"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:50:07 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

Please cite references. I did quite a search and found *no* references
to a complete vegetable protein, incl. soy. Which *is* a high, 'though
incomplete protein source. Complete proteins include all the
"essential" amino acids.
here's a less self-motivated source that was farther down the page in
hte same search:
http://www.annecollins.com/diet_foods/soybeans.htm

Just to be even more clear - and citing the right-wing kooks' most favorite
author, Frances Moore Lappe, most grains and legumes have ALL eight
essential amino acids. However, the proportions of the amino acids have to
be in the right balance to be useable by the body, because the body builds
proteins out of them based on certain proportions. When things are out of
proportion, the body can only use the least amount of amino acids that
balance correctly - the rest will just be used for energy. Incidentally,
MEAT does not contain the ideal proportion of amino acids either. And the
body doesn't use the protein from meat whole, but breaks it down into those
essential eight individual amino acids first before reassembling them into
the protein that the body needs. In fact, the perfect protein food from the
standpoint of ideal balance of amino acids, is the egg.

To answer some of the other arguments given here about land use, crops vs.
ranching, etc - Moore is NOT arguing against grassland grazing of cows. She
is arguing that under our current system of agriculture, a huge percentage
of grain and legume production go to feed cows in the huge feedlots where
they are fattened for market - 50% of harvested acreage is feed to cows. 90%
of corn, 90% of soybeans, and 25% of wheat are fed to cows. She shows how
wasteful feeding those foods to cows is, because of how much they must
consume of them to add a pound of meat. (It is many many many pounds). If
fed to humans, those grains and legumes could keep many more people from
going hungry.

To the zillions of people here who, without ever having cracked the book,
believe they know exactly what Moore has written, I'm going to quote the
following paragraph in caps:
"THERE IS NO REASON WHY LIVESTOCK SHOULD COMPETE WITH HUMANS FOR FOOD WHEN
THEY CAN THRIVE ON HUMANLY INEDIBLE SUBSTANCES AND CONVERT THEM INTO HIGH
QUALITY PROTEIN. LIVESTOCK, NOW A MAJOR SOURCE OF POLLUTION - CAN ACTUALLY
SERVE TO REDUCE WASTE". pg. 46

But why should accurate facts ever get in the way of strongly held
biases.......

David I. Raines wrote in message nk.net...
Bob Peterson wrote:

There are far quieter ways to kill a crtitter if you need to than shooting
one.

Which is but one small part of the picture.

So, why do you keep talking about shooting as if it were the only way
to gather meat for the table?

By the way, thanks for the suggestion on how to get more guns and
ammo. Just fire a shot, and ambush all the wannabe bandits as they
rush in to steal the deer they think I just shot. That's also how we
decoy in bear when the bear and deer seasons overlap.

My guess is that any activity (such as smoke from your fireplace) is
just as likely to draw unwanted attention.

No smoke. See Mother Earth News 69 & 70. Or Google "woodgas".

Ever notice how far the sound of an ax or splitting maul hitting wood
travels?

What I said is basically true. If you are not prepared to deal with those
exigencies, you won't survive.

If you think we have not thought it over, you have not done any
reading, neube.

Why do so many people here seem to think that they can live like the settlers
or Indians did? Sorry. There are many, many more people and a fraction of the
wild lands in this modern world.

Uh-huh. So, how come you seem to be pushing the silliest of the
"innocent primitive" lifestyle?

In times of disaster... it always seemed to me the smell of cooking
would draw out starving ppl more than smoke, noise or anything else.

I know when we cook out here on our farm, we can smell it from far
away.




David I. Raines wrote in message nk.net...
Bob Peterson wrote:



"David I. Raines" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Robert Sturgeon wrote:

There are far quieter ways to kill a crtitter if you need to than shooting
one.

Which is but one small part of the picture.

My guess is that any activity (such as smoke from your fireplace) is
just as likely to draw unwanted attention.

