Jim Webster wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.
So how many of these cases they have produced have resulted in RSPCA
prosecutions, or any sort of prosecution?

They are purely scam artists conning a gullible public for their own
financial gain

Count me as one of the gullible public. There is a big difference
between what the government with meat industry input considers cruel
and what most people of reasonable caring does. The very nature of
factory farming is cruel and I for one will never support it and will
continue to support those who are making an effort to improve their
condition. There was a time when the only reason why I would not eat
meat was because of cruelty of factory farming. Realizing as how
difficult it is to change the practices of an industry protected by
wink-wink government regulations, I decided not to eat any meat no
matter how it was produced.

In article , pearl
wrote:
"Jim Webster" wrote in message news:50m60pF1fu3
...

One instance. Your sort of business has put millions in an early grave.

Jim's sort of business has fed millions of people in cities who would
otherwise have gone hungry - or worse.

A colossal part of the Earth's land surface has been devoted to pasture,

Because a colossal part of the Earth's land surface will not grow any crop
suitable for human consumption. Sheep, for example, can roam many acres of
upland grass and convert a very thin supply of nutrient into a form that
humans can eat.

We've done this one to death many times Pearl (Lotus). Jim even offered you
the use of enough of his land to demonstrate your principles and show him,
and the rest of the farming community, where they were going wrong.

You declined then when you realised the impossibility of the task you had
set yourself and so Jim has continued to graze that same land extensively
(look it up - Lotus, don't guess) and to convert its product into food.

Consult google or one of the other usenet archives if your memory is faulty.

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

fortunately most people out there know that the sort of person who digs
up
your granny if you don't agree with them is not the sort of person you
can
trust to tell you the truth on anything else either

One instance. Your sort of business has put millions in an early grave.

except that the rest of the world doesn't believe you

The rest of the world increasingly knows that "I" am correct.

and the amount of meat being eaten is increasing steadily

By some. I knew what the outcome would be when I first heard
that mc'murder were in China, for example. Image ... addiction.

The rest of the world isn't going to let their diet be dictated to by a tiny
minority in Europe and America

Many already are - it's starvation if they have been dispossessed
and/or can't afford to buy food, and glitzy façade for the slaves.

so there it is
tough
get out there and get a real life

Jim Webster

Get a job that doesn't involve killing, disease, and destruction.

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

fortunately most people out there know that the sort of person who
digs
up
your granny if you don't agree with them is not the sort of person you
can
trust to tell you the truth on anything else either

One instance. Your sort of business has put millions in an early
grave.

except that the rest of the world doesn't believe you

The rest of the world increasingly knows that "I" am correct.


except that they are still eating more and more meat

And I hardly think the Chinese shopper who buys a live chicken and takes it
home and wrings the neck of the animal themselves is going to worry about
whether it was killed in a heartless and industrialised fashion

These people are eating more meat, Chinese government planners are ensuring
that they have the output to supply people what they want

Jim Webster

wrote in message
oups.com...
Jim Webster wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.
So how many of these cases they have produced have resulted in RSPCA
prosecutions, or any sort of prosecution?

They are purely scam artists conning a gullible public for their own
financial gain

Count me as one of the gullible public.

fair enough

There is a big difference
between what the government with meat industry input considers cruel
and what most people of reasonable caring does.

except the democratically elected government acts on the behalf of the
public in this matter
Perhaps you just think that most people don't care

Jim Webster

"Elaine Jones" wrote in message
...
Quoting from message
posted on 11 Jan 2007 by Jim Webster
I would like to add:


wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.

What percentage of the national herd/flock is reared intensively
(don't see how Herdwicks or Welsh Blacks,for instance, could be
"factory farmed")

exactly,
It is very difficult to come across any examples of sheep being factory
farmed in the UK
But doubtless we will be swamped with argentinian examples ;-(

Jim Webster.

Quoting from message
posted on 11 Jan 2007 by Jim Webster
I would like to add:


wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.

What percentage of the national herd/flock is reared intensively
(don't see how Herdwicks or Welsh Blacks,for instance, could be
"factory farmed")

--
..ElaineJ. Briallen Gifts/Cards catalogue at http://www.briallen.co.uk
..Virtual. Corn Dollies, Cards, Coasters, Mousemats, Kids' Tshirts
StrongArm Jones' Pages at http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ejones
..RISC PC. Corwen, North Wales; Steam Traction;CMMGB&Yukon Volunteers.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:06:31 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Jim Webster wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.
So how many of these cases they have produced have resulted in RSPCA
prosecutions, or any sort of prosecution?

