Meat eating is unnecessary and has no place in a human diet
Chive Mynde
even for someone who is trying to build muscle, rather than just
maintain. (Someone else could leave out a few of the foods, or replace
some with lower protein alternatives.) This is from "Becoming
Vegetarian" by dietitians V. Melina, B.Davis and V.Harrison. (info
supplied by the authors - see this and related books with protein
information for plant-based diets at www.nutrispeak.com/books.htm )
The new "Becoming Vegan" by Davis and Melina has good sections on
protein, weight management and nutrition for athletes.
Vegan Menu
Protein (grams)
Breakfast
Orange, 1 (123 g)
1.3
Multigrain cereal, (such as Red River)
1 cup (250 mL)
7.0
Wheat germ, 2 tbsp (14 g)
3.4
Soy milk, 1 cup (250 mL)
6.9
Whole wheat toast, 1 slice (21 g)
2.6
Tahini, 1 tbsp (15 mL)
2.7
Blackstrap molasses, 1 tsp (5 mL)
0
Noncaloric beverage
0
Breakfast total:
23.9 (537 calories)
-
Lunch
Eggless egg (tofu) salad sandwich
(see recipes in "Becoming Vegetarian"
or "Cooking Vegetarian")
12.7
Carrot sticks, 1 carrot
0.7
Apple, 1
0.3
Muffin, 1
(see recipe in "Becoming Vegetarian")
7.3
Noncaloric beverage
0
Lunch total:
21.0 (681 calories)
-
Supper
Spiced lentils
Lentils, 1 cup
17.9
Onions, ¼ cup
0.8
Oil, ½ tsp
0
Brown Rice, 1 cup
4.9
Green salad
Kale, 1 cup
2.4
Romaine lettuce, 1 cup
1.0
Salad dressing, tahini, 1 tbsp
2.7
Noncaloric beverage
0
Supper total
29.7 (649 calories)
-
Snacks and Dessert
Trail mix, 3 tbsp walnuts, and 3 figs
3.9
Carrot cake, small slice
2.4
Total snacks
6.3 (366 calories)
-
Total protein:
80.9 grams (2233 calories)
-
Recommended protein intake for 59 kg person is approximately:
50 grams
Iron:
29.1 mg
Zinc:
15.5 mg
Calcium:
1105 mg
-
To increase calories for a 170 pound person , the following foods are
added;
Breakfast:
add 1/2 cup of cereal and slice of toast with tahini and molasses
Lunch:
add 1/2 sandwich
Supper
add 1/2 cup of rice
Snacks:
Banana and a small piece of carrot cake
The day's total intake for the 170 pound person is 101 grams protein.
(2950 calories)
The recommended protein intake for someone of this weight is
approximately 65 grams.
-
Protein
Although there are no animal foods in this menu, protein provided over
one and a half times the recommended protein intake. Even if the 2
most concentrated sources of protein were removed - the lentils, and
the tofu in the sandwich - this vegan menu will easily exceed 50 grams
that is recommended for most people (at 0.8 to 0.9 grams protein per
kilogram body weight.)
-
Calorie Distribution in Vegan Diet
% calories
from
Protein
14%
Fat
27%
Carbohydrate
59%
Cholesterol
0 milligrams
Das Uber Bitch
"Chive Mynde" <chive_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c80d6f4.02021...@posting.google.com...
The 9th Witch
"Das Uber Bitch" <castir...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3c726...@newsa.ev1.net...
> That alone will ensure my daily meat intake stays as is. Two servings a
day.
Let's all go get a nice rare porterhouse.......
--
T9W
Can't Sleep? Go Shopping! Irish Style
Shaney O'Grady's
http://leprechuan.iwongifts.com
Com and Get It
http://comandgetit.iwonstores.com
Unsolicited email will be subject to a $500 fine.
Unsolicited email from christians will be subject to a fine of 10% of
sender's income.
Das Uber Bitch
mmmm.......
"The 9th Witch" <appalach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4tu95$328a5$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de...
CrazyMaje
"Das Uber Bitch" <castir...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3c729...@newsa.ev1.net...
Das Uber Bitch
die if I don't have a nice grilled steak once in a while.
"CrazyMaje" <craz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WLCc8.1598$0C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
blujuju
: Seared outside, red inside. With crimini mushrooms, red wine and
onions.....
: mmmm.......
Shaddup! It's 10am and now I'm wanting to cook dinner.
The 9th Witch
"blujuju" <jwi...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:a50dk8$csq$1...@iac5.navix.net...
When we first spoke about it yesterday, I ended up having the porterhouse
for lunch. With portabella mushrooms and butterrum sauce. A baked potato
and asparagus spears.
Now I'll need another one.
T9W
Frank Altschuler
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=120509
"Chive Mynde" <chive_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c80d6f4.02021...@posting.google.com...
Oz
>This was just too timely to resist:
Pity you resisted posting it.
Fortunately Jim copied it, here it is:
======================
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=120509
Sheep and deer eat meat in wild to boost diet
By Brian Unwin
18 February 2002
Zoologists have shattered the belief that sheep and deer are exclusively
vegetarian.
Grass may satisfy them most of the time but in places where their normal
diet is low in essential minerals they have been seen eating grouse and
seabird chicks. Dr Niall Burton recorded the carnivorous activity on
Muggleswick Common in Co Durham and included it in a report by the British
Trust for Ornithology in the journal British Birds.
He explained that the moor, north of Stanhope in Weardale, was grazed by
sheep and managed for grouse. He saw a brood of eight chicks, less than a
week old, foraging in the patchwork of heather and close-cropped turf. The
grouse moved on to the short turf, becoming highly visible, when one of
three nearby sheep, "ran forward, picked up a chick and ate it whole".
He said: "The alarmed female grouse quickly removed her remaining chicks
into the heather, but the sheep was prevented from taking a second only by
my intervention."
He also referred to instances, reported by Dr Bob Furness from Glasgow
University, of sheep eating live Arctic tern and Arctic skua chicks on
Foula, Shetland, and red deer eating live Manx shearwater chicks on Rum in
the Inner Hebrides.
However, unlike his observation in Co Durham, only heads, legs or wings of
the chicks were eaten in those cases. His theory was that the meat-eating
was "probably a means of alleviating a mineral deficiency, perhaps of
calcium, in the mammals' diet".
Calcium levels in the vegetation were low on both islands and on the moors.
--
Oz
This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
blujuju
:
:
: "blujuju" <jwi...@alltel.net> wrote in message
This is awful. Now, at 7:20 am, I'm about to rummage in the fridge to see
what's quick, easy and can pass for steak.
.nik
:
:
: T9W
:
:
:
The 9th Witch
"blujuju" <jwi...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:a52oje$ev8$1...@iac5.navix.net...
You mean you don't have thin slices of sirloin to make with eggs? Shame on
you!!
T9W
> :
> :
> : T9W
> :
> :
> :
>
>
Das Uber Bitch
carcasses as feed ingredients by the meat industry, but it does show that
animals will do what it takes to make up for a dietary lack. On the other
end of the spectrum, I have seen dogs and cats graze on grass, leaves, and
veggies.
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OEI+oPAo...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
Michael Hobson
form of amino acids, as one would get from this diet. Protien taken from
eating animals is of no use to humans as we lack the enzymes to break the
animal protiens down into amino acids for use. The only real necessity
provided by eating animals is cholesterol, of which we require only very
small quantities.
Harold
wrote:
>Although this isn't my field, I understood that we require protien in the
>form of amino acids, as one would get from this diet. Protien taken from
>eating animals is of no use to humans as we lack the enzymes to break the
>animal protiens down into amino acids for use. The only real necessity
>provided by eating animals is cholesterol, of which we require only very
>small quantities.
As I recall, the enzymes needed to digest proteins are secreted by the
intestinal lining and the pancreas, in humans.
Of the three classes of food, carbohydrates, protein and fat, only
carbohydrate has no "required" components. There are amino acids
which humans cannot make, and fats which humans cannot make.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold (certified Meanie)
-----
Since January 1, 1999, 949,000,000 people have been afflicted by
malaria. Of these, 7,121,000 have died. That's one needless
premature death every 10.5 seconds. 6,409,000 were pregnant
women, or children under the age of five. May 16, 2001
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Oz
>Although this isn't my field,
Indeed it isn't.
>I understood that we require protien in the
>form of amino acids, as one would get from this diet. Protien taken from
>eating animals is of no use to humans as we lack the enzymes to break the
>animal protiens down into amino acids for use.
This is totally wrong, we have all the required enzymes.
We even have them for digesting insects.
>The only real necessity
>provided by eating animals is cholesterol, of which we require only very
>small quantities.
This is totally wrong, we can make our own cholesterol perfectly well
which is why dietary cholesterol intake has very little effect on blood
cholesterol.
Frank Altschuler
"Michael Hobson" <sp...@someone.else> wrote in message
news:MLad8.107335$Pz4.507177@rwcrnsc53...
<snip>
> Protien taken from eating animals is of no use to humans as we lack the
enzymes to break the
> animal protiens down into amino acids for use.
That goes against everything I've read on diet and nutrition.
> The only real necessity
> provided by eating animals is cholesterol, of which we require only very
> small quantities.
Protein is a nutrient needed by your body for normal growth and maintenance.
You can get it from other sources but meat is an extremely good source of
human-digestible protein.
The cholesterol from the food you eat doesn't just leap into your blood
stream screaming "Banzai". I belive that the cholesterol in your blood is
produced by your liver.
The Fashion Troll
"Das Uber Bitch" <castir...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3c73b...@newsa.ev1.net...
Das Uber Bitch
like you, now, do I? Of course not. Only a total moron would want to end up
like you. I will eat meat and laught at you while I do so.
"The Fashion Troll" <fashion@large> wrote in message
news:a545pa$ovj$0...@pita.alt.net...
Casey & Finnigan
> Sure, I do, dripshit. After all, I don't want to be a mindless sack of
crap
> like you, now, do I?
You have continually redefined and set the standard for 'mindless sack of
crap' ever since you began posting.
--
Casey & Finnigan - purveyors of fine Single Malt Highland whisky brewed on
the wild west coast of Canada in a MacUisdin bathtub
"I'm sick of this room and everyone in it!" - Bender
Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come
at you rapidly. ~Author unknown
"Everything's gone wrong since Canada came along!" - MAC (Mothers Against
Canada)
Michael Hobson
>Michael Hobson <sp...@someone.else> wrote:
>
>>Although this isn't my field, I understood that we require protien in the
>>form of amino acids, as one would get from this diet. Protien taken from
>>eating animals is of no use to humans as we lack the enzymes to break the
>>animal protiens down into amino acids for use. The only real necessity
>>provided by eating animals is cholesterol, of which we require only very
>>small quantities.
>
>As I recall, the enzymes needed to digest proteins are secreted by the
>intestinal lining and the pancreas, in humans.
Yours was the only reasonable response I got from that. My
understanding is that we can digest proteins, which are used as
proteins for various metabolic processes, like to burn for energy
(which is a source of free radicals), but that to *make* protein, ie.
to make a protein molecule to form the cell wall of a muscle fiber,
requires amino acids. That is to say, we can break down a hunk of
flesh into proteins for use in the body, but those proteins are in the
wrong form for use to use to build flesh. To build protein for cell
use, we require protein in the form of amino acids, and we lack the
enzymes necessary to break proteins down into amino acids.
