"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...


"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

Meat has and is being actively promoted in China. Fat is addictive..

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?

You are competing with the Chinese on the world market to feed livestock.

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

Nonsense.

..
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

Shit happens when people are angry enough.

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

Of course they were producing food -- for *themselves*.

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

Do a survey. All those millions of English people in the urban slums
can't afford to pay the premium price of houses in the countryside.

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

Non sequitur.

Or grovel to the Yanks, choice is yours really

Read the following carefully, then print it out and stick it up over
your computer; in time you may realise just how foolish you are.

'Can America feed China?
USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education),
May, 2004 by Lester R. Brown

AFTER A REMARKABLE EXPANSION of grain output from
90,000,000 tons in 1950 to 392,000,000 tons in 1998, China's grain
harvest has fallen in four of the last five years, skidding to
322,000,000 tons in 2003. This drop exceeds the total grain harvest
of Canada. Production of each of the three grains that dominate
China's agriculture--wheat, rice, and corn--has plummeted, but
wheat, grown mostly in the water-short north, has dipped the most.
With wheat stocks diminishing and domestic prices climbing,
Chinese wheat buying delegations have visited several grain-
exporting countries. Recent purchases of some 5,000,000 tons in
Australia, Canada, and the U.S. have set world wheat prices on
an upward trend.

Yet, these price rises may be only the early tremors before the
real quake. China's harvest shortfalls of recent years have been
covered by drawing down its once massive stocks of grain, but
these soon will be gone, forcing it to cover the entire shortfall
with imports. China's wheat harvest fell short of consumption in
2003 by 18,000,000 tons. After wheat stocks have vanished
within the next year or so, this entire shortfall will have to be
bolstered by imports. In some ways, China's rice deficit is even
more serious. Trying to cover its rice shortfall of 20,000,000 tons
in a world where annual rice exports total a mere 26,000,000 tons
could create economic chaos. With a corn shortfall of 15,000,000
tons and stocks already largely depleted, it soon will have to import
corn as well.

The handwriting on the wall is clear. While grain production is
dropping, demand is climbing, driven by the addition of
11,000,000 people per year and by fast rising incomes. As incomes
increase. China's citizens are moving up the food chain, consuming
more grain-fed livestock products such as pork, poultry, eggs, and,
to a lesser degree, beef and milk. The fall in grain production hugely
is due to a waning of the grain harvested area from 90,000,000
hectares in 1998 to 77,000,000 in 2003. Several trends are converging
here, including the loss of irrigation water and grainland to desert
expansion, conversion of cropland to nonfarm uses, shift of grainland
to higher value crops, and a decline in double-cropping due to the
loss of farm labor in the more prosperous coastal provinces.

Water tables are dipping throughout the northern half of the country.
As aquifers are emptied and irrigation wells go dry, farmers either
revert to low-yield dryland fanning or, in the more arid regions,
abandon it altogether. In the competition for water, cities and
industry invariably get first claim, leaving farmers with a shrinking
share of a shrinking supply. Losing water often means losing land.
Farmers are forfeiting real estate for other reasons as well. Expanding
deserts, such as the Gobi, which is consuming 4,000 square miles of
new territory each year, are devouring farmland. Paying farmers in
the north and west to plant their grainland to trees in an effort to halt
the advancing deserts is another factor reducing the grain area.
...
In a country where farms average an acre and a half, a shift is under
way to higher value fruits and vegetables to boost income. In each
of the last 11 years, the area in fruits and vegetables has increased.
In the more prosperous coastal provinces, the migration of farm
labor to cities has made it quite difficult to double-crop land. For
example, the once widespread practice of double-cropping winter
wheat and summer corn depends on quickly harvesting wheat once
it ripens in June and immediately preparing the seedbed to plant
corn. Many villagers no longer have enough labor to make this
quick transition.

Reversing the fall in grain production will not be easy. Each of
the contributing trends has a great deal of momentum. Turning
around any one of them would take an enormous effort.
Reversing all of them is inconceivable. If newly adopted
economic incentives should coincide with unusually favorable
weather this year, a modest upturn in grain production might be
possible, but it likely would be temporary.

China is the first major grain-producing country where a
combination of environmental and economic trends have
combined to reverse the historical growth in production. This
decline in a country containing more than one-fifth of the world's
population undoubtedly will trigger global effects. For instance,
China's likely need for such imports of grain comes at a time
when world stocks already are at their lowest level in 30 years
and U.S. farmers are losing irrigation water to aquifer depletion
and cities.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...32/ai_n6021789

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.

What are they doing? Exporting soya for foreign livestock.

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_??

Well?

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 conversing with you here, right now. You should leave.

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.

D'you think they might better than you at comprehending stuff?

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.

Table 1: Agricultural land uses in East Cumbria, 2004
Description Area (in hectares)
...
Wheat 4,5031
Total cereals 17,936
...
http://com5.uclan.ac.uk/carlisle/cre...griculture.pdf

"We grow an extensive range of organic vegetables, herbs
and fruit, and operate a local organic box scheme."
http://www.howbarroworganic.co.uk/

'Fruit and Vegetable Box Schemes: get locally grown organic
produce which has been freshly harvested by the grower
delivered to your door by Kan Foods, Kendal - [..] and
www.freshfood.co.uk
http://www.lake-district.gov.uk/inde...green-food.htm

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

You've just been demoted from fool to a silly fool.