They are purely scam artists conning a gullible public for their own
financial gain

Count me as one of the gullible public.

fair enough

There is a big difference
between what the government with meat industry input considers cruel
and what most people of reasonable caring does.

except the democratically elected government acts on the behalf of the
public in this matter
Perhaps you just think that most people don't care


You weren't so keen on democracy when the hunt ban was brought in, or
when your farming handouts were cut etc.!

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:18:23 GMT, Elaine Jones
wrote:

Quoting from message
posted on 11 Jan 2007 by Jim Webster
I would like to add:


wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.

What percentage of the national herd/flock is reared intensively
(don't see how Herdwicks or Welsh Blacks,for instance, could be
"factory farmed")

Oh the joys of being sheep!

Sheep and lambs
People see sheep in the driving rain and snow or in scorching heat and
think it’s all perfectly natural. But wild animals do not stand about
in fields in fierce weather as sheep are forced to do; they take cover
but there is invariably no shelter for sheep. Nor can they rely upon
enough feed, or even sufficient drinking water.

In addition, ewes are forced into producing more lambs at the ‘wrong’
time of year. Every year some four million newborn lambs - about one
in five of the total - die within a few days of birth, mostly from
disease, exposure or malnutrition. Contrary to what some farmers say
(in an attempt to justify the barbarity of fox hunting), fox predation
is not responsible for the loss of so many lambs. Official figures
show that foxes take less than one per cent and those they do take are
likely to be already ailing. The high losses are due to neglect by
farmers, working in an industry that exploits animals at every stage.

As a result of the burdens put on sheep, they suffer endemic lameness,
miscarriage, infestation and infection. Each year, around one in 20
adult sheep die of cold, starvation, sickness, pregnancy complications
or injury before they can be slaughtered. Often, they will die before
a farmer even realises anything is wrong. Lambs who do survive are
usually killed for food at around four months old.

The suffering of farmed sheep
The following statement from a Ruthin, Denbighshire vet, M.W. Allen,
quoted in The Times January 6, 2000, speaks volumes about the modern
British sheep industry (the 'small furry creature' referred to at the
end of the impassioned statement is the fox).

"There are few more pitiful sights on a night call into the hills in
January than a small lamb caught in the headlights, hunched up against
sleet in a field with no shelter in sight. I find it perverse that,
when every year millions of lamb deaths are due to the mind boggling
absurdity of lambing in the worst time of year (December to February),
to poor hygiene and overstocking in sheds, and to ewes not producing
enough good-quality colostrum because they are in poor condition, so
much vitriol should be expended in the direction of this small furry
creature [the fox]."

Lamb deaths: the shepherd not the fox
In other words, fox predation is not responsible for the loss of so
many lambs. Official figures show foxes take less than 1 per cent -
and those they do take are likely to be already ailing. The high
losses are due to exploitation and neglect by farmers themselves.


Some four million newborn lambs - about one in five of the total - die
every year within a few days of birth, mostly from disease, exposure,
or malnutrition. (Henderson, Lamb Survival, Farming Press). And about
a million adult breeding animals (out of about 17.5 million) also die
in the fields annually.

Victims of fierce weather
Farmers often talk contemptuously of sheep looking for any old excuse
to drop down dead. In fact sheep are forced to endure floods, storms,
blizzards and drought. In addition, they are pressed into producing
more lambs at the "wrong" time of year. As a result of these burdens,
they suffer endemic lameness, miscarriage, infestation and viral and
bacterial infection. Often they will die before a farmer will know
that something is wrong.

People see sheep in the driving rain and snow or in scorching heat and
think it's all perfectly natural. But wild animal do not stand about
in fields in fierce weather - as sheep are forced to do. Wild animals
take cover in burrows, in forests, or in nests. There is invariably no
shelter for sheep. Nor can they rely upon enough feed, or even
sufficient drinking water in the summer months.

Size of the industry
The UK has the highest sheep population in Europe, with a 2003 flock
size of 35.7 million. Roughly half were breeding animals and the other
half were lambs under one year of age. About 15.8 million were
slaughtered in 2003. (Defra, Agriculture In The UK 2003).

Like other branches of livestock farming, the sheep industry has been
sucked into a self-defeating spiral in which more traditional farming
methods have been abandoned for the short term allure of
intensification. This trend has been fuelled by massive public
subsidies and compensation packages. About 30% of the sheep farmers'
total income of £1007 million is from the taxpayer.


