In article ,
songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:
fascinating but expendable conversation snipped


Top soil can be regenerated. Joel
Salatin is doing it at the rate of 1"/year.
http://www.acresusa.com/magazines/archives/0104saveworld.htm

i've read most of what he's published.

he is not building topsoil, he amends it
heavily with organic materials that he brings
in by the truckload. they get run through
the cow barn, the pigs, chickens, before they
get scattered on the fields.

i don't think he's much wrong in what he
does, but some aspects are not sustainable
in the sense that he is using inputs from
other areas.

Bird, can you reference this? Where do the amendments come from,

i've read most of the books he's published
(all but two) in a short period of time all
together so i can't tell you which of the
books mentioned what he does, but i think it
is in more than one book he mentions that he
hauls in whatever organic materials he can
find for cheap. straw, ruined hay, sawdust,
wood chips, expired sweet potatoes are some i
specifically recall. i can't give book or
page numbers.


and
what do you mean they get run through the cow barn, the pigs, chickens?
Are we talking feed, or soil amendments?

he uses a deep bedding system for the cows
during the winter when he keeps them off the
pastures (he doesn't have the mix of grasses
in the pastures which resists damage like the
folks in the _A Farm for the Future_ segment
had... could be climate is harsher and such
so they wouldn't grow or he's not gotten into
it, dunno.). so he puts down bedding until it
gets full of cow poo/pee and then he scatters
corn on it and adds another layer and keeps
doing that all winter until he can get the
cows back to the fields. after they are out
of the barns then he lets the pigs in to stir
the bedding (they go after the fermenting
corn). when they are done then it all gets
taken out and spread on the pastures.

Thanks, but why do you say he's not building topsoil. He has picked up
the pace, but this is how soil is built.



http://grist.org/sustainable-farming...e-new-york-tim
es-re-sustainable-meat/
While its true that at Polyface our omnivores (poultry and pigs) do eat
local GMO (genetically modified organism)-free grain in addition to the
forage, the land base required to feed and metabolize the manure is no
different than that needed to sustain the same animals in a confinement
setting. Even if they ate zero pasturage, the land is the same. The only
difference is our animals get sunshine, exercise, fresh pasture salad
bars, fresh air, and a respectful life.

It has been charged that Polyface is a charade because it depends on
grain from industrial farms to maintain soil fertility. First of all, at
Polyface we do not assume that all nutrient movement is
anti-environmental. In fact, one of the biggest reasons for animals in
nature is to move nutrients uphill, against the natural gravitational
flow from high ground to low ground. This is why low lands and valleys
are fertile and the uplands are less so. Animals are the only mechanism
nature has to defy this natural downward flow. Fortunately, predators
make the prey animals want to lounge on high ground (where they can see
their enemies), which insures that manure will concentrate on high
lookout spots rather than in the valleys. Perhaps this is why no
ecosystem exists that is devoid of animals. The fact is that nutrient
movement is inherently nature-healing.

But, it doesnt move very far. And herein lies the difference between
grain used at Polyface and that used by the industry: We care where ours
comes from. Its not just a commodity. It has an origin and an ending,
start to finish, farmer to eater. The closer we can connect the carbon
cycles, the more environmentally normal we will become.
Second, herbivores are the exception to the entire negative nutrient
flow argument because by pruning back the forage to restart the rapid
biomass accumulation photosynthetic engine, the net carbon flow
compensates for anything lost through harvest. Herbivores do not require
tillage or annuals, and that is why all historically deep soils have
been created by them, not by omnivores.
-------
So, the Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic's
system isn't quite closed, but it is creating topsoil (soil with the
highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms), which other
meat producers don't.



i still give him high marks for what he
does compared to many farmers. he at least
does understand the importance of topsoil.

he loses marks in that he could be using
organic corn for his meat chickens (he
complained that his source had too much
chaff/cob in it, well duh, get a different
supplier or grow your own).
So he is really just attenuating the impact of conventional farming. I
wonder what we would do differently, if we made the decisions. I mean
profit isn't the sole motive, or he'd be running a CAFO.

(snip)

the most informative about the development
and gives interesting info between the lines
is the book which includes at the end some of
the previous newsletters/sales information
that they sent out to their customers. i
think it was the _Salad Bar Beef_ book...