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

I 'had it' from the very beginning. Go look.

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

There's nothing to stop people producing their own food,
except for your business festering across most of the land.

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.

Bullseye. You buy what is readily available, regardless.

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

The current chief of state and head of government is Néstor Kirchner.

'Menem and Kirchner have supported rightwing pro-capitalist policies
and offer nothing for the working class and poor in Argentina.

Kirchner supports more state intervention in the economy and a
more 'traditional' Peronist policy of radical populist nationalism,
which is why his support increased during the campaign, he is
not a friend of the working class. Menem, pioneered the IMF
privatisation programme in Argentina. His programme was of a
Thatcherite neo-liberal one which marked a break with the
traditional policies of previous Peronist governments. They had
implemented radical populist nationalist policies which included
state intervention.

Corrupt politicians

Menem is from the corrupt caste of pro-capitalist politicians
who have aroused the bitter hatred of the Argentinean masses.
....
Kirchner has the backing of the current President, Eduardo
Duhalde and also supports capitalism. If elected however he
could be forced by the mass movement and a further economic
crisis to adopt more radical nationalist populist policies such as
supporting state intervention and defaulting on the foreign debt.

Socialists cannot support either in the second round. This shows
the urgent need to build a mass socialist alternative by workers,
young people, the unemployed and urban poor.

These election results unfortunately represent a disappointment
for working class of Argentina. Menem has emerged as the
leading candidate with almost 25% of the vote to Kirchner's
19.38%. The results show the absence of a mass socialist
alternative.
.....
The elections reveal the impasse which exists in Argentina. The
economic crisis has left the mass of the population devastated.
Despite claims of a small economic revival, a staggering 57.5%
of the population still live below the official poverty line. In the
poorest districts around Buenos Aires the infant mortality rate
has reached a staggering 30%. Of a total population of 37 million
an estimated 10 million do not have even the minimum level of
food declared necessary by the UN and have no access to
drinking water and electricity. This is in a country which boasted
the highest standard of living in Latin America and during the
1930's was the ninth wealthiest economy per head in the world.

The desperation of the economic situation, exhaustion and a
degree of demoralisation has meant that Menem and other
Peronist leaders where able to win a certain electoral support.
Out of desperation and the absence of an alternative, voters
returned to the political corpses of the past in a desperate hope
of reviving these ghosts re-establishing some of the stability
and economic growth of previous years.
...
The task facing the working class in Argentina is to build a
mass socialist party that will offer an alternative to the rubble
left by capitalism.
...'
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/20...8argentia.html

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.

So you say.

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

And livestock in the 'developed' world will eat what?

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

I already told you, blame shifter.

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.
.

Ipse dixit and nonsense. You need to do a course in sustainable farming.



Duhh

Sustainable farming includes crop rotations and not ploughing land that
erodes

Very good.

Remember you have
lost half the land to biofuel anyway

Support that claim with evidence.



"Road transport in the UK consumes 37.5m tonnes of petroleum products a
year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country is
rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of rapeseed
produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could provide
1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run our cars and busses and lorries on
biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m in
the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost
all our cropland".
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2004

That doesn't provide support for your above claim.

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.





And of course we note that pearl refuses to answer questions on her diet

I have and you've snipped it. That makes you a silly foolish liar, jim.

"pearl" wrote in message
...



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

Meat has and is being actively promoted in China. Fat is addictive..

don't need to actively promote, people have always wanted to eat more



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?

You are competing with the Chinese on the world market to feed livestock.

so? At least I admit it and am not in denial
At least I admit what is in my diet

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

Nonsense.

OK, so produce the figures to show that the UK can produce food and fuel for
the current population



..
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

Shit happens when people are angry enough.

or greedy


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

Of course they were producing food -- for *themselves*.

no, that is what imports means, Russians weren't even producing food for
themselves



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

Do a survey. All those millions of English people in the urban slums
can't afford to pay the premium price of houses in the countryside.

that isn't what was said, where is evidence that these people want to give
up their jobs and go back to subsistance agriculture



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

Non sequitur.

Or grovel to the Yanks, choice is yours really

Read the following carefully, then print it out and stick it up over
your computer; in time you may realise just how foolish you are.

'Can America feed China?

then if you have these figures why are you in denial. Why are you refusing
to admit that there isn't enough food to go round and that we are going to
be the ones who are short?


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.

What are they doing? Exporting soya for foreign livestock.

look at the vegetarian society page, soya is a recommended protein source
for vegetarians


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_??

Well?

well what, or were you about to tell us about your diet, a subject you seem
strangely coy about


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 conversing with you here, right now. You should leave.

why, I'm enjoying you struggle to cope with the idea that actually, the
world doesn't owe you a living
How are you going to convince the rest of the world to feed you


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.

D'you think they might better than you at comprehending stuff?

so you have run out of arguements and descended to the level of insult,
never mind,


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.

Table 1: Agricultural land uses in East Cumbria, 2004
Description Area (in hectares)
..
Wheat 4,5031
Total cereals 17,936
..


duhh East Cumbria and Kendal are not the Lake District,

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

You've just been demoted from fool to a silly fool.

yawn, no arguments, just insult, your diet is letting you down


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

I 'had it' from the very beginning. Go look.

then you hid it damned well
so how are you going to convince them to sell you food?


