If all farm animals dissappeared
ta
production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the
short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good
and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
(starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the
long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no
one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
your input.
Michael Saunby
"ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GyVLb.2824$PP5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be
the
> short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both
good
> and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
What your talking about here is a form of "futurology" taking a rather
extreme scenario as a basis for a planned future. What you'll find if you
bother to do the research is that far more consideration has been given to
global nuclear war, because, quite reasonably, those with the resources to
do such studies consider such scenarios to be a damn site more likely.
>
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
> (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in
the
> long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question,
no
> one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> your input.
>
There are plenty of folk who claim all sorts of doom resulting from species
loss, so I expect you're pretty much on your own if you are proposing to
remove species from the planet for purely asethetic reasons.
I rather like keeping farm animals, and I don't think I'm alone in this.
If you really did wish to pursue this I rather suspect that your
pro-animal-extinction advocates would be more likely to suffer a sudden and
unpleasant extinction - and quite rightly. Past generations of our own
species have survived all sorts of horrors thanks to the flexibility that a
variety of livestock species can present, loosing even one would be a very
foolish move to take.
Note that there are already groups devoted to keeping rare breeds of
livestock and crops so that their genes are available to future
generations. Without doubt the nuber of people at present commited to such
good work far exceeds the number of vegans on the planet, and I very much
doubt that any more than a tiny proportion of vegans would support the
notion of making livestock extinct in some perverse effort to force
veganism on the omnivorous majority.
By all means do the research, perhaps by attempting farming on another
planet that doesn't actually have any livestock, but don't expect anyone to
take you seriously, because it's clearly a barmy idea that will get close
to zero support.
Michael Saunby
LarryLOOK
Very interesting question, and I plan to post the anwer later.
Another question would be as follows. Suppose the long term consequences
were excellent, with mankind benefiting enormously. Would we actually do
it. Not likely. BTW, we could keep those animals around in small numbers
to avoid extiction.
We can't even get people to stop smoking despite knowing of the great
benefits.
Michael Saunby
"Rick" <Ri...@not.here.com> wrote in message
news:b6a000p6a1dlhm173...@4ax.com...
> long term. Rich nations would still have much more food than they
> need. Poor nations would still have too little.
Probably best not to think in terms of nations but in terms of people. A
friend once told me that throughout the Ethiopian famine you could always
get a good meal in the best hotels in Addis Ababa.
> There is no food
> shortage, only food distribution problems.
Any population of animals, and that includes humans, will have something
that limits the population. Humans can, and do, breed quite rapidly. The
factors that limits population in North America and Europe it seems are
complex social pressures, in other places it may be disease. If food
distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether there
was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and enough
control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they would
still need to be kept in check by some means.
> No pay -no eat is the way
> it's always been. The crux of the issue is how does one change that
> basic fact? now would you please stop crossposting this stuff to
> misc.rual?
>
Sorted.
Michael Saunby
Jeepers
"ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why are you crossposting?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Vajk
There are a number of very important drugs which rely
on farm animals for production. The most recent one I
ran into was a contrasting medium allowing an echo
cardiogram to "see" parts of the heart of interest.
It requires eggs as a medium in the creation process.
Rat & Swan
ta wrote:
> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the
> short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good
> and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
I have discussed something similar to this before.
I think we need to refine the question. First, are we talking about
eliminating the species which we now use as "farm" animals, or are we
talking about creating a space where members of those species could
survive as wild animals, but humans would no longer use them as
domesticated animals? Second, are we talking about removing only one
part of the situation -- just animals -- or a major social change
where humans also develop a different worldview and act to control their
own population growth and ecological devastation? Third, as I'm sure
you know, not all land used for animal "production" can be used for
production of non-animal foodstuffs. Certainly, a large amount of it
could be, but not all. We'd also have to discuss the question of
fertilizer for non-animal crops, and whether a society without farm
animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence
and organic, sustainable agriculture, or whether such a society would
still depend, or depend even more, on massive chemical and artificial
food production -- are we envisioning many small, organic farms
fertilized with guano or buffalo chips, or are we talking about huge,
power-intensive hydroponic farms in giant buildings, and vegetable
equivalents of current factory farms?
There are all sorts of possibilities, depending on which way human
society went before and after the elimination of farm animals.
But it's a fascinating question. Thanks.
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
> (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the
> long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no
> one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> your input.
Rat
JMartin
> production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be
the
> short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both
good
> and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
Gee. I don't think that anyone has studied the effects of sudden farm
animal disappearance. I wonder why. It really sounds like something the
government would award a grant for....billions of dollars just so we know in
the event of some kind of farm animal rapture.
What a dumb question.
Jena
Rubystars
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>If food
> distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether
>there
> was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and enough
> control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they would
> still need to be kept in check by some means.
Why? The main problems of overpopulation seem to be hunger and disease. If
those are solved then why should we worry too much about keeping a
population "in check?"
Not that a smaller population wouldn't be easier to feed and medicate, but
wouldn't social pressures be enough?
-Rubystars
Zakhar
"JMartin" <antar...@comwares.net> wrote in message
news:btpl4e$dun$0...@12.166.20.64...
Good question. You're just too dumb to understand it.
Dutch
> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be
the
> short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both
good
> and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
That is an excellent question. I don't think the idea has been examined
closely at all, and I find that rather ironic considering that is exactly
what animal rights activists and vegans are proposing, don't you?
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
> (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the
> long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question,
no
> one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> your input.
Look at the fundamental energy equation. The human race is sustained by
calories from plant material, including plant material cycled through
animals. Right now that includes virtually every plant on the face of the
earth, grasses that grow on hillsides and dry prairie are used for grazing,
hay is grown on marginal land, grains that do not meet human standards are
fed to animals, by-products from plant products like oils are all fed to
animals as mash. Plants grown for animal feed such as corn, are 100%
utilized. All of these sources would be lost. So, say as a race we consume
100 trillion calories per month (or whatever), we would have to find a way
replace all those calories through agriculture. The massive factory farms
that would be needed would dwarf anything we see today
Also large areas of the world lack the climate and conditions to sustain
themselves through plant agriculture. The task of bringing food to these
people alone would be monumental.
The rational answer is that we need a mixed solution, utilizing resources
from every possible source, such as we have now. The answer to the problems
within the system lie in reform and education, not radical quasi-politics.
Dutch
>
> "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be
> the
> > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both
> good
> > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> >
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
> > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in
the
> > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question,
> no
> > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks
for
> > your input.
>
> Very interesting question, and I plan to post the anwer later.
You don't HAVE "the anwer" you fucking moron! You probably buy loafers
because you can't tie your shoes.
Dutch
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-4E1336...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <GyVLb.2824$PP5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be
the
> > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both
good
> > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> >
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
> > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in
the
> > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question,
no
> > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks
for
> > your input.
> >
> >
>
> Why are you crossposting?
Duhh...lemmee guess.. to reach more readers?
Michael Saunby
"Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:ZjZLb.6043$er3....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
> >If food
> > distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether
> >there
> > was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and
enough
> > control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they
would
> > still need to be kept in check by some means.
>
> Why? The main problems of overpopulation seem to be hunger and disease.
