Organic/Unsafe
R Bishop
Evidently there is a new report out on organic foods. Seems that, while organic
produce is only about 1% of US production, it accounts for 8% of food poisoning
cases.
Sue, looking for more references
Official Secretary of OSGSL
Dogs think they're human
Cats think they're God
floracat
fertilized with cattle manure, a byproduct of animal husbandry which
may in some cases contain a mutant strain of E coli (E. coli 0157:H7,
to be exact). Therefore if the produce isn't handled properly, traces
of shit may remain on it which can cause food poisoning. There are
other animal gut bacteria that may be causal agents too - salmonella,
for instance - but E coli is a major concern now; as government
researchers testing feedlots in Nebraska for E coli recently said,
"We're looking only at beef cattle, but we've looked at about 15,000 to
16,000 in about 15 different states. We've never found a negative
feedlot."
So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead to
mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the food
chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and preparation.
What does this tell you?
In article <80rq0j$1ae$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, R Bishop
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
bis...@ix.netcom.com
floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>Let me try to make this simple for you, Sue. Organic produce is often
>fertilized with cattle manure, a byproduct of animal husbandry which
>may in some cases contain a mutant strain of E coli (E. coli 0157:H7,
>to be exact).
Wow. Your grasp of organic production is.... staggering.
>Therefore if the produce isn't handled properly, traces
>of shit may remain on it which can cause food poisoning. There are
>other animal gut bacteria that may be causal agents too - salmonella,
>for instance - but E coli is a major concern now; as government
>researchers testing feedlots in Nebraska for E coli recently said,
>"We're looking only at beef cattle, but we've looked at about 15,000 to
>16,000 in about 15 different states. We've never found a negative
>feedlot."
What does this have to do with what I posted?
>
>So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead to
>mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the food
>chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and preparation.
>What does this tell you?
Shit happens.
Duh.
Sue
floracat
something effectively, first do your research, then try to argue
rationally. Otherwise everyone is going to continue to ignore you.
In article <80sb7l$m8i$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>,
Craig Ypma
coli, even "Kool aid". Why? Because the machines that package it are
opperated, cleaned, and repaired by the most commonly used food preperation
tools in the world, human hands. Now I suppose you would like us all to
beleive that the folks who work in this plant are all running to the feed
lot to get their hands full of manure before going to work. The fact is you
have a greater chance of getting E coli poisoning from eating at the salad
bar at Sizzler than you do of eating a steak. Another example is the
pre-packaged salad that is all the rage now. When they test and find E coli
or other nasties it is the result of human handling usually after the
ice-water bath processing that it goes through. This processing of vegtable
matter scares me more than eating a hamburger at Burger King.
Hmm This news group always makes me hungry. Think I'll have prime rib
tonight with a nice baked potato drowning in real butter and real sour
cream. The only green I'll have on my plate are the bits of fresh chives to
garnish the potato.
floracat wrote in message <11f733ec...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>...
>Let me try to make this simple for you, Sue. Organic produce is often
>fertilized with cattle manure, a byproduct of animal husbandry which
>may in some cases contain a mutant strain of E coli (E. coli 0157:H7,
>to be exact). Therefore if the produce isn't handled properly, traces
>of shit may remain on it which can cause food poisoning. There are
>other animal gut bacteria that may be causal agents too - salmonella,
>for instance - but E coli is a major concern now; as government
>researchers testing feedlots in Nebraska for E coli recently said,
>"We're looking only at beef cattle, but we've looked at about 15,000 to
>16,000 in about 15 different states. We've never found a negative
>feedlot."
>
>So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead to
>mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the food
>chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and preparation.
>What does this tell you?
>
>
>
floracat
manure, but some organic farms do fertilize their vegetable fields with
manure from feedlots. And there was the case a year or so ago of the
mixed salad greens - packaged in an open shed - that were contaminated
by windblown particles of dried manure from a neighboring pasture (it
was in the NY Times). But, yes, E coli can be transfered from the
human gut to food via unwashed hands. Not this particularly deadly
mutated E coli however.
In article <80sgrg$jfi$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, "Craig Ypma"
bis...@ix.netcom.com
floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>A couple of helpful hints for you, Sue.
A couple of helpful hints for you, floracat, lurk around a group for a while
before you start giveing out hints.
>If you want to discuss
>something effectively, first do your research, then try to argue
>rationally. Otherwise everyone is going to continue to ignore you.
Somehow, you are not making any sense at all. I was making a minor reference
to a study I heard about concerning Organic PRODUCE. You jumped in with
beef cattle.
Get a clue.
Sue
>
>
>In article <80sb7l$m8i$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>,
><bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> In article <11f733ec...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>,
>> floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >Let me try to make this simple for you, Sue. Organic produce is
>> often
>> >fertilized with cattle manure, a byproduct of animal husbandry
>> which
>> >may in some cases contain a mutant strain of E coli (E. coli
>> 0157:H7,
>> >to be exact).
>> Wow. Your grasp of organic production is.... staggering.
>> >Therefore if the produce isn't handled properly, traces
>> >of shit may remain on it which can cause food poisoning. There
>> are
>> >other animal gut bacteria that may be causal agents too -
>> salmonella,
>> >for instance - but E coli is a major concern now; as government
>> >researchers testing feedlots in Nebraska for E coli recently said,
>> >"We're looking only at beef cattle, but we've looked at about
>> 15,000 to
>> >16,000 in about 15 different states. We've never found a negative
>> >feedlot."
>> What does this have to do with what I posted?
>> >
>> >So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead to
>> >mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the
>> food
>> >chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and
>> preparation.
>> >What does this tell you?
>> Shit happens.
>> Duh.
>> Sue
Craig Ypma
of fact they follow strick GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) to ensure
cleanliness and yet some batches still test positive for E coli. The major
concern about E coli is human handeling in the Food Process / Preperation /
Packaging industries, not in feed lots.
floracat wrote in message <000b8d9b...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>...
floracat
<cy...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Well I DO know that they don't bring manure in to the process. As
> a matter
> of fact they follow strick GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) to
> ensure
> cleanliness and yet some batches still test positive for E coli.
> The major
> concern about E coli is human handeling in the Food Process /
> Preperation /
> Packaging industries, not in feed lots.
This _has_ been the major concern until recently, but this is changing.
See recent articles like this one from the Associated Press:
Microbiologists target E. coli at the source: cow bellies
By MARY ESCH, Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. (October 25, 1999 1:15 a.m. EDT) - A hundred cows awaited
judging in a fairground barn. They were groomed and pampered, the pride
of
their farms. One harbored a deadly germ. But nobody knew that.
Not until later, when medical sleuths figured out what killed a
3-year-old
girl and a 79-year-old man and made more than 1,000 other fair-goers
terribly sick.
The malignant microbe at the Washington County Fair was Escherichia coli
0157:H7. Within less than a decade, the bacterium has gone from relative
obscurity to major health threat, causing outbreaks of disease linked
first
to fast-food hamburgers, then lettuce, apple cider, alfalfa sprouts, and
other foods. At the fair, it infected drinking water.
A war has been waged on many fronts against the toxic bacteria since
1993,
when an outbreak at Jack-in-the-Box restaurants in the Pacific Northwest
infected more than 700 people and killed four.
Regulators have tightened meat inspection requirements. Health officials
have issued cooking and sanitation guidelines. Medical researchers have
developed better diagnostic tests. Legislators have proposed the
creation of
a new federal food safety agency.
But some scientists and consumer advocates say the ultimate solution
may be
to rout the enemy from its headquarters: the gut of the cow.
"We're trying to completely eliminate it from cattle at some point,"
said
Robert Elder, a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist in Clay
Center, Neb.
-30-
J. B. Smith
it seems that to label something as "Organic" can be very misleading. It
would be interesting, when you find out more, to see if they break it
down between those that are merely labeled "Organic" and those that are
certified Organic by a third party. The article I read said that only a
minor percentage of "Organic" foods are truly Certified Organic, and
they will always say "Certified" when they are.
I'll look for the article - I think I posted it a while back - maybe
deja.com can help me out....
jonathan
Oh, wait, here it is - still had it on my computer :)
It's somewhat long. I'll put it at the end.
R Bishop wrote:
>
> Evidently there is a new report out on organic foods. Seems that, while organic
> produce is only about 1% of US production, it accounts for 8% of food poisoning
> cases.
>
> Sue, looking for more references
__________________________________________
Long article on the certification of organic foods. Interesting to note
the use of fertilizers. It varies among farms - an organic farmer I
questioned told me they use their own compost to fertilize, rather than animals.
______________________________
Growers seek to certify organic foods
Associated Press
The growth of organic food from a fringe movement to a $5 billion
industry is based mostly on trust. Consumers will pay more for food they
believe to be free of pesticides and grown in a way that protects the environment.
But can they trust it? When the label says "grown and processed in
accordance with the California Organic Foods Act of 1990," does that in
itself mean the food is truly organic, and therefore worth the premium price?
Not necessarily, according to interviews with more than a dozen people
in the organic foods industry, from state officials to farmers,
inspectors, processors, wholesale buyers and retailers.
Unless the food also has been independently certified, they say, it's
likely that no one has ever checked to ensure that the company meets
even the minimum state standards.
"The saavy customer knows that if it isn't certified, it isn't
organic," said Route 1 Farms owner Jonathan Steinberg, who grows $1
million of mixed vegetables a year on 120 rented acres in Santa Cruz
County and has been certified since 1992.
To sell something as organic, growers have to register with the state
and pay an annual fee - from $25 for under $10,000 in sales to $2,000
for $5 million or more. Sellers of processed foods pay just $100 for an
entire line of products.
They also have to keep extensive paperwork showing the food is free
from pesticides and synthetic chemicals. But untill recently, the
California Department of Food and Agriculture hasn't done much more than
look into complaints, which have been rare. And the Department of Health
Services, which inspects processed foods, has yet to set up an organic
compliance program.
"When you register with the state there are basically no on-site
inspections. They come out and say 'yup, you're organic,' end of story,"
said grower Dick Peixoto of Watsonville. "Most customers want assurance
that you're actually being monitored."
A federal organic law - more than a decade in the planning - will
require certification as early as this fall. Meanwhile, most major
supermarkets have acted ont heir own. About 85 percent of the fruits and
vegetables sold by California's 2500 registered organic growers, packers
and shippers is now certified.
But most national retailers - including such national food chains as
Whole Foods Market - still don't require certification for processed
food. And ony 153 of the 362 companies registered to sell everything
from organic tortilla chips to soy milk to baby food in California are certified.
That frustrates Nell Newman, whose company makes certified organic
pretzels, chocolates, cookies, tortilla chips and Fig Newmans.
"To me there's a family name to uphold," said Newman, who like her
father, Paul, donates profits to charity. "That was the main reason we
did it; we wanted consumers to feel confident."
The independent organic certifiers - which charge $350 a year for the
smallest growers to as much as $20,000 for the largest operations - are
far more strict than California's law requires.
They check that every step in the journey from seed to salad bin is
free from contamination. All ban genetically modified organisms, which
the California law didn't address. They also require growers to manage
the soil in an environmentally sustainable way, such as rotating crops,
using biological pest control and avoiding practices that pollute or
waste energy.
For Steinberg, that meant dropping Chilean seabirn guano as his
fertilizer and using feathermeal from locally slaughtered chickens instead.
"I found out they bulldoze bird nests to gather it," he told a
certification inspector probinf his fields last week. "It comes from so
far away, and I have no idea how it's done."
This level of concern is what separates the nation's 5,300 certified
organic farmers from the 10,000 others that aren't certified, according
to Bob Scowcroft, director of the Oranic Farming Research Foundation in
Santa Cruz.
"For certified organic, people are getting what they paid for. If it's
not certified and just registered, as a consumer you have every right to
ask every question about what you're buying," he said.
Witht the industry growing by 20 percent a year, the state agriculture
department's budget has grown to $350,000 - enough for 500 inspections
this year, and for the first time, random, unannounced soil and tissue
samplings, program director Ray Green said.
For now, the industry remains small enough for organic violators to be
easily discovered, and by all accounts, fraud rarely occurs. When it
does, Green avoids fines or criminal charges, unless the fraud seems intentional.
One such incident involved San Diego-based Petrou Foods Inc., which was
caught selling olive oil as organic when some of the olives were
acturally harvested from a golf course. That investigation resulted in a
felony conviction and $10,000 in fines.
"If someone's doing something that's not right, the whole industry
learns about it. And believe me, that can be more detrimental than
anything else," said Margaret Wittenberg, an executive at Whole Foods.
G Boggs
<murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
=[...]
=
=So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead to
=mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the food
=chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and preparation.
=What does this tell you?
=
That organic foodies are stupid for eating shit?
G. Boggs, HoS
A few observations and much reasoning lead to error;
many observations and a little reasoning lead to truth.
- Alexis Carrel
Scott
floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:11f733ec...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
> Let me try to make this simple for you, Sue. Organic produce is often
> fertilized with cattle manure, a byproduct of animal husbandry which
> may in some cases contain a mutant strain of E coli (E. coli 0157:H7,
> of shit may remain on it which can cause food poisoning. There are
> other animal gut bacteria that may be causal agents too - salmonella,
> for instance - but E coli is a major concern now; as government
> researchers testing feedlots in Nebraska for E coli recently said,
> "We're looking only at beef cattle, but we've looked at about 15,000 to
> 16,000 in about 15 different states. We've never found a negative
> feedlot."
>
So only mahure from feedlot cattle has pathogenic E. coli? Why do you think
that overcrowding, not mentionw ether the cattle are overcrowded or not,
causes mutations? I would guess that organic food causes more illness
because peopel assume that organic is better and safer and don't take
precautions.
>
>
>
> In article <80rq0j$1ae$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, R Bishop
> <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Evidently there is a new report out on organic foods. Seems that,
> > while organic
> > produce is only about 1% of US production, it accounts for 8% of
> > food poisoning
> > cases.
> > Sue, looking for more references
> > Official Secretary of OSGSL
> > Dogs think they're human
> > Cats think they're God
>
>
>
Scott
of the show cattle? That wasn't what I heard happened. Wasn't it a
contaminated water supply that they only assumed came from nearby cattle
farm but weren't sure about it.
floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:17599f0b...@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com...
Craig Ypma
sensationalism would indicate that this is the "Black Plague" in North
America, killing thousands of people on a daily basis. It's not!
Irregardless of where the E coli originated it is spread to food that people
eat via human hands. Now what are they doing about this horrible pestilence?
I'll quote from the article "Regulators have tightened meat inspection
requirements. Health officials have issued cooking and sanitation
guidelines. Medical researchers have developed better diagnostic tests."
operations I mentioned in my earlier post. As for attacking the microbe in
the cow, more power to them. If they figure out how to eliminate it at that
point great, a lot of other food poisoning will be eliminated as well, but
they haven't and probably will not in the near future. Until they do all we
can do is improve the handling of food.
floracat wrote in message <17599f0b...@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com>...
James Hepler
floracat wrote:
>
> A couple of helpful hints for you, Sue. If you want to discuss
> something effectively, first do your research, then try to argue
> rationally. Otherwise everyone is going to continue to ignore you.
Well, Mr./Mrs. Usenet debate degree, where is your friggin resume? Your
oversimplification of this thread does far worse for your credibility
than anything Sue has posted.
James hepler
James Hepler
floracat wrote:
> So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead to
> mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the food
> chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and preparation.
> What does this tell you?
It tells me that even the precious "organic" industry relies on the
exploitation of animals, and that organic alternatives are simply no
better than that which they seek to replace. Thanks!
James Hepler
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
But what we're talking about is organic farming only in the arrable
area. There is such a thing as organic livestock farming, and in
particular mixed farming systems known as biodynamic farming. In fact my
impression is that organic farming is not sustainable without animals.
As to the apparent upsurge in food poisoning in recent decades, my
personal suspision is that we've screwed up our immune systems through
our obsession with hygiene, so that the only really healthy people are
livestock farmers and sewage workers.
I rather suspect that the kind of bacterial dose that prostrates the
people of today would barely have given our grandparents a stomach ache.