>Of the three classes of food, carbohydrates, protein and fat, only
>carbohydrate has no "required" components. There are amino acids
>which humans cannot make, and fats which humans cannot make.
That doesn't sound right. Carbohydrates are the most efficient source
of energy. That would be wishful thinking, to say the least.
--Mike
Jim Smolen
>
>Yours was the only reasonable response I got from that. My
>understanding is that we can digest proteins, which are used as
>proteins for various metabolic processes, like to burn for energy
>(which is a source of free radicals), but that to *make* protein, ie.
>to make a protein molecule to form the cell wall of a muscle fiber,
>requires amino acids. That is to say, we can break down a hunk of
>flesh into proteins for use in the body, but those proteins are in the
>wrong form for use to use to build flesh. To build protein for cell
>use, we require protein in the form of amino acids, and we lack the
>enzymes necessary to break proteins down into amino acids.
Your understanding is wrong (sorry). We have all of the enzymes
necessary to break down proteins into their constituent amino acids.
Your body uses these amino acids to build new proteins from scratch.
It does NOT make new proteins from fragments (peptides) of the
proteins being digested. Your body can also manufacture amino acids
from scratch, but this is wasteful of resources. It's much better to
just get the amino acids from food.
In a pinch, the body can also metabolize amino acids for energy...but
the preferred sources of energy are carbohydrates and lipids.
Oz
>
>Yours was the only reasonable response I got from that. My
>understanding is that we can digest proteins, which are used as
>proteins for various metabolic processes, like to burn for energy
>(which is a source of free radicals), but that to *make* protein, ie.
>to make a protein molecule to form the cell wall of a muscle fiber,
>requires amino acids. That is to say, we can break down a hunk of
>flesh into proteins for use in the body,
Actually we mostly absorb amino acids.
Proteins are generally too large to pass through the gut.
>but those proteins are in the
>wrong form for use to use to build flesh. To build protein for cell
>use, we require protein in the form of amino acids, and we lack the
>enzymes necessary to break proteins down into amino acids.
Our digestive system has all the enzymes required to do this.
Which is fortunate.
Das Uber Bitch
good, hehehehe! So, I am this worthless, stupid thing --- and here you are,
falling over your sot self to reply to me...... hm....
[sneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr]
"Casey & Finnigan" <casey&finn...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:nEQd8.109389$Cg5.6...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Tim Worstall
Fascinating stuff......the belief that we cannot break down proteins
into amino acids.....how did that arise? We all know that it is
possible to live on an all meat diet without starving,( although you
do need certain vitamins, which can be got from fish ) so you would
think that just a little thought would kibosh that idea.
As others pointed out, we can digest almost all proteins.
I was also interested to see the point that dietary cholesterol is
almost nothing to do with blood cholesterol.....blood levels are much
more to do with liver function, exercise, general fitness level and
genetic predispostion. There 'may ' also be other dietary factors, but
it isn't the chloeterol in the food itself. So you can have as many
fried eggs as you like.
But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
trying to tell us.
The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
we should at least commend him for that.
So perhps we could move the debate on a little? Can we accept that
humans are omnivores, and that we can also survive on a purely
vegetarian diet, and an almost exclusively meat one if we should wish.
The real question is, is there a moral component to what choice we
make ?
BTW, as far as I can recall, the only true carnivores are cats ( and
I'm not sure if that includes the big cats or just domestic ) . They
cannot produce Taurine, one of the amino acids, and so must get it
from meat that is eaten. A domestic cat on a purely vegetarian diet is
soon dead.
Tim Worstall
Harold
wrote:
>Harold <haroldb...@delete.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[deleted]
>
>>Of the three classes of food, carbohydrates, protein and fat, only
>>carbohydrate has no "required" components. There are amino acids
>>which humans cannot make, and fats which humans cannot make.
>
>That doesn't sound right. Carbohydrates are the most efficient source
>of energy. That would be wishful thinking, to say the least.
What is wishful thinking? Why would I wish that humans cannot make
all the amino acids needed? Why would I wish that humans could make
all the lipids (fats) they need?
" Essential" amino acids:
Proteins are made up of exactly twenty amino acids, humans can
synthesize in their bodies 11 from other foodstuffs. Some creatures,
such as algae, can synthesize all 20, but some higher, more complex
and specialized forms of life have lost the ability to manufacture one
or more of them. The 9 which must be ingested are called "essential"
amino acids or "essential" nutrients. They are histidine, isoleucine,
leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and
valine.
Most foods derived from the animal kingdom (such as meat, milk, and
eggs) provide all 9 of the essential amino acids in the correct
proportions, but most foods from plants--even ones such as seeds,
nuts, and whole grains that are good sources of protein--are deficient
in one or more of these essential amino acids.
"Essential" Fat:
There are two types of essential fatty acids - Omega-6 and Omega-3
fatty acids. These are polyunsaturated fatty acids that cannot be
synthesized by the body and must therefore be obtained from diet.
Omega-6 essential fatty acids are derived from vegetables sources such
as primrose oil and corn oil.
Omega-3 essential fatty acids is found in fish and some other oils. It
includes alphalinolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
"Essential " carbohydrates:
None. All carbohydrates are monosaccharides (sugars) of varying chain
length and bonding. Some, like cellulose, are not digestible or are
partly digestible and are called "fiber".
Regards, Harold
----
"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm
in the history of man have already been born."
----- Paul Ehrlich, "Eco-Catastrophe!" 1970, Ramparts.
The 9th Witch
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com...
> But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
> post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
> trying to tell us.
>
> The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
> we should at least commend him for that.
Provided one could keep it down.
>
> So perhps we could move the debate on a little? Can we accept that
> humans are omnivores, and that we can also survive on a purely
> vegetarian diet, and an almost exclusively meat one if we should wish.
>
> The real question is, is there a moral component to what choice we
> make ?
>
> BTW, as far as I can recall, the only true carnivores are cats ( and
> I'm not sure if that includes the big cats or just domestic ) . They
> cannot produce Taurine, one of the amino acids, and so must get it
> from meat that is eaten. A domestic cat on a purely vegetarian diet is
> soon dead.
>
>
Ah, that explains it. I am a Leo born the year of the Tiger. Actually, I am
one of those persons who cannot process vegetable protiens.
Don't ask me why, I don't know. My mother might.
--
T9W
Can't Sleep? Go Shopping! Irish Style
Shaney O'Grady's
http://leprechuan.iwongifts.com
Com and Get It
http://comandgetit.iwonstores.com
Unsolicited email will be subject to a $500 fine.
Unsolicited email from christians will be subject to a fine of 10% of
sender's income.
> Tim Worstall
Chive Mynde
> "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> news:825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com...
> > But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
> > post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
> > trying to tell us.
> >
> > The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
> > we should at least commend him for that.
>
>
> Provided one could keep it down.
Please give a good reason why "one" could not...
Interestingly, meat alternatives are often tastier (and obviously
healthier) than meat itself. The facts are clear. Meat and
dairy intake is responsible for the majority of all health problems.
A strong case can be made for meat intake being the number one cause
of death. And, it's no coincidence that if one eliminates meat
from ones diet (or limits it) one also cleans up the environment
in the process. It's really quite simple really. Meat has a
high social, health, and environmental cost. It's simply not
worth it.
-=Chive
Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
Chive Mynde
> So perhps we could move the debate on a little? Can we accept that
> humans are omnivores, and that we can also survive on a purely
> vegetarian diet, and an almost exclusively meat one if we should wish.
Nonsense. The evidence demonstrates that survival rates are
higher for vegetarians than they are for meat-eaters.
Meat intake is responsible for most of the leading causes
of early disease and mortality.
Finally, factory farms and industrial meat production
are destroying the world's environment. Producing this
meat for consumption merely pollutes the planet, deprives
poorer natinos of grain, and murders thousands of people
by afflicting them with associated health problems.
wickedheart
> Nonsense. The evidence demonstrates that survival rates are
> higher for vegetarians than they are for meat-eaters.
Crossposting is a bitch..
But you're right.. we are omnivores but statistically speaking those who do
not eat meat but yet get the necessary ingredients in other places do
generally live longer and healthier and are less prone to things such as the
common flu and colds... I'm totally against the slaughtering of animals for
food but on a non biased standpoint.. the reason red meat is really
unhealthy is because people who tend to eat red meat have diets that are
less then great. Supposedly americans are really bad off because of diet..
you won't see to many overweight vegans..
And where were you when I was debating animal cruelty bout a year ago?
Cardinal Fang
>"The 9th Witch" <appalach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a5ebnc$6js6d$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
>> news:825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com...
>> > But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
>> > post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
>> > trying to tell us.
>> >
>> > The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
>> > we should at least commend him for that.
>>
>>
>> Provided one could keep it down.
>
>Please give a good reason why "one" could not...
>
>Interestingly, meat alternatives are often tastier (and obviously
>healthier) than meat itself.
A few meat alternatives approach the taste of meat, the rest is just crap.
>The facts are clear. Meat and
>dairy intake is responsible for the majority of all health problems.
Only when consumed in excess.
Cardinal Fang ho...@earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead me not to temptation, I enjoy finding it myself.
Bruce Burhans
The environmental impacts of an animal product diet
are terrible. I am a vegan for that reason alone.
Not only the land use (35+ times as much for a typical
American- 70+% of American farmers grow food for
animals....) and the fresh water consumption (about 200
times as much....) But the *refrigeration.* (It takes _far_
more energy to cool a given mass a given number of degrees than it does
to heat that same mass by the same number of degrees...... I have no
refrigerator, just a simple evaporative, nature-powered
cooler on the N. side of the place. Drying is the most
environmentally friendly way to preserve food, if it's
done the old-fashioned way.
New vegans need lots of veg oil and heavy protein grain/legume meat
analogs for a while, but you get over it. It's just an addiction that
most scientists (under severe pressure from the massively wealthy animal
product industries) ' mistake' for a basic metabolic condition.
Our teeth and digestive tracts bear *far* closer resemblance to
those of an herbivore than those of a
carnivore.
Bruce<+>
The 9th Witch
"Chive Mynde" <chive_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c80d6f4.0202...@posting.google.com...
> "The 9th Witch" <appalach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a5ebnc$6js6d$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> > news:825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com...
> > > But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
> > > post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
> > > trying to tell us.
> > >
> > > The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
> > > we should at least commend him for that.
> >
> >
> > Provided one could keep it down.
>
> Please give a good reason why "one" could not...
Because that stuff tastes nasty.
>
> Interestingly, meat alternatives are often tastier (and obviously
> healthier) than meat itself. The facts are clear.
Matters of taste are not facts. The are opinions.
> Meat and
> dairy intake is responsible for the majority of all health problems.
> A strong case can be made for meat intake being the number one cause
> of death.
So?
>And, it's no coincidence that if one eliminates meat
> from ones diet (or limits it) one also cleans up the environment
> in the process.
Funny, I thought meat eating controlled animal populations and prevented the
destruction of the environment and the shortage of vegatation. Silly me. Or
are you one of the ones who propose to "limit breeding by birth control", a
process which the world's population does such a great job with regarding
themselves and their pets.