(more priceless banter snipped)


Corporations are obligated to make a profit for their investors. Any
action that reduces earnings is considered illegal. They may be able to
argue that some actions will avoid legal consequences which in the long
run will increase earnings.
In other words, being a good neighbor costs a corporation too much.

an action which loses money is not illegal
as if it were there would be no corporations
for very long. i think you are confusing
what would be considered corporate malfeasance
and misuse of corporate resources, but even
some of those actions would also not be
considered illegal, just inadvisable...

Under eBay v. Newman, the law is as Franken said: "it is literally
malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to
maximize its profits." Just ask Jim and Craig; no one disputes it's
their company, but they're legally prohibited from taking steps to
preserve the profit-alongside-community-service mission that's served
them well. Maximize profits, or else.

The impact of this duty-to-maximize-profits stretches far beyond mere
investments. Under Citizens United, corporations now have the First
Amendment right to influence our fragile democracy however they want,
since they're "people," just like you and me, albeit profit-maximizing
zombies who care not for truth, justice, or the American way.



Non-profits are a different animal, except for where earnings are
channeled into the managements pockets as compensation. When non-profits
do try to mitigate a social problem, which reduce corporate profits, the
corporations have more litigation power. Take farm cruelty for example.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us...y-is-becoming-
the-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

yeah, i saw that one. somehow i suspect when it
gets challenged in court it will get thrown out.
some laws passed are not enforceable when put before
a jury and a judge.

Like The Supremes? Good luck. Clarence Thomas used to be counsel for
Monsanto.


...
Terra preta
should be encouraged to invigorate soils, and sequester CO2.

in some areas it is fine, but it is not a universal
answer. remember that albedo plays a role in climate.
if we covered the earth with dark materials soaking up
the sun's radiation we'd bake. so it cannot be used
in areas that are left bare for long periods of time.
once an area is put into perennial or permaculture
then it's a great thing to have.

But anything that grows will have a better chance with
terra preta. What could Joel Salatin do with charcoal
in his soil?


Turns out he does (see above)

i didn't see any mention of charcoal or
biochar in any of his books. he does claim

He doesn't. My error.

to sequester carbon in the soil, but it is
more the kind of sequestering that happens
when creating humus. i.e. if he stops
adding composted manures and organic materials
then his topsoil will gradually compress down
as the organic materials rot faster and turn
into humus. if he keeps grazing cattle without
amending then his soil can only grow as fast
as the bedrock will produce nutrients along
with what the rain and dust in the air provide.

this will not be an inch a year. i can
guarantee that.

Just reporting what I read.
http://www.acresusa.com/magazines/archives/0104saveworld.htm


don't get me wrong, he's not stupid and he
takes care of his fields well enough to have
improved them from their previously degraded
state. just that he's doing it along with
using extra organic materials brought in from
outside areas. he also cuts down trees and
chips them to use as bedding material.


sequester some percentage of carbon for a longer
period than the current method he's using. probably
also increase some of the nutrient cycling because
of the higher bacterial count in the soil. depending
upon how he gets the carbon source would make me rate
it better or worse...

I suspect that the benefits of lignified wood comes from the amount
surface area exposed.

i'm not sure what lignified means and can't
look it up at the moment. do you mean pyrolized
instead? lignified to me would mean wood with
added lignin and as far as i know wood already
contains some amount of lignin...
lignified
Botany
make rigid and woody by the deposition of lignin in cell walls.

if you do mean pyrolized then yes, as it is
pyrolized it creates more surface area. the
temperature and type of feed stock and several
other factors (moisture content, rate of heating,
etc.) also influence how much surface area there
is in the resulting material along with the
percentage of carbon and the amount of leftover
compounds are not released.
Yes, that is what I meant. I doubt, though that Amazonians put such a
fine point on their charcoal.

( Great digression into the "dirty deed"; snipped)

i'm not, i'm stating facts that are well
known. when it comes down to the final
equation where each calorie is critical
does it matter who eats the one that tips
the balance for another person in another
place to starve? you may never actually
be able to point to any one situation in
that fine a detail, but i think you
understand that the carrying capacity is
a hard limit that once passed is going to
take it's due one way or another.

War drought, or floods come to mind. I've read that we throw away 30% of
the food that we buy. 30%!

i saw that quoted recently at 45%. i know
here we don't come close to that. perhaps 1-3%.
we're very careful with what we do as i consider
it a primary fault to waste food. i grew up on
the poor side, so i'm more like my grandmother
than my neices or nephews. Ma is the same way.
very rare i have to feed anything to the wormies
other than trimmings from cooking.

which makes me wonder what a worm thinks of
a piece of chocolate.

