Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #321 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The numbers game

"Dave" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dave wrote:
>> >> The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came across.
>> >> If
>> >> anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the nature
>> >> of
>> >> these
>> >> types of calculations means that I shall be making major
>> >> approximations
>> >> in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data.
>> >>
>> >> "A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat"
>> >> http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm
>> >> Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on
>> >> grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't know
>> >> whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to
>> >> reach similar weights.
>> >>
>> >> One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein
>> >> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Nutrition data for beef
>> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141
>> >> Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not homogonous.
>> >>
>> >> Nutrition data for corn
>> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65
>> >>
>> >> Conversion from lbs to grams
>> >> http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm
>> >>
>> >> 459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964
>> >> calories
>> >>
>> >> one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein.
>> >> For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 calories
>> >> *95,700 = 3 115 879 calories
>> >>
>> >> calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7.

>>
>> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e.,
>> the
>> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight
>> gain
>> (consumable food).

>
> "For example a vested interests organisation such as the US National
> Cattleman's Beef Association has claimed that it takes only 4.5 kg of
> grain
> to produce 1 kg of beef raised intensively in a US feedlot. On the
> other hand,
> the US Department of Agricultural Economic Research Service puts the
> figure at 16kg to produce 1kg of beef."
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/..._Less_Meat.pdf
> page 22 References given for both these figures.


It *states* there that the USDA figure is 16/1, the reference[69] is to a
radical anti-meat book by John Robbins, not USDA dcoumentation. FYI Dave,
that document *and* John Robbins are both "vested interests", in that they
are not objective, they are flogging a particular view. On that basis the
"figures" they toss out are no less suspect than The Cattlemen's
Association.

Note that on that same page it specifically stipulates the following:

"Other than in areas where animals are fattened predominantly on grazing
land that could not easily grow food crops for direct human consumption,
or elsewhere they eat primarily crop residues or other waste products,
livestock farming actually wastes resources."

Therefore when animals *are* raised using the above-mentioned methods, they
actually make use of inputs that would otherwise go to waste. Where is the
admonition by these authors that we *ought to* use this conservation method?

>>That is not figured into that equation.

>
> It isn't relevant to the comparison between an acre of corn and one
> grass fed steer.


If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much
livestock feed that corn would produce and how much steer body
weight that translates to, compared to how much human-edible niblets
corn it would produce, not how much grazing grass would grow on
that acre of land. Those are two very different land uses.


>> >> No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1.
>> >> Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal production
>> >> according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20
>> >> Decline per acre = ~8.
>> >> % decline due to mortality unknown.
>> >> Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process.
>> >> Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn.
>> >
>> > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral
>> > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic.

>>
>> Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and
>> byproduct
>> feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive with
>> *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle..

>
> "Could concievably" is not the same as "actually does".


I realize that Dave. Vegans are fond of boasting that "the ideal vegan diet"
would involve *no* animal deaths, a point which I would dispute, however it
is at least as valid to point out that "the ideal non-vegan diet" also has
advantages. In fact more and more non-finished beef (free-range organic) is
becoming widely available. I buy it exclusively now. The reason that
dedicated feed crops are still used is because they are economical to
produce.

>> The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close
>> comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal
>> impact,
>> which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present,
>> which
>> is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna from
>> heaven.

>






  #322 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Can we do better?


> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...


> > > Pearl wrote:

> >
> > > 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same
> > > data to show that commercial fishing had depleted
> > > the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall
> > > abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago.


> There is no ecological problem with fish
> eating per se, just killing fish faster than they can
> reproduce. There are responsible fisheries that
> moniter their impact on the marine environment.


'What was natural in the coastal oceans?
Jeremy B. C. Jackson*
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093; and Center for Tropical
Paleoecology and Archeology, Smithsonian Tropical Research
Institute, Apartado 2072, Balboa, Republic of Panama
....
'(1) No wild Atlantic coastal fishery is sustainable at anything
close to present levels of exploitation. Coastal marine ecosystems
already have been changed beyond recognition because of direct
and indirect effects of overfishing. Most fishing is unsustainable
because (i) inexorable growth of the human population drives
increasing demand, (ii) development of mechanized fishing
technologies severely damages the environment, (iii) cheap and
rapid transportation makes even the most distant populations
vulnerable to exploitation, and (iv) management has consistently
failed to conserve depleted stocks (9, 15, 16, 33, 43, 77, 90, 98, 99).
Evidence for ecological transformation and loss of fisheries
resources on Western Atlantic coral reefs, seagrass beds, bays,
estuaries, and the continental shelves is scientifically sound, and
the burden of proof belongs on those who would still fish rather
than the other way around (133). Monitoring is a basic tool for
management, but no more monitoring is required to know what
we have lost. Scientific efforts should be redirected toward
evaluating options for restoration of resources rather than
perpetuating the myth of sustainable fisheries. It is hard to
imagine how increasingly sophisticated and frequent
environmental monitoring and micromanagement could do a
fraction of the good of simply stopping fishing. There is no
rational scientific basis to continue fishing of wild stocks
along the Atlantic coast of North America or in the Caribbean
for the foreseeable future.
...
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/10/5411

The same applies virtually everywhere. See;
http://www.pewtrusts.com/a-v/oceans_map_flash.swf

'Not only have many major fish stocks been depleted, some
even collapsing completely such as cod off Canada's east
coast but excessive fishing pressure is placing many other
marine animals at risk. From the north Pacific and Atlantic
Oceans to the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, marine
mammals, seabirds, sharks and key fish species in the
intricate web of marine biodiversity are being overexploited,
caught and killed as 'bycatch', or threatened by the
industrialized fisheries for species that are critical links in
the marine food web.

Fisheries analysts at the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) report that virtually 70% of the world's
fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state
of collapse.
...
Dr. Pauly's team of scientists used a mountain of data
compiled over 50 years by the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization on more than 200 distinct species caught in
the world's oceans and seas. They catalogued how in one
ocean after another fishing has caused the depletion of
the biggest, most valuable stocks, and then worked its
way down the marine food web, catching more and more
of the smaller species. Dr. Pauly warned that at the current
rate of exploitation many stocks could be eliminated within
25 years. "You can end up with the sea full of jelly fish,"
said Pauly. He summed up his concern in a gloomy prediction:

"The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will
be gone. It is happening now. If things go unchecked, we
will have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants
to eat. We might end up with a marine junkyard dominated
by plankton."
...
And the fact is, a large number of small-boats concentrated
into an ecosystem can do as much damage to fish stocks and
marine ecology as a fleet of larger vessels. Too many boats
chasing too few fish always adds up to a race to ecological
disaster and economic ruin.
...'
http://archive.greenpeace.org/oceans...deadahead.html



  #323 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> news
>>
>> "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> rick wrote:
>>>>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> snip...
>>>>>
>>>>> eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick
>>>>> >> makes by
>>>>> >> buying
>>>>> >> grass-fed beef.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > same
>>>>> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you
>>>>> > choose
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank
>>>>> > you
>>>>> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.
>>>>> =======================
>>>>> And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is
>>>>> not an
>>>>> additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it
>>>>> would
>>>>> have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing.
>>>
>>> You have it exactly backwards rick.

>> ================
>> No, I don't. Because the product is the same. There is no
>> new product, just a new technique.

>
> That "new technique" *is* a new product.

=================
No, it is not.

The beef is produced differently,
> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses
> different inputs, and costs more.

======================
And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all their
lives, and by the same people.

Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of
> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it
> takes market share away from the old-style producers.

==============================
That's the incentive to produce an alternative that grass-fed
beef produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.
I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a process
they dislike. I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly
everyone goes vegan.


The only difference is that vegans
> do not "support" the new product, which makes no difference to
> the old producers.

=========================
Vegans have had no impact to begin with. Again, I'm not talking
about some delusion that suddenly everyone becomes vegan, I'm
discussing what I and the current vegans here do that have an
impact on the production of a product that vegans claim they want
to stop. Since they are already non-particpants in the process,
they have no impact on either the current process or the
alternative process.





>
>
>> If it represented a *new* market, *then*
>>> it would have no impact on the existing meat market, but
>>> since it is taking customers *away from* traditional
>>> suppliers, it is in that respect *exactly* like when people
>>> go vegetarian, it causes the demand for that product to
>>> shrink and the demand for others to grow.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef
>>>>> industry
>>>>> product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef
>>>>> supply.
>>>>> It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans
>>>>> decry, but
>>>>> do not have any say in since they have dropped out!
>>>>
>>>> Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



  #324 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default The numbers game

Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came across.
> >> >> If
> >> >> anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the nature
> >> >> of
> >> >> these
> >> >> types of calculations means that I shall be making major
> >> >> approximations
> >> >> in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data.
> >> >>
> >> >> "A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat"
> >> >> http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm
> >> >> Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on
> >> >> grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't know
> >> >> whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to
> >> >> reach similar weights.
> >> >>
> >> >> One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein
> >> >> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf
> >> >>
> >> >> Nutrition data for beef
> >> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141
> >> >> Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not homogonous.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nutrition data for corn
> >> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65
> >> >>
> >> >> Conversion from lbs to grams
> >> >> http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> 459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964
> >> >> calories
> >> >>
> >> >> one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein.
> >> >> For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 calories
> >> >> *95,700 = 3 115 879 calories
> >> >>
> >> >> calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7.
> >>
> >> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e.,
> >> the
> >> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight
> >> gain
> >> (consumable food).

> >
> > "For example a vested interests organisation such as the US National
> > Cattleman's Beef Association has claimed that it takes only 4.5 kg of
> > grain
> > to produce 1 kg of beef raised intensively in a US feedlot. On the
> > other hand,
> > the US Department of Agricultural Economic Research Service puts the
> > figure at 16kg to produce 1kg of beef."
> > http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/..._Less_Meat.pdf
> > page 22 References given for both these figures.

>
> It *states* there that the USDA figure is 16/1, the reference[69] is to a
> radical anti-meat book by John Robbins, not USDA dcoumentation. FYI Dave,
> that document *and* John Robbins are both "vested interests", in that they
> are not objective, they are flogging a particular view. On that basis the
> "figures" they toss out are no less suspect than The Cattlemen's
> Association.
>
> Note that on that same page it specifically stipulates the following:
>
> "Other than in areas where animals are fattened predominantly on grazing
> land that could not easily grow food crops for direct human consumption,
> or elsewhere they eat primarily crop residues or other waste products,
> livestock farming actually wastes resources."


And this statement is absurd. What the authors of the statement mean
is, they don't *like* the use of those resources to feed
cattle...because the authors are anti-meat.

It is not "wasting" resources to grow feed crops for livestock; it is a
*choice* that is made in a free market. Those resources could, of
course, go to some other use, or not be used at all (another choice).
If they *are* used for some particular purpose, then we assume they are
going to their *highest valued* use, as measured by people's
willingness to pay. Why do we assume this? Simple: because if
someone else was willing to pay more for the resources to go to some
alternate use, the owners of the resources would sell to that resource
user instead.

This is how we know the anti-meat people who spout this "resource
waste" garbage are totalitarian in natu they want to interfere with
free-market resource allocation, believing that allocating resources to
their highest valued use is somehow "bad".


>
> Therefore when animals *are* raised using the above-mentioned methods, they
> actually make use of inputs that would otherwise go to waste. Where is the
> admonition by these authors that we *ought to* use this conservation method?
>
> >>That is not figured into that equation.

> >
> > It isn't relevant to the comparison between an acre of corn and one
> > grass fed steer.

>
> If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
> location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much
> livestock feed that corn would produce and how much steer body
> weight that translates to, compared to how much human-edible niblets
> corn it would produce, not how much grazing grass would grow on
> that acre of land. Those are two very different land uses.
>
>
> >> >> No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1.
> >> >> Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal production
> >> >> according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20
> >> >> Decline per acre = ~8.
> >> >> % decline due to mortality unknown.
> >> >> Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process.
> >> >> Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn.
> >> >
> >> > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral
> >> > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic.
> >>
> >> Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and
> >> byproduct
> >> feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive with
> >> *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle..

> >
> > "Could concievably" is not the same as "actually does".

>
> I realize that Dave. Vegans are fond of boasting that "the ideal vegan diet"
> would involve *no* animal deaths, a point which I would dispute, however it
> is at least as valid to point out that "the ideal non-vegan diet" also has
> advantages. In fact more and more non-finished beef (free-range organic) is
> becoming widely available. I buy it exclusively now. The reason that
> dedicated feed crops are still used is because they are economical to
> produce.
>
> >> The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close
> >> comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal
> >> impact,
> >> which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present,
> >> which
> >> is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna from
> >> heaven.

> >


  #325 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default The numbers game

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:


You're still in my killfile, ditch. Just posting the following:

> >> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e., the
> >> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight gain
> >> (consumable food).