And what's our response to the "epidemic", more hygiene of course. Soon
we'll have to wear spacesuits if we go out in the garden.
floracat
question about overcrowding as a causal agent in the mutation of gut
bacteria. One current theory is that overcrowding leads to more
disease therefore more antibiotics in feed and increased application of
chemical pest control. Overuse of antibiotics has been implicated in
bacteria evolution, and many pesticides are decidedly mutagenic. Add
to that, as you mentioned, the increased use of chemical cleansing
agents and we have quite a chemical stew brewing in the livestock
industry.
In article <xvQyOHsaOvNa12...@4ax.com>, Malcolm McMahon
In article <xvQyOHsaOvNa12...@4ax.com>, Malcolm McMahon
floracat
wrote:
> This article doesn't seem up to date. it blames that food
> poisoning on one
> of the show cattle? That wasn't what I heard happened. Wasn't it
> a
> contaminated water supply that they only assumed came from nearby
> cattle
> farm but weren't sure about it.
I've wondered how the AP came to that conclusion myself, since the
latest I've seen from the CDC
(http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4836a4.htm) doesn't
mention a direct connection. BTW I apologize for attributing your
earlier astute question to Sue in another post.
floracat
<hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > What does this tell you?
> It tells me that even the precious "organic" industry relies on the
> exploitation of animals, and that organic alternatives are simply
> no
> better than that which they seek to replace. Thanks!
True enough insofar as the organic industry relies on livestock manure
from big operations. But it is possible to raise organic, free-ranging
livestock, and organic farmers can also use plant-based compost as
fertilizer.
floracat
> Sue, looking for more references
Try a google.com search for <E coli organic manure>. The search will
turn up numerous interesting articles from as far back as 1996 when
this topic became a matter of some public debate. Some that it turned
up that might be of interest:
E coli and Organic Agriculture
http://wfm.www.wholefoods.com/wfm/healthinfo/ecoli.html
The Hidden Dangers in Organic Foods
http://www.hudson.org/American_Outlook/articles_fa98/avery.htm
James Hepler
Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:55:39 -0500, James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >floracat wrote:
> >
> >> So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead to
> >> mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the food
> >> chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and preparation.
> >> What does this tell you?
> >
> >It tells me that even the precious "organic" industry relies on the
> >exploitation of animals, and that organic alternatives are simply no
> >better than that which they seek to replace. Thanks!
> >
>
> But what we're talking about is organic farming only in the arrable
> area. There is such a thing as organic livestock farming, and in
> particular mixed farming systems known as biodynamic farming. In fact my
> impression is that organic farming is not sustainable without animals.
Interesting. That's a pretty big setback for ethical vegans, no?
> As to the apparent upsurge in food poisoning in recent decades, my
> personal suspision is that we've screwed up our immune systems through
> our obsession with hygiene, so that the only really healthy people are
> livestock farmers and sewage workers.
Now that's an intriguing point. I would like to know if you have any
studies under your belt for that or if it is just your own theory. It
is a damn good one.
> I rather suspect that the kind of bacterial dose that prostrates the
> people of today would barely have given our grandparents a stomach ache.
I agree.
> And what's our response to the "epidemic", more hygiene of course. Soon
> we'll have to wear spacesuits if we go out in the garden.
Heh. Reminds me of Anthony Edwards on Northern Exposure. Exactly as
you wrote, he had to wear a space suit to go outside. And this was in
pristine Alaska.
James Hepler
--
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease" -3.2.3
James Hepler
floracat wrote:
>
> In article <3832CFFB...@email.unc.edu>, James Hepler
> <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> > > What does this tell you?
> > It tells me that even the precious "organic" industry relies on the
> > exploitation of animals, and that organic alternatives are simply
> > no
> > better than that which they seek to replace. Thanks!
>
> True enough insofar as the organic industry relies on livestock manure
> from big operations. But it is possible to raise organic, free-ranging
> livestock, and organic farmers can also use plant-based compost as
> fertilizer.
Fair enough.
Michael Cerkowski
Re the Altamont Fair debacle:
.>
.> This article doesn't seem up to date. it blames that food poisoning
on one
.> of the show cattle? That wasn't what I heard happened. Wasn't it a
.> contaminated water supply that they only assumed came from nearby
cattle
.> farm but weren't sure about it.
It was from a well (one of two or three, I believe) on the
fairgrounds that was located quite close to cattle enclosures.
While I'm not sure if the strain was ever isolated in the well
- the owners of the fairground stopped cooperating after a couple
of weeks - the health department was quite sure that the strain
of e coli came from the cattle. There is some sort of access hatch
located 'downstream' of the cattle area that could collect rainwater.
The irony is that the wells, or one of them at least, had just
been "improved" within the last year or so...
(...)
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
.> >
.> > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:55:39 -0500, James Hepler
<hep...@email.unc.edu>
.> > wrote:
.> >
.> > >
.> > >
.> > >floracat wrote:
.> > >
.> > >> So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead
to
.> > >> mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the
food
.> > >> chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and
.preparation.
.> > >> What does this tell you?
.> > >
.> > >It tells me that even the precious "organic" industry relies on
the
.> > >exploitation of animals, and that organic alternatives are simply
no
.> > >better than that which they seek to replace. Thanks!
.> > >
.> >
.> > But what we're talking about is organic farming only in the arrable
.> > area. There is such a thing as organic livestock farming, and in
.> > particular mixed farming systems known as biodynamic farming. In
fact .my
.> > impression is that organic farming is not sustainable without
animals.
.>
.> Interesting. That's a pretty big setback for ethical vegans, no?.
Malcolm is confusing what is common practice with what is
possible. He may well have been told that by someone who has
never considered alternatives to both livestock manure and
chemical fertilizers.
Martin L. Martens
[...]
> Malcolm is confusing what is common practice with what is
> possible.
Are you still beating that dead horse? You are confusing your
imaginary fantasy world with reality. What you think is possible
isn't.
> He may well have been told that by someone who has
> never considered alternatives to both livestock manure and
> chemical fertilizers.
Your system won't work Michael. It isn't possible to sustain a
large scale organic farm without using animals. It isn't
scalable and it isn't economically or environmentally
sustainable.
You can dream but it won't work. You haven't even grasped the
irrigation problem yet.
Doug Jones
year. Because of low water table levels, the fairgrounds opened up
this rarely used well to suppply the fair. The day of the fair, there
was some fairly heavy downpour which apparently washed cattle manure
into the well.
Please note the following things which floracat graciously omitted:
1) there was no water safety inspection at the grounds
2) there was no water treatment of the well water
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:24:53 -0500, "Scott" <mup...@vt.edu> wrote:
>This article doesn't seem up to date. it blames that food poisoning on one
>of the show cattle? That wasn't what I heard happened. Wasn't it a
>contaminated water supply that they only assumed came from nearby cattle
>farm but weren't sure about it.
>
>
>
>floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:17599f0b...@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com...
>> In article <80slpa$khh$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, "Craig Ypma"
>> <cy...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> > Well I DO know that they don't bring manure in to the process. As
>> > a matter
>> > of fact they follow strick GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) to
>> > ensure
>> > cleanliness and yet some batches still test positive for E coli.
>> > The major
>> > concern about E coli is human handeling in the Food Process /
>> > Preperation /
>> > Packaging industries, not in feed lots.
>>
>> This _has_ been the major concern until recently, but this is changing.
>> See recent articles like this one from the Associated Press:
>>
R Bishop
"Scott" <mup...@vt.edu> wrote:
>This article doesn't seem up to date. it blames that food poisoning on one
>of the show cattle? That wasn't what I heard happened. Wasn't it a
>contaminated water supply that they only assumed came from nearby cattle
>farm but weren't sure about it.
I vaguely remember the incident and I think it was water contamination that
caused the problem.
Sue
Official Secretary of OSGSL
R Bishop
floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <3832CFFB...@email.unc.edu>, James Hepler
><hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>> > What does this tell you?
>> It tells me that even the precious "organic" industry relies on the
>> exploitation of animals, and that organic alternatives are simply
>> no
>> better than that which they seek to replace. Thanks!
>
>
>True enough insofar as the organic industry relies on livestock manure
>from big operations. But it is possible to raise organic, free-ranging
>livestock, and organic farmers can also use plant-based compost as
>fertilizer.
Doesn't matter. e-Coli is present in the intestinal tract as a matter of
course. And, there have been more than a few cases of contamination of
all sorts of foods, from strawberries to apple cider.
Sue
R Bishop
floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <80rq0j$1ae$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, R Bishop
><bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Sue, looking for more references
The study I mentioned was just very recently done.
Sue
>
>
>Try a google.com search for <E coli organic manure>. The search will
>turn up numerous interesting articles from as far back as 1996 when
>this topic became a matter of some public debate. Some that it turned
>up that might be of interest:
>
>E coli and Organic Agriculture
>http://wfm.www.wholefoods.com/wfm/healthinfo/ecoli.html
>
>The Hidden Dangers in Organic Foods
>http://www.hudson.org/American_Outlook/articles_fa98/avery.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
R Bishop
This reminds me of a thread a while back where one of the ARLs claimed
that farming could be done ANYWHERE. No climate or water or soil fertility
considerations, nada.
That mentality is the same as one that existed about a 100 years ago when
large parts of the west were actually farmed, even though the water table
was extremely variable, the soil fertility was marginal and the climate
was severe. Parts of Montana come to mind, as an example.
Sue
Andrew Leech
says...
>Evidently there is a new report out on organic foods. Seems that, while
>organic produce is only about 1% of US production, it accounts for 8% of
>food poisoning cases.
Beware of statistics. It may simply mean that people who buy organic food
have no idea about hygiene.
>Sue, looking for more references
Andrew
--
--
Andrew Leech
Email: a dotte leech atte uea dotte ac dotte uk - U no Y !
Biological Sciences * All opinions personal
University of East Anglia *
Norwich * "I don't like it so you can't do it"
England * - New Labour Proverbs Ch1, V1.
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
>>
>> But what we're talking about is organic farming only in the arrable
>> area. There is such a thing as organic livestock farming, and in
>> particular mixed farming systems known as biodynamic farming. In fact my
>> impression is that organic farming is not sustainable without animals.
>
>Interesting. That's a pretty big setback for ethical vegans, no?
Only if they want organic systems and to make vegetarianism compulsory.
Biodynamic systems, I gather, tend to have a rather higher balance of
arrable to livestock (depends on soil, climate etc.) so we could have
biodynamic farming and us omnivores could take all the meat, leaving
more veggies for them.
>
>> As to the apparent upsurge in food poisoning in recent decades, my
>> personal suspision is that we've screwed up our immune systems through
>> our obsession with hygiene, so that the only really healthy people are
>> livestock farmers and sewage workers.
>
>Now that's an intriguing point. I would like to know if you have any
>studies under your belt for that or if it is just your own theory. It
>is a damn good one.
>
I don't know of any specific studdies but it's probably well past time
there was one (probably the manufactures of bleach have supressed such
research :-) ). There's plenty of anacdotal evidence. What about the
epidemic of the kind of diseases that are caused by malfunctions of the
immune system, like ashma and alergies? This has been put down to
polution but polution isn't really increasing in most places.
Apparently the polio epidemic in the early part of this century started
when children started to routinely wear shoes. Prior to that chronic
low-level exposure immunised most of them.
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
> Malcolm is confusing what is common practice with what is
>possible. He may well have been told that by someone who has
>never considered alternatives to both livestock manure and
>chemical fertilizers.
>
Actually I picked it up from uk.business.agriculture, albeit as a
secondhand statement from an organic farmer. Purely arrable organic
farming systems are "fragile" because it's hard to replace all the
elements which cropping innately removes from the soil. Recycling plant
waste doesn't put back what is taken in the products themselves.
Livestock and their symbiotic bacteria help to close some loops.
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:39:31 -0800, Michael Cerkowski
<mj...@albany.net>
.> wrote:
.>
.> > Malcolm is confusing what is common practice with what is
.> >possible. He may well have been told that by someone who has
.> >never considered alternatives to both livestock manure and
.> >chemical fertilizers.
.> >
.>
.> Actually I picked it up from uk.business.agriculture, albeit as a
.> secondhand statement from an organic farmer. Purely arrable organic
.> farming systems are "fragile" because it's hard to replace all the
.> elements which cropping innately removes from the soil. Recycling
plant
.> waste doesn't put back what is taken in the products themselves.
.> Livestock and their symbiotic bacteria help to close some loops.
Actually, livestock put back less in the way of nutrients,
because they not only grow, they use more minerals to build
their skeletons. You may be thinking of recycling just the
unharvested portions of the crop plants; it is possible to grow
grasses and legumes as compost in fields that would otherwise graze
livestock. The bacteria and worms present in compost heaps
are just as effective at recycling nutrients. I have a friend
who is a farmer in the Community Supported Agriculture movement.
She has a degree in plant science from Cornell, nearly two decades
of field experience, and she thinks it is perfectly feasible to
grow organic crops with no livestock. She doesn't do it because
she isn't vegetarian, and there is cheap liquid manure from a
dairy farm available to her. When the demand for vegan agriculture
is there, the farms will follow.
Scott
if done properly.
Craig Ypma <cy...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:80uh3g$1bg$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
> Well what does this article actually say? Well to some the journalistic
> sensationalism would indicate that this is the "Black Plague" in North
> America, killing thousands of people on a daily basis. It's not!
> Irregardless of where the E coli originated it is spread to food that
people
> eat via human hands. Now what are they doing about this horrible
pestilence?
> I'll quote from the article "Regulators have tightened meat inspection
> requirements. Health officials have issued cooking and sanitation
> guidelines. Medical researchers have developed better diagnostic tests."
> These are all related to the Food Process / Preparation / Packaging
> operations I mentioned in my earlier post. As for attacking the microbe in
> the cow, more power to them. If they figure out how to eliminate it at
that
> point great, a lot of other food poisoning will be eliminated as well, but
> they haven't and probably will not in the near future. Until they do all
we
> can do is improve the handling of food.
>
> floracat wrote in message <17599f0b...@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com>...
>
> >
Scott
floracat <murtagh_...@excite.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Interesting point, especially as it ties in with Sue's very astute
> question about overcrowding as a causal agent in the mutation of gut
> bacteria. One current theory is that overcrowding leads to more
> disease therefore more antibiotics in feed and increased application of
> chemical pest control. Overuse of antibiotics has been implicated in
> bacteria evolution, and many pesticides are decidedly mutagenic. Add
> to that, as you mentioned, the increased use of chemical cleansing
> agents and we have quite a chemical stew brewing in the livestock
> industry.
Since you later mentioned that I made thsi point, You shoudl no that I was
being sarcastic, buut in your zealous state you were oblivious to all but
that which supportys you. You have quite a few assumptions in here that
allow you to make accusatiosn without any fact presented.
>
>
> In article <xvQyOHsaOvNa12...@4ax.com>, Malcolm McMahon
> <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:55:39 -0500, James Hepler
> > <hep...@email.unc.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >floracat wrote:
> > >
> > >> So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead
> > to
> > >> mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the
> > food
> > >> chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and
> > preparation.
> > >> What does this tell you?
> > >
> > >It tells me that even the precious "organic" industry relies on
> > the
> > >exploitation of animals, and that organic alternatives are simply
> > no
> > >better than that which they seek to replace. Thanks!
> > >
> > But what we're talking about is organic farming only in the arrable
> > area. There is such a thing as organic livestock farming, and in
> > particular mixed farming systems known as biodynamic farming. In
> > fact my
> > impression is that organic farming is not sustainable without
> > animals.
> > As to the apparent upsurge in food poisoning in recent decades, my
> > personal suspision is that we've screwed up our immune systems
> > through
> > our obsession with hygiene, so that the only really healthy people
> > are
> > livestock farmers and sewage workers.
> > I rather suspect that the kind of bacterial dose that prostrates
> > the
> > people of today would barely have given our grandparents a stomach
> > ache.
> > And what's our response to the "epidemic", more hygiene of course.
> > Soon
> > we'll have to wear spacesuits if we go out in the garden.
>
> In article <xvQyOHsaOvNa12...@4ax.com>, Malcolm McMahon
> <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:55:39 -0500, James Hepler
> > <hep...@email.unc.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >floracat wrote:
> > >
> > >> So, follow me on this now: Overcrowded feedlot conditions lead
> > to
> > >> mutation of normally harmless gut bacteria which gets into the
> > food
> > >> chain via manure as well as via meat during slaughter and
> > preparation.