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

There's nothing to stop people producing their own food,
except for your business festering across most of the land.

yawn,
people in the UK are so keen on manual labour that most farm workers come
from Eastern Europe, and before you rant about poverty wages, go to the
defra statistics pages and discover farm incomes


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.

Bullseye. You buy what is readily available, regardless.

of course, because I'm not a hypocrite, I admit I make a living out of
producing and selling food
How do you make a living?


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.

so what, I don't use soya, don't need to








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.


and if I produced milk this might be of relevence




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

The current chief of state and head of government is Néstor Kirchner.

'Menem and Kirchner have supported rightwing pro-capitalist policies
and offer nothing for the working class and poor in Argentina.

Kirchner supports more state intervention in the economy and a
more 'traditional' Peronist policy of radical populist nationalism,
which is why his support increased during the campaign, he is
not a friend of the working class. Menem, pioneered the IMF
privatisation programme in Argentina. His programme was of a
Thatcherite neo-liberal one which marked a break with the
traditional policies of previous Peronist governments. They had
implemented radical populist nationalist policies which included
state intervention.

Corrupt politicians

you found another sort?


so now find and paste an uptodate website which discusses the current issues
not history



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.

So you say.

well you haven't produced any evidence to the contary


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

And livestock in the 'developed' world will eat what?

Grass as usual, which is the majority feed of most beef and dairy cattle,
all that rape meal and maize gluten produced as a result of biofuel, the
traditional food industry wastes like citrus pulp from juice production,
Plenty to go at


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

I already told you, blame shifter.

assume I forgot, let us have some details


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.
.

Ipse dixit and nonsense. You need to do a course in sustainable
farming.



Duhh

Sustainable farming includes crop rotations and not ploughing land that
erodes

Very good.


which means grass and livestock grazing it


Remember you have
lost half the land to biofuel anyway

Support that claim with evidence.



"Road transport in the UK consumes 37.5m tonnes of petroleum products a
year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country is
rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of
rapeseed
produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could
provide
1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run our cars and busses and lorries on
biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m
in
the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume
almost
all our cropland".
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2004

That doesn't provide support for your above claim.

duhh
work out the numbers pearl, work out the numbers, do the sums



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.





And of course we note that pearl refuses to answer questions on her diet

I have and you've snipped it. That makes you a silly foolish liar, jim.

well I cannot find it, so could you repeat it please

all I can find is
It is not *my* diet that requires massive amounts of crops.

so as the world awaits, what is your diet,in rather more detail than 'vegan'
or 'vegetarian'

Jim Webster

On 10 Jan 2007 23:41:26 -0800, wrote:

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

snip

I confess I don't really care. I correct them when they tell lies about
my
industry, but as far as I am concerned if they don't want to eat meat,
fine,
there are an increasing number of people out there who do
Terrorism is merely terrorism, and we have jails for people who commit
that
sort of offence

It must have been a careless admission that you are with the meat
industry. I long wondered why some people attack animal rights
advocates and those who speak out against cruelty to animals on
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. I also suspected that the intensity of
those attacks are driven not by any conviction but by pure self
interest of those who profit from the horrible suffering of animals
produced by factory farming. Animals as living, feeling, suffering
creatures mean nothing to the likes of you who try to justify your
cruelty on helpless animals for your profit margin.

yawn
I'm honest,

Was it honesty or just a careless slip?

which is more than can be said about those animal rights
activists who were paid by an Irish meat factory group to protest against
live exports out of ireland.

That would also be deplorable.

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

I don't care about your or anybody else's personal life but I have
for some time been wondering about the canned posts some people are
putting out and they did look like meat industry shills to me.

You have no idea what it would look like if anyone were officially
representing the meat industry. I doubt anyone is doing it.

One has
to wonder why some people would personally attack you and call you
names just because you express your concern for animals unless they are
connected to the meat industry.

Your attack on National Georgraphic was maniacal, uncalled for
and dishonest. You have no way of knowing whether or not what
they did looked staged, and there's no reason why they would stage
it. Your desire to deny reality messed up your ability to think. Other
people don't want your problem with reality to screw up things for them,
so it's not any wonder at all but just something else about reality that
you can't comprehend.

I love animals

People who farm animals can care about them too, and so can
people who consume them. Don't forget that it's the consumers
of animal products--NOT vegans!--who make it possible for the
animals to exist at all. When they have decent lives of positive
value the consumers are just as much the reason for that as they
are when the animals have lives of negative value.

and it bothers me that they suffer and the least I can do is to
make sure that they do not suffer on my account.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

For some reason, there are a number of people on
this list who hate people for showing concern for animals. Is that
because they know that what they are doing is wrong and must silence
those who remind them of it?

· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.

Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:14:50 +0000, "(o)(o)" wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:26:09 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

And people should care about that exactly why?

People who have a vested interest in the meat industry are more likely
to lie about what goes on the factory farms and slaughter houses.

and people making a living out of the animal rights movement have a vested
interest in spinning more horror stories to ensure that contributions keep
rolling in

What stories are fabricated?