> It's really quite simple really. Meat has a
> high social, health, and environmental cost. It's simply not
> worth it.
I've stated before, I'd rather die happy at 50 than healthy at 100.
T9W
Tim Worstall
> t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote in message news:<825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > So perhps we could move the debate on a little? Can we accept that
> > humans are omnivores, and that we can also survive on a purely
> > vegetarian diet, and an almost exclusively meat one if we should wish.
>
> Nonsense.
Sorry ? Nonsense ?
Chive, humans can survive on almost exclusively meat and fish diets.
If you actually thought for a moment you would see this. How many
Inuit vegetable plots have you heard of ?
What really pisses me off is that , for the first time ever, I found
one of your posts to contain something true. And I said so. And all
you can do is snap at me like a lobtomized puppy protecting its own
vomit.
The evidence demonstrates that survival rates are
> higher for vegetarians than they are for meat-eaters.
I think you'll find that survival rates for humans are, over time,
zero. As far as I can recall it was only the Virgin Mary and Mohammed
who didn't die.
What I think you mean is that annual death rates are lower for
vegetarians. If you can find an unbiased source for that, I would be
interested.
>
> Meat intake is responsible for most of the leading causes
> of early disease and mortality.
Really ? Last week you said it was smoking. Or was that the week
before ? Please note that there can only be one' leading cause '.
If you were to modify this statement a little....bad diet is, after
smoking, the leading cause of early mortality, then I might be willing
to agree with you ( and so would various cancer societies and the CDC
) but meat eating is not necessarily a bad diet, and even if it weree,
it is not the only form of bad diet.
I also recall you saying that one in three cows goes into
McDonalds....can't really see that as McD has 40 % of the US burger
market....which means that if 1/3 of cows go to McD, then the burger
market takes 5/6 ths of all cows....which doesn't leave much for
burritos, tacos, steaks, ribs and all the rest, not to say pet food.
>
> Finally, factory farms and industrial meat production
> are destroying the world's environment. Producing this
> meat for consumption merely pollutes the planet, deprives
> poorer natinos of grain, and murders thousands of people
> by afflicting them with associated health problems.
You might want to note that not all countries use the US's intensive
meat production methods. In fact, I'm not sure that anyone else does.
It's most unusual to have 'grain fed ' beef in Europe. The highest
quality is generally reckoned to be Scottish grass fed...and as the
name implies, they are fed on meadows. With grass. On land that
couldn't be used for grain farming anyway. Similarly, dairy production
is done in the West of the UK, an area entirely unsuited to grain
production, which is done predominantly in the east.
So, outside certain aspects of US intensive farming, the production of
meat has no effect on the production of grain....they are done on
different land, and usually on land that cannot be used for the other
purpose. Welsh spring lamb comes from hillsides and moors that have
never been, and never could be, ploughed, just to give you another
example.
Similarly, extensive, rather than intensive, production of livestock
does not ' pollute the planet '.....rather the manure left in situ
helps to fertilise it, naturally, and in a 100 % organic manner. I
think you apporve of that having read some of your other stuff.
And as for murder ? To murder, rather than to kill or manslaughter,
one must have the conscious intention to kill that specific person at
that specific time. Nope, I just don't get it. I just can't conjure up
the mental image of the head of McD's saying ' Let's sell that guy
another burger, that should be just enough to bring on the heart
attack.'
Soooo....I would say that your little diatribe fails. Meat production
does not reduce the amount of grain for the poor, it doesn't murder
people, and it doesn't pollute the planet.
Now, why not try again ? Can you make a moral case for not eating meat
?
Tim Worstall
Ezechiel
t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>What really pisses me off is that , for the first time ever, I found
>one of your posts to contain something true. And I said so. And all
>you can do is snap at me like a lobtomized puppy protecting its own
>vomit.
> The evidence demonstrates that survival rates are
>> higher for vegetarians than they are for meat-eaters.
Veggie diet never made people live longer, it just make the life feel longer, that's all
Ezechiel
"Save a tree, eat a beaver..."
--
http://www.googoth.com/ - The first search engine with real bats in it
Tal
>Soooo....I would say that your little diatribe fails. Meat production
>does not reduce the amount of grain for the poor, it doesn't murder
>people, and it doesn't pollute the planet.
This is fundamentally wrong. Meat production absorbs a _huge_ amount
of resources, and much of the land used for it _can_ perfectly well be
used for production of other crops.
And the evidence for meat causing health problems is overwhelming.
ISTR reading that it's estimated a healthy meat consumption is once or
twice a week, not at most meals, which is what most meat eaters
practice.
--
Tal
Commander, 101st Heavy Perking Squad
Lexgoff Mobile Infantry
"We're mobile! We're infantile!"
Tal
>Now, why not try again ? Can you make a moral case for not eating meat
>?
The reason I don't eat meat is that I think it's morally reprehensible
not to do your own dirty work. If I was prepared to go kill and
prepare the animal myself then fine, but I'm damned if I'm going to
let someone else do it, then package it up all nice so I can't tell it
was a living animal and buy it out of a supermarket without having to
think about what I'm doing.
Also, animals are often kept in atrocious conditions. Nobody can
seriously argue that animals do not think and feel, at least far
enough to suffer. Or _are_ you suggesting that?
Shez
<appalach...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
>news:825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com...
>> But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
>> post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
>> trying to tell us.
>>
>> The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
>> we should at least commend him for that.
>
>
>Provided one could keep it down.
>
>>
>> So perhps we could move the debate on a little? Can we accept that
>> humans are omnivores, and that we can also survive on a purely
>> vegetarian diet, and an almost exclusively meat one if we should wish.
>>
>> The real question is, is there a moral component to what choice we
>> make ?
>>
>> BTW, as far as I can recall, the only true carnivores are cats ( and
>> I'm not sure if that includes the big cats or just domestic ) . They
>> cannot produce Taurine, one of the amino acids, and so must get it
>> from meat that is eaten. A domestic cat on a purely vegetarian diet is
>> soon dead.
>>
>>
>
>Ah, that explains it. I am a Leo born the year of the Tiger. Actually, I am
>one of those persons who cannot process vegetable protiens.
>
>Don't ask me why, I don't know. My mother might.
>
>
great on a diet that doesn't include a lot of carbohydrates, and your
not alone, their are a lot of us.
Everyone is different, the point being that if you thrive on meat, then
you eat meat, if you thrive on vegetables you eat vegetables.
I really don't understand why some vegetarians push their religion and
it is a religion onto everyone else. Its getting to the point were if
your not a vegetarian, your not saved, you will go to some bad
restaurant in heaven where they serve crummy food.
Everyone has the right to chose what they eat,
You keep eating meat, I am certainly going to :)
I support anyone who makes a life decision about what they will and will
not eat. No matter if that decision is based on taste, or ethics, . I
don't however care for people who try to push their choices on to me.
>
>--
>T9W
>
>Can't Sleep? Go Shopping! Irish Style
>Shaney O'Grady's
>http://leprechuan.iwongifts.com
>Com and Get It
>http://comandgetit.iwonstores.com
>
>Unsolicited email will be subject to a $500 fine.
>Unsolicited email from christians will be subject to a fine of 10% of
>sender's income.
>> Tim Worstall
>
>
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
Hardrock Llewynyth
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:30:12 +0000:
>This is fundamentally wrong. Meat production absorbs a _huge_ amount
>of resources, and much of the land used for it _can_ perfectly well be
>used for production of other crops.
Not wrong.
While it does require a huge amount to raise cattle; the US's current
grain production is so high that the government has to artificially
limit the supply (this goes for other foods as well) to keep prices up
in the profitable range. Much of the food we produce is purchased by
the government and shipped overseas (where it often sits rotting on
piers).
Hardrock
--
Many desire to kill me, and many wish to spend an hour chatting with me.
The law protects me from the former. --Karl Kraus
Tal
>Not wrong.
Wrong in the sense that much of the land supposedly 'not good' for
crop raising is in fact very good for crop raising - it depends on
which crops you wish to grow. Additionally some land which has been
used for animal raising has apparently been damaged due to this, and
would need a fair bit of investment to make it good for crops again.
>While it does require a huge amount to raise cattle; the US's current
>grain production is so high that the government has to artificially
>limit the supply (this goes for other foods as well) to keep prices up
>in the profitable range. Much of the food we produce is purchased by
>the government and shipped overseas (where it often sits rotting on
>piers).
I wasn't saying there isn't a lot of production, I was saying that the
resources required for livestock are huge and environmentally
uneconomical.
Jaguar
>On 25 Feb 2002, Chive Mynde wrote:
> "The 9th Witch" <appalach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a5ebnc$6js6d$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> > news:825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com...
> > > But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
> > > post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
> > > trying to tell us.
> > >
> > > The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
> > > we should at least commend him for that.
> >
> >
> > Provided one could keep it down.
>
> Please give a good reason why "one" could not...
'fer starters
Not every one has the proper enzymes to efficently break down tofu, beans
& the like. (just like not everyone has the enzyme to break down dairy)
& a side not about your proposed diet:
It relies HEAVILY on modern transport, to provide you with fruit out of
season.
It also relies on modern argi-buisness - the pesticides, fertilizers, ect.
Which means there are hidden costs - petrolium used to produce & transport
the crops over long distances.
Environmental damage caused by use in the 3rd world of pesticides that are
banned in the US, ect.
If you really want to reduce environmental damage - you would need to eat
foods that are produced locally, organicly raised.
Meat produced organicly is just as environmentaly friendly as corn.
> Interestingly, meat alternatives are often tastier (and obviously
> healthier) than meat itself. The facts are clear. Meat and
> dairy intake is responsible for the majority of all health problems.
Incorrect.
Refined FLOUR & SUGAR coupled with lack of excerise are the culprits.
Not meat.
Refined carbohydrates set one up for insuling resistance forming... couple
that with a desk job & no physical activity,
you wind up with diabetes & a host of releated problems.
If you look at cultures like the Mongols, Eskimo - which have high amounts
of meat/animal products in the diet, coupled with an energy intensive
lifestyle (lots of physical activity)...
One does not see the same health problems sendentary, refined carb
westeners have.
> A strong case can be made for meat intake being the number one cause
> of death. And, it's no coincidence that if one eliminates meat
> from ones diet (or limits it) one also cleans up the environment
> in the process.
One does not clean up the environment by not eating meat.
Meat CAN be produced in a manner that is ecologicly low impact.
You just have to pick your livestock species carefuly - one that is
adapted to local conditions.
Native Americans did this.
They used controled burns to maintain prairie & expand bison habitat.
They used controled burns to create strips of meadow in the forest to
increase deer populations.
The problem lies in modern production techniques, which have
overintensifed production to the point of environmental degradeation
(This goes for our plant crops as well as our live stock)
Millions of acres of Bt corn monocultures are even LESS species diverse
than a pasture.
> It's really quite simple really. Meat has a
> high social, health, and environmental cost. It's simply not
> worth it.
In your opinion.
History & anthropology do not agree with you.
Look at the data.
Look at all the cultures that have farmed for thousands
of years. - they have livestock.
Humans have hunted, since beyond recalled time, they ate meat.