> > >> What does this tell you?
> > >
> > >It tells me that even the precious "organic" industry relies on
> > the
> > >exploitation of animals, and that organic alternatives are simply
> > no
> > >better than that which they seek to replace. Thanks!
> > >
> > But what we're talking about is organic farming only in the arrable
> > area. There is such a thing as organic livestock farming, and in
> > particular mixed farming systems known as biodynamic farming. In
> > fact my
> > impression is that organic farming is not sustainable without
> > animals.
> > As to the apparent upsurge in food poisoning in recent decades, my
> > personal suspision is that we've screwed up our immune systems
> > through
> > our obsession with hygiene, so that the only really healthy people
> > are
> > livestock farmers and sewage workers.
> > I rather suspect that the kind of bacterial dose that prostrates
> > the
> > people of today would barely have given our grandparents a stomach
> > ache.
> > And what's our response to the "epidemic", more hygiene of course.
> > Soon
> > we'll have to wear spacesuits if we go out in the garden.
>
>
James Hepler
> >> As to the apparent upsurge in food poisoning in recent decades, my
> >> personal suspision is that we've screwed up our immune systems through
> >> our obsession with hygiene, so that the only really healthy people are
> >> livestock farmers and sewage workers.
> >
> >Now that's an intriguing point. I would like to know if you have any
> >studies under your belt for that or if it is just your own theory. It
> >is a damn good one.
> >
>
> I don't know of any specific studdies but it's probably well past time
> there was one (probably the manufactures of bleach have supressed such
> research :-) ). There's plenty of anacdotal evidence. What about the
> epidemic of the kind of diseases that are caused by malfunctions of the
> immune system, like ashma and alergies? This has been put down to
> polution but polution isn't really increasing in most places.
>
> Apparently the polio epidemic in the early part of this century started
> when children started to routinely wear shoes. Prior to that chronic
> low-level exposure immunised most of them.
Isn't that the whole concept behind immunizations? WHen I get a flu
shot, the give me the flu.
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
>Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> Apparently the polio epidemic in the early part of this century started
>> when children started to routinely wear shoes. Prior to that chronic
>> low-level exposure immunised most of them.
>
>Isn't that the whole concept behind immunizations? WHen I get a flu
>shot, the give me the flu.
Yes, though, of course, the flu virus in the immunization is killed
before use.
But you can't get immunised against everything.
My suspiscion is that the immune system is like any other capability, it
requires excercise to stay in shape. That low level exposure to bacteria
(including potential pathogens) raises its overall competence. Too much
hygiene may not only weaken it's response, it may make result in
innapropriate immune response. Alergies. Auto-imune diseases.
I'm not talking about side effects from anti-biotics or whatever but the
actual reduction in exposure to bacteria.
floracat
wrote:
> Since you later mentioned that I made thsi point, You shoudl no
> that I was
> being sarcastic, buut in your zealous state you were oblivious to
> all but
> that which supportys you. You have quite a few assumptions in
> here that
> allow you to make accusatiosn without any fact presented.
If you are indeed associated with Virginia Tech, which I doubt, you
could find these "assumptions" in the college's publications. As for
sarcasm, it helps to be able to recognize as well as practice it.
*Dyslexic typists of the world, untie!*
John Mercer
> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:08:10 -0500, James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu>
> wrote:
>
---snip---
> >Now that's an intriguing point. I would like to know if you have any
> >studies under your belt for that or if it is just your own theory. It
> >is a damn good one.
>
> I don't know of any specific studdies but it's probably well past time
> there was one (probably the manufactures of bleach have supressed such
> research :-) ). There's plenty of anacdotal evidence.
There is?
> What about the
> epidemic of the kind of diseases that are caused by malfunctions of the
> immune system, like ashma and alergies?
But are those malfunctions, or do they represent overactivity? Natural
genetic variation? Your labeling is too judgmental.
Given the epidemics that have swept through human populations just in
recorded history, mightn't allergies simply be a small price to pay for
life itself?
> This has been put down to
> polution but polution isn't really increasing in most places.
>
Of the types of pollution that we measure.
> Apparently the polio epidemic in the early part of this century started
> when children started to routinely wear shoes. Prior to that chronic
> low-level exposure immunised most of them.
Nice try, but no go. The important factor here is the age of first
exposure. The earlier the infection, the fewer symptoms. Immunity takes
over then, so chronic exposure is not a significant factor.
The herpesviruses (herpes, mononucleosis, chicken pox, shingles) work
the same way.
That blows the "AR" and antivaccine myth right out of the water, though.
--
John Mercer
dogsnus
>
> In article <383378C...@ragingbull.com>,
> "Martin L. Martens" <martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
>
> >Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> >[...]
> >
> >
> >Are you still beating that dead horse? You are confusing your
> >imaginary fantasy world with reality. What you think is possible
> >isn't.
> >
> >
> >
> >Your system won't work Michael. It isn't possible to sustain a
> >large scale organic farm without using animals. It isn't
> >scalable and it isn't economically or environmentally
> >sustainable.
> >
> >You can dream but it won't work. You haven't even grasped the
> >irrigation problem yet.
>
> This reminds me of a thread a while back where one of the ARLs claimed
> that farming could be done ANYWHERE. No climate or water or soil fertility
> considerations, nada.
>
> That mentality is the same as one that existed about a 100 years ago when
> large parts of the west were actually farmed, even though the water table
> was extremely variable, the soil fertility was marginal and the climate
> was severe. Parts of Montana come to mind, as an example.
For example from one who lives around these parts
these days,
although I don't expect to be believed by those
who think I've
never lived in a city nor another state!
:)
Actually, large parts of the Western states are
STILL farmed commercially.
Extensively. (You should see that 3# Idaho potato
in your hand and
realize that).
:)
To procede above statement:
Or parts of Idaho, right here in 1999.
Not taking sides here, just illustrating what kind
of chemicals
and problems can take place from a first hand
experience in this day
and age, and , there is really no such thing
anymore as truly "organic farm",
as far I'm aware of.
We rely on irrigation water here in this high
desert state to start with,
especially in SW Idaho. That is for two reasons:
1) soil type
(Sandy loam and intense heat evaporates and
wastes water more,
so.. overhead sprinkling is a must in most cases,
plus we live
on a slope and would waste more water with
flooding and_ cause
erosion if we tried to do so. And THAT is more
water than we
would get if we didn't have to contend upon the
wind!
2) Irrigation water depends upon snowpack. This is
high desert
with less than 15"/yr. normally of rainfall.
(Normally, it's around or less than 10").
No snowpack, no water.
Simple as that.
We had the soil tested and retested many times
before we planted,
and we put as much natural organic materials back
in the depleted
soil before we began.( And, it WAS severely
depleted in just about
everything). We have been trying to build up the
soil from past
practices long_ before we got here and the trees
got cut down).
To no avail...
We planted over 800 fruit trees 4-5 yrs. ago.
Things were going fine..
but.. suddenly we found trees dying last year. We
had the University
guys out here to discover we had that neonymphite
(sp)? in our soil
that was literally killling our trees. Attacking
the the still small
tap roots.
(The same type of sub-soil virus
that caused the great Ireland potato virus in the
1800's and the
same one or sub-type that killed off most of
Idahos potato crop just a few
years ago). The fungus comes FROM the irrigation
canals,
Our only reliable source of water comes from the
canals from the snowpacks
in the mountains.
We found out the hard and expensive way what can
happen to crops
you try to grow organically.
(A gallon of the chemical to prevent and/or
control this soil pest
runs @ 800.00/gal)!
One gallon sprayed twice a year kills off the soil
fungus.
However, we ALSO had ant problems. They were
girdling the the bark and killing the trees.
We had to spray for that_, too.
Either that or let all the trees die. !!!!
So, can we still call ourselves organic? Who
knows, since that
term is still rather nebulous at the moment.
We do our best. I don't spray round up, nor do I
spray 2-4-D for
puncture vine, but....we do the best we can with
the least amount
of chemicals we can.
A taste of what it's like to be a small farmer
trying to grow an
organically as free product.
Reality bites, though. It ain't always possible to
be chemical free
farmers.
We've only been here 4 or so years. The damage and
depletion of the soil
preceded us. Should we just NOT try to replant
trees in the world
to "save" things from chemicals and rodents that
kill trees?
Does anyone have any idea how thriling it is to
have trees to house
things that normally don't hang around without
trees?
Like: Bats, owls, hawks, etc..
On the way to work a couple of weeks ago, I saw a
kestral hawk
sitting on a fence post eating it's mammal prey.
It never used
to have any prey to catch on our property. Now, it
does.
After all, this property USED to be full of trees
before someone
before us cut them all down.
Are we wrong for trying to grow more trees, fruit
and replentish
the land and having to use some type of chemical
for doing so?
Terri
Food for thought, folks...
Think about all the issues before passing
judgement, please.
Russ Thompson
In reality no agriculture is sustainable without animal agriculture.
Russ Thompson ,BS Dairy Science, Ms Agronomy
Rogue Jerseys
Richland Center, WI
G*rd*n
| In reality no agriculture is sustainable without animal agriculture.
I could see saying that if you're referring only to
contemporary commercial agriculture, but otherwise I think
the statement is a bit too broad for good old reality. What
considerations prohibit the development of an agriculture
which didn't happen to use animals? (I assume we're all
referring to vertebrates when we say "animals.")
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 10/2/99 }
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> In reality no agriculture is sustainable without animal agriculture.
.>
.> Russ Thompson ,BS Dairy Science, Ms Agronomy
.> Rogue Jerseys
.> Richland Center, WI
I'm sure that that's what they told you in your
dairy farming courses, but if you think about it,
you'll realize that what comes out of a dairy cow
is essentially composted plant matter, minus a lot
of the minerals and nitrogen. Composting plants
directly, and using nitrogen fixers to build soil,
would also work. Even if you choose to believe that
animal waste in necessary, human waste, properly
segregated and handled, would work just fine.
Andreas Vedeler
<38405952.D1B0E5B4@.ragingbull.com>...
[snip]
>> Even if you choose to believe that
>> animal waste in necessary, human waste, properly
>> segregated and handled, would work just fine.
>
>fantasy as your tropical paradise.
>
>Even your experts won't use your system.
No, we all know humans are not animals.
Andreas
--
"The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making
power into the hands of the central government and then
says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
-- Rothbard
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> (Sandy loam and intense heat evaporates and
> wastes water more,
> so.. overhead sprinkling is a must in most cases,
> plus we live
> on a slope and would waste more water with
> flooding and_ cause
> erosion if we tried to do so.
Overhead sprinkling is the least efficient method of delivering
irrigation water under your conditions. A significant amount of water
lands on the leaves and stems of the crop which serve as platforms for
evaporation. Moisture on vegetation promotes leaf and fruit fungus and
the magnification of sunlight on water droplets can cause severe
tissue burns.
The heavy output from overhead sprinklers erodes slopes, damages
fragile topsoil and the downhill flow of water greatly reduces the
percolation rate of the soil. Indiscriminate coverage wastes water by
putting it outside of the dripline of your trees.
Sweat irrigation lines or root injection watering will promote deep
rooted plants that can withstand dry, hot top layers of soil and
virtually eliminate erosion on slopes and subsequent water loss. Some
of the new polymer hosing is durable enough for agricultural use and
can be rolled up or moved when machinery is in the fields.
Russ Thompson
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> I'm sure that that's what they told you in your
> dairy farming courses, but if you think about it,
> you'll realize that what comes out of a dairy cow
> is essentially composted plant matter, minus a lot
> of the minerals and nitrogen. Composting plants
> directly, and using nitrogen fixers to build soil,
> would also work. Even if you choose to believe that
> animal waste in necessary, human waste, properly
> segregated and handled, would work just fine.
Actually no. I am an organic farmer and I learned that
in an organic farming short course I took. It had since proven
true. You of course realize that what comes out of a dairy
cow is irrelevant to this discussion and in fact that animal waste
is not necessary for sustainable agriculture?
Russ
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.>
.> > I'm sure that that's what they told you in your
.> > dairy farming courses, but if you think about it,
.> > you'll realize that what comes out of a dairy cow
.> > is essentially composted plant matter, minus a lot
.> > of the minerals and nitrogen. Composting plants
.> > directly, and using nitrogen fixers to build soil,
.> > would also work. Even if you choose to believe that
.> > animal waste in necessary, human waste, properly
.> > segregated and handled, would work just fine.
.>
.> Actually no. I am an organic farmer and I learned that
.> in an organic farming short course I took. It had since proven
.> true. You of course realize that what comes out of a dairy
.> cow is irrelevant to this discussion and in fact that animal waste
.> is not necessary for sustainable agriculture?
.> Russ
OK, then instead of making me guess what your argument is,
why don't you tell us? Why don't you think that sustainable
agriculture without livestock is possible?
Russ Thompson
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> OK, then instead of making me guess what your argument is,
> why don't you tell us? Why don't you think that sustainable
> agriculture without livestock is possible?
Oh sorry, I thought that since you were commenting on the subject
that you knew something about it. I usually refrain from commenting
on subjects that I know nothing about except to ask questions and learn
from those that are better educated in the field.
Fist do not put words in my post's. I did NOT say "think". Please
try
to remember that. OK?
Ruminants animals (that means animals with four stomachs) have to
ability
to turn things that we humans cannot eat into food that we can in the
form of milk
and meat.
These things include grass and legumes, and the hugs amount of food
industry
waste that cattle turn into food rather than filling land fills with
them. These waste
products include things like cotton seed, orange pulp, brewers grains,
wheat mids,
and the list goes on and on. In the past these things used to fill land
fills or be burned.
Now cows can turn them into food. I would be interested to hear why you
would like
to go back to putting even more stuff in our land fills.
The growing of annul crops like wheat, corn, soy beans, oats,
barley, ect, ect,
mean that the land must be worked in the spring and harvested before
winter. Thus
leaving the land unprotected during the worst of the cold and rainy
season. These
crops mine the soil. To balance this out we farms do something called
"crop rotation"
with perennial crops like alfalfa and grass. These are sod forming soil
building
crops that do not require the ground to be worked every year. A typical
crop
rotation on a sustainable farm like mine would be one year of corn, one
year of
soy beans, another year of corn, and 3 years in alfalfa hay and 4 years
of pasture.
It is the years of hay and pasture production that allow the grain
crops to be grown.
Without those crops the soil would be mined in short order. Yes animal
manure
helps the nutrient cycle but is minor compared to the hay / pasture
rotation.
In the early part of this century Wisconsin was the leading wheat
producing state.
However it was discovered that wheat production was not sustainable and
that
to rebuild the soil perennial crops would need to be grown. So the
farmers planted
alfalfa and brought in dairy cows to eat that alfalfa. That is how
Wisconsin became
the leading dairy state.
Remember that mother nature created the top soil we have using a
perennial
forage crop (grass and clover) and animals (bison, deer, ect). In order
to maintain the excellent top soil we have we need to continue what
mother nature started.
Anything else is not sustainable.
Russ Thompson
Rogue Jerseys
Richladn Center, WI
R Bishop
Russ Thompson <pm...@mwt.net> wrote:
>
>
>Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>
>> OK, then instead of making me guess what your argument is,
>> why don't you tell us? Why don't you think that sustainable
>> agriculture without livestock is possible?
>
>Oh sorry, I thought that since you were commenting on the subject
>that you knew something about it. I usually refrain from commenting
>on subjects that I know nothing about except to ask questions and learn
>from those that are better educated in the field.
That has never stopped our Mikie. For entertainment value, take a look in
dejanews at his thread on giving vasectomies to dominant buck deer. It's
hilarious.
> Fist do not put words in my post's. I did NOT say "think". Please
>try
>to remember that. OK?
He has comprehension problems. You have to use very short words with him.
And he doesn't 'do' math, either.
Ah, Jerseys, my favorite breed of cow. And wow, what great cream....
>Richladn Center, WI
>
>
Sue
The Real Millenium starts January 1, 2001
Or 10/4/1997
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.>
.> > why don't you tell us? Why don't you think that sustainable
.> > agriculture without livestock is possible?