'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been
known to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion.
The primary benefits of crop residues are reduction of soil
erosion, improvement of soil properties, and reduction of
soil surface sealing effect. Crop residue is increasingly being
used as a major tool to reduce the loss of one of our most
valuable natural resources, topsoil. Conservation practices
encourage the use residue as a protective blanket from rainfall
and to enrich soil structure by increased organic matter content.
...'
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/pub..._NO_115=166033

'Restoring Soil Carbon Should Be Top Global Priority
Source: Ohio State University
6-10-4

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
should be a top priority among the global community, according
to a viewpoint article in this week's issue of the journal Science.

The amount of carbon that can be restored in the world's
degraded agricultural soils will directly influence global food
security and climate change within our lifetime, said Rattan Lal,
author of the article and director of the carbon management
and sequestration center at Ohio State University.

Scientists estimate that, since the mechanization of agriculture
began a few hundred years ago, some 78 billion metric tons -
more than 171 trillion pounds - of carbon once trapped in the
soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the form of carbon
dioxide (CO2).

"Converting natural ecosystems to fields for crop production
and pastures depletes a soil's carbon content by as much as
75 percent," Lal said. "And the amount of carbon we emit into
the atmosphere each year from industrial activity is on the rise."

With too little carbon in the soil, crop production is inefficient.
Right now, the world's agricultural soils are alarmingly depleted
of carbon, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, south and central
Asia and the Caribbean and Andean regions, Lal said.

He calls for adopting "recommended management practices"
for increasing and keeping carbon in farmed soils. These
practices include no-till farming - ***leaving residue from the
previous year's crops on the field***; agroforestry - planting
trees or shrubs on or around cropland to enhance the quality
of the soil; planting cover crops, which protect the soil from
erosion during normal growing seasons; and using nutrients
such as manure, compost or biosolids to fertilize crops.

Evidence shows that following such practices greatly increases
and sustains crop yields.

Lal cited an 18-year experiment in Kenya: Farm fields managed
by regular farming practices - tilling the land, using no fertilizer,
leaving fields bare in the non-growing season - produced about
1 ton of maize and beans per hectare (a hectare is about the size
of two football fields). But fields treated with manure, planted
with cover crops and covered with mulch yielded six times that
amount.

"This is the type of quantum jump in crop yield needed at the
continental scale to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan Africa,"
said Lal, who is also a professor of natural resources. "Soil needs
enough carbon in order to hold water and nutrients and to grow
crops efficiently.

"But ***completely removing crop residue for animal fodder***
and fuel is the norm in many African and Asian countries," he
continued. "This drastically reduces soil carbon levels, and we
cannot achieve global food security without returning crop residues
and putting carbon back in soil. Both are necessary for improving
soil quality."
..
"Soil carbon sequestration is a natural, cost-effective and
environment-friendly process," he continued. "Once sequestered,
carbon remains in the soil as long as restorative land use, no-till
farming and other recommended management practices are
followed."
....'
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505448/

> It is not "wasting" resources to grow feed crops for livestock;


'Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the
soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On
lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace,
at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54
percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html




  #326 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default The numbers game

Lesley blabbered:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com...
> > Dutch wrote:

>
> You're still in my killfile, ditch. Just posting the following:
>
> > >> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e., the
> > >> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight gain
> > >> (consumable food).

>
> 'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been
> known to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion.


Then we should grow much *more* crops for livestock, and reduce erosion
due to rainfall still lower.

  #327 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default The numbers game

Jonathan Ball, cyberpath, blabbered:

> pearl wrote:
>
> > Dutch wrote:
> > > >> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e., the
> > > >> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight gain
> > > >> (consumable food).

> >
> > 'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been
> > known to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion.

>
> Then we should grow much *more* crops for livestock, and reduce erosion
> due to rainfall still lower.


But: "Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than
humans do, i.e., the entire plant, not only the kernels, and
convert it all into bodyweight gain (consumable food)."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the
soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On
lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace,
at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54
percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  #328 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?

"rick" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>> snip...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by
>>>>>> >> buying
>>>>>> >> grass-fed beef.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the
>>>>>> > same
>>>>>> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose
>>>>>> > to
>>>>>> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank you
>>>>>> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.
>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>> And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is not an
>>>>>> additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it would
>>>>>> have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing.
>>>>
>>>> You have it exactly backwards rick.
>>> ================
>>> No, I don't. Because the product is the same. There is no new product,
>>> just a new technique.

>>
>> That "new technique" *is* a new product.

> =================
> No, it is not.


Of course it is. It is produced differently, usually by different producers,
looks different, tastes different, has a different fat content, is packaged
and marketed differently, and costs more. How can you assert that it's not a
different product?

> The beef is produced differently,
>> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses different
>> inputs, and costs more.

> ======================
> And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all their lives,
> and by the same people.


Even if the same people produce it, it is a different process and therefore
a separate product.

>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of
>> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it takes market
>> share away from the old-style producers.

> ==============================
> That's the incentive to produce an alternative that grass-fed beef
> produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.


Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw economic support
for traditionally produced meat products (aka "Factory Farmed"), which is
the same effect that people who consume alternative products like free-range
organic have.

> I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a process they
> dislike.


They simply don't support it, which is I do by buying free range.

> I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly everyone goes vegan.


Nobody is talking about "everybody", the fact is, free-range, grass-fed and
vegan alternatives all have the same negative effect on "Factory Farmed".

> The only difference is that vegans
>> do not "support" the new product, which makes no difference to the old
>> producers.

> =========================
> Vegans have had no impact to begin with.


Every consumer has a theoretical impact. Quitting or abstaining, the impact
per consumer is the same.

> Again, I'm not talking about some delusion that suddenly everyone becomes
> vegan,


Nobody is.

I'm
> discussing what I and the current vegans here do that have an impact on
> the production of a product that vegans claim they want to stop. Since
> they are already non-particpants in the process, they have no impact on
> either the current process or the alternative process.


If they all suddenly started consuming free-range beef that would not change
their impact on the "Factory Farmed" producers. Anyway, they object to
free-range production also, only less so.

>>> If it represented a *new* market, *then*
>>>> it would have no impact on the existing meat market, but since it is
>>>> taking customers *away from* traditional suppliers, it is in that
>>>> respect *exactly* like when people go vegetarian, it causes the demand
>>>> for that product to shrink and the demand for others to grow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef industry
>>>>>> product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef supply.
>>>>>> It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans decry, but
>>>>>> do not have any say in since they have dropped out!
>>>>>
>>>>> Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



  #329 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote
>>
>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>>> snip...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick
>>>>>>> >> makes by
>>>>>>> >> buying
>>>>>>> >> grass-fed beef.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about
>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>> > same
>>>>>>> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether
>>>>>>> > you choose
>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead.
>>>>>>> > Thank you
>>>>>>> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.
>>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>>> And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is
>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>> additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have it exactly backwards rick.
>>>> ================
>>>> No, I don't. Because the product is the same. There is no
>>>> new product, just a new technique.
>>>
>>> That "new technique" *is* a new product.

>> =================
>> No, it is not.

>
> Of course it is. It is produced differently, usually by
> different producers, looks different, tastes different, has a
> different fat content, is packaged and marketed differently,
> and costs more. How can you assert that it's not a different
> product?

==========================
Because it is still beef consumers that are buying it. Overall
beef demand doesn't change, just the producers.



>
>> The beef is produced differently,
>>> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses
>>> different inputs, and costs more.

>> ======================
>> And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all
>> their lives, and by the same people.

>
> Even if the same people produce it, it is a different process
> and therefore a separate product.

====================
No, it is still beef, consumed by the same people. If it
magically found new buyers of beef that never ate beef before,
then you'd be onto something. As it is, it's just a different
marketing scheme that still produces beef.


>
>>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of
>>> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it
>>> takes market share away from the old-style producers.

>> ==============================
>> That's the incentive to produce an alternative that grass-fed
>> beef produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.

>
> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw
> economic support for traditionally produced meat products (aka
> "Factory Farmed"), which is the same effect that people who
> consume alternative products like free-range organic have.

===========================
They are not withdrawing ant support for a product, that's the
point. They are already non-purchasers of the product, and have
no impact on the market at all.


>
>> I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a
>> process they dislike.

>
> They simply don't support it, which is I do by buying free
> range.
>
>> I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly everyone goes
>> vegan.

>
> Nobody is talking about "everybody", the fact is, free-range,
> grass-fed and vegan alternatives all have the same negative
> effect on "Factory Farmed".

==============================
No, they do not. The first two do, because they are already
consumers of beef. vegans are not, and have not been.


>
>> The only difference is that vegans
>>> do not "support" the new product, which makes no difference
>>> to the old producers.

>> =========================
>> Vegans have had no impact to begin with.

>
> Every consumer has a theoretical impact. Quitting or
> abstaining, the impact per consumer is the same.

=============================
No, it is not. 'Potential' doesn't make demand.


>
>> Again, I'm not talking about some delusion that suddenly
>> everyone becomes vegan,

>
> Nobody is.

===============
That's the omnly way that your claim works.

>
> I'm
>> discussing what I and the current vegans here do that have an
>> impact on the production of a product that vegans claim they
>> want to stop. Since they are already non-particpants in the
>> process, they have no impact on either the current process or
>> the alternative process.

>
> If they all suddenly started consuming free-range beef that
> would not change their impact on the "Factory Farmed"
> producers. Anyway, they object to free-range production also,
> only less so.
>
>>>> If it represented a *new* market, *then*
>>>>> it would have no impact on the existing meat market, but
>>>>> since it is taking customers *away from* traditional
>>>>> suppliers, it is in that respect *exactly* like when people
>>>>> go vegetarian, it causes the demand for that product to
>>>>> shrink and the demand for others to grow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef
>>>>>>> industry
>>>>>>> product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef
>>>>>>> supply.
>>>>>>> It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans
>>>>>>> decry, but
>>>>>>> do not have any say in since they have dropped out!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



  #330 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default The numbers game


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ball, cyberpath, blabbered:
>
>> pearl wrote:
>>
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> > > >> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than
>> > > >> humans do, i.e., the
>> > > >> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all
>> > > >> into bodyweight gain
>> > > >> (consumable food).
>> >
>> > 'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been
>> > known to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil
>> > erosion.

>>
>> Then we should grow much *more* crops for livestock, and
>> reduce erosion
>> due to rainfall still lower.

>
> But: "Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than
> humans do, i.e., the entire plant, not only the kernels, and
> convert it all into bodyweight gain (consumable food)."
> =============================

But you can't have it both ways, killer. They don't "need" to
eat the whole plant if you just feed them more of the kernels by
growing massive amounts more,. Think of all that saved topsoil,
fool.





> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 'Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
> the
> soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On
> lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
> per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower
> pace,
> at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
> exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54
> percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed. '
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>





  #331 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The numbers game


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Dutch wrote:

>
> You're still in my killfile


Shut up, I dont care.


  #332 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?


"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "rick" > wrote
>>>
>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>>>> snip...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by
>>>>>>>> >> buying
>>>>>>>> >> grass-fed beef.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the
>>>>>>>> > same
>>>>>>>> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose
>>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>>> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank you
>>>>>>>> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.
>>>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>>>> And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is not an
>>>>>>>> additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it would
>>>>>>>> have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have it exactly backwards rick.
>>>>> ================
>>>>> No, I don't. Because the product is the same. There is no new
>>>>> product, just a new technique.
>>>>
>>>> That "new technique" *is* a new product.
>>> =================
>>> No, it is not.

>>
>> Of course it is. It is produced differently, usually by different
>> producers, looks different, tastes different, has a different fat
>> content, is packaged and marketed differently, and costs more. How can
>> you assert that it's not a different product?

> ==========================
> Because it is still beef consumers that are buying it. Overall beef
> demand doesn't change, just the producers.


And to a person concerned with animal welfare and/or collateral deaths that
is a significant fact.

>>> The beef is produced differently,
>>>> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses different
>>>> inputs, and costs more.
>>> ======================
>>> And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all their lives,
>>> and by the same people.

>>
>> Even if the same people produce it, it is a different process and
>> therefore a separate product.

> ====================
> No, it is still beef, consumed by the same people. If it magically found
> new buyers of beef that never ate beef before, then you'd be onto
> something. As it is, it's just a different marketing scheme that still
> produces beef.


The relevant issues here that you are glossing over is that traditionally
farmed and free-grazed meat is different in cd-content and different in
animal welfare, not to mention healthier. The fact that they both are beef
is beside the point. One compares favorably against vegan foods according to
the very criteria vegans put forth, the other does not.


>>>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of
>>>> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it takes
>>>> market share away from the old-style producers.
>>> ==============================
>>> That's the incentive to produce an alternative that grass-fed beef
>>> produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.

>>
>> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw economic support
>> for traditionally produced meat products (aka "Factory Farmed"), which is
>> the same effect that people who consume alternative products like
>> free-range organic have.

> ===========================
> They are not withdrawing ant support for a product, that's the point.
> They are already non-purchasers of the product, and have no impact on the
> market at all.