If meat eating was NOT beneficial to our survival, our ancestors would
have ceased to hunt thousands of years ago.
But they did NOT.
In fact, the ONLY societies where one sees no meat diets (mainly amoung
the lower classes) are invariably societies in which the agriculture
had been overintensified to the point of degrading the environment.
In other words - where the human population was over carrying capacity of
the environment.
Jag
Jaguar
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Tal wrote:
> Mere instants ago, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) uttered:
>
> >Soooo....I would say that your little diatribe fails. Meat production
> >does not reduce the amount of grain for the poor, it doesn't murder
> >people, and it doesn't pollute the planet.
>
> This is fundamentally wrong. Meat production absorbs a _huge_ amount
> of resources, and much of the land used for it _can_ perfectly well be
> used for production of other crops.
Only if you feed your livestock grain, to fatten them.
But this is a modern practice.
Cows do not have to directly compete with humans for food - for they can
eat grass.
It is more effective to have the cow eat the grass, which you can not
digest.
Cattle can also be grazed in areas that are unsuitable for agricultre.
Arid lands where irrigation is required, for staters.
Modern intensive plant agriculture is JUST as damaging (if not more so) to
the environment.
When you figure in the chemicals, topsoil loss, the huge monocultures
(which means there is NO species diversity)
The problem lies in the methods used (for plant or animals)
- overintensify your crop & you do damage.
> And the evidence for meat causing health problems is overwhelming.
Sugar, flour & the lack of activity are the true culprits.
> ISTR reading that it's estimated a healthy meat consumption is once or
> twice a week, not at most meals, which is what most meat eaters
> practice.
Depends on your diet.
Omnivoires eat meat, true, but it is hardly the only thing they eat.
Jag
Jaguar
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Tal wrote:
> Mere instants ago, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) uttered:
>
> >Now, why not try again ? Can you make a moral case for not eating meat
> >?
>
> The reason I don't eat meat is that I think it's morally reprehensible
> not to do your own dirty work.
So then you won't mind venison?
> If I was prepared to go kill and
> prepare the animal myself then fine, but I'm damned if I'm going to
> let someone else do it, then package it up all nice so I can't tell it
> was a living animal and buy it out of a supermarket without having to
> think about what I'm doing.
>
> Also, animals are often kept in atrocious conditions
Once again, this is a problem with production.
You do not have you buy factory farmed meat.
There are quite a number of small farmers, with livestock produced
organicly under good conditions that you can buy from.
Granted, it may mean calling your local ag dept., a drive out of town &
buying a freezer.....
But it can be done (plus you are supporting your local small farmer)
>. Nobody can
> seriously argue that animals do not think and feel, at least far
> enough to suffer. Or _are_ you suggesting that?
Of course not.
But, theoreticly if I was an herbivore - a human with a stun gun, or a
lion ripping my throat out........ which would be quicker?
Humans are rather unique in that they can show so much remorse over prey.
Animals show each other precious little pity in that regard.
Jag
Tim Worstall
> Mere instants ago, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) uttered:
>
> >Now, why not try again ? Can you make a moral case for not eating meat
> >?
>
> The reason I don't eat meat is that I think it's morally reprehensible
> not to do your own dirty work. If I was prepared to go kill and
> prepare the animal myself then fine, but I'm damned if I'm going to
> let someone else do it, then package it up all nice so I can't tell it
> was a living animal and buy it out of a supermarket without having to
> think about what I'm doing.
Now we're actually getting somewhere. I might not agree with your
moral position here, but I absolutely defend your right to think that
way.
There is something terribly satisfying about actually hunting,
killing, preparing and then eating something. The brace of pheasant I
got on a walk up shoot a couple of months ago, for example. Shot, hung
for a week, prepared in port, green peppercorns and cream. Only
problem is if you mistake lead shot for a peppercorn.
>
> Also, animals are often kept in atrocious conditions. Nobody can
> seriously argue that animals do not think and feel, at least far
> enough to suffer. Or _are_ you suggesting that?
I'm not in favour of factory farming for meat.....free range tastes
much better. And free range also does not require grain feeding, which
neatly disposes of another problem. I'm prefectly happy for all meat
to be free range.....and thus more expensive...but then I can afford
to think that way.
Tim Worstall
Tal
>The problem lies in the methods used (for plant or animals)
>- overintensify your crop & you do damage.
Then we agree :) Local, organic crop and livestock production is
definitely the best option all round.
Tal
>> The reason I don't eat meat is that I think it's morally reprehensible
>> not to do your own dirty work.
>
>So then you won't mind venison?
If I want venison I'll go out and shoot myself some. I don't object to
eating meat as such, just today's methods.
>Once again, this is a problem with production.
Absolutely.
>You do not have you buy factory farmed meat.
It's becoming increasingly difficult for most people to do that.
>Granted, it may mean calling your local ag dept., a drive out of town &
>buying a freezer.....
>But it can be done (plus you are supporting your local small farmer)
And this is an excellent idea and to be encouraged. I think part of -
if not most of - the problem is that people expect meat at least every
day, if not every meal. That puts a huge demand on production. If
people only ate it a few times a week production methods could
probably be scaled back to something organic, undamaging to the
environment, and more humane.
>But, theoreticly if I was an herbivore - a human with a stun gun, or a
>lion ripping my throat out........ which would be quicker?
I'd prefer the lion actually - she's not going to stuff me into a
lorry, drive me 100 miles and make me wait in line while I watch my
mates get slaughtered, with me next. And I'd prefer having had a life
of yomping over the plains with my cud-chewing friends, eyeing up the
local talent, feeling the wind in my antlers... you know the sort of
thing ;)
Tal
>Now we're actually getting somewhere. I might not agree with your
>moral position here, but I absolutely defend your right to think that
>way.
Thank you. Likewise, I generally don't walk around trying to stop
people doing as their conscience dictates (well not outside usenet
anyway *g*). If other people are happy with it, then fine. I want to
make it clear this is a personal stance. For that matter I'd probably
eat meat occasionally if it was easier to source from farmers who
produced local, organic and humanely farmed meat. My objection is
mostly to the _way_ it's produced more than anything, and that I don't
think most people stop to really think about it before they support
intensive farming. As long as they think it through and are happy with
themselves, then fair enough.
>There is something terribly satisfying about actually hunting,
>killing, preparing and then eating something. The brace of pheasant I
>got on a walk up shoot a couple of months ago, for example. Shot, hung
>for a week, prepared in port, green peppercorns and cream. Only
>problem is if you mistake lead shot for a peppercorn.
Lol! I've hunted rabbits once or twice, and helped prepare and cook
them. I've killed and prepared chicken myself before too. That's about
the extent of it. These days I don't think I'd want to do that, but if
I did want a nice roast chicken I'd at least know what I was doing and
would understand what was involved.
>I'm not in favour of factory farming for meat.....free range tastes
>much better. And free range also does not require grain feeding, which
>neatly disposes of another problem. I'm prefectly happy for all meat
>to be free range.....and thus more expensive...but then I can afford
>to think that way.
Then we agree :)
Bruce Burhans
Scratch the Earthraping animals, and I'm with you.
We export cookies to China, and we import cookies
from China, and the oceans suffer. Why don't we
just trade recipes? Localization is where it's at.....
Bruce<+>
Donald L Ferrt
> Mere instants ago, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) uttered:
>
> >Now, why not try again ? Can you make a moral case for not eating meat
> >?
>
> The reason I don't eat meat is that I think it's morally reprehensible
> not to do your own dirty work. If I was prepared to go kill and
> prepare the animal myself then fine, but I'm damned if I'm going to
> let someone else do it, then package it up all nice so I can't tell it
> was a living animal and buy it out of a supermarket without having to
> think about what I'm doing.
>
> Also, animals are often kept in atrocious conditions. Nobody can
> seriously argue that animals do not think and feel, at least far
> enough to suffer. Or _are_ you suggesting that?
Grass Fed Beef is not kept so enclosed, nor is many range free chicken:
http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/health_and_fitness/article/0,1299,DRMN_26
_998806,00.html
Headline:
What's your beef?
Naturally grown alternatives can help consumers fend off perceived evils of red
meat
By Debra Melani, News Staff Writer
Heather McNair savors every bite of a thick, juicy steak. Beef has been part of
her diet since she can remember, and she never had any intention of giving it
up.
Then she read about mad cow disease and decided to consider the alternatives.
Giving up red meat -- including beef -- wasn't on the table, but she still made
a switch: She now eats only beef labeled "natural," theoretically eliminating
the risks.
Is McNair safer than any other American beef eater? Probably not, experts say.
The likelihood of mad cow disease infecting the U.S. beef supply is slim to
none, according to Harvard University scientists who recently investigated the
cattle industry.
But McNair believes she is enjoying other health benefits by choosing an
alternative red meat.
"I think the health concerns are definitely part of it, and they have become
more so in the past year," said McNair, 29, who says she is not a "health-food
fanatic" and buys her beef from Wild Oats Markets largely for the taste.
Hormone and antibiotic use within the cattle industry and the relatively high
calorie and fat content of beef fuel most alternative beef converts, who still
constitute a minority in the $54 billion-a-year beef industry. But fears of the
brain-wasting disease, scientifically known as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, in European cattle have spurred inquiries and sales at local
health-food stores.
"Especially during the height of the mad-cow attention, we heard questions
quite frequently," said Paul Gingerich, vice president of meat and seafood
products for Wild Oats Markets. ,,,
excerpt:
Colorado's Lasater Ranch in Matheson supplies Vitamin Cottage stores with its
grass-fed beef, which also is available by Internet or mail order.
Consumers should not assume that any package marked "buffalo" is leaner than
other beef products are, Gingerich said. It depends on the cut, and some
companies add beef to their ground buffalo, since extra-lean meats do not stick
together well to make patties.
While McCarty downplayed the significance of hormones and antibiotics in the
beef industry, saying hormones are at extremely low levels and antibiotics have
been heavily regulated for years, McNair said she is convinced her "natural"
beef is better.
She believes the lack of added chemicals enhances the flavor. "It's just
amazing, the difference," she said. And she is not giving up, she said.
"There's just something comforting about digging into a big steak once in a
while."
For more information on buffalo, visit www.haddocklivestock.com or call (877)
536-4282. For more information on free-range beef, visit
www.lasatergrasslandsbeef.com or call (719) 541-2855.
the_olphardt
> Mere instants ago, Hardrock Llewynyth <hard...@blarg.net> uttered:
>
> >Not wrong.
>
> Wrong in the sense that much of the land supposedly 'not good' for
> crop raising is in fact very good for crop raising - it depends on
> which crops you wish to grow. Additionally some land which has been
> used for animal raising has apparently been damaged due to this, and
> would need a fair bit of investment to make it good for crops again.
>
Joe
Tal
>"damaged" by animal raising?
I won't swear to it - it's something I remember both of TV and
something I read. It was to do with the type of crops grown for
grazing, depletion of the soil and stuff like that. Like I say, this
was a while ago and I'm not certain of it, but I thought I remembered
reading something along those lines.
Maren Purves
> > seriously argue that animals do not think and feel, at least far
> > enough to suffer. Or _are_ you suggesting that?