Great source of tryptophan! Tryptophan is the amino acid that our brains
use to make serotonin, which is the neurotransmitter that provides us
with our basic feelings of well-being and self-esteem.


(another snip)

I think this is where corporate greed comes into the picture again. If
we stop consuming, they lose potential profits. Notice how many ads in
the media pitch an image, and say very little about the product? PR
works. Edward Bernais proved it. Lies can become reality.

Noam Chomsky used to write some very
interesting things too, but i haven't
seen anything from him lately. he might
have retired or given up in disgust.
i haven't looked either so i just could
have missed what he's done.

You've just missed what he's done, probably because the corporate press
is afraid of him. Most recently he's been agitating for human rights for
Palestinians. Pretty amazing considering that he was born in 1928.


Religion has meaning for many people, but for the fundamentalists, it is
still manipulation. No more go forth and prosper, but waiting for the
good ship "Rapture".

yeah, i really have a difficult time around
people who don't care about the world they are
in currently because they are more intersted in
where they are supposedly going (and also the
amount of effort they spend in trying to figure
out where everyone else is going too along with
making sure to evangelise). if they put 1/10 of
the effort into actually helping others and took
better care of themselves the world would be a
much better place. but then don't get me
started...


...a biochar harvester...
The charcoal needs to be where the roots are, and plowing the soil isn't
good for it. The charcoal will be covered by the crops, and the
non-harvested part of the crop would cover the charcoal after that.

around here the non-harvested part is not
enough to cover the soil, it's stubble for
the most part. this is where i do like some
other source of production than annual crops.
perennial forms of the same crops would be
an interesting change. in some ways i do
that already via the alfalfa and birdsfoot
trefoil green manure and forage crop, but
it's not quite the same as a blueberry bush
or a beet tree. i'm very interested in what
might eventually happen with genetic
tinkering, but we're a long ways from that
tinkering being really systemically smart.
i'd love to do a Rip Van Winkle for about
500 years...

I thought you turned the soil. Good for you, if you don't. You're near a
forest aren't you? Can't you gather leaves for mulch? Either way it
would get the char out of sight.

yes, i do turn some gardens using a shovel.
i'd do a lot less digging if it was just me
running things. unfortunately, i'm not the
manager, i can make suggestions, but i get
overruled at times.

we are a half mile from the woods but it is
a park (not a place that i can harvest materials).
the past few years i haven't needed to do that
sort of thing anyways as i have a friend in a
nearby city who is bringing me the leaves from two
lawns plus the shredded bark and wood scraps from
their wood cutting. they just had two large trees
come down in the neighbor's yard so they are
cleaning that up for free which means i might be
getting several more yards of stuff to use. they
brought a load last week and i'm champing at the
bit to get it out on the gardens. along with some
wood ashes from their wood stove.

whatever i can't use for top mulch or mixing in
the clay will be used to raise up areas to help
keep the garden above the flood stage. i dig a
deep trench and then pack it half full of material
then pile the dirt on top. eventually it may rot
but that is years in the future. in the meantime
i have better drainage and higher ground. later
if i need materials and don't have any i can
excavate this stuff and use it like peat or leaf
mold.

(snip)



...CO2, biochar and pyrolysis...

How much cellulose would you have to char to heat yourself during winter
with H2?

no, that's a waste as the heat directly from
burning the cellulose would be what you want. not
a loss from another layer of processing. also the
gas given off and condensed if using the cellulose
to produce both heat and charcoal can be stored
and used just like gasoline. no need to turn
anything into H2.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
Wood gas is a syngas fuel which can be used as a fuel for furnaces,
stoves and vehicles in place of petrol, diesel or other fuels. During
the production process biomass or other carbon-containing materials are
gasified within the oxygen-limited environment of a wood gas generator
to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. These gases can then be burnt
as a fuel within an oxygen rich environment to produce carbon dioxide,
water and heat.

What is your reference here?

check the wiki under pyrolysis, but i have a list
Wiki: While the exact composition of bio-oil depends on the biomass
source and processing conditions, a typical composition is as follows:
Water 20-28%; Suspended solids and pyrolitic lignin 22-36%;
Hydroxyacetaldehyde 8-12%; Levoglucosan 3-8%; Acetic acid 4-8%; Acetol
3-6%; Cellubiosan 1-2%; Glyoxal 1-2%; Formaldehyde 3-4%; Formic acid
3-6%.

