Re: Kill It, Cook It, Eat It
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:a3ngv2trkai2goovh...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:45:07 -0000, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:jif9v2l38vprf2em3...@4ax.com...
>> >> He did point out that *most* of the deaths are not obvious, like
>> >> those which occur because of the draining. He then went on to
>> >> describe the ones you can see, with the frogs and lizards and
>> >> toads etc which DO survive the draining and *icides, etc. Didn't
>> >> he also include the deaths of those who survive all of it including
>> >> the harvest, and are then picked off by predators because they
>> >> have no shelter left? I'm pretty sure he included them too.
>> >
>> >Who did? Show us some real EVIDENCE for such deaths,
>> >
>> >> >Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths.
>> >>
>> >> Plenty of them.
>> >
>> >EVIDENCE?
>>
>> Rice farmers have told us that there are.
>
>Show us. Start by proving that 'diderot' is a rice farmer.
I believe what he said about that, and have no reason not
to. Whether or not you believe it is based entirely on what you
WANT to believe, and nothing else. Your inability to think things
through allows you to believe whatever you want apparently,
by allowing you to stop thinking at any point where the facts are
not to your liking. Putting it all together like this really does clear
up a lot of questions I've had about you people, and whether
or not you could possibly, honestly believe some of the things you
claim to. Thanks for that.
>> >> >However,
>> >> >the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
>> >> >the road kill on a mile of highway.
>> >>
>> >> Even if that were true it would be meaningless, but since
>> >> nothing lives in the road there is no comparison anyway. He
>> >> was trying to pull a sneaky trick of some kind, but why?
>> >
>> >He isn't. He's comparing numbers, that's all.
>>
>> LOL! He's pretending to compare numbers of the deaths
>> in completely different environments, and for no good reason.
>
>To try to give us an idea of the number of deaths that may occur.
Try to at least understand this part: It *varies!!!* That means
that there *are* deaths, the numbers are significant, and the
numbers *vary*. Just from thinking about it in general, and what
would make the most sense, I would guess that the numbers
vary by the thousands from one season to the next, growing
the same crop, in the same area, and using the same methods.
In fact I'm convinced that just the number of a particular type of
frog can easily vary by the thousands, and the number of other
types of frogs, and of lizards, and of anoles, and of mice, and
of rats.... The number of other less abundant animals will vary
less because less of them exist, duh, but will still vary from one
season to the next, from one field to the next, from one farm
to the next, etc...... That of course is all way more detail than
you can handle at this time, but just try to understand that the
number of deaths VARIES. That will be a good starting place
for you--a good first baby-step toward reality.
Our knowledgeable and helpful friend diderot apparently
felt it's significant that we can understand and appreciate
some of the ways the number of deaths *vary* between
conventional and organic rice farming. Unlike yourself I found
what I am referring to and now present it for you *again* on the
unlikely chance that you might finally begin to understand some
of it. Good luck:
_________________________________________________________
- there is not only death in agriculture, there is a lot of death, and
the number of deaths (particularly *visible* deaths) are related to
populations more than farming practices.
- conventional agriculture results in many more, but more 'invisible'
deaths. our conventional plot is across the road from our organic plot,
it started out with the same millions and billions of amphibian eggs.
only a few thousand frogs are harvested on the conventional side - they
were all killed off as eggs or tadpoles by agricultural chemicals.
- we manage the whole area (larger than just the farms) is a pretty
natural fashion and we have a lot of wildlife. the number of deaths is,
at least, partially a function of total area population. we could
reduce the number of visible deaths by flogging the ecology, but we
prefer life and cycle-of-life over a sterile monoculture.
- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will have
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the numbers i
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for machine-farmed
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas.
- if one desires to 'eat organic', i strongly urge research into what
your state considers' organic.' it is very likely not as chemical-free
as you might like to believe.
cordially,
diderot
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
He said in that post that there would be more about it, so I'll go
see if I see more in my notes... Yes:
_________________________________________________________
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Wow, there is a lot more. I'll paste it at the end of this message
so it will be easier for you to snip, unless by then you're finally
able to understand what's going on and don't have to.
(Note: if anyone is reading this who cares at all, the information
about rice farming provided by diderot and quoted in this message
came from:
Message-ID: <379569...@wcnet.net>
Message-ID: <379084...@wcnet.net>
Many thanks to diderot!)
>> >> >Harvesters move slowly, and they
>> >> >are not the high speed machines described in this article.
>> >>
>> >> They don't have to be high speed. They kill by crushing,
>> >> mutilation, suffocation, poisoning, and things like that, not
>> >> by rate of impact.
>> >
>> >Wildlife moves out of the way, or have you some EVIDENCE?
>>
>> Those that don't get out of the way.