>
> I'm not in favour of factory farming for meat.....free range tastes
> much better. And free range also does not require grain feeding, which
> neatly disposes of another problem. I'm prefectly happy for all meat
> to be free range.....and thus more expensive...but then I can afford
> to think that way.
not necessarily more expensive, around here it is usually cheaper too.
Why? Shipping costs (for grain) are high, and I guess there is
a component in there that the meat is too lean to get an
"USDA prime" (or whatever that is) sticker - and of course it also
doesn't have the "grain fed" sticker on it.
Maren, in Hawaii.
Hardrock Llewynyth
Our Lord, 27 Feb 2002 02:03:46 -0800:
> Only
>problem is if you mistake lead shot for a peppercorn.
Many states now require steel shot.
Not as toxic, but more likely to chip your teeth.
Rufio
"the_olphardt" <jske...@apex.net> wrote in message
news:u7pul8e...@corp.supernews.com...
Q. What crops should we grow here - in the deserts of Southern Arizona? It
supports about 1 steer to 10 acres of open range, but is pretty tuff on
crops.
P.S. the only reason water is in short supply in Southern AZ, is that 75% of
it goes to farmers for growing crops. I guess this means our 5 million
population could grow to 20 million if we didn't waste our time growing
crops, that could more easily be grown elsewhere.
P.P.S. over the last week, it's been 85-90F here in AZ - how's the weather
in the Midwest farming belt?
Jaguar
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tal wrote:
> Mere instants ago, "the_olphardt" <jske...@apex.net> uttered:
>
> >"damaged" by animal raising?
>
> I won't swear to it - it's something I remember both of TV and
> something I read. It was to do with the type of crops grown for
> grazing, depletion of the soil and stuff like that. Like I say, this
> was a while ago and I'm not certain of it, but I thought I remembered
> reading something along those lines.
OVER grazing damages lands.
Just like over intesifying a plant crop will cause damage.
As always - you have to pick your lovestock or plants to fit the local
conditions for best success & minimal ecosystem impact.
You can't grow rice in a desert, or graze cattle in a jungle & expect that
to be sustainable.
Jag
Jaguar
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tal wrote:
> Mere instants ago, Jaguar <jag...@Radix.Net> uttered:
>
> >> The reason I don't eat meat is that I think it's morally reprehensible
> >> not to do your own dirty work.
> >
> >So then you won't mind venison?
>
> If I want venison I'll go out and shoot myself some. I don't object to
> eating meat as such, just today's methods.
I too disagree with today's methods.
They are driving the small farmers out of business & are not sustainable.
They are increasingly placing agriculture under the control of a few large
corporations, which even patent & control the seed.
It IS a trend that can be countered, however.
Vote with your dollars.
> >Once again, this is a problem with production.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> >You do not have you buy factory farmed meat.
>
> It's becoming increasingly difficult for most people to do that.
If one does not like the trend of today's agriculture,
the only recourse you have it to vote with your dollars & buy food
produced in the manner you prefer.
(In my case local, organic, from small farms)
It may mean you WILL have to drive out of your way to do so.
But then - people manage to make that trip a distance to that wholesale
club.... so they can find the time if they wanted to.
> >Granted, it may mean calling your local ag dept., a drive out of town &
> >buying a freezer.....
> >But it can be done (plus you are supporting your local small farmer)
>
> And this is an excellent idea and to be encouraged. I think part of -
> if not most of - the problem is that people expect meat at least every
> day, if not every meal. That puts a huge demand on production. If
> people only ate it a few times a week production methods could
> probably be scaled back to something organic, undamaging to the
> environment, and more humane.
People buy what they can afford & want.
Education can change preferances.
I knew one die hard carnivore that completely swore off beef after reading
a newspaper article about the big slaughter hous abuses.
Me, i might eat meat once a day (depending on what one classifies as
meat.. I tend to think of fish as meat & eggs as embryonic meat)
It also depends on the person - if they can cook, if they have the time to
cook.... ect. Many factors go into what winds up on table.
> >But, theoreticly if I was an herbivore - a human with a stun gun, or a
> >lion ripping my throat out........ which would be quicker?
>
> I'd prefer the lion actually - she's not going to stuff me into a
> lorry, drive me 100 miles and make me wait in line while I watch my
> mates get slaughtered, with me next. And I'd prefer having had a life
> of yomping over the plains with my cud-chewing friends, eyeing up the
> local talent, feeling the wind in my antlers... you know the sort of
> thing ;)
Heh.
All the cattle I see are standing in a field, chewing cud.
Cattle have it much better than chickens, or even pigs - two species that
are particularly factory farmed.
Jag
the_olphardt
"Jaguar" <jag...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.43.020228...@saltmine.radix.net...
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tal wrote:
>
> > Mere instants ago, "the_olphardt" <jske...@apex.net> uttered:
> >
> > >"damaged" by animal raising?
> >
> > I won't swear to it - it's something I remember both of TV and
> > something I read. It was to do with the type of crops grown for
> > grazing, depletion of the soil and stuff like that. Like I say, this
> > was a while ago and I'm not certain of it, but I thought I remembered
> > reading something along those lines.
>
>
> OVER grazing damages lands.
Um...I'll buy "over" grazing damaging the forage crops ON the land, so that
the grazing can't be sustained at that level, but how does it damage the
land itself?
Bruce Burhans
You should see what the cattle do to the National
Forest out here. It's a crime. It is no longer a Forest, it's a
place where cattle mow. (that''s right: "mow." Cattle are
not grazing animals, they are mowing animals.)
They are only here 4 month of the year, and perhaps
at a density of 1 per 10 acres, yet biodiversity (mammals and birds) is
down
by at least 50% and there are more eurasian weed invaders than native
herbs. Erosian is everywhere. Wetland habitats have been totaled
because of their incredible need for water.
It's easy to see that the cattle are the cause, because
right across the fence is a large, private preserve, which
is a paradise by comparison.
Bruce<+>
Jaguar
Bet the biodiversity is still a alot better than what one would find if
the land was used for plant crops.
Acres & acres of Bt corn or roundup ready soy is less biodiverse than
pasture.
and there are more eurasian weed invaders than native
> herbs.
Invasive plant speices would be here wheter cattle were grazing or not.
Some of them were imported as ornamentals or food crops.
In the case of the west, things like heather or gorse are nitrogen fixers
- which give them an added competitive edge over the natives.
Basicicly they build up dead tisse & the seed bank - a fire goes through.
Seeds all germinate.
Nitrogen fixers out compete the natives.
Cattle may not help, but they are hardly the cause of invasive plant
species.
Here on the east coast, mile a minute weed, kudzu, japanese honeysuckle,
bush honeysuckle, japanese stilt grass, tree of heaven, norway maple,
purple loosestrife - all invasives.
& one can hardly pin urban forests being taken over by invasives on
cattle.
> Erosian is everywhere. Wetland habitats have been totaled
> because of their incredible need for water.
Wetlands habitats were totaled beacuse the beaver, which maintain & create
those wetlands were trapped, & shot to local extinction.
Beaver are a keystone species - they dam up water & create wetlands.
When you remove them, the wetlands trickle away.
Interestingly, there is a movement on the part of some ranchers to bring
the beaver back (admitly still a minority practice)
- for the beaver create beaver meadows & lush grazing, while slowing down
erosion.
> It's easy to see that the cattle are the cause,
Then you stopped looking to early.
Jag
Jaguar
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, the_olphardt wrote:
> > > >"damaged" by animal raising?
> > >
> > > I won't swear to it - it's something I remember both of TV and
> > > something I read. It was to do with the type of crops grown for
> > > grazing, depletion of the soil and stuff like that. Like I say, this
> > > was a while ago and I'm not certain of it, but I thought I remembered
> > > reading something along those lines.
> >
> >
> > OVER grazing damages lands.
> Um...I'll buy "over" grazing damaging the forage crops ON the land, so that
> the grazing can't be sustained at that level, but how does it damage the
> land itself?
Topsoil erosion.
Plants hold down the topsoil.
(which varies in thickness - depending on geology & climate)
Remove the plants - the tosoil is more prone to eroding down streams or
even blowing away in the wind.
Now soils vary in how easily they are damaged.
For example:
Places like the rainforests hold NO nutrients in the soil.
All nutrients are in plant matter.
So to grow a crop - you slash & burn the plants - reulting ash will yeild
a bumper crop - & then crops quickly fizzle out as soil fertility gets
taken out each harvest.
Traditionaly, spent land would be allowed to re-grow forests before re use
for agriculture.
Today, folks grase the cattle (which are non native animals) on the spent
land.
The cattle eat up the last plants & you are left with barren dust.
Which is much more difficult for the rainforest to re-colonize
Jag
Bruce Burhans
[snip]
are
> > not grazing animals, they are mowing animals.)
> > They are only here 4 month of the year, and perhaps
> > at a density of 1 per 10 acres, yet biodiversity (mammals and
birds) is
> > down
> > by at least 50%
>
> Bet the biodiversity is still a alot better than what one would find
if
> the land was used for plant crops.
>
Hold it right there. Were the crops to be grown for the
same number of vegans that the cattle feed, then they
could be interspersed among the trees and would
result in an _increase_ in the biodiversity of the forest.
This has been the case on our land. But even if you
were to use industrial farming techniques to grow crops
for vegans in that forest, the percentage of the forest
that would have to be cleared would still leave the
biodiversity at 99%.
Plus, you have to factor in the crops that are grown to feed those
cattle for the other 8 months of the year, as
well as the buildings and fences and the staggering amount
of water they need.
Bruce<+>
Jim Webster
Bruce Burhans <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ANFf8.25856$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> [snip]
the staggering amount
> of water they need.
don't worry about that, what goes in comes out pretty quickly
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
> Bruce<+>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce Burhans
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:a5nat6$v55$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Bruce Burhans <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ANFf8.25856$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > [snip]
>
> the staggering amount
> > of water they need.
>
> don't worry about that, what goes in comes out pretty quickly
>
>
After the beasts have trashed the sensitive wetlands
to obtain it. Freshwater, in case you haven't noticed, is
no longer something we can take for granted, either.
If that was a joke, then I thank you for the chuckle and
the opportunity to rant on...........
Bruce<+>
Chive Mynde
> On 25 Feb 2002 23:27:23 -0800, chive_m...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote:
>
> >"The 9th Witch" <appalach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a5ebnc$6js6d$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> >> news:825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com...
> >> > But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
> >> > post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
> >> > trying to tell us.
> >> >
> >> > The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
> >> > we should at least commend him for that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Provided one could keep it down.
> >
> >Please give a good reason why "one" could not...
> >
> >healthier) than meat itself.
>
Nonsense. Spiced seitan tastes superior to meat and is good for you.
> >The facts are clear. Meat and
> >dairy intake is responsible for the majority of all health problems.
>
> Only when consumed in excess.
Actually, meat and dairy intake is unhealthy when consumed, period.
Chive Mynde
> >On 25 Feb 2002, Chive Mynde wrote:
>
> > "The 9th Witch" <appalach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a5ebnc$6js6d$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> > > news:825e2890.02022...@posting.google.com...
> > > > But I think for once we are missing the point of a Devin Mcandrews
> > > > post....rather than his usual style of missing what the Universe is
> > > > trying to tell us.