I'll withhold judgement.

of products from the Biochar book (_the Biochar
Solution_ by Albert Bates) along with a few other
thoughts that i've been compiling for further
reading/research:

- pyrolysis, cellulose and lignin broken down into
phenols, aromatics, methane and CO2

- volatile gases
- wood vinegar
- char 80% carbon

- temperature and feedstock dependent,
also the pH varies by feedstock and temperature

- 300C, 300-500C (wood vinegar), 500-700C (90% carbon
and higher surface area)

- heating rate, particle size, moisture content

- other outputs mentioned: ethanol, dimethyl ether, heat,
steam, hot water, CO2, carbon monoxide...

- biomass smoke contains: benzene, butadiene, dioxin,
formaldehyde, styrene and methylene chloride (to name
a few), so clearly should be made in a closed system
where those things can be captured instead of emitted.

- 1 gram of soot warms atmosphere as much as 1500watt
space heater running for a week (what about the kicked
up dust from a dark soil if it was amended with biochar?
comparable at what percentage? equivalent to percentage
of carbon? or?)

- dust settling on snow and ice, makes it melt much faster


I just think that if we can seriously cut the amount of CO2
that we're putting into the atmosphere, and encourage reforestation, and
the production of charcoal, we have a chance of turning this barge
around. Otherwise, when the methane hydrate that lines the Atlantic
seashore goes of goes off, the tide will roll in to Raliegh, N.C., and
Harrisburg, PA. Of course this will aversely affect the profits of some
major corporations, but so will having New York go under water.

yeah, the hydrates and the methane from thawing
arctic tundra and permafrost are also feedback
additions that we have to worry about and counter.
add more decomposition of carbon compounds in
northern soils as they warm...

there is a possibility that the northern areas
will grow more trees as a result so the feedback
cycle might be very interesting. i still think
we need to reduce CO2 below what we are adding
so the oceans can recover and increase the pH.
corals and shells are important parts of building
shoreline erosion breaks.

They'll have to grow fast to make up for all the forest that is being
cut in the tropics.

considering how thinly populated much of the far
north is it might be enough if the trees are not
cut. however, it also has to offset the trees of
the northern forests that are dying off due to
disease and climate change. like most of these
things it is hard to be sure what is going to happen.


it can be a source of fuel for cars/trucks/industry
too. my ideal for a farm combine would be that
it could use a portion of what it harvests (stems,
stalks, cobs) to create the fuel on the fly and
leave a trail of buried biochar behind it as it
goes. add to it a chopper, disk, and cover crop
planting on the same pass and you've almost got
a sustainable industrial agriculture.

Uh, now you've lost me, monoculture, discing the soil?
More food come from interplanting.

it could be a mix of planted species, but
the result is still the same. we get a portion
of buried charcoal from each pass of the
harvester/planter and that adds up over time to
a significant amount of sequestered CO2. if you
have to spread something on the soil wouldn't
it be best if it were done by using fuel derived
right there instead of from fuel transported in?

if we can go perennial plants for cereal
grain production (corn, wheat, rice) and
also perennial legumes (i ain't giving up
my beans bucko ) for adding some nitrogen
that still does not get charcoal into the
ground. there would still have to be some
method of harvesting and spreading the charcoal
and it makes the most sense to me if it were
to happen as a part of the same process be
it from burning the fields once in a while
(bad idea as all that energy is then wasted
where it could otherwise be used as a food
source or a fuel -- not counting the air
pollution aspect).


My only doubt is with the conversion of the wood to fuel/char.

without having worked on anything like this
directly i can't say, but you could not do it
well as a combined process in one chamber instead
you have to divide the materials and one path
goes to the burning for fuel/heat/steam and the
other is for char and gas production so that the
gas can be condensed and then burned or if it is
extra it can be saved for fueling the next years
tasks, used as winter heating or sold.

or to keep the thought experiment running,
perhaps just digging a deep enough trench as
the harvester goes, burying the dry materials,
firing it and piling dirt on it as it goes.
so in that way the actual firing chamber is
the earth itself and that keeps the smoke,
soot, volatiles and some of the CO2 right in
the soil. sure it ****es off some of the soil
food web for a while, but as soon as it cools
off and there is some settling, rains the
critters will invade and colonize. with each
pass as the years go by it will build the
biochar and soil organic materials as you would
have some that aren't burned/charred.