If
No they are not. Today hunger and disease generally don't occur in densly
populated places but in sparsely populated countries with inadequate
infrastructure or as a consequence of some natural disaster.
> those are solved then why should we worry too much about keeping a
> population "in check?"
>
> Not that a smaller population wouldn't be easier to feed and medicate,
but
> wouldn't social pressures be enough?
>
In the past in Asia and Europe, regions which still have the highest
population density, population grew in bursts linked to technological
developments - mostly agricultural. The first of these, after the advent
of agriculture itself, was the development of the plough, later the
development of crop and livestock breeding. Human populations are not
determined just by social pressures, the social pressures are a reaction to
changed circumstances. You are advocating a change in technology, using
livestock free farming. Why? Clearly not because it would be technically
better because you accept that the research hasn't been done.
Michael Saunby
Rubystars
>
> "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:ZjZLb.6043$er3....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > >If food
> > > distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether
> > >there
> > > was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and
> enough
> > > control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they
> would
> > > still need to be kept in check by some means.
> >
> > Why? The main problems of overpopulation seem to be hunger and disease.
> If
>
> No they are not. Today hunger and disease generally don't occur in densly
> populated places but in sparsely populated countries with inadequate
> infrastructure or as a consequence of some natural disaster.
So why does human population need to be kept in check?
>You are advocating a change in technology, using
> livestock free farming. Why?
I'm not.
-Rubystars
Michael Saunby
I wasn't meaning it in a political sense, only in an ecological sense. The
human species WILL never grow without limit, if you remove the check that
food availablity presents then something else will then become the limit -
probably disease. If the intention of this proposed switch in diet is to
provide a better environment for human to live in then it's necessary to
consider what the limiting factor will be if food supply no longer serves
that purpose. Of course nature could simply be allowed to do its thing,
which seems fine by me, but would of course mean that people need to be
allowed to eat what they choose to eat, not what they're told to eat.
>
> >You are advocating a change in technology, using
> > livestock free farming. Why?
>
> I'm not.
I realise that now - my mistake.
Michael Saunby
Russ Thompson
> long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question,
no
> one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> your input.
*** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil
fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, WI USA
Zakhar
"Russ Thompson" <pm...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:40016...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> but I'm actually more interested in the
> > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question,
> no
> > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks
for
> > your input.
>
> *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil
> fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
>
Crap.( Excuse the pun).
Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits being
reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
Jim Webster
"Zakhar" <tkkomtg...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:e803508edc105b48...@news.teranews.com...
and reduced yield, because while the green manure is growing you aren't
growing food
Note, far too many cross posts so I've cut them
Jim Webster
>
>
Russ Thompson
> reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
*** Well Duh! We are farmers. This is our business and life. This farmed was
converted from conventional to sustainable in 1982 and from sustainable to
organic in 1993.
We attend work shops, conventions, and expos. We attend classes
every week all winter put on by the extension. My husband has a BS in dairy
science with a minor in crop and soils science. We both have a certificate
in sustainable farming. We read industry publications and talk to other
farmers all the time.
So in reply to your condecending question YES! We have and do use
green manure crops on our farm. I have personally planted crops for use as
green manure. However I can see that you are an expert and know far more
about the subject than I so why don't you tell us what you know?
the q
the details. But I remember the conclusions, currently most countries in the
world would starve including the rich nations. This is because much of the
land used to provided meat for consumption would not be able to sustain high
continuous vegetable growth. One point they made was that for Brazil to feed
it's own population with non Animal food you would have to chop down the
entire Amazon forest to make land available whereas the high population
density European nations have nowhere near enough land...
Well that all my brain can remember of the report...
since many vegans are also " countryside conservationists" that gives them a
bit of a problem...
The Q
pearl
>
> "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:GyVLb.2824$PP5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the
> > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good
> > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> >
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
> > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the
> > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no
> > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> > your input.
> >
> > This has been studied but unfortunately I can't remember the source for
> the details. But I remember the conclusions, currently most countries in the
> world would starve including the rich nations. This is because much of the
> land used to provided meat for consumption would not be able to sustain high
> continuous vegetable growth.
U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat,
Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
'Pounds of edible product that can be produced on an acre of prime
land: Apples 20,000; Carrots 30,000; Potatoes 40,000; Tomatoes
50,000; Beef 250 ' [Tom Aldridge and Herb Schlubach, "Water
Requirements for Food Production," Soil and Water, no. 38 (Fall
1978), University of California Cooperative Extension, 13017; Paul
and Anne Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment (San
Francisco: Freemna, 1972), pg. 75-76.]
http://www.vegetarianusa.com/feature_articles/kitchen/earthsave_food_choices.html
> One point they made was that for Brazil to feed
> it's own population with non Animal food you would have to chop down the
> entire Amazon forest to make land available.
'Today, production of livestock and livestock feed for the world
market is supplanting the production of staple foods in many developing
countries.
In Mexico, for example, where millions of people are chronically
under-nourished, one third of the grain produced is fed to livestock. In
Brazil, where 23 percent of the cultivated land is now being used to
grow soybeans -- half of which is destined for export for livestock feed
-- less land is available to grow corn and black beans, staples of the
Brazilian peasant diet. The result has been less food at higher prices
for an increasingly hungry and impoverished population.
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html
> whereas the high population
> density European nations have nowhere near enough land...
"If the earth's arable land were used primarily for the production
of vegetarian foods, the planet could easily support a human
population of 20 billion or more" -Noted from the book
Proteins: Their Chemistry and Politics / Dr. Aaron Altshul .
> Well that all my brain can remember of the report...
>
> since many vegans are also " countryside conservationists" that gives them a
> bit of a problem...
No.
Zakhar
"Jim Webster" <J...@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:btrvv5$l5o$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Not growing food for animals you mean?
Zakhar
> > Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits
being
> > reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
>
> *** Well Duh! We are farmers. This is our business and life. This farmed
was
> converted from conventional to sustainable in 1982 and from sustainable to
> organic in 1993.
> We attend work shops, conventions, and expos. We attend classes
> every week all winter put on by the extension. My husband has a BS in
dairy
> science with a minor in crop and soils science. We both have a certificate
> in sustainable farming. We read industry publications and talk to other
> farmers all the time.
> So in reply to your condecending question YES! We have and do use
> green manure crops on our farm. I have personally planted crops for use as
> green manure. However I can see that you are an expert and know far more
> about the subject than I so why don't you tell us what you know?
I'm sure you know *everything* there is to know about farming in the past,
present and the future. Your arrogance is not surprising.
Dutch
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat,
> Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a
huge world-wide surplus of grain?
Dean Hoffman
Thompson" <pm...@mwt.net> wrote:
>
> *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil
> fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
I take it you mean sustainable without chemical fertilizers. There is
plenty of farm ground here in southeast Nebraska that is used for grain
production only.
Minimum and no till practices have lessened soil erosion. Crop rotation
between corn and soybeans has increased dramatically since the Freedom to
Farm Act and Roundup Ready soybeans came into being.
Some of the local cattle feeders run their cattle in the cornstalks. One
is thinking of stopping that practice. He thinks the compaction problems
caused by the cattle might outweigh the benefits of pasturing the stalks.