>
>There may be a few. Regrettably.
I used to bush hog a field where we kept our cows. The top of
the blade guard would become completely covered by all kinds of
grass hoppers etc. It's easy enough to believe as many or more
were killed as there were on the top of the machine. It's also
easy to believe that a lot of frogs and lizards, etc, are killed by
rice farming. In contrast to that, I find it impossible to believe that
a lot of them are not whenever the rice farmers: "prefer life and
cycle-of-life over a sterile monoculture."
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> Why is it you have no problem with 3K duck eggs, but you have
>> >> problems with frogs in TX? Why is it you don't have problems with
>> >> frogs in some places in the world, but you have problems with frogs
>> >> in TX? Have you any idea at all???
>> >
>> >I have,
>>
>> There is absolutely no evidence of that, which is why you can
>> present absolutely no evidence of it.
>
>The evidence is in past threads.
No it's not or I wouldn't have to ask you, because I would remember
what you said. And IF! you had any idea yourself you would just explain
what it is. You never did, you don't now, and almost certainly never will.
That's because there are no good reasons for you to believe as you
claim to, and we're finding that out for sure as we futilely try to think of
what they could possibly be.
>> >but you remain clueless. Go and review past threads.
>>
>> I don't have to because you had no idea when we discussed them
>> in the past, just as you have no idea now, and will have none in the
>> future.
>
>I have plenty of idea, david. You eventually went to ask
>in Texan Groups, trying to find the answers you were so
>desperately looking for, and started insulting them when
>you didn't hear what you hoped. http://tinyurl.com/2h6r5v
LOL! I started insulting them AFTER they insulted me. None of the
morons had any idea, and some of them weren't even aware that
rice is grown in TX. Those two facts are pathetic, but I didn't start
saying anything about any of it until after they started in on me...I was
the humble victim until I got tired of the clueless idiots jumping in my ass.
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> And killing, killing, killing...
>> >
>> >EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE ????????
>>
>> Cranes, rails, egrets, herons and bald eagles kill in order to survive.
>> It may confuse you trying to understand how that could result in killing,
>> but most people should have no problem understanding it.
>
>And that has what to do with collateral deaths exactly?
Several things. Which one(s) do you want to say are insignificant?
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> If it results in the lives, it also results in the deaths. Duh!
>> >
>> >SO SHOW US SOME REAL _EVIDENCE_.
>>
>> Everything that lives also dies, which results in death. Life means
>> death, EVERY time. If you can learn to understand that, maybe you
>> could move on from there to more complicated ideas...or maybe not.
>
>No evidence at all. Thought so.
ONLY if they prefer the sterile monoculture would there not
be significant killing since there would be nothing to kill, duh, so
they either:
a) led you to believe something that's not true because it's what you
want to believe and it suites them for you to continue believing it, or
b) they lied to you when they said they like diderot prefer life and
cycle-of-life, with the number of ducks alone being in the thousands.
One way or the other they were clearly being dishonest about some
of it.
Now back to reality, and diderot's detailed consideration of one of
the most basic aspects you should really try to understand... Not only
are there a significant number of animals who are killed, but also the
number of animals who are killed VARIES:
_________________________________________________________
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 (ą 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
gracielŕ 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 gracielŕ 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 ą33,000 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 ą 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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
pearl
Ipse dixit.
> >> >> >Harvesters move slowly, and they
> >> >> >are not the high speed machines described in this article.
> >> >>
> >> >> They don't have to be high speed. They kill by crushing,
> >> >> mutilation, suffocation, poisoning, and things like that, not
> >> >> by rate of impact.
> >> >
> >> >Wildlife moves out of the way, or have you some EVIDENCE?
> >>
> >> Those that don't get out of the way.
> >
> >There may be a few. Regrettably.
>
> I used to bush hog a field where we kept our cows. The top of
> the blade guard would become completely covered by all kinds of
> grass hoppers etc. It's easy enough to believe as many or more
> were killed as there were on the top of the machine. It's also
> easy to believe that a lot of frogs and lizards, etc, are killed by
> rice farming. In contrast to that, I find it impossible to believe that
> a lot of them are not whenever the rice farmers: "prefer life and
> cycle-of-life over a sterile monoculture."
Whether or not you believe it is based entirely on what you
WANT to believe, and nothing else. Your inability to think things
through allows you to believe whatever you want apparently,
by allowing you to stop thinking at any point where the facts are
not to your liking. Putting it all together like this really does clear
up a lot of questions I've had about you people, and whether
or not you could possibly, honestly believe some of the things
you claim to. Thanks for that.