> > > >
> > > > The diet he details would certainly keep a human well nourished....so
> > > > we should at least commend him for that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Provided one could keep it down.
> >
> > Please give a good reason why "one" could not...
>
> 'fer starters
> Not every one has the proper enzymes to efficently break down tofu, beans
> & the like. (just like not everyone has the enzyme to break down dairy)
You are misrepresenting the diet I posted. The diet notes clearly
stated, "Even if the 2 most concentrated sources of protein were
removed - the lentils, and the tofu in the sandwich - this vegan menu
will easily exceed 50 grams that is recommended for most people
(at 0.8 to 0.9 grams protein per kilogram body weight.)"
One wonders why you continue to lie in post after post.
> & a side not about your proposed diet:
>
> It relies HEAVILY on modern transport
Pure nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence for your claim.
Again, you are lying. One wonders why that is.
However, it is not surprising to find that in a MODERN world,
almost everything we do relies on MODERN transport.
And yet, that is clearly not the case in terms of food which
can be grown, produced, and distributed locally.
> to provide you with fruit out of season.
Nonsense. Nobody claimed that one had to be provided with fruits
out of season.
> It also relies on modern argi-buisness - the pesticides, fertilizers, ect.
Nonsense. The diet I posted need not rely on pesticides and
fertilzers.
> Which means there are hidden costs
No. You are lying again.
> petrolium used to produce & transport
> the crops over long distances.
Petrol is uesd to produce and transport almost everything.
Clearly, you are lying again.
> Environmental damage caused by use in the 3rd world of pesticides that are
> banned in the US, ect.
Nonsense. The diet I posted can and is produced organically.
You are lying again.
> If you really want to reduce environmental damage - you would need to eat
> foods that are produced locally, organicly raised.
One did not say that they weren't, and I have consistently argued
for years that they should be....
So, clearly, you are lying again.
> Meat produced organicly is just as environmentaly friendly as corn.
Nonsense.
> > Interestingly, meat alternatives are often tastier (and obviously
> > healthier) than meat itself. The facts are clear. Meat and
> > dairy intake is responsible for the majority of all health problems.
>
> Incorrect.
Actually, it's 100% correct. You are lying again.
> Refined FLOUR & SUGAR coupled with lack of excerise are the culprits.
> Not meat.
Nonsense. You are lying, as usual.
"As a result of their high content of fat and cholesterol, McDonald's
products contribute to heart disease, certain forms of cancer, and
other diseases. The links between high-fat diets and certain diseases
are established beyond any reasonable doubt." - Neal D. Bernard, M.D.
http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/biogs/barnard.html
"In my book `Food & Health - The Experts Agree' published by the
Consumers' Association in 1992, I demonstrate that there is an
established consensus among the scientific community worldwide to the
effect that the diet typically eaten in industrialised countries (such
as the United Kingdom and the United States of America) is an
important case of major diseases including cardiovascular diseases." -
Dr. Geoffrey Cannon,
http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/witnesses/nutrition/cannon_geoffrey.html
"In my clinical experience, the changes that I observed were
significantly positive and dramatic, when dietary modification was
used, to define all previous clinical experience in treating those
diseases. Changes in longstanding conditions such as angina, obesity,
dyspepsia, arthritis and diabetes could often be observed, even in
some cases, in a matter of weeks or days. Thus I was highly flattered
on discovering that that was a well developed, scientific literature
emanating from America from medical professors, epidemiologists,
psychiatrists, biochemists, physicians, pathologists, cardiologists,
nutritionists and general practitioners. The point I wish to make is
that all these eminent people had made the same observations as
myself, though to a much greater extent." - Dr. David Ryde, MB BS
FRCGP
http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/biogs/ryde.html
"During my visit to Indonesia and Malaysia this spring, deep concern
was being publicly experessed by health workers, that this had already
happened: diabetes and heary disease were appearing as a new health
problem. The high profile Western foods and fast foods outlets such as
McDonald's, is seen as playing a significant part in the introduction
of these diseases which are new to these parts of the world..." -
Professor Michael A. Crawford, PhD., FIBiol., CBio
http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/biogs/crawford.html
"Meat offers us nothing as far as the central nutrients are concerned
that we can't get from plant material. In addition those kinds of
foods are usually high in salt, often times high in sugar, and of
course high in fat and high in animal protein. They contain very
little or no dietary fibre except the odd bit that might be present in
the bread. They contain virtually none of the anti-oxidants. As you
begin to examine the bit-parts of the of their meal, there is nothing
that's of any benefit, and in my view that kind of food is really not
helpful...."
"The high fat intake, the high animal protein intake, the lack of
these other things, lead into increased risks for cancers of various
incendiary kinds, increased risk of the various kinds of heart
diseases, diabetes; the kind of disease that actually kill upwards of
three quarters of us in Western society before our time...."
- Professor Colin Campbell
http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interviews/campbell.html
High red-meat intake, obesity linked to cancer.
Health News 2002 Feb;8(2):9
Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: Dose- response
meta-analysis of epidemiological studies.
Int J Cancer 2002 Mar 10;98(2):241- 56
Fat, meat, and prostate cancer.
Epidemiol Rev 2001;23(1):72-81
Scientific data suggest positive relationships between a vegetarian
diet and reduced risk for several chronic degenerative diseases and
conditions, including obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension,
diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer. Vegetarian diets, like
all diets, need to be planned appropriately to be nutritionally
adequate.
J Am Diet Assoc. 1997;97:1317-1321.
Biological concentration of toxic and persistent substances in
carnivores
When a potentially toxic and persistent substance is released into the
environment, its concentration may be so low that is causes no obvious
damage. It may move into and remain in the plants at the same low
concentration in which it exists in water or soil. But a herbivore (a
plant-eating animal) must eat about 10 grams of living matter to make
1 gram of itself. So herbivores will, on average, take in as much of
the potentially toxic substance as was found in 10 individual plants.
A carnivore (a meat-eating animal) will accumulate the toxin to a
concentration about 10 times that found in a herbivore. Thus, the
animals at the top of the food chain may contain the compound at a
high enough concentration to be damaging, even though the
concentration in the environment or in other species may be too low to
cause harm.
- Australian Academy of Science
http://www.science.org.au/nova/036/036box03.htm
More vegetables and fruits, less meat may help prevent
breast cancer, according to JADA
Oxidative DNA damage levels in blood from women at high risk
for breast cancer are associated with dietary intakes of meats,
vegetables, and fruits, Journal of The American Dietetic Association,
May 1998, Volume 98, Number 5, pages 524 - 528. Authors: Djuric,
Z., Depper, J., Uhley, V., Smith, D., Lababidi, S., Martino, S.,
Heilbrun
http://www.eatright.com/journal/1998/j0598a1.html
http://www.eatright.com/pr/press042998.html
> > A strong case can be made for meat intake being the number one cause
> > of death. And, it's no coincidence that if one eliminates meat
> > from ones diet (or limits it) one also cleans up the environment
> > in the process.
>
> One does not clean up the environment by not eating meat.
Wrong, again. One wonders why you continue to lie.
"...meat farming contributes significantly to soil erosion,
desertification and deforestation especially of rainforests,
global warming through the use of fossil fuels in transport,
slaughter, processing and storage, and 20% of the total
production of methane. Meat farming contributes to pollution
of water ways with manure and pesticides in amounts greater
than the pollution of cities and industry combined."
(Cross and Byers, etal 1990)
"The riches of the Midwest breadbasket are not fed to humans. Most of
it is fed to animals: 82% of the corn we grow in this country, 83% of
the oats, 70% of the barley, 77% of the soybeans, 90% of the rye and
even 31% of the wheat. We feed the animals, and then we eat them.
It's so inefficient. It takes 16 pounds of corn to make 1 pound of
beef. And three-quarters of that is excrement, which pollutes the
planet."
- Michael Klaper, M.D.
www.vegsource.com/klaper/bio.htm
"Cattle raising is a key factor in the destruction of rain forests in
Latin America and the range land in the United States. The over a
billion of cud chewing animals in the world are responsible for over
10% of the methane emitted into the atmosphere, which in turn
contributes to the global warming problem. Human consumption of meat
is inefficient. Cattle consume more than 70% of the grain produced in
the United States and about a third of the world's total grain
harvest."
- Richard Frank, Attorney Law, Former United States Commissioner to
the International Whaling Commission
Seven pounds of cattle feed is required to produce a pound of beef,
compared with two pounds of fish feed for some aquaculture species.
In the United States, the 104-million-strong cattle herd is the
country's largest user of grain.
Growing an acre of corn to feed cattle takes 535,000 gallons of
water.
24 percent of the land is used as pasture to graze livestock
for meat and milk products.
- David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agricultural science,
Cornell University, and Robert Goodland, tropical ecologist and
adviser
to the World Bank, in Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment,
Conservation, and Health (Island Press, 2000, ISBN 1-55963-807-9).
http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0111014.htm
"The world's natural resources are being rapidly reduced as a
result of meat-eating. 200 times more water is required to produce one
pound of California beef than one pound of wheat. "78 calories of
fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, etc.) energy to produce one calorie of
beef protein and only 2 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one
calorie of soybean. If every human ate a meat-centered diet, the
world’s known oil reserves would last a mere 13 years." If every
person stopped eating meat altogether, which is not very likely, these
resources would last up to 260 years. An acre of prime land can
produce
40,000 lbs. of potatoes,
30,000 lbs. of carrots,
50,000 lbs. of tomatoes,
or 250 lbs. of beef
Fifty-five square feet of tropical rainforest is cut down to produce
every quarter-pound of rainforest beef. 300 million pounds of meat are
imported annually from Central and South America, making the amount of
rainforest destroyed enormous. Along with the destruction of these
rainforests, about 1,000 species are eliminated each year due to the
jungle clearing. The production and consumption of meat is one of the
most inefficient and detrimental of accepted environmental actions in
the world today.
- The Environment and Meat Eating by Brian Loewe
"Growing grains to feed animals is extremely inefficient. I think
the ratio is about 10:1, as to the amount of grain it takes
to feed beef for a given unit of beef flesh versus eating the
grain itself. If we didn't feed this grain to animals, we
could feed more people or take land out of production.
45% of the total land mass of the US is used to directly or indirectly
(by growing grain) raise animals for food. Modern agriculture
is extremely wasteful of all resources. Of particular concern is
the amount of topsoil we are losing and loss of biodiversity
resulting from more land than necessary being cultivated and
extensive monoculture. 75% of our topsoil is gone and 85% of
topsoil erosion is the result of raising animals for food."
- Stan King [mailto:S-K...@wcom.com]
"Raising livestock for their meat is a very inefficient way of
generating food. Pound for pound, far more resources must be expended
to produce meat than to produce grains, fruits and vegetables. For
example, more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.
is consumed in livestock production. While 25 gallons of water are
needed to produce a pound of wheat, 5,000 gallons are needed to
produce a pound of California beef. That same 5,000 gallons of water
can produce 20 pounds of wheat. If this water cost were not
subsidized by the government, the cheapest hamburger meat would cost
more than $35 per pound."
- ros...@msx.upmc.edu
India was, for the most part, a well watered and naturally
highly productive country. It is now severely overgrazed.