.>
.> Oh sorry, I thought that since you were commenting on the subject
.> that you knew something about it.
I do. You have yet to offer any evidence that I don't. Insults
aren't arguments.
.> I usually refrain from commenting
.> on subjects that I know nothing about except to ask questions and
learn
.> from those that are better educated in the field.
Then why do you post crdentials that appear to make you an
expert in the field?
.> Fist do not put words in my post's. I did NOT say "think".
Please
.> try
.> to remember that. OK?
.> Ruminants animals (that means animals with four stomachs) have
to
.> ability
.> to turn things that we humans cannot eat into food that we can in the
.> form of milk
.> and meat.
That doesn't mean that we can't grow crops without them, however.
Composting can turn inedible cellulose into plant nutrients, which
then become human nutrients. The processes are actually quite
similar, as I have previously noted.
.> These things include grass and legumes, and the hugs amount of
food
.> industry
.> waste that cattle turn into food rather than filling land fills with
.> them.
Evidently you aren't what you would have us believe. Legumes are
*not* categorically "things that we humans cannot eat". Nor are grains,
which are "grasses".
.> These waste
.> products include things like cotton seed, orange pulp, brewers
grains,
.> wheat mids,
.> and the list goes on and on. In the past these things used to fill
land
.> fills or be burned.
They also used to be composted. They still are in some places.
.> Now cows can turn them into food. I would be interested to hear why
you
.> would like
.> to go back to putting even more stuff in our land fills.
I'm trying to be polite here, but what you're writing seems to
strongly indicate that you know little or nothing about plant
science. Why on earth would we want to throw away valuable plant
matter, when we can compost it into fertilizer, instead? Local
landfills are even doing that with leaves and branches, now. Past
abuses are not support for your claim.
.> The growing of annul crops like wheat, corn, soy beans, oats,
.> barley, ect, ect,
.> mean that the land must be worked in the spring and harvested before
.> winter. Thus
.> leaving the land unprotected during the worst of the cold and rainy
.> season. These
.> crops mine the soil. To balance this out we farms do something called
.> "crop rotation"
.> with perennial crops like alfalfa and grass. These are sod forming
soil
.> building
.> crops that do not require the ground to be worked every year. A
typical
.> crop
.> rotation on a sustainable farm like mine would be one year of corn,
one
.> year of
.> soy beans, another year of corn, and 3 years in alfalfa hay and 4
years
.> of pasture.
OK. What does crop rotation and the planting of cover crops have
to do with the impossibility of growing food without livestock?
.> It is the years of hay and pasture production that allow the
grain
.> crops to be grown.
You seem to be saying...no, I won't fall for that again. Let me
put it this way: it is *not* necessary (or even usually done) to
use a field as a pasture or hayfield before growing crops on it.
Legumes can be used to build the soil, but they don't have to be
eaten by cattle - they can be plowed under, or in the case of
edible legumes, harvested, and the rest of the plant plowed under.
.> Without those crops the soil would be mined in short order. Yes
animal
.> manure
.> helps the nutrient cycle but is minor compared to the hay / pasture
.> rotation.
Did you just switch sides in mid-argument?
.> In the early part of this century Wisconsin was the leading wheat
.> producing state.
.> However it was discovered that wheat production was not sustainable
and
.> that
.> to rebuild the soil perennial crops would need to be grown. So the
.> farmers planted
.> alfalfa and brought in dairy cows to eat that alfalfa. That is how
.> Wisconsin became
.> the leading dairy state.
This doesn't support your original argument, either.
.> Remember that mother nature created the top soil we have using a
.> perennial
.> forage crop (grass and clover) and animals (bison, deer, ect). In
order
.> to maintain the excellent top soil we have we need to continue what
.> mother nature started.
.> Anything else is not sustainable.
Are you saying that you think that organic farms graze animals on
their fields???
.>
.> Russ Thompson
.> Rogue Jerseys
.> Richladn Center, WI
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Russ,
.>
.> As an organic farmer, what is your estimate of collateral field
deaths
.> caused by cultivation of grain crops?
I don't think that it's even been established that he
is an organic farmer, grain, vegetable, or otherwise.
I'm guessing that he's a dairy farmer who grows feed
for his herd.
How about a better description of what you do, Russ?
frlpwr
As an organic farmer, what is your estimate of collateral field deaths
Russ Thompson
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> I don't think that it's even been established that he
> is an organic farmer, grain, vegetable, or otherwise.
> I'm guessing that he's a dairy farmer who grows feed
> for his herd.
> How about a better description of what you do, Russ?
Sure
My wife and I own and manage a 70 head of jersey dairy cows plus
about the same number of heifers. We use rational grazing to feed the
cows during the grazing season. The dairy herd is not organic because
of the poor economic of organic dairy farming and the increased
suffering
required of the animals.
I am deeply concerned with animal welfare. I am not an animal
rights
type but I do want to see all farm animals live as close to a natural
life as
possible and be treated in a humane manner. We strive for this on our
farm.
We also have some chickens and pigs for our own use. We raise the
extra bull calves born to our dairy cows and naturally raised grass fed
beef
that we direct market to consumers.
In addition to the 150 acres devoted to feeding the cows (non
organic)
I also grow certified organic crops on about 600 acres of former CRP
ground
that I rent. Organic crops are corn, soy beans, oats, barley, hay, and
all the land
goes through a pasture rotation and is grazed by the beef steers.
I have a BS degree in Dairy science from University of Wisconsin
Madison
and a masters degree in agronomy from Cornell. I am a former US army
ranger
as well. My wife is a physician and is from New Zealand.
Russ Thompson
Russ Thompson
frlpwr wrote:
Well organic farms have more of these deaths than non organic farm.
There is simply no way I could estimate the number of rat, rabbit,
and mouse deaths. There are just to many to count.
In addition to the rodent deaths usually few raccoons, opossums, and
skunks
get killed as well. This year had a yearling deer run strait into my
combine head
in a panicked fright. That was the only deer I killed this year but it
seems to happen
nearly every year. In the past harvesting killed a lot of birds as well.
Birds from
turkeys and pheasants to song birds were killed and their nests destroyed.
The local chapter of Pheasants Forever has done a good job of reducing
these deaths
by sending members to walk ahead of harvest equipment and scaring birds
away.
Russ Thompson
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> Then why do you post crdentials that appear to make you an
> expert in the field?
In the field of agriculture I am an an expert. In most other areas I am not.
> That doesn't mean that we can't grow crops without them, however.
> Composting can turn inedible cellulose into plant nutrients, which
> then become human nutrients. The processes are actually quite
> similar, as I have previously noted.
To compost you need a very high nitrogen to carbon ratio. Without theeasily
available form of N that animals provide composting takes to long
and is not economically feasible.
> Evidently you aren't what you would have us believe. Legumes are
> *not* categorically "things that we humans cannot eat". Nor are grains,
> which are "grasses".
>
Humans are not capable of digesting the perennial legumes like cloverand
alfalfa. True that we can eat the seeds of annual legumes like soy and
other beans. That however creates the same problem as the annual grain
crops.
> They also used to be composted. They still are in some places.
Very little was composted. I know for a fact that before it was
discoveredthat cattle could eat cotton seed that it was burned and that
brewers grains
were just bumped into land fills. It's pretty hard to compost without the
correct
carbon nitrogen ratio.
> I'm trying to be polite here, but what you're writing seems to
> strongly indicate that you know little or nothing about plant
> science. Why on earth would we want to throw away valuable plant
> matter, when we can compost it into fertilizer, instead?
Why? I don't know why. On my farm we don't. But the fact is thatwhat humans
do in general often makes little sense.
> OK. What does crop rotation and the planting of cover crops have
> to do with the impossibility of growing food without livestock?
Without cover crops and perennial forage crops our land would erodeaway and
the soil would be mined. This is currently happening to a lot of
our best crop ground.
> You seem to be saying...no, I won't fall for that again. Let me
> put it this way: it is *not* necessary (or even usually done) to
> use a field as a pasture or hayfield before growing crops on it.
You are correct when you say it is not normally done. Our society hasas yet
to include the whole cost of growing crops. Cost to society such
as erosion and soil depletion have yet to be considered in the value of
crops.
> Legumes can be used to build the soil, but they don't have to be
> eaten by cattle - they can be plowed under, or in the case of
> edible legumes, harvested, and the rest of the plant plowed under.
First you are right back to plowing all the time and that is one ofthe
biggest problems. Second until the consumer agrees to pay
the full value for it's food it is not economically feasible. Change society
and you would eliminate past two but would till be left with part one.
> Did you just switch sides in mid-argument?
No. What gives you that idea?
> This doesn't support your original argument, either.
Um, yes it does. I provided you with a factual example of what happenedwhen
we tried to have plant agriculture without animal agriculture.
> Are you saying that you think that organic farms graze animals on
> their fields???
No I am not saying that. How did you get that idea? Howevermost sustainable
farmers do. Organic and sustainable are two
very different things. All organic farmers I know import large amounts of
manure from non organic farms to maintain yields. I live about 20 miles from
Organic
Valley, the largest organic co-op in the US. There are organic farmers all
around
me and I see what they do.
Dale Anderson
>
>
>frlpwr wrote:
>
>> Russ,
>>
>> As an organic farmer, what is your estimate of collateral field deaths
>> caused by cultivation of grain crops?
>
> Well organic farms have more of these deaths than non organic farm.
>There is simply no way I could estimate the number of rat, rabbit,
>and mouse deaths. There are just to many to count.
I don't know if you've been lurking long enough, Russ, but you should
know that what you're getting sucked into is the ARA's inability to
deal with a riddle that John Mercer periodically presents here:
"Which causes more deaths? A pound of venison, or a pound of organic
rice?" (Apologies to John if the quote is not exact.
That little riddle tends to put them into a frenzy for as much as a
few months. I rather expect John gets a bit of a kick out of it. ;-)
=============
"My point being that when you argue with animal rights activist about "poor
starving children" you might just as well bring up aliens from Mars. As they
probably know more about that than being poor, starving or children."
Verne
========
Dale Anderson
dand...@mail.tds.net
Martin L Martens
[...]
> It is hard to believe, with all the noise and dirt kicked up by farm
> machinery at work, that animals able to flee don't.
Animals have different flight mechanisms. When my dogs are
chasing rats, the rats will go as far as they need to to get out
of the dogs reach. Once the rat finds a place where the dogs
can't reach it, it will just sit there and watch the dogs go
nuts. It can be literally inches away from the dogs but if it is
safe, it won't even try to go anywhere.
In the case of farming equipment, the rodents will run into
burrows and sit there until the plow or tire destroys the
burrow.
[...]
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> There is simply no way I could estimate the number of rat, rabbit,
> and mouse deaths. There are just to many to count.
On what evidence do you base your belief that there are "to(sic) many to
count"? Do you have any idea how many animals are present in the fields
before you go in? After? Is the ground strewn with their dead bodies?
Your machinery clogged with hair and bone? Are you aware of any studies
that have been done on this subject?
In your opinion, what measures could be taken to reduce this number?
Surely, with all the advances in agro-technology, someone so inclined
could devise a method of reducing these collateral deaths.
If there are massive die-offs of these animals every Spring and Fall in
fields that, in some cases, have been in continuous production for a
hundred years or more, how do you explain the fact that these animals
still exist in numbers great enough to warrant "pest" status? Doesn't
this mean that these species have devised survival defenses against
normal agricultural practices? When the only field rats that survive
plowing are those that build their nesting chambers deeper than the
depth of the plow, eventually deep burrows and tunnels become the norm,
don't they?
It is hard to believe, with all the noise and dirt kicked up by farm
machinery at work, that animals able to flee don't. It is not as if the
equipment is traveling so fast that an animal running above ground would
be overtaken. I can understand that the greatest toll would be on the
very young, those still confined to nest and burrows. How is it that
the consistent elimination of two generations of field animals a year
does not, after a period of time, seriously reduce the number of these
animals?
> The local chapter of Pheasants Forever has done a good job of reducing
> these deaths by sending members to walk ahead of harvest equipment and > scaring birds away.
>
Why wouldn't this same technique work on other species as well?
I assume that Pheasants Forever is a hunting club? Beautiful. They
"save" the birds from the combines so that they can kill them with their
guns? How noble of them.
Jonathan Ball
>
> Russ Thompson wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > There is simply no way I could estimate the number of rat, rabbit,
> > and mouse deaths. There are just to many to count.
>
> On what evidence do you base your belief that there are "to(sic) many to
> count"?
Come on; what's with "sic"? "...syphoning off calf blood..."
Siphoning. "...transversing the floors of slaughterhouses."
Traversing. "...that has occured is commeasurate with..." Occurred;
commensurate. Those were all from a *single* post of yours today. I
know the difference between to/too, there/their/they're, but the
thoughts run ahead of the fingers, and typos (and grammaros) happen.
Raise your sights a little.
> Do you have any idea how many animals are present in the fields
> before you go in? After?
Irrelevant. He knows they're present.
> Is the ground strewn with their dead bodies?
> Your machinery clogged with hair and bone? Are you aware of any studies
> that have been done on this subject?
Presumably, he sees freshly dead animals - more than he can count at a
quick glance - after running machinery through field. Why would it have
to rise to the level of hair and bone clogging the machinery before you
consider it worthy of notice?
>
> In your opinion, what measures could be taken to reduce this number?
> Surely, with all the advances in agro-technology, someone so inclined
> could devise a method of reducing these collateral deaths.
Why would he be concerned with incurring the expense of any measures, in
the absence of some externally imposed compulsion? There are costs that
he already internalizes (machinery, land rent, wages, various raw
materials, other overhead) and ones he doesn't (pesticide and fertilizer
runoff, psychic loss to AuRA crybabies of dead animals). In the absence
of laws that force external (social) costs to be internalized, in the
manner of pollution abatement laws, why would he voluntarily do so?
>
> If there are massive die-offs of these animals every Spring and Fall in
> fields that, in some cases, have been in continuous production for a
> hundred years or more, how do you explain the fact that these animals
> still exist in numbers great enough to warrant "pest" status? Doesn't
> this mean that these species have devised survival defenses against
> normal agricultural practices? When the only field rats that survive
> plowing are those that build their nesting chambers deeper than the
> depth of the plow, eventually deep burrows and tunnels become the norm,
> don't they?
Only if the tendency to dig deeper burrows is due to a genetic factor.
That kind of behavior usually isn't learned and then passed on to future
generations.
>
> It is hard to believe, with all the noise and dirt kicked up by farm
> machinery at work, that animals able to flee don't. It is not as if the
> equipment is traveling so fast that an animal running above ground would
> be overtaken. I can understand that the greatest toll would be on the
> very young, those still confined to nest and burrows. How is it that
> the consistent elimination of two generations of field animals a year
> does not, after a period of time, seriously reduce the number of these
> animals?
Isn't the gestation period for most small rodents a matter of a few
weeks? Depending on the amount of time a crop is left in a field, there
might be ample time for a couple or more generations to come along,
between episodes of equipment chewing up the field.
>
> > The local chapter of Pheasants Forever has done a good job of reducing
> > these deaths by sending members to walk ahead of harvest equipment and > scaring birds away.
> >
> Why wouldn't this same technique work on other species as well?
>
> I assume that Pheasants Forever is a hunting club? Beautiful. They
> "save" the birds from the combines so that they can kill them with their
> guns? How noble of them.
How characteristically snide of you.
They value the birds, albeit not as you'd like. No one values field
rodents.
Russ Thompson
Dale Anderson wrote:
> I don't know if you've been lurking long enough, Russ, but you should
> know that what you're getting sucked into is the ARA's inability to
> deal with a riddle that John Mercer periodically presents here:
>
> "Which causes more deaths? A pound of venison, or a pound of organic
> rice?" (Apologies to John if the quote is not exact.
What a stupid question. The answer is so obvious that any normalrational adult
would know the the answer instantly.
Russ
Russ Thompson
frlpwr wrote:
> On what evidence do you base your belief that there are "to(sic) many to
> count"? Do you have any idea how many animals are present in the fields
> before you go in? After? Is the ground strewn with their dead bodies?
> Your machinery clogged with hair and bone? Are you aware of any studies
> that have been done on this subject?