You have made this comment repeatedly and it's not relevant. Non-consumption
of a particular product has the same negative value and moral implications
(assuming there are any) regardless of the past history of a consumer.
>
>
>>
>>> I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a process they
>>> dislike.

>>
>> They simply don't support it, which is I do by buying free range.
>>
>>> I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly everyone goes vegan.

>>
>> Nobody is talking about "everybody", the fact is, free-range, grass-fed
>> and vegan alternatives all have the same negative effect on "Factory
>> Farmed".

> ==============================
> No, they do not. The first two do, because they are already consumers of
> beef. vegans are not, and have not been.


Irrelevant. The "factory farm" meat industry is only directly *changed* when
enough people *stop* consuming their products, regardless of what they
choose as an alternative, BUT each consumer who chooses to NOT support those
products has a measurable impact in a market analysis.

>>> The only difference is that vegans
>>>> do not "support" the new product, which makes no difference to the old
>>>> producers.
>>> =========================
>>> Vegans have had no impact to begin with.

>>
>> Every consumer has a theoretical impact. Quitting or abstaining, the
>> impact per consumer is the same.

> =============================
> No, it is not. 'Potential' doesn't make demand.


By consuming alternative products a consumer sets their demand to zero for
every product they do not consume. That is all I do by not buying factory
farmed meat.

>>> Again, I'm not talking about some delusion that suddenly everyone
>>> becomes vegan,

>>
>> Nobody is.

> ===============
> That's the omnly way that your claim works.


It works the same in theory for each consumer, and in reality at each
threshold of consumers who change to other products.

>>
>> I'm
>>> discussing what I and the current vegans here do that have an impact on
>>> the production of a product that vegans claim they want to stop. Since
>>> they are already non-particpants in the process, they have no impact on
>>> either the current process or the alternative process.

>>
>> If they all suddenly started consuming free-range beef that would not
>> change their impact on the "Factory Farmed" producers. Anyway, they
>> object to free-range production also, only less so.
>>
>>>>> If it represented a *new* market, *then*
>>>>>> it would have no impact on the existing meat market, but since it is
>>>>>> taking customers *away from* traditional suppliers, it is in that
>>>>>> respect *exactly* like when people go vegetarian, it causes the
>>>>>> demand for that product to shrink and the demand for others to grow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef industry
>>>>>>>> product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef supply.
>>>>>>>> It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans decry, but
>>>>>>>> do not have any say in since they have dropped out!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



  #333 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The numbers game


"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> > wrote
>>
>>>Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came across.
>>>>If
>>>>anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the nature of
>>>>these
>>>>types of calculations means that I shall be making major approximations
>>>>in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data.
>>>>
>>>>"A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat"
>>>>http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm
>>>>Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on
>>>>grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't know
>>>>whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to
>>>>reach similar weights.
>>>>
>>>>One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein
>>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Nutrition data for beef
>>>>http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141
>>>>Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not homogonous.
>>>>
>>>>Nutrition data for corn
>>>>http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65
>>>>
>>>>Conversion from lbs to grams
>>>>http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm
>>>>
>>>>459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964 calories
>>>>
>>>>one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein.
>>>>For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 calories
>>>>*95,700 = 3 115 879 calories
>>>>
>>>>calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7.

>>
>>
>> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e.,
>> the entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into
>> bodyweight gain (consumable food). That is not figured into that
>> equation.

>
> Well, they don't convert it *all* into body weight gain. Quite a lot of
> it is burned off. Quite a lot as well exits from the other end of the
> steers and cows.
>
> ****wit David Harrison goes out into the fields and collects his breakfast
> from the second part.


lol! Proof of the old saying "You are what you eat"


  #334 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default The numbers game

****witted shit-4-braincell and worthless whore Lesley
blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>****witted shit-4-braincell and worthless whore Lesley blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e., the
>>>>>>entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight gain
>>>>>>(consumable food).
>>>
>>>'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been
>>>known to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion.

>>
>>Then we should grow much *more* crops for livestock, and reduce erosion
>>due to rainfall still lower.

>
>
> But: "Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than
> humans do,


Lots of stuff is left on the field.
  #335 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default The numbers game

Dave wrote:

> It would also be absurd for you to attack her for doing
> something to reduce her toll just because she could be
> doing even more.


She isn't *doing* anything. She passively refrains
from consuming animal parts, and that's *all*.


  #336 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "rick" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> snip...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick
>>>>>>>>> >> makes by
>>>>>>>>> >> buying
>>>>>>>>> >> grass-fed beef.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has
>>>>>>>>> > about the
>>>>>>>>> > same
>>>>>>>>> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether
>>>>>>>>> > you choose
>>>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>>>> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead.
>>>>>>>>> > Thank you
>>>>>>>>> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.
>>>>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>>>>> And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef
>>>>>>>>> is not an
>>>>>>>>> additional amount of beef on the market. That's what
>>>>>>>>> it would
>>>>>>>>> have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have it exactly backwards rick.
>>>>>> ================
>>>>>> No, I don't. Because the product is the same. There is
>>>>>> no new product, just a new technique.
>>>>>
>>>>> That "new technique" *is* a new product.
>>>> =================
>>>> No, it is not.
>>>
>>> Of course it is. It is produced differently, usually by
>>> different producers, looks different, tastes different, has a
>>> different fat content, is packaged and marketed differently,
>>> and costs more. How can you assert that it's not a different
>>> product?

>> ==========================
>> Because it is still beef consumers that are buying it.
>> Overall beef demand doesn't change, just the producers.

>
> And to a person concerned with animal welfare and/or collateral
> deaths that is a significant fact.

========================
It should be, but vegans, who claim to care, don't have any
impact on this change at all.


>
>>>> The beef is produced differently,
>>>>> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses
>>>>> different inputs, and costs more.
>>>> ======================
>>>> And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all
>>>> their lives, and by the same people.
>>>
>>> Even if the same people produce it, it is a different process
>>> and therefore a separate product.

>> ====================
>> No, it is still beef, consumed by the same people. If it
>> magically found new buyers of beef that never ate beef before,
>> then you'd be onto something. As it is, it's just a different
>> marketing scheme that still produces beef.

>
> The relevant issues here that you are glossing over is that
> traditionally farmed and free-grazed meat is different in
> cd-content and different in animal welfare, not to mention
> healthier.

=================================
No, I'm not glossing over it at all. Those are exactly the
reasons that a vegan that really cares about stopping the meat
industry they don't like should take note. As it is, the vegans
here have no impact on that change at all.


The fact that they both are beef
> is beside the point. One compares favorably against vegan foods
> according to the very criteria vegans put forth, the other does
> not.

==========================
There are vegan foods that would not compare favorably to any
meat production.


>
>
>>>>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of
>>>>> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it
>>>>> takes market share away from the old-style producers.
>>>> ==============================
>>>> That's the incentive to produce an alternative that
>>>> grass-fed beef produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.
>>>
>>> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw
>>> economic support for traditionally produced meat products
>>> (aka "Factory Farmed"), which is the same effect that people
>>> who consume alternative products like free-range organic
>>> have.

>> ===========================
>> They are not withdrawing ant support for a product, that's the
>> point. They are already non-purchasers of the product, and
>> have no impact on the market at all.

>
> You have made this comment repeatedly and it's not relevant.
> Non-consumption of a particular product has the same negative
> value and moral implications (assuming there are any)
> regardless of the past history of a consumer.

================================
And your continued saying that it does doesn't mean it is so
either. Non-consumption by the vegans here have no impact on the
demand for either types of beef.



>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a
>>>> process they dislike.
>>>
>>> They simply don't support it, which is I do by buying free
>>> range.
>>>
>>>> I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly everyone goes
>>>> vegan.
>>>
>>> Nobody is talking about "everybody", the fact is, free-range,
>>> grass-fed and vegan alternatives all have the same negative
>>> effect on "Factory Farmed".

>> ==============================
>> No, they do not. The first two do, because they are already
>> consumers of beef. vegans are not, and have not been.

>
> Irrelevant. The "factory farm" meat industry is only directly
> *changed* when enough people *stop* consuming their products,
> regardless of what they choose as an alternative, BUT each
> consumer who chooses to NOT support those products has a
> measurable impact in a market analysis.

============================
No, they do not. The vegans here are already non-consumers.
They have no impact on the market for beef. Producers are not out
there making products on the off chance that I have the potential
to buy them. I contribute to no demand, and producers provide no
supply.



>
>>>> The only difference is that vegans
>>>>> do not "support" the new product, which makes no difference
>>>>> to the old producers.
>>>> =========================
>>>> Vegans have had no impact to begin with.
>>>
>>> Every consumer has a theoretical impact. Quitting or
>>> abstaining, the impact per consumer is the same.

>> =============================
>> No, it is not. 'Potential' doesn't make demand.

>
> By consuming alternative products a consumer sets their demand
> to zero for every product they do not consume. That is all I do
> by not buying factory farmed meat.

========================
No, you still cause a demand for beef. The demand for beef
didn't change, just the production method. The vegans here have
no demand for either, and effect the supply of neither.


>
>>>> Again, I'm not talking about some delusion that suddenly
>>>> everyone becomes vegan,
>>>
>>> Nobody is.

>> ===============
>> That's the omnly way that your claim works.

>
> It works the same in theory for each consumer, and in reality
> at each threshold of consumers who change to other products.

===========================
The vegans here are not changeing to other products. They are
already nonconsumers of beef. As such, they have no impact on
the production meathods, demand, or supply of either type.


>
>>>
>>> I'm
>>>> discussing what I and the current vegans here do that have
>>>> an impact on the production of a product that vegans claim
>>>> they want to stop. Since they are already non-particpants
>>>> in the process, they have no impact on either the current
>>>> process or the alternative process.
>>>
>>> If they all suddenly started consuming free-range beef that
>>> would not change their impact on the "Factory Farmed"
>>> producers. Anyway, they object to free-range production also,
>>> only less so.
>>>
>>>>>> If it represented a *new* market, *then*
>>>>>>> it would have no impact on the existing meat market, but
>>>>>>> since it is taking customers *away from* traditional
>>>>>>> suppliers, it is in that respect *exactly* like when
>>>>>>> people go vegetarian, it causes the demand for that
>>>>>>> product to shrink and the demand for others to grow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef
>>>>>>>>> industry
>>>>>>>>> product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef
>>>>>>>>> supply.
>>>>>>>>> It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans
>>>>>>>>> decry, but
>>>>>>>>> do not have any say in since they have dropped out!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



  #337 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default Can we do better?

Dutch wrote:
> "rick" > wrote
>
>>"Dutch" > wrote
>>
>>>>>>>snip...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by
>>>>>>>>>buying
>>>>>>>>>grass-fed beef.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the
>>>>>>>>same
>>>>>>>>impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank you
>>>>>>>>for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>=======================
>>>>>>>And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is not an
>>>>>>>additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it would
>>>>>>>have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing.
>>>>>
>>>>>You have it exactly backwards rick.
>>>>
>>>>================
>>>>No, I don't. Because the product is the same. There is no new product,
>>>>just a new technique.
>>>
>>>That "new technique" *is* a new product.

>>
>>=================
>>No, it is not.

>
>
> Of course it is. It is produced differently, usually by different producers,
> looks different, tastes different, has a different fat content, is packaged
> and marketed differently, and costs more. How can you assert that it's not a
> different product?
>
>
>>The beef is produced differently,
>>
>>>usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses different
>>>inputs, and costs more.

>>
>>======================
>>And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all their lives,
>>and by the same people.

>
>
> Even if the same people produce it, it is a different process and therefore
> a separate product.
>
>
>>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of
>>>the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it takes market
>>>share away from the old-style producers.

>>
>>==============================
>>That's the incentive to produce an alternative that grass-fed beef
>>produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.

>
>
> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw economic support
> for traditionally produced meat products (aka "Factory Farmed"), which is
> the same effect that people who consume alternative products like free-range
> organic have.


I don't think that's a very good comparison. "vegans"
refusal to eat meat is a) one-time and b) total. If I
consume only free-range chicken products (out of all
possible chicken products), some farmer who currently
produces only battery chicken products might be able to
lure me as a consumer by switching some or all of his
production to free-range methods. But he'll never lure
the "vegan" no matter how he produces his chicken.

"vegans" are not influencing the meat production
industry in any on-going way at all, once they withdraw
from the market.
  #338 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?

"rick" > wrote

>>> ==========================
>>> Because it is still beef consumers that are buying it. Overall beef
>>> demand doesn't change, just the producers.

>>
>> And to a person concerned with animal welfare and/or collateral deaths
>> that is a significant fact.

> ========================
> It should be, but vegans, who claim to care, don't have any impact on this
> change at all.


Why would they? That makes no sense. They don't consume ANY beef, therefore
they have the same impact on factory-farmed *and* free-range, they
contribute NADA towards it, which is what they should do if they feel both
are wrong. It's ludicrous to suggest that they should buy free-range meat,
why would they?

>>>>> The beef is produced differently,
>>>>>> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses different
>>>>>> inputs, and costs more.
>>>>> ======================
>>>>> And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all their
>>>>> lives, and by the same people.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the same people produce it, it is a different process and
>>>> therefore a separate product.
>>> ====================
>>> No, it is still beef, consumed by the same people. If it magically
>>> found new buyers of beef that never ate beef before, then you'd be onto
>>> something. As it is, it's just a different marketing scheme that still
>>> produces beef.

>>
>> The relevant issues here that you are glossing over is that traditionally
>> farmed and free-grazed meat is different in cd-content and different in
>> animal welfare, not to mention healthier.

> =================================
> No, I'm not glossing over it at all. Those are exactly the reasons that a
> vegan that really cares about stopping the meat industry they don't like
> should take note.


What do you mean by "take note"?

> As it is, the vegans here have no impact on that change at all.


They can argue against "factory-farming" and encourage meat-eaters to choose
free-range. In fact that's exactly what many are doing, and it does have
some effect.

> The fact that they both are beef
>> is beside the point. One compares favorably against vegan foods according
>> to the very criteria vegans put forth, the other does not.

> ==========================
> There are vegan foods that would not compare favorably to any meat
> production.


I suppose that's possible, but the point here is that traditional finished
beef and free-range unfinished are two different meat products, and it's
absurd to suggest that vegans are somehow not doing anything to impact meat
production because they don't buy free range meat. You almost sound like
****wit, criticizing vegans for not "providing life".


>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of
>>>>>> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it takes
>>>>>> market share away from the old-style producers.
>>>>> ==============================
>>>>> That's the incentive to produce an alternative that grass-fed beef
>>>>> produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw economic
>>>> support for traditionally produced meat products (aka "Factory
>>>> Farmed"), which is the same effect that people who consume alternative
>>>> products like free-range organic have.
>>> ===========================
>>> They are not withdrawing ant support for a product, that's the point.
>>> They are already non-purchasers of the product, and have no impact on
>>> the market at all.

>>
>> You have made this comment repeatedly and it's not relevant.
>> Non-consumption of a particular product has the same negative value and
>> moral implications (assuming there are any) regardless of the past
>> history of a consumer.

> ================================
> And your continued saying that it does doesn't mean it is so either.
> Non-consumption by the vegans here have no impact on the demand for either
> types of beef.


Yes it does. If you count every consumer, and you should, then the average
demand per capita of meat drops when each vegan is counted.

>>>>> I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a process they
>>>>> dislike.
>>>>
>>>> They simply don't support it, which is I do by buying free range.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly everyone goes vegan.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is talking about "everybody", the fact is, free-range, grass-fed
>>>> and vegan alternatives all have the same negative effect on "Factory
>>>> Farmed".
>>> ==============================
>>> No, they do not. The first two do, because they are already consumers
>>> of beef. vegans are not, and have not been.

>>
>> Irrelevant. The "factory farm" meat industry is only directly *changed*
>> when enough people *stop* consuming their products, regardless of what
>> they choose as an alternative, BUT each consumer who chooses to NOT
>> support those products has a measurable impact in a market analysis.

> ============================
> No, they do not.


Yes they do.

> The vegans here are already non-consumers.


Then their consumption didn't change, but they're still consumers. If your
consumption stays the same your consumption level still counts towards the
average.

> They have no impact on the market for beef.


They do not CONSUME any beef, that in itself is an impact. All you need do
is multiply any consumer habit by one million to make it clear that each
consumer habit counts. If a heavy meat eater eats 3 lbs a day, and you
multiply that number by a million, the meat producers would have to increase
production. The reverse is true for a million vegans, production would have
to less, meaning fewer animals. Every consumer choice has a theoretical and
an actual impact, even when, or *especially when* that choice is to NOT
consume a particular product.

> Producers are not out there making products on the off chance that I have
> the potential to buy them. I contribute to no demand, and producers
> provide no supply.


No, they make LESS meat than they would otherwise, which is exactly the
effect that vegans are aiming for.





>>>>> The only difference is that vegans
>>>>>> do not "support" the new product, which makes no difference to the
>>>>>> old producers.
>>>>> =========================
>>>>> Vegans have had no impact to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> Every consumer has a theoretical impact. Quitting or abstaining, the
>>>> impact per consumer is the same.
>>> =============================
>>> No, it is not. 'Potential' doesn't make demand.

>>
>> By consuming alternative products a consumer sets their demand to zero
>> for every product they do not consume. That is all I do by not buying
>> factory farmed meat.

> ========================
> No, you still cause a demand for beef.


A DIFFERENT BEEF PRODUCT, which is the whole point.

Changing from "factory-farmed" to a different beef product is analagous to
changing from free-range meat to vegetarian.

> The demand for beef didn't change, just the production method.


THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

> The vegans here have no demand for either, and effect the supply of
> neither.


You don't even know that, not that it's relevant.


>>>>> Again, I'm not talking about some delusion that suddenly everyone
>>>>> becomes vegan,
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is.
>>> ===============
>>> That's the omnly way that your claim works.

>>
>> It works the same in theory for each consumer, and in reality at each
>> threshold of consumers who change to other products.

> ===========================
> The vegans here are not changeing to other products. They are already
> nonconsumers of beef. As such, they have no impact on the production
> meathods, demand, or supply of either type.


I thought you were smarter than this rick, maybe you need a break.


  #339 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?


"Leif Erikson" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "rick" > wrote


>>>==============================
>>>That's the incentive to produce an alternative that grass-fed beef
>>>produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.

>>
>>
>> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw economic support
>> for traditionally produced meat products (aka "Factory Farmed"), which is
>> the same effect that people who consume alternative products like
>> free-range organic have.

>
> I don't think that's a very good comparison. "vegans" refusal to eat meat
> is a) one-time and b) total. If I consume only free-range chicken
> products (out of all possible chicken products), some farmer who currently
> produces only battery chicken products might be able to lure me as a
> consumer by switching some or all of his production to free-range methods.
> But he'll never lure the "vegan" no matter how he produces his chicken.


That is all hypothetical. He could grow vegetables of some kind if he wanted
to lure vegan business.

> "vegans" are not influencing the meat production industry in any on-going
> way at all, once they withdraw from the market.


I disagree, their ongoing abstinence from meat has exactly the same effect
as my ongoing abstinence from battery-hen eggs, it keeps my consumer dollars
from going to those producers of which I don't approve. That effect is
identical whether I eat free-range eggs or none at all.


  #340 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Can we do better?

Learn what semicolons are for, dumbass.



  #341 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default The numbers game

Dutch wrote:
> If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
> location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much


its, cretin

  #342 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Can we do better?

pearl wrote:
> "Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> > pearl wrote:
> > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

> >
> > Hmm, these seem like meat costs five times less to transport than
> > grains, by heft. Remember that the sun pays for feed, for free.

>
> ???


!!!

> > > 272,000,000 x 7.5 = 2,040,000,000 animals dying in pasture.

> >
> > > over twice as much land is harvested for livestock, ergo
> > > over twice as many collateral deaths than for food crops.

> >
> > dying how??

>
> Sowing, spraying, harvesting- every pass of the machinery.


Let the animals do it.

  #343 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Can we do better?

"Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
> > >
> > > Hmm, these seem like meat costs five times less to transport than
> > > grains, by heft. Remember that the sun pays for feed, for free.

> >
> > ???

>
> !!!


Uhuh..

> > > > 272,000,000 x 7.5 = 2,040,000,000 animals dying in pasture.
> > >
> > > > over twice as much land is harvested for livestock, ergo
> > > > over twice as many collateral deaths than for food crops.
> > >
> > > dying how??

> >
> > Sowing, spraying, harvesting- every pass of the machinery.

>
> Let the animals do it.


'Pastures that have been overgrazed and in which such
soil-improving practices as liming, fertilizing, and seeding
have been neglected lose a part of the feed nutrients required
by livestock. Good management of pastures also calls for
rotation of animals, because the composition of manure,
which affects the nutrients in the soil, varies with the kind
of animal being grazed, and also because different animals
graze on different species of pasturage plants. Among other
requirements are a sufficient water supply, trees to provide
shade, and eradication of weeds. ...'
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0837821.html



  #344 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote
>
>>>> ==========================
>>>> Because it is still beef consumers that are buying it.
>>>> Overall beef demand doesn't change, just the producers.
>>>
>>> And to a person concerned with animal welfare and/or
>>> collateral deaths that is a significant fact.

>> ========================
>> It should be, but vegans, who claim to care, don't have any
>> impact on this change at all.

>
> Why would they? That makes no sense. They don't consume ANY
> beef, therefore they have the same impact on factory-farmed
> *and* free-range, they contribute NADA towards it, which is
> what they should do if they feel both are wrong. It's ludicrous
> to suggest that they should buy free-range meat, why would
> they?

=============================
I don't care if they do or not. It's their claim that they care
for animals and want to do something to end 'factory-farmed'
beef. Not buying a product that they didn't buy anyway does
nothing to effect that change. On the other hand, purchasing
grass-fed does do something to end 'factory-farmed' beef.



>
>>>>>> The beef is produced differently,
>>>>>>> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses
>>>>>>> different inputs, and costs more.
>>>>>> ======================
>>>>>> And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all
>>>>>> their lives, and by the same people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if the same people produce it, it is a different
>>>>> process and therefore a separate product.
>>>> ====================
>>>> No, it is still beef, consumed by the same people. If it
>>>> magically found new buyers of beef that never ate beef
>>>> before, then you'd be onto something. As it is, it's just a
>>>> different marketing scheme that still produces beef.
>>>
>>> The relevant issues here that you are glossing over is that
>>> traditionally farmed and free-grazed meat is different in
>>> cd-content and different in animal welfare, not to mention
>>> healthier.

>> =================================
>> No, I'm not glossing over it at all. Those are exactly the
>> reasons that a vegan that really cares about stopping the meat
>> industry they don't like should take note.

>
> What do you mean by "take note"?

===========================
That their claim to want to end 'factory-farmed' beef is empty
air unless they do something to encourage those changes.



>
>> As it is, the vegans here have no impact on that change at
>> all.

>
> They can argue against "factory-farming" and encourage
> meat-eaters to choose free-range. In fact that's exactly what
> many are doing, and it does have some effect.

===========================
And, that works to a point, except that they themselves are doing
nothing to reduce their impact. That's about all vegans here
seem to do, lip service.


>
>> The fact that they both are beef
>>> is beside the point. One compares favorably against vegan
>>> foods according to the very criteria vegans put forth, the
>>> other does not.

>> ==========================
>> There are vegan foods that would not compare favorably to any
>> meat production.

>
> I suppose that's possible, but the point here is that
> traditional finished beef and free-range unfinished are two
> different meat products, and it's absurd to suggest that vegans
> are somehow not doing anything to impact meat production
> because they don't buy free range meat. You almost sound like
> ****wit, criticizing vegans for not "providing life".

=========================
Hardly. I'm saying that they have NO impact on beef production
at ALL. They are already non-consumers. They have no impact on
demand, supply, or method of production. Again, I don't care if
they buy grass-fed or not, I already know their hypocrisy is
paramount to the religion. But, if they themselves, personally,
want to do something to reduce demand for 'factory-farmed' beef,
then the only way they can accomplish that is to increase demand
for the alternative.



>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans,
>>>>>>> it takes market share away from the old-style producers.
>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>> That's the incentive to produce an alternative that
>>>>>> grass-fed beef produces. Vegans produce no such
>>>>>> incentive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw
>>>>> economic support for traditionally produced meat products
>>>>> (aka "Factory Farmed"), which is the same effect that
>>>>> people who consume alternative products like free-range
>>>>> organic have.
>>>> ===========================
>>>> They are not withdrawing ant support for a product, that's
>>>> the point. They are already non-purchasers of the product,
>>>> and have no impact on the market at all.
>>>
>>> You have made this comment repeatedly and it's not relevant.
>>> Non-consumption of a particular product has the same negative
>>> value and moral implications (assuming there are any)
>>> regardless of the past history of a consumer.

>> ================================
>> And your continued saying that it does doesn't mean it is so
>> either. Non-consumption by the vegans here have no impact on
>> the demand for either types of beef.

>
> Yes it does. If you count every consumer, and you should, then
> the average demand per capita of meat drops when each vegan is
> counted.

==============================
Again, potential doen't make demand. Vegans are already out of
the demand/supply for beef. If you think that producers are
creating product for a 'potential' demand, then there should be
such a glut of products here waiting for the billion chinese
market to be wide open. Now THERE is a a potential market!



>
>>>>>> I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a
>>>>>> process they dislike.
>>>>>
>>>>> They simply don't support it, which is I do by buying free
>>>>> range.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly everyone
>>>>>> goes vegan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is talking about "everybody", the fact is,
>>>>> free-range, grass-fed and vegan alternatives all have the
>>>>> same negative effect on "Factory Farmed".
>>>> ==============================
>>>> No, they do not. The first two do, because they are already
>>>> consumers of beef. vegans are not, and have not been.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. The "factory farm" meat industry is only directly
>>> *changed* when enough people *stop* consuming their products,
>>> regardless of what they choose as an alternative, BUT each
>>> consumer who chooses to NOT support those products has a
>>> measurable impact in a market analysis.