What stories are being referred to, if any?

no, it's because they get fed up of a lot of ignorant saddos repeating
out
of date information

I do not trust those with vested interests in making a living off of
animal cruelty.

the don't trust animal rights propaganda because they are all making a
living out of manufacturing tales of animal cruelty to get in money from
supporters

What tales are manufactured?

What tales are being referred to, if any?

On 11 Jan 2007 04:41:02 -0800, wrote:

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.

No doubt about that! We can count you more than once in fact.
Do you believe that veg*nism helps or saves any livestock? If so,
we can count you again. Do you think "ar" terrorism does some
good? If so, we can count you yet again...

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.

Being veg*n doesn't do anything to help any livestock. "ar"
organizations *exploit* AW issues in order to obtain funding,
but the philosophies of "ar" and AW are completely different:
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

.. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

.. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual
reasons.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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.

Nah. Meat grosses you out so you're trying to justify not eating it.

On 11 Jan 2007 02:58:28 -0800, wrote:

We send them money but probably not as much as they would like.

LOL!

The
reason we send them money is because we agree with what they are doing
and if we had more money we would send more.
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs
.... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."

Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_...?headline=2833
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
The photos show the inside of PETA's van; the tackle-box "death kit"
(complete with syringes and lethal drugs); the trash dumpster where the
dead animals were found; and several animals buried the next morning
by local authorities.
[...]
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent --
of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected
those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
[...]
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
(USA Today, September 3, 1991)


INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals
out or burn them down."
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against
it."
(Vogue, September, 1989)

"I know it's illegal [trespassing], but I don't think it's wrong."
(Montgomery County, MD, Journal Feb. 16, 1988)


ALEX PACHECO, CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
crimes' when used for the animal cause."
(Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)

Intersting PeTA facts

When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at
the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted,
PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary
Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this
individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was
using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000
on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.

Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.

http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he said.

PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:

-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on
a fishing vessel;

-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;

-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive

http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:30:53 -0000, "Jim Webster" wrote:


dh@. wrote in message ...
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:55:13 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:16:58 -0500, dh@. wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:34:25 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:18:55 -0000, "'Mike'" wrote:

wrote in message
glegroups.com...
. They are also
poisoning the public because of unhealthy conditions inherent to
factory farming.


???????????????????

Considering that there are more meat eaters in this country that
veggies,
can you please explain to me, why, if the meat industry is 'poisoning
the
public', the public in general are living a lot longer and as proof,
the
pensionable age is to be raised because of the shortfall in pension
funds?


Some are living longer, some arent. Many are dying far too early.
Cancers, CJD, Dementia etc.

Doesn't stuff like that kill vegans?

Only if they turned vegan too late.

LOL. Good one.

not really, given that there has only been 160 odd deaths nvCJD has been the
vegetarian scare story that just failed to happen
Wonder when they will publish the figures for those who have died from nut
allergy in the same period

Jim Webster
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . .

Peanut allergies account for 50 to 100 deaths in the United States each year.
Some youngsters must eat at a peanut-free cafeteria table or even in an
isolated room. Some airlines have stopped serving peanuts to safeguard people
allergic to even a whiff of the nut.

Peanut allergies have been rising in recent decades. No one is sure why, but a
new study found that baby creams or lotions containing peanut oil may lead to
peanut allergies.

Babies whose rashes or eczema were soothed by such creams were more likely
to become allergic to peanuts than those whose creams did not include peanut
oil, said Dr. Gideon Lack of St. Mary's Hospital at Imperial College in London.
.. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/condi...ut.allergy.ap/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:29:41 -0000, "Jim Webster" wrote:


dh@. wrote in message ...

I've sure noticed that veg*ns flop around about what they believe,
and try to pretend they aren't supporting things that they obviously
are (like terrorism), etc. And that they won't even acknowledge,
much less appreciate, the fact that some animal products involve
fewer deaths than some veggies. They usually if not always deny
such a significant aspect. That alone proves they are very selective
in what they allow themselves to consider, and also that they care
more about promoting veg*nism than they do about human influence
on animals.

I confess I don't really care.

You don't really need to but they are claiming to care more than
others, yet will usually deny that some types of animal products
contribute to fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products.
How many servings of beef could people get from the life and
death of a grass raised steer and whatever he happened to kill
during his life? Fewer servings of tofu are likely to involve far more
deaths imo. And the same is true regarding grass raised dairy
prodocts vs. soy milk or even more so rice milk.

I correct them when they tell lies about my industry,

What industry is that?

We don't get many people who are involved directly, which is
too bad imo. I would hope that most farmers provide their animals
with decent lives, though I certainly don't believe all do. I'm
opposed to battery cages for laying hens, but feel that the
open house method provides decent lives in general for the birds.
I don't know what to think about pigs never havingn been around
large pig farms, but just the fact that they are omnivorous
rooting animals pretty much guarantees that by nature they
would be frustrated and board when they can't root. I'm sure
that's been bred out of them as much as possible, but still
they want to do it. Grazing animals could be more easily satisfied
since they don't seem to have much of a hunting or digging
instinct. Though I eat chicken and turkey I do agree with Davis'
argument regarding least harm for wildlife and the natural
environment:
__________________________________________________ _______
The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.

S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001,
pp 440-450.

Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals.

Introduction
Although the debate over the moral status of animals has been
going on for thousands of years (Shapiro, 2000), there has
been a resurgence of interest in this issue in the last quarter of
the 20th century. One of the landmark philosophical works of
this period was the book by Regan (1983) called "A Case for
Animal Rights." In that book, Regan concludes that animals
do have moral standing, that they are subjects-of-a-life with
interests that deserve equal consideration to the same interests
in humans, and therefore have the right to live their lives
without human interference. As a consequence, he concludes
that humans have a moral obligation to consume a vegan (use
no animal products) diet and eliminate animal agriculture.
However, production of an all vegan diet also comes at the
cost of the lives of many animals, including mice, moles,
gophers, pheasants, etc. Therefore, I asked Regan, "What
is the morally relevant difference between killing a field mouse
(or other animal of the field) so that humans may eat and killing
a pig (or chicken, calf or lamb) for the same purpose? Animals
must die so that humans may eat, regardless whether they eat
a vegan diet or not. So, how are we to choose our food supply
in a morally responsible manner?" Regan's response could be
summarized by what may be called the "Least Harm Principle"
or LHP (Regan, Personal Communication). According to LHP,
we must choose the food products that, overall, cause the
least harm to the least number of animals. The following
analysis is an attempt to try to determine what humans should
eat if we apply that principle.

Regan's Vegan Conclusion is Problematic

I find Regan's response to my question to be problematic for
two reasons. The first reason is because it seems to be a
philosophical slight of hand for one to turn to a utilitarian
defense (LHP) of a challenge to his vegan conclusion which
is based on animal rights theory. If the question, "What is
the morally relevant difference?" can't be supported by the
animal rights theory, then it seems to me that the animal rights
theory must be rejected. Instead, Regan turns to utilitarian
theory (which examines consequences of one's actions) to
defend the vegan conclusion.

The second problem I see with his vegan conclusion is that
he claims that the least harm would be done to animals if
animal agriculture was eliminated. It may certainly be true
that fewer animals may be killed if animal agriculture was
eliminated, but could the LHP also lead to other alternative
conclusions?

Would pasture-based animal agriculture cause least harm?

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows
and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground
cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed
by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow,
disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest,
etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such
as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet)
kills far more animals of the field than would extensive
agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage
was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines.
So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing
beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead
of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan.

Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available, but Tew
and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse
population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha
preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease
was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality.
Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of
10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean
production.

There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US
(USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a
plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed
per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or
1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet. If half
of that land (60 million) was converted to forage
production and if forage production systems decreased
the number of animals of the field killed per year by 50%
(5 per year per ha), the number of animals killed would be:

1. 60 million ha of traditional agriculture x 10 animals
per ha = 0.6 billion animals killed.
2. 60 million ha of forage production x 5 animals of
the field = 0.3 billion.

Therefore, in this hypothetical example, the change to
include some forage-based animal agriculture would
result in the loss of only 0.9 billion animals of the field
instead of 1.2 billion to support a vegan diet. As a
result, the LHP would suggest that we are morally
obligated to consume a diet of ruminant products, not
a vegan diet, because it would result in the death of
fewer animals of the field.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to
die to feed people? According to the USDA numbers
quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion animals
killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those
are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows,
calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of
ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace
the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that
would need to be killed under this alternative would
still be fewer (0.9 billion + 82 million = 0.982 billion)
than in the vegan alternative (1.2 billion).

In conclusion, applying the Least Harm Principle as
proposed by Regan would actually argue that we
are morally obligated to move to a ruminant-based
diet rather than a vegan diet.

References

Davis, S.L. 2000. What is the Morally Relevant
Difference between the Mouse and the Pig?
Pp. 107-109 in the Proceedings of EurSafe 2000;
2nd Congress of the European Society for
Agricultural and Food Ethics.

Francione, Gary L. 2000. Introduction to Animal
Rights: Your child or the dog? Temple University
Press. Philadelphia.

Regan, Tom. 1983. A Case for Animal Rights.
University of California Press, Berkeley.

Shapiro, L.S. 2000. Applied Animal Ethics,
pp. 34-37. Delmar Press.

Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald. 1993. The
effects of harvest on arable wood mice.
Biological Conservation 65:279-283.

USDA. 2000.
www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Census97/highlights.

On 10 Jan 2007 21:03:32 -0800, wrote:

Animal rights advocates are not terrorists
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . .
ANIMAL EXTREMIST / ECOTERROR CRIMES

FRUSTRATED BY THEIR FAILURE to sell their agendas to society at large,
animal rights and environmental extremists now seek to impose their views
through violence and terrorism. Responsibility for many of these crimes has
been claimed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front
(ELF), underground organizations that began in Britain and have now spread
to the U.S. The Federal Bureau of Investigation classifies both as "domestic
terrorist" groups.

Following is a sampling of recent animal rights / ecoterror crimes. A selection
of particularly costly crimes is available in the Farmers for Safe Farms flyer
Animal Rights and Eco-Terrorism : The Price We Pay in PDF format.

The following chronology covers the period 2000 to the present.
.. . .

http://www.furcommission.com/attack/index.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...



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

Meat has and is being actively promoted in China. Fat is addictive..

don't need to actively promote, people have always wanted to eat more

08/06/2006 -
...
China's Meat Association will jointly organize a seminar in Beijing
next month with the World Meat Organization to discuss China's
meat development strategy and promotion of meat consumption.
...'
http://www.meatprocess.com/news/ng.a...288-china-meat

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?

You are competing with the Chinese on the world market to feed livestock.

so? At least I admit it and am not in denial

That's the first time you have admitted it.

At least I admit what is in my diet

Boy, are you dumb.

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

Nonsense.

OK, so produce the figures to show that the UK can produce food and fuel for
the current population

Forget your precious biofuels. There are sustainable alternatives.

..
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

Shit happens when people are angry enough.

or greedy

Indeed.

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

Of course they were producing food -- for *themselves*.

no, that is what imports means, Russians weren't even producing food for
themselves

Nonsense. The UK imports feedstuffs for livestock, yet
most of the UK's arable land is used to produce feed..

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

Do a survey. All those millions of English people in the urban slums
can't afford to pay the premium price of houses in the countryside.

that isn't what was said, where is evidence that these people want to give
up their jobs and go back to subsistance agriculture

'Many people want to live in the Countryside. Of those people
living in the countryside 89% would prefer to continue to do so.
If you asked people living in an inner city area if they would
prefer to continue doing so, only 21% would say so, with 51%
preferring the countryside.
...'
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/mi...r/bg060608.htm

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

Non sequitur.

Or grovel to the Yanks, choice is yours really

Read the following carefully, then print it out and stick it up over
your computer; in time you may realise just how foolish you are.

'Can America feed China?

then if you have these figures why are you in denial. Why are you refusing
to admit that there isn't enough food to go round and that we are going to
be the ones who are short?

Huh? In caps, as I'm running out of options to get through
to that dim bulb you call a brain, jim:

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

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.

What are they doing? Exporting soya for foreign livestock.

look at the vegetarian society page, soya is a recommended protein source
for vegetarians

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

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_??

Well?

well what, or were you about to tell us about your diet, a subject you seem
strangely coy about

Answer the question.

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 conversing with you here, right now. You should leave.

why, I'm enjoying you struggle to cope with the idea that actually, the
world doesn't owe you a living
How are you going to convince the rest of the world to feed you

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

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.

D'you think they might better than you at comprehending stuff?

so you have run out of arguements and descended to the level of insult,
never mind,

What goes around, comes around.

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.

Table 1: Agricultural land uses in East Cumbria, 2004
Description Area (in hectares)
..
Wheat 4,5031
Total cereals 17,936
..


duhh East Cumbria and Kendal are not the Lake District,

http://www.cumbrian-cottages.co.uk/region-map.aspx

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

You've just been demoted from fool to a silly fool.

yawn, no arguments, just insult, your diet is letting you down

That's rich coming from you, webster, and a lie.

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

I 'had it' from the very beginning. Go look.

then you hid it damned well

I didn't hide it. Go look.

so how are you going to convince them to sell you food?

Why would I need to do that.

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

There's nothing to stop people producing their own food,
except for your business festering across most of the land.

yawn,
people in the UK are so keen on manual labour that most farm workers come
from Eastern Europe, and before you rant about poverty wages, go to the
defra statistics pages and discover farm incomes

Why don't you tell us all about it.

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.

Bullseye. You buy what is readily available, regardless.

of course, because I'm not a hypocrite, I admit I make a living out of
producing and selling food

So why do you claim not to buy soya?

How do you make a living?

Irrelevant.

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.

so what, I don't use soya, don't need to

What changed a year ago to eliminate that need?

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.

and if I produced milk this might be of relevence

You raise cattle.

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

The current chief of state and head of government is Néstor Kirchner.

'Menem and Kirchner have supported rightwing pro-capitalist policies
and offer nothing for the working class and poor in Argentina.

Kirchner supports more state intervention in the economy and a
more 'traditional' Peronist policy of radical populist nationalism,
which is why his support increased during the campaign, he is
not a friend of the working class. Menem, pioneered the IMF
privatisation programme in Argentina. His programme was of a
Thatcherite neo-liberal one which marked a break with the
traditional policies of previous Peronist governments. They had
implemented radical populist nationalist policies which included
state intervention.

Corrupt politicians

you found another sort?


so now find and paste an uptodate website which discusses the current issues
not history

No need. The issues were explained very well.

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.

So you say.

well you haven't produced any evidence to the contary

Your say so doesn't count as evidence, jim.

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

And livestock in the 'developed' world will eat what?

Grass as usual, which is the majority feed of most beef and dairy cattle,
all that rape meal and maize gluten produced as a result of biofuel, the
traditional food industry wastes like citrus pulp from juice production,
Plenty to go at

So WHY is the UK importing soya from Brazil, etc?

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

I already told you, blame shifter.

assume I forgot, let us have some details

Go back and look.

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.
.

Ipse dixit and nonsense. You need to do a course in sustainable
farming.



Duhh

Sustainable farming includes crop rotations and not ploughing land that
erodes

Very good.


which means grass and livestock grazing it

False.

"It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land has so
deteriorated that it has lost at least 25 percent of its animal carrying
capacity." UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 2000, Earthscan,
1999.

'The negative impacts of soil erosion due to inappropriate land
management have become increasingly apparent in England and
Wales since the 1970s. A number of factors are responsible
for this increase, including animal and crop production on
inappropriate land, overstocking, bad timing of agricultural
practices, degradation of river banks by stock, and lack of
ground cover in winter months.

Soil erosion has significant social, economic and environment
impacts. In addition to reduced future farm productivity, soil
entering freshwater ecosystems can cause major damage, for
example choking spawning gravels used by fish. Soil pollution
can often carry increased leads of phosphates into freshwater
bodies and the marine environment, exacerbating the problems
of eutrophication. Soil on roads blocks drains leading to
localised flooding, while soil entering strategic reservoirs and
ports can result in high dredging and disposal costs.
.....'
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf

Remember you have
lost half the land to biofuel anyway

Support that claim with evidence.



"Road transport in the UK consumes 37.5m tonnes of petroleum products a
year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country is
rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of
rapeseed
produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could
provide
1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run our cars and busses and lorries on
biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m
in
the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume
almost
all our cropland".
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2004

That doesn't provide support for your above claim.

duhh
work out the numbers pearl, work out the numbers, do the sums

Support your claim, jim.

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.





And of course we note that pearl refuses to answer questions on her diet

I have and you've snipped it. That makes you a silly foolish liar, jim.

well I cannot find it, so could you repeat it please

No.

all I can find is
It is not *my* diet that requires massive amounts of crops.

Look again.

so as the world awaits, what is your diet,in rather more detail than 'vegan'
or 'vegetarian'

The world is laughing at you.

"pearl" wrote in message ...

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

That is, as we've seen, *SOME* PEOPLE EATING MEAT.
The rest (~50%) can die of starvation and poverty-related
diseases as far a jim and co are concerned. And as global
warming and the unsustainable abuse of natural resources
continues, fewer and fewer people will have enough to eat..

It's time to make some wise choices and do the right thing.

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


You are competing with the Chinese on the world market to feed
livestock.

so? At least I admit it and am not in denial

That's the first time you have admitted it.

it must have been in something that wasn't crossposted, because it is
something I've never made any bones about


At least I admit what is in my diet

Boy, are you dumb.


OK so name your protein sources

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

Nonsense.

OK, so produce the figures to show that the UK can produce food and fuel
for
the current population

Forget your precious biofuels. There are sustainable alternatives.

dont tell me to forget them, I am merely pointing out what the world is
actually doing, I am not the one in denial, the EU has set down the
quantities


..
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

Shit happens when people are angry enough.

or greedy

Indeed.

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

Of course they were producing food -- for *themselves*.

no, that is what imports means, Russians weren't even producing food for
themselves

Nonsense. The UK imports feedstuffs for livestock, yet
most of the UK's arable land is used to produce feed..


what on earth has this got to do with the Russians unable to grow their own
food?


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

Do a survey. All those millions of English people in the urban slums
can't afford to pay the premium price of houses in the countryside.

that isn't what was said, where is evidence that these people want to
give
up their jobs and go back to subsistance agriculture

'Many people want to live in the Countryside. Of those people
living in the countryside 89% would prefer to continue to do so.
If you asked people living in an inner city area if they would
prefer to continue doing so, only 21% would say so, with 51%
preferring the countryside.
..'
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/mi...r/bg060608.htm

now answer the question where is evidence that these people want to give up
their jobs and go back to subsistance agriculture, not do people just dream
of a nice house in the country




then if you have these figures why are you in denial. Why are you
refusing
to admit that there isn't enough food to go round and that we are going
to
be the ones who are short?

Huh? In caps, as I'm running out of options to get through
to that dim bulb you call a brain, jim:

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.


good, you've finally grasped it

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.



look at the vegetarian society page, soya is a recommended protein
source
for vegetarians

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

good, you've finally grasped it

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.


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_??

Well?

well what, or were you about to tell us about your diet, a subject you
seem
strangely coy about

Answer the question.

when you name your protein sources, or even give a list of the plants you
get food from


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 conversing with you here, right now. You should leave.

why, I'm enjoying you struggle to cope with the idea that actually, the
world doesn't owe you a living
How are you going to convince the rest of the world to feed you

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

good, you've finally grasped it

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.



Table 1: Agricultural land uses in East Cumbria, 2004
Description Area (in hectares)
..
Wheat 4,5031
Total cereals 17,936
..


duhh East Cumbria and Kendal are not the Lake District,

http://www.cumbrian-cottages.co.uk/region-map.aspx

yes and you look at the map of the lake district national park you will see
that East Cumbria is east of the M6 and outside the park.

You also recommended I check up
"We grow an extensive range of organic vegetables, herbs
and fruit, and operate a local organic box scheme."
http://www.howbarroworganic.co.uk/


so I did
Howbarrow Farm is situated close to the village of Cartmel, on the Furness
Peninsula and in the Southern Lake District.


The farm has been organic since 1996 and is licensed with the Soil
Association.



We farm without the use of herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilisers,
antibiotics, growth promoters or genetically modified organisms.

All our livestock is born and raised on the farm. It is slaughtered and
butchered in a local abattoir .

We grow an extensive range of organic vegetables, herbs and fruit, and
operate a local organic box scheme.

Our aim is to sell our meat and produce competitively priced. It is
available direct from the farm, or via our Home Delivery Service. Deliveries
can also be arranged nationwide (but we would prefer you to buy locally!!)