[See; http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html]
Inefficient use of agriculture. 70% of U.S. grain production is used
to feed farm animals. The grains and soybeans fed to animals to
produce the amount of meat consumed by the average American in one
year could feed seven people for the same period.
Inefficient use of water. It takes 2640 gallons of water to produce
one pound of edible beef. The water used to raise animals for food is
more than half the water used in the United States.
Inefficient use of energy.
Calories of fossil fuel needed to produce 1 calorie of protein in
beef: 28.
Calories of fossil fuel needed to produce 1 calorie of protein in
soybeans: 2.
Environmental Pollution. Raising animals for food is the biggest
polluter of our water and topsoil. Factory farm animal waste pollutes
the ground and groundwater horribly.
Destruction of natural habitat. It takes more land to raise animals
for food than it does to produce the equivalent nutritional value by
raising edible plants. Rain forests are being destroyed to make room
for huge cattle ranches.
In the US cattle consume 90% of the soybean crop, 80% of all corn
grown and yet 20 million people will die from starvation this year.
(The US department of Agriculture and Oxfam America statistics)
Not only do cattle consume half the worlds grain crops, but meat
farming contributes significantly to soil erosion, desertification and
deforestation especially of rainforests, global warming through the
use of fossil fuels in transport, slaughter, processing and storage,
and 20% of the total production of methane. Meat farming contributes
to pollution of water ways with manure and pesticides in amounts
greater than the pollution of cities and industry combined. (Cross and
Byers, etal 1990)
In Australia clearing for pasture is the foremost reason for
clearing, and as resulted in the state of Queensland having the
highest rate of land clearing in the western world, killing many
animals and trees, putting our Great Barrier Reef in danger from
runoff, increasing the already likely incidence of salinity and
contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
'According to Worldwatch Institute, altogether roughly 1/3
of the plant food grown on Earth that could be eaten by people
is instead fed to livestock. According to world food and
agriculture expert Frances Moore Lappe, the figure is 40%-50%.
This food -- grain, legumes, fruit, vegetables, nuts, and seeds
(even animal products) -- loses approximately 80%-90% of its
food value to humans when cycled through livestock rather
than being eaten directly by people. ..'
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
'The soil loss and degradation, water depletion and pollution,
flood and sediment damage, desertification, deforestation,
wildlife destruction, cropland loss and damage, energy and
other resource waste, social and political inequities, and
unjust resource utilization inherent to livestock production
are all major contributors to hardship, poverty, and global
conflict. ..'
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
Agbiotech-A Sad Saga of Lies and Propaganda
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccd55c9c.0110251601.22e363ce%40posting.google.com
Jim Webster
>
> "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> news:a5nat6$v55$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Bruce Burhans <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:ANFf8.25856$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > the staggering amount
> > > of water they need.
> >
> > don't worry about that, what goes in comes out pretty quickly
> >
> >
>
> After the beasts have trashed the sensitive wetlands
> to obtain it. Freshwater, in case you haven't noticed, is
> no longer something we can take for granted,
you are speaking from a purely local american perspective. Fresh water is
becoming a nightmare over here, damned stuff never stops falling
either.
> If that was a joke, then I thank you for the chuckle and
> the opportunity to rant on...........
just pointing out that things can get a shade exaggerated. Similarly we have
wetland land where the conservationists want us to allow cattle to graze it
and plough it up with their feet to assist some flora as opposed to others.
Balance in all things
Bruce Burhans
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Bruce Burhans <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5qGf8.25888$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> > news:a5nat6$v55$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > Bruce Burhans <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ANFf8.25856$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > >
> > > the staggering amount
> > > > of water they need.
> > >
> > > don't worry about that, what goes in comes out pretty quickly
> > >
> > >
> >
> > After the beasts have trashed the sensitive wetlands
> > to obtain it. Freshwater, in case you haven't noticed, is
> > no longer something we can take for granted,
>
> you are speaking from a purely local american perspective. Fresh water
is
> becoming a nightmare over here, damned stuff never stops falling
>
> either.
> > If that was a joke, then I thank you for the chuckle and
> > the opportunity to rant on...........
>
> just pointing out that things can get a shade exaggerated.
The destructiveness of mowing animals is not an
exaggeration. The Union of Concerned Scientists even
considers drivng cars and eating meat to be the most
destructive things people do.
Similarly we have
> wetland land where the conservationists want us to allow cattle to
graze it
> and plough it up with their feet to assist some flora as opposed to
others.
> Balance in all things
>
No one with a lick of common sense would look to
the mainstream environmental movement for sound
advice on how to preserve the environment. They have
30+ years of abject failure under their belts, because
they want to save the Earth *after* they each get
their piece of it........
The 9th Witch
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VbTf8.27115$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
From the webpage of the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/index_entermem.html?
"You argue that meat consumption causes considerable environmental damage.
Are you suggesting that everyone become a vegetarian?"
"No. Just as we don't claim that people need to stop driving their cars
completely, we don't argue that they need to stop eating meat entirely. But
reductions in both areas--driving and meat consumption--will certainly
benefit the environment. And when you do eat meat, it is desirable to buy
meat that has been produced in accordance with sustainable agriculture
principles. You can look for meat that is labeled "organic," or grass-
rather than grain-fed, or is from local farms about whose practices you can
obtain information."
Seems they agree with Jag and Jim, there, Bruce.
--
T9W
Can't Sleep? Go Shopping! Irish Style
Shaney O'Grady's
http://leprechuan.iwongifts.com
Com and Get It
http://comandgetit.iwonstores.com
Unsolicited email will be subject to a $500 fine.
Unsolicited email from christians will be subject to a fine of 10% of
sender's income.
Michael Sallee
Bruce Burhans wrote:
> Plus, you have to factor in the crops that are grown to feed those
> cattle for the other 8 months of the year, as
> well as the buildings and fences and the staggering amount
> of water they need.
>
> Bruce<+>
One thing you have not considered. Livestock moved to other areas for
grazing. With the proper forethought cattle may be grazed 365.25 days
of the year. I only keep enough hay on hand so my darlings will
not plug the pastures. That and for the need if there is a drought.
My grandfather and father taught me to keep at least a 1.5 years of
hay on hand for emergency two is better. The hay supply when needed
dissappears fast and is long to replace.
--
-----
"The law may permit what honor does not."
-Deacon
-----
Sincerely
Michael Sallee
President Green Hills Farm Project
Brought to you by the letters O and S and the number 2
Michael Sallee
Bruce Burhans wrote:
> > don't worry about that, what goes in comes out pretty quickly
> >
> >
>
> After the beasts have trashed the sensitive wetlands
> to obtain it. Freshwater, in case you haven't noticed, is
> no longer something we can take for granted, either.
> If that was a joke, then I thank you for the chuckle and
> the opportunity to rant on...........
>
> Bruce<+>
> >
So you fence the darlings out of the wetlands. So what, my family
has been doing that for generations. If you have not figured
it out already, all livestock likes and grows better with clean
water than drinking toilet water.
Michael Sallee
Donald L Ferrt wrote:
>
> Consumers should not assume that any package marked "buffalo" is leaner than
> other beef products are, Gingerich said. It depends on the cut, and some
> companies add beef to their ground buffalo, since extra-lean meats do not stick
> together well to make patties.
One point; not to consider all marked "buffalo" as grass fed/finished.
There are
many bison fed on the grain finished feedlot method the same as for
cattle.
The flavor of the meats are different, but when you consider grass
finished
bison or cattle there is not much different. Myself I prefer a 2 year
old
Angus bull finished on grass. If I have to add an egg or two to make
the
ground beef to hold together on the grill.... I would rather not,
corrupts
the taste.
Michael Sallee
Tim Worstall wrote:
>
> I'm not in favour of factory farming for meat.....free range tastes
> much better. And free range also does not require grain feeding, which
> neatly disposes of another problem. I'm prefectly happy for all meat
> to be free range.....and thus more expensive...but then I can afford
> to think that way.
Factory farming (farm: land for who one rents), is a mindset on the
immediate. Weither, grain or livestock is the same. How to get
out of that is difficult. Try to go to the Bank and get an extension
of credit. Not many bankers can see beyound 5 years if that.
So, what to do. I would enjoy to sell more beef direct to my patrons.
Those whom I have, more so to those whom I hope to educate. Let us
look back at the thought of the immediate: It is too hard to think
ahead. That and priorities, I must have this form of entertainment
but to prepare to fed my gut...tonight is way to far ahead. To say;
yes grassfed beef is better for you, but you need to buy a freezer
which can hold at least 1/4 a beef. That is difficult to comprehend,
and many to want to afford. Both for the storage unit and the ammount
of product.
The immediate: Once you find hopeful patrons whom might want to
aquire the beef (et. al.), then you have distance. It seems that to
be more than an hour away from the city places you in the henderlands.
Too far to travel. I would enjoy for my patrons to come to my place.
I would love to show them around; enjoy the day, have a picnic....
to show them how I love the land. I do not own it, it owns me. To
show them my darlings, for that is how special my cows are to me and
how they want to be treated. That seems to be a lot, but how can
you express your stewardship to others, they have to see and hear
before they can start to understand. "Look what I find something new,
each and every day." (that is something I heard from one of my great
uncles) To be a part of the land; to see, to hold; to hear, to smell,
to taste. Then you are just beginning to know what is there.
I feel sorry for those of the city whom are divorced from the land.
What seems right in their eyes, is not right with the ways of the
land and animals.
I am teased by the "farmers" of the area I live that what I do does
not make sense. They have blinded themselves almost to the extent
of those of the city. The University says you must do this to make
a living....but whom are the Universities beholden for grants, the
very same Megacorporations whom want factory production of all food
produce. There are a few projects in the University systems which
run opposed to that, these are there only thru the sweat and tears
of those whom want to know and care. If you go through the norm of
the University system, these projects would dry up and be elimated.
With all that, look for whom really cares for the land. There are
many whom want to provide good wholesome food. One must just take
the time to find it, then go get it. I love to grow the food, I
just do not want to take the time from what I enjoy, to peddle my
wares to the unlearned and unappreciative. Or sould I say to those
whom think that they know what is best for me and do not want to
learn.
Michael Sallee
Rufio wrote:
>
> P.P.S. over the last week, it's been 85-90F here in AZ - how's the weather
> in the Midwest farming belt?
In central N Missouri, bouncing from 74-12F. A skim of mud over the
pastures.
Shame my new grass is all that I have left to graise. The drought the
last
two years has made a mess of my grazing rotatation pattern. Looks like
my
darlings will not be liking me by 5:00 this evening.....storm accoming.
Yohan the Lost
> to obtain it.
They are called "swamps". If you are going to be talking to adults, please
try to use proper English. Your make-believe terms like wetlands are very
insulting. Anyone who has ever seen a swamp knows that there is actually
very little land, it is mostly water and plant life.
The only thing worse is "tropical rain forest", which doesn't refer to a
forest at all. Rather, it refers to a "jungle". If you want us to take you
seriously, then don't treat us like idiots. Using euphuisms to disguise what
you are talking about is, in actuality, lying. And I for one am getting
tired of it.