>> ============================
>> No, they do not.

>
> Yes they do.
> ========================

Nope. Only their buying habits have an impact on the market.



>> The vegans here are already non-consumers.

>
> Then their consumption didn't change, but they're still
> consumers. If your consumption stays the same your consumption
> level still counts towards the average.

=========================
No, they are non-consumers. They already are out of the loop of
supply/demand for beef.



>
>> They have no impact on the market for beef.

>
> They do not CONSUME any beef, that in itself is an impact. All
> you need do is multiply any consumer habit by one million to
> make it clear that each consumer habit counts. If a heavy meat
> eater eats 3 lbs a day, and you multiply that number by a
> million, the meat producers would have to increase production.
> The reverse is true for a million vegans, production would have
> to less, meaning fewer animals.

=======================================
Only in a delusional dream that sudeenly a million more people
went vegan. I'm discussing what I and the vegans here on usenet
can do personally, not what-ifs. They are already not buying
beef. The supply demand cares nothings about a dream.





Every consumer choice has a theoretical and
> an actual impact, even when, or *especially when* that choice
> is to NOT consume a particular product.

=========================
No, not a all. They are already not involved in the
supply/demand cycle for that product.


>
>> Producers are not out there making products on the off chance
>> that I have the potential to buy them. I contribute to no
>> demand, and producers provide no supply.

>
> No, they make LESS meat than they would otherwise, which is
> exactly the effect that vegans are aiming for.

=======================
LOL Not they do not. They produce supply for what the real
demand is. They consider nothing about about what has never
happened before.


>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> The only difference is that vegans
>>>>>>> do not "support" the new product, which makes no
>>>>>>> difference to the old producers.
>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>> Vegans have had no impact to begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every consumer has a theoretical impact. Quitting or
>>>>> abstaining, the impact per consumer is the same.
>>>> =============================
>>>> No, it is not. 'Potential' doesn't make demand.
>>>
>>> By consuming alternative products a consumer sets their
>>> demand to zero for every product they do not consume. That is
>>> all I do by not buying factory farmed meat.

>> ========================
>> No, you still cause a demand for beef.

>
> A DIFFERENT BEEF PRODUCT, which is the whole point.

===========================
No, it is not, to both claims. It is still beef, and the demand
is still there. You gave producers an alternative to produce
beef in a different manner. And by doing so, you decreased
demand for 'factory-farmed' beef. That is exactly what vegans
would do if they purchased garss-fed beef.


>
> Changing from "factory-farmed" to a different beef product is
> analagous to changing from free-range meat to vegetarian.
>
>> The demand for beef didn't change, just the production method.

>
> THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

====================
Exactly. And vegans have nothing to do with that change. At
least you're getting close!


>
>> The vegans here have no demand for either, and effect the
>> supply of neither.

>
> You don't even know that, not that it's relevant.

========================
LOL Yes, I do. the have no input on the supply/demand for beef.

>
>
>>>>>> Again, I'm not talking about some delusion that suddenly
>>>>>> everyone becomes vegan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is.
>>>> ===============
>>>> That's the omnly way that your claim works.
>>>
>>> It works the same in theory for each consumer, and in reality
>>> at each threshold of consumers who change to other products.

>> ===========================
>> The vegans here are not changeing to other products. They are
>> already nonconsumers of beef. As such, they have no impact on
>> the production meathods, demand, or supply of either type.

>
> I thought you were smarter than this rick, maybe you need a
> break. ==============================

I thought the same of you. You join the crazy-lady in Toronto
and start smokin weed, did you?


>



  #345 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The numbers game


"Autymn D. C." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
>> location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much

>
> its, cretin


Thank you.




  #346 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?


"rick" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "rick" > wrote
>>
>>>>> ==========================
>>>>> Because it is still beef consumers that are buying it. Overall beef
>>>>> demand doesn't change, just the producers.
>>>>
>>>> And to a person concerned with animal welfare and/or collateral deaths
>>>> that is a significant fact.
>>> ========================
>>> It should be, but vegans, who claim to care, don't have any impact on
>>> this change at all.

>>
>> Why would they? That makes no sense. They don't consume ANY beef,
>> therefore they have the same impact on factory-farmed *and* free-range,
>> they contribute NADA towards it, which is what they should do if they
>> feel both are wrong. It's ludicrous to suggest that they should buy
>> free-range meat, why would they?

> =============================
> I don't care if they do or not. It's their claim that they care for
> animals and want to do something to end 'factory-farmed' beef. Not buying
> a product that they didn't buy anyway does nothing to effect that change.
> On the other hand, purchasing grass-fed does do something to end
> 'factory-farmed' beef.


Explain how. Take two people, one buys free-range the other buys only
chicken and fish. How does the first do more to impact that "factory farm"?


>>>>>>> The beef is produced differently,
>>>>>>>> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses different
>>>>>>>> inputs, and costs more.
>>>>>>> ======================
>>>>>>> And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all their
>>>>>>> lives, and by the same people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if the same people produce it, it is a different process and
>>>>>> therefore a separate product.
>>>>> ====================
>>>>> No, it is still beef, consumed by the same people. If it magically
>>>>> found new buyers of beef that never ate beef before, then you'd be
>>>>> onto something. As it is, it's just a different marketing scheme that
>>>>> still produces beef.
>>>>
>>>> The relevant issues here that you are glossing over is that
>>>> traditionally farmed and free-grazed meat is different in cd-content
>>>> and different in animal welfare, not to mention healthier.
>>> =================================
>>> No, I'm not glossing over it at all. Those are exactly the reasons that
>>> a vegan that really cares about stopping the meat industry they don't
>>> like should take note.

>>
>> What do you mean by "take note"?

> ===========================
> That their claim to want to end 'factory-farmed' beef is empty air unless
> they do something to encourage those changes.


Not buying it encourages it.

>
>
>
>>
>>> As it is, the vegans here have no impact on that change at all.

>>
>> They can argue against "factory-farming" and encourage meat-eaters to
>> choose free-range. In fact that's exactly what many are doing, and it
>> does have some effect.

> ===========================
> And, that works to a point, except that they themselves are doing nothing
> to reduce their impact.


Yes they are. By NOT buying the product.

That's about all vegans here
> seem to do, lip service.


I'm not arguing that point.

>>> The fact that they both are beef
>>>> is beside the point. One compares favorably against vegan foods
>>>> according to the very criteria vegans put forth, the other does not.
>>> ==========================
>>> There are vegan foods that would not compare favorably to any meat
>>> production.

>>
>> I suppose that's possible, but the point here is that traditional
>> finished beef and free-range unfinished are two different meat products,
>> and it's absurd to suggest that vegans are somehow not doing anything to
>> impact meat production because they don't buy free range meat. You almost
>> sound like ****wit, criticizing vegans for not "providing life".

> =========================
> Hardly. I'm saying that they have NO impact on beef production at ALL.
> They are already non-consumers. They have no impact on demand, supply, or
> method of production. Again, I don't care if they buy grass-fed or not, I
> already know their hypocrisy is paramount to the religion. But, if they
> themselves, personally, want to do something to reduce demand for
> 'factory-farmed' beef, then the only way they can accomplish that is to
> increase demand for the alternative.


That's illogical. What if they increase demand for chicken instead?


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of
>>>>>>>> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it takes
>>>>>>>> market share away from the old-style producers.
>>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>>> That's the incentive to produce an alternative that grass-fed beef
>>>>>>> produces. Vegans produce no such incentive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw economic
>>>>>> support for traditionally produced meat products (aka "Factory
>>>>>> Farmed"), which is the same effect that people who consume
>>>>>> alternative products like free-range organic have.
>>>>> ===========================
>>>>> They are not withdrawing ant support for a product, that's the point.
>>>>> They are already non-purchasers of the product, and have no impact on
>>>>> the market at all.
>>>>
>>>> You have made this comment repeatedly and it's not relevant.
>>>> Non-consumption of a particular product has the same negative value and
>>>> moral implications (assuming there are any) regardless of the past
>>>> history of a consumer.
>>> ================================
>>> And your continued saying that it does doesn't mean it is so either.
>>> Non-consumption by the vegans here have no impact on the demand for
>>> either types of beef.

>>
>> Yes it does. If you count every consumer, and you should, then the
>> average demand per capita of meat drops when each vegan is counted.

> ==============================
> Again, potential doen't make demand. Vegans are already out of the
> demand/supply for beef. If you think that producers are creating product
> for a 'potential' demand, then there should be such a glut of products
> here waiting for the billion chinese market to be wide open. Now THERE is
> a a potential market!


Abstaining from a product is not "potential", it an actual consumer action.
By buying *other* products they let their pocketsbooks do the talking.

>
>
>
>>
>>>>>>> I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a process
>>>>>>> they dislike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They simply don't support it, which is I do by buying free range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly everyone goes vegan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody is talking about "everybody", the fact is, free-range,
>>>>>> grass-fed and vegan alternatives all have the same negative effect on
>>>>>> "Factory Farmed".
>>>>> ==============================
>>>>> No, they do not. The first two do, because they are already consumers
>>>>> of beef. vegans are not, and have not been.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. The "factory farm" meat industry is only directly *changed*
>>>> when enough people *stop* consuming their products, regardless of what
>>>> they choose as an alternative, BUT each consumer who chooses to NOT
>>>> support those products has a measurable impact in a market analysis.
>>> ============================
>>> No, they do not.

>>
>> Yes they do.
>> ========================

> Nope. Only their buying habits have an impact on the market.


Exactly, it matters little whether they choose, tofu, chicken or free-range
beef as an alternative, the only significant point is that they refuse to
buy "factory farmed" beef.

>>> The vegans here are already non-consumers.

>>
>> Then their consumption didn't change, but they're still consumers. If
>> your consumption stays the same your consumption level still counts
>> towards the average.

> =========================
> No, they are non-consumers. They already are out of the loop of
> supply/demand for beef.


Which is exactly the point, they are making the consumer choice which has
the potential to bankrupt the factory farm.

>>> They have no impact on the market for beef.

>>
>> They do not CONSUME any beef, that in itself is an impact. All you need
>> do is multiply any consumer habit by one million to make it clear that
>> each consumer habit counts. If a heavy meat eater eats 3 lbs a day, and
>> you multiply that number by a million, the meat producers would have to
>> increase production. The reverse is true for a million vegans, production
>> would have to less, meaning fewer animals.

> =======================================
> Only in a delusional dream that sudeenly a million more people went vegan.
> I'm discussing what I and the vegans here on usenet can do personally, not
> what-ifs. They are already not buying beef. The supply demand cares
> nothings about a dream.


It's not a dream it was simply an extrapolation/exaggeration to highlight
the point. No single consumer action changes the marketplace, only if you
look at many possibly doing it can you see the impact.

> Every consumer choice has a theoretical and
>> an actual impact, even when, or *especially when* that choice is to NOT
>> consume a particular product.

> =========================
> No, not a all. They are already not involved in the supply/demand cycle
> for that product.


How could they cause MORE of the desired impact on a producer than refusing
to buy his products?

>>> Producers are not out there making products on the off chance that I
>>> have the potential to buy them. I contribute to no demand, and
>>> producers provide no supply.

>>
>> No, they make LESS meat than they would otherwise, which is exactly the
>> effect that vegans are aiming for.

> =======================
> LOL Not they do not. They produce supply for what the real demand is.
> They consider nothing about about what has never happened before.


You're the only one mentioning "what has never happened before", I don't
consider it an important issue, neither do producers. The issue is, what can
any consumer do economically to support products they believe in and
discourage those they do not. The answer is simply to buy one and not buy
the other. Your argument that they must choose a particular alternative is
illogical.

>>>>>>> The only difference is that vegans
>>>>>>>> do not "support" the new product, which makes no difference to the
>>>>>>>> old producers.
>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>> Vegans have had no impact to begin with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every consumer has a theoretical impact. Quitting or abstaining, the
>>>>>> impact per consumer is the same.
>>>>> =============================
>>>>> No, it is not. 'Potential' doesn't make demand.
>>>>
>>>> By consuming alternative products a consumer sets their demand to zero
>>>> for every product they do not consume. That is all I do by not buying
>>>> factory farmed meat.
>>> ========================
>>> No, you still cause a demand for beef.

>>
>> A DIFFERENT BEEF PRODUCT, which is the whole point.

> ===========================
> No, it is not, to both claims. It is still beef, and the demand is still
> there.


Vegans don't want the demand to be there.

> You gave producers an alternative to produce beef in a different manner.


Vegans are giving them the option to grow soybeans.

> And by doing so, you decreased demand for 'factory-farmed' beef. That is
> exactly what vegans would do if they purchased garss-fed beef.


That's exactly what they do by buying tofu.

>> Changing from "factory-farmed" to a different beef product is analagous
>> to changing from free-range meat to vegetarian.
>>
>>> The demand for beef didn't change, just the production method.