> >> >> >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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is it you have no problem with 3K duck eggs, but you have
> >> >> problems with frogs in TX? Why is it you don't have problems with
> >> >> frogs in some places in the world, but you have problems with frogs
> >> >> in TX? Have you any idea at all???
> >> >
> >> >I have,
> >>
> >> There is absolutely no evidence of that, which is why you can
> >> present absolutely no evidence of it.
> >
> >The evidence is in past threads.
>
> No it's not
Yes, it is. Stop lying, if you can.
> >> >but you remain clueless. Go and review past threads.
> >>
> >> I don't have to because you had no idea when we discussed them
> >> in the past, just as you have no idea now, and will have none in the
> >> future.
> >
> >I have plenty of idea, david. You eventually went to ask
> >in Texan Groups, trying to find the answers you were so
> >desperately looking for, and started insulting them when
> >you didn't hear what you hoped. http://tinyurl.com/2h6r5v
>
> LOL! I started insulting them AFTER they insulted me. None of the
> morons had any idea, and some of them weren't even aware that
> rice is grown in TX. Those two facts are pathetic, but I didn't start
> saying anything about any of it until after they started in on me...I was
> the humble victim until I got tired of the clueless idiots jumping in my ass.
You were advised to do a search, of course. But you had..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.music.texas, tx.guns, tx.general, tx.motorcycles
dh@ wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:03:53 GMT, Rex B <burkhei...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>HeyBub wrote:
>> Jerry wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>> news:5i96g2pvajqchbcf4...@4ax.com...
>>>> Hi Texans,
>>>> I've recently been having an argument with an "animal rights"
>>>> freak from Ireland about whether or not there are frogs in rice
>>>> fields in Texas. A rice farmer years ago mentioned that there
>>>> are thousands of them in the fields he farms, and this "ara"
>>>> is trying to deny that could be the case. Can anyone confirm
>>>> that indeed there are frogs in some of the rice fields in Texas,
>>>> and sometimes there are even thousands of them?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>> copy and paste the following line in Google
>>> frogs in rice fields in Texas
>> There are 1,040,000 hits using the above.
>> "lots of frogs in rice fields in Texas" yields 464,000
>> "lots and lots of frogs in rice fields in Texas" generates 296,000
>> There are apparantly more Google hits than there are frogs.
>But for the Original (cross)poster,
The groups I post to are my business and no one else's, just
as where other people post is none of mine.
>the short answer is "You are a
>million times more likely to get your question answered using
>google, than by posting an OT in 4 unrelated newsgroups".
That's because of the quality of people in the newsgroups
apparently. So far it would appear that Texans have no clue
whether there are frogs in their fields or not, but there's an
excellent chance that people in other states would. I've worked
with Texans and gotten the impression they're really not very
aware of what's going on, but had hoped that was just the
particular individuals I happened to work with. Now it's beginning
to look like a characteristic of the state. People in another state
might say something like: Yes, we hear thousands of them at
night...or: Yes, there are lots of them smashed on the roads
running beside rice fields...or: Yes, we see tons of them on
our uncle's farm...stuff like that. Instead we've learned that
you folks don't know if there are frogs or not, and also don't
really understand Google. Oh well, all I could do was try or
not try, so I tried. I didn't find out anything about frogs, but
did learn more about Texans.
http://tinyurl.com/29gjax
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were fair game after that. LOL indeed!
> >> >> >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.
> >> >>
> >> >> And killing, killing, killing...
> >> >
> >> >EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE ????????
> >>
> >> Cranes, rails, egrets, herons and bald eagles kill in order to survive.
> >> It may confuse you trying to understand how that could result in killing,
> >> but most people should have no problem understanding it.
> >
> >And that has what to do with collateral deaths exactly?
>
> Several things.
Name them.
> >> >> >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.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it results in the lives, it also results in the deaths. Duh!
> >> >
> >> >SO SHOW US SOME REAL _EVIDENCE_.
> >>
> >> Everything that lives also dies, which results in death. Life means
> >> death, EVERY time. If you can learn to understand that, maybe you
> >> could move on from there to more complicated ideas...or maybe not.
> >
> >No evidence at all. Thought so.
>
> ONLY if they prefer the sterile monoculture would there not
> be significant killing since there would be nothing to kill, duh, so
> they either:
Where are "they" all coming from after all that supposed killing?
<fiction snipped>
funk420
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:jg3rv21upgu3s1q4p...@4ax.com...> > ><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:a3ngv2trkai2goovh...@4ax.com...> > >> ><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:jif9v2l38vprf2em3...@4ax.com...
Hi Pearl - don't blame the whole state for the ignorance of a few!
What, do you think GW is from Texas? He ain't.
Ron Paul for President!
-
pearl
Hiya funk420. I didn't write the above. It's dh@s usual nonsense.