No smoke. See Mother Earth News 69 & 70. Or Google "woodgas".

What I said is basically true. If you are not prepared to deal with those
exigencies, you won't survive.

Why do so many people here seem to think that they can live like the settlers
or Indians did? Sorry. There are many, many more people and a fraction of the
wild lands in this modern world.


-dir

(rick etter) wrote in message . com...Not the point I was making. In fact, croplands probably provide for
far more of these small mammals and birds to live than the natural
habitat that was there. The problem becomes that when all the easy
food and cover are removed that allowed an unnatural number of animals
to breed in these fields is gone the animals that didn't die outright
from the mechinization now die from starvation and predation. Vegans
that claim their diet is cruelty-free are just lying and delusional.
It's just their hate that makes them focus instead on what they think
others are doing, while ignoring their own bloody footprints.

And...in the US...are there really that many acres being put INTO
production, destroying habitat?...
I didn't think so.
===================
Really? I'd think that 1/4 of mainland US would be a significant
amount of area, even to you.
http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/farm/tot_crop.shtml

Linda H.

Perhaps I should have said...NEW acres being put into production... as
this was my argument.

My point being that the numbers of tillable acreage, in the US, has
DECLINED over the past couple of decades, negating the "loss of
habitat" argument that some folks will put forth.

ttfn.....
Linda H

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:45:00 -0800, "gregpresley"
wrote:


To answer some of the other arguments given here about land use, crops vs.
ranching, etc - Moore is NOT arguing against grassland grazing of cows. She
is arguing that under our current system of agriculture, a huge percentage
of grain and legume production go to feed cows in the huge feedlots where
they are fattened for market - 50% of harvested acreage is feed to cows. 90%
of corn, 90% of soybeans, and 25% of wheat are fed to cows. She shows how
wasteful feeding those foods to cows is, because of how much they must
consume of them to add a pound of meat. (It is many many many pounds). If
fed to humans, those grains and legumes could keep many more people from
going hungry.

One source I happened on while looking for the previous citation said
an acre of land devoted to soybeans can produce 20 times the amount of
protein that an acre devoted to cattle can. No doubt this is an
average and I'm sure there is land that can produce cattle that simply
would not support beans.

K

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On 22 Dec 2003 09:34:24 -0800, (Edgar S.) wrote:

In times of disaster... it always seemed to me the smell of cooking
would draw out starving ppl more than smoke, noise or anything else.

I know when we cook out here on our farm, we can smell it from far
away.

Yep. After a little bit of thought, I finally realized that those
western novels I read where the hero was escaping from the mean ol'
Injuns or the worse ol' bad guys got ridiculous when he'd find a spot,
build his little fire where a tree would spread the smoke to invisible
and then brew up some coffee, make some bacon, and have a cigarette.
Some of the most easily scented things in the world that would at
least let those tracking him know they had the right area and maybe
allow a good sniffer to find him.
--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

Hit reply to email.
Though I'm very slow to respond.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli

http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer
live radio interview #6
part 2 of 4



First approximate excerpt:

Caller: Your lawyer has to do something about it.

Fischer: I hate to say this, but my lawyer, is in on the game.
America is just a goddamn Jew country. They're a bunch of goddamn
crooks there. The Jews control everything and everybody. Anybody,
who has a successful legal practice, compromises with the Jews, you
know? If you talk like I do in America, you don't, you don't work.
Maybe you don't even live, you know?

Caller: America should be proud of you.

Fischer: Yeah they should be, but the dirty Jews are in control. You
know.

Caller: America should be proud of you.

Fischer: Yeah thank you but ah, the Jews control the media, they have
ah, tried to poison the public against me, they constantly use the
word eccentric, eccentric, eccentric, weird, all lies. Ask Eugene, he
knows me pretty well. Am I weird or eccentric Eugene?

Eugene: No, no.

Caller: I hope you the best. My best wishes for you Bobby.

