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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot >
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID: >

>faq: collateral included deaths in organic rice production
>posting frequency: monthly to a.a.e.v., t.p.a., r.f.v. and other
>newsgroups as requested. corrections or additions are solicited
>.
>
>a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. are regularly visited by a number of vegetarians who
>believe(?) their dietary choice: 'saves animals' or is, somehow, 'less
>cruel' than an omnivorous diet.
>
>simply, this assertion does not pass even the most cursory, minimally
>applied logic, not to mention any degree of even the simplest research.
>
>the facts are that modern, large-scale cereal grain production comes at
>a minimum cost of _several deaths per pound_, whereas grass-fed meat
>production, whether from production agriculture or hunting is counted
>_several pounds per death_. it is absolutely inescapable that: from
>death comes life, and agricultu is, always has been, and always will
>be a bloody, bloody business. anybody who believes that by eating a
>pound of pasta instead of a pound of venison they are 'saving a life' is
>delusional.
>
>evaluating organic production is instructive for several reasons: many
>well-meaning, good-at-heart people believe organic = 'better, healthier'
>(it is not, necessarily), and the number of included collateral deaths -
>while considerably fewer than in 'conventional' production - are much
>more visible; more personal; more illustrative for those who favour
>responsibility and information.
>
>this analysis of collateral included deaths is a refinement and
>extension of an earlier abbreviated case study posted to a.a.e.v. in
>october 1998. additional information and analysis based on further
>interviews and observations is included in this iteration.
>
>---------
>
>although i no longer straddle a tractor or herd a combine, i have driven
>both - literally - thousands of miles. i am still engaged in
>agribusiness, and we have organic as well as conventional farms, organic
>'truck farms' and ranching operations. in production agriculture, i am
>most familiar with: rice, grain sorgham, cotton, sunflowers and
>soybeans. the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
>on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
>rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas, are probably
>more-or-less applicable to other cereal grains grown in other localés.
>
>production on the organic farms is about 3500-4000 pounds/acre for the
>jasmine farm (900 ac) and the shortgrain farm (160 ac), while on the
>'conventional' longrain farm, it is 9000-11000 pounds, annualised. our
>organic operations produce seed rice and none of it goes (directly) from
>our farm to your table (although it does indirectly and we thank you for
>your partonage). because of economics and ability to produce, we will
>be adding an additional 1500-2000 acres of organic rice production
>within the next three years. although organic is considerably more of a
>pain-in-the-ass to grow, the r.o.i. is better than twice that of
>conventional rice.
>
>a very conservative annualised estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic
>rice farming is ~20 pound (arithmetic follows). this works out a bit
>less than two vertebrate deaths per square foot, and, again, is *quite*
>conservative. for conventionally grown rice, the gross body-count is
>*at least* several times that figure. collateral included deaths from
>'conventional' agriculture are more inferential than from 'organic'
>production (explained later) and, although the number of deaths is fewer
>in organic v. conventional, they are far more visible in organic
>production.
>
>the vertebrate deaths come from: frogs (5+ species), toads (common
>bufo), anole lizards, shrews (3 species), voles, mice, rats, snakes, a
>couple of kinds of turtles, cats, rabbits, skunk, nutria & muskrats,
>raccoons, possums, deer (never less than a pair of fawns harvested per
>50 acres), pheasants, quail, pigeons, cattle egrets, sparrows,
>starlings, waxwings, .... although all of these are not harvested
>*every* time, they are the 'regulars.' occasionally a canvasback, teal,
>heron, mallard, black duck, coot, spoonbill, crow, hawk, kite, eagle,
>buzzard ... is shredded, as is the occasional feral pig or lost calf,
>coyote or dog.
>
>for information, an acre has 43,264+ square feet. the vast majority of
>the deaths are (as one would imagine): frogs, toads and anole lizards;
>rodents and insectivores.
>
>- when cutting the rice, there is a - literal - green waterfall of frogs
>and anoles moving in front of the combine. sometimes the 'rain' is just
>a hard shower (± 10,000 frogs per acre) crossing the header, other times
>it is a deluge (+50,000 acre). never is it a drought; never a mist.
>sometimes, the number of frogs swimming across the cutter-bar is so
>massive, we have to reduce travel speed of the combine - there is just
>too much rice lost by being pressed into the rather thickish 'arroz con
>gracielà paté' which travels across the screens, rather than falling
>into the hopper as good grain should.
>
>these numbers may sound extreme to those who believe there is a wildlife
>de-population crisis, but considering one can easily see 10-20-30+ frogs
>(and several anoles) within the top few inches of a foot stand of rice,
>the numbers making gracielà paté are trivial.
>
>most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
>across the header, it is somewhere between 10K & 50+K per acre
>harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still conservative)
>number of amphibian and anole deaths through the combine is 35,000 of
>all species harvested per acre, combined average for two cuttings. in
>spite of these seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards
>escape than are combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian
>deaths represents less than 20% of the total population, and probably
>far less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not
>killed.
>
>most amphibians are harvested during the first cutting in mid-summer.
>during the early fall second cutting, the population is not as great, so
>the body count is lower during the second bite at the apple (so to
>speak), so the 35,000 (conservative annualised average) is front-loaded,
>probably 25,000 + 10,000 deaths.
>
>- rodents and insectivores get hammered pretty much year-round, with all
>the dirt work, cultivation and harvesting activities and, for rice
>specifically, the near-continuious cycle of flooding and drying the
>fields. i have seen responsible estimates of rodent/insectivore
>population of 9-35 square meter, and i think the 35/meter is probably
>more accurate (in this area, anyhow) judging from the 500 yard-long,
>foot-wide windrows of drowned grey and brown on the lee-side levee
>whenever the rice is flooded. very conservatively - since nobody sees
>plowed-up or planed-in mice (whose deaths have to be substantial in
>number) assume 3/4th of one collateral included death per square foot,
>or ±33,000 rodents and insectivores killed per acre of production.
>again, this is a *very* conservative measure and covers a lot of
>activity year-round. the *real* number of rodent/insectivore deaths
>probably well exceeds two/square foot.
>
>- a lot of birds get combined-up, and nutria, and more than one or two
>deer, but another substantial source of death during all operations is
>being crushed & buried. the tires on tractors and combines are 42"
>wide, and there are two on each side. there is no way to tell how many
>frogs, toads, snakes, turtles, ... get blended into the mud, but it is
>not an insignificant number. other than amphibians and
>rodents/insectivores, the numbers of other deaths is difficult to assign
>a competent number, but the number is not small.
>
>the arithmetic: for 3,500 pounds/acre harvested, there is a toll of
>35,000 amphibians and 33,000 rodents and insectivores, or 68,000, plus,
>say, (to make the math easy while still being conservative) 2,000 from
>mud-mixed frogs and snakes + birds + nutria and muskrats and cats and
>coons and possums + ... + ..., or ± 70,000 deaths per acre of harvested,
>production-farmed organic rice. this works out to ~20 deaths per pound
>of rice - conservatively.
>
>---------
>
>for conventional farming, using every _________icide when needed, the
>body count is at least an order of magnitude higher, although the deaths
>are far less visible.
>
>one can stand between the larger organic field and the 1340 any time
>between april and june and hear the difference. in the organic field,
>you cannot discern an individual frog. it is an overgrown, jumbled
>layered cacaphony of croaks, cheeps, grunts and miscellaneous ribbets.
>on the 1340, one can hear and identify individual frogs and toads. the
>difference is that the billions of amphibian eggs that were laid when
>the 1340 was flooded at the same time and in the same fashion as the 900
>didn't make many tadpoles and fewer frogs due to applications of
>pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides.
>
>closer to harvest, after the application of other _________icides, the
>1340 is nearly mute and still.
>
>the rodents and insectivores go the same route. at the end of a row, in
>the 1340, rarely does one see any significant number of small fuzzies
>scurrying over the levee; in the organic fields, the end of the row
>looks like a scene from ~ben~.
>
>one can tell the difference after harvest, also. on the organic field,
>as the combine passes, the wall of birdlife: hawks of several varieties,
>crows, kites, buzzards, egrets, herons, ... descends to glean both
>escapees and paté. on the 1340, there are still quite a number of
>birds, but nowhere near the solid covering of the organic side.
>
>---------
>
>none of these figures include displacement or deaths due to
>transportation or infrastructure, nor any pest control measure during
>storage or transporation.
>
>nor are insect deaths counted, and insects are animals, too, but most
>involved-in-body-count vegetarians prefer to ignore or minimise deaths
>of other than cute or furry critters.
>
>are there ways to reduce collateral included deaths in modern production
>agriculture? not really. reductions can be made with more hand-work in
>smaller fields using 'appropriate technology', but when tractors and
>combines get involved, deaths go up. the overall animal population and
>mix in the area farmed has a lot to do with what kind of deaths are
>seen, too. this case study references a semi-tropical mixed-use area
>with short-grass prarie, woods, row-crop farming and rice cultivation.
>there are more large vertebrates of different species in this ecosystem
>than there will be in an area that is horizon-to-horizon monoculture.
>where we will regularly harvest deer, nutria and wild pigs, etc., all of
>these would not normally be expected in northern california, for
>example.
>
>from death comes life. agricultu is now, always has been and always
>will be a bloody business.
>
>buon apetité.
>
>cordially,
>diderot

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


wrote:
> __________________________________________________ __________
> From: diderot >
> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> Message-ID: >
>
> >faq: collateral included deaths in organic rice production
> >posting frequency: monthly to a.a.e.v., t.p.a., r.f.v. and other
> >newsgroups as requested. corrections or additions are solicited
> >.
> >
> >a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. are regularly visited by a number of vegetarians who
> >believe(?) their dietary choice: 'saves animals' or is, somehow, 'less
> >cruel' than an omnivorous diet.
> >
> >simply, this assertion does not pass even the most cursory, minimally
> >applied logic, not to mention any degree of even the simplest research.




LOL!!!

Where's the photographic evidence?

  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

Whining, Crying, Bawl wrote:
> wrote:
> > __________________________________________________ __________
> > From: diderot >
> > Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> > Message-ID: >
> >
> > >faq: collateral included deaths in organic rice production
> > >posting frequency: monthly to a.a.e.v., t.p.a., r.f.v. and other
> > >newsgroups as requested. corrections or additions are solicited
> > >.
> > >
> > >a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. are regularly visited by a number of vegetarians who
> > >believe(?) their dietary choice: 'saves animals' or is, somehow, 'less
> > >cruel' than an omnivorous diet.
> > >
> > >simply, this assertion does not pass even the most cursory, minimally
> > >applied logic, not to mention any degree of even the simplest research.

>
>
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Where's the photographic evidence?


And why is my rice never covered in blood and fur?

The cd counting war goes on.....

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 28 Aug 2006 11:22:17 -0700, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:

>
wrote:
>> __________________________________________________ __________
>> From: diderot >

.. . .

>> >a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. are regularly visited by a number of vegetarians who
>> >believe(?) their dietary choice: 'saves animals' or is, somehow, 'less
>> >cruel' than an omnivorous diet.
>> >
>> >simply, this assertion does not pass even the most cursory, minimally
>> >applied logic, not to mention any degree of even the simplest research.

>
>
>
>LOL!!!
>
>Where's the photographic evidence?


To me there's nothing really funny about it, but we see that
the environment goes through this:

http://tinyurl.com/hpq43
http://tinyurl.com/j8v5c
http://tinyurl.com/gplhs
http://tinyurl.com/jom73
http://tinyurl.com/zkw32
http://tinyurl.com/j7lsx

and through this:

http://tinyurl.com/gt56j
http://tinyurl.com/fyh73

and later through this:

http://tinyurl.com/klkfv
http://tinyurl.com/czo32
http://tinyurl.com/fbfcm

and eventually to this:

http://tinyurl.com/epdad
http://tinyurl.com/zupzg
http://tinyurl.com/j5ckj

Even though we don't see photos dedicated to animals
being killed, anyone who knows anything at all about
animals can easily understand how the machinery,
spraying and complete changes of environment kill them.
If any person can't, that necessarily means they have no
understanding at all about how the processes influence
animals, probably because they're afraid to think about
it for some personal reason(s). It undoubtedly shows that
they have no understanding or interest in how humans
influence animals during rice production.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:

wrote:
>> __________________________________________________ __________
>> From: diderot >
>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>> Message-ID: >
>>

>
>This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay


It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> __________________________________________________ __________
> >> From: diderot >
> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> >> Message-ID: >
> >>

> >
> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

>
> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.


"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
are not the high speed machines described in this article.

At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
eagles resting in our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We
see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would
not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com



  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production.
I hope you're making some digicam photos or videos of the birds
you're growing along with all the rice.
..
> At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
> our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
> search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
> centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
> After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
> wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
> flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
> waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
> fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
> blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
> geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
> eagles resting in our fields.
>
> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We
> see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would
> not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
> suggests.
>
> --> Kent Lundberg.
>
> Kent Lundberg
> Lundberg Family Farms
> http://www.lundberg.com


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

Hello Florida. The message posted was a forward of an email I
received from Kent Lundberg in response to a query collateral
deaths in rice production. You'll find an email address at their site.

"Florida" > wrote in message ps.com...
> Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
> good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
> commercial rice production.
> I hope you're making some digicam photos or videos of the birds
> you're growing along with all the rice.
> .
> > At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
> > our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
> > search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
> > centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
> > After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
> > wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
> > flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
> > waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
> > fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
> > blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
> > geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
> > eagles resting in our fields.
> >
> > We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We
> > see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would
> > not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
> > suggests.
> >
> > --> Kent Lundberg.
> >
> > Kent Lundberg
> > Lundberg Family Farms
> > http://www.lundberg.com

>





  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" > wrote:

> Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
>good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
>commercial rice production.


It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie, but it's a lie
none the less. There are plenty of cds associated with rice
production, and it's contemptible though common "ar" behavior
to try to present the false impression that there are not. But they
attempt to do it because they only care about promoting veganism
and not about human influence on animals...disgusting but true.
That's why pearl didn't correct you and acknowledge that there
are lots of cds involved in rice production...again disgusting but
unarguably true.