The evidence I base my KNOWLEDGE is personal observation.I don't know of any studies done. I don't
know why anyone would be interested in doingsuch studies and more importantly who would fund them.
I do not have any idea
how many animals are present before I go into a field. If you were to get down from the combine
(for example) and kick the fodder around you would find small
dead animals every couple inches or so. It is not uncommon the find dead animals
in bales of corn stalks or hay.
> In your opinion, what measures could be taken to reduce this number?
> Surely, with all the advances in agro-technology, someone so inclined
> could devise a method of reducing these collateral deaths.
Well crops could be grown using horses and hand labor. Of course thiswould not be financially
feasible due to societies refusal to pay the true
cost of their food.
> If there are massive die-offs of these animals every Spring and Fall in
> fields that, in some cases, have been in continuous production for a
> hundred years or more,
Well I don't have any land that has been in production for nearly that long.Also if you eliminate
animal agriculture you would drastically reduce the small
animal deaths. The small animals would have no safe place to have their young
and there would not be large populations of them. Of course you would
create massive soil erosion.
> how do you explain the fact that these animals
> still exist in numbers great enough to warrant "pest" status?
Crop rotations. Rotating fields into forage crops gives the small animalsa place to live safe from
being killed by equipment. They can still travel
to the fields with crops in them but the hay and grass fields give them a safe place
to raise young that is very very close to a dependable food source.
> Doesn't
> this mean that these species have devised survival defenses against
> normal agricultural practices? When the only field rats that survive
> plowing are those that build their nesting chambers deeper than the
> depth of the plow, eventually deep burrows and tunnels become the norm,
> don't they?
No of course not.
> It is hard to believe, with all the noise and dirt kicked up by farm
> machinery at work, that animals able to flee don't. It is not as if the
> equipment is traveling so fast that an animal running above ground would
> be overtaken. I can understand that the greatest toll would be on the
> very young, those still confined to nest and burrows. How is it that
> the consistent elimination of two generations of field animals a year
> does not, after a period of time, seriously reduce the number of these
> animals?
Your question reflects how little you know about agriculture. The eliminationof large numbers of
animals has no effect. The young are for the most part safe
in the near by hay and pasture fields.
> Why wouldn't this same technique work on other species as well?
Rabbits, mice, and rats do not run away when a human comes near. They simplyrun to the nearest
place they think is safe. This may only be 5 - 10 feet away.
Birds will fly away.
> I assume that Pheasants Forever is a hunting club? Beautiful. They
> "save" the birds from the combines so that they can kill them with their
> guns? How noble of them.
Yes I agree with you. It is very noble of them to take their time to savedozens of different
species of birds. Hunting will in fact kill a small number
of adult birds latter, but the actions of Pheasants Forever preserve the entire
local population. Interesting that no animal right group has ever taken the time
to do the same thing on other farms.
Russ
James Hepler
Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> frlpwr wrote:
> >
> > Russ Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > There is simply no way I could estimate the number of rat, rabbit,
> > > and mouse deaths. There are just to many to count.
> >
> > On what evidence do you base your belief that there are "to(sic) many to
> > count"?
>
> Come on; what's with "sic"? "...syphoning off calf blood..."
> Siphoning. "...transversing the floors of slaughterhouses."
> Traversing. "...that has occured is commeasurate with..." Occurred;
> commensurate. Those were all from a *single* post of yours today. I
> know the difference between to/too, there/their/they're, but the
> thoughts run ahead of the fingers, and typos (and grammaros) happen.
> Raise your sights a little.
Shhhh. Stop asking for consistency.
> > Is the ground strewn with their dead bodies?
> > Your machinery clogged with hair and bone? Are you aware of any studies
> > that have been done on this subject?
>
> Presumably, he sees freshly dead animals - more than he can count at a
> quick glance - after running machinery through field. Why would it have
> to rise to the level of hair and bone clogging the machinery before you
> consider it worthy of notice?
Because without the sensationalism, how can you make a point? It seems
as though if you knew anything about the machinery in question you
wouldn't even be able to ask what Feral has asked.
> > In your opinion, what measures could be taken to reduce this number?
> > Surely, with all the advances in agro-technology, someone so inclined
> > could devise a method of reducing these collateral deaths.
>
> Why would he be concerned with incurring the expense of any measures, in
> the absence of some externally imposed compulsion? There are costs that
> he already internalizes (machinery, land rent, wages, various raw
> materials, other overhead) and ones he doesn't (pesticide and fertilizer
> runoff, psychic loss to AuRA crybabies of dead animals). In the absence
> of laws that force external (social) costs to be internalized, in the
> manner of pollution abatement laws, why would he voluntarily do so?
A good point. Are we to think that your average farmer is so rich that
he just HAS to spend money to kill a few less groundhogs? Feral, why
not chip in to help him pay for such things? Why not get the AR
community to subsidize farmers who are willing to take these measures?
Why demand it be done on your behalf but with his dime?
> > If there are massive die-offs of these animals every Spring and Fall in
> > fields that, in some cases, have been in continuous production for a
> > hundred years or more, how do you explain the fact that these animals
> > still exist in numbers great enough to warrant "pest" status? Doesn't
> > this mean that these species have devised survival defenses against
> > normal agricultural practices? When the only field rats that survive
> > plowing are those that build their nesting chambers deeper than the
> > depth of the plow, eventually deep burrows and tunnels become the norm,
> > don't they?
>
> Only if the tendency to dig deeper burrows is due to a genetic factor.
> That kind of behavior usually isn't learned and then passed on to future
> generations.
And often, that which allows for the continued prosperity of species is
high rates of birth.
> > > The local chapter of Pheasants Forever has done a good job of reducing
> > > these deaths by sending members to walk ahead of harvest equipment and > scaring birds away.
> > >
> > Why wouldn't this same technique work on other species as well?
> >
> > I assume that Pheasants Forever is a hunting club? Beautiful. They
> > "save" the birds from the combines so that they can kill them with their
> > guns? How noble of them.
>
> How characteristically snide of you.
>
> They value the birds, albeit not as you'd like. No one values field
> rodents.
Funny how Feral sits behind her monitor and snipes at the people out in
the fields saving the birds. Who is the more effective Animal
protector? The last thing she seems to want to do is help. Maybe
hunters do it because no one else will. COme on Feral, get your posse
together! Save them once and for all!
James Hepler
G*rd*n
| > On what evidence do you base your belief that there are "to(sic) many to
| > Your machinery clogged with hair and bone? Are you aware of any studies
| > that have been done on this subject?
Russ Thompson <pm...@mwt.net>:
| The evidence I base my KNOWLEDGE is personal observation.I don't know of any studies done. I don't
| know why anyone would be interested in doingsuch studies and more importantly who would fund them.
....
People who want to argue that animals should not be
accorded any rights have a difficult problem: it has
become virtually impossible to deny that many animals
most probably possess consciousness, sentience, will, and
intelligence, which for many people renders them objects of
ethical concern, possibly to the point of construction or
discovery of rights to protect certain of their interests
(for example, the right not to be tortured, even for
noble purposes).
One defense against this perception which has been
frequently made in t.p.a is the "bloody footprints" defense,
which holds that all food, of whatever kind, requires the
deaths of animals. Although this proposition cannot be
proved, it is possible to show that almost all existing
agriculture kills a certain number of animals, and this
fact is substituted for the proof of the proposition. It
is not an really an argument against the aforesaid ethical
concerns, but an argument against considering the question
in the first place (since the situation is supposed to be
hopeless). Since I'm interested in the ethical problems,
I consider the "bloody footprints" defense to be invalid,
tiresome, and propagandistic, but those more interested
in polemic may enjoy it.
At this time, "animal rights" or "animal liberation" are too
weak, politically, to occasion anyone spending money on
the "bloody footprints" defense. Should they mainstream,
however, I imagine a great deal of money would be spent to
produce the facts the spenders desired.
frlpwr
>
> frlpwr wrote:
>
(snip)
Sure. The "evidence" I am asking for is what you have observed that has
led you to believe that "millions of horrible deaths" are caused by
field cultivation.
> I don't know of any studies done. I don't know why anyone would be > interested in doingsuch studies and more importantly who would fund > them.
>
One reason that comes immediately to mind is the possible presence of a
population of threatened or endangered species that might inhabit the
margins of cropland.
Also, a quick review of agricultural research indicates that quite a bit
of money is dedicated to pest management. It is decidedly unscientific
to pour money into management strategies without having an idea of the
numerical strength and composition of the animal populations farmers are
going up against.
Equipment manufacturers might have an interest from the perspective of
wear and tear on machinery screens and discharge systems. Some farm
machines have bumper attachments to prevent rocks from damaging blades,
bars, rollers, etc. Grinding up fawns on a regular basis might be an
equipment maintenance concern.
I presume there are at least some food safety laws that limit the amount
of animal body parts that are acceptable in human food products. It
only makes sense that the food industry would try to limit the amount of
contamination at every stage in the process. The fewer mice that are
harvested with the grain, the more mice can be allowed to slip by in the
more labor-intensive stages of food processing.
> I do not have any idea
> how many animals are present before I go into a field. If you were to > get down from the combine (for example) and kick the fodder around
> you would find small dead animals every couple inches or so.
Wow. "Millions" is a gross understatement. At one dead animal every
two inches, you kill 3,136,320 animals every time you run your combine
over one acre. You crop, what did you say? 750 acres? That means that
you alone kill 2,352,240,000 animals every harvest. It is a wonder
there are any burrowers left in the Midwest at all. More power to the
critters that can withstand this kind of onslaught year after year.
Long live rodents!
> It is not uncommon the find dead animals
> in bales of corn stalks or hay.
>
At the rate you kill animals, I'm surprised there is any room for corn
stalks or hay in the bales of dead animals.
> In your opinion, what measures could be taken to reduce this number?
> > Surely, with all the advances in agro-technology, someone so
> > inclined could devise a method of reducing these collateral deaths.
>
> Well crops could be grown using horses and hand labor. Of course
> this would not be financially feasible due to societies refusal to pay > the true cost of their food.
>
I heard a farm report on NPR the other day that stated that speciality
produce, meaning "organic" was the only agricultural sector that has
experienced growth so far this year. Apparently, there are a
significant number of people who are willing to pay more for food grown
in (what they think) ways other that those used by mainstream
agriculture. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about the
purity, both physically and ethically, of organically grown crops. But
I don't need to tell you this, do I?
> > If there are massive die-offs of these animals every Spring and Fall > > in fields that, in some cases, have been in continuous production
> > for a hundred years or more,
>
> Well I don't have any land that has been in production for nearly that > long.
I was thinking of the land farmed by various branches of my family in
Iowa and Illinois. Fields outside of Herscher, Illinois (My
grandmother's surname) have been farmed by the family since 1886.
> Also if you eliminate animal agriculture you would drastically reduce > the small animal deaths.
Please explain the connection.
> The small animals would have no safe place to have their young
> and there would not be large populations of them.
How does the presence of farmed animals create "safe places" for small
animals? Do you mean the animals that live inside outbuildings and
grain storage facilities? I don't understand what you mean.
> Of course you would create massive soil erosion.
Do you mean that if pasture was turned into row crops?
>
> > how do you explain the fact that these animals
> > still exist in numbers great enough to warrant "pest" status?
>
> Crop rotations. Rotating fields into forage crops gives the small
> animals a place to live safe from being killed by equipment. They can > still travel to the fields with crops in them but the hay and grass
> fields give them a safe place to raise young that is very very close
> to a dependable food source.
>
You still cut these fields, though, right? Wouldn't switching to row
plowing or even discing as opposed to deep plowing do the same thing?
> > Doesn't this mean that these species have devised survival defenses > > against normal agricultural practices? When the only field rats
> > that survive plowing are those that build their nesting chambers
> > deeper than the depth of the plow, eventually deep burrows and
> > tunnels become the norm, don't they?
>
> No of course not.
>
Well, if you are killing 2,352,240,000 animals a year and all your
neighbors are doing the same, clearly these animals have evolved a
survival strategy.
> Your question reflects how little you know about agriculture. The
> elimination of large numbers of animals has no effect.
The large numbers of animals being eliminated are certainly "effected".
> The young are for the most part safe
> in the near by hay and pasture fields.
Whew. Other farmers have told us that it is the defenseless young,
trapped and smothered in their nests, that pay the price for our
farmbelt's abundance. Now you say it is the old looters, running back
and forth from the cropland grocery store that are cut down in their
paths. Shall we just say that is it is "millions" of both?>
> > Why wouldn't this same technique work on other species as well?
>
> Rabbits, mice, and rats do not run away when a human comes near. They > simplyrun to the nearest place they think is safe. This may only be 5 - 10 feet away.
Or runs that are deep in the ground, safely out of reach of your
machines. This is why some farmers must resort to poison and gas to
eliminate these agricultural "pests".
> Birds will fly away.
>
So field deaths of birds can be completed prevented if cultivation is
timed to avoid the destruction of eggs and unfledged chicks?
> > I assume that Pheasants Forever is a hunting club? Beautiful. They
> > "save" the birds from the combines so that they can kill them with
> > their guns? How noble of them.
>
> Yes I agree with you. It is very noble of them to take their time to
> save dozens of different species of birds. Hunting will in fact kill > a small number of adult birds latter, but the actions of Pheasants
> Forever preserve the entire local population. Interesting that no
> animal right group has ever taken the time to do the same thing on
> other farms.
>
Interesting that you will not take the time to see to this "noble"
undertaking yourself.
>
Michael Cerkowski
>
> James Hepler wrote:
(...)
> > > Only if the tendency to dig deeper burrows is due to a genetic
> > > factor. That kind of behavior usually isn't learned and then passed > > on to future generations.
.>
.> A rodent will build its nest in the same shape, of the same materials
.> and at the same depth as the nest they were born in. One rat builds
its
.> nest eight inches deep and another rat builds its chamber fourteen
.> inches deep. The first rat and all her young are killed by a plow.
The
.> second rat and her young are safe at the greater depth. The young of
.> the second rat will build their nests at fourteen inches, as will
their
.> young and all the young that follow.
It seems to be a common misconception that animals do
everything by "instinct", because of genetic 'programming'.
It usually comes as a surprise to learn how much animals
actually have to *learn* to be successful in life.
>
> Animals learn or die, James, and they "teach" their young by living long
> enough to pass on the lessons. They are not so very different from us.
Which explains the need to regard them as little machines.
Once we see the similarities, we...see the similarities.
(...)
Russ Thompson
Karen Pearson wrote:
> I'm just curious Russ..... Is the above so they can go out and shoot the
> pheasants later? You eat pheasants, right?
>
> Ta
> Karen
> aka Eco
Pheasants Forever is a group of hunters that are dedicated
to the preservation of pheasants and habitat for them.
These men and women love pheasants and pheasant hunting
and spend their time and money improving habitat. When they walk ahead
of my equipment they scare the pheasants out, but also dozens of other
species of birds are saved. Same goes for the habitat they create.
No I do not eat pheasants, but many people do.
Russ
Karen Pearson
Russ Thompson <pm...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:3843B838...@mwt.net...
>
-------snip for brevity
>
> The local chapter of Pheasants Forever has done a good job of reducing
> these deaths
> by sending members to walk ahead of harvest equipment and scaring birds
> away.
>
I'm just curious Russ..... Is the above so they can go out and shoot the
pheasants later? You eat pheasants, right?
Ta
Karen
aka Eco
> Russ Thompson
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> It seems as though if you knew anything about the machinery in
> question you wouldn't even be able to ask what Feral has asked.
A search of "combine" will lead you to several chat rooms covering
different makes and models of combines. You will see that one of the
most frequent maintenance problems with combines is clogged screens that
cutdown on discharge or broken screens cannot filter dirt and gravel.
If insects bodies can clog these screens, so can mouse bodies and a fawn
will warrant some serious scraping.>
(snip)
> A good point. Are we to think that your average farmer is so rich
> that he just HAS to spend money to kill a few less groundhogs? Feral, > why not chip in to help him pay for such things? Why not get the AR
> community to subsidize farmers who are willing to take these measures?
> Why demand it be done on your behalf but with his dime?
>
How does asking Russ what measures he thinks could reduce field deaths
transform into a demand that he adopt these practices?