That's the point, different production meahod, different product.

>> THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

> ====================
> Exactly. And vegans have nothing to do with that change. At least you're
> getting close!


I'm already there, and so are vegans. They are not supporting beef
production, and suggesting that they ought to buy free-range beef is
ridiculous.

>
>>
>>> The vegans here have no demand for either, and effect the supply of
>>> neither.

>>
>> You don't even know that, not that it's relevant.

> ========================
> LOL Yes, I do. the have no input on the supply/demand for beef.


They may have been a beef eater last month. According to your silly theory,
in that case their abstaining from beef is significant because their change
in diet made an incremental difference in demand from month to month.
However what is really significant to the producer is their *ongoing*
abstinence from that product.


>>>>>>> Again, I'm not talking about some delusion that suddenly everyone
>>>>>>> becomes vegan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody is.
>>>>> ===============
>>>>> That's the omnly way that your claim works.
>>>>
>>>> It works the same in theory for each consumer, and in reality at each
>>>> threshold of consumers who change to other products.
>>> ===========================
>>> The vegans here are not changeing to other products. They are already
>>> nonconsumers of beef. As such, they have no impact on the production
>>> meathods, demand, or supply of either type.

>>
>> I thought you were smarter than this rick, maybe you need a break.
>> ==============================

> I thought the same of you. You join the crazy-lady in Toronto and start
> smokin weed, did you?


No, no dope, no booze, and no silly cooked-up arguments to bolster the
anti-AR position. I don't need them.


  #347 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Can we do better?

pearl wrote:
> Uhuh..


My point (duhduh) was that flesh is denser, so it's cheaper than worts
to transport for the same nutrition.

> > Let the animals do it.

>
> 'Pastures that have been overgrazed and in which such
> soil-improving practices as liming, fertilizing, and seeding
> have been neglected lose a part of the feed nutrients required
> by livestock. Good management of pastures also calls for


Still, let the animals do those practices.

  #348 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Can we do better?

"Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > Uhuh..

>
> My point (duhduh) was that flesh is denser, so it's cheaper than worts
> to transport for the same nutrition.


Sure? Most cattle have about 16lbs of grain, plus forage (in the
form of hay or silage) transported and fed to them for at least
half of their short lives - to produce just 1lb of animal flesh.

> > > Let the animals do it.

> >
> > 'Pastures that have been overgrazed and in which such
> > soil-improving practices as liming, fertilizing, and seeding
> > have been neglected lose a part of the feed nutrients required
> > by livestock. Good management of pastures also calls for

>
> Still, let the animals do those practices.


You're having a larf .. right?


  #349 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default The numbers game


Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came across.
> >> >> If
> >> >> anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the nature
> >> >> of
> >> >> these
> >> >> types of calculations means that I shall be making major
> >> >> approximations
> >> >> in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data.
> >> >>
> >> >> "A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat"
> >> >> http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm
> >> >> Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on
> >> >> grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't know
> >> >> whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to
> >> >> reach similar weights.
> >> >>
> >> >> One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein
> >> >> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf
> >> >>
> >> >> Nutrition data for beef
> >> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141
> >> >> Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not homogonous.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nutrition data for corn
> >> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65
> >> >>
> >> >> Conversion from lbs to grams
> >> >> http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> 459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964
> >> >> calories
> >> >>
> >> >> one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein.
> >> >> For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 calories
> >> >> *95,700 = 3 115 879 calories
> >> >>
> >> >> calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7.
> >>
> >> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e.,
> >> the
> >> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight
> >> gain
> >> (consumable food).

> >
> > "For example a vested interests organisation such as the US National
> > Cattleman's Beef Association has claimed that it takes only 4.5 kg of
> > grain
> > to produce 1 kg of beef raised intensively in a US feedlot. On the
> > other hand,
> > the US Department of Agricultural Economic Research Service puts the
> > figure at 16kg to produce 1kg of beef."
> > http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/..._Less_Meat.pdf
> > page 22 References given for both these figures.

>
> It *states* there that the USDA figure is 16/1, the reference[69] is to a
> radical anti-meat book by John Robbins, not USDA dcoumentation. FYI Dave,
> that document *and* John Robbins are both "vested interests", in that they
> are not objective, they are flogging a particular view. On that basis the
> "figures" they toss out are no less suspect than The Cattlemen's
> Association.


Fair comment. Let's run with the 4.5 kg then. The idea that cattle
convert
all the corn they consume into bodyweight gain is still false.
>
> Note that on that same page it specifically stipulates the following:
>
> "Other than in areas where animals are fattened predominantly on grazing
> land that could not easily grow food crops for direct human consumption,
> or elsewhere they eat primarily crop residues or other waste products,
> livestock farming actually wastes resources."
>
> Therefore when animals *are* raised using the above-mentioned methods, they
> actually make use of inputs that would otherwise go to waste. Where is the
> admonition by these authors that we *ought to* use this conservation method?


I'd argue that the quote you provide above is an implicit admonition of
sorts. :-)

> >>That is not figured into that equation.

> >
> > It isn't relevant to the comparison between an acre of corn and one
> > grass fed steer.

>
> If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
> location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much
> livestock feed that corn would produce and how much steer body
> weight that translates to, compared to how much human-edible niblets
> corn it would produce, not how much grazing grass would grow on
> that acre of land. Those are two very different land uses.


On this occasion though we were comparing the number of
deaths caused per calorie of grass fed beef and corn.

> >> >> No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1.
> >> >> Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal production
> >> >> according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20
> >> >> Decline per acre = ~8.
> >> >> % decline due to mortality unknown.
> >> >> Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process.
> >> >> Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn.
> >> >
> >> > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral
> >> > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic.
> >>
> >> Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and
> >> byproduct
> >> feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive with
> >> *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle..

> >
> > "Could concievably" is not the same as "actually does".

>
> I realize that Dave. Vegans are fond of boasting that "the ideal vegan diet"
> would involve *no* animal deaths, a point which I would dispute, however it
> is at least as valid to point out that "the ideal non-vegan diet" also has
> advantages.


I would not dispute these advantages. In this thread I raised the issue
of grass-clover leys being used in crop rotations and how having
livestock grazing on it makes sense. I also wonder whether and
to what extent we could feed animals on waste products. I seem
to remember you saying you used to be involved in dairy farming.
Do you think a cow could gain adequate nutrition entirely from the
parts of plants that we normally throw away?

> In fact more and more non-finished beef (free-range organic) is
> becoming widely available. I buy it exclusively now. The reason that
> dedicated feed crops are still used is because they are economical to
> produce.
>
> >> The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close
> >> comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal
> >> impact,
> >> which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present,
> >> which
> >> is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna from
> >> heaven.

> >


  #350 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> Again, which causes
> >> >> >> more/less death and suffering? Rice?
> >> >
> >> > Who grows the rice? Where is it grown? How is it grown?
> >> >
> >> > Potatoes? Bananas?
> >> >
> >> > Who grows the bananas? where are they grown? How are they
> >> > grown. You are being too simplistic. Just as not all beef is
> >> > the
> >> > same, the same is true of rice, bananas, apples and
> >> > potatoes.
> >> =====================
> >> Except for bananas you're right.

> >
> > Why "except bananas"?

> =======================
> Because all bananas on the market are exactly the same. Exactly.
> They are not a seed crop. They are all produced from an original
> plant. They are all clones, genetically the same.


The method of production is not the same and environmental
impact is not the same.
"The differences between the production of bananas in small,
shaded farms as compared to conventional chemical-intensive
monocultural production is readily apparent when, having walked
through a conventional plantation, one walks through a finca
(farm) of one of the coop-member growers."
http://www.rainforestrelief.org/Camp...n_Organic.html

> >> that's the point. Vegans look
> >> only at one typr of meat production and declare all meat bad,
> >> yet
> >> NEVER compare their own foods. Thanks for pointing out my
> >> statement.

> >
> > You're welcome. I've consistently argued that we should not tar
> > all meat with the same brush.

> ====================
> Then why assume all veggies are better?


I don't.

> >> >
> >> >> >> Apples? You don't know because you don't care, despite
> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> claims.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, I don't know because not much reliable research
> >> >> > exists
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > matter.
> >> >> ========================
> >> >> Then you haven't done enough research.
> >> >
> >> > For you to be so confident about that you would have to know
> >> > about
> >> > some research that has been done on the matter. Please share
> >> > it
> >> > with us.
> >> ===============================
> >> I have.

> >
> > So you say.
> >
> >> Vegans always ignore it, like you and rumperroom....

> >
> > When you shared research that compared apples, bananas, rice
> > and potatoes, I must have missed it. Please share it again.


?



  #351 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> > >
> > > Pearl wrote:
> > >
> > > > 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same
> > > > data to show that commercial fishing had depleted
> > > > the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall
> > > > abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago.
> > >
> > > Commercial methods of fishing are disruptive of the marine
> > > environment generally and result in significant
> > > quantities of bycatch which is thrown back to sea dead.
> > > Big fish at the top of the marine food chain are especially
> > > vulnerable to overfishing because they don't mature
> > > as fast or reproduce as rapidly as smaller fish.
> > >
> > > > ....'
> > > > http://www.seaotters.org/CurrentIssues/index.cfm?DocID'9
> > > >
> > > > At 1 fish a week for 6 billion people.., that's 6 billion fish
> > > > handlined per week.
> > >
> > >
> > > In perspective:
> > > "The area of the World Ocean is 361 million km², its volume is
> > > 1370 million km³, and its average depth is 3790 m."
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
> > >
> > > World population > > At 1 fish per person that's 18 fish for every sqaure km of ocean
> > > albeit distributed somewhat unevenly.
> > >
> > > > 24 billion every month. Where are
> > > > these massive numbers of fish Dave proposes handlining?
> > >
> > > I wasn't aware that I was proposing any specific quota size.
> > > I suggested that we fish the seas within their biological limits,
> > > whatever they might be.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same
> > > data to show that commercial fishing had depleted
> > > the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall
> > > abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago.
> > >
> > > 100% fish abundance is the naturally-occuring level.
> > >
> > > To continue to fish is like saying, "well we've taken
> > > eight fingers and a thumb, you won't mind if we
> > > continue nibbling away at your remaining digit."
> > >
> > > We don't need to eat fish.

> >
> > Whatever you think about the morality of using fish as
> > a source of food you can not reasonably deny that we
> > can establish a stable predator-prey relationship
> >
> > -- Another example of humans adopting the wrong
> > dietary niche causing major and severe imbalance.--

>
> Not at all.
>
> --
> Absolutely the case. Not just a recent problem either.
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ecollapse.html
> --
>
> There is no ecological problem with fish
> eating per se, just killing fish faster than they can
> reproduce. There are responsible fisheries that
> moniter their impact on the marine environment.
> For more details see http://www.fishonline.org/
>
> --
> The usual list of the few species "which MCS believes
> are fished within sustainable levels". (Doesn't the 'believes'
> here worry you a bit, Dave?).


Only a little bit. It's not like any other species of predator
actively moniters the effect they are having on their prey.

> And what exactly does
> 'sustainable' mean? Hopefully not reducing the populations
> any further? But recovery to the former healthy abundance?


I take sustainable to mean that there is no continuing decline
in population levels.

> Never mind, eh. To an addict nothing else really matters.
> You'll find one false justification after another to continue.


I'm not addicted to fish and you have no evidence to the contrary.

> --
>
> > within
> > the marine enviornment provided we don't overfish or
> > fish using inappropriate technologies. 90 per cent
> > reduction in 50 years is a damning inditement of
> > the way we are treating the marine ecosystem at
> > present but you must also bear in mind that he is
> > specifically referring to "big" fish and I have already
> > explained that the big fish are the ones most vulnerable
> > to overfishing.
> >
> > --
> > See http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm .
> > --

>
> What point does that article make on your behalf. It is not
> small handline fisheries that are responsible for any of the
> major problems in the marine ecosystem.
>
> --
> It all adds up. And if everyone started eating such fish
> those populations would also be depleted in no time.


If everyone started eating such fish than the demand would
grow and new handline fisheries would emerge to exploit different
stocks. The more fish we eat the less land habitat we need
to destroy to cultivate plants.

  #352 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Can we do better?


Dave wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > >> "Dave" > wrote
> > >> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> Dave wrote:
> > >> >> >
wrote:
> > >> >> > > Dutch wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> > Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and
> > >> >> > structure.
> > >> >> > Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of the
> > >> >> > doubt
> > >> >> > in play here?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was probably
> > >> >> reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the book with
> > >> >> me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look and
> > >> >> discuss the evidence with you.
> > >> >
> > >> > OK. I'm afraid I have little to contribute to the subject though.
> > >> > Perhaps I will buy the DeGrazia book myself if research suggests
> > >> > he is a well respected authority because the topic is certainly
> > >> > interesting. I'm just saying that, to a layman like me, the way the
> > >> > bees behave seems to indicate some degree of conscious will.
> > >>
> > >> I find that a stretch. There's a huge gap between having pain receptors
> > >> or
> > >> some equivalent defense mechanism, and having conscious will. I am even
> > >> dubious that most people have it.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees
> > > and
> > > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we
> > > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will
> > > look
> > > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case.