The environment goes through this:

http://tinyurl.com/hpq43
http://tinyurl.com/j8v5c
http://tinyurl.com/gplhs
http://tinyurl.com/jom73
http://tinyurl.com/zkw32
http://tinyurl.com/j7lsx

and through this:

http://tinyurl.com/gt56j
http://tinyurl.com/fyh73

and later through this:

http://tinyurl.com/klkfv
http://tinyurl.com/czo32
http://tinyurl.com/fbfcm

and eventually to this:

http://tinyurl.com/epdad
http://tinyurl.com/zupzg
http://tinyurl.com/j5ckj

Even though we don't see photos dedicated to animals
being killed, anyone who knows anything at all about
animals can easily understand how the machinery,
spraying and complete changes of environment kill them.
If any person can't, that necessarily means they have no
understanding at all about how the processes influence
animals, probably because they're afraid to think about
it for some personal reason(s). It undoubtedly shows that
they have no understanding or interest in how humans
influence animals during rice production.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >> __________________________________________________ __________
>> >> From: diderot >
>> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>> >> Message-ID: >
>> >>
>> >
>> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

>>
>> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

>
>"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
>thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
>harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
>elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
>writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
>
>The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
>proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
>farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
>are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
>left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
>sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.


Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
be dead, yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
along. If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
deaths caused by rice production. There's no doubt that your
source--and especially YOU yourself--are trying to create the false
impression that thousands of animals are not being killed when
they really are. "ara" dishonesty is undoubtedly the more disgusting
and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish...diderot encourages
people to consider human influence on animals involved in rice
production, while YOU encourage people NOT TO!
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

pony factory-farmer ~~pearl~~ pasted Lundberg's form letter:

> <dh@.> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother >
> > wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> > >> __________________________________________________ __________
> > >> From: diderot >
> > >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production
> > >[faq] > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> > >> Newsgroups:
> > >alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.anima ls,rec.food.veg >
> > >Message-ID: > >
> > >
> > >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

> >
> > It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

>
> "There is an "article" circulating


Why don't you go watch a harvest yourself, you gullible little sap? Or
is your horse-MARKETING keeping you too busy these days?
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> __________________________________________________ __________
>>>> From: diderot >
>>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>
>>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

>>
>> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

>
>It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
>met at a bar.
>
>He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
>
>Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
>yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
>could be referring to the population of Texas.


"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

>Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
>square FOOT of rice?


Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.

>It's a joke that you and other fools have fallen for.


He sells organic rice to vegans. Why would he present info like
that to vegans, if he wasn't confident that they would be too stupid
to appreciate the reality of it even if he did? Obviously he was well
aware that they are, almost certainly from his own personal experience
with them. And now from our own personal experience with them in
these ngs we can see that too. Duh.

>There are animal deaths in rice production, but there is no mystical
>"green waterfall".


How many deaths do you think there are, and WHY should anyone
take your estimate over that of a rice farmer???


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> __________________________________________________ __________
> >>>> From: diderot >
> >>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> >>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> >>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> >>>> Message-ID: >
> >>>>
> >>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
> >>
> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

> >
> >It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
> >met at a bar.
> >
> >He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
> >
> >Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
> >yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
> >could be referring to the population of Texas.

>
> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
>
> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
>
> >Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
> >square FOOT of rice?

>
> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
> the big picture.
>


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg. If he was using that assumption in his
calculations, he should have made it explicit.

> >It's a joke that you and other fools have fallen for.

>
> He sells organic rice to vegans. Why would he present info like
> that to vegans, if he wasn't confident that they would be too stupid
> to appreciate the reality of it even if he did? Obviously he was well
> aware that they are, almost certainly from his own personal experience
> with them. And now from our own personal experience with them in
> these ngs we can see that too. Duh.
>
> >There are animal deaths in rice production, but there is no mystical
> >"green waterfall".

>
> How many deaths do you think there are, and WHY should anyone
> take your estimate over that of a rice farmer???


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> __________________________________________________ __________
> >> >> From: diderot >
> >> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> >> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> >> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> >> >> Message-ID: >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
> >>
> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

> >
> >"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
> >thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
> >harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
> >elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
> >writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
> >
> >The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
> >proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
> >farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
> >are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
> >left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
> >sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

>
> Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
> be dead,


Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?

> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
> along.


Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?

> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
> deaths caused by rice production.


diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.

> There's no doubt that your
> source--and especially YOU yourself--are trying to create the false
> impression that thousands of animals are not being killed when
> they really are. "ara" dishonesty is undoubtedly the more disgusting
> and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish...diderot encourages
> people to consider human influence on animals involved in rice
> production, while YOU encourage people NOT TO!


WHY should anyone take his 'estimate' over that of a rice farmer?

There's no doubt that your source--and especially YOU yourself--
are trying to create the false impression that thousands of animals
are being killed when they really aren't. Your anti AR dishonesty is
undoubtedly disgusting and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish.





  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

"chico chupacabra" > lied in message ...

[..]

Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor chico?

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth






  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" > wrote:
>
> > Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
> >good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
> >commercial rice production.

>
> It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,


You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> __________________________________________________ __________
>> >>>> From: diderot >
>> >>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> >>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> >>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>> >>>> Message-ID: >
>> >>>>
>> >>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>> >>
>> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>> >
>> >It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
>> >met at a bar.
>> >
>> >He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
>> >
>> >Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
>> >yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
>> >could be referring to the population of Texas.

>>
>> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
>> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
>> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
>>
>> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
>> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
>> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
>> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
>> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
>>
>> >Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
>> >square FOOT of rice?

>>
>> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
>> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
>> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
>> the big picture.
>>

>
>It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
>problem with destroying an egg.


LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> __________________________________________________ __________
>> >> >> From: diderot >
>> >> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> >> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> >> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>> >> >> Message-ID: >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>> >>
>> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>> >
>> >"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
>> >thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
>> >harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
>> >elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
>> >writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
>> >
>> >The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
>> >proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
>> >farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
>> >are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
>> >left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
>> >sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

>>
>> Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
>> be dead,

>
>Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
>as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?


I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.

>> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
>> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
>> along.

>
>Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
>slaughtered year in, year out?


diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
upstream.

>> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
>> deaths caused by rice production.

>
>diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
>between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.


diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" > wrote:
>>
>> > Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
>> >good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
>> >commercial rice production.

>>
>> It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,

>
>You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.


As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >>
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>> __________________________________________________ __________
> >> >>>> From: diderot >
> >> >>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> >> >>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> >> >>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> >> >>>> Message-ID: >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
> >> >>
> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
> >> >
> >> >It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
> >> >met at a bar.
> >> >
> >> >He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
> >> >
> >> >Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
> >> >yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
> >> >could be referring to the population of Texas.
> >>
> >> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
> >> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
> >> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
> >>
> >> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
> >> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
> >> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
> >> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
> >> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
> >>
> >> >Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
> >> >square FOOT of rice?
> >>
> >> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
> >> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
> >> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
> >> the big picture.
> >>

> >
> >It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
> >problem with destroying an egg.

>
> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!


This is an evasion of the point.

Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
in the course of rice production. Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.

I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
> >> >good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
> >> >commercial rice production.
> >>
> >> It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,

> >
> >You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.

>
> As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
> who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
> be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
> meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.


I have not said that there are "no cds in rice production", as you imply.

"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they are
not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg

That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.

As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.




  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ __________
> >> >> >> From: diderot >
> >> >> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> >> >> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> >> >> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> >> >> >> Message-ID: >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
> >> >>
> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
> >> >
> >> >"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
> >> >thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
> >> >harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
> >> >elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
> >> >writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
> >> >
> >> >The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
> >> >proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
> >> >farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
> >> >are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
> >> >left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
> >> >sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
> >>
> >> Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
> >> be dead,

> >
> >Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
> >as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?

>
> I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
> get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
> Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
> when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
> should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
> the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
> draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
> afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
> water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
> what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
> mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
> are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.


That is all really absolute nonsense. Frogs are as mobile as the
next creature. Any there could easily move on as the fields dry.

> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
> >> along.

> >
> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
> >slaughtered year in, year out?

>
> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,


I bet! - you're a ready sucker, and an unabashed propagandist.

> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
> upstream.


Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
Why don't you do a little research? And if his claims were true, a
seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.

> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
> >> deaths caused by rice production.

> >
> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.

>
> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!


diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.






  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

Rupert wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ __________
>>>>>>>> From: diderot >
>>>>>>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>>>>>>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>>>>>>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>>>>>> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>>>>> It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
>>>>> met at a bar.
>>>>>
>>>>> He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
>>>>>
>>>>> Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
>>>>> yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
>>>>> could be referring to the population of Texas.
>>>> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
>>>> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
>>>> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
>>>>
>>>> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
>>>> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
>>>> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
>>>> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
>>>> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
>>>>> square FOOT of rice?
>>>> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
>>>> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
>>>> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
>>>> the big picture.
>>>>
>>> It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
>>> problem with destroying an egg.

>> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
>> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
>> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
>> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

>
> This is an evasion of the point.
>
> Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
> against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
> here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
> in the course of rice production. Some people here think that Diderot's
> account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
> responding accordingly.
>
> I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
> sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
> account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
> If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
> justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
> figures are being inflated in a misleading way.
>


Hi,

The "5 amphibians per square foot" figure came from Bob Sikes, based on
his earlier posting of his FAQ:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...cef828 0ba2a3

http://tinyurl.com/gd2by


He stated:


"most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
across the header, it is somewhere between 30K & 50+K per acre
harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still incredibly
conservative) number of amphibian and anole (and slow, small furry
things) deaths through the combine is 35,000 of all species harvested
per acre, combined average for *two* cuttings. in spite of these
seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards escape than are
combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian deaths represents
less than *10-15% of the total population*, and probably considerably
less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed
.... until that night and the next day, when they disappear almost
totally into the gullets of predators. "

He also states that "an acre has 43,264+ square feet"

So total population = 100%/15% x 35 000 = 233 333

Amphibians per square foot = 233 333 / 43 264 = 5.4. (Over a quarter of
a million frogs on a American football pitch!)

However, I noticed that he's changed his lie to 20% in this latest
revision of his "****ing Awful Quotations (FAQ)", this would give a
total AMPHIBIAN population of 4 per *every* square foot. This is over 4
times higher than the maximum you may expect at a *breeding* site!

It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
to it, as if it were their life line.


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

dh@. wrote:

>, anyone who knows anything at all about
> animals can easily understand how the machinery,
> spraying and complete changes of environment kill them.


Anyone who knows anything at all about farming knows that these deaths
can be greatly reduced by following simple ecologically sensitive
farming practices. Undisturbed field margins, for instance, give
animals a safe haven when machinery is in the field. Sprial cutting,
inside to outside, patterns during harvest leave animals an avenue of
escape. No-till or low-till crops spare non-mobile young.
Biological control of insect larva and species specific use of IPM
don't impact the reproductive capability of field animals. High
residue combining, manner of irrigation and control of run-off are
other sound practices and I'm sure there are some I've left out.

Not only do these enlightened farming practices save animals, not
something most farmers are concerned about, they slow desertification
of agricultural lands. That's something farmers care about or should
care about very much.

> If any person can't, that necessarily means they have no
> understanding at all about how the processes influence
> animals, probably because they're afraid to think about
> it for some personal reason(s). It undoubtedly shows that
> they have no understanding or interest in how humans
> influence animals during rice production.


It's simple. Only grow rice on natural floodplains where wildlife have
evolved survival strategies to cope with the cycle of flooding and
draining. If you can't grow rice without creating ecological mayhem,
grow something else.

  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. wrote:
(snip)

> There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,


Are you worried about a "decent life" for these unborn, future animals?
The merger is now complete. Ball is Harrison and Harrison is Ball.

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>> __________________________________________________ __________
>> >> >>>> From: diderot >
>> >> >>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> >> >>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> >> >>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>> >> >>>> Message-ID: >
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
>> >> >met at a bar.
>> >> >
>> >> >He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
>> >> >
>> >> >Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
>> >> >yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
>> >> >could be referring to the population of Texas.
>> >>
>> >> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
>> >> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
>> >> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
>> >>
>> >> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
>> >> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
>> >> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
>> >> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
>> >> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
>> >>
>> >> >Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
>> >> >square FOOT of rice?
>> >>
>> >> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
>> >> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
>> >> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
>> >> the big picture.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
>> >problem with destroying an egg.

>>
>> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
>> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
>> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
>> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

>
>This is an evasion of the point.


That IS my point!

>Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
>against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
>here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
>in the course of rice production.


So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.

>Some people here think that Diderot's
>account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
>responding accordingly.
>
>I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
>sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
>account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.


Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
eggs too.

>If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
>justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
>figures are being inflated in a misleading way.


How many are killed then? How do you know?
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:50:33 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
>> >> >good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
>> >> >commercial rice production.
>> >>
>> >> It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,
>> >
>> >You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.

>>
>> As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
>> who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
>> be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
>> meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.

>
>I have not said that there are "no cds in rice production", as you imply.
>
>"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
>the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
>the road kill on a mile of highway.


That's an obvious lie, and anyone who's aware that animals don't
live on asphalt should be able to understand why.

>Harvesters move slowly,


So did the bush hog I got to run a few times. But there were a lot
of grass hoppers bouncing around on it and getting killed by it the
whole time anyway. If they had been frogs and anoles etc like in
rice fields it would have been them in that position instead, but
rice harvesters would provide less chance of survival because of
the difference in design. I'm sure you won't be able to see why
or how, but I believe most omnivorous people could:

http://tinyurl.com/goeyk

http://tinyurl.com/gkpmo
http://tinyurl.com/pk3ut

>and they are
>not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg


He told you what he knows very well that you want to believe,
because he wants you to keep buying rice. diderot told you "aras"
about cds because he knows from experience your selfishness will
cause you to deny them to yourself and everyone else and you'll
keep buying rice and encouraging everyone else to. In fact now
that we're (meaning me :-) thinking about it after observing your
reaction, he may have learned that you "aras" will buy MORE rice
after denying the deaths involved with it...

>That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.
>
>As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.


"Florida" wrote:

"Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production."

YOU, who bitch and carry on claiming diderot was wrong, said
nothing at all to correct that absurd, dishonest idea. That means
YOU want people to believe it.


  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:36:17 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ __________
>> >> >> >> From: diderot >
>> >> >> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> >> >> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> >> >> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>> >> >> >> Message-ID: >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>> >> >
>> >> >"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
>> >> >thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
>> >> >harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
>> >> >elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
>> >> >writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
>> >> >
>> >> >The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
>> >> >proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
>> >> >farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
>> >> >are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
>> >> >left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
>> >> >sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
>> >>
>> >> Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
>> >> be dead,
>> >
>> >Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
>> >as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?

>>
>> I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
>> get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
>> Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
>> when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
>> should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
>> the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
>> draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
>> afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
>> water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
>> what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
>> mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
>> are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.

>
>That is all really absolute nonsense. Frogs are as mobile as the
>next creature. Any there could easily move on as the fields dry.


How would they know what was happening? How would they
know where the water went? How far would they have to travel
in order to get to it? What would keep them from getting killed
by predators IF they hopped along trying to get there? What
would keep them from dehydrating even IF they did know where
to go, tried to get there, and didn't get killed by predators?

>> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
>> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
>> >> along.
>> >
>> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
>> >slaughtered year in, year out?

>>
>> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,

>
>I bet! - you're a ready sucker,


LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
damn funny.

>and an unabashed propagandist.
>
>> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
>> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
>> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
>> upstream.

>
>Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
>live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
>of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
>Why don't you do a little research?


I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
where do you think they come from?

You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
and sulk away from it.

>And if his claims were true, a
>seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.


Who would document it? Why?

>> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
>> >> deaths caused by rice production.
>> >
>> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
>> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.

>>
>> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
>> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
>> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!

>
>diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.


Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
people to believe otherwise.
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 31 Aug 2006 11:00:14 -0700, wrote:

>dh@. wrote:


>If you can't grow rice without creating ecological mayhem


Who does, and how do you know your rice is grown
without it?
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:33 +0100, brother > wrote:

>Rupert wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ __________
>>>>>>>>> From: diderot >
>>>>>>>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>>>>>>>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>>>>>>>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>>>>>>> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>>>>>> It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
>>>>>> met at a bar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
>>>>>> yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
>>>>>> could be referring to the population of Texas.
>>>>> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
>>>>> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
>>>>> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
>>>>> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
>>>>> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
>>>>> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
>>>>> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
>>>>>> square FOOT of rice?
>>>>> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
>>>>> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
>>>>> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
>>>>> the big picture.
>>>>>
>>>> It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
>>>> problem with destroying an egg.
>>> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
>>> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
>>> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
>>> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

>>
>> This is an evasion of the point.
>>
>> Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
>> against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
>> here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
>> in the course of rice production. Some people here think that Diderot's
>> account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
>> responding accordingly.
>>
>> I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
>> sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
>> account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
>> If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
>> justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
>> figures are being inflated in a misleading way.
>>

>
>Hi,
>
>The "5 amphibians per square foot" figure came from Bob Sikes, based on
>his earlier posting of his FAQ:
>
>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...cef828 0ba2a3
>
>http://tinyurl.com/gd2by
>
>
>He stated:
>
>
>"most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
>across the header, it is somewhere between 30K & 50+K per acre
>harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still incredibly
>conservative) number of amphibian and anole (and slow, small furry
>things) deaths through the combine is 35,000 of all species harvested
>per acre, combined average for *two* cuttings. in spite of these
>seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards escape than are
>combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian deaths represents
>less than *10-15% of the total population*, and probably considerably
>less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed
>... until that night and the next day, when they disappear almost
>totally into the gullets of predators. "
>
>He also states that "an acre has 43,264+ square feet"
>
>So total population = 100%/15% x 35 000 = 233 333
>
>Amphibians per square foot = 233 333 / 43 264 = 5.4. (Over a quarter of
>a million frogs on a American football pitch!)
>
>However, I noticed that he's changed his lie to 20%


What is the correct percentage? How do you know?

> in this latest
>revision of his "****ing Awful Quotations (FAQ)", this would give a
>total AMPHIBIAN population of 4 per *every* square foot. This is over 4
>times higher than the maximum you may expect at a *breeding* site!
>
>It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
>to it, as if it were their life line.


You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
many are killed, and how you know!
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> __________________________________________________ __________
> >> >> >>>> From: diderot >
> >> >> >>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> >> >> >>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> >> >> >>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> >> >> >>>> Message-ID: >
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
> >> >> >met at a bar.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
> >> >> >yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
> >> >> >could be referring to the population of Texas.
> >> >>
> >> >> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
> >> >> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
> >> >> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
> >> >>
> >> >> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
> >> >> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
> >> >> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
> >> >> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
> >> >> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
> >> >> >square FOOT of rice?
> >> >>
> >> >> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
> >> >> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
> >> >> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
> >> >> the big picture.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
> >> >problem with destroying an egg.
> >>
> >> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
> >> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
> >> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
> >> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

> >
> >This is an evasion of the point.

>
> That IS my point!
>


???

> >Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
> >against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
> >here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
> >in the course of rice production.

>
> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
>


What reason?

> >Some people here think that Diderot's
> >account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
> >responding accordingly.
> >
> >I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
> >sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
> >account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.

>
> Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
> eggs too.
>


Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.

> >If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
> >justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
> >figures are being inflated in a misleading way.

>
> How many are killed then?


I have absolutely no idea.

> How do you know?




  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:33 +0100, brother > wrote:
>

snip
>>
>> It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
>> to it, as if it were their life line.

>
> You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
> many are killed, and how you know!



I know enough to recognise that Bob Sikes is lying. - A fabrication with
the clear intent to deceive.

The most enjoyable thing about this is; you, and those of a similar
mind-set are the ones being deceived.






  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:27:02 +0100, brother > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:33 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>

>snip
>>>
>>> It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
>>> to it, as if it were their life line.

>>
>> You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
>> many are killed, and how you know!

>
>
>I know enough to recognise that Bob Sikes is lying.


You're lying. You can't even pretend to say how you think you
could possibly know--much less explain it--which shows that you're
simply lying.

> - A fabrication with the clear intent to deceive.


There's no evidence of that...only that YOU are lying.

>The most enjoyable thing about this is; you, and those of a similar
>mind-set are the ones being deceived.


You continue to contribute to the many deaths associated with
rice production and lie as you do so.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 31 Aug 2006 22:51:28 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> __________________________________________________ __________
>> >> >> >>>> From: diderot >
>> >> >> >>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> >> >> >>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> >> >> >>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>> >> >> >>>> Message-ID: >
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
>> >> >> >met at a bar.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
>> >> >> >yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
>> >> >> >could be referring to the population of Texas.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
>> >> >> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
>> >> >> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
>> >> >> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
>> >> >> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
>> >> >> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
>> >> >> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
>> >> >> >square FOOT of rice?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
>> >> >> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
>> >> >> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
>> >> >> the big picture.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
>> >> >problem with destroying an egg.
>> >>
>> >> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
>> >> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
>> >> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
>> >> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!
>> >
>> >This is an evasion of the point.

>>
>> That IS my point!

>
>???


Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".

>> >Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
>> >against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
>> >here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
>> >in the course of rice production.

>>
>> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
>> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
>>

>
>What reason?


The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
Duh.

>> >Some people here think that Diderot's
>> >account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
>> >responding accordingly.
>> >
>> >I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
>> >sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
>> >account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.

>>
>> Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
>> eggs too.
>>

>
>Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.
>
>> >If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
>> >justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
>> >figures are being inflated in a misleading way.

>>
>> How many are killed then?

>
>I have absolutely no idea.


I know, but I'm suprised that you're honest enough to admit it...
VERY surprised.

>> How do you know?

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2006 22:51:28 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> __________________________________________________ __________
> >> >> >> >>>> From: diderot >
> >> >> >> >>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> >> >> >> >>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> >> >> >> >>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> >> >> >> >>>> Message-ID: >
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
> >> >> >> >met at a bar.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
> >> >> >> >yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
> >> >> >> >could be referring to the population of Texas.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
> >> >> >> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
> >> >> >> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
> >> >> >> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
> >> >> >> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
> >> >> >> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
> >> >> >> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
> >> >> >> >square FOOT of rice?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
> >> >> >> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
> >> >> >> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
> >> >> >> the big picture.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
> >> >> >problem with destroying an egg.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
> >> >> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
> >> >> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
> >> >> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!
> >> >
> >> >This is an evasion of the point.
> >>
> >> That IS my point!

> >
> >???

>
> Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
> about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
> to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".
>


That doesn't address the fact that you were evading my point. Who has
lied? Point out an example of someone lying.

> >> >Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
> >> >against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
> >> >here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
> >> >in the course of rice production.
> >>
> >> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
> >> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
> >>

> >
> >What reason?

>
> The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
> Duh.
>


No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
accordingly.

> >> >Some people here think that Diderot's
> >> >account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
> >> >responding accordingly.
> >> >
> >> >I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
> >> >sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
> >> >account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
> >>
> >> Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
> >> eggs too.
> >>

> >
> >Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.
> >
> >> >If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
> >> >justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
> >> >figures are being inflated in a misleading way.
> >>
> >> How many are killed then?

> >
> >I have absolutely no idea.

>
> I know, but I'm suprised that you're honest enough to admit it...
> VERY surprised.
>
> >> How do you know?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
"dead-frog numbers [was: faq collateral included deaths in organic rice production]" [email protected] Vegan 4 14-09-2006 05:31 PM
rice deaths vs. road kill, attn. "pearl" [email protected] Vegan 3 07-09-2006 05:44 PM
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 03:45 AM
Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef Ipse dixit Vegan 6 15-11-2003 01:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 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"