Dean
Jonathan Ball
She knows something about it, which is an infinite
amount more than you know.
> Your arrogance is not surprising.
That's a real laugh coming from you.
pearl
At a price.
'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace,
at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, ..'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
It is unsustainable.
The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro focused on the sustainability of the world's
natural resources and highlighted the need to link and balance
environmental stewardship,economic development, and community vitality.
Throughout the world, there are many instances where human-wrought
pressures have resulted in environmental degradation through processes
such as soil erosion and surface and ground water contamination.
United Nations Environmental Program, Desertification Control Bulletin 17,
1988, p.15.
http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/oce/sustainable-development/secmemo.htm
Natural resources are being degraded and depleted.
Excerpts from the REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)
14.34. Inappropriate and uncontrolled land uses are a major cause of
degradation and depletion of land resources. Present land use often
disregards the actual potentials, carrying capacities and limitations of
land resources, as well as their diversity in space. It is estimated that
the world's population, now at 5.4 billion, will be 6.25 billion by the
turn of the century. The need to increase food production to meet the
expanding needs of the population will put enormous pressure on all
natural resources, including land.
Exhausted soil is unproductive.
14.35. Poverty and malnutrition are already endemic in many regions.
The destruction and degradation of agricultural and environmental
resources is a major issue. Techniques for increasing production and
conserving soil and water resources are already available but are not
widely or systematically applied. A systematic approach is needed
for identifying land uses and production systems that are sustainable in
each land and climate zone, including the economic, social and
institutional mechanisms necessary for their implementation.
Productivity of huge areas of land is declining.
14.44. Land degradation is the most important environmental problem
affecting extensive areas of land in both developed and developing
countries. The problem of soil erosion is particularly acute in developing
countries, while problems of salinization, waterlogging, soil pollution and
loss of soil fertility are increasing in all countries. Land degradation is
serious because the productivity of huge areas of land is declining just
when populations are increasing rapidly and the demand on the land is
growing to produce more food, fibre and fuel. Efforts to control land
degradation, particularly in developing countries, have had limited
success to date. Well planned, long-term national and regional land
conservation and rehabilitation programmes, with strong political
support and adequate funding, are now needed. While land-use
planning and land zoning, combined with better land management,
should provide long-term solutions, it is urgent to arrest land
degradation and launch conservation and rehabilitation programmes
in the most critically affected and vulnerable areas.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:KSjMb.5733$zj7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
FOAD you dwarf.
pearl
by domestic livestock --' In addition, 'while about 10%
(3.7 billion acres) of the Earth's terrestrial surface is cropland,
nearly half of this land is used to grow food for livestock.'
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
Press Releases
January 08, 2004
State of the World 2004: Richer, Fatter, and Not Much Happier
RICHER, FATTER, AND NOT MUCH HAPPIER
Consumer appetite erodes quality of life for rich and poor,
reports State of the World 2004
Washington, D.C.裕he world is consuming goods and services
at an unsustainable pace, with serious consequences for the
well-being of people and the planet, reports the Worldwatch
Institute in its annual report, State of the World 2004.
Around 1.7 billion people worldwide洋ore than a quarter of
humanity揺ave entered the "consumer class," adopting the diets,
transportation systems, and lifestyles that were limited to the rich
nations of Europe, North America, and Japan during most of the
last century. In China alone, 240 million people have joined the
ranks of consumers預 number that will soon surpass that in the
United States.
"Rising consumption has helped meet basic needs and create jobs,"
says Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin. "But as
we enter a new century, this unprecedented consumer appetite is
undermining the natural systems we all depend on, and making it
even harder for the world's poor to meet their basic needs."
"Higher levels of obesity and personal debt, chronic time shortages,
and a degraded environment are all signs that excessive consumption
is diminishing the quality of life for many people. The challenge now
is to mobilize governments, businesses, and citizens to shift their
focus away from the unrestrained accumulation of goods and
toward finding ways to ensure a better life for all."
..
"It would be foolish to underestimate the challenge of checking
the consumption juggernaut," concludes Flavin. "But as the costs
of unbridled appetites grow, the need for innovative responses
becomes clearer. In the long run, meeting basic human needs,
improving human health, and supporting a natural world that can
sustain us will require that we control consumption, rather than
allow consumption to control us."
http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2004/01/08/
pearl
in Nairobi, Kenya. There, he quickly discovered that African
agricultural production lagged due to the extremely depleted nature
of the soil. Dr. Sanchez’ most enduring contribution to ending
world hunger has been his development of the means to replenish
crucial nutrients in exhausted soils, through the development and
promotion of agroforestry. This practice of planting trees on farms,
when combined with adding locally available rock phosphate to
the soil, has provided farmers in Africa with a way to fertilize
their soils inexpensively and naturally, without relying on costly
chemical fertilizers.
The 150,000 small scale farmers who are utilizing Dr. Sanchez’
methods are experiencing greatly increased yields, in some cases
200% to 400% above previous plantings. In response to this
success, ICRAF plans to help African farmers plant 5.5 billion
more trees over the next decade, the equivalent of another
tropical rainforest. ICRAF’s goal is to move 20 million people
out of poverty and remove more that 100 million tons of CO2
from the air with this project.'
Russ Thompson
> present and the future. Your arrogance is not surprising.
*** You didn't ask about "everything" You asked about green manure crops.
Not exactly a new idea.
I take it from your refusal to address my invitation that you know
little or nothing about agriculture.
Your willingness you tell professionals their business while knowing
nothing of the subject yourself is not surprising.
Have you walked in fields that grew green manure crops? Have you
planted crops in those fields and seen the results yourself? Have you ever
plowed down a crop of sweet clover (a common green manure crop) and observed
the results? I have done all these thing and more. As I said this is our
business.
Offbreed
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:1003ha1...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>>
>>
>>>U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat,
>>>Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists
>>>http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
>>
>>yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a
>>huge world-wide surplus of grain?
>
>
> At a price.
"At a price" sums it up.
Food is not getting to people who need it because they cannot pay the
price. Or, as is the case in some parts of Africa, because the people
in power are using famine as a means of committing genocide or selling
it for money. (Mugabe and his supporters are diverting the grain meant
for the starving masses and selling it on the market.)
How much food do we need to grow and give to Mugabe before he stops
selling it instead of allowing it to get to the people who need it?
pearl
Vegan-organics is, briefly, any system of cultivation that avoids artificial
chemicals and sprays, GMOs, livestock manures and animal remains
from slaughterhouses or fish processing etc. Alternatively, fertility is
maintained by vegetable composts, green manures, crop rotation,
mulches, and any other method that is sustainable, ecologically viable
and not dependent upon animal exploitation. This will ensure long-term
fertility, and wholesome food for this and future generations.
..
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/people/lifestyle/home_and_garden/veganic_gardening.php
IS IT TIME FOR A PLANT-BASED AGRICULTURE?
..
Soil fertility does not originate from animals; it comes from plants
at the bottom of the food chain. Nor does human nutrition originate
from animals. When non-vegetarians eat flesh, they obtain nutrients
that come from whatever that animal was fed. Obtaining nutrients in
this manner is not only unhealthy, but also an inefficient utilization of
energy and resources. Meat, for example, contains absolutely none
of the beneficial fiber from the animat's diet, and its protein level is
too high. Likewise, when grass is "filtered" through a cow, most of
its nitrogen is lost in its urine.