--
Yohan the Lost
Michael Sallee
Bruce Burhans wrote:
> > > After the beasts have trashed the sensitive wetlands
> > > to obtain it. Freshwater, in case you haven't noticed, is
> > > no longer something we can take for granted,
>
> The destructiveness of mowing animals is not an
> exaggeration. The Union of Concerned Scientists even
> considers drivng cars and eating meat to be the most
> destructive things people do.
>
> Similarly we have
> > wetland land where the conservationists want us to allow cattle to
> graze it
> > and plough it up with their feet to assist some flora as opposed to
> others.
> > Balance in all things
> >
>
> No one with a lick of common sense would look to
> the mainstream environmental movement for sound
> advice on how to preserve the environment. They have
> 30+ years of abject failure under their belts, because
> they want to save the Earth *after* they each get
> their piece of it........
>
> Bruce<+>
I have seen and walked over streams which if run by the conventional
wisdon of the authorities should not have been. Actually running
ruminants over the land with controlled rotational grazing made the
steams to live. On the portion of the stream which all livestock
have been excluded for 60+ years their is a barren graveyard.
Where the grazing is comtrolled the trout stream is full of
spawning fish. Wetlands, most are seasonal, in the proper time
they have been used by all forms of ruminants. Before man, the
bison grazed the prairie wetlands. So why is it a crime to
graze cattle on the land in the same time of the year?
As for mowing animals...cattle do not mow they graze, two distinct
and seperate actions.
Wetlands are different from swamps. I would never allow even one
of my darlings to enter a swamp. Not, for the want to keep it
pure. There is not anything in a swamp to graze and I do not
want to wade out and pull her back out of the mud. That is why
you also fence cattle out of ponds, muddy animals do not gain.
That and the swamp is a filter of the water, and a restorer of
water to the aquifer. It takes years, decades, millienium to
restore this source of water. So, going back to grasslands,
they are an important source of the clean water. Which is
being squandered on raising grain in the wrong environment.
Jim Webster
> The destructiveness of mowing animals is not an
> exaggeration. The Union of Concerned Scientists even
> considers drivng cars and eating meat to be the most
> destructive things people do.
>
had I ever come across them on this side of the atlantic I might give their
findings more important. The west of England has been created by grazing
animals, government programmes exist to ensure that grazing animals continue
to graze
Jim Webster
Michael Sallee <bs...@freenet.toronto.on.ca> wrote in message
news:3C7FE4B1...@freenet.toronto.on.ca...
>
>
> One point; not to consider all marked "buffalo" as grass fed/finished.
> There are
> many bison fed on the grain finished feedlot method the same as for
> cattle.
> The flavor of the meats are different, but when you consider grass
> finished
> bison or cattle there is not much different. Myself I prefer a 2 year
> old
> Angus bull finished on grass. If I have to add an egg or two to make
> the
> ground beef to hold together on the grill.... I would rather not,
> corrupts
> the taste.
>
certainly grass fed animals taste different.
The flavour is much stronger and most people I know prefer it. In the UK
during summer and autumn most of the beef is grass finished, in winter
obviously silage or hay forms the base of the diet.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> --
Bruce Burhans
and social consciences become vegans. I salute them.
Very soon, if the ICE doesn't collapse first, the
new people will vote out the enormous subsidies that
make the animal-product-junkies' habit affordable.
Those without a conscience must be controlled by
those who do. Heed not the words of the addicts or those of their
bought-and-paid-for scientists. These are the same people who can
rationalize and justify mass murder for material gain around the world.
There words are mean- ingless, their dishonesty runs so deep that they
even believe their own lies
Take a basic step towards becoming a good Earthling
and become an Herbivore.
Since you were a tiny babe, they have been telling
you that only animal products taste good, and only animal
products will make you strong and healthy.
They lie. Usually unwittingly, because they were raised
on the same nonsense.
Look around and ask around. Vegans are, on the
average, *many* times healthier than animal product users.
Don't let them bully you.
Bruce<+>
Jim Webster
> Every year, 10's of millions of people with planetary
> and social consciences become vegans. I salute them.
10s of millions a year. Wow
is this 20 million, 30 million, 40 million?
has the process being going on at this rate of a year, a decade?
like why has there not be a cataclysmic drop in meat consumption?
One reason is that lapsed vegetarians always seem to outnumber vegetarians
Bruce Burhans
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
We'll see, won't we......
Bruce<+>
Jim Webster
>
> "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> news:a5qbdk$mjj$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Bruce Burhans <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:j41g8.28164$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > Every year, 10's of millions of people with planetary
> > > and social consciences become vegans. I salute them.
> >
> > 10s of millions a year. Wow
> >
> > is this 20 million, 30 million, 40 million?
> >
> > has the process being going on at this rate of a year, a decade?
> >
> > like why has there not be a cataclysmic drop in meat consumption?
> >
> > One reason is that lapsed vegetarians always seem to outnumber
> vegetarians
> >
we are doing. For 40 years I have had militant vegetarians telling me that
their numbers are growing. For 40 years they have been telling me that they
are about to break through this or than numbers barrier.
Hate to say it but it is the same barrier now as it was 40 years ago
thats one reason why I always giggle when someone quotes 10s of millions of
people going vegan. Work it out for yourself, if you assume that it is 50
million (which is near enough half way through the 10s of millions bracket,)
and one takes a half of that number being the first world, (US and Europe in
broad terms) this is 20 to 25 million new vegans a year. Split the half and
half between US and Europe and that is 10 million each. If we then take the
Europe figure and spread it evenly, the UK should get at least a million of
them a year.
Hence if this figure has been true of the last ten years, we are looking at
somewhere between 10 and 20% of the UK population are now vegans.
funny how we haven't noticed isn't it
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
> Bruce<+>
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce Burhans
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
You are liar
Bruce<+>
Yohan the Lost
> average, *many* times healthier than animal product users.
Of the ones I know, they are much less healthy. I know one that would become
violently ill from eating refried beans due to the lard content. Their
system must be constantly on the edge of breakdown if such a small change
can make them so ill.
--
Yohan the Lost
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j41g8.28164$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yohan the Lost
>
>
> Bruce<+>
That depends if you have some hard number or not. As long as you remain
vague, we won't see anything.
--
Yohan the Lost
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4K2g8.28226$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yohan the Lost
>
> Bruce<+>
>
What is he lying about? If you are going to call someone a liar, you have to
at least say what he is lying about.
--
Yohan the Lost
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hKdg8.29670$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Bruce Burhans
"Yohan the Lost" <yo...@poee.org> wrote in message
news:DZhg8.21881$FY5.9...@news2.west.cox.net...
> > You are liar
>
>
> > Bruce<+>
> >
>
> What is he lying about? If you are going to call someone a liar, you
have to
> at least say what he is lying about.
>
> --
> Yohan the Lost
>
All other things being equal, a vegan does a small
fraction of the environmental harm that an animal
product consumer does.
Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid, or
a liar. Since the man is obviously neither of the first two,.
he's a liar.
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
> > We'll see, won't we......
> >
> >
> > Bruce<+>
>
> That depends if you have some hard number or not. As long as you
remain
> vague, we won't see anything.
>
And as long as your questions are vague, you will
probably receive vague answers...
Bruce<+>
> --
> Yohan the Lost
>
>
>
Bruce Burhans
I cannot imagine a vegan giving you the time of day,
much less allowing you into their life. I think that you
are lying. Americans have no honor at all.
Bruce<+>
Yohan the Lost
> fraction of the environmental harm that an animal
> product consumer does.
> Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid, or
> a liar. Since the man is obviously neither of the first two,.
> he's a liar.
In the post you responded to, he did not mention environmental harm. He was
claiming that the number of vegetarians was lower than claimed by you.
In order to accuse someone of lying, you have to challenge something he said
in the post you are responding to. Or at the very least, reference the post
in which he said the questionable things. Otherwise, you just make yourself
look foolish.
--
Yohan the Lost
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RZig8.31462$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yohan the Lost
> probably receive vague answers...
Fair enough.
How many people were vegetarians in each of the last five years?
--
Yohan the Lost
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WZig8.31467$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yohan the Lost
> much less allowing you into their life. I think that you
> are lying. Americans have no honor at all.
I see now that you are not a true believe. We work hard to convert the
others to our way, but self-righteous people like you sabotage us at every
turn. For every person I get to swear off meat, you chase ten more away.
I had hoped to teach you a few things by playing the villain. But I see now
the lesson was wasted on you. Instead of trying to convert me, you have
insulted me with your arrogance. If Jesus wasn't too good to associate with
the worst of mankind, then you surely are not.
Leave these newsgroups until you have had time to think about your actions.
Until you have realized the damage you have done to our cause, I don't want
to see you post another message.
--
Yohan the Lost
Meat is Murder!
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0_ig8.31468$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Bruce Burhans
Bruce<+>
___________________________________________
Bruce Burhans
> > All other things being equal, a vegan does a small
> > fraction of the environmental harm that an animal
> > product consumer does.
> > Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid, or
> > a liar. Since the man is obviously neither of the first two,.
> > he's a liar.
>
>
> In the post you responded to, he did not mention environmental harm.
He was
> claiming that the number of vegetarians was lower than claimed by you.
>
> In order to accuse someone of lying, you have to challenge something
he said
> in the post you are responding to. Or at the very least, reference the
post
> in which he said the questionable things. Otherwise, you just make
yourself
> look foolish.
>
> --
> Yohan the Lost
>
I suggest that you run your own life.
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
> > And as long as your questions are vague, you will
> > probably receive vague answers...
>
> Fair enough.
>
> How many people were vegetarians in each of the last five years?
>
> --
> Yohan the Lost
>
>
important to you. Are you an aspiring environmentalist
or an accountant in training?
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
> > I cannot imagine a vegan giving you the time of day,
> > much less allowing you into their life. I think that you
> > are lying. Americans have no honor at all.
>
> I see now that you are not a true believe. We work hard to convert the
> others to our way, but self-righteous people like you sabotage us at
every
> turn. For every person I get to swear off meat, you chase ten more
away.
>
> I had hoped to teach you a few things by playing the villain. But I
see now
> the lesson was wasted on you. Instead of trying to convert me, you
have
> insulted me with your arrogance. If Jesus wasn't too good to associate
with
> the worst of mankind, then you surely are not.
>
> Leave these newsgroups until you have had time to think about your
actions.
> Until you have realized the damage you have done to our cause, I don't
want
> to see you post another message.
>
Piss off
Bruce<+>
Jim Webster
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> You are liar
your reasoned reply is noted, as is the detailed evidence you supplied to
support your statement.
you are a fine advertisment for your diet
The 9th Witch
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tcog8.30781$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I recieved this by e-mail on 2/19/2002 @ 1:03 AM
>
> Bruce<+>
It was posted at the same time. Have you a point?
T9W
Yohan the Lost
> important to you. Are you an aspiring environmentalist
> or an accountant in training?
You made the claim, why cannot you back it up?
--
Yohan the Lost
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Kqog8.30799$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yohan the Lost
Well that was real intelligent.
--
Yohan the Lost
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:frog8.30800$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yohan the Lost
clock. I sent that email on the same day and time as I did the matching
post.
--
Yohan the Lost
" Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tcog8.30781$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...