> >
> > The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by ARAs, and
> > they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for complicity
> > in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
> > consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where they
> > believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
> >
> > >
> > >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
> > >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt trip
> > >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
> > >> >
> > >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about killing
> > >> > any type of parasite.
> > >>
> > >> He just moved the goalposts again.

> >
> > Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
> > example,

>
> You're right. It was illegitimate.
>


What was illegitimate about it? It was a simple statement. I wasn't
abandoning my previous claim about ants, I was just giving another
example. It's not a question of "moving the goalposts". I can make more
than one claim.

> >a typical pro-ARA argument tactic


  #353 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Can we do better?


Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Dave wrote:
> >> >> >
wrote:
> >> >> > > Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and
> >> >> > structure.
> >> >> > Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of the
> >> >> > doubt
> >> >> > in play here?
> >> >>
> >> >> Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was probably
> >> >> reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the book with
> >> >> me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look and
> >> >> discuss the evidence with you.
> >> >
> >> > OK. I'm afraid I have little to contribute to the subject though.
> >> > Perhaps I will buy the DeGrazia book myself if research suggests
> >> > he is a well respected authority because the topic is certainly
> >> > interesting. I'm just saying that, to a layman like me, the way the
> >> > bees behave seems to indicate some degree of conscious will.
> >>
> >> I find that a stretch. There's a huge gap between having pain receptors
> >> or
> >> some equivalent defense mechanism, and having conscious will. I am even
> >> dubious that most people have it.

> >
> > Perhaps I got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees
> > and
> > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we
> > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will
> > look
> > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case.

>
> The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by ARAs,


Can you give me some examples of this misapplication?

> and
> they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for complicity
> in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
> consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where they
> believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
>
> >
> >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
> >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt trip
> >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
> >> >
> >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about killing
> >> > any type of parasite.
> >>
> >> He just moved the goalposts again.

>
> Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
> example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic.


I was challenged on ants and I said something in response. Talking
about mosquitoes is just changing the subject, not "moving the
goalposts". I am allowed to talk about more than one thing.

  #354 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


pearl wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...

>
> > > > Pearl wrote:
> > >
> > > > 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same
> > > > data to show that commercial fishing had depleted
> > > > the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall
> > > > abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago.

>
> > There is no ecological problem with fish
> > eating per se, just killing fish faster than they can
> > reproduce. There are responsible fisheries that
> > moniter their impact on the marine environment.

>
> 'What was natural in the coastal oceans?
> Jeremy B. C. Jackson*
> Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
> at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093; and Center for Tropical
> Paleoecology and Archeology, Smithsonian Tropical Research
> Institute, Apartado 2072, Balboa, Republic of Panama
> ...
> '(1) No wild Atlantic coastal fishery is sustainable at anything
> close to present levels of exploitation.


That is an argument for reducing our consumption, not necessarily
ceasing it entirely.

> Coastal marine ecosystems
> already have been changed beyond recognition because of direct
> and indirect effects of overfishing. Most fishing is unsustainable
> because (i) inexorable growth of the human population drives
> increasing demand,


Creating more pressure on the land and at sea or leave the
sea completely alone and create even more pressure on land
resources.

> (ii) development of mechanized fishing
> technologies severely damages the environment,


That's why I advocate handlining.

> (iii) cheap and
> rapid transportation makes even the most distant populations
> vulnerable to exploitation,


Good. That allows us to spread our pressure more evenly
throughout the marine food chain.

> and (iv) management has consistently
> failed to conserve depleted stocks (9, 15, 16, 33, 43, 77, 90, 98, 99).
> Evidence for ecological transformation and loss of fisheries
> resources on Western Atlantic coral reefs, seagrass beds, bays,
> estuaries, and the continental shelves is scientifically sound, and
> the burden of proof belongs on those who would still fish rather
> than the other way around (133)


That's why I promote the MSC label.

> . Monitoring is a basic tool for
> management, but no more monitoring is required to know what
> we have lost. Scientific efforts should be redirected toward
> evaluating options for restoration of resources rather than
> perpetuating the myth of sustainable fisheries. It is hard to
> imagine how increasingly sophisticated and frequent
> environmental monitoring and micromanagement could do a
> fraction of the good of simply stopping fishing. There is no
> rational scientific basis to continue fishing of wild stocks
> along the Atlantic coast of North America or in the Caribbean
> for the foreseeable future.
> ..
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/10/5411
>
> The same applies virtually everywhere. See;
> http://www.pewtrusts.com/a-v/oceans_map_flash.swf
>
> 'Not only have many major fish stocks been depleted, some
> even collapsing completely such as cod off Canada's east
> coast but excessive fishing pressure is placing many other
> marine animals at risk. From the north Pacific and Atlantic
> Oceans to the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, marine
> mammals, seabirds, sharks and key fish species in the
> intricate web of marine biodiversity are being overexploited,
> caught and killed as 'bycatch', or threatened by the
> industrialized fisheries for species that are critical links in
> the marine food web.


Which is why I don't propose indiscriminate fish eating.

> Fisheries analysts at the United Nations Food and Agriculture
> Organization (FAO) report that virtually 70% of the world's
> fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state
> of collapse.


IOW 30% of the world's fisheries have potential for growth
at the expense of the other 70% if we start to treat the
marine ecosystems with the respect they deserve.
> ..
> Dr. Pauly's team of scientists used a mountain of data
> compiled over 50 years by the UN Food and Agriculture
> Organization on more than 200 distinct species caught in
> the world's oceans and seas. They catalogued how in one
> ocean after another fishing has caused the depletion of
> the biggest, most valuable stocks, and then worked its
> way down the marine food web, catching more and more
> of the smaller species. Dr. Pauly warned that at the current
> rate of exploitation many stocks could be eliminated within
> 25 years. "You can end up with the sea full of jelly fish,"
> said Pauly. He summed up his concern in a gloomy prediction:
>
> "The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will
> be gone. It is happening now. If things go unchecked, we
> will have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants
> to eat. We might end up with a marine junkyard dominated
> by plankton."
> ..
> And the fact is, a large number of small-boats concentrated
> into an ecosystem can do as much damage to fish stocks and
> marine ecology as a fleet of larger vessels. Too many boats
> chasing too few fish always adds up to a race to ecological
> disaster and economic ruin.
> ..'
> http://archive.greenpeace.org/oceans...deadahead.html


  #355 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The numbers game


"Dave" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dave wrote:
>> >> >> The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came
>> >> >> across.
>> >> >> If
>> >> >> anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the
>> >> >> nature
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> these
>> >> >> types of calculations means that I shall be making major
>> >> >> approximations
>> >> >> in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat"
>> >> >> http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm
>> >> >> Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on
>> >> >> grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't know
>> >> >> whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to
>> >> >> reach similar weights.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein
>> >> >> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nutrition data for beef
>> >> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141
>> >> >> Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not
>> >> >> homogonous.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nutrition data for corn
>> >> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Conversion from lbs to grams
>> >> >> http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964
>> >> >> calories
>> >> >>
>> >> >> one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein.
>> >> >> For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 calories
>> >> >> *95,700 = 3 115 879 calories
>> >> >>
>> >> >> calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7.
>> >>
>> >> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e.,
>> >> the
>> >> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight
>> >> gain
>> >> (consumable food).
>> >
>> > "For example a vested interests organisation such as the US National
>> > Cattleman's Beef Association has claimed that it takes only 4.5 kg of
>> > grain
>> > to produce 1 kg of beef raised intensively in a US feedlot. On the
>> > other hand,
>> > the US Department of Agricultural Economic Research Service puts the
>> > figure at 16kg to produce 1kg of beef."
>> > http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/..._Less_Meat.pdf
>> > page 22 References given for both these figures.

>>
>> It *states* there that the USDA figure is 16/1, the reference[69] is to a
>> radical anti-meat book by John Robbins, not USDA dcoumentation. FYI Dave,
>> that document *and* John Robbins are both "vested interests", in that
>> they
>> are not objective, they are flogging a particular view. On that basis the
>> "figures" they toss out are no less suspect than The Cattlemen's
>> Association.

>
> Fair comment. Let's run with the 4.5 kg then. The idea that cattle
> convert
> all the corn they consume into bodyweight gain is still false.


Yes, that was a mistatement.

>> Note that on that same page it specifically stipulates the following:
>>
>> "Other than in areas where animals are fattened predominantly on grazing
>> land that could not easily grow food crops for direct human consumption,
>> or elsewhere they eat primarily crop residues or other waste products,
>> livestock farming actually wastes resources."
>>
>> Therefore when animals *are* raised using the above-mentioned methods,
>> they
>> actually make use of inputs that would otherwise go to waste. Where is
>> the
>> admonition by these authors that we *ought to* use this conservation
>> method?

>
> I'd argue that the quote you provide above is an implicit admonition of
> sorts. :-)


How many vegans would take it as such?

>> >>That is not figured into that equation.
>> >
>> > It isn't relevant to the comparison between an acre of corn and one
>> > grass fed steer.

>>
>> If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
>> location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much
>> livestock feed that corn would produce and how much steer body
>> weight that translates to, compared to how much human-edible niblets
>> corn it would produce, not how much grazing grass would grow on
>> that acre of land. Those are two very different land uses.

>
> On this occasion though we were comparing the number of
> deaths caused per calorie of grass fed beef and corn.


The discussion was about corn. Grass-fed beef cattle don't eat corn.

>> >> >> No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1.
>> >> >> Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal production
>> >> >> according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20
>> >> >> Decline per acre = ~8.
>> >> >> % decline due to mortality unknown.
>> >> >> Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process.
>> >> >> Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn.
>> >> >
>> >> > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral
>> >> > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic.
>> >>
>> >> Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and
>> >> byproduct
>> >> feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive
>> >> with
>> >> *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle..
>> >
>> > "Could concievably" is not the same as "actually does".

>>
>> I realize that Dave. Vegans are fond of boasting that "the ideal vegan
>> diet"
>> would involve *no* animal deaths, a point which I would dispute, however
>> it
>> is at least as valid to point out that "the ideal non-vegan diet" also
>> has
>> advantages.

>
> I would not dispute these advantages. In this thread I raised the issue
> of grass-clover leys being used in crop rotations and how having
> livestock grazing on it makes sense. I also wonder whether and
> to what extent we could feed animals on waste products. I seem
> to remember you saying you used to be involved in dairy farming.
> Do you think a cow could gain adequate nutrition entirely from the
> parts of plants that we normally throw away?


Cows can get adequate nutrition with no help from humans at all, just as
ruminants have done for eons. I owned a milk cow once, if you call that
being involved in dairy farming. I fed her only a few handfuls of oats a
day, enough to attract her to the milking spot in the morning.

>> In fact more and more non-finished beef (free-range organic) is
>> becoming widely available. I buy it exclusively now. The reason that
>> dedicated feed crops are still used is because they are economical to
>> produce.
>>
>> >> The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close
>> >> comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal
>> >> impact,
>> >> which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present,
>> >> which
>> >> is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna
>> >> from
>> >> heaven.
>> >

>





  #356 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dave wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>> > "Dave" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> > >
>> > > Dutch wrote:
>> > >> "Dave" > wrote
>> > >> >
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> Dave wrote:
>> > >> >> >
wrote:
>> > >> >> > > Dutch wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >> > Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and
>> > >> >> > structure.
>> > >> >> > Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of
>> > >> >> > the
>> > >> >> > doubt
>> > >> >> > in play here?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was
>> > >> >> probably
>> > >> >> reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the book
>> > >> >> with
>> > >> >> me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look and
>> > >> >> discuss the evidence with you.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > OK. I'm afraid I have little to contribute to the subject though.
>> > >> > Perhaps I will buy the DeGrazia book myself if research suggests
>> > >> > he is a well respected authority because the topic is certainly
>> > >> > interesting. I'm just saying that, to a layman like me, the way
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > bees behave seems to indicate some degree of conscious will.
>> > >>
>> > >> I find that a stretch. There's a huge gap between having pain
>> > >> receptors
>> > >> or
>> > >> some equivalent defense mechanism, and having conscious will. I am
>> > >> even
>> > >> dubious that most people have it.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps I got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees
>> > > and
>> > > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we
>> > > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will
>> > > look
>> > > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case.
>> >
>> > The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by
>> > ARAs, and
>> > they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for
>> > complicity
>> > in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
>> > consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where
>> > they
>> > believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
>> >
>> > >
>> > >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
>> > >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt
>> > >> >> trip
>> > >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about
>> > >> > killing
>> > >> > any type of parasite.
>> > >>
>> > >> He just moved the goalposts again.
>> >
>> > Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
>> > example,

>>
>> You're right. It was illegitimate.
>>

>
> What was illegitimate about it? It was a simple statement. I wasn't
> abandoning my previous claim about ants, I was just giving another
> example. It's not a question of "moving the goalposts". I can make more
> than one claim.