More sheep, fewer shepherds
But while the number of sheep has increased, the number of trained
shepherds has not. Among the results is a high incidence of serious
foot problems and dirty wool around the tails - the last of which can
lead to devastating infestations.

More pregnancies and multiple births
Under natural conditions sheep will reproduce every spring after a
five month pregnancy. Ewes are physiologically designed to produce a
single lamb with each gestation (twins would naturally be relatively
rare). But genetic selection and intensive feeding have created a
situation whereby twins and even triplets are commonplace.

Lambing time has also been manipulated. Instead of taking place in
spring, between 10% and 15% of the annual lamb 'crop' is now produced
between December and the end of February (Government Parliamentary
Question 04.07.95). The aim is to get the lambs to market ahead of
competition. Within days of their birth, many of the surviving
youngsters are turned out to face the winter weather.

Drugs are used to bring the ewes into season as much as six weeks
early and to ensure that a flock (or a proportion of it) ovulates all
at once. The latter is for the convenience of the farm workers, not
the ewes.

Ewes are 'serviced' by a ram or, increasingly, subjected to artificial
insemination (AI). AI is an especially invasive procedure for ewes.
One development in AI requires surgical intervention. The ewe is
up-ended on a rack and the semen inserted directly into her womb.
Embryo transfer takes interference in the reproductive process one
stage further. Fertilised embryos are 'flushed' out of a 'quality'
donor animal and inserted into a lower-value 'recipient'.


To obtain semen for AI, or to sample a ram's breeding potential, the
farmer masturbates the animal by hand. Alternatively, an electric
probe is inserted into the ram's anus and directed downwards so that
it bears upon his prostate gland. A button is pushed and an electric
shock administered to make the ram ejaculate. "I have often seen the
ram off his feet and writhing in agony having had this done," a North
Wales veterinary assistant told Animal Aid. (Silence of the Lambs,
Animal Aid, 1995.)

Routine mutilations - castration and 'tail-docking'
Shortly after birth, lambs are subjected to two painful mutilations:
castration and tail-docking. Males are castrated in order to prevent
unplanned breeding (even though many lambs are slaughtered before they
reach sexual maturity), and to reduce aggression. It is also believed
that castration ensures quicker growth and better carcass quality. The
castration technique most commonly used is to restrict blood supply to
the testicles through the use of a tight rubber ring, causing them to
wither and drop off within a few weeks.

The same method is used with tail docking. A rubber ring is fitted,
designed to restrict the blood supply to the lower half of the tail.
Farmers perform this mutilation to prevent "fly-strike" or "blow fly",
an infestation which occurs in faeces that gathers around the tail.
This problem has increased with the higher ratio of sheep to
shepherds.

Unless carried out with caution, these mutilations - castration
especially - can lead to serious, even fatal injuries. And if
performed too soon after birth, the distress suffered by the lambs may
be so great that they stop suckling for a few hours. This contributes
to high rates of early mortality.

Diseases
"The health of the British sheep flock is declining... This is true
for diseases caused by viruses, bacteria and ecto(skin)parasites."

(Dr Gerald Coles, senior research fellow in veterinary medicine,
Bristol University, The Sheep Farmer, March 1995.)


A range of "preventive" drugs for a wide range of external and
internal parasites are either injected, poured down the throat, or
applied through whole-body immersion of the entire flock.

The government's official agricultural advisory body, the Farm Animal
Welfare Council, has said it is concerned that "there are many cases
of incorrect and inappropriate treatments" (Farm Animal Welfare
Council Report on the Welfare of Sheep, April 1994) of what are often
powerful and toxic compounds. Needles and syringes are rarely cleaned
or replaced, even after use on dozens or perhaps hundreds of animals.
This leads to abscesses and other complications.

A percentage of animals also fall prey to viral diseases, scrapie,
mastitis, rotting teeth, fallen womb (prolapse), lameness and
blindness.

Sheep dipping is directed against two devastating conditions known as
scab and blowflies. The latter more easily takes root when animals get
soaked to the skin and mud caked. It can result in maggots eating the
sheep alive. Until July 1992, dipping to combat this condition was
compulsory. It was undertaken with a solution containing
organophosphate pesticides (OPs). Following widespread reports of
farmers suffering serious dipping-related illnesses, the Ministry of
Agriculture now require that anyone using OPs must first obtain a
certificate of competence.

