16 lbs of feed to > produce 1 lb of beef, No, it says "[i]t takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings." NOT SIXTEEN ****ING POUNDS, LARD ASS. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's inebriated fat Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:32:10 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's inebriated fat Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's inebriated fat Uncle Derk wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>> pound of beef. >>>> >>>>================== >>>>Read your site again >>> >>>It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>> >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>their entire lives in feedlots, >> >>No, not in feedlots. In intensive, indoor farms. > > And "fed diets composed largely of grains from > birth to market weight", You have no concept of context, do you, fat ****? [i]t takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. ONLY BY ASSUMING THAT BEEF ANIMALS ARE FED DIETS COMPOSED LARGELY OF GRAINS FROM BIRTH TO MARKET WEIGHT COULD A VALUE AS GREAT AS 16 POUNDS BE OBTAINED. THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE BEEF INDUSTRY KNOW THAT THIS DOES NOT OCCUR. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. Your OWN source says that those 6.1% of farms feeds silage and byproducts from primary farming activities. It does NOT say those cattle are fed finishing rations from birth, dumb ass. >>>Go to the page and read where it >>>defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>>above table 4. >>> >>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>> their entire lives." >>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> >>There's NOTHING in that which calls those systems "feedlots" and NOTHING >>about how or what they're fed. > > They are "fed diets composed largely of grains > from birth to market weight", Ipse dixit, unsupported, and completely false if we're to believe your source which says those cattle are fed silage and other byproducts from other farming activities. > It DOES not > occur, You have not proven that it does. You've taken a part of my source out of context based on your false inferences from your own source. You ****ed up. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:28:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:09:26 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:27:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>>>>> pound of beef. >>>>>>>================== >>>>>>>Read your site again >>>>>> >>>>>> It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>>>>> ==================== >>>>> >>>>>The site YOU provided >>>> >>>> No. 'usual suspect' provided the cite below this >>>> line. I supplied the other one which refutes it. >>>================ >>>No >> >> Yes. >========================== >restoe dishonest snipping... 'usual liar' provided the cite below this line. The proof is still in Google archives if you don't feel able to believe it. >>>>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>>> >>>>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>> their entire lives in feedlots, >>>>>================ >>>>>No >>>> >>>> Yes, it does. Read on below this line and then >>>> go to the link I provided. >>>====================== >>>LOL Again, you cannot read for comprehension. Try taking your >>>blinders off, and look at the table again, fool. >> >> It still reads exactly as it did yesterday and gives >> a 6.1%. >======================= >I agree, there is a number o 6.1% there. Then you now have to concede and admit you lied when claiming all beef animals are pastured. Clearly they aren't, as the evidence you've seen shows. >>>>>> which contradicts this >>>>>> obvious lie. Go to the page and read where it >>>>>> defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>>>>> above table 4. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>>>> their entire lives." >>>>>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> It also confirms that such animals do in fact >>>>>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >>>>>> of meat. >>>================= >>>No, it does not >> >> Yes, it does. Read 'usual suspect's' cite again below >> this line and see for yourself. >================= >No, it does not, liar. Read it again; "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained." http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>>> pounds be obtained." >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >> >> Now, what part in that are you having so much >> difficulty with, dummy? >================= >Becuase it's not relevent It's very relevant, because it reveals the fact that beef cattle raised in conditions they and you imply don't exist do require 16 lbs of feed to produce 1 lb of beef. >>>>>> You, on the other hand, lie when claiming; >>>>>============= >>>>>Nope, I provided cites that I understand. >>>> >>>> Then those cites lied to you, Etter, because >>>> the information before you shows that over >>>> 6% of the farms surveyed practice intensive >>>> rearing and finishing systems. >>>==================== >>>Ahhh, now you're catching on to your ly, fool. Now, tell me >>>where it says 6.1% of all cattle are raised intensivly, fool. >> >> On table 4 on the page I gave you. >> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >> their entire lives." >> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> ======================== >So, it also says what they eat, and where they are likely to be >located. Which proves that your claim where 100% of all beef animals are pastured is a lie, Etter. >>>> This evidence >>>> proves that your