Bonsall explained that if you take grass that could go to feed a cow
and instead put it directly into your compost pile, then you can get
all the nitrogen you need, in addition to other nutrients not even
found in manure. Using the grass yields more organic matter than
manure, and subsequently more fertilizer. Tapping fertility at its
source is simply a more efficient way to obtain nutrients. ..'
http://www.navs-online.org/voice/plant.html
A GOOD COMPOST IS AT THE HEART OF VEGANICS
..
http://www.navs-online.org/voice/compost.html
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:1003ha1...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >>
> >>>U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat,
> >>>Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists
> >>>http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
> >>
> >>yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a
> >>huge world-wide surplus of grain?
> >
> > At a price.
>
> "At a price" sums it up.
>
> Food is not getting to people who need it because they cannot pay the
> price. Or, as is the case in some parts of Africa, because the people
> in power are using famine as a means of committing genocide or selling
> it for money. (Mugabe and his supporters are diverting the grain meant
> for the starving masses and selling it on the market.)
Not just that degenerate psycho either.
'Today, production of livestock and livestock feed for the world
market is supplanting the production of staple foods in many developing
countries.
In Mexico, for example, where millions of people are chronically
under-nourished, one third of the grain produced is fed to livestock. In
Brazil, where 23 percent of the cultivated land is now being used to
grow soybeans -- half of which is destined for export for livestock feed
-- less land is available to grow corn and black beans, staples of the
Brazilian peasant diet. The result has been less food at higher prices
for an increasingly hungry and impoverished population.
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html
> How much food do we need to grow and give to Mugabe before he stops
> selling it instead of allowing it to get to the people who need it?
Well, maybe if the demand for grain wasn't so high he'd have no incentive.
Jonathan Ball
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:1003ha1...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>>
>>
>>>U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat,
No, they couldn't. Most of the grain fed to livestock
is not edible by humans. This is a settled issue.
The *resources* used to grow the grain eaten by
livestock could instead be devoted to growing food for
people, but that demands the question be asked: why
aren't the resources being used for that right now?
Could it be...that the people who eat meat are willing
to pay more for the grain as livestock feed than
so-called "starving" people are willing to pay for the
same resources?
>>>Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists
>>>http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
>>
>>yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a
>>huge world-wide surplus of grain?
>
>
> At a price.
Of course "at a price", you FUCKING moron. The people
who have the food grew it using resources that cost
them money. They are not in the habit of giving away
the goods they produce.
Fundamentally, you don't understand the so-called
"hunger" issue.
Dutch
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:btsj2n$fqq$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1003ha1...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >
> > > U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat,
> > > Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists
> > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
> >
> > yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already
exists a
> > huge world-wide surplus of grain?
>
> At a price.
>
> 'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
You didn't answer the question. What does it matter how many people all that
grain could feed? People don't want to eat just grain, otherwise there would
not be such a large surplus of the stuff now. The statement is just pure
rhetoric.
ta
> but I'm actually more interested in the
> > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question,
> no
> > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> > your input.
>
> *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil
> fertility.
Would the replacement of animal operations with small-scale
sustainable, organic operations prevent the soil erosion problems
experienced with larger, industrial agriculture operations?
> Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
Do you have a reference on that? Thanks.
ta
> ta wrote:
>
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the
> > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good
> > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
>
>
> I think we need to refine the question. First, are we talking about
> eliminating the species which we now use as "farm" animals, or are we
> talking about creating a space where members of those species could
> survive as wild animals, but humans would no longer use them as
> domesticated animals?
My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be
re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
> Second, are we talking about removing only one
> part of the situation -- just animals -- or a major social change
> where humans also develop a different worldview and act to control their
> own population growth and ecological devastation?
Ideally, the latter is my assumption.
> Third, as I'm sure
> you know, not all land used for animal "production" can be used for
> production of non-animal foodstuffs. Certainly, a large amount of it
> could be, but not all.
Right.
> We'd also have to discuss the question of
> fertilizer for non-animal crops,
Are animal products absolutely required for fertilizer?
> and whether a society without farm
> animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence
> and organic, sustainable agriculture,
Yes, assume that.
> or whether such a society would
> still depend, or depend even more, on massive chemical and artificial
> food production -- are we envisioning many small, organic farms
> fertilized with guano or buffalo chips, or are we talking about huge,
> power-intensive hydroponic farms in giant buildings, and vegetable
> equivalents of current factory farms?
I am envisioning the replacement of large-scale, industrial animal
production facilities with many small, organic, sustainable farms.
(this is a hypothetical question so I'm allowed to imagine here).
> There are all sorts of possibilities, depending on which way human
> society went before and after the elimination of farm animals.
>
> But it's a fascinating question. Thanks.
>
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
> > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the
> > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no
> > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> > your input.
>
> Rat
ta
> ta wrote:
>
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the
> > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good
> > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
>
> > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the
> > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no
> > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> > your input.
>
> on farm animals for production. The most recent one I
> ran into was a contrasting medium allowing an echo
> cardiogram to "see" parts of the heart of interest.
>
> It requires eggs as a medium in the creation process.
Thanks for the input. On the other hand, these methods were developed
by a society that presumably thinks it's OK to use animals as
resources, so I'm wondering what other alternatives we might have
developed if we did not hold that view. In other words, could humans,
as extremely intelligent, resourceful creatures, have developed
alternative means for maintaining our health, or perhaps more
importantly, *can we* in the future. But you certainly bring up a
valid point - the use of animals in "health care" is pervasive, and
removing animals from the equation would present some serious
challenges, to say the least.
ta
> "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
> > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be
> the
> > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both
> good
> > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
>
> closely at all, and I find that rather ironic considering that is exactly
> what animal rights activists and vegans are proposing, don't you?
Let's be fair. *Some* AR activists and vegans advocate that. *Most*
ARs and vegans are concerned with cruelty issues first and foremost.
Everyone knows that animal products are not going to disappear
overnight. However, it certainly does warrant understanding the
ramifications if one is to propose such an ideal.
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
> > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the
> > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question,
> no
> > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
> > your input.
>
> Look at the fundamental energy equation. The human race is sustained by
> calories from plant material, including plant material cycled through
> animals. Right now that includes virtually every plant on the face of the
> earth, grasses that grow on hillsides and dry prairie are used for grazing,
> hay is grown on marginal land, grains that do not meet human standards are
> fed to animals, by-products from plant products like oils are all fed to
> animals as mash. Plants grown for animal feed such as corn, are 100%
> utilized. All of these sources would be lost. So, say as a race we consume
> 100 trillion calories per month (or whatever), we would have to find a way
> replace all those calories through agriculture. The massive factory farms
> that would be needed would dwarf anything we see today
If it were a sudden, revolutionary change as I proposed, I'd certainly
agree. A gradual, evolutionary change might yield different results
though.
> Also large areas of the world lack the climate and conditions to sustain
> themselves through plant agriculture. The task of bringing food to these
> people alone would be monumental.
Yes, distribution seems to be one of the key stumbling blocks in
finding alternatives to these huge industrial operations.
> The rational answer is that we need a mixed solution, utilizing resources
> from every possible source, such as we have now. The answer to the problems
> within the system lie in reform and education, not radical quasi-politics.
I think reality dictates that any changes would happen gradually over
time. I'm just trying to anticipate what the obstacles are.
ta
Yes, I certainly don't see why, in the long term, the discontinuation
of animal farming would not significantly *increase* the amount of
food available world wide, assuming of course that the land is farmed
sustainably. Distribution is certainly a major consideration, but from
a sheer standpoint of available food, I don't see how it could be a
bad thing over the long haul.
pearl
Dean Hoffman
c5c0e6e6.04011...@posting.google.com, "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Some, uh, stuff cut.
> Yes, I certainly don't see why, in the long term, the discontinuation
> of animal farming would not significantly *increase* the amount of
> food available world wide, assuming of course that the land is farmed
> sustainably. Distribution is certainly a major consideration, but from
> a sheer standpoint of available food, I don't see how it could be a
> bad thing over the long haul.
This might be something to think about. Something like 20% of the
American food dollar goes to the farmer. So 80% of the consumer food cost
is for other things besides the cost of the raw materials in food.
The link below is to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website. One of
the links on that page will show prices for food items broken down as
consumer cost and farm gate value.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/foodpricespreads/bill/
Dean
rick etter
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<btsj2n$fqq$1...@kermit.esat.net>...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1003ha1...@news.supernews.com...
> > >
snippage..
> Yes, I certainly don't see why, in the long term, the discontinuation
> of animal farming would not significantly *increase* the amount of
> food available world wide, assuming of course that the land is farmed
> sustainably. Distribution is certainly a major consideration, but from
> a sheer standpoint of available food, I don't see how it could be a
> bad thing over the long haul.
==================
So, you don't see how growing even more foods that will just go to waste
with all the rest that does now cannot be a bad thing?
I thought you guys were against massive farming? And here you are calling
for more farming and all the environamnetal damge that that entails, even in
organic or sustainable, just to let even more excess go to waste.
ummm.. not sure you're all that right...
Fran
> On 1/11/04 8:57 AM, in article 40016...@corp.newsgroups.com, "Russ
> Thompson" <pm...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and
soil
> > fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
>
> I take it you mean sustainable without chemical fertilizers.
How do you translate Farm animals into chemical fertilizers? Farm animals
to traditional (or organic) fertilizers I could understand but chemical
fertilizers???????
Jim Webster
> VEGAN-ORGANICS - THE BASICS
>
good old pearl, lecture a practicing organic farmer on organic production
Jim Webster
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >
> > > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for
animal
> > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would
be
> > the
> > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences
(both
> > good
> > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> >
> > That is an excellent question. I don't think the idea has been examined
> > closely at all, and I find that rather ironic considering that is
exactly
> > what animal rights activists and vegans are proposing, don't you?
>
> Let's be fair. *Some* AR activists and vegans advocate that. *Most*
> ARs and vegans are concerned with cruelty issues first and foremost.
> Everyone knows that animal products are not going to disappear
> overnight. However, it certainly does warrant understanding the
> ramifications if one is to propose such an ideal.
Good idea, but as Tom Regan put it, "We must do what is right, though the
heavens fall." That's the "leader" of the modern AR movement.
The dilemma would still remain, population X and growing, demanding Y
calories and growing, to be fed by an ever shrinking number of sources of
calories.
> > Also large areas of the world lack the climate and conditions to sustain
> > themselves through plant agriculture. The task of bringing food to these
> > people alone would be monumental.
>
> Yes, distribution seems to be one of the key stumbling blocks in
> finding alternatives to these huge industrial operations.
>
> > The rational answer is that we need a mixed solution, utilizing
resources
> > from every possible source, such as we have now. The answer to the
problems
> > within the system lie in reform and education, not radical
quasi-politics.
>
> I think reality dictates that any changes would happen gradually over
> time. I'm just trying to anticipate what the obstacles are.
Economic disaster and starvation on an unprecedented scale. I think it would
make an excellent theme for a sci-fi novel.
Rat & Swan
Dutch wrote:
<snip>
> Economic disaster and starvation on an unprecedented scale. I think it would
> make an excellent theme for a sci-fi novel.
A SF novel on the opposite senario -- the sudden devastation of all
grass-type grain crops due to a virulent new strain of blight --
has already been written as _No Blade Of Grass_. An equally interesting
novel on the sudden wiping-out of most of humanity and its ecological
impact has been written as _Earth Abides_. Two novels of the impact
of massive human overpopulation and the elimination of most non-human
animals are _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ and _Caves of Steel_.
There were a whole flood of SF novels on ecological themes during the
1970s, and they continue to be written ever since. Most of them tend to
be dystopian, since that makes for a more interesting story, but a
number of stories set on alien world present positive views of
non-animal-based or small-scale organic human ecologies.
Rat
pearl
That good ole practicing 'organic farmer' spreads ag'chem' saturated muck
from a conventional industrial livestock operation on her fields, jim.
"Russ Thompson" <pm...@mwt.net> wrote in message news:3ffeb...@corp.newsgroups.com...
[..]
Organic farms can use manure from anywhere. Since we discontinued
sustainable farming and went organic we have ben getting hog manure from a
large total confinment hog farm near here to fertilize the grain crops.
Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, WI
--end--
Blood and bone-meal as well, Kala?
Rat & Swan
ta wrote:
> Rat & Swan <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message news:<btph59$phk$1...@reader2.nmix.net>...
>>ta wrote:
>>>from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
>>>production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the
>>>short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good
>>>and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
I think the most important thing is to recognize that any major change
in ecology and food-production can go either way -- it can be a
change for the vastly better or vastly worse depending on how it comes
about. Ecology is always a tricky subject, and each change has so many
possible side-effects that it is impossible to say exactly what the
total effect of any change will be before it comes about. Most single
ecological changes _tend_ to have negative results, both because the
obvious effects aren't considered -- what will the introduction of a
new species in an area where it has no natural checks do? -- and
because we can't see the less-obvious effects, such as the spread of
a disease from a domestic species to a closely-related wild species
or vice versa -- AIDS in humans, brucillosis in bison, scrappie in
cattle and humans as "mad-cow disease", various strains of flu, etc --
and so on. Often, we don't even recognize the negative effects after
they become ingrained in a society: the nutritional defects caused
by dependence on one or two major sources of food (the corn-and-beans
diet of the Ancestral Puebloans, the degradation of the status of women
created by a change from farming to herding cultures in ancient Europe).
That's not to say that results of a major change cannot be positive.
I think the most important factors are a determination to do what
is right, and a holistic view of what the good society is.
<snip>
>>I think we need to refine the question. First, are we talking about
>>eliminating the species which we now use as "farm" animals, or are we
>>talking about creating a space where members of those species could
>>survive as wild animals, but humans would no longer use them as
>>domesticated animals?
> My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be
> re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very
good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and
natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a
good idea.
>>Second, are we talking about removing only one
>>part of the situation -- just animals -- or a major social change
>>where humans also develop a different worldview and act to control their
>>own population growth and ecological devastation?
> Ideally, the latter is my assumption.
All good, IMO.
>>Third, as I'm sure
>>you know, not all land used for animal "production" can be used for
>>production of non-animal foodstuffs. Certainly, a large amount of it
>>could be, but not all.
> Right.
Again, reducing human population would be critical to success.
I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of
re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now.
There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild
areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways
they did it. Think of such traditional activities as gathering
pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not
suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology
was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it,
but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology.
>>We'd also have to discuss the question of
>>fertilizer for non-animal crops,
> Are animal products absolutely required for fertilizer?
No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their
effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly
be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for
food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India.
Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil --
couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill
disease organisms. We're animals, too.
>>and whether a society without farm
>>animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence
>>and organic, sustainable agriculture,
> Yes, assume that.
It's ALL good. :)
Rat
<snip>
Michael Saunby
>
> > My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be
> > re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
>
Doesn't it ring alarm bells when you consider that the wild ancestors of
domesticated animals are not very common? When did you last see a wild
cow, or a wild sheep, or even a wild dog or cat? These species owe their
very existence to domestication. You complain about exploitation but then
seem quite content to discard entire species when you alone feel you no
longer have a use for them. Not very ethical.
> Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very
> good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and
> natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a
> good idea.
>
It seems that vegetarian apes generally have very small populations anyway,
and always have done. Perhaps non apes on the planet might be better of
with all non-vegetarian apes being removed. But is it your choice to make?
Best decide soon though before all the non human apes have gone, or there
will be none.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3383425.stm
"Orang-utans 'may die out by 2025'..."
...
> Again, reducing human population would be critical to success.
> I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of
> re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now.
I could agree with this. I would fully support any proposal that people
may only purchase a proportion of their food, thuse ensuring that everyone
takes the trouble to learn how to forage, to cultivate, to store, to cook,
to fish, to hunt, etc.
> There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild
> areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways
> they did it.
Indeed. Though most who do so at present will also take meat, eggs, etc.
as members of our species, and related species always have done.
> Think of such traditional activities as gathering
> pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not
> suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology
> was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it,
> but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology.
Or traditional european activities such as hunting deer and boar.
.....
It's all good food :-))
Michael Saunby
Jonathan Ball
>
>
> ta wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
>> news:<btph59$phk$1...@reader2.nmix.net>...
>
>
>>> ta wrote:
>
>
>>>> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for
>>>> animal
>>>> production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would
>>>> be the
>>>> short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences
>>>> (both good
>>>> and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
>
>
> ...Ecology is always a tricky subject
It completely flummoxes YOU. You don't know anything
about it, and don't care to learn.
> Again, reducing human population would be critical to success.
> I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of
> re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now.
> There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild
> areas
There is no valid reason you can't get your fat ass the
hell out of trendy urban areas and into the wild areas
RIGHT NOW.
ipse dixit
>"Rat & Swan" <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message news:btuiaf$kh2$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
>>
>> > My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be
>> > re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
>>
>
>Doesn't it ring alarm bells when you consider that the wild ancestors of
>domesticated animals are not very common? When did you last see a wild
>cow, or a wild sheep, or even a wild dog or cat? These species owe their
>very existence to domestication.
Thank you for your demonstration in the belief
of the logic of the larder, Saunby. I knew it
anyway.
"No. Before you got here, there was one other
person, also a lying moron, who claimed to
believe that animals' "getting to experience life"
was something that *ought* to happen, because
she saw it as a good thing in and of itself."
Jonathan Ball 2001-10-31
Russ Thompson
> from a conventional industrial livestock operation on her fields, jim.
*** That's what organic is. I do not understand why it is that vegans and
other consumers of organic crops are willing to pay more for such food and
not willing to pay more for sustainably raised food but that's the way it
is.
FWIW We do not spread hog manure on our farm. Only on rented land
that does not join our farm and in a few years will have houses on it. On
our farm we spread the winter manure from the dairy herd, our small herd of
steers, a few hogs, and the heifers.
Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, WI
Russ Thompson
> sustainable, organic operations
*** Pick one. I would say yes the sustainabvle and no to organic.
prevent the soil erosion problems
> experienced with larger, industrial agriculture operations?
*** Soil erosion problems are not a factor of how large a farm is. It is a
matter of what crops are raised and how they are raised. If you want to
build soil organic matter without the use of chemical herbacides then you
need to grow sod forming crops. That is how much of our best farm land was
created in the first place. Permant grass land grazed by animals.
For sustainabiliety you need long crop rotations including sod forming
forages.
> > Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
>
> Do you have a reference on that? Thanks.
*** No I do not have a reference as in a web site I could point you to. I
have my notes and lecture hand outs. I am sure it is out there but I have't
tried to look.
www.eatwild.com has some stuff on pasture being good for the
enviroment.
There is also what we have seen on this farm since it was first started
as a wheat farm in 1903.
Kala
Russ Thompson
> per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace,
> at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
> exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, ..'
*** The problem with articals like this is that the author assumes a certain
amount of agricultural background in the reader. Sort of like how medical
jornals do not explain what a stethascope is when they mention it in the
artical as they assume that the readers will know.
People who are ignorant of agriculture read these articals and leap to
the wrong conclusion due to their lack of backgroud info.
The U of Wisconsin has found that land under controlled grazing
actually builds soil rather than erodes it.
How many tons of soild would be eroded from that same land if the
grain grown was fed to people instead of animals?
Jonathan Ball
>>Would the replacement of animal operations with small-scale
>>sustainable, organic operations
>
>
> *** Pick one. I would say yes the sustainabvle and no to organic.
I have a general idea of what "organic" farming is, as
there is a legal definition to "organic" produce in the
U.S. What do you mean by "sustainable", and how does
it differ from organic?
FWIW, the criminally-convicted prostitute Lesley, who
posts under the goofy "pearl" pseudonym, has claimed in
the past that "sustainable" farming in the UK means the
same thing as "organic" farming in the U.S. I
seriously doubt she knows what she's talking about on
either count, but I thought I'd at least throw it out
there. Maybe one of the other, *knowledgeable* UK
posters - that lets Lesley out - could elaborate on the
terminological issue.
pearl
news:2TDMb.6789$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
You're a dirty liar, and I want to make that plainly known.
..
You have nothing, you are nothing and you'll never be anything. Not
because you are not like the rest of us, prepared to try, try and try
again to succeed, but because you seek to drag everyone into the same
gutter you have built for yourself, and you refuse to drag yourself
out. Now that is how low you have become, in reality. This is the only
life you know, self abuse, the only way to get people to talk to you
is to abuse them, given a choice we would just pass you by and leave
you in the gutter where you belong, and obviously were born.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
pearl
> > 'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
> > per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace,
> > at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
> > exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, ..'
>
> The U of Wisconsin has found that land under controlled grazing
> actually builds soil rather than erodes it.
Why isn't such 'controlled grazing' widely practiced then?
> How many tons of soild would be eroded from that same land if the
> grain grown was fed to people instead of animals?