Fischer: Thank you, thank you.



Second approximate excerpt:

Caller: Why is the U.S. government very hard on you or mistreating
you? Since as a U.S. citizen you have brought so much honor to your
country and you have achieved so much for world chess?

Fischer: Thank you well ah it's very simple, the Jews control the U.S.
government, just, just take a look at the basic players in the U.S.
government. Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright. Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Ruben.
Secretary of Agriculture, [?] Victor. All Jews. And ah, so they
totally control the U.S. government. Totally. It's a Jewish
dictatorship there, they control the press too. They control
everything there. They control the major corporations. Everything.
They control the courts, they control, you know it's just ah, it's
basically a dictatorship. Those of us who know, we call it the
Jew-nited States. We call it ah, the Zionist occupational government
of the United States. We call it ah, ah, Israel west. You know.

Host: Alright, ah.

Fischer: There is no, there is no United States government as people
think of it. It's just a façade. It's a total Jewish dictatorship
there.

Down Under On The Bucket Farm wrote:

Hi Everybody,

I am working on long-term plans for self-sufficiency, oriented to
buying some bare land and building an off-grid house, rainwater
catchment, composting toilet, etc, etc.

One issue is the question of how much physical space would be
needed to grow enough food to completely support myself?

I am willing to eat anything that is healthy, preferably
remaining vegetarian (although I am quite willing to have
chickens for eggs, and perhaps a goat for milk.)

This would involve one person living alone, in decent physical
condition, willing to do hard work and learn whatever is needed.

I realise that the yearly food yield will have to be spread out
via preserving, canning, etc.

My "day job" can be done remotely, via wireless Internet
connection, with flexible hours, thus leaving time and
opportunity for extensive gardening/farming, etc.

I do understand the risk of, for example, having a bad year, bad
weather, etc, and so would have money set aside to buy food in
that case. But the plan is to avoid that if at all possible.

I live in New Zealand, with plenty of rain in winter, but also
reasonable sunshine in summer.

So... How many acres of flat, farm-able land will I need?

Thanks in advance!

-V.

--
Guide To DIY Living
http://www.self-reliance.co.nz
(Work in progress)

================================================== ============

Geez, I'm not about to read all the replies to your post. But I will
say this. Here in the USA most states have a minimum acreage for
drilling for natural gas or oil, around 40 acres.

If you ever hope to tap natural resources on your property this is worth
considering.

"Bruce W.1" wrote in message ...

Geez, I'm not about to read all the replies to your post. But I will
say this. Here in the USA most states have a minimum acreage for
drilling for natural gas or oil, around 40 acres.

If you ever hope to tap natural resources on your property this is worth
considering.

Same quantity of acreage is needed for hunting deer, in this state.

fwiw

Linda H

Down Under On The Bucket Farm wrote:
Hi Everybody,

I am working on long-term plans for self-sufficiency, oriented to
buying some bare land and building an off-grid house, rainwater
catchment, composting toilet, etc, etc.

One issue is the question of how much physical space would be
needed to grow enough food to completely support myself?

I am willing to eat anything that is healthy, preferably
remaining vegetarian (although I am quite willing to have
chickens for eggs, and perhaps a goat for milk.)

This would involve one person living alone, in decent physical
condition, willing to do hard work and learn whatever is needed.

I realise that the yearly food yield will have to be spread out
via preserving, canning, etc.

My "day job" can be done remotely, via wireless Internet
connection, with flexible hours, thus leaving time and
opportunity for extensive gardening/farming, etc.

I do understand the risk of, for example, having a bad year, bad
weather, etc, and so would have money set aside to buy food in
that case. But the plan is to avoid that if at all possible.

I live in New Zealand, with plenty of rain in winter, but also
reasonable sunshine in summer.

So... How many acres of flat, farm-able land will I need?


Thanks in advance!

-V.

Without getting into the Vegan/ Vegkiller debate on Tofu Farming
Your first problem is you going it alone. Your wanting to live
the country life even though you have NO experience as you live
in the city.