...
consider for a longer term project where
fast growing trees could be planted, then after
a few years (seven or less for some poplars
i've seen grow here) they could be chopped
and left to dry and then chipped and burned
on the fly and the charcoal buried at the
same time. no crop needed to harvest but
there might be a wood gas surplus that could
be stored and then used later as fuel. not
sure about that though as wood chipping might
need a lot more power than dragging a single
blade through the soil and spinning some blades
and a fan.

Europeans plant lots of poplar for firewood. Forests are so thick that
you can't see 5 feet into them.

i'm sure plenty of it is planted here too.
i know the university forestry department has
a lot of research going on using them. in
some cases trying to breed trees with less
lignin making it easier to process for paper
products and similar aspects of changing the
trees for industrial reasons.

...
...HERE...
...
that's a lot of tomatoes!

which do you like the best or the
least? do you put them up or freeze
them?

Eyes eats them! It's only about 10 vines in the soil, and 2 in
containers. If I was going to put them up I would be planting romas, or
San Marzanos. Between salads, sandwiches, and gazpacho there won't be
any left over, especially now that I know that I can use green tomatoes
in making salsa verde for enchiladas.

I hope to have early ripening, mid ripening,
and late ripening tomatoes, i.e. a long tomato
season.

good luck! so far this has been the
most normal spring we've had in several
years. we actually got rain yesterday and
a few minutes ago it was raining again.
happiness! that will green up the plants
and wake up the wormies. three dry days
now would be perfect as i could get things
spread and dug in and perhaps even some
planting done.


last year for us the Roma tomatoes were ok
for adding to the salsa to give it some more
thickness, but they didn't do much for juice.

That's why they're good for making sauce. You don't have to reduce them
as much.

have you ever tried the viva italia?
No, I grow the Juliet which is similar to the viva italia, but about a
third the size.

do you have a favorite tomato?
Probably the "Striped German". A little lower acid than the Brandywine,
but is very perfumed, at least it is when grown here. Whether it is
location, or nature, I don't know. I was reading, when the perfume of it
struck me. I looked up, and my wife was slicing them.


...
i've wanted to go back and look at his book
on germs and steel, so those will be the next
books on the list.

You may want to look at
http://www.livinganthropologically.c...lture-as-worst
-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race/
too.

without having a chance yet to look at the
article i still can't agree with the gist of
the title completely. i think there are ways
of doing agriculture that are sustainable.

i'm stuck off-line for a while so i'll have
to get back to this later.

Agriculture created class divisions, concentration of wealth and
inequality, and illness. It's a good read.


but back to international waters and
fisheries. we as a world have to get agreements
and enforcements in place to deal with rogue
fleets and overfishing. otherwise it's just
not going to be there later as a food source.

It won't be either if it is poisoned with carcinogenic confetti of
plastic.

if we can decrease production of plastics
that become poisonous and replace them with
materials that safely degrade then that would
help a great deal. i'm very much in favor
of taxing and regulating plastics based upon
how much gets recycled and then using that
tax money to fund cleanup efforts to harvest
and recycle what is floating on the seas.

i'm generally all for any type of program
which taxes products and materials based upon
the percent that is recyclable and making the
taxes both inversely and exponentially tied
to the percentage that is recycled. so for
things that are 100% recycled there is no
additional tax, but for items that are not
recycleable the tax is quite large to offset
the unsustainable costs of dealing with it.

that type of policy would immediately
create some jobs for people to work in the
recycling processes, but also i'd have
bounties for picking up trash that get paid
out of fast food and other waste streams that
seem to be showing up as debris along the
road (or in the air).

if only i were king. people would hate
me, but i'd sleep at night knowing the world
had a more sustainable future.

Right on, but the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre was described as nearly
the size of Africa in 2005, and it is only one of several gyres. That's
a lot of plastic.

The plastic, for the most part isn't poisonous, but it is non-polar, and
attracts things like polychlorinated biphenyls, and dioxin.


money and capital after all are figments
of the imagination, so if you can get enough
people convinced that CO2 sequestration has
value then some kind of market forces will
be created along with that determination of
value.

now though, i think that value needs to be
set higher and immediately to get the whole
process going.

Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.
-Lucy Parsons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Parsons

who said anything about voting? i'm a
benevolent dictator. first order of business
is governmental reform and rewriting the
constitution to change election laws (there
wouldn't be elections any longer it would
be representation by random selection).

second order of business would be environmental
reforms would be to make the USoA the first
nation to go 100% recycling, get off oil
completely and outlaw *cides and restore the
grasslands, wetlands, rivers, to hold back water
instead of the current policies which exacerbate
the flash flooding and drought low flow patterns.
plant more trees, restore marginal lands by using
keyline water traps and stacking rocks and then
planting trees to help keep things more stable
and shaded. soak up CO2, more trees that can be
planted in city parks and vacant lots that aren't
otherwise claimed for community gardens.

third order of business is to get rid of
minimum wage laws for unskilled labor. like the
above trash bounty type of program that would
get trash picked up and recycled or incinerated
or turned into biochar. the price can be good
enough to make marine floating trash worth the
effort. mixed in there are likely to be a good
deal of organic materials that could be charred,
chipped or otherwise used.

i think some folks would like to work but can't
because the cost for minimum wages is too much for
what the job is actually worth. let's say that a
job picking up trash along the road is worth $2/hr
and with a bounty on trash that might bump the
effort up to $3/hr. that's a good enough wage to
get some kids out to earn extra money, or a older
or retired person who would like a little extra to
help with bills. good exercise, getting paid for
it and not having to sit at a desk inside. think
about the health benefit from that or even if they
wanted to help out in a community garden or a CSA.
most of these cannot afford to pay a lot but they
might be able to afford a little. subsidized by
trash and fast food taxes it would be the best
health improvement thing that could be done with a
very small shift of money. some of that money
then gets taxes as income and some more people get
back on the payroll and contributing to social
security and medicaide. a bunch of small peanuts
in terms of amounts but it adds up in aggregate.

if i were a poor country with severely depleted
soils in need of an energy source or organic
materials to recondition the topsoil i'd be looking
into buying some old tankers and then sending them
off to harvest a floating goldmine.

sunlight can degrade quite a bit of toxic
compounds, soil bacteria can do a good job on other
and fungi can work on those that don't get taken
care of by the first two.

short of heavy metals or radioactives i don't
think there's much likely to be floating that
i'd worry about once it was sorted and processed.
any plastics that are too toxic to be reused
could be incinerated or cracked into other
molecules. a poor country with a lot of heat
and sun could use mirrors to concentrate sunlight
and cook stuff to dry it and char it.

the energy could be used to desalinate water
or fuel pumps to move sea water into desalination
greenhouses and condenser setups. i'm not sure
what works better. they'd have a lot of free
plastics to recycle into sheeting to make
covers.
Ah, back to procreating are we?


...the oceans, floating trash...

You have my vote for dictator. Pay everyone a living wage. Enough of
this employment of wage slaves.
Polyethylene is not biodegraded in any practical time scale. There is no
mechanism in the marine environment to biodegrade that long a molecule."
Even if photodegradable nets helped marine mammals live, their powdery
residue remains in the sea, where the filter feeders will find it.

if it is large enough to be filtered out
then it is: incorporated in the animal,
excreted or the animal is eaten before it
has done any of the previous two things.

Or moved up the food chain by its predator.

it if is a particle it passes through
and gets conglomerated and then would
settle out. if it can't be degraded then
it becomes a substrate (just like mineral
grains or humus or other nearly undigestable
materials).

These are poisonous materials that dissolve in fat. Once in the body,
they persist. They get passed from predator to predator, and
concentrated in the top predator, us.

Best get your fish from down the food chain, not the top.


if it is incorporated in the animal
then at some point it settles out and
gets buried. excreted materials are
usually coated with mucous often also
with other stuff like bacteria and
fungi. i.e. also things that tend
to clump and settle.

In the predator.

where?
In the fat tissues. These are unnatural compounds that have no method of
being metabolized. That's why they are no longer produced.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persist...nd_toxic_subst
ances

i don't recall the alimentary
canal having a permanent resting place.
undigestible stuff goes through. the
original claim is that the stuff doesn't
have any way of being broken down wasn't
it?

Maybe not, but if you eat this stuff, you will lose your ass, so to
speak.

...


songbird

Still in the wild,

- Billy

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg