Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Hamish" wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... The Brazilians are under no obligation to reduce their standard of living for the privilege of selling us food. What have you got to sell them in exchange? As I have said a long while back the fundemental activities of food production, housing and defence have been underrewarded compared with the general employment market. The wages of plumbers, plasterers and brickies have risen over the last few years, the army has a severe recruitment problem and as you observe the foreighner is no longer a reliable supplier of cheap food. In any system the tendency is to move towards the average, we live substantualy above the world average. The industrial revolution brought us above the average, we are no longer a world industrial innovator. Buy your HD 42 inch home cinema TV, sitting at home in the dark is all we will be able to afford soon. yes, one thing that worries me is that 'banking' is going to see us through. UK citizen wanting to buy food Brazilian wondering if he needs to sell it Brazilian. What can you give me for this food UK We can supply you with banking Brazilian Banking? UK Yes, we have a large branch network, a few wizz kids in the city and a lot of call centres in India, and now Brazil Brazilian We have our own branch network, our own call centres, and if we need wizz kids then we'll pay them slightly more than you do and they can live in nice houses in a nice climate and not in your squalid cities with substandard schools and health service. Somehow I cannot imagine the Brazilians giving us food for banking Jim Webster |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...
"pearl" wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "pearl" wrote in message ... "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. and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent diet for the first time makes them a wealthy elite ".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy rates are higher ..." don't tell me, tell the Chinese, You asked me why eating meat makes them a wealthy elite. Clearly those in wealthier, more industrial counties can afford to buy meat. (They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the cost.) Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too. The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people. they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with them, so they have obviously decided to give the others a go 'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources. An extensive investigation of mortality rate trends in England and Wales in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries (McKeown and Record, 1955; McKeown and Record, 1962; McKeown et aL, 1975) indicates that the nineteenth century decline in mortality rates for the most prevalent infectious diseases was wholly attributable to environmental control, not to intervention with curative medicines and vaccines. ... In contrast with the communicable and infectious diseases affecting the rural poor, the more economically privileged urban sectors in these countries suffer from a rising prevalence of chronic degenerative diseases appropriately referred to as 'diseases of misdevelopment' by Dumont (1989) ...' http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china2.html "misdevelopment", jim. '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. exactly, because these people are determined to eat more meat. We're talking about -your- profits here, jimmy. exactly All those biofuel plants will produce all sorts of byproducts that make excellent animal food. I suppose we could turn maize gluten into kibble for vegetarians, but cattle love it. Why are those Chinese planners worried then, if that's the case? Obviously it will mean they have less to export to those whinging in Europe who cannot be bothered to grow their own food, but don't moan to me, go on line to the Latin American groups and moan at them You buy their produce. No, actually no, not in the last twelve months. You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of concentrate. Sadly for you, the meat-eating 'wealthy elite' now includes the massive majority of the people in these countries, and they are going to have their meat and you are the one who is going to have to pay more for your food. They now have three choices They can eat meat They can convert grain to fuel they can sell it to you at an increasingly expensive price "While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad." boy you are out of touch No, webster, you are. work it out on your fingers The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price at home to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef SOME Argentinians. 'The new poor Despite being considered the breadbasket of South America, recent national headlines have highlighted the plight of more than 200,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition in the impoverished province of Tucumán in the north. Yet, Argentina is the world's fifth largest exporter of agricultural products, including soybeans and lemons, which Tucumán produces in large quantities. Ironically the current economic crisis has made exporters wealthier as exports are priced in dollars and, despite export taxes, farmers are finding it more profitable to export than to sell to domestic markets. As a result, local food prices have soared, by over two-thirds in twelve months, and much of the food produced is now beyond the reach of the poor. Many Argentineans feel that the country has sunk as low as it can go with little prospect of recovery in the near future. 90% of Argentina's population live in and around urban areas and the poorest, a growing number of 'cartoneros', struggle to make a living. Their only option is to scavenge through the rubbish to sort out recyclable waste, as even this has increased in value since the collapse of the peso. ...' http://www.new-agri.co.uk/03-1/countryp.html As for Brazilians, their growth forecasts are that as their country develops the amount of meat eaten by the local population will increase as they get wealthier They will get wealthier because Brazil is self sufficient in food and converting a lot of it into energy to reduce its dependence on imported oil They also are developing a pretty good manufacturing industry. So their population is pretty well guaranteed enough to eat and enough fuel to shift the food. 'The developing world hasn't always been hungry. Early explorers of the 16th and 17th centuries often returned amazed at the huge amounts of food they saw there. In parts of Africa, for example, people always had three harvests in storage and no-one went hungry. The idea of buying and selling food was unheard of. ... It is common for people to be thrown off the land, often going to the towns where there is little other work. About 160,000 people move from rural areas to cities every day (5). Many migrants are forced to settle in shanty towns and squatter settlements. ... The sad irony is that the world produces more than enough plant food to meet the needs of all its six billion people. If people used land to grow crops to feed themselves, rather than feeding crops to animals, then there would be enough to provide everyone with the average of 2360 Kcal (calories) needed for good health (7). If everyone were to take 25 per cent of their calories from animal protein then the planet could sustain only three billion people (8). In simple, brutal terms, if we were all to imitate the average North American diet, we would only be able to feed half the world's population. ...' http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm Bottom line, jim. There simply aren't adequate resources to sustain your hideous nightmare. The destruction must stop. On the other hand, you have to explain exactly what you have to offer that means the Brazilians will sell food to you. Why should they worry about you and your need for soya? All these interesting imported protein sources beloved of many vegetarians are going to become awfully expensive So it is about time people woke up to the changing world and decided what they are going to do about it. The Brazilians are under no obligation to reduce their standard of living for the privilege of selling us food. What have you got to sell them in exchange? It is YOUR need for soya that is driving people off land and destroying rainforest, farmer jim. Profit before anything else. 'As the market responds to money and not to actual need, it can only work to eliminate hunger when purchasing power is widely dispersed, says the book. As the rural poor are increasingly pushed from land, they are less and less able to demand for food on the market. Promoting free trade to alleviate hunger has proven to be a failure. In most developing countries exports have boomed while hunger has continued unabated or actually worsened according to the book. "While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad." Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised countries has supported such free trade and free market policies. ...' http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Old Codger" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: 'In his 1583 text, Anatomy of Abuses, Stubbes wrote ... Didn't realise Stubbsy was that old. :-) Philip (Pamphleteer, Poet, active 1579-1593 in England, Britain, Europe), not George (English Romantic Painter, 1724-1806. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"pearl" wrote in message I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China. and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent diet for the first time makes them a wealthy elite ".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy rates are higher ..." don't tell me, tell the Chinese, You asked me why eating meat makes them a wealthy elite. Clearly those in wealthier, more industrial counties can afford to buy meat. yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they are buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well. (They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the cost.) Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too. The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people. yes, our industry is subsidised which allows the urban population to buy food at below the true cost of production. The biggest environmental damage agriculture does is support urban populations whose stinking cities fester across the land they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with them, so they have obviously decided to give the others a go 'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources. exactly, and the Chinese aren't worried about it, having tried all the diseases of poverty they are going to try the diseases of affluence, and leave the diseases of poverty to those whose countries cannot produce enough to eat, like for example, the UK exactly All those biofuel plants will produce all sorts of byproducts that make excellent animal food. I suppose we could turn maize gluten into kibble for vegetarians, but cattle love it. Why are those Chinese planners worried then, if that's the case? Because they might not be able to offer enough meat for a population demanding it Obviously it will mean they have less to export to those whinging in Europe who cannot be bothered to grow their own food, but don't moan to me, go on line to the Latin American groups and moan at them You buy their produce. No, actually no, not in the last twelve months. You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of concentrate. don't lecture me on cattle feed pearl. I don't buy concentrates, I buy straights, I know the country of origin of each ingredient. Sadly for you, the meat-eating 'wealthy elite' now includes the massive majority of the people in these countries, and they are going to have their meat and you are the one who is going to have to pay more for your food. They now have three choices They can eat meat They can convert grain to fuel they can sell it to you at an increasingly expensive price "While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad." boy you are out of touch No, webster, you are. I'm not the one trying to change Chinese and Brazilian food policy by posting to a UK group, now that is seriously out of touch work it out on your fingers The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price at home to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef SOME Argentinians. the vast majority, Argentina has a left of centre government 'The new poor Despite being considered the breadbasket of South America, recent national headlines have highlighted the plight of more than 200,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition in the impoverished province of Tucumán in the north. Yet, Argentina is the world's fifth largest exporter of agricultural products, including soybeans and lemons, easy done, we'll ban the import of argentinan soya Many Argentineans feel that the country has sunk as low as it can go with little prospect of recovery in the near future. 90% of Argentina's population live in and around urban areas and the poorest, a growing number of 'cartoneros', struggle to make a living. Their only option is to scavenge through the rubbish to sort out recyclable waste, as even this has increased in value since the collapse of the peso. ..' http://www.new-agri.co.uk/03-1/countryp.html get up to date pearl, that is 2003 data, the world is moving on faster than you can find web sites As for Brazilians, their growth forecasts are that as their country develops the amount of meat eaten by the local population will increase as they get wealthier They will get wealthier because Brazil is self sufficient in food and converting a lot of it into energy to reduce its dependence on imported oil They also are developing a pretty good manufacturing industry. So their population is pretty well guaranteed enough to eat and enough fuel to shift the food. 'The developing world hasn't always been hungry. Early explorers of the 16th and 17th centuries often returned amazed at the huge amounts of food they saw there. In parts of Africa, for example, people always had three harvests in storage and no-one went hungry. The idea of buying and selling food was unheard of. don't worry, they'll probably go back to it, which is a bit of a sod because you are one of the people dependent on imported food .. It is common for people to be thrown off the land, often going to the towns where there is little other work. About 160,000 people move from rural areas to cities every day (5). Many migrants are forced to settle in shanty towns and squatter settlements. .. The sad irony is that the world produces more than enough plant food to meet the needs of all its six billion people. If people used land to grow crops to feed themselves, rather than feeding crops to animals, then there would be enough to provide everyone with the average of 2360 Kcal (calories) needed for good health (7). If everyone were to take 25 per cent of their calories from animal protein then the planet could sustain only three billion people (8). In simple, brutal terms, if we were all to imitate the average North American diet, we would only be able to feed half the world's population. ..' http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm Bottom line, jim. There simply aren't adequate resources to sustain your hideous nightmare. The destruction must stop. not my nightmare kiddy, it is the real world, it is what is happening out there. They don';t give a damn about you because they are going to get through it, because they have the food and the fuel. You on the other hand are the one who is going to have to find a really convincing reason for them to sell you food. What have you got to offer that they cannot produce at home On the other hand, you have to explain exactly what you have to offer that means the Brazilians will sell food to you. Why should they worry about you and your need for soya? All these interesting imported protein sources beloved of many vegetarians are going to become awfully expensive So it is about time people woke up to the changing world and decided what they are going to do about it. The Brazilians are under no obligation to reduce their standard of living for the privilege of selling us food. What have you got to sell them in exchange? It is YOUR need for soya that is driving people off land and destroying rainforest, farmer jim. Profit before anything else. OK so what protein sources do you eat. remember that I know what is being fed to my cattle and there is no soya. At the moment they are all eating byproducts from food production that people cannot eat. So what protein sources do you eat and how are you going to convince people to sell them to you Jim Webster |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
pearl wrote:
"Old Codger" mailto ... pearl wrote: 'In his 1583 text, Anatomy of Abuses, Stubbes wrote ... Didn't realise Stubbsy was that old. :-) Philip (Pamphleteer, Poet, active 1579-1593 in England, Britain, Europe), not George (English Romantic Painter, 1724-1806. Obviously, since the text you quoted was dated 1583. -- Old Codger e-mail use reply to field What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003] |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...
"pearl" wrote in message I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China. and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent diet for the first time makes them a wealthy elite ".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy rates are higher ..." don't tell me, tell the Chinese, You asked me why eating meat makes them a wealthy elite. Clearly those in wealthier, more industrial counties can afford to buy meat. yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they are buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well. Some are, and they will pay the inevitable price. (They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the cost.) Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too. The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people. yes, our industry is subsidised which allows the urban population to buy food at below the true cost of production. The biggest environmental damage agriculture does is support urban populations whose stinking cities fester across the land Who ultimately pays for those subsidies? People crowded in urban areas because of your stinking livestock farms festering across ~70% of the land. It is not only in "developing" countries where people have been forced off land by greedy cattle barons who raze/d everything in their way for meat. they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with them, so they have obviously decided to give the others a go 'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources. exactly, and the Chinese aren't worried about it, having tried all the diseases of poverty they are going to try the diseases of affluence, Where's all the extra arable land, pasture and grain to come from? and leave the diseases of poverty to those whose countries cannot produce enough to eat, like for example, the UK To eat meat, even though.. 'Over 70 per cent of the land in the UK is used for agriculture, and 66 per cent of this is used as permanent pasture (1) while a high proportion of the remainder is used to grow crops to feed livestock. ...' http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm exactly All those biofuel plants will produce all sorts of byproducts that make excellent animal food. I suppose we could turn maize gluten into kibble for vegetarians, but cattle love it. Why are those Chinese planners worried then, if that's the case? Because they might not be able to offer enough meat for a population demanding it Bingo. Obviously it will mean they have less to export to those whinging in Europe who cannot be bothered to grow their own food, but don't moan to me, go on line to the Latin American groups and moan at them You buy their produce. No, actually no, not in the last twelve months. You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of concentrate. don't lecture me on cattle feed pearl. I don't buy concentrates, I buy straights, I know the country of origin of each ingredient. Where's your soya meal from? Sadly for you, the meat-eating 'wealthy elite' now includes the massive majority of the people in these countries, and they are going to have their meat and you are the one who is going to have to pay more for your food. They now have three choices They can eat meat They can convert grain to fuel they can sell it to you at an increasingly expensive price "While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad." boy you are out of touch No, webster, you are. I'm not the one trying to change Chinese and Brazilian food policy by posting to a UK group, now that is seriously out of touch Where do your subscribers import soya meal from? work it out on your fingers The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price at home to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef SOME Argentinians. the vast majority, Argentina has a left of centre government Support your claim of "the vast majority". 'The new poor Despite being considered the breadbasket of South America, recent national headlines have highlighted the plight of more than 200,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition in the impoverished province of Tucumán in the north. Yet, Argentina is the world's fifth largest exporter of agricultural products, including soybeans and lemons, easy done, we'll ban the import of argentinan soya Brazil .. Argentina. Where is your soya meal imported from? Many Argentineans feel that the country has sunk as low as it can go with little prospect of recovery in the near future. 90% of Argentina's population live in and around urban areas and the poorest, a growing number of 'cartoneros', struggle to make a living. Their only option is to scavenge through the rubbish to sort out recyclable waste, as even this has increased in value since the collapse of the peso. ..' http://www.new-agri.co.uk/03-1/countryp.html get up to date pearl, that is 2003 data, the world is moving on faster than you can find web sites Update us. As for Brazilians, their growth forecasts are that as their country develops the amount of meat eaten by the local population will increase as they get wealthier They will get wealthier because Brazil is self sufficient in food and converting a lot of it into energy to reduce its dependence on imported oil They also are developing a pretty good manufacturing industry. So their population is pretty well guaranteed enough to eat and enough fuel to shift the food. 'The developing world hasn't always been hungry. Early explorers of the 16th and 17th centuries often returned amazed at the huge amounts of food they saw there. In parts of Africa, for example, people always had three harvests in storage and no-one went hungry. The idea of buying and selling food was unheard of. don't worry, they'll probably go back to it, which is a bit of a sod because you are one of the people dependent on imported food They can't go back to it, as their land is used to meet your demands. .. It is common for people to be thrown off the land, often going to the towns where there is little other work. About 160,000 people move from rural areas to cities every day (5). Many migrants are forced to settle in shanty towns and squatter settlements. .. The sad irony is that the world produces more than enough plant food to meet the needs of all its six billion people. If people used land to grow crops to feed themselves, rather than feeding crops to animals, then there would be enough to provide everyone with the average of 2360 Kcal (calories) needed for good health (7). If everyone were to take 25 per cent of their calories from animal protein then the planet could sustain only three billion people (8). In simple, brutal terms, if we were all to imitate the average North American diet, we would only be able to feed half the world's population. ..' http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm Bottom line, jim. There simply aren't adequate resources to sustain your hideous nightmare. The destruction must stop. not my nightmare kiddy, it is the real world, it is what is happening out there. They don';t give a damn about you because they are going to get through it, because they have the food and the fuel. Many don't, kidder. Those poor you don't give a damn about because you make money - as the nightmare for them goes on in the real world - unlike your fantasy-land 'hamburgers for all'. You on the other hand are the one who is going to have to find a really convincing reason for them to sell you food. What have you got to offer that they cannot produce at home They're selling you feed even though people are starving. They do it for money. Just like you. All else be damned. On the other hand, you have to explain exactly what you have to offer that means the Brazilians will sell food to you. Why should they worry about you and your need for soya? All these interesting imported protein sources beloved of many vegetarians are going to become awfully expensive So it is about time people woke up to the changing world and decided what they are going to do about it. The Brazilians are under no obligation to reduce their standard of living for the privilege of selling us food. What have you got to sell them in exchange? It is YOUR need for soya that is driving people off land and destroying rainforest, farmer jim. Profit before anything else. OK so what protein sources do you eat. It is not feeding people that's a problem. It's feeding livestock. remember that I know what is being fed to my cattle and there is no soya. At the moment they are all eating byproducts from food production that people cannot eat. BS. So what protein sources do you eat and how are you going to convince people to sell them to you Jim Webster |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"pearl" wrote in message ... yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they are buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well. Some are, and they will pay the inevitable price. no you will pay the price, because you are the one who will not be able to buy food and fuel because they are using it (They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the cost.) Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too. The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people. yes, our industry is subsidised which allows the urban population to buy food at below the true cost of production. The biggest environmental damage agriculture does is support urban populations whose stinking cities fester across the land Who ultimately pays for those subsidies? People crowded in urban areas because of your stinking livestock farms festering across ~70% of the land. It is not only in "developing" countries where people have been forced off land by greedy cattle barons who raze/d everything in their way for meat. yep. let the people back on the land, it worked so well in Zimbabwe Indeed let the government run the land. After all under Socialism the Russia imported grain, it was desperate for it, now under private ownership Russia and the Ukraine are major grain exporters. Yep, let the greedy barons farm, at least they actually produce food they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with them, so they have obviously decided to give the others a go 'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources. exactly, and the Chinese aren't worried about it, having tried all the diseases of poverty they are going to try the diseases of affluence, Where's all the extra arable land, pasture and grain to come from? that is your problem, the Brazilians have plenty to feed and fuel themselves, it is you that is going to go short. The chinese are worried, but they do have a big GM programme and plans to build 48 nuclear power stations which should cut their oil and coal use and leave the diseases of poverty to those whose countries cannot produce enough to eat, like for example, the UK To eat meat, even though.. 'Over 70 per cent of the land in the UK is used for agriculture, and 66 per cent of this is used as permanent pasture (1) while a high proportion of the remainder is used to grow crops to feed livestock. already discussed this earlier in the thread. You cannot grow crops on land that has been converted into flood storage because too many people live on the flood plain, you cannot grow crops on land that washes away if you plough it because of the slope, you cannot grow crops on the land in the north of scotland because the rock or bog is too cloe to the surface. remember they have said the UK, so they include the Scottish highlands and the welsh mountains, look at a map and see how big an area that is ..' http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm exactly All those biofuel plants will produce all sorts of byproducts that make excellent animal food. I suppose we could turn maize gluten into kibble for vegetarians, but cattle love it. Why are those Chinese planners worried then, if that's the case? Because they might not be able to offer enough meat for a population demanding it Bingo. yep. And the Chinese government is interested in what the Chinese population wants, it doesn't give a damn what you want Obviously it will mean they have less to export to those whinging in Europe who cannot be bothered to grow their own food, but don't moan to me, go on line to the Latin American groups and moan at them You buy their produce. No, actually no, not in the last twelve months. You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of concentrate. don't lecture me on cattle feed pearl. I don't buy concentrates, I buy straights, I know the country of origin of each ingredient. Where's your soya meal from? duh don't feed soya Sadly for you, the meat-eating 'wealthy elite' now includes the massive majority of the people in these countries, and they are going to have their meat and you are the one who is going to have to pay more for your food. They now have three choices They can eat meat They can convert grain to fuel they can sell it to you at an increasingly expensive price "While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad." boy you are out of touch No, webster, you are. I'm not the one trying to change Chinese and Brazilian food policy by posting to a UK group, now that is seriously out of touch Where do your subscribers import soya meal from? anywhere that produces it cheap, but remember rape meal and maize gluten, both food industry and biofuel byproducts are the important sources of protein. Soya will be more for pigs and poultry. work it out on your fingers The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price at home to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef SOME Argentinians. the vast majority, Argentina has a left of centre government Support your claim of "the vast majority". look at the election results 'The new poor Despite being considered the breadbasket of South America, recent national headlines have highlighted the plight of more than 200,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition in the impoverished province of Tucumán in the north. Yet, Argentina is the world's fifth largest exporter of agricultural products, including soybeans and lemons, easy done, we'll ban the import of argentinan soya Brazil .. Argentina. Where is your soya meal imported from? see above Many Argentineans feel that the country has sunk as low as it can go with little prospect of recovery in the near future. 90% of Argentina's population live in and around urban areas and the poorest, a growing number of 'cartoneros', struggle to make a living. Their only option is to scavenge through the rubbish to sort out recyclable waste, as even this has increased in value since the collapse of the peso. ..' http://www.new-agri.co.uk/03-1/countryp.html get up to date pearl, that is 2003 data, the world is moving on faster than you can find web sites Update us. already have As for Brazilians, their growth forecasts are that as their country develops the amount of meat eaten by the local population will increase as they get wealthier They will get wealthier because Brazil is self sufficient in food and converting a lot of it into energy to reduce its dependence on imported oil They also are developing a pretty good manufacturing industry. So their population is pretty well guaranteed enough to eat and enough fuel to shift the food. 'The developing world hasn't always been hungry. Early explorers of the 16th and 17th centuries often returned amazed at the huge amounts of food they saw there. In parts of Africa, for example, people always had three harvests in storage and no-one went hungry. The idea of buying and selling food was unheard of. don't worry, they'll probably go back to it, which is a bit of a sod because you are one of the people dependent on imported food They can't go back to it, as their land is used to meet your demands. tough isn't it You don't fancy a sod busting life as a subsistance peasant and the world cannot see a reason to sell you food. not my nightmare kiddy, it is the real world, it is what is happening out there. They don';t give a damn about you because they are going to get through it, because they have the food and the fuel. Many don't, kidder. Those poor you don't give a damn about because you make money - as the nightmare for them goes on in the real world - unlike your fantasy-land 'hamburgers for all'. You on the other hand are the one who is going to have to find a really convincing reason for them to sell you food. What have you got to offer that they cannot produce at home They're selling you feed even though people are starving. They do it for money. Just like you. All else be damned. you still haven't grasped it have you. Even if you plough everything in the UK that will plough, and to hell with flooding and massive soil loss through erosian, there still isn't the land to produce the food, even if we are entirely vegetarian. Remember you have lost half the land to biofuel anyway And you still haven't said why the Brazilians should take food out of their peoples mouths to give it to you On the other hand, you have to explain exactly what you have to offer that means the Brazilians will sell food to you. Why should they worry about you and your need for soya? All these interesting imported protein sources beloved of many vegetarians are going to become awfully expensive So it is about time people woke up to the changing world and decided what they are going to do about it. The Brazilians are under no obligation to reduce their standard of living for the privilege of selling us food. What have you got to sell them in exchange? It is YOUR need for soya that is driving people off land and destroying rainforest, farmer jim. Profit before anything else. OK so what protein sources do you eat. It is not feeding people that's a problem. It's feeding livestock. You never will answer this question will you, what protein sources do you eat remember that I know what is being fed to my cattle and there is no soya. At the moment they are all eating byproducts from food production that people cannot eat. BS. sorry if it doesn't fit in with your bigotted preconceptions but beef cattle do fine on grass silage, maize gluten and busicit meal, the last a confectionary waste product So what protein sources do you eat and how are you going to convince people to sell them to you two questions you seem unable to answer Jim Webster |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
Jim Webster wrote:
"pearl" wrote in message ... yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they are buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well. Some are, and they will pay the inevitable price. no you will pay the price, because you are the one who will not be able to buy food and fuel because they are using it Ever wonder if the Chinese Communists who can afford your meat produced by cruel factory farming methods pay for your product with the money they get from selling the organs of their political dissidents? Do you care? |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
wrote in message oups.com... Jim Webster wrote: "pearl" wrote in message ... yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they are buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well. Some are, and they will pay the inevitable price. no you will pay the price, because you are the one who will not be able to buy food and fuel because they are using it Ever wonder if the Chinese Communists who can afford your meat produced by cruel factory farming methods pay for your product with the money they get from selling the organs of their political dissidents? Do you care? chinese do not import meat, certainly not from Europe, they can produce it cheaper They do import huge quantities of soya But the Chinese, like the Brazilians aim to be self sufficient in food and energy, and the question you have to ask is as the UK obviously cannot be, what are you doing to ensure you have something these countries want so that they will sell you the food and energy you need. Why should they sustain you in a standard of living higher than their own populations? why should they pay you more than their own people will do it for? Jim Webster |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...
"pearl" wrote in message ... yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they are buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well. Some are, and they will pay the inevitable price. no Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S. A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake- biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted. There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates. ' you will pay the price, because you are the one who will not be able to buy food and fuel because they are using it Assuming that "I" required food from China, which we don't, what you are actually acknowledging here, is that an increase in the consumption of meat in China would take away an essential component of the world's human population's diet. Way to go! (They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the cost.) Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too. The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people. yes, our industry is subsidised which allows the urban population to buy food at below the true cost of production. The biggest environmental damage agriculture does is support urban populations whose stinking cities fester across the land Who ultimately pays for those subsidies? People crowded in urban areas because of your stinking livestock farms festering across ~70% of the land. It is not only in "developing" countries where people have been forced off land by greedy cattle barons who raze/d everything in their way for meat. yep. let the people back on the land, it worked so well in Zimbabwe 'The biggest disaster to have hit Zimbabwe is the IMF/WORLD BANK sponsored structural adjustment program critically implemented at the beginning of 1990. This was at a time when the country was suffocating from the debts partly accrued by the Smith regime [the last white government] to repress the liberation struggle and some accrued after independence. The above mentioned financial institutions had leverage as is the situation with most developing countries to compel countries to implement structural adjustment on the discredited pretext that it's the way to develop economically . With the SAPs public services were hit hard. Expenditure on medical staff and drugs was cut significantly. Education budgets were slashed. Exorbitant fees were introduced for all secondary schools and colleges which were previously free. This whole new dispensation brought the greatest disadvantage to the most vulnerable. State subsidies on food and price controls were removed and people started starving. The country sank deeper and deeper into debt as the structural adjustment program depended on huge borrowings. By 1997 the country was now spending seven times more on debt-servicing than on education and health. - Interview with John Bomba, a leading democracy activist in Zimbabwe. http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html Indeed let the government run the land. After all under Socialism the Russia imported grain, it was desperate for it, now under private ownership Russia and the Ukraine are major grain exporters. 'The IMF has helped foster a severe depression in Russia Russia in the 1990s has witnessed a peacetime economic contraction of unprecedented scale. Many believe much of the blame for the social and economic catastrophe rests with the IMF, which has had a central role in designing and supervising Russia's economic policy since 1992. The number of Russians in poverty has risen from 2 million to 60 million since the IMF came to post-Communist Russia. Male life expectancy has dropped sharply from 65 years to 57. Economic output is down by at least 40 percent. The IMF's shock therapy - sudden and intense structural adjustment - helped bring about this disaster "In retrospect, its hard to see what could have been done wrong that wasn't," Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research told a Congressional committee in late 1998. "First there was an immediate de-control of prices. Given the monopoly structure of the economy, as well as the large amount of cash savings accumulated by Russian households, inflation soared 520 percent in the first three months. Millions of people saw their savings and pensions reduced to crumbs." "Then the IMF and Russian policymakers compounded their mistakes," Weisbrot explained. "In order to push inflation down, the authorities slammed on the monetary and fiscal brakes, bringing about a depression. Privatization was carried out in a way that enriched a small class of people, while the average persons income fell by about half within four years." Meanwhile, Russia kept its economy functioning with an influx of foreign funds, lent at astronomically high interest rates because of the strong possibility of default. In 1998, with the Asian crisis still unfolding and with Russian default seemingly near, the IMF agreed to a $23 billion loan package to Russia, seeking to maintain the rubles overvalued exchange rate. An initial $4.8 billion portion of the loan left the country immediately [...] some used to pay off foreign lenders, much of it stolen by Russian politicians. - IMF versus Russia by Vladimir Shestakov. http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html Yep, let the greedy barons farm, at least they actually produce food 'The often heard comment (one I once accepted as fact) that "there are too many people in the world, and overpopulation is the cause of hunger", can be compared to the same myth that expounded sixteenth-century England and revived continuously since. Through repeated acts of enclosure the peasants were pushed off the land so that the gentry could make money raising wool for the new and highly productive power looms. They could not do this if the peasants were to retain their historic *entitlement* [emphasis is original] to a share of production from the land. Massive starvation was the inevitable result of this expropriation. There were serious discussions in learned circles about overpopulation as the cause of this poverty. This was the accepted reason because a social and intellectual elite were doing the rationalizing. It was they who controlled the educational institutions which studied the problem. Naturally the final conclusions (at least those published) absolved the wealthy of any responsibility for the plight of the poor. The absurdity of suggesting that England was then overpopulated is clear when we realize that "the total population of England in the sixteenth century was less than in any one of several present-day English cities." The hunger in underdeveloped countries today is equally tragic and absurd. Their European colonizers understood well that ownership of land gave the owner control over what society produced. The most powerful simply redistributed the valuable land titles to themselves, eradicating millennia-old traditions of common use. Since custom is a form of ownership, the shared use of land could not be permitted. If ever reestablished, this ancient practice would reduce the rights of these new owners. For this reason, much of the land went unused or underused until the owners could do so profitably. This is the pattern of land use that characterizes most Third World countries today, and it is this that generates hunger in the world. These conquered people are kept in a state of relative impoverishment. Permitting them any substantial share of the wealth would negate the historic reason for conquest - namely plunder. The ongoing role of Third World countries is to be the supplier of cheap and plentiful raw materials and agricultural products to the developed world. Nature's wealth was, and is, being controlled to fulfill the needs of the world's affluent people. The U.S. is one of the prime beneficiaries of this well- established system. Our great universities search diligently for "the answer" to the problem of poverty and hunger. They invariably find it in "lack of motivation, inadequate or no education," or some other self-serving excuse. They look at everything except the cause - the powerful own the world's social wealth. As a major beneficiary, we have much to gain by perpetuating the myths of overpopulations, cultural and racial inferiority, and so forth. The real causes must be kept from ourselves, as how else can this systematic damaging of others be squared with what we are taught about democracy, rights, freedom, and justice? - J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth: the political economy of waste, (New World's Press, 1989), pp. 44, 45. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...ger/Causes.asp they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with them, so they have obviously decided to give the others a go 'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources. exactly, and the Chinese aren't worried about it, having tried all the diseases of poverty they are going to try the diseases of affluence, Where's all the extra arable land, pasture and grain to come from? that is your problem, No. It is a question that you unsurprisingly cannot answer. the Brazilians have plenty to feed and fuel themselves, it is you that is going to go short. Assuming that "I" required food from Brazil, which we don't, what you are actually acknowledging here, is that an increase in the consumption of meat in Brazil would take away an essential component of the world's human population's diet. Way to go. The chinese are worried, but they do have a big GM programme A big GM programme, eh. 'Almost all Argentine soya is GE, and the country is determined to produce GE soya to feed pigs, cows and chickens in the developed world. Meanwhile the environment and thousands of families are suffering the consequences of the GE soya agriculture. Families are actually being violently forced to leave their lands so that GE soya can be planted, or suffering from glyphosate contamination not to mention their crops. I have witnessed this myself in places like Colonia Loma Senes, Formosa, in the north region of the country, where people have lost their crops because the glyphosate chemicals sprayed over GE soya fields right next to their farms contaminated them. At this very moment, GE soya production in Argentina has no limits. Land is being converted into GE soya monoculture, including the remains of our native forests, which provide the food and homes of many of our communities. All of this is being lost forever. We didn't want the GE industry to grow their crops in the first place. We don't want GE soya to contaminate the entire world food supply. We don't want to see our biodiversity and natural resources, which are the real basis of our own survival, destroyed by an agricultural industry that has more to do with mining than farming. ...' http://weblog.greenpeace.org/ge/archives/001374.html All this worry, misery, trouble and strife... _for what_?? and plans to build 48 nuclear power stations which should cut their oil and coal use Too bad. 'SA solar research eclipses rest of the world Willem Steenkamp February 11 2006 at 12:50PM In a scientific breakthrough that has stunned the world, a team of South African scientists has developed a revolutionary new, highly efficient solar power technology that will enable homes to obtain all their electricity from the sun. This means high electricity bills and frequent power failures could soon be a thing of the past. The unique South African-developed solar panels will make it possible for houses to become completely self-sufficient for energy supplies. The panels are able to generate enough energy to run stoves, geysers, lights, TVs, fridges, computers - in short all the mod-cons of the modern house. Nothing else comes close to the effectiveness of the SA invention The new technology should be available in South Africa within a year and through a special converter, energy can be fed directly into the wiring of existing houses. New powerful storage units will allow energy storage to meet demands even in winter. The panels are so efficient they can operate through a Cape Town winter. while direct sunlight is ideal for high-energy generation, other daytime light also generates energy via the panels. ....' http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...0132138C184427 I'm sure there are some other alternatives around too. and leave the diseases of poverty to those whose countries cannot produce enough to eat, like for example, the UK To eat meat, even though.. 'Over 70 per cent of the land in the UK is used for agriculture, and 66 per cent of this is used as permanent pasture (1) while a high proportion of the remainder is used to grow crops to feed livestock. already discussed this earlier in the thread. You cannot grow crops on land that has been converted into flood storage because too many people live on the flood plain, you cannot grow crops on land that washes away if you plough it because of the slope, you cannot grow crops on the land in the north of scotland because the rock or bog is too cloe to the surface. remember they have said the UK, so they include the Scottish highlands and the welsh mountains, look at a map and see how big an area that is You cannot grow crops on 'pastureland' or on the land being used to grow feed crops. Free up that land, and there's plenty to go around. ..' http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm exactly All those biofuel plants will produce all sorts of byproducts that make excellent animal food. I suppose we could turn maize gluten into kibble for vegetarians, but cattle love it. Why are those Chinese planners worried then, if that's the case? Because they might not be able to offer enough meat for a population demanding it Bingo. yep. And the Chinese government is interested in what the Chinese population wants, it doesn't give a damn what you want It's the same sad self-serving story as elsewhere. 'The process of agricultural liberalization has had a high human cost. We examine trends in rural and urban poverty, and Chinese agricultural output to tell a story that is rarely told outside China. While we often hear about cheap and abundant labor in China, we less often hear about appalling conditions under which these workers labor. Less often yet do we stop to ask the provenance of these laborers - too easily is it assumed that the people in the largest country on earth were merely waiting for the opportunity to work in low-tech manufacturing industry. Yet the origins of this large labor force is in the countryside. The transformation of the agricultural peasantry into a rural and urban labor force has been one of the most rapid and large-scale in human history, effectively beginning in 1978. This paper examines this process of agricultural transformation, and the continuing difficulties that those who once worked on the land now face. ... The period immediately prior to China's WTO accession saw a decisive policy shift in favor of less government intervention in agriculture and, with it, a consolidation of a shift in power to an urban elite largely unconcerned either with agricultural issues or with the rural communities dependent on agriculture. While grain trading was partially deregulated, the government removed itself completely from management of "non-strategic" agricultural products such as vegetables, fruits, seafood and livestock. With sales from producers' surplus grain added in, the share of retail agricultural commodities sold at market prices increased from 4% in 1978 to 83% in 1999 with the lion's share of reductions in subsidies and price supports occurring in the late 1990s and thereafter. In addition to a steep drop in soybean import tariffs, the government also eliminated protective prices for certain "unmarketable" varieties of rice and wheat at the beginning of 2000. In 2001, markets in the principal grain-consuming coastal regions were liberalized. To the extent that they increased the real incomes of those in rural areas, these policies are to be commended. But it is not clear that the benefits of increased incomes are going to China's small-scale farmers. Consonant with the policies of a country pursuing an agenda of market liberalization, the Chinese government now emphasizes the development of local comparative advantage, encouraging coastal areas to decrease grain production and invest in technology, high-value horticulture and fish, increasing capitalization and scale of farming, while reducing labor requirements. In addition, strict new regulations on health and quality to put China on par with international standards, as well as talk among Party officials of more competitive agro-industries that would "organize tens of thousands of farmers in massive production", make it clear that the government intends to reshape agriculture in the 21st century along export-oriented agri-business lines. In other words, the economic players who increasingly profit from this liberalization are large corporations, not traditional farmers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that U.S. farm exports to China will rise $2 billion per year over the current average. Using several different scenarios, scholars suggest that grain imports will increase anywhere from 160% to 200% after the 5-year WTO transition period ends. As imports surge, a reduction in producer prices and supply will be almost inevitable. Estimates suggest that the rise in imports will reduce domestic production of bulk commodities between 2.5% and 7.7%. Though this is a relatively small percentage, it represents a large loss to peasant families, particularly those who depend most heavily on agriculture. Besides being more affected by heavier agricultural competition, households that are more reliant on farm income also tend to be poorer in general. For these people, who number about 311.5 million, a few yuan lost to a small surge in imports could mean the difference between getting by and starvation. In 2000, the rural per-capita income was 2253 yuan after taxes, while average living expenditure was 1670 yuan, leaving just 583 yuan in disposable income (compared to an urban disposable income of 1282 yuan, or more than double). Those figures include wealthier farming households and non-farming households in addition to poor agricultural households, so we can safely assume that disposable income is even less for the latter group. Faced with declining income, poor peasant households may give up farming altogether and search for non-agricultural employment, as many millions already have. They are likely, however, to encounter a number of barriers along the way. One immediate consequence of migration is that families lose a form of social security when they leave the land. It provides basic subsistence and at least some guaranteed income, and many families stay on their land hoping that the government may eventually grant them formal landownership. The land also cannot be sold, only subcontracted, so farmers would not even have the necessary collateral to buy an urban residence. Rural migrants also lack access to the same social entitlements that urban residents enjoy -- such as subsidized food, health care, education and housing -- thanks to the continuing rigidity of the hukou system and local regulations in many cities. Subtract rural family support networks as well, and the opportunity cost in terms of social security poses a major hurdle to off-farm migration. More than 25.5 million state enterprise workers were laid off between 1998 and 2001 alone, following Zhu Rongji's public promise to solve the problem of declining state enterprise profitability in three years. More than mere statistics, the results are evident in labor protests and complaints that have become increasingly commonplace and, in the cases of some public immolations, spectacularly desperate. Between January and June of 1999, 55,244 labor disputes involving a total of more than 230,000 workers were reported, up from just 7,905 disputes in 1994. In one instance, layoffs at PetroChina, located in Heilongjiang province and among the country's largest state owned enterprises, led to one of the biggest protests in years as roughly 50,000 unemployed workers protested for almost two consecutive weeks in spring of 2002. The layoffs were enacted, in part, under investor pressure to boost productivity in order to remain competitive after joining the WTO. In April of 2002, it announced a predicted trebling of unemployment in the next four years; a result, according to the State Council, of China's post-WTO restructuring. If this prediction is born out, the result will be a virtually unbroken rise in unemployment since approximately 1993. The longer term future for Chinese agriculture is uncertain. Clearly, those destined to feel the affects most acutely are those in already vulnerable positions. They are faced with difficult choices, either to exploit themselves further in rural areas, or to migrate to urban areas, where jobs are increasingly scarce. The Chinese government has, however, felt able to reverse its policies when faced with overwhelming evidence of social harm. Membership of the WTO makes this considerably harder to do in agriculture, at least in the short term. Yet, with increasing levels of social protest, and increasing evidence of the failure of urban-growth policies, and with a newfound voice at the WTO, there is some small hope that the Chinese government may yet intervene to support the livelihoods of the largest sector of its population. The appointment of President Hu Jintao to succeed Jiang Zemin earlier in 2003 may yet signal a sea-change in Chinese multilateral economic policy. China's recent membership of the G21 group of countries, who opposed the joint EU/U.S. proposals on agriculture with their demands that the EU and U.S. slash their effective farm export subsidies at the WTO's Cancún Ministerial, suggests that China is finding a voice on the international stage. Such a position bends slightly away from the post-1978 pro-market trajectory, but given that the G21's agricultural policies remain export oriented, differing from the EU and U.S. only in terms of who should open markets and reduce subsidies first, we may yet want to be suspicious of the governments commitment to its rural communities. ...' http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policy/pb9.html Obviously it will mean they have less to export to those whinging in Europe who cannot be bothered to grow their own food, but don't moan to me, go on line to the Latin American groups and moan at them You buy their produce. No, actually no, not in the last twelve months. You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of concentrate. don't lecture me on cattle feed pearl. I don't buy concentrates, I buy straights, I know the country of origin of each ingredient. Where's your soya meal from? duh don't feed soya I don't believe you. Sadly for you, the meat-eating 'wealthy elite' now includes the massive majority of the people in these countries, and they are going to have their meat and you are the one who is going to have to pay more for your food. They now have three choices They can eat meat They can convert grain to fuel they can sell it to you at an increasingly expensive price "While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad." boy you are out of touch No, webster, you are. I'm not the one trying to change Chinese and Brazilian food policy by posting to a UK group, now that is seriously out of touch Where do your subscribers import soya meal from? anywhere that produces it cheap, Two thirds of it comes from Brazil. but remember rape meal and maize gluten, both food industry and biofuel byproducts are the important sources of protein. Soya will be more for pigs and poultry. Clearly not enough. 389,740 tonnes of soya for the dairy sector alone. (http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/PGE...ments.01.p df) work it out on your fingers The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price at home to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef SOME Argentinians. the vast majority, Argentina has a left of centre government Support your claim of "the vast majority". look at the election results How will that tell us what the level of poverty in Argentina is, jim? 'The new poor Despite being considered the breadbasket of South America, recent national headlines have highlighted the plight of more than 200,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition in the impoverished province of Tucumán in the north. Yet, Argentina is the world's fifth largest exporter of agricultural products, including soybeans and lemons, easy done, we'll ban the import of argentinan soya Brazil .. Argentina. Where is your soya meal imported from? see above Uhuh. Many Argentineans feel that the country has sunk as low as it can go with little prospect of recovery in the near future. 90% of Argentina's population live in and around urban areas and the poorest, a growing number of 'cartoneros', struggle to make a living. Their only option is to scavenge through the rubbish to sort out recyclable waste, as even this has increased in value since the collapse of the peso. ..' http://www.new-agri.co.uk/03-1/countryp.html get up to date pearl, that is 2003 data, the world is moving on faster than you can find web sites Update us. already have An additional $100 million for a population of 38 million? That'll make it all better, will it? Band-Aid on gangrene. 'Argentina Soya-fication Brings serious environmental, social and economic problems by Alberto Lapolla July 23, 2006 .... A fifth aspect of the problem is that the system produces a massive loss of labour : four of every 5 real jobs disappear as a result of the difference in operative time per person per hectare between the traditional system and the direct sowing system since the direct sowing-RR soya system requires just one operative for every 500 hectares. A sixth aspect linked to the previous one is the destruction of small businesses. Gardens, wild fruit gathering, bee keeping, native and artificial grasses and herbs or other cultivation, every kind of plant is destroyed near the flight paths or other applications of glyphosate as a result of drift, since it is a total herbicide. Nor is RR soya profitable on extensions of less than 300, 350 or 500 hectares depending on the region, which means that small and medium farmers have to lease their land or sell it. A seventh aspect is the "legal" robbery of ancestral land and the expulsion of people from the countryside. The direct sowing-RR soya-glyphosate system makes possible soya-fodder production in regions and places where before agriculture was not possible; so ancestral communities or those of limited means who got by on their lands from family production and gathering wild fruits are expelled by the mafia-like conspiracy of provincial and communal authorities, gangster-like legal studies and investment funds in the service of international financial capital. They take over enormous extensions of land that some estimates put at 35 million hectares in foreign hands. This clearly illegitimate development, doing away with rights written into the national constitution but not implemented, is bringing violence to the countryside. This series of factors entails misery, expulsion and destruction of family production together with the enrichment of a tiny section of the population - the country's whole rural population is not even 10% of the national total - seen in four wheel drive SUVs, high cost imported machinery, the construction of mansions and luxury expenses of every kind as well as scarcely legal deals in the majority of the communities caught up in the soya "business". All that is compounded by a brutal concentration of land : 6900 family businesses own 49.7% of the country's land. This wealth of the few joined with the proliferation of hunger and unemployment among the working population is expressed in the thousands of welfare plans for heads of household paid out in small rural communities where unemployment never existed before. It is good to remember that half the country's population is still below the poverty line and a quarter is in extreme poverty. One final point has to do with the dependence of producers vis-a-vis multinational businesses like Monsanto, owners of the seed patents which subsume the producer into permanent debt. In synthesis this genuine environmental, social and economic catastrophe has been brought about to produce soya-fodder so industrial countries can produce meat at low cost subsidised by hunger, unemployment, illness and environmental devastation for Argentina and the Argentineans. ... http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=10628 As for Brazilians, their growth forecasts are that as their country develops the amount of meat eaten by the local population will increase as they get wealthier They will get wealthier because Brazil is self sufficient in food and converting a lot of it into energy to reduce its dependence on imported oil They also are developing a pretty good manufacturing industry. So their population is pretty well guaranteed enough to eat and enough fuel to shift the food. 'The developing world hasn't always been hungry. Early explorers of the 16th and 17th centuries often returned amazed at the huge amounts of food they saw there. In parts of Africa, for example, people always had three harvests in storage and no-one went hungry. The idea of buying and selling food was unheard of. don't worry, they'll probably go back to it, which is a bit of a sod because you are one of the people dependent on imported food They can't go back to it, as their land is used to meet your demands. tough isn't it That's all you have to say? Thought so. Now shift the blame.. You don't fancy a sod busting life as a subsistance peasant and the world cannot see a reason to sell you food. It is not *my* diet that requires massive amounts of crops. not my nightmare kiddy, it is the real world, it is what is happening out there. They don';t give a damn about you because they are going to get through it, because they have the food and the fuel. Many don't, kidder. Those poor you don't give a damn about because you make money - as the nightmare for them goes on in the real world - unlike your fantasy-land 'hamburgers for all'. You on the other hand are the one who is going to have to find a really convincing reason for them to sell you food. What have you got to offer that they cannot produce at home They're selling you feed even though people are starving. They do it for money. Just like you. All else be damned. you still haven't grasped it have you. Even if you plough everything in the UK that will plough, and to hell with flooding and massive soil loss through erosian, there still isn't the land to produce the food, even if we are entirely vegetarian. Ipse dixit and nonsense. You need to do a course in sustainable farming. Remember you have lost half the land to biofuel anyway Support that claim with evidence. And you still haven't said why the Brazilians should take food out of their peoples mouths to give it to you They absolutely shouldn't, but that's for you meat eaters to answer. On the other hand, you have to explain exactly what you have to offer that means the Brazilians will sell food to you. Why should they worry about you and your need for soya? All these interesting imported protein sources beloved of many vegetarians are going to become awfully expensive So it is about time people woke up to the changing world and decided what they are going to do about it. The Brazilians are under no obligation to reduce their standard of living for the privilege of selling us food. What have you got to sell them in exchange? It is YOUR need for soya that is driving people off land and destroying rainforest, farmer jim. Profit before anything else. OK so what protein sources do you eat. It is not feeding people that's a problem. It's feeding livestock. You never will answer this question will you, what protein sources do you eat A wide variety of vegetables, leafy greens, fruits, legumes, seeds and nuts, and some wholegrains. Negligible soya. remember that I know what is being fed to my cattle and there is no soya. At the moment they are all eating byproducts from food production that people cannot eat. BS. sorry if it doesn't fit in with your bigotted preconceptions but beef cattle do fine on grass silage, maize gluten and busicit meal, the last a confectionary waste product Obviously not enough to go around. So what protein sources do you eat and how are you going to convince people to sell them to you two questions you seem unable to answer It's not feeding people that's a problem. It's feeding livestock. A harsh reality which you seem unable to grok. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"pearl" wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "pearl" wrote in message ... yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they are buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well. Some are, and they will pay the inevitable price. no Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China. Don't tell me, tell them, obviously they aren't bothered because they are the ones who are pushing up their meat intakes and loving it you will pay the price, because you are the one who will not be able to buy food and fuel because they are using it Assuming that "I" required food from China, which we don't, what you are actually acknowledging here, is that an increase in the consumption of meat in China would take away an essential component of the world's human population's diet. Way to go! As I said, you are having to compete with the Chinese on the world food market, so what can you offer that the Chinese cannot? I'm merely pointing out that it isn't the Chinese problem, it is your problem as you are the one living in the country without the land to feed or fuel itself (They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the cost.) Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too. The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people. yes, our industry is subsidised which allows the urban population to buy food at below the true cost of production. The biggest environmental damage agriculture does is support urban populations whose stinking cities fester across the land Who ultimately pays for those subsidies? People crowded in urban areas because of your stinking livestock farms festering across ~70% of the land. It is not only in "developing" countries where people have been forced off land by greedy cattle barons who raze/d everything in their way for meat. yep. let the people back on the land, it worked so well in Zimbabwe 'The biggest disaster to have hit Zimbabwe is the IMF/WORLD BANK sponsored structural adjustment program critically implemented at the beginning of 1990. Yeah sure. And murdering farmers had no effect whatsoever Indeed let the government run the land. After all under Socialism the Russia imported grain, it was desperate for it, now under private ownership Russia and the Ukraine are major grain exporters. 'The IMF has helped foster a severe depression in Russia Russia in the 1990s has witnessed a peacetime economic contraction of unprecedented scale. Except the Russians weren't producing the food before the 1990s and now they are. Russia imported food ever since WW2 which has damn all to do with the IMF Yep, let the greedy barons farm, at least they actually produce food 'The often heard comment (one I once accepted as fact) that "there are too many people in the world, and overpopulation is the cause of hunger", can be compared to the same myth that expounded sixteenth-century England and revived continuously since. And there's these millions of English peasants all demanding they be allowed to give up their nice jobs and houses in town and return to subsistence agriculture, No way they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with them, so they have obviously decided to give the others a go 'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources. exactly, and the Chinese aren't worried about it, having tried all the diseases of poverty they are going to try the diseases of affluence, Where's all the extra arable land, pasture and grain to come from? that is your problem, No. It is a question that you unsurprisingly cannot answer. Oh I know the answer, we have to produce something that the Brazilians etc need, and produce it better and cheaper than their other customers Or grovel to the Yanks, choice is yours really the Brazilians have plenty to feed and fuel themselves, it is you that is going to go short. Assuming that "I" required food from Brazil, which we don't, what you are actually acknowledging here, is that an increase in the consumption of meat in Brazil would take away an essential component of the world's human population's diet. Way to go. Don't tell me, tell them, they are the ones doing it and they aren't going to stop because you wring your hands at them. The chinese are worried, but they do have a big GM programme A big GM programme, eh. 'Almost all Argentine soya is GE, Almost all traded soya is GM All this worry, misery, trouble and strife... _for what_?? and plans to build 48 nuclear power stations which should cut their oil and coal use Too bad. Don't tell me, tell them, they are doing it. I'm sure there are some other alternatives around too. Don't tell me, tell them, Mind you, you'd have to convince the Chinese government you know more about Chinese conditions that it does. and leave the diseases of poverty to those whose countries cannot produce enough to eat, like for example, the UK To eat meat, even though.. 'Over 70 per cent of the land in the UK is used for agriculture, and 66 per cent of this is used as permanent pasture (1) while a high proportion of the remainder is used to grow crops to feed livestock. already discussed this earlier in the thread. You cannot grow crops on land that has been converted into flood storage because too many people live on the flood plain, you cannot grow crops on land that washes away if you plough it because of the slope, you cannot grow crops on the land in the north of scotland because the rock or bog is too cloe to the surface. remember they have said the UK, so they include the Scottish highlands and the welsh mountains, look at a map and see how big an area that is You cannot grow crops on 'pastureland' or on the land being used to grow feed crops. Free up that land, and there's plenty to go around. Sure pearl, grow wheat in the Lake district. Way to go as you so quaintly say. Just ignoring the reality of what land is capable of just makes you look silly yep. And the Chinese government is interested in what the Chinese population wants, it doesn't give a damn what you want It's the same sad self-serving story as elsewhere. Hurray, she's finally got it And exactly what are you going to produce to ensure you can buy food? You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of concentrate. don't lecture me on cattle feed pearl. I don't buy concentrates, I buy straights, I know the country of origin of each ingredient. Where's your soya meal from? duh don't feed soya I don't believe you. Tough, sad for you but those of us feeding cattle aren't limited by what vega or any other loony site says. I'm not the one trying to change Chinese and Brazilian food policy by posting to a UK group, now that is seriously out of touch Where do your subscribers import soya meal from? anywhere that produces it cheap, Two thirds of it comes from Brazil. but remember rape meal and maize gluten, both food industry and biofuel byproducts are the important sources of protein. Soya will be more for pigs and poultry. Clearly not enough. 389,740 tonnes of soya for the dairy sector alone. (http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/PGE...ments.01.p df) work it out on your fingers The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price at home to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef SOME Argentinians. the vast majority, Argentina has a left of centre government Support your claim of "the vast majority". look at the election results How will that tell us what the level of poverty in Argentina is, jim? Who said anything about poverty, I pointed out that the vast majority supported the government policy on food exports. Election results are useful indicators already have An additional $100 million for a population of 38 million? That'll make it all better, will it? Band-Aid on gangrene. 'Argentina Soya-fication Brings serious environmental, social and economic problems by Alberto Lapolla July 23, 2006 ... What you forget is that they will actually be eating a higher proportion themselves, rather than exporting it to the west, so there will be less problems. They have already started this, which is why they are cutting soya exports so we go round in a circle You don't fancy a sod busting life as a subsistence peasant and the world cannot see a reason to sell you food. It is not *my* diet that requires massive amounts of crops. Ah yes, exactly what is your diet not my nightmare kiddy, it is the real world, it is what is happening out there. They don';t give a damn about you because they are going to get through it, because they have the food and the fuel. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... it is your problem as you are the one living in the country without the land to feed or fuel itself Perhaps Pearl would have a cull of humanity back to population densities that are supportable. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Hamish" wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... it is your problem as you are the one living in the country without the land to feed or fuel itself Perhaps Pearl would have a cull of humanity back to population densities that are supportable. whilst I would hesitate to use the word cull, I would point out that you cannot have a sustainable agriculture unless you are trying to feed a sustainable population the UK from its own resources, allowing for organic agriculture and producing enough biofuel etc has to go a long way down, perhaps to six or seven million? Jim Webster |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... the UK from its own resources, allowing for organic agriculture and producing enough biofuel etc has to go a long way down, perhaps to six or seven million? You cannot reduce the population to 10% of current levels without a cull, reducing birth rate ends with an unviable age profile. Unfortunately if a cull was implimented we would end up only with politititions and their families left as the commitee set up would decide the most important post apocolypse facility would be a really strong administration. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
PMWS pork entering food chain
"Hamish" wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... the UK from its own resources, allowing for organic agriculture and producing enough biofuel etc has to go a long way down, perhaps to six or seven million? You cannot reduce the population to 10% of current levels without a cull, reducing birth rate ends with an unviable age profile. Unfortunately if a cull was implimented we would end up only with politititions and their families left as the commitee set up would decide the most important post apocolypse facility would be a really strong administration. do you think we could pull the 'giant mutated space goat' stunt? Send them off in a space ark Jim Webster |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
PMWS pork entering food chain | United Kingdom | |||
PMWS pork entering food chain | United Kingdom | |||
For those who asked about pork pie | United Kingdom | |||
Antibiotics overused in US pork and poultry industry | sci.agriculture | |||
Entering the Horticulture Field. :) | Gardening |