You had to abandon your statement about the sentience of ants, it was not
supported. Your use of mosquitos was disingenuous, they are not an animal
related to the food industry and reviled as a hated pest. Vegans and ARAs
frequently apply their prohibitions to bees and silkworms, why not ants? The
answer is that AR notions are misappropriated political ideas masquerading
as high-minded ideals.



>> >a typical pro-ARA argument tactic

>



  #357 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default The numbers game


Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> >> The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came
> >> >> >> across.
> >> >> >> If
> >> >> >> anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the
> >> >> >> nature
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> these
> >> >> >> types of calculations means that I shall be making major
> >> >> >> approximations
> >> >> >> in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat"
> >> >> >> http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm
> >> >> >> Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on
> >> >> >> grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't know
> >> >> >> whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to
> >> >> >> reach similar weights.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein
> >> >> >> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nutrition data for beef
> >> >> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141
> >> >> >> Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not
> >> >> >> homogonous.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nutrition data for corn
> >> >> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Conversion from lbs to grams
> >> >> >> http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964
> >> >> >> calories
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein.
> >> >> >> For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 calories
> >> >> >> *95,700 = 3 115 879 calories
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e.,
> >> >> the
> >> >> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight
> >> >> gain
> >> >> (consumable food).
> >> >
> >> > "For example a vested interests organisation such as the US National
> >> > Cattleman's Beef Association has claimed that it takes only 4.5 kg of
> >> > grain
> >> > to produce 1 kg of beef raised intensively in a US feedlot. On the
> >> > other hand,
> >> > the US Department of Agricultural Economic Research Service puts the
> >> > figure at 16kg to produce 1kg of beef."
> >> > http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/..._Less_Meat.pdf
> >> > page 22 References given for both these figures.
> >>
> >> It *states* there that the USDA figure is 16/1, the reference[69] is to a
> >> radical anti-meat book by John Robbins, not USDA dcoumentation. FYI Dave,
> >> that document *and* John Robbins are both "vested interests", in that
> >> they
> >> are not objective, they are flogging a particular view. On that basis the
> >> "figures" they toss out are no less suspect than The Cattlemen's
> >> Association.

> >
> > Fair comment. Let's run with the 4.5 kg then. The idea that cattle
> > convert
> > all the corn they consume into bodyweight gain is still false.

>
> Yes, that was a mistatement.
>
> >> Note that on that same page it specifically stipulates the following:
> >>
> >> "Other than in areas where animals are fattened predominantly on grazing
> >> land that could not easily grow food crops for direct human consumption,
> >> or elsewhere they eat primarily crop residues or other waste products,
> >> livestock farming actually wastes resources."
> >>
> >> Therefore when animals *are* raised using the above-mentioned methods,
> >> they
> >> actually make use of inputs that would otherwise go to waste. Where is
> >> the
> >> admonition by these authors that we *ought to* use this conservation
> >> method?

> >
> > I'd argue that the quote you provide above is an implicit admonition of
> > sorts. :-)

>
> How many vegans would take it as such?


The article wasn't aimed at vegans.
>
> >> >>That is not figured into that equation.
> >> >
> >> > It isn't relevant to the comparison between an acre of corn and one
> >> > grass fed steer.
> >>
> >> If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
> >> location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much
> >> livestock feed that corn would produce and how much steer body
> >> weight that translates to, compared to how much human-edible niblets
> >> corn it would produce, not how much grazing grass would grow on
> >> that acre of land. Those are two very different land uses.

> >
> > On this occasion though we were comparing the number of
> > deaths caused per calorie of grass fed beef and corn.

>
> The discussion was about corn. Grass-fed beef cattle don't eat corn.


I thought the discussion was about whether beef from grass fed cattle
causes more or less animal deaths per calorie than cereal crops with
corn being used as an example of a cereal.

> >> >> >> No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1.
> >> >> >> Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal production
> >> >> >> according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20
> >> >> >> Decline per acre = ~8.
> >> >> >> % decline due to mortality unknown.
> >> >> >> Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process.
> >> >> >> Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral
> >> >> > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic.
> >> >>
> >> >> Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and
> >> >> byproduct
> >> >> feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive
> >> >> with
> >> >> *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle..
> >> >
> >> > "Could concievably" is not the same as "actually does".
> >>
> >> I realize that Dave. Vegans are fond of boasting that "the ideal vegan
> >> diet"
> >> would involve *no* animal deaths, a point which I would dispute, however
> >> it
> >> is at least as valid to point out that "the ideal non-vegan diet" also
> >> has
> >> advantages.

> >
> > I would not dispute these advantages. In this thread I raised the issue
> > of grass-clover leys being used in crop rotations and how having
> > livestock grazing on it makes sense. I also wonder whether and
> > to what extent we could feed animals on waste products. I seem
> > to remember you saying you used to be involved in dairy farming.
> > Do you think a cow could gain adequate nutrition entirely from the
> > parts of plants that we normally throw away?

>
> Cows can get adequate nutrition with no help from humans at all, just as
> ruminants have done for eons.


I know they can. What I was specifically wondering is whether indoor
raised
cattle could do so using only the non-human-consumable parts of
grain, vegetable and legume crops.

> I owned a milk cow once, if you call that
> being involved in dairy farming.


Only in the loosest sense.

> I fed her only a few handfuls of oats a
> day, enough to attract her to the milking spot in the morning.
>
> >> In fact more and more non-finished beef (free-range organic) is
> >> becoming widely available. I buy it exclusively now. The reason that
> >> dedicated feed crops are still used is because they are economical to
> >> produce.
> >>
> >> >> The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close
> >> >> comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal
> >> >> impact,
> >> >> which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present,
> >> >> which
> >> >> is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna
> >> >> from
> >> >> heaven.
> >> >


  #358 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Can we do better?


Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> > >
> >> > > Dutch wrote:
> >> > >> "Dave" > wrote
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > wrote:
> >> > >> >> Dave wrote:
> >> > >> >> >
wrote:
> >> > >> >> > > Dutch wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >> > Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and
> >> > >> >> > structure.
> >> > >> >> > Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of
> >> > >> >> > the
> >> > >> >> > doubt
> >> > >> >> > in play here?
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was
> >> > >> >> probably
> >> > >> >> reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the book
> >> > >> >> with
> >> > >> >> me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look and
> >> > >> >> discuss the evidence with you.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > OK. I'm afraid I have little to contribute to the subject though.
> >> > >> > Perhaps I will buy the DeGrazia book myself if research suggests
> >> > >> > he is a well respected authority because the topic is certainly
> >> > >> > interesting. I'm just saying that, to a layman like me, the way
> >> > >> > the
> >> > >> > bees behave seems to indicate some degree of conscious will.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I find that a stretch. There's a huge gap between having pain
> >> > >> receptors
> >> > >> or
> >> > >> some equivalent defense mechanism, and having conscious will. I am
> >> > >> even
> >> > >> dubious that most people have it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps I got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees
> >> > > and
> >> > > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we
> >> > > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will
> >> > > look
> >> > > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case.
> >> >
> >> > The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by
> >> > ARAs, and
> >> > they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for
> >> > complicity
> >> > in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
> >> > consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where
> >> > they
> >> > believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
> >> > >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt
> >> > >> >> trip
> >> > >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about
> >> > >> > killing
> >> > >> > any type of parasite.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> He just moved the goalposts again.
> >> >
> >> > Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
> >> > example,
> >>
> >> You're right. It was illegitimate.
> >>

> >
> > What was illegitimate about it? It was a simple statement. I wasn't
> > abandoning my previous claim about ants, I was just giving another
> > example. It's not a question of "moving the goalposts". I can make more
> > than one claim.

>
> You had to abandon your statement about the sentience of ants, it was not
> supported.


No, I didn't. I gave a reference to the arguments in support of it. You
can comment on those arguments if you want to.

> Your use of mosquitos was disingenuous, they are not an animal
> related to the food industry and reviled as a hated pest.


The statement about mosquitoes and the statement about ants are
obviously two logically independent statements. I am entitled to make
both and you are welcome to criticize either one.

> Vegans and ARAs
> frequently apply their prohibitions to bees and silkworms, why not ants?


I would say the ones who are worried about bees and silkworms probably
should be worried about ants as well.

> The
> answer is that AR notions are misappropriated political ideas masquerading
> as high-minded ideals.
>
>
>
> >> >a typical pro-ARA argument tactic

> >


  #359 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> Again, which causes
>> >> >> >> more/less death and suffering? Rice?
>> >> >
>> >> > Who grows the rice? Where is it grown? How is it grown?
>> >> >
>> >> > Potatoes? Bananas?
>> >> >
>> >> > Who grows the bananas? where are they grown? How are they
>> >> > grown. You are being too simplistic. Just as not all beef
>> >> > is
>> >> > the
>> >> > same, the same is true of rice, bananas, apples and
>> >> > potatoes.
>> >> =====================
>> >> Except for bananas you're right.
>> >
>> > Why "except bananas"?

>> =======================
>> Because all bananas on the market are exactly the same.
>> Exactly.
>> They are not a seed crop. They are all produced from an
>> original
>> plant. They are all clones, genetically the same.

>
> The method of production is not the same and environmental
> impact is not the same.
> "The differences between the production of bananas in small,
> shaded farms as compared to conventional chemical-intensive
> monocultural production is readily apparent when, having walked
> through a conventional plantation, one walks through a finca
> (farm) of one of the coop-member growers."
> http://www.rainforestrelief.org/Camp...n_Organic.html
> ===============================

Yes, that's nice, but my statement is still true. "You" cannot
eat them. From the same website... Maybe you should read what I
say, and what you post as reply, eh?
"...Currently, no fresh banana available in the US is grown in a
way that is not detrimental to the rainforests..."







>> >> that's the point. Vegans look
>> >> only at one typr of meat production and declare all meat
>> >> bad,
>> >> yet
>> >> NEVER compare their own foods. Thanks for pointing out my
>> >> statement.
>> >
>> > You're welcome. I've consistently argued that we should not
>> > tar
>> > all meat with the same brush.

>> ====================
>> Then why assume all veggies are better?

>
> I don't.
>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Apples? You don't know because you don't care,
>> >> >> >> despite
>> >> >> >> your
>> >> >> >> claims.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, I don't know because not much reliable research
>> >> >> > exists
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > matter.
>> >> >> ========================
>> >> >> Then you haven't done enough research.
>> >> >
>> >> > For you to be so confident about that you would have to
>> >> > know
>> >> > about
>> >> > some research that has been done on the matter. Please
>> >> > share
>> >> > it
>> >> > with us.
>> >> ===============================
>> >> I have.
>> >
>> > So you say.
>> >
>> >> Vegans always ignore it, like you and rumperroom....
>> >
>> > When you shared research that compared apples, bananas, rice
>> > and potatoes, I must have missed it. Please share it again.

>
> ?
>



  #360 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Dave wrote:
>> >> >> >
wrote:
>> >> >> > > Dutch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and
>> >> >> > structure.
>> >> >> > Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of the
>> >> >> > doubt
>> >> >> > in play here?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was
>> >> >> probably
>> >> >> reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the book
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look and
>> >> >> discuss the evidence with you.
>> >> >
>> >> > OK. I'm afraid I have little to contribute to the subject though.
>> >> > Perhaps I will buy the DeGrazia book myself if research suggests
>> >> > he is a well respected authority because the topic is certainly
>> >> > interesting. I'm just saying that, to a layman like me, the way the
>> >> > bees behave seems to indicate some degree of conscious will.
>> >>
>> >> I find that a stretch. There's a huge gap between having pain
>> >> receptors
>> >> or
>> >> some equivalent defense mechanism, and having conscious will. I am
>> >> even
>> >> dubious that most people have it.
>> >
>> > Perhaps I got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees
>> > and
>> > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we
>> > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will
>> > look
>> > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case.

>>
>> The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by ARAs,

>
> Can you give me some examples of this misapplication?


You already did. Sentience is mistakenly used to mean the ability to use
complex reasoning, as mammals do, when it actually just means the ability to
feel, in other words to have the sense of touch. Any animal that has sensory
touch receptors can feel, therefore could feel pain. There is no
evolutionary reason that insects would evolve without the defense mechanism
of the ability to feel pain.

>> and
>> they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for
>> complicity
>> in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
>> consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where
>> they
>> believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
>>
>> >
>> >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
>> >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt
>> >> >> trip
>> >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
>> >> >
>> >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about killing
>> >> > any type of parasite.
>> >>
>> >> He just moved the goalposts again.

>>
>> Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
>> example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic.

>
> I was challenged on ants and I said something in response. Talking
> about mosquitoes is just changing the subject, not "moving the
> goalposts". I am allowed to talk about more than one thing.


You lost confidence in your assertion about ant sentience so you tried a
flyer with mosquitos. The fact is we don't know, except that we cause a lot
of death and suffering to animals, that's just how real life is.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"