Second unless you plan to set a broken bone or sew up a gash
WITHOUT any anesthetics I'd suggest going intentional community
(communes).

In a TEOTWAWKI scenario your world is flipped upside down
& will leave you dazed & confused for a bit. you will need
others to help do many things. You will need to make sacrifices.
Lets say something happens to your Tofu supply... You have NO
food but 10 Goats & 30 Chickens. Are you willing to Starve to
death or become an omnivore?

If you rather die than eat meat then don't even waste your time
preparing for anything...

Ike

A lot of states have minimum acreage requirements for all kinds of useful
activities. The more land you have the better, and in fact even scrub land
is a good thing to have as long as some of your land is arable.

"Tallgrass" wrote in message
om...
"Bruce W.1" wrote in message
...

Geez, I'm not about to read all the replies to your post. But I will
say this. Here in the USA most states have a minimum acreage for
drilling for natural gas or oil, around 40 acres.

If you ever hope to tap natural resources on your property this is worth
considering.

Same quantity of acreage is needed for hunting deer, in this state.

fwiw

Linda H

"KB9WFK" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:37:49 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Mike Warren" wrote in message
news:UGIEb.752095$6C4.483281@pd7tw1no...
(Babberney) writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:09:06 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

And I doubt those suppliments and fortified foods are made without
any impact on animals. Therefore, not realy vegan, are they, just
like I said?

I suspect there are vegan purists out there who would be swayed by
this argument, but I think most people, even most vegans,
acknowledge and accept that there is no perfect solution to any
problem. We make the compromises we have to and make progress where
we can.

...and besides, just because one may have to cause some small amount
==================
Better get a better idea of the impact you have, killer. We aren't
talking
about a 'small' amount of animal death and suffering for veggies...


of harm to some animal (say, yeast) to get a complete balanced diet
doesn't mean that person needs to give up on their convictions and
start eating all types of meat.
======================
That was never said, now was it, ideological liar?



This is like concluding that because
we can't stop all genocide, we may as well go buy a machine gun and
start shooting up ethnic groups.
=======================
No, it isn't. Analogies aren't easy for you are they?
The difference is we aren't talking about yeast and bugs. Those are just
vegan strawmen. The animals you kill for your diet are mammals, birds,
reptiles, fish, and amphibians. They die by the millions and millions to
produce your cheap, conveninet veggies. Vegans don't even choose
between
their own foods that cause less death and suffering to animals. They
have
only a simple rule, for simple minds, eat no meat. regardless of the
fact
than some meats cause far less death and suffering than some veggies,
they
catagorically claim all veggies good, all meat bad. They have never been
able to prove any of their claims that their diet causes less animal
death
and suffering, but that doesn't stop the lys and delusions.



--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD

Ok. I give. We have had a garden for many years and have never
killed a single mammal in its maintenance.
==========================
You don't subsists on that garden either. Monoculture crop production
causes many animal deaths. From the mechinazation, chemicals, deliberate
poisonings.
That you prefer to ignore them means nothing to the animals that die for
your selfish conveniences.


Please explain where these
millions of mammalian deaths are coming from. Feel free to expand
that out to, say, a 1 acre plot that is planted with veggies. I just
don't see it.
==================
You don't live off it either.




kb9wfk

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:37:03 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


Then your blanket staement was a ly, right? Typical vegan/ar delsuion
about
how meat is raised.

like most blanket statements, it had exceptions. not many, I think
====================
But it was what you said. That we could eat the food that cattle eat
instead of feeding it to them. Totally ignoring the fact that virtually all
cattle are grown on inedible(to people) grass. It's the vegan delusion and
lys that continue to push the idea that all cows only eat grains and feeds
from the time they pop out til they hit the slaughterhouse floor crying
their eyes out.