claim, and the claims made >>>> by pro-meat propagandists such as yourself >>>> are lying. >>>=============== >>>Nope. >> >> Yes it does, liar Etter.Your meat pushing on these >> vegetarian-related forums is clearly seen for what >> it is. >=============== >Nope. Yes, pusher, but your so-called information to help push that meat has now been shown to be false. >>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>> their entire lives." >>>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>> >>>>>> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >>>>>> those go on to finish lots." >>>>>> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >>>>>> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >>>>>> >>>>>> and, more recently >>>>>> >>>>>> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >>>>>> start out on pasture." >>>>>> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >>>>>================ >>>>>All true, fool. >>>> >>>> Clearly not, liar. >>>=============== >>>Yep >> >> While claiming 100% of all beef cattle are pasture >> fed, my figures tell you you're wrong, and evidence >> describing [L]andless [L]ivestock [R]uminant >> production systems proves you're a liar as well. >> http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM >=========================== >You haven't disproved the cite I gave fool. I've clobbered it into the ground and spat on it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:03:09 GMT, "rick" > >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > wrote >>>>in message ... >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:23:18 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > >>>>>>wrote in message >>>>>>news:4gq9c1lr0ess096d92lpkkt1bqc6h0aivo@4ax. com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:02:44 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > >>>>>>>>wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:riq8c1ti0optb7fgh8r7c59eii62gfgt90@4a x.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message s.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>"Claire's fat **** Uncle Derk" > >>>>>>>>>>>wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>news:em45c19rljal4c4s8tjtbum2fhsapg0uch @4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>============== >>>>>>>>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless >>>>>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there >>>>>>>>>>>are >>>>>>>>>>>only >>>>>>>>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>>>>>>can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>>>>>>of the UK. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>Read it again fool and then tell us what the 6.1% >>>>>>>>represents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It represents the percentage of "beef animals >>>>>>>reared for slaughter and housed for their entire >>>>>>>lives" while "fed diets composed largely of grains >>>>>> >>>>>>>from birth to market weight." >>>>>> >>>>>>===================== >>>>>>No fool, it does not. >>>>> >>>>>Yes it does. Go to the links provided and see for >>>>>yourself. >>>> >>>>================= >>>>I went there >>> >>> >>>Did you go to table 4 and see where it shows that 6.1% >>>of the beef raised on those farms are raised in intensive >>>rearing and finishing systems, meaning "beef animals reared >>>for slaughter and housed for their entire lives" while "fed >>>diets composed largely of grains from birth to market >>>weight."? >> >>I can find the part about "beef animals raised for slaughter >>and housed for their entire lives" but can you be kind enough >>to point out where it says they're "fed diets composed largely >>of grains from birth to market weight"? No? I didn't think you >>could, you insufferable, shit-stirring fat ****. > > ================ > Oh it's better than that, it does tell him what they are fed. > "..a beef enterprise would typically be used either to exploit > arable by-products in intensive..." > ie, waste from the crops that dreck doesn't eat! Making him even > more complicit than before, since we now have proof that he > supports farmers that raise cattle on the parts of crops he won't > eat, and he STILL knowingly buys their products. What a hoot! It's ironic that beef is among the CDs Derk has to account for in his own diet. Not just mice and rats and frogs, but cattle intended for slaughter and fed off the byproducts of the staples of a typical "vegan" diet. And since he eats more than most people (eating for at least two, hehe), he's that much more complicit for animal deaths. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:28:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > >>"Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >> >>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:09:26 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>> >>>>"Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:27:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>>>>>> pound of beef. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>================== >>>>>>>>Read your site again >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>>>>>>==================== >>>>>> >>>>>>The site YOU provided >>>>> >>>>>No. 'usual suspect' provided the cite below this >>>>>line. I supplied the other one which refutes it. >>>> >>>>================ >>>>No >>> >>>Yes. >> >>========================== >>restoe dishonest snipping... > > > 'usual liar' provided the cite below this line. The > proof is still in Google archives if you don't feel > able to believe it. > > >>>>>>>"Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>>>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots, >>>>>> >>>>>>================ >>>>>>No >>>>> >>>>>Yes, it does. Read on below this line and then >>>>>go to the link I provided. >>>> >>>>====================== >>>>LOL Again, you cannot read for comprehension. Try taking your >>>>blinders off, and look at the table again, fool. >>> >>>It still reads exactly as it did yesterday and gives >>>a 6.1%. >> >>======================= >>I agree, there is a number o 6.1% there. > > Then you now have to concede and admit you > lied when claiming all beef animals are pastured. > Clearly they aren't, as the evidence you've seen > shows. > > >>>>>>>which contradicts this >>>>>>>obvious lie. Go to the page and read where it >>>>>>>defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>>>>>>above table 4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>>>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>>>>> their entire lives." >>>>>>>http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It also confirms that such animals do in fact >>>>>>>require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >>>>>>>of meat. >>>> >>>>================= >>>>No, it does not >>> >>>Yes, it does. Read 'usual suspect's' cite again below >>>this line and see for yourself. >> >>================= >>No, it does not, liar. > > > Read it again; You have no concept of context, do you, fat ****? [i]t takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. ONLY BY ASSUMING THAT BEEF ANIMALS ARE FED DIETS COMPOSED LARGELY OF GRAINS FROM BIRTH TO MARKET WEIGHT COULD A VALUE AS GREAT AS 16 POUNDS BE OBTAINED. THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE BEEF INDUSTRY KNOW THAT THIS DOES NOT OCCUR. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. >>>>>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>>>> pounds be obtained." >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>>Now, what part in that are you having so much >>>difficulty with, dummy? >> >>================= >>Becuase it's not relevent > > It's very relevant, because it reveals the fact that > beef cattle raised in conditions they and you imply > don't exist do require 16 lbs of feed to produce 1 lb > of beef. It doesn't reveal any such thing. You have no concept of context, do you, fat ****? [i]t takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. ONLY BY ASSUMING THAT BEEF ANIMALS ARE FED DIETS COMPOSED LARGELY OF GRAINS FROM BIRTH TO MARKET WEIGHT COULD A VALUE AS GREAT AS 16 POUNDS BE OBTAINED. THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE BEEF INDUSTRY KNOW THAT THIS DOES NOT OCCUR. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:09:06 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:32:10 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>>> pound of beef. >>>>>================== >>>>>Read your site again >>>> >>>>It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>>> >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>> >>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>their entire lives in feedlots, >>> >>>No, not in feedlots. In intensive, indoor farms. >> >> And "fed diets composed largely of grains from >> birth to market weight", > >You have no concept of context Contrary to your information, a large percentage of beef cattle are housed their entire lives and fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight. That's now beyond dispute. >>>>Go to the page and read where it >>>>defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>>>above table 4. >>>> >>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>> their entire lives." >>>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>> >>>There's NOTHING in that which calls those systems "feedlots" and NOTHING >>>about how or what they're fed. >> >> They are "fed diets composed largely of grains >> from birth to market weight", > >Ipse dixit Evidence describing [L]andless [L]ivestock [R]uminant production systems proves you're a liar as well. http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM >> It DOES > >not > >> occur, > >You have not proven that it does. http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM Lying won't get vegetarians to eat meat, pusher. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:02:00 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:21:44 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>> >>>>>>============== >>>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are only >>>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>>> >>>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>of the UK. >>> >>>There are almost 17x as many farms as the 6.1% which don't keep their >>>animals indoors 24/7. >> >> At least > >You've been I'm always right, and evidence shows that you've lied consistently. I rest my case by leaving you to read the damning evidence against your pro-meat propaganda in the rest of this thread. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:28:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:09:26 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:27:15 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:c8s9c1d4u6l4rqtb5f25r5j1hbmd0f0ka8@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:riq8c1ti0optb7fgh8r7c59eii62gfgt90@4a x.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>>>>>> pound of beef. >>>>>>>>================== >>>>>>>>Read your site again >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>>>>>> ==================== >>>>>> >>>>>>The site YOU provided >>>>> >>>>> No. 'usual suspect' provided the cite below this >>>>> line. I supplied the other one which refutes it. >>>>================ >>>>No >>> >>> Yes. >>========================== >>restoe dishonest snipping... > > 'usual liar' provided the cite below this line. The > proof is still in Google archives if you don't feel > able to believe it. > >>>>>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>>>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>> their entire lives in feedlots, >>>>>>================ >>>>>>No >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it does. Read on below this line and then >>>>> go to the link I provided. >>>>====================== >>>>LOL Again, you cannot read for comprehension. Try taking >>>>your >>>>blinders off, and look at the table again, fool. >>> >>> It still reads exactly as it did yesterday and gives >>> a 6.1%. >>======================= >>I agree, there is a number o 6.1% there. > > Then you now have to concede and admit you > lied when claiming all beef animals are pastured. > Clearly they aren't, as the evidence you've seen > shows. ===================== Nope. restore dishonest snip... I agree, there is a number o 6.1% there. It doesn't indicate what you have been lying about, fool. > >>>>>>> which contradicts this >>>>>>> obvious lie. Go to the page and read where it >>>>>>> defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>>>>>> above table 4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>>>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>>>>> their entire lives." >>>>>>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It also confirms that such animals do in fact >>>>>>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >>>>>>> of meat. >>>>================= >>>>No, it does not >>> >>> Yes, it does. Read 'usual suspect's' cite again below >>> this line and see for yourself. >>================= >>No, it does not, liar. > > Read it again; > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm ================ You read it fool. Nowhere does it say cattle ARE fed grains their whole lives. Man, you really are that stupid, aen't you, killer? > >>>>>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>>>> pounds be obtained." >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>> Now, what part in that are you having so much >>> difficulty with, dummy? >>================= >>Becuase it's not relevent > > It's very relevant, because it reveals the fact that > beef cattle raised in conditions they and you imply > don't exist do require 16 lbs of feed to produce 1 lb > of beef. ================= No, it's not, because nowhere does it claim any animals are fed that way rom birth to death.. restore dishonest snips.. Becuase it's not relevent to the lys you have been telling about the site you posted, fool. Do try to keep up... > >>>>>>> You, on the other hand, lie when claiming; >>>>>>============= >>>>>>Nope, I provided cites that I understand. >>>>> >>>>> Then those cites lied to you, Etter, because >>>>> the information before you shows that over >>>>> 6% of the farms surveyed practice intensive >>>>> rearing and finishing systems. >>>>==================== >>>>Ahhh, now you're catching on to your ly, fool. Now, tell me >>>>where it says 6.1% of all cattle are raised intensivly, fool. >>> >>> On table 4 on the page I gave you. >>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>> their entire lives." >>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>> ======================== >>So, it also says what they eat, and where they are likely to be >>located. > > Which proves that your claim where 100% of all > beef animals are pastured is a lie, Etter. ================ Nope, doesn't disprove the cite I posted at all, fool. > >>>>> This evidence >>>>> proves that your claim, and the claims made >>>>> by pro-meat propagandists such as yourself >>>>> are lying. >>>>=============== >>>>Nope. >>> >>> Yes it does, liar Etter.Your meat pushing on these >>> vegetarian-related forums is clearly seen for what >>> it is. >>=============== >>Nope. > > Yes, pusher, but your so-called information to > help push that meat has now been shown to be > false. ======= restore dishonest snips.. =============== Nope. Read my cite fool. It's specific. You, on the other hand, can't read your own data for comprehension... > >>>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>>> their entire lives." >>>>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>>> >>>>>>> "100% of beef cattle are pasture fed. 3/4 of >>>>>>> those go on to finish lots." >>>>>>> rick etter Feb 20 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7nxly >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Again. *All* beef cattle in the US are grazed." >>>>>>> rick etter Sep 19 2004 http://tinyurl.com/92ck9 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and, more recently >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "You do know don't you that all beef cattle >>>>>>> start out on pasture." >>>>>>> rick etter Jun 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7potv >>>>>>================ >>>>>>All true, fool. >>>>> >>>>> Clearly not, liar. >>>>=============== >>>>Yep >>> >>> While claiming 100% of all beef cattle are pasture >>> fed, my figures tell you you're wrong, and evidence >>> describing [L]andless [L]ivestock [R]uminant >>> production systems proves you're a liar as well. >>> http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM >>=========================== >>You haven't disproved the cite I gave fool. > > I've clobbered it into the ground and spat on it. ================== Not even close, fool. Better get some glasses, fool... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:32:10 GMT, usual suspect > > wrote: >>Derek wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>> pound of beef. >>>> >>>>================== >>>>Read your site again >>> >>> It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>> >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>> The information I provided shows that over 6% >>> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>> their entire lives in feedlots, >> >>No, not in feedlots. In intensive, indoor farms. > > And "fed diets composed largely of grains from > birth to market weight", which is exactly what > your source implies doesn't exist by writing, > > "Those familiar with the beef industry know that > this does not occur." > >>> which contradicts this obvious lie. >> >>It doesn't contradict anything. > > They say that, "Those familiar with the beef > industry know that this does not occur.", while > evidence shows that a large percentage of > beef animals ARE kept in such fashion. They > lied, and so did you. > >>> Go to the page and read where it >>> defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>> above table 4. >>> >>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>> their entire lives." >>> >>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >> >>There's NOTHING in that which calls those systems "feedlots" >>and NOTHING >>about how or what they're fed. > > They are "fed diets composed largely of grains > from birth to market weight", which is exactly > what your source implies doesn't exist by writing, > ================== You own site proves you a liar, fool. > "Those familiar with the beef industry know that > this does not occur." > > It DOES occur, and those "familiar with the beef > industry know that this does [] occur." They lied, > and so did you. > >>> It also confirms that such animals do in fact >>> require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound >>> of meat. >> >>No, it doesn't. > > "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 > pounds be obtained." > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > >>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>> pounds be obtained." >>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >> >>Your source does NOT say intensively-raised cattle are fed >>grains from >>birth, > > It says they are fed grains and other materials, > and according to your source such animals > would indeed require 16 lbs of feed to produce > 1 lb of beef. ==================== Still lying I see, eh killer? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:09:06 GMT, usual suspect > > wrote: snips.. >> >>You have not proven that it does. > > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm ======= I suggest you learn to read, fool... > > http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6111E/X6111E00.HTM ======= I suggest you learn to read, fool... > > Lying won't get vegetarians to eat meat, pusher. >================= LOL We don't care if you do or not killer. That's YOUR strawman... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Claire's fat self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:21:44 GMT, usual suspect >> > wrote: >> >>>Claire's fat self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > >>>>wrote: >>>>>"rick" > wrote in message .earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's fat self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>> >>>>>>============== >>>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are >>>>>>only 558 farms total in the UK. >>>> >>>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure can't be >>>>carried forward to represent the rest of the UK. >>> >>>There are almost 17x as many farms as the 6.1% which don't >>>keep their animals indoors 24/7. >> >> At least > > You've been wrong to infer that because some cattle are kept > their whole lives indoors, they therefore are fed a finishing > diet from birth. Your source did not even come close to saying > that, nor has any other we've discussed. Your own source notes > that these cattle are fed silage and other byproducts resulting > from the 'normal' farming operations. There is NOTHING in your > source which suggests these indoor cattle consume sixteen pound > of feed per pound of growth. > >> As we can see, a large percentage >> of beef > > Six-percent is not large, fatso. ==================== And he still hasn't proven that it is 6% of "all beef" produced in the UK anyway.. [i] > >>>>What's important to remember here is that, contrary to the >>>>obvious meat propaganda 'usual suspect' put forward which >>>>states, >>>> >>>> "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>> >>>>a large percentage of beef animals >>> >>>Is 6.1% of *British* farms a large percentage? No. >> >> It a huge percentage > > No, it's a drop in the bucket -- an exception to the norm. > >>>>are raised in exactly that way. >>> >>>No, they are not. >> >> Yes, > > No, they are not. Your information does not say what you're > claiming. > >>>>This information tells us two things; >>>> >>>>1) 'usual suspect's' meat propagandists lied when claiming, >>>>"Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does >>>>not occur." >>> >>>Your source did NOT say the cattle on 6.1% of British farms >>>are fed exclusively on grains their entire lives. >> >> It says 6.1% of the 558 surveyed are, > > No, it does NOT. It says they're fed silage and other > byproducts, dummy. > >>>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one pound of beef. >>> >>>Your article did NOT say it takes five times more feed per >>>pound gained on ANY kind of farm. Nitwit. >> >> I didn't say that it did. > > You are when you claim it takes 16 pounds of feed to make a > pound of meat. > >> That evasion aside, > > It's not an evasion, fatso, it's the issue at hand -- and it's > something which stands despite your feeble attempts to infer > things from your source which contradicts that source. > >> your source confirms that it takes 16 lbs of feed to >> produce 1 lb of beef, > > No, it says "t takes 2 pounds of grain and protein > supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and > 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings." NOT SIXTEEN ****ING POUNDS, > LARD ASS. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > rick wrote: snippage... >> >> ================ >> Oh it's better than that, it does tell him what they are fed. >> "..a beef enterprise would typically be used either to exploit >> arable by-products in intensive..." >> ie, waste from the crops that dreck doesn't eat! Making him >> even more complicit than before, since we now have proof that >> he supports farmers that raise cattle on the parts of crops he >> won't eat, and he STILL knowingly buys their products. What a >> hoot! > > It's ironic that beef is among the CDs Derk has to account for > in his own diet. Not just mice and rats and frogs, but cattle > intended for slaughter and fed off the byproducts of the > staples of a typical "vegan" diet. And since he eats more than > most people (eating for at least two, hehe), he's that much > more complicit for animal deaths. =============== I love it when they expose their own hypocrisy... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:09:06 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:32:10 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>2) it takes 16 pounds of feed to produce one >>>>>>> pound of beef. >>>>>> >>>>>>================== >>>>>>Read your site again >>>>> >>>>>It was 'usual liar's' cite, and according to it; >>>>> >>>>>"Only by assuming that beef animals are fed >>>>> diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 >>>>> pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the >>>>> beef industry know that this does not occur." >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>> >>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>their entire lives in feedlots, >>>> >>>>No, not in feedlots. In intensive, indoor farms. >>> >>>And "fed diets composed largely of grains from >>>birth to market weight", >> >>You have no concept of context > > Contrary to your information, a large percentage 6% among UK farms in ONE study, which wasn't even about the issue at hand, isn't large. > of beef cattle are housed their entire lives and fed > diets composed largely of grains from birth *Unproven* assertion. >>>>>Go to the page and read where it >>>>>defines intensive rearing and finishing systems >>>>>above table 4. >>>>> >>>>> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >>>>> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >>>>> their entire lives." >>>>> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm >>>> >>>>There's NOTHING in that which calls those systems "feedlots" and NOTHING >>>>about how or what they're fed. >>> >>>They are "fed diets composed largely of grains >>>from birth to market weight", >> >>Ipse dixit > > Evidence describing [L]andless [L]ivestock [R]uminant > production systems says nothing about *from birth*. Highlights: The statistical base for LLR systems is very weak. Total livestock population and production data are available per country, but separate data on the different production systems is not distinguishable. An additional problem is that the animals in LLR systems are bred and reared in other livestock systems so that only part of the total production of those animals can be attributed to LLR systems. The turnover in some subsystems within LLR systems is high (e.g. in feedlots, fattening cycles of around 140 days) and, thus, annual population data do not adequately reflect total production estimates. Livestock in LLR systems originate from other (land-based) systems, e.g. offspring from range fed beef cattle are finished in intensive feedlots; lambs from the pastoral areas are fattened intensively; male calves from dairy breeds are fattened on milk; and high yielding dairy cows from the rural areas are sold for a final lactation in urban dairies. LLR systems are largely interlinked with other livestock and mixed production systems. > Lying won't get vegetarians to eat meat, pusher. Lying to meat eaters won't get them to stop eating it, fatso. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:02:00 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:21:44 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:19:45 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>>>> >>>>>>>Claire's self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The information I provided shows that over 6% >>>>>>>>of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >>>>>>>>their entire lives in feedlots. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>============== >>>>>>>Oh, and by the way, you lied about this number, unless of >>>>>>>course you're going to try to convince us that there are only >>>>>>>558 farms total in the UK. >>>>> >>>>>I've no reason to believe that this 6.1% figure >>>>>can't be carried forward to represent the rest >>>>>of the UK. >>>> >>>>There are almost 17x as many farms as the 6.1% which don't keep their >>>>animals indoors 24/7. >>> >>>At least >> >>You've been > > I'm always wrong. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
| I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
| Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan | Vegan | |||
| new vegetarian needs help. | Vegan | |||
| FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