The negative impact of dipping on sheep themselves is rarely
discussed, even though the animals are totally immersed in the toxic
solution with their heads held under with a broom or crook. An October
1994 article in The Sheep Farmer listed the "uncontrolled nervous
signs" that can result from accidental ingestion or the use of the
wrong concentration. These included "excessive salivation and tears,
frequent urination, vomiting, difficulty in breathing, muscle
twitching developing to incoordination, paralysis, collapse and
death". Dipping is also associated with an increased risk of bacterial
infection.

British sheep, additionally, harbour various "slow virus" diseases
(conditions with a long incubation period without symptoms). One of
these is scrapie, believed by Government scientists to be one of the
likely sources of BSE in cattle - the latter having been fed infected
sheep meat.


In 2001, more than 6 million farmed animals were killed and burnt or
buried to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease, a highly
infectious illness that affects sheep, pigs, cattle and goats. The
disease was said to have originated on a filthy pig farm. It very
quickly spread as animals were transported to markets and
slaughterhouses round the country. At the time of the epidemic,
livestock markets were suspended for fear of spreading the disease
further. These markets have since been re-opened. However, basic
biosecurity rules are not being adhered to, which means the risk of
another disease epidemic is current and substantial. See Animal Aid's
report, A Dirty Business (published May 2004).

Forced adoption
Around 10% of all lambs born in the lowlands (where most of the high
tech manipulation of sheep flocks takes place) are from triplet
births. Because ewes have just two teats, the "spare" triplet must
quickly be found a lactating ewe with an unused teat. If the selected
adult doesn't readily accept the young interloper - frequently the
case - she will be tethered by a rope, or held by the neck inside what
is called an adopter box. These look rather like medieval stocks and
allow the orphan free access to the adult's milk. The ewe may remain
in this contraption for four or five days.

An alternative is to feed the "spare" by a tube, which is threaded
into his or her stomach via the mouth. Some lambs - already distraught
at being separated from their mothers - are killed or injured during
this process.

Another method is for the shepherd to insert his hand deep into the
ewe's vagina and manually "palpitate" it and the cervix for two
minutes - thereby persuading the ewe that she has given birth to
another lamb. Where a ewe has lost her own lamb, she might be
persuaded to take on a "spare" by this method, particularly if that
spare is cloaked in the skin of her dead new-born.

Shearing
Shearing can be stressful and is often carried out with little regard
for welfare. For instance, recently shorn animals may be exposed to
hot sun at markets without shelter. Shearing of pregnant ewes in the
winter is sometimes done to enable more of them to be crowded into
housing and may leave them suffering from cold. In December 1999, a
National Sheep Association spokesman told The Times (Dec. 8) that
winter shearing "is the future of sheep farming. The fact that you
take their coats off means they have to eat more to keep warm. You end
up with a better meat-to-bone-and-fat ratio."


The idea is that winter-shorn sheep will head for a barn where they'll
huddle together and put on body fat. But with muck and urine gathering
under foot, they also face, within the sheds, an increased risk of
picking up and passing on disease, such as foot rot. But, of course,
there won't always be a barn within reach.

The stresses of livestock markets
80% of UK-produced sheep pass through domestic livestock markets prior
to slaughter, further fattening, or export. Harsh treatment and hours
standing in crowded pens on hard stone floors is the norm during the
bartering process. The Welfare of Animals at Markets (Amendment) Order
1993 prohibits the sale of lambs (or goat kids) with unhealed navels.
Even so, navels are usually already healed within seven days, and
sometimes as quickly as 48 hours. Also, spray products can be
purchased to dry out navels rapidly. Hence, lambs as young as two or
three days old are frequently seen in markets. Often, they will be
with their mothers and sold as a "job lot". But many very young
orphans are also bartered and sold for a few pounds. Lambs may be sent
for slaughter between the ages of 3 and 10 months.

Live exports of sheep
Although the live export of sheep has dropped from the massive 1993
levels of 1.9 million, around 68,000 were exported in 2003. As has
been well documented, sheep endure horrific suffering on long journeys
from UK ports to continental destinations.


Current EU rules allow sheep to travel for 14 hours without a rest or
water. They must have a rest period of one hour after a 14 hour
journey, after which, they may be transported for a further 14 hours.
By the time the animals have been unloaded and loaded within an hour,
which causes a lot of stress, they will not have a full hours rest off
the vehicle. If the destination can be reached within another 2 hours
then they may go a full 16 hours. After the second 14 hour journey, if
the destination has not been reached, the sheep must be unloaded,
given food and water and rested for 24 hours. The journey times can
then be repeated and this pattern can be repeated infinitely.