Really? Tell me how you grow all these wonderful beans with no impact on
animals or the environment. Man, around your house they must just fall
like manna from heaven, eh?
it all depends on how you grow them, doesn' t it?


Which is, btw by far the soy that is grown most. Since you like to
pretend
that all meat is raised the same way, then I can claim that all soy beans
are the same, right? Oh, doesn't work that way? then why do you and all
other ar/vegan loons here on usenet continue with the same old lys about
how
meat is raised?

But have you noticed what the actual topic of this thread is?

Also, I told no lies, nor did I claim to be describing every cattle
operation in the world (I believe my exact words were "the cattle
operations I've seen."
=====================
That wasn't what I claimed you lied about. You lied about people being able
to eat the food cattle do directly.
Here, since you have snipped out most of the thread without any annotation
to that fact, I'll restore your original statement.
"...Well, I'm not a vegan, but as a vegetarian I definitely disagree with
that. to produce meat, you have to feed the animal in question. Put
that food into yourself and you get far more efficient use out of it..."
Like I said, that's the typical vegan delusion lys of continuing to indicate
by either a:deceit, or b:ignorance that cows eat only grains and feeds for
all or most of their lives.




Being born and raised in TX, I suspect I've
seen more than a lot of people have, but certainly I haven't seen as
many as some.

I think my biggest mistake was getting into a shouting match about
veganism on a gardening group.
================
Could be, but the ignorance is the same...



K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please
visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:15:56 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"KB9WFK" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:37:49 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Mike Warren" wrote in message
news:UGIEb.752095$6C4.483281@pd7tw1no...
(Babberney) writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:09:06 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

And I doubt those suppliments and fortified foods are made without
any impact on animals. Therefore, not realy vegan, are they, just
like I said?

I suspect there are vegan purists out there who would be swayed by
this argument, but I think most people, even most vegans,
acknowledge and accept that there is no perfect solution to any
problem. We make the compromises we have to and make progress where
we can.

...and besides, just because one may have to cause some small amount
==================
Better get a better idea of the impact you have, killer. We aren't
talking
about a 'small' amount of animal death and suffering for veggies...


of harm to some animal (say, yeast) to get a complete balanced diet
doesn't mean that person needs to give up on their convictions and
start eating all types of meat.
======================
That was never said, now was it, ideological liar?



This is like concluding that because
we can't stop all genocide, we may as well go buy a machine gun and
start shooting up ethnic groups.
=======================
No, it isn't. Analogies aren't easy for you are they?
The difference is we aren't talking about yeast and bugs. Those are just
vegan strawmen. The animals you kill for your diet are mammals, birds,
reptiles, fish, and amphibians. They die by the millions and millions to
produce your cheap, conveninet veggies. Vegans don't even choose
between
their own foods that cause less death and suffering to animals. They
have
only a simple rule, for simple minds, eat no meat. regardless of the
fact
than some meats cause far less death and suffering than some veggies,
they
catagorically claim all veggies good, all meat bad. They have never been
able to prove any of their claims that their diet causes less animal
death
and suffering, but that doesn't stop the lys and delusions.



--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD

Ok. I give. We have had a garden for many years and have never
killed a single mammal in its maintenance.
==========================
You don't subsists on that garden either.

How is that relevant? If I plant 100 acres of jalepeno peppers and I
don't subsist on it then it has no effect? If I plant corn and live
entirely on it then animals start flopping over?

Monoculture crop production
causes many animal deaths. From the mechinazation, chemicals, deliberate
poisonings.

Our only mechanization is a tiller. We have never used chemicals or
poisons.

That you prefer to ignore them means nothing to the animals that die for
your selfish conveniences.

You have yet to show a single animal death for me to ignore. To call
home grown produce a "selfish convenience" is a bit absurd.
You seem to ignore the population increases in deer and rabbits due to
planted crops.

Please explain where these
millions of mammalian deaths are coming from. Feel free to expand
that out to, say, a 1 acre plot that is planted with veggies. I just
don't see it.
==================
You don't live off it either.