Have you 800 million people to feed with the grain grown on that land?
drdoody
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:btv8rm$ci3$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>
>
Ho-Lee Kee-Rist! Please, *please* tell me you didn't create that... for lack
of a better term, *thing*. An entire website full of kooky, barely coherent
ranting devoted to one singular person you've had a beef with on Usenet? Do
you realize just how incredibly nuts that little display makes you look?
Usenet is virtual, not real. Why not reserve your obviously engorged
reservoir of hatred for something that matters?
Yeah, Ball... you were right. Schwartz and pearl are seeing pretty much
eye-to-eye.
Doc
--
"I'm at peace
with my lust.
I can kill because in God I trust.
It's Evolution, baby."
Pearl Jam "Do the Evolution"
pearl
news:%NFMb.3732$566....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> "I'm at peace
> with my lust.
> I can kill because in God I trust.
> It's Evolution, baby."
Sad doody. <plonk>
drdoody
--
"I'm at peace
with my lust.
I can kill because in God I trust.
It's Evolution, baby."
Pearl Jam "Do the Evolution"
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:btva5d$cut$1...@kermit.esat.net...
Actually, I didn't write that. They're song lyrics. Secondly, do you
honestly think that the opinion or attention of a half-baked lunatic means
all that much to me?
"Sad"? I'm not the one spending obviously enormous amounts of time and
effort creating a web page devoted to a single person I've never met.
Doc
Rat & Swan
Michael Saunby wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
> news:btuiaf$kh2$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
>>>My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be
>>>re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
> Doesn't it ring alarm bells when you consider that the wild ancestors of
> domesticated animals are not very common?
Well, the wild ancestors of domestic plants aren't very common, either.
One occasionally finds remnants like the small cobs of corn (maize)
which were the ancestors of domestic corn in some areas. Humans tend to
create large-scale monocultures of their crops, plant or animal.
Gathering cultures or hunting cultures tend to have more diverse diets.
> When did you last see a wild
> cow, or a wild sheep, or even a wild dog or cat?
Depending on the environment, they can be very successful. The coyote
is an example of a wild canid which has increased its range dramatically
by responding to human settlement and human elimination of larger
predators like wolves.
> These species owe their
> very existence to domestication. You complain about exploitation but then
> seem quite content to discard entire species when you alone feel you no
> longer have a use for them. Not very ethical.
I'm not talking about "discarding" any species out of hand. However, I
don't think any species has any particular value in and of itself. If
there is an ecological diversity, so that the ecology is relatively
healthy and stable, any combination of species is good, as far as I can
see. I'm concerned about individual animals, and ecologies as a whole,
not about species survival _per se_. Species evolve and go extinct all
the time. I do not feel great sorrow over the loss of the dinosaurs,
although they are interesting to study.
>>Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very
>>good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and
>>natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a
>>good idea.
> It seems that vegetarian apes generally have very small populations anyway,
> and always have done. Perhaps non apes on the planet might be better of
> with all non-vegetarian apes being removed. But is it your choice to make?
No, of course not. But humans create their own cultures, and can
live without farming animals, even if not without gathering animal
food (such as eggs of wild birds or wild honey,perhaps).
> Best decide soon though before all the non human apes have gone, or there
> will be none.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3383425.stm
> "Orang-utans 'may die out by 2025'..."
>>Again, reducing human population would be critical to success.
>>I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of
>>re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now.
> I could agree with this. I would fully support any proposal that people
> may only purchase a proportion of their food, thuse ensuring that everyone
> takes the trouble to learn how to forage, to cultivate, to store, to cook,
> to fish, to hunt, etc.
No reason why that would not be a good idea.
>>There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild
>>areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways
>>they did it.
> Indeed. Though most who do so at present will also take meat, eggs, etc.
> as members of our species, and related species always have done.
Yes, as of now, certainly.
>> Think of such traditional activities as gathering
>>pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not
>>suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology
>>was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it,
>>but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology.
> Or traditional european activities such as hunting deer and boar.
Yes, if one is talking about an omnivorous culture.
Better a hunting culture than a factory-farming one, at least.
Rat
Dean Hoffman
400214bd$0$1739$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au, "Fran"
<ma...@takethisbitoutwebone.com.au> wrote:
I'm real glad you asked that. I don't have the foggiest idea.
How about agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable without
chemical fertilizers?
Dean
Dean Hoffman
<lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote:
Some cut.
> No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their
> effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly
> be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for
> food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India.
> Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil --
> couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill
> disease organisms. We're animals, too.
More cut.
It comes down to ease of application and money. There's a little bit of
information here:
http://manure.unl.edu/v3n5_97.html
Note that a ton of sludge yields under 4# of nitrogen. It takes roughly
1# of N to produce a bushel of corn. Yields of 200 bu./acre aren't that
unusual anymore on irrigated farms. I think the U.S. average yield is about
130 bu./acre.
Why do you think chemical fertilizers aren't as good as manure etc.?
ta
I hear you, but how can one do what is right without a reasonable
understanding of the consequences of the decision?
> <snip>
>
> >>I think we need to refine the question. First, are we talking about
> >>eliminating the species which we now use as "farm" animals, or are we
> >>talking about creating a space where members of those species could
> >>survive as wild animals, but humans would no longer use them as
> >>domesticated animals?
>
> > My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be
> > re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
>
> Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very
> good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and
> natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a
> good idea.
The basic drive in all animals is to propagate, so population control
is a sticky subject. You would think that we humans, given we are the
only species who can actually contemplate, and hopefully anticipate,
our own demise, would have a leg up, but it doesn't appear that way to
me. Perhaps we are too adaptive for our own good.
> >>Second, are we talking about removing only one
> >>part of the situation -- just animals -- or a major social change
> >>where humans also develop a different worldview and act to control their
> >>own population growth and ecological devastation?
>
> > Ideally, the latter is my assumption.
>
> All good, IMO.
>
> >>Third, as I'm sure
> >>you know, not all land used for animal "production" can be used for
> >>production of non-animal foodstuffs. Certainly, a large amount of it
> >>could be, but not all.
>
> > Right.
>
> Again, reducing human population would be critical to success.
> I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of
> re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now.
> There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild
> areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways
> they did it. Think of such traditional activities as gathering
> pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not
> suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology
> was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it,
> but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology.
I've made the suggestion before that we ought to be moving toward a
more primitive model of civilization in some ways, more akin to the
foraging/hunting/gathering societies . . . at which I'm usually met
with guffaws and chants of "luddite"! :-) I think we need to
seriously consider such things, though I'm afraid it may happen too
late.
> >>We'd also have to discuss the question of
> >>fertilizer for non-animal crops,
>
> > Are animal products absolutely required for fertilizer?
>
> No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their
> effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly
> be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for
> food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India.
> Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil --
> couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill
> disease organisms. We're animals, too.
>
> >>and whether a society without farm
> >>animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence
> >>and organic, sustainable agriculture,
>
> > Yes, assume that.
>
> It's ALL good. :)
Indeed.
> Rat
> <snip>
ta
I think population control is critical - mother nature may take care
of that problem for us shortly anyway. Despite that, there is enough
food to feed the world currently, so eliminating the ineffeciences
associated with meat eating would be a major step in the right
direction. And of course all this depends on using wiser, more
sustainable farming methods, as "Rat" pointed out.