At the end of March (2004), the European Parliament voted to impose a
9 hour maximum overall journey limit for animals travelling to
slaughter. Before this can become law the measure requires the
approval of the Commission and the Agricultural Council of Ministers.
A final decision has been deferred until 2011.

While a maximum journey length of 9 hours will be a considerable
improvement on current legislation, it is still a long time to be
spent in a confined space with no room to turn around, lie down and
without access to water.

Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and promotes
a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by joining, making
a donation, or using our online shop.
Contact Animal Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge,
Kent, TN9 1AW, UK, tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533,
email .

Jim Webster wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Jim Webster wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.
So how many of these cases they have produced have resulted in RSPCA
prosecutions, or any sort of prosecution?

They are purely scam artists conning a gullible public for their own
financial gain

Count me as one of the gullible public.

fair enough

There is a big difference
between what the government with meat industry input considers cruel
and what most people of reasonable caring does.

except the democratically elected government acts on the behalf of the
public in this matter

We got the best government money can buy. Lobbyists' influence must be
restricted before we can have true representative democracy but that is
another topic.

Perhaps you just think that most people don't care

They would care if they knew what goes on inside factory farming and
slaughter houses. I wonder how many people would buy meat if some of
the photos and videos of animal abuse were displayed next to the meat
counters.

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

fortunately most people out there know that the sort of person who
digs
up
your granny if you don't agree with them is not the sort of person you
can
trust to tell you the truth on anything else either

One instance. Your sort of business has put millions in an early
grave.

except that the rest of the world doesn't believe you

The rest of the world increasingly knows that "I" am correct.


except that they are still eating more and more meat

Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you- 'profit'.

And I hardly think the Chinese shopper who buys a live chicken and takes it
home and wrings the neck of the animal themselves is going to worry about
whether it was killed in a heartless and industrialised fashion

These people are eating more meat, Chinese government planners are ensuring
that they have the output to supply people what they want

Chinese planners are worried. You posted the following on 09 January,
(it's from: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35910 ).

"The grain crop is expected to hit a record 490 million tons this year, the
third straight year of bumper harvests but Chinese planners are worried that
fast-shrinking farming land could affect grain supply in the near future.
Arable land is said to have shrunk by 8 million hectares between 1999 and
2005

The Chinese government has pointed out that "The excessive growth of corn
processing has resulted in scarce feed for livestock and affected the
development of animal husbandry. Some main livestock producing areas are
even considering importing corn,"

"While rivalry between food and fuel producers for grains is not limited
to China, the problem is particularly acute here because of the country's
low per-capita arable land to feed its vast population. "

'Rapid economic growth in China will drive up grain imports from 9m
tonnes to 24m tonnes in 2005 according to Jikun Huang, Director of the
Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy.

"China will neither empty the world grain markets, nor become a major
grain exporter," he told a farming conference in Oxford, England.
"Instead it is probable that China will become a more important player
in world grain markets as an importer in the coming decades." Increased
consumption would be largely in the form of feedgrain for animals.'

http://www.new-agri.co.uk/98-2/newsbr.html#china

From where?

The increase that you so wish for, is neither feasible, nor sustainable.

'As stocks run out and harvests fail, the world faces its worst crisis for
30 years

By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 03 September 2006

Food supplies are shrinking alarmingly around the globe, plunging the
world into its greatest crisis for more than 30 years. New figures show
that this year's harvest will fail to produce enough to feed everyone on
Earth, for the sixth time in the past seven years. Humanity has so far
managed by eating its way through stockpiles built up in better times -
but these have now fallen below the danger level.

Food prices have already started to rise as a result, and threaten to soar
out of reach of many of the 4.2 billion people who live in the world's
most vulnerable countries. And the new "green" drive to get cars to run
on biofuels threatens to make food even scarcer and more expensive.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA), which produce the world's two
main forecasts of the global crop production, both estimate that this
year's grain harvest will fall for the second successive year.

The FAO is still compiling its latest crop forecast - due to be published
next month - but told The Independent on Sunday late last week that it
looked like barely exceeding 2 billion tons, down from 2.38 billion last
year, and 2.68 billion in 2004, although the world's appetite has
continued to grow as its population rises.

The USDA estimates it will be even lower - 1.984 billion tons. This would
mean that it would fall 58 million tons short of what the world's people
are expected to consume this year: 10 years ago, by contrast, farmers grew
64 million tons more than was consumed. The world's food stocks have
shrunk from enough to feed the world for 116 days in 1999 to a predicted
57 days at the end of this season, well below the official safety level.
Prices have already risen by up to 20 per cent this year.