We also offer farmhouse B and B - with an organic breakfast, much of it
home-produced.

Howbarrow is now part of the Soil Association Open Farms Network.


Like the vast majority of Cumbrian organic farmers these people realise that
livestock is vital to keep fertility in the soil


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

You've just been demoted from fool to a silly fool.

yawn, no arguments, just insult, your diet is letting you down

That's rich coming from you, webster, and a lie.

so what are the constitutents of your diet?


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

I 'had it' from the very beginning. Go look.

then you hid it damned well

I didn't hide it. Go look.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.


so how are you going to convince them to sell you food?

Why would I need to do that.

what are the consitutents of your diet?


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

There's nothing to stop people producing their own food,
except for your business festering across most of the land.

yawn,
people in the UK are so keen on manual labour that most farm workers come
from Eastern Europe, and before you rant about poverty wages, go to the
defra statistics pages and discover farm incomes

Why don't you tell us all about it.

just did


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

Bullseye. You buy what is readily available, regardless.

of course, because I'm not a hypocrite, I admit I make a living out of
producing and selling food

So why do you claim not to buy soya?

because I haven't bought soya for over 30 years


How do you make a living?

Irrelevant.

so you daren't say what you do for a living and you won't say what the
ingredients of your diet 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.

so what, I don't use soya, don't need to

What changed a year ago to eliminate that need?

see above,30 years ago


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.

and if I produced milk this might be of relevence

You raise cattle.

yes, so what, the difference in diet between a beef animal and a high
yielding dairy cow is considerable. If you don't know that then you really
know nothing on bovine nutrition



so now find and paste an uptodate website which discusses the current
issues
not history

No need. The issues were explained very well.

but didn't contradict what I said


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.

So you say.

well you haven't produced any evidence to the contary

Your say so doesn't count as evidence, jim.

no, its just you haven't been able to find anything that contradicted the
press story that I quoted


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

And livestock in the 'developed' world will eat what?

Grass as usual, which is the majority feed of most beef and dairy cattle,
all that rape meal and maize gluten produced as a result of biofuel, the
traditional food industry wastes like citrus pulp from juice production,
Plenty to go at

So WHY is the UK importing soya from Brazil, etc?

vegetarians, pigs, poultry, some dairy rations,


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

I already told you, blame shifter.

assume I forgot, let us have some details

Go back and look.

have done, weren't there, not in any of the messages that were crossposted
to this group



Sustainable farming includes crop rotations and not ploughing land
that
erodes

Very good.


which means grass and livestock grazing it

False.


'The negative impacts of soil erosion due to inappropriate land
management have become increasingly apparent in England and
Wales since the 1970s. A number of factors are responsible
for this increase, including animal and crop production on
inappropriate land, overstocking, bad timing of agricultural
practices, degradation of river banks by stock, and lack of
ground cover in winter months.


which backs up my comments on sustainable agriculture, crop production on
inappropriate land is as big a danger as livestock production on
inappropriate land, which is why some land has to be stocked with livestock


37.5m tonnes of petroleum products a
year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country
is
rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of
rapeseed
produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could
provide
1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run our cars and busses and lorries
on
biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are
5.7m
in
the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume
almost
all our cropland".
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2004

That doesn't provide support for your above claim.

duhh
work out the numbers pearl, work out the numbers, do the sums

Support your claim, jim.

I did, that is why I posted the Monbiot piece, if you cannot understand it,
that is your problem


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.





And of course we note that pearl refuses to answer questions on her
diet

I have and you've snipped it. That makes you a silly foolish liar,
jim.

well I cannot find it, so could you repeat it please

No.


Fair enough, pearl refuses to admit the details of her diet because she
knows we'd take the rip out of her because of the air miles and the fact
that most is imported from third world countries with water deficits.

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

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


You are competing with the Chinese on the world market to feed
livestock.

so? At least I admit it and am not in denial

That's the first time you have admitted it.

it must have been in something that wasn't crossposted, because it is
something I've never made any bones about

You keep trying to foist the blame onto those who use
a fraction of the resources required to raise livestock.

At least I admit what is in my diet

Boy, are you dumb.


OK so name your protein sources

I have. You shouldn't have snipped it the first time.

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

Nonsense.

OK, so produce the figures to show that the UK can produce food and fuel
for
the current population

Forget your precious biofuels. There are sustainable alternatives.

dont tell me to forget them, I am merely pointing out what the world is
actually doing, I am not the one in denial, the EU has set down the
quantities

Biofuels: Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelsBiod...tionHunger.php

But the world is changing, as you keep pointing out.

..
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

Shit happens when people are angry enough.

or greedy

Indeed.

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

Of course they were producing food -- for *themselves*.

no, that is what imports means, Russians weren't even producing food for
themselves

Nonsense. The UK imports feedstuffs for livestock, yet
most of the UK's arable land is used to produce feed..

what on earth has this got to do with the Russians unable to grow their own
food?

"no, that is what imports means, Russians weren't even producing food for
themselves" Ergo, you are unable to produce feed for livestock in the UK.

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

Do a survey. All those millions of English people in the urban slums
can't afford to pay the premium price of houses in the countryside.

that isn't what was said, where is evidence that these people want to
give
up their jobs and go back to subsistance agriculture

'Many people want to live in the Countryside. Of those people
living