> > > Also large areas of the world lack the climate and conditions to sustain
> > > themselves through plant agriculture. The task of bringing food to these
> > > people alone would be monumental.
> >
> > Yes, distribution seems to be one of the key stumbling blocks in
> > finding alternatives to these huge industrial operations.
> >
> > > The rational answer is that we need a mixed solution, utilizing
> resources
> > > from every possible source, such as we have now. The answer to the
> problems
> > > within the system lie in reform and education, not radical
> quasi-politics.
> >
> > I think reality dictates that any changes would happen gradually over
> > time. I'm just trying to anticipate what the obstacles are.
>
> Economic disaster and starvation on an unprecedented scale. I think it would
> make an excellent theme for a sci-fi novel.
Economic disaster and mass starvation are imminent anyway, given our
current direction. Fundamentally changing our views about the natural
world is necesssary to prevent that scenario.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:2TDMb.6789$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
Stick to the issues, will you?
Jonathan Ball
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:btv8rm$ci3$1...@kermit.esat.net...
>
>
>>http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Ho-Lee Kee-Rist! Please, *please* tell me you didn't create that... for lack
> of a better term, *thing*. An entire website full of kooky, barely coherent
> ranting devoted to one singular person you've had a beef with on Usenet?
Is that unbelievable, or what? I mean, I can't even
get angry over that. It's the most slap-dash,
amateurish, WEIRD hate page I've ever seen.
> Do you realize just how incredibly nuts that little display makes you look?
Sad to say, I don't think there's any way she COULD
realize how stupid it makes her look. That's one of
the problems she's experiencing from letting her
syphilis go untreated for so long.
> Usenet is virtual, not real. Why not reserve your obviously engorged
> reservoir of hatred for something that matters?
>
> Yeah, Ball... you were right. Schwartz and pearl are seeing pretty much
> eye-to-eye.
Well, without more exposure to Schwartz, I couldn't say
for sure. All I know is that Lesley is one seriously
addled slut.
Bob Yates
>
> Well, the wild ancestors of domestic plants aren't very common, either.
> One occasionally finds remnants like the small cobs of corn (maize)
> which were the ancestors of domestic corn in some areas. Humans tend to
> create large-scale monocultures of their crops, plant or animal.
> Gathering cultures or hunting cultures tend to have more diverse diets.
>
different.
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news260.htm
Other mistakes also, but I am getting tired
Rat & Swan
Yes, that was the ancestor I was thinking of. I remember reading about
the discovery -- sorry if I got it a bit muddled in memory.
<snip>
Rat
Russ Thompson
> production facilities with many small, organic, sustainable farms.
*** You can't have both. Pick one sustainable or organic.
Kala
Thighbone Lee Jackson
wrote:
>> I am envisioning the replacement of large-scale, industrial animal
>> production facilities with many small, organic, sustainable farms.
>
>*** You can't have both. Pick one sustainable or organic.
Prat.
**********************************************
'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me
If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.
And I'm keeping the bloody lot.
So sue me.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
Newsgroup ettiquette
1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard bastard when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.
---------------------------------------
"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"
"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.
Rat & Swan
Dean Hoffman wrote:
> On 1/12/04 10:18 AM, in article btuiaf$kh2$1...@reader2.nmix.net, "Rat & Swan"
> <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote:
> Some cut.
>>No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their
>>effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly
>>be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for
>>food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India.
>>Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil --
>>couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill
>>disease organisms. We're animals, too.
> More cut.
> It comes down to ease of application and money. There's a little bit of
> information here:
> http://manure.unl.edu/v3n5_97.html
> Note that a ton of sludge yields under 4# of nitrogen. It takes roughly
> 1# of N to produce a bushel of corn. Yields of 200 bu./acre aren't that
> unusual anymore on irrigated farms. I think the U.S. average yield is about
> 130 bu./acre.
> Why do you think chemical fertilizers aren't as good as manure etc.?
Thanks for the information. I guess I'm thinking mainly about low-tech,
local, sustainable solutions which don't require much transportation.
One thing for sure, manure is a renewable resource and available locally
everywhere.
Rat
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>Dean Hoffman wrote:
>> Note that a ton of sludge yields under 4# of nitrogen. It takes roughly
>> 1# of N to produce a bushel of corn. Yields of 200 bu./acre aren't that
>> unusual anymore on irrigated farms. I think the U.S. average yield is about
>> 130 bu./acre.
>> Why do you think chemical fertilizers aren't as good as manure etc.?
>
>
>Thanks for the information. I guess I'm thinking mainly about low-tech,
>local, sustainable solutions which don't require much transportation.
>One thing for sure, manure is a renewable resource and available locally
>everywhere.
It is curious how often one meets the misconception that chemical
N-fertilizer and nitrogen in manure are alternative sources of
nitrogen for agricultural use.
Fran
> "Fran" <ma...@takethisbitoutwebone.com.au> wrote:
> > "Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
> >> "Russ Thompson" <pm...@mwt.net> wrote:
> >>> *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and
> > soil
> >>> fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
> >>
> >> I take it you mean sustainable without chemical fertilizers.
> >
> > How do you translate Farm animals into chemical fertilizers? Farm
animals
> > to traditional (or organic) fertilizers I could understand but chemical
> > fertilizers???????
>
> I'm real glad you asked that. I don't have the foggiest idea.
A most refreshing admission :-))
> How about agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable without
> chemical fertilizers?
Agreed that it isn't sustainable, but it may unsustainable over a very long
time span. I don't think that any production that exports the products from
where it is grown/produced can ever be considered "sustainable". It is
mining, but then given how long humans tend to class as a "sustainable"
period we could have a long discussion about what is, or isn't, considered
sustainable.
Fran
> Thanks for the information. I guess I'm thinking mainly about low-tech,
> local, sustainable solutions which don't require much transportation.
> One thing for sure, manure is a renewable resource and available locally
> everywhere.
A quibbleable statement. Manure is indeed a renewable resource but the
matter that makes up the manure must still come from somewhere. The "where"
is vital in considering whether you have sustainability.
dh...@nomail.com
>from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
>production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the
>short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good
>and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
>
>I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
>(starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the
>long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no
>one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for
>your input.
Look at all these things which contain by-products from farm animals:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze
http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid
http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC
http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings
http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Do you believe there are or could be vegan alternatives to all of them?
Rudy Canoza
>>> Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits
> being
>>> reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
>> *** Well Duh! We are farmers. This is our business and life. This farmed
> was
>> converted from conventional to sustainable in 1982 and from sustainable to
>> organic in 1993.
>> We attend work shops, conventions, and expos. We attend classes
>> every week all winter put on by the extension. My husband has a BS in
> dairy
>> science with a minor in crop and soils science. We both have a certificate
>> in sustainable farming. We read industry publications and talk to other
>> farmers all the time.
>> So in reply to your condecending question YES! We have and do use
>> green manure crops on our farm. I have personally planted crops for use as
>> green manure. However I can see that you are an expert and know far more
>> about the subject than I so why don't you tell us what you know?
>
> I'm sure you know *everything* there is to know about farming in the past,
> present and the future.
He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.