I can't speak for Heplerville, NC, but I think that in my area there
would be an eager market for grains and produce from farms that use less
violent agricultural methods.
> > Only if the tendency to dig deeper burrows is due to a genetic
> > factor. That kind of behavior usually isn't learned and then passed > > on to future generations.
A rodent will build its nest in the same shape, of the same materials
and at the same depth as the nest they were born in. One rat builds its
nest eight inches deep and another rat builds its chamber fourteen
inches deep. The first rat and all her young are killed by a plow. The
second rat and her young are safe at the greater depth. The young of
the second rat will build their nests at fourteen inches, as will their
young and all the young that follow.
Animals learn or die, James, and they "teach" their young by living long
enough to pass on the lessons. They are not so very different from us.
> And often, that which allows for the continued prosperity of species
> is high rates of birth.
This helps, but we're talking mammals here, not insects. These animals
are not giving birth to hundreds or thousands of offspring a year. Even
animals as prolific as mice have relatively small litters of eight to
twelve, three or four times a year in warm climates. (After all, they
only have FOUR TEATS. I'm sure about that!)
(snip)
> > They "save" the birds from the combines so that they can kill them > > with their guns? How noble of them.
> > No one values field rodents.
Not so fast. Show me a hungry field rodent and I'll put it on my
feeding route.
>
> Funny how Feral sits behind her monitor and snipes at the people out
> in the fields saving the birds.
This is a liberal use of the word "save". They are saving pheasants
from the machines and from becoming food for animal scavengers so they
can kill and scavenge the carcasses themselves. There is no salvation
here, just another case of humans hoarding food.
> Who is the more effective Animal protector?
Who will protect the pheasants from the protectors? The reason that
pheasants, need protecting is because these "protectors" in their hunter
personas have greedily overhunted the birds in the past.
> The last thing she seems to want to do is help. Maybe
> hunters do it because no one else will.
Hunters do it because hunters want to make sure that there are pheasants
enough for them to kill come Fall.
> COme on Feral, get your posse together! Save them once and for all!
>
Fall in, men.
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.>
.> > expert in the field?
.>
.> In the field of agriculture I am an an expert. In most other areas I
am not.
Without trying to sound rude, I think that you might want to
narrow the scope of your expertise a bit below "the field of
agriculture".
.>
.> > That doesn't mean that we can't grow crops without them,
however.
.> > Composting can turn inedible cellulose into plant nutrients, which
.> > then become human nutrients. The processes are actually quite
.> > similar, as I have previously noted.
.>
.> To compost you need a very high nitrogen to carbon ratio. Without
theeasily
.> available form of N that animals provide composting takes to long
.> and is not economically feasible.
When you plan in advance, you can compost for as long as you
like, especially if you use legumes to build soil as well.
.>
.> > Evidently you aren't what you would have us believe. Legumes are
.> > *not* categorically "things that we humans cannot eat". Nor are
grains,
.> > which are "grasses".
.> >
.>
.> Humans are not capable of digesting the perennial legumes like
cloverand
.> alfalfa. True that we can eat the seeds of annual legumes like soy
and
.> other beans. That however creates the same problem as the annual
grain
.> crops.
What problem is that? Clover enriches the soil, and you can plow it
under before planting.
.>
.> > They also used to be composted. They still are in some places.
.>
.> Very little was composted. I know for a fact that before it was
.> discoveredthat cattle could eat cotton seed that it was burned and
that
.> brewers grains
.> were just bumped into land fills. It's pretty hard to compost without
the
.> correct
.> carbon nitrogen ratio.
The organic farmers I know don't seem to feel that composting is
hard.
.>
.> > I'm trying to be polite here, but what you're writing seems to
.> > strongly indicate that you know little or nothing about plant
.> > science. Why on earth would we want to throw away valuable plant
.> > matter, when we can compost it into fertilizer, instead?
.>
.> Why? I don't know why. On my farm we don't. But the fact is thatwhat
humans
.> do in general often makes little sense.
Your general argument is clear enough, I guess, but these
digressions are a bit confusing. We don't seem do disagree
on the above point, and it doesn't support the idea that you
need livestock to grow crops.
.>
.> > OK. What does crop rotation and the planting of cover crops have
.> > to do with the impossibility of growing food without livestock?
.>
.> Without cover crops and perennial forage crops our land would
erodeaway and
.> the soil would be mined. This is currently happening to a lot of
.> our best crop ground.
Why on earth do you think that cover crops require livestock
grazing to protect the soil??? You've already admitted that most
farmers don't use them that way. Have you really thought this
through? The important part is "cover crops", not "grazing".
Soil aeration isn't an issue when you're planting crops in it.
.>
.> > You seem to be saying...no, I won't fall for that again. Let me
.> > put it this way: it is *not* necessary (or even usually done) to
.> > use a field as a pasture or hayfield before growing crops on it.
.>
.> You are correct when you say it is not normally done. Our society
hasas yet
.> to include the whole cost of growing crops. Cost to society such
.> as erosion and soil depletion have yet to be considered in the value
of
.> crops.
No livestock does *not* equate to loss of soil and/or soil
depletion. Heck, livestock probably damage as much soil as
they help...
.>
.> > Legumes can be used to build the soil, but they don't have to be
.> > eaten by cattle - they can be plowed under, or in the case of
.> > edible legumes, harvested, and the rest of the plant plowed under.
.>
.> First you are right back to plowing all the time and that is one
ofthe
.> biggest problems.
Not "plowing all the time", just plowing a cover crop under before
planting. You don't absolutely need to plow to plant clover, do you?
.> Second until the consumer agrees to pay
.> the full value for it's food it is not economically feasible. Change
society
.>
> and you would eliminate past two but would till be left with part one.
I agree that consumers don't pay the full cost of food at the market;
that's one of the basic tenets of organic agriculture - that there are
hidden costs that taxpayers are hit with in other ways. I have no idea
though what you mean in this context by "part one" and "part two"...
>
> > Did you just switch sides in mid-argument?
> No. What gives you that idea?
Your arguments aren't as clear as they might be, especially when
you differ, then agree, with me on the same issue...
>
> > This doesn't support your original argument, either.
>
> Um, yes it does. I provided you with a factual example of what happenedwhen
> we tried to have plant agriculture without animal agriculture.
What factual example?
>
> > Are you saying that you think that organic farms graze animals on
> > their fields???
>
> No I am not saying that. How did you get that idea? Howevermost sustainable
> farmers do. Organic and sustainable are two
> very different things. All organic farmers I know import large amounts of
> manure from non organic farms to maintain yields. I live about 20 miles from
> Organic
> Valley, the largest organic co-op in the US. There are organic farmers all
> around
> me and I see what they do.
Now you seem to be saying that most organic farmers use animal
manure. I agree. That doesn't mean that they *have to*, only
that they are taking advantage of the widespread availability of
cheap manure. The status quo doesn't close out all other options
by its mere existence...
>
> Russ Thompson
> Rogue Jerseys
> Richland Center, WI
--
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.>
.> > is an organic farmer, grain, vegetable, or otherwise.
.> > I'm guessing that he's a dairy farmer who grows feed
.> > for his herd.
.> > How about a better description of what you do, Russ?
.>
.> Sure
.> My wife and I own and manage a 70 head of jersey dairy cows plus
.> about the same number of heifers. We use rational grazing to feed the
.> cows during the grazing season. The dairy herd is not organic because
.> of the poor economic of organic dairy farming and the increased
.> suffering
.> required of the animals.
.> I am deeply concerned with animal welfare. I am not an animal
.> rights
.> type but I do want to see all farm animals live as close to a natural
.> life as
.> possible and be treated in a humane manner. We strive for this on our
.> farm.
.> We also have some chickens and pigs for our own use. We raise the
.> extra bull calves born to our dairy cows and naturally raised grass
fed
.> beef
.> that we direct market to consumers.
.> In addition to the 150 acres devoted to feeding the cows (non
.> organic)
.> I also grow certified organic crops on about 600 acres of former CRP
.> ground
.> that I rent. Organic crops are corn, soy beans, oats, barley, hay,
and
.> all the land
.> goes through a pasture rotation and is grazed by the beef steers.
.> I have a BS degree in Dairy science from University of Wisconsin
.> Madison
.> and a masters degree in agronomy from Cornell. I am a former US army
.> ranger
.> as well. My wife is a physician and is from New Zealand.
.>
.> Russ Thompson
> Rogue Jerseys
> Richland Center, WI
Thank you for posting that. I'm a 41 year old animal rights
activist (ARA) who lives in a small old suburb on the edge of
a rural area. I'm marginally involved with the Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA) movement. I work for NYS goverment
as an identification technician.
Russ Thompson
G*rd*n wrote:
> People who want to argue that animals should not be
> accorded any rights have a difficult problem: it has
> become virtually impossible to deny that many animals
> most probably possess consciousness, sentience, will, and
> intelligence, which for many people renders them objects of
> ethical concern, possibly to the point of construction or
> discovery of rights to protect certain of their interests
> (for example, the right not to be tortured, even for
> noble purposes).
I really don't see how this is any problem.
> One defense against this perception which has been
> frequently made in t.p.a is the "bloody footprints" defense,
> which holds that all food, of whatever kind, requires the
> deaths of animals.
Except that this is not true. I don't know about the bloody foot print.I do know that millions of
animals die in modern production agriculture.
So this is a valid argument. I would agree with you that it was not a valid
argument if these deaths were unavoidable. However they are avoidable.
That leaves people with a choice. 1. They may choose to accept that animals
are killed in their name. 2. They may choose to pretend that animals are not killed
their name and abuse those who do the killing (currently the favorite option)
3. They may choose to live their life in such a way so that animals are not killed in
their name. Currently very few choose this option because it is inconvenient.
Though a few do choose option number 3 and may argue from a better
moral position.
The situation is not considered hopeless. The killing I do on my farm that is
done in your name can be avoided. You however choose not to.
Russ
Russ Thompson
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> Why on earth do you think that cover crops require livestock
> grazing to protect the soil??? You've already admitted that most
> farmers don't use them that way. Have you really thought this
> through? The important part is "cover crops", not "grazing".
> Soil aeration isn't an issue when you're planting crops in it.
Excuse me but we were not discussing what can be done or what is being done.Those
things are irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing what
is sustainable, remember?
The fastest way to build soil is through controlled grazing. That is after
all the the way in witch our soil was made by mother nature in the first place.
You are kidding I assume when you say that soil aeration is not an issue?
> No livestock does *not* equate to loss of soil and/or soil
> depletion. Heck, livestock probably damage as much soil as
> they help...
Without livestock farmers do not grow perennial forage crops.
> Not "plowing all the time", just plowing a cover crop under before
> planting. You don't absolutely need to plow to plant clover, do you?
What you are suggesting requires plowing at least every year. No of course
youdon't need to plant clover. You could plant alfalfa or other crops.
> What factual example?
>
(sigh) The example of how Wisconsin went from a wheat producing sateto a dairy
state.
> Now you seem to be saying that most organic farmers use animal
> manure. I agree. That doesn't mean that they *have to*, only
> that they are taking advantage of the widespread availability of
> cheap manure. The status quo doesn't close out all other options
> by its mere existence...
Um yes that is exactly what I am saying. Most organic farmer *do* usemanure. Of
course they don't *have* to. I didn't say that did I?
Russ
G*rd*n
| > People who want to argue that animals should not be
| > accorded any rights have a difficult problem: it has
| > become virtually impossible to deny that many animals
| > most probably possess consciousness, sentience, will, and
| > intelligence, which for many people renders them objects of
| > ethical concern, possibly to the point of construction or
| > discovery of rights to protect certain of their interests
| > (for example, the right not to be tortured, even for
| > noble purposes).
Russ Thompson <pm...@mwt.net>:
| I really don't see how this is any problem.
Well, a lot of people connect the capacity for suffering
with ethics. They would find something more seriously wrong
with burning a live dog than a dead one, for example. If
one were eager to burn live dogs one might see this general
attitude as a significant political problem.
G*rd*n:
| > One defense against this perception which has been
| > frequently made in t.p.a is the "bloody footprints" defense,
| > which holds that all food, of whatever kind, requires the
| > deaths of animals.
Russ Thompson <pm...@mwt.net>:
| Except that this is not true. I don't know about the bloody foot print.I do know that millions of
| animals die in modern production agriculture.
| So this is a valid argument. I would agree with you that it was not a valid
| argument if these deaths were unavoidable. However they are avoidable.
No, it would be valid if the deaths were unavoidable. If
they were avoidable, then the charge is merely hypocrisy,
which leaves the ethical proposition untouched. In fact,
it reinforces it by default.
Russ Thompson <pm...@mwt.net>:
| That leaves people with a choice. 1. They may choose to accept that animals
| are killed in their name. 2. They may choose to pretend that animals are not killed
| their name and abuse those who do the killing (currently the favorite option)
| 3. They may choose to live their life in such a way so that animals are not killed in
| their name. Currently very few choose this option because it is inconvenient.
| Though a few do choose option number 3 and may argue from a better
| moral position.
| The situation is not considered hopeless. The killing I do on my farm that is
| done in your name can be avoided. You however choose not to.
It would be interesting to state how it could be avoided.
Some people who post here occasionally say they have gone
to live on the land, where they avoid killing animals. Is
this what you're suggesting? It might not be possible for
everyone -- in my own experience, it takes a _lot_ of money
to become a poor farmer, to say nothing of excellent mental
and physical health.
One alternative I've imagined is that if there were enough
buyers of what we could call "cruelty-free" agricultural
products, they could swing enough economic and political
weight to bring about cruelty-free production methods. At
present, though, only a very small part of the population
seems to care, and there are not enough of them to do
affect production procedures.
James Hepler
frlpwr wrote:
>
> James Hepler wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > It seems as though if you knew anything about the machinery in
> > question you wouldn't even be able to ask what Feral has asked.
>
> A search of "combine" will lead you to several chat rooms covering
> different makes and models of combines. You will see that one of the
> most frequent maintenance problems with combines is clogged screens that
> cutdown on discharge or broken screens cannot filter dirt and gravel.
> If insects bodies can clog these screens, so can mouse bodies and a fawn
> will warrant some serious scraping.>
You are assuming that something that large can get to the point where it
is mangled to that degree. On these newsgroups has anyone mentioned
dead animals as clogging the screens?
> (snip)
>
> > A good point. Are we to think that your average farmer is so rich
> > that he just HAS to spend money to kill a few less groundhogs? Feral, > why not chip in to help him pay for such things? Why not get the AR
> > community to subsidize farmers who are willing to take these measures?
> > Why demand it be done on your behalf but with his dime?
> >
> How does asking Russ what measures he thinks could reduce field deaths
> transform into a demand that he adopt these practices?
So while you are saying that, "Surely, with all the advances in
agro-technology, someone so inclined could devise a method of reducing
these collateral deaths", but you would never demand that a farmer adopt
such methods? Are you sure?
> I can't speak for Heplerville, NC, but I think that in my area there
> would be an eager market for grains and produce from farms that use less
> violent agricultural methods.
In Heplerville, as well as 85% of this country, people don't give a
damn, Frankly.
> > > Only if the tendency to dig deeper burrows is due to a genetic
> > > factor. That kind of behavior usually isn't learned and then passed > > on to future generations.
>
> A rodent will build its nest in the same shape, of the same materials
> and at the same depth as the nest they were born in. One rat builds its
> nest eight inches deep and another rat builds its chamber fourteen
> inches deep. The first rat and all her young are killed by a plow. The
> second rat and her young are safe at the greater depth. The young of
> the second rat will build their nests at fourteen inches, as will their
> young and all the young that follow.
>
> Animals learn or die, James, and they "teach" their young by living long
> enough to pass on the lessons. They are not so very different from us.
Whoa, lass. Watch the attributions. Shall I count the >'s for you?
> > And often, that which allows for the continued prosperity of species
> > is high rates of birth.
>
> This helps, but we're talking mammals here, not insects. These animals
> are not giving birth to hundreds or thousands of offspring a year.
They don't die at the same rates as insects. Everything is relative. I
think birth rates can be said to be directly proportional to survival
rates.
> Even
> animals as prolific as mice have relatively small litters of eight to
> twelve, three or four times a year in warm climates. (After all, they
> only have FOUR TEATS. I'm sure about that!)