The gathering crisis has been largely unnoticed because, for once, the
harvests have failed in rich countries such as the United States and
Australia, which normally export food, rather than in the world's
hungriest ones. So it has not immediately resulted in mass starvation in
Africa or Asia.

Instead, it will have a delayed effect as poor people become increasingly
unable to afford expensive food and find that there is not enough in store
to help them when their own crops fail.

The lack of world attention contrasts with the last great food crisis, in
the mid-1970s. Then Henry Kissinger - at the height of his powers as
Richard Nixon's Secretary of State - called a World Food Conference, in
which governments solemnly resolved that never again would they allow
humanity to run short of sustenance. The conference, in Rome, resolved
to eradicate hunger by the mid-1980s. Kissinger himself pledged that
"within a decade, no child should go hungry to bed".

Yet, a generation later, more than 800 million people worldwide are still
constantly hungry. Every day, some 16,000 young children die, at least
partly because they do not get enough food. And the new food crisis
threatens to be even worse than the last one. In the seven years running
up to the Rome conference grain production fell below consumption only
three times, compared to six now.

It was at the conference that I first met Lester Brown, who has, ever
since, been the principal prophet of the coming scarcity, repeatedly
warning of the new crisis which is now upon us.

Brown - who now heads the Earth Policy Institute, a respected
Washington-based think tank - gleaned his first insights into the world's
predicament as a tomato tycoon when he was a teenager. Back in the early
1950s, when he was just 14, he and his brother bought an old tractor for
$200 (£105), rented a couple of fields near their home in southern New
Jersey and started growing the vegetables after school.

Soon the brothers were among the top 1 per cent of tomato growers in the
United States. They easily qualified for the Ten-Ton Tomato Club - "the
Phi Beta Kappa of tomato growers" - which is open to those who harvested
that amount per acre.

Then Campbell's Soups, trying to lower costs, threw money into research to
increase yields. Within a few years, the club had to change its name to
the Twenty-Ton Tomato Club. But the pace of improvement could not be
sustained. Despite decades of more research growth of yields slowed
dramatically; by the mid- 1990s the best growers were getting about 30
tons of tomatoes per acre.

That, says Brown, is what has been happening to the world's harvests as a
whole. Between 1950 and 1990 grain yields more than doubled, but they
have grown much more slowly since. Production rose from around 630
million tons to 1.78 billion tons, but has only edged up in the past 15 years,
to around 2 billion tons.

"The near-tripling of the harvest by the world's farmers was a remarkable
performance," says Brown. "In a single generation they increased grain
production by twice as much as had been achieved during the preceding
11,000 years, since agriculture began. But now the world has suffered a
dramatic loss of momentum."

Apart from increasing yields, there has always been one other way of
boosting production - putting more land under the plough. But this, too,
has been running into the buffers. As population grows and farmland is
used for building roads and cities - and becomes exhausted by overuse -
the amount available for each person on Earth has fallen by more than
half.

There are more than five people on Earth today for every two living in the
middle of the last century. Yet enough is produced worldwide to feed
everyone well, if it is evenly distributed.

It is not just that people in rich countries eat too much, and those in
poor ones eat too little. Enormous quantities of the world's increasingly
scarce grain now goes to feed cows - and, indirectly, cars.

The cows are longstanding targets of Brown's, who founded the prestigious
Worldwatch Institute immediately after the 1974 conference, partly to draw
attention to the precariousness of food supplies. As people become
better-off, they eat more meat, the animals that are slaughtered often
being fed on grain. It takes 14kg of grain to produce 2kg of beef*, and 8kg
of grain for 2kg of pork. More than a third of the world's harvest goes to
fatten animals in this way. [*these figures do not include forage/pasture.]

Cars are a new concern, the worry arising from the present drive to
produce green fuels to fight global warming. A "corn rush" has erupted in
the United States, using the crop to produce the biofuel, ethanol -
strongly supported by subsidies from the Bush administration to divert
criticism of its failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Just a single fill of ethanol for a four-wheel drive SUV, says Brown, uses
enough grain to feed one person for an entire year. This year the amount
of US corn going to make the fuel will equal what it sells abroad;
traditionally its exports have helped feed 100 - mostly poor - countries.

From next year, the amount used to run American cars will exceed exports,
and soon it is likely to reduce what is available to help feed poor people
overseas. The number of ethanol plants built or planned in the corn-belt
state of Iowa will use virtually all the state's crop.

This will not only cut food supplies, but drive up the process of grain,
making hungry people compete with the owners of gas-guzzlers. Already
spending 70 per cent of their meagre incomes on food, they simply cannot
afford to do so.

Brown expects the food crisis to get much worse as more and more land
becomes exhausted, soil erodes, water becomes scarcer, and global warming
cuts harvests.

Making cars more fuel-efficient, and eating less meat would help but the
only long-term solution is to enable poor countries - and especially their
poorest people - to grow more food. And the best way to do that, studies
show, is to encourage small farmers to grow crops in environmentally
friendly ways. Research at Essex University shows that this can double
yields.

But the world needs a new sense of urgency. "We are living very close to
the edge," says Brown. "History judges leaders by whether they respond to
great issues. For our generation, the issue may well be food security."

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle1325467.ece

[opinion from E/The Environmental Magazine]

Al Gore's movie (and book), An Inconvenient Truth, is playing to
rave reviews. His laudable project is an urgent message on the vital
issue of global warming. We all must heed the call.

If we didn't realize it already, we now know that we are overheating
our planet to alarming levels with potentially catastrophic consequences.
2005 was the hottest year on record. Think of an overheated car;
now imagine that on a planetary scale.

Organizations from Greenpeace to the Union of Concerned Scientists,
World Bank and the Pentagon, all agree that global warming is, perhaps,
the most serious threat to our imperiled planet. The Pentagon report,
for example, states that climate change in the form of global warming
"should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national
security concern," higher even than terrorism.
....
Geophysicists Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin from the University of
Chicago concluded that changing one's eating habits from the Standard
American Diet (SAD) to a vegetarian diet does more to fight global
warming than switching from a gas-guzzling SUV to a fuel-efficient
hybrid car. Of course, you can do both - and more! It has been said
that "where the environment is concerned, eating meat is like driving a
huge SUV.... Eating a vegetarian diet is like driving a mid-sized car
[or a reasonable sedan, according to Eshel]. And eating a vegan diet
(no dairy, no eggs) is like riding a bicycle or walking. Shifting away
from SUVs and SUV-style diets, to much more energy-efficient
alternatives, is key to fighting the warming trend.

Global warming is already having grave effects on our planet and we
need to take action. Vegetarians help keep the planet cool in more
ways than one! Paul McCartney says, "If anyone wants to save the
planet, all they have to do is just stop eating meat. That's the single
most important thing you could do." Andrea Gordon, in her article
"If You Recycle, Why Are You Eating Meat?" agrees: "There is a
direct relationship between eating meat and the environment.
E Magazine asked the same question in its cover story, "So You're
an Environmentalist. Why Are You Still Eating Meat?" Quite simply,
you can't be a meat-eating environmentalist. Sorry folks."

Vegetarianism is literally about life and death - for each of us
individually and for all of us together. Eating animals simultaneously
contributes to a multitude of tragedies: the animals' suffering and
death; the ill-health and early death of people; the unsustainable
overuse of oil, water, land, topsoil, grain, labor and other vital
resources; environmental destruction, including deforestation,
species extinction, mono-cropping and global warming; the
legitimacy of force and violence; the mis-allocation of capital,
skills, land and other assets; vast inefficiencies in the economy;
tremendous waste; massive inequalities in the world; the
continuation of world hunger and mass starvation; the transmission
and spread of dangerous diseases; and moral failure in so-called
civilized societies. Vegetarianism is an antidote to all of these
unnecessary tragedies.
....
Global warming, as Al Gore so powerfully shows, is "an
inconvenient truth." The fact that the production of meat
significantly contributes to global warming is another
inconvenient truth. Now we know.

full story: http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3312

wrote in message
ups.com...

We got the best government money can buy. Lobbyists' influence must be
restricted before we can have true representative democracy but that is
another topic.

ah yes, ban the other lobbyists but don't ban ours, the old argument of the
anti democrat


Perhaps you just think that most people don't care

They would care if they knew what goes on inside factory farming and
slaughter houses. I wonder how many people would buy meat if some of
the photos and videos of animal abuse were displayed next to the meat
counters.

well they manage pretty well up to now.
Probably because people aren't as gullible as you seem to think, they know
that the law exists in this country even if you don't and they disregard the
claims of vested interests who live on the subscriptions of those gullible
enough to believe their propaganda

Jim Webster

"pearl" wrote in message
...


except that they are still eating more and more meat

Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you- 'profit'.

sure, and explain how I profit out of meat production in china?



And I hardly think the Chinese shopper who buys a live chicken and takes
it
home and wrings the neck of the animal themselves is going to worry about
whether it was killed in a heartless and industrialised fashion

These people are eating more meat, Chinese government planners are
ensuring
that they have the output to supply people what they want

Chinese planners are worried. You posted the following on 09 January,
(it's from: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35910 ).

exactly, and they are worried that they will not be able to provide them
with enough meat, so are making sure they can

they aren't worried about a long of whinging westerners, if they want a
bizarre ideology they already have one, they don't need yours

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...


except that they are still eating more and more meat

Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you- 'profit'.

sure, and explain how I profit out of meat production in china?

I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China.

'.. two-thirds of all soybeans and meal imported into the UK came
from Brazil, the primary source of non GM soy in the world.
...
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/PGE...ments.01.p df

'In Central and South America, ever-increasing amounts of land
are being used to grow soya beans and grain for export - to be
used as animal feed. In Brazil, 23 per cent of the cultivated land
is currently being used to produced soya beans, of which nearly
half are for export (13). The Oxfam Poverty Report explains that
the subsidised expansion of the EU's dairy and livestock industry
has created a huge demand for high protein animal feedstuffs and
that the demand has in part been met through the expansion of
large-scale, mechanised soya production in Brazil. Smallholder
producers of beans and staple foods in the southern part of the
country have been displaced to make way for giant soya estates.
Soya has now become the country's major agricultural export,
"however, it is a trading arrangement which had proved
considerably more efficient at feeding European cattle than
with maintaining the livelihoods of poor Brazilians." (16)
...'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm

And I hardly think the Chinese shopper who buys a live chicken and takes
it
home and wrings the neck of the animal themselves is going to worry about
whether it was killed in a heartless and industrialised fashion

These people are eating more meat, Chinese government planners are
ensuring
that they have the output to supply people what they want

Chinese planners are worried. You posted the following on 09 January,
(it's from: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35910 ).

exactly, and they are worried that they will not be able to provide them
with enough meat, so are making sure they can

By abandoning an alternative fuel, and increasing imports of grain?
Grain from where? See what you snipped. What you've ignored.

they aren't worried about a long of whinging westerners, if they want a
bizarre ideology they already have one, they don't need yours

What "bizarre ideology" do I have? A healthy diet? Food for all?
Recovering and thriving wildlife and ecosystems? Oh, excuse me!

"Derek Moody" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl
wrote:
"Jim Webster" wrote in message news:50m60pF1fu3
...

One instance. Your sort of business has put millions in an early grave.

Jim's sort of business has fed millions of people in cities who would
otherwise have gone hungry - or worse.

No. Jim's sort of business kills millions, both at home and abroad.

A colossal part of the Earth's land surface has been devoted to pasture,

Because a colossal part of the Earth's land surface will not grow any crop
suitable for human consumption.

The arable land currently being cultivated could comfortably feed the
entire human population, but much is used to feed livestock instead.

We've done this one to death many times Pearl (Lotus). Jim even offered you
the use of enough of his land to demonstrate your principles and show him,
and the rest of the farming community, where they were going wrong.

You declined then when you realised the impossibility of the task you had
set yourself

Hardly, (and are you sure you aren't confusing me with another?)

and so Jim has continued to graze that same land extensively
(look it up - Lotus, don't guess) and to convert its product into food.

There are many alternatives, I gave you all one not that long ago.

Consult google or one of the other usenet archives if your memory is faulty.

You do that. Meanwhile...

'In his 1583 text, Anatomy of Abuses, Stubbes wrote that previous
generations "fed upon graine, corne, roots, pulse, hearbes, weedes,
and such other baggage; and yet lived longer than we, were healthfuller
than we, of better complexion than we, and much stronger than we in
every respect." A century later, Macauley noted that, "meat was so
dear in price that hundreds of thousands of families scarcely knew
the taste of it," while half the population of England, "ate it not at all
or not more often than once a week."

Writing in the 1840s, Sylvester Graham observed: "The peasantry
of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy,
Switzerland, France, Spain, England, Scotland, Ireland, a
considerable portion of Russia and other parts of Europe subsist
mainly on non-flesh foods.
...
"The hardy Scotch have never been great meat eaters. In the remote
districts kailbrose, shredded greens and oatmeal over which hot water
is poured, is eaten with or without milk...According to Douglas,
writing in 1782, the diet of the Scotch of the East Coast was then
oatmeal and milk with vegetables. He says: 'Flesh is never seen in
the houses of the common farmers, except at a baptism, a wedding,
Christmas, or Shrovetide.'"
.....'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html