Again, you have not shown how that is relevant.


kb9wfk

"KB9WFK" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:15:56 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"KB9WFK" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:37:49 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Mike Warren" wrote in message
news:UGIEb.752095$6C4.483281@pd7tw1no...
(Babberney) writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:09:06 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

And I doubt those suppliments and fortified foods are made
without
any impact on animals. Therefore, not realy vegan, are they,
just
like I said?

I suspect there are vegan purists out there who would be swayed by
this argument, but I think most people, even most vegans,
acknowledge and accept that there is no perfect solution to any
problem. We make the compromises we have to and make progress
where
we can.

...and besides, just because one may have to cause some small amount
==================
Better get a better idea of the impact you have, killer. We aren't
talking
about a 'small' amount of animal death and suffering for veggies...


of harm to some animal (say, yeast) to get a complete balanced diet
doesn't mean that person needs to give up on their convictions and
start eating all types of meat.
======================
That was never said, now was it, ideological liar?



This is like concluding that because
we can't stop all genocide, we may as well go buy a machine gun and
start shooting up ethnic groups.
=======================
No, it isn't. Analogies aren't easy for you are they?
The difference is we aren't talking about yeast and bugs. Those are
just
vegan strawmen. The animals you kill for your diet are mammals,
birds,
reptiles, fish, and amphibians. They die by the millions and millions
to
produce your cheap, conveninet veggies. Vegans don't even choose
between
their own foods that cause less death and suffering to animals. They
have
only a simple rule, for simple minds, eat no meat. regardless of the
fact
than some meats cause far less death and suffering than some veggies,
they
catagorically claim all veggies good, all meat bad. They have never
been
able to prove any of their claims that their diet causes less animal
death
and suffering, but that doesn't stop the lys and delusions.



--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799
11BD

Ok. I give. We have had a garden for many years and have never
killed a single mammal in its maintenance.
==========================
You don't subsists on that garden either.

How is that relevant? If I plant 100 acres of jalepeno peppers and I
don't subsist on it then it has no effect? If I plant corn and live
entirely on it then animals start flopping over?
============================
Because, dolt, the food you buy does cause animal death and suffering. You
can deny it all you want, but it won't make the death and suffering of
animals go away.



Monoculture crop production
causes many animal deaths. From the mechinazation, chemicals, deliberate
poisonings.

Our only mechanization is a tiller. We have never used chemicals or
poisons.
==================
And again, you don't live off what you grow.. However, your tiller does use
products of a petro-chemical industry that does harm animals and the
environment.



That you prefer to ignore them means nothing to the animals that die for
your selfish conveniences.

You have yet to show a single animal death for me to ignore. To call
home grown produce a "selfish convenience" is a bit absurd.
========================
That's not what I called a conveninece, now is it stupid? Even you should
be able to read what i said, but then again, maybe not. You are not self
sufficient on what you grow.


You seem to ignore the population increases in deer and rabbits due to
planted crops.
======================
No, I don't. In fact, I've pointed out for a long time that mono-culture
crop production provides for far more animals to reproduce in an area than
the natural environment would allow. The problem then follows that after
you take all that easy food and cover away, those large numbers of animals
now die from starvation and predation. That is, the ones that excaped the
machines.



Please explain where these
millions of mammalian deaths are coming from. Feel free to expand
that out to, say, a 1 acre plot that is planted with veggies. I just
don't see it.
==================
You don't live off it either.

Again, you have not shown how that is relevant.
==================
Because, stupid, the food you buy is what is tainted with the death and
suffering of animals. Are you really that stupid, or do you work real hard
at it?


Now, back to the original staement I made that you have completely ignored
for the purpose of displaying your ignorance..
Vegans have never been able to prove any of their claims that their diet
causes less animal death
and suffering, but that doesn't stop the lys and delusions, and now their
little show of stupidity...







kb9wfk