Heh!
> (snip)
>
> > > They "save" the birds from the combines so that they can kill them > > with their guns? How noble of them.
>
> > > No one values field rodents.
>
> Not so fast. Show me a hungry field rodent and I'll put it on my
> feeding route.
Funny thing is, they don't make their positions known very easily. And
why would you rather foster dependency on humans than allow nature to
run its course?
> > Funny how Feral sits behind her monitor and snipes at the people out
> > in the fields saving the birds.
>
> This is a liberal use of the word "save". They are saving pheasants
> from the machines and from becoming food for animal scavengers so they
> can kill and scavenge the carcasses themselves. There is no salvation
> here, just another case of humans hoarding food.
Would it be safe for me to infer from your words that you think these
folks leave all the other species to die in the fields, only saving
their future targets? Wouldn't it be easier for them just to take their
guns and shoot the birds there rather than relocate them? Surely there
is an added benefit to going out there and not shooting them right
away. What might that be?
> > Who is the more effective Animal protector?
>
> Who will protect the pheasants from the protectors?
Wings and camouflage. I think it is neat that on one hand you consider
hunters slackjawed yokels and on the other you consider them efficient
hunting machines. I suppose you think it is as easy as pointing the
barrel and squeezing the trigger?
> The reason that
> pheasants, need protecting is because these "protectors" in their hunter
> personas have greedily overhunted the birds in the past.
There couldn't be a shred of good will could there. Nah, that would be
impossible for you to fathom.
> > The last thing she seems to want to do is help. Maybe
> > hunters do it because no one else will.
>
> Hunters do it because hunters want to make sure that there are pheasants
> enough for them to kill come Fall.
OK. Doesn't seem to be making pheasants extinct, does it? I suppose
you'd rather they not do it at all?
James Hepler
> > COme on Feral, get your posse together! Save them once and for all!
> >
> Fall in, men.
Martin L Martens
[...]
> Heck, livestock probably damage as much soil as
> they help...
Assertion is not an argument Michael. Feel free to actually
support your delusions.
[...]
Martin L Martens
[...]
> I'm a 41 year old animal rights
> activist (ARA) who lives in a small old suburb on the edge of
> a rural area. I'm marginally involved with the Community
> Supported Agriculture (CSA) movement. I work for NYS goverment
> as an identification technician.
IOW, someone who knows absolutely nothing or has no real
experience with farming.
Martin L Martens
>
> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
[...]
> > Now you seem to be saying that most organic farmers use animal
> > manure. I agree. That doesn't mean that they *have to*, only
> > that they are taking advantage of the widespread availability of
> > cheap manure. The status quo doesn't close out all other options
> > by its mere existence...
>
> Um yes that is exactly what I am saying. Most organic farmer *do* usemanure. Of
> course they don't *have* to. I didn't say that did I?
Of course you didn't say that. You have to realize and
understand how Michael debates. He appears in capable of going
more than two posts without misrepresenting what the other
person has said.
This whole non-animal organic farming has been hashed over in
the past and, despite being given quotes and support from
empirical research from scientific journals and despite having
several farmers explain it to him, Michael firmly insists that
organic farming could be sustained without using animals.
Keep paying close attention to what Michael writes, he will try
to trap you any way he can.
>
> Russ
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> Some people who post here occasionally say they have gone
> to live on the land, where they avoid killing animals. Is
> this what you're suggesting? It might not be possible for
> everyone -- in my own experience, it takes a _lot_ of money
> to become a poor farmer, to say nothing of excellent mental
> and physical health.
Yes. Not to mention that _remaining_ a
farmer requires these things, plus good
luck, considerable training, and an
available market for one's products, unless
one is expected to create everything out
of the products of one's land.
I know that even if I cashed in every
economic resource I have, I could not afford
to buy enough land to support myself. The
open frontier with land for the taking (from
the previous inhabitants) is long gone.
Rat
Russ Thompson
frlpwr wrote:
> Wow. "Millions" is a gross understatement. At one dead animal every
> two inches, you kill 3,136,320 animals every time you run your combine
> over one acre. You crop, what did you say? 750 acres? That means that
> you alone kill 2,352,240,000 animals every harvest. It is a wonder
> there are any burrowers left in the Midwest at all. More power to the
> critters that can withstand this kind of onslaught year after year.
> Long live rodents!
I agree with you that the killing of such large numbers had little effect on the population.Should also point out that the number of animals killed on my farm will
be higher than the number of animals killed on most other farms. I manage my farm in
a way that creates ideal habitat for wild life. This of course means that there are simply
more animals present on my farm. I can tell you that walking through my soon to be harvested grain fields they seem literally teeming with small animals and birds.
Of the around 750 acres I farm only about 400 are in crops each year. The
other acres are in hay and pasture in a 10 year rotation.
> At the rate you kill animals, I'm surprised there is any room for corn
> stalks or hay in the bales of dead animals.
The baler leaves most of them on the ground. Any that are in contactwith the ground are gone in 4 or 5 days. The only ones that get baled are those
that were laying on top of fodder and not touching the ground.
> I heard a farm report on NPR the other day that stated that speciality
> produce, meaning "organic" was the only agricultural sector that has
> experienced growth so far this year. Apparently, there are a
> significant number of people who are willing to pay more for food grown
> in (what they think) ways other that those used by mainstream
> agriculture. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about the
> purity, both physically and ethically, of organically grown crops. But
> I don't need to tell you this, do I?
No we agree on this. I always find it funny when you read a group like HSUSrecommend that people buy from organic farmers.
> > Also if you eliminate animal agriculture you would drastically reduce > the small animal deaths.
>
Without hay and pasture land to shelter the small animals there would a lot lessof them around in the first place, thus fewer killed.
> How does the presence of farmed animals create "safe places" for small
> animals? Do you mean the animals that live inside outbuildings and
> grain storage facilities? I don't understand what you mean.
I am talking about hay and pasture land. While these acres are mowed eachyear, it happens at a different time than grain harvesting. So while we
are making hay some of the small animals are safe in the grain fields and when we
are harvesting grain some of the animals are safe in the hay fields.
> Do you mean that if pasture was turned into row crops?
>
Sort of. Without long crop rotations we would degrade our top soil.This is currently happening in many areas.
> Well, if you are killing 2,352,240,000 animals a year and all your
> neighbors are doing the same, clearly these animals have evolved a
> survival strategy.
I wouldn't give them much credit for being in one field when another isbeing worked.
> The large numbers of animals being eliminated are certainly "effected".
This is one of the main differences between people like me and AR types.I am concerned with the population of a species and what happens to individual
animals is of little concern to me.
> Whew. Other farmers have told us that it is the defenseless young,
> trapped and smothered in their nests, that pay the price for our
> farmbelt's abundance. Now you say it is the old looters, running back
> and forth from the cropland grocery store that are cut down in their
> paths. Shall we just say that is it is "millions" of both?>
Um I said no such thing.
>Or runs that are deep in the ground, safely out of reach of your
>machines. This is why some farmers must resort to poison and gas to
>eliminate these agricultural "pests".
I don't know of a single case where a farmer used poison or gas to kill rabbits, rats,
or mice. Not saying that it has never happened but I question weather
it has happened in the last 30 years or so in the USA.
> Interesting that you will not take the time to see to this "noble"
> undertaking yourself.
You are wrong. I am driving the combine. Of course I see people walkingin front of it.
Russ
Jonathan Ball
Mikey, Feral, Rat, Gordon, Illweed, Forlorn/Swingpony, et al? I see a
jumbled up mess with elements from Animal Farm, Green Acres, Sanford &
Son, and the clueless urbanites from Friends.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> You are assuming that something that large can get to the point where > it is mangled to that degree. On these newsgroups has anyone
> mentioned dead animals as clogging the screens?
Diderot mentioned that when amphibians were present in large numbers
they had to slow down the combines to accomodate the slicing and dicing
going on. Since water in rice fields would act as a natural flushing
agent during harvest, it is reasonable to assume that animal bodies in a
medium of dust, dirt and mud could have a substantial effect on the
operation of machinery.
> > (snip)
> >
> So while you are saying that, "Surely, with all the advances in
> agro-technology, someone so inclined could devise a method of reducing
> these collateral deaths", but you would never demand that a farmer
> adopt such methods? Are you sure?
If there were methods available for avoiding these deaths, I would
expect ethical farmers to adopt them without anyone demanding it. As I
mention elsewhere, I believe that the market can withstand a price
increase, especially within the "organic" sector. (IMO, food is too
cheap and too abundant in the US; this leads to waste and disregard of
both farmers and the land they farm.
Major grocery store chains here have "organic" produce sections that are
very popular with lots of people for lots of different reasons. People
pay a premium for these products because they think they taste better,
are more healthful and less destructive to the environment and to farm
laborers. If their production was less harmful to animals, it would be
one more justification for their higher price.
For the record, while these products are more expensive than major label
produce like Sunkist and Del Monte, they are not THAT expensive. Rich
people aren't the only ones buying organic fruit and vegetables.
California has a large Latino immigrant population that is used to
locally-grown fruit. They won't buy the commercial fruit; they hate the
way it tastes or, I should say, the way that it _doesn't_ taste. The
largest food co-op in SF is located in the Mission District and most of
its customers are poor and brown.
> > I can't speak for Heplerville, NC, but I think that in my area there
> > would be an eager market for grains and produce from farms that use > > less violent agricultural methods.
>
> In Heplerville, as well as 85% of this country, people don't give a
> damn, Frankly.
>
This is why the other 15% of this country is like a magnet to people who
do give a damn.
> They don't die at the same rates as insects.
If Russ is to be believed, they do.
> Everything is relative. I think birth rates can be said to be
> directly proportional to survival rates.
>
I believe that the increased rate of survival associated with high birth
rates has more to do with the rate of adaptive mutations within a
species than it does with the number of individual animals that luck out
and escape death by a wide-tread tire.
> > (snip)
>
> Funny thing is, they don't make their positions known very easily.
What was that squeak? Did you hear it?
> And why would you rather foster dependency on humans than allow nature > to run its course?
I must have an Italian grandmother gene buried deep within my DNA
sequencing. Eat, little ones! Eat! But none for me, thanks.
>
(snip)
> Would it be safe for me to infer from your words that you think these
> folks leave all the other species to die in the fields, only saving
> their future targets? Wouldn't it be easier for them just to take
> their guns and shoot the birds there rather than relocate them?
Even in the trigger-happy Midwest there is such a thing as legal hunting
season. My guess is that these "pheasant-saviors" are moving pheasants
in the Spring so they can blast'em in the Fall.
> Surely there is an added benefit to going out there and not shooting
> them right away. What might that be?
Avoiding the grim stare of a game warden?
>
> > > Who is the more effective Animal protector?
> >
> > Who will protect the pheasants from the protectors?
(snip)
> I suppose you think it is as easy as pointing the
> barrel and squeezing the trigger?
I'd say that way a pretty good definition of taking pheasants with a
shotgun.
>
(snip)
>
> There couldn't be a shred of good will could there. Nah, that would
> be impossible for you to fathom.
Where is the "goodwill" in keeping an animal alive until it is legal to
kill it?
(snip)
> OK. Doesn't seem to be making pheasants extinct, does it?
It might not be making the aggregate pheasant extinct, but it sure makes
the individual pheasant dead enough.
If someone shot your dog, would it comfort you to know that his death
did not mean the extinction of domestic dogs? Of course not because we
recognize individual worth when it suits us and we ignore it when it
doesn't suit us.
> I suppose you'd rather they not do it at all?
I'm happy when a pheasant escapes the plow, the combine and the hunter's
gun.
James Hepler
compost instead of manure? Note that I know nothing about the subject
from a chemical standpoint, but I do understand basic feasibility
issues. I know that in the case of animal manure you are talking about
mostly vegetable compost that is already in an advanced state of
decomposition and probably breaks down more efficiently. But I wonder,
would it be impossible to use strictly vegetable matter in
fertilization? Why?
James Hepler
Martin L Martens wrote:
>
> Russ Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Now you seem to be saying that most organic farmers use animal
> > > manure. I agree. That doesn't mean that they *have to*, only
> > > that they are taking advantage of the widespread availability of
> > > cheap manure. The status quo doesn't close out all other options
> > > by its mere existence...
> >
> > Um yes that is exactly what I am saying. Most organic farmer *do* usemanure. Of
> > course they don't *have* to. I didn't say that did I?
>
> Of course you didn't say that. You have to realize and
> understand how Michael debates. He appears in capable of going
> more than two posts without misrepresenting what the other
> person has said.
>
> This whole non-animal organic farming has been hashed over in
> the past and, despite being given quotes and support from
> empirical research from scientific journals and despite having
> several farmers explain it to him, Michael firmly insists that
> organic farming could be sustained without using animals.
>
> Keep paying close attention to what Michael writes, he will try
> to trap you any way he can.
>
> >
> > Russ
Scott
Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
news:38450A...@albany.net...
But, no-till is more environmentally friendly. Animal manure can be
injected into the ground without plowing or disking or spread via
irrigation gun or spreader.
>
> .>
> .> > They also used to be composted. They still are in some places.
> .>
> .> Very little was composted. I know for a fact that before it was
> .> discoveredthat cattle could eat cotton seed that it was burned and
> that
> .> brewers grains
> .> were just bumped into land fills. It's pretty hard to compost without
> the
> .> correct
> .> carbon nitrogen ratio.
>
> The organic farmers I know don't seem to feel that composting is
> hard.
How is compost applied on farms. I ahve never seen it applied.
Does organic farming require plowing or disking of fields? With traditional
farming cover crops could be sprayed with herbicide and and then no tilled.
kind of like grass fed beef huh?
R Bishop
Martin L Martens <rattlesteak.@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Heck, livestock probably damage as much soil as
>> they help...
>
>Assertion is not an argument Michael. Feel free to actually
>support your delusions.
Next he'll be claiming those buffalo really damaged the plains when they
traveled across them in huge herds.
>
>[...]
Sue
The Real Millenium starts January 1, 2001
Or 10/4/1997
Scott
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:821kvp$cfk$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> frlpwr wrote:
> | > On what evidence do you base your belief that there are "to(sic) many
to
> | > count"? Do you have any idea how many animals are present in the
fields
> | > before you go in? After? Is the ground strewn with their dead
bodies?
> | > Your machinery clogged with hair and bone? Are you aware of any
studies
> | > that have been done on this subject?
>
> Russ Thompson <pm...@mwt.net>:
any studies done. I don't
> | know why anyone would be interested in doingsuch studies and more
importantly who would fund them.
>
> People who want to argue that animals should not be
> accorded any rights have a difficult problem: it has
> become virtually impossible to deny that many animals
> most probably possess consciousness, sentience, will, and
> intelligence, which for many people renders them objects of
> ethical concern, possibly to the point of construction or
> discovery of rights to protect certain of their interests
> (for example, the right not to be tortured, even for
> noble purposes).
>
> frequently made in t.p.a is the "bloody footprints" defense,
> which holds that all food, of whatever kind, requires the
> proved, it is possible to show that almost all existing
> agriculture kills a certain number of animals, and this
> fact is substituted for the proof of the proposition. It
> is not an really an argument against the aforesaid ethical
> concerns, but an argument against considering the question
> in the first place (since the situation is supposed to be
> hopeless). Since I'm interested in the ethical problems,
> I consider the "bloody footprints" defense to be invalid,
> tiresome, and propagandistic, but those more interested
> in polemic may enjoy it.
it would be troublesome for someon on your side to try to help animals but
then it is convenient for yout o jsut ignore others because they don't fir
properly into your ethical scheme of meat eating kills animals and plant
eating doesn't.
>
> At this time, "animal rights" or "animal liberation" are too
> weak, politically, to occasion anyone spending money on
> the "bloody footprints" defense. Should they mainstream,
> however, I imagine a great deal of money would be spent to
> produce the facts the spenders desired.
>
Martin L Martens
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with the concept of using vegetable
> compost instead of manure? Note that I know nothing about the subject
> from a chemical standpoint, but I do understand basic feasibility
> issues. I know that in the case of animal manure you are talking about
> mostly vegetable compost that is already in an advanced state of
> decomposition and probably breaks down more efficiently. But I wonder,
> would it be impossible to use strictly vegetable matter in
> fertilization? Why?
It isn't sustainable for large scale farming. It isn't
economically sustainable and it isn't environmentally
sustainable.
What Michael proposes is no different than slash and burn
farming that is used in the rainforests. It only lasts for a few
years.
In earlier threads, several people have pointed out all of the
problems to Michael but he stubbornly insists that it is
possible even though all he can cite for support is an unnamed
expert from a local CSA farm who says it is possible. She
doesn't use it and who knows what Michael really told her (we
know how honest Michael is about representing what he and others
write). His one supporting source isn't verifiable.
There are several empirical research programs that have done
long-term investigations into the use of only green manure as
well as comparisons with other types of fertilization and they
show that soil health degrades rapidly using Michael's system,
productivity declines each year, and is lower than types which
use animals in the system.
Several farmers have noted all of the problems associated with
Michael's system yet Michael just brushes it aside and stays
stuck in his position. No amount of evidence can or will sway
him from his belief that non-animal farming is sustainable.
Do a DejaNews search on legumes and nitrogen and you can get a
drift of the problems associated with his system. Or go talk to
an expert at UNC on organic farming (or any type of farming) and
ask them what problems would be associated with using only green
manure. Do a search on the web about green manure, crop
rotation, and legumes.
Shelley
farm. Much harder than flaming people on newsgroups.
James Hepler
frlpwr wrote:
>
> James Hepler wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > You are assuming that something that large can get to the point where > it is mangled to that degree. On these newsgroups has anyone
> > mentioned dead animals as clogging the screens?
>
> Diderot mentioned that when amphibians were present in large numbers
> they had to slow down the combines to accomodate the slicing and dicing
> going on. Since water in rice fields would act as a natural flushing
> agent during harvest, it is reasonable to assume that animal bodies in a
> medium of dust, dirt and mud could have a substantial effect on the
> operation of machinery.
A frog I can see, but a frog is also a pretty big step down from a fawn,
no?
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > So while you are saying that, "Surely, with all the advances in
> > agro-technology, someone so inclined could devise a method of reducing
> > these collateral deaths", but you would never demand that a farmer
> > adopt such methods? Are you sure?
>
> If there were methods available for avoiding these deaths, I would
> expect ethical farmers to adopt them without anyone demanding it. As I
> mention elsewhere, I believe that the market can withstand a price
> increase, especially within the "organic" sector. (IMO, food is too
> cheap and too abundant in the US; this leads to waste and disregard of
> both farmers and the land they farm.
Which market can afford an increase? Would you believe that some people
have trouble affording veggies as it is? Of course those people don't
usually care about organic growing, so your point isn't lost.
> Major grocery store chains here have "organic" produce sections that are
> very popular with lots of people for lots of different reasons. People
> pay a premium for these products because they think they taste better,
> are more healthful and less destructive to the environment and to farm
> laborers. If their production was less harmful to animals, it would be
> one more justification for their higher price.
I buy organic because it is the only stuff without the wax.
> For the record, while these products are more expensive than major label
> produce like Sunkist and Del Monte, they are not THAT expensive. Rich
> people aren't the only ones buying organic fruit and vegetables.
> California has a large Latino immigrant population that is used to
> locally-grown fruit. They won't buy the commercial fruit; they hate the
> way it tastes or, I should say, the way that it _doesn't_ taste. The
> largest food co-op in SF is located in the Mission District and most of
> its customers are poor and brown.
Is it more of a farmers market environment or a organic section of a
grocery store? Who gets the money?
> > > I can't speak for Heplerville, NC, but I think that in my area there
> > > would be an eager market for grains and produce from farms that use > > less violent agricultural methods.
> >
> > In Heplerville, as well as 85% of this country, people don't give a
> > damn, Frankly.
> >
> This is why the other 15% of this country is like a magnet to people who
> do give a damn.
Ahh. Frankly.
> > They don't die at the same rates as insects.
>
> If Russ is to be believed, they do.
That is hardly a fair conclusion to draw from his words to this group.
If he told you something in private, I might need more info. Think of
life spans here.
> > Everything is relative. I think birth rates can be said to be
> > directly proportional to survival rates.
> >
> I believe that the increased rate of survival associated with high birth
> rates has more to do with the rate of adaptive mutations within a
> species than it does with the number of individual animals that luck out
> and escape death by a wide-tread tire.
I don't know. I'm not sure any of us stick around on earth long enough
to notice such changes if they do occur.
> > > (snip)
> >
> > Funny thing is, they don't make their positions known very easily.
> What was that squeak? Did you hear it?
Yeah, right!
> > And why would you rather foster dependency on humans than allow nature > to run its course?
>
> I must have an Italian grandmother gene buried deep within my DNA
> sequencing. Eat, little ones! Eat! But none for me, thanks.
Heh!
> (snip)
>
> > Would it be safe for me to infer from your words that you think these
> > folks leave all the other species to die in the fields, only saving
> > their future targets? Wouldn't it be easier for them just to take
> > their guns and shoot the birds there rather than relocate them?
>
> Even in the trigger-happy Midwest there is such a thing as legal hunting
> season. My guess is that these "pheasant-saviors" are moving pheasants
> in the Spring so they can blast'em in the Fall.
But that would only be your guess.
> > Surely there is an added benefit to going out there and not shooting
> > them right away. What might that be?
>
> Avoiding the grim stare of a game warden?
Nah, there have to be more perks than that.
> > > > Who is the more effective Animal protector?
> > >
> > > Who will protect the pheasants from the protectors?
>
> (snip)
>
> > I suppose you think it is as easy as pointing the
> > barrel and squeezing the trigger?
>
> I'd say that way a pretty good definition of taking pheasants with a
> shotgun.
Ever done it?
> (snip)
> >
> > There couldn't be a shred of good will could there. Nah, that would
> > be impossible for you to fathom.
>
> Where is the "goodwill" in keeping an animal alive until it is legal to
> kill it?
I'm not going to pull the David Harrison argument out. If I knew more
about mating habits I would have more to offer.
> (snip)
>
> > OK. Doesn't seem to be making pheasants extinct, does it?
>
> It might not be making the aggregate pheasant extinct, but it sure makes
> the individual pheasant dead enough.
Inevitable conclusion.
> If someone shot your dog, would it comfort you to know that his death
> did not mean the extinction of domestic dogs? Of course not because we
> recognize individual worth when it suits us and we ignore it when it
> doesn't suit us.
I don't see companion animals the same as wildlife. I can not accept
such a comparison.
If someone were to shoot my dog, I would consider it killing a member of
my family.
> > I suppose you'd rather they not do it at all?
>
> I'm happy when a pheasant escapes the plow, the combine and the hunter's
> gun.
Then get on out there!
James Hepler
Russ Thompson
Rat & Swan wrote:
> I know that even if I cashed in every
> economic resource I have, I could not afford
> to buy enough land to support myself. The
> open frontier with land for the taking (from
> the previous inhabitants) is long gone.
>
> Rat
I managed to buy my farm. My wife and I had $300
in the bank and I was in the army when we decided
to farm. It can be done. Those who can, do.
Russ
Russ Thompson
frlpwr wrote:
> Diderot mentioned that when amphibians were present in large numbers
> they had to slow down the combines to accomodate the slicing and dicing
> going on. Since water in rice fields would act as a natural flushing
> agent during harvest, it is reasonable to assume that animal bodies in a
> medium of dust, dirt and mud could have a substantial effect on the
> operation of machinery.
No it wouldn't. An understanding of how a combine works would preventsuch assumptions.
> If there were methods available for avoiding these deaths, I would
> expect ethical farmers to adopt them without anyone demanding it. As I
> mention elsewhere, I believe that the market can withstand a price
> increase, especially within the "organic" sector. (IMO, food is too
> cheap and too abundant in the US; this leads to waste and disregard of
> both farmers and the land they farm.
The market will not stand a price increase until there is real shortagearound the world as happened in 1996. Why pay more if other grain
is available cheaper.
Also many farmers think of the killing of rats and mice as a positive.
> Major grocery store chains here have "organic" produce sections that are
> very popular with lots of people for lots of different reasons. People
> pay a premium for these products because they think they taste better,
> are more healthful and less destructive to the environment and to farm
> laborers. If their production was less harmful to animals, it would be
> one more justification for their higher price.
>
But it's not less harmful to animals. If anything the opposite is true.
> If Russ is to be believed, they do.
No, wrong.
Russ
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Rat & Swan wrote:
.>
.> > I know that even if I cashed in every
.> > economic resource I have, I could not afford
.> > to buy enough land to support myself. The
.> > open frontier with land for the taking (from
.> > the previous inhabitants) is long gone.
.> >
.> > Rat
.>
.> I managed to buy my farm. My wife and I had $300
.> in the bank and I was in the army when we decided
.> to farm. It can be done. Those who can, do.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the bank that
loaned you money expect you to use heavy equipment to
farm the land that they were financing? Would they
have loaned it to you if you had told them that you
were going to be a manual-labor subsistence farmer?
>
> Russ
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with the concept of using
vegetable
.> compost instead of manure? Note that I know nothing about the
subject
.> from a chemical standpoint, but I do understand basic feasibility
.> issues. I know that in the case of animal manure you are talking
about
.> mostly vegetable compost that is already in an advanced state of
.> decomposition and probably breaks down more efficiently. But I
wonder,
.> would it be impossible to use strictly vegetable matter in
.> fertilization? Why?
It's not impossible. I've explained why, and I've consulted
with a CSA farmer with a degree in plant science. Antis like
Martin who know little or nothing about plants just won't
accept it - they take the fact that farmers use manure because
it's cheap and plentiful, and use that to construct a bogus
argument that it is *necessary*. I could quote some of the
silly things that Martin has written on the subject, but he's
bouncing off the wall as it is...
>
> James Hepler
(...)
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
(snip by Russ)
.>
.> > Why on earth do you think that cover crops require livestock
.> > grazing to protect the soil??? You've already admitted that most
.> > farmers don't use them that way. Have you really thought this
.> > through? The important part is "cover crops", not "grazing".
.> > Soil aeration isn't an issue when you're planting crops in it.
.>
.> Excuse me but we were not discussing what can be done or what is
being done.Those
.> things are irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing what
.> is sustainable, remember?
No, I was discussing what is possible. As for what is sustainable,
you posted to someone else today that long crops rotations are
necessary to build soil health. This holds true whether livestock
are present or not.
.> The fastest way to build soil is through controlled grazing.
That is after
.> all the the way in witch our soil was made by mother nature in the
first place.
No, that is how *some* of it was made, and it isn't the only
way to build soil. Growing legumes also works nicely.
.> You are kidding I assume when you say that soil aeration is not an
issue?
It's not an issue like it is on prairie land, because aeration
is provided as part of the planting process.
.>
.> > No livestock does *not* equate to loss of soil and/or soil
.> > depletion. Heck, livestock probably damage as much soil as
.> > they help...
.>
.> Without livestock farmers do not grow perennial forage crops.
Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure I follow.
.>
.> > Not "plowing all the time", just plowing a cover crop under
before
.> > planting. You don't absolutely need to plow to plant clover, do
you?
.>
.> What you are suggesting requires plowing at least every year. No of
course
.> youdon't need to plant clover. You could plant alfalfa or other
crops.
If legumes like clover are left in fields being "rested", you
don't have to plow every year. You have to plow every year to
grow annual crops though, so what's your point?
.>
.> > What factual example?
.> >
.>
.> (sigh) The example of how Wisconsin went from a wheat producing
sateto a dairy
.> state.
That just proves that the soil was originally being misused,
not that the choice made to save it was the only one available.
.>
.> > Now you seem to be saying that most organic farmers use animal
.> > manure. I agree. That doesn't mean that they *have to*, only
.> > that they are taking advantage of the widespread availability of
.> > cheap manure. The status quo doesn't close out all other options
.> > by its mere existence...
.>
.> Um yes that is exactly what I am saying. Most organic farmer *do*
usemanure. Of
.> course they don't *have* to. I didn't say that did I?
Do I really have to go back and quote what you said to start
this discussion? OK:
"In reality no agriculture is sustainable without animal agriculture."
If you now agree that they don't *have* to use livestock, then I
guess that we're done. It usually doesn't take this much writing
to say 'I agree'...
.>
.> Russ
Michael Cerkowski
.> > What problem is that? Clover enriches the soil, and you can plow
it
.> > under before planting.
.>
.> But, no-till is more environmentally friendly. Animal manure can be
.> injected into the ground without plowing or disking or spread via
.> irrigation gun or spreader.
And clover will enrich the soil whether it's plowed under or not.
I was referring to plowing it under right before planting.
(...)
.> > The organic farmers I know don't seem to feel that composting is
.> > hard.
.>
.> How is compost applied on farms. I ahve never seen it applied.
I believe with a manure spreader, but I'll check the next time
I talk to my CSA friend.
(...)
> Does organic farming require plowing or disking of fields? With traditional
> farming cover crops could be sprayed with herbicide and and then no tilled.
Yikes! That isn't my idea of an improvement...
(...)
> > Now you seem to be saying that most organic farmers use animal
> > manure. I agree. That doesn't mean that they *have to*, only
> > that they are taking advantage of the widespread availability of
> > cheap manure. The status quo doesn't close out all other options
> > by its mere existence...
>
> kind of like grass fed beef huh?
Yes.
(...)
Dale Anderson
>Diderot mentioned that when amphibians were present in large numbers
>they had to slow down the combines to accomodate the slicing and dicing
>going on. Since water in rice fields would act as a natural flushing
>agent during harvest, it is reasonable to assume that animal bodies in a
>medium of dust, dirt and mud could have a substantial effect on the
>operation of machinery.
<snirt> You actually tink they're pumping all sorts of water through
a combine when they combine rice, feral? Two clues: One, they drain
the fields at harvest. Two, you don't want that grain put up all wet.
I swear, do you guys ever thing before posting? :^>
=============
"My point being that when you argue with animal rights activist about "poor
starving children" you might just as well bring up aliens from Mars. As they
probably know more about that than being poor, starving or children."
Verne
========
Dale Anderson
dand...@mail.tds.net
Martin L Martens
[...]
> It's not impossible. I've explained why, and I've consulted
> with a CSA farmer with a degree in plant science.
Not a valid source.
> Antis like
> Martin who know little or nothing about plants just won't
> accept it
Ipse Dixit.
> - they take the fact that farmers use manure because
> it's cheap and plentiful, and use that to construct a bogus
> argument that it is *necessary*.
Only if you ignore reams of scientific data and articles that
show that it is necessary.
> I could quote some of the
> silly things that Martin has written on the subject, but he's
> bouncing off the wall as it is...
I could quote way more silly things that you've written that are
even more bizarre. You've done a good job showing that you are
utterly clueless about the subject.
And I'm not the person going around gleefully smirking about
"christmas presents". You really do project your failings
Michael.
Dale Anderson
>
>
>Dale Anderson wrote:
>
>> I don't know if you've been lurking long enough, Russ, but you should
>> know that what you're getting sucked into is the ARA's inability to
>> deal with a riddle that John Mercer periodically presents here:
>>
>> "Which causes more deaths? A pound of venison, or a pound of organic
>> rice?" (Apologies to John if the quote is not exact.
>
>What a stupid question. The answer is so obvious that any normalrational adult
>would know the the answer instantly.
>
>Russ
Stand by for ARA responses to this one... ;^>
R Bishop
Russ Thompson <pm...@mwt.net> wrote:
>
>
>Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>> I know that even if I cashed in every
>> economic resource I have, I could not afford
>> to buy enough land to support myself. The
>> open frontier with land for the taking (from
>> the previous inhabitants) is long gone.
>>
>> Rat
>
> I managed to buy my farm. My wife and I had $300
>in the bank and I was in the army when we decided
>to farm. It can be done. Those who can, do.
Russ, she choses to live in one of the more expensive areas of the US.
Land in Northern Ca along the Bay area is incredibly high.
There are plenty of areas out there where land is more than affordable,
however, she'll never leave her little enclave and look for them.
I just noted on another group that someone posted about land in Central
Tennessee at about $500 or so an acre. And I saw a listing for a 100 plus
acre farm in Kentucky with house, barns, etc, (nice looking house, too)
for about $139,000.
>
>Russ