"pearl" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...


yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more
industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they
are
buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well.

Some are, and they will pay the inevitable price.

no

Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China.



Don't tell me, tell them, obviously they aren't bothered because they
are the ones who are pushing up their meat intakes and loving it





you will pay the price, because you are the one who will not be
able to
buy food and fuel because they are using it

Assuming that "I" required food from China, which we don't,
what you are actually acknowledging here, is that an increase in
the consumption of meat in China would take away an essential
component of the world's human population's diet. Way to go!



As I said, you are having to compete with the Chinese on the world
food market, so what can you offer that the Chinese cannot?
I'm merely pointing out that it isn't the Chinese problem, it is your
problem as you are the one living in the country without the land to feed or
fuel itself



(They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form
of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the
cost.)

Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too.
The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people.

yes, our industry is subsidised which allows the urban population to
buy
food at below the true cost of production. The biggest environmental
damage
agriculture does is support urban populations whose stinking cities
fester
across the land

Who ultimately pays for those subsidies? People crowded in urban areas
because of your stinking livestock farms festering across ~70% of the
land.
It is not only in "developing" countries where people have been forced
off
land by greedy cattle barons who raze/d everything in their way for
meat.

yep. let the people back on the land, it worked so well in Zimbabwe

'The biggest disaster to have hit Zimbabwe is the IMF/WORLD BANK
sponsored structural adjustment program critically implemented at the
beginning of 1990.



Yeah sure. And murdering farmers had no effect whatsoever







Indeed let the government run the land. After all under Socialism the
Russia
imported grain, it was desperate for it, now under private ownership
Russia
and the Ukraine are major grain exporters.

'The IMF has helped foster a severe depression in Russia

Russia in the 1990s has witnessed a peacetime economic contraction
of unprecedented scale.



Except the Russians weren't producing the food before the 1990s and
now they are. Russia imported food ever since WW2 which has damn all to do
with the IMF




Yep, let the greedy barons farm, at least they actually produce food

'The often heard comment (one I once accepted as fact) that
"there are too many people in the world, and overpopulation is
the cause of hunger", can be compared to the same myth that
expounded sixteenth-century England and revived continuously
since.




And there's these millions of English peasants all demanding they be
allowed to give up their nice jobs and houses in town and return to
subsistence agriculture,



No way






they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with
them,
so
they
have obviously decided to give the others a go

'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an
increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources.

exactly, and the Chinese aren't worried about it, having tried all the
diseases of poverty they are going to try the diseases of affluence,

Where's all the extra arable land, pasture and grain to come from?

that is your problem,

No. It is a question that you unsurprisingly cannot answer.



Oh I know the answer, we have to produce something that the
Brazilians etc need, and produce it better and cheaper than their other
customers

Or grovel to the Yanks, choice is yours really



the Brazilians have plenty to feed and fuel
themselves, it is you that is going to go short.

Assuming that "I" required food from Brazil, which we don't,
what you are actually acknowledging here, is that an increase in
the consumption of meat in Brazil would take away an essential
component of the world's human population's diet. Way to go.



Don't tell me, tell them, they are the ones doing it and they aren't
going to stop because you wring your hands at them.



The chinese are worried,
but they do have a big GM programme

A big GM programme, eh.

'Almost all Argentine soya is GE,

Almost all traded soya is GM


All this worry, misery, trouble and strife... _for what_??

and plans to build 48 nuclear power
stations which should cut their oil and coal use

Too bad.



Don't tell me, tell them, they are doing it.


I'm sure there are some other alternatives around too.



Don't tell me, tell them, Mind you, you'd have to convince the
Chinese government you know more about Chinese conditions that it does.

and
leave the diseases of poverty to those whose countries cannot produce
enough
to eat, like for example, the UK

To eat meat, even though..

'Over 70 per cent of the land in the UK is used for agriculture, and
66 per cent of this is used as permanent pasture (1) while a high
proportion of the remainder is used to grow crops to feed livestock.

already discussed this earlier in the thread.
You cannot grow crops on land that has been converted into flood storage
because too many people live on the flood plain, you cannot grow crops on
land that washes away if you plough it because of the slope, you cannot
grow
crops on the land in the north of scotland because the rock or bog is too
cloe to the surface.
remember they have said the UK, so they include the Scottish highlands
and
the welsh mountains, look at a map and see how big an area that is

You cannot grow crops on 'pastureland' or on the land being used to
grow feed crops. Free up that land, and there's plenty to go around.




Sure pearl, grow wheat in the Lake district. Way to go as you so
quaintly say.



Just ignoring the reality of what land is capable of just makes you look
silly





yep. And the Chinese government is interested in what the Chinese
population
wants, it doesn't give a damn what you want

It's the same sad self-serving story as elsewhere.



Hurray, she's finally got it

And exactly what are you going to produce to ensure you can buy food?






You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of
concentrate.

don't lecture me on cattle feed pearl. I don't buy concentrates, I buy
straights, I know the country of origin of each ingredient.

Where's your soya meal from?

duh
don't feed soya

I don't believe you.



Tough, sad for you but those of us feeding cattle aren't limited by
what vega or any other loony site says.


I'm not the one trying to change Chinese and Brazilian food policy by
posting to a UK group, now that is seriously out of touch

Where do your subscribers import soya meal from?

anywhere that produces it cheap,

Two thirds of it comes from Brazil.







but remember rape meal and maize gluten,
both food industry and biofuel byproducts are the important sources of
protein. Soya will be more for pigs and poultry.

Clearly not enough. 389,740 tonnes of soya for the dairy sector alone.
(http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/PGE...ments.01.p df)

work it out on your fingers
The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price
at
home
to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef

SOME Argentinians.

the vast majority, Argentina has a left of centre government

Support your claim of "the vast majority".

look at the election results

How will that tell us what the level of poverty in Argentina is, jim?



Who said anything about poverty, I pointed out that the vast majority
supported the government policy on food exports. Election results are useful
indicators






already have

An additional $100 million for a population of 38 million?
That'll make it all better, will it? Band-Aid on gangrene.

'Argentina Soya-fication
Brings serious environmental, social and economic problems
by Alberto Lapolla
July 23, 2006
...



What you forget is that they will actually be eating a higher
proportion themselves, rather than exporting it to the west, so there will
be less problems.

They have already started this, which is why they are cutting soya
exports so we go round in a circle





You don't fancy a sod busting life as a subsistence peasant and the world
cannot see a reason to sell you food.

It is not *my* diet that requires massive amounts of crops.



Ah yes, exactly what is your diet



not my nightmare kiddy, it is the real world, it is what is happening
out
there. They don';t give a damn about you because they are going to get
through it, because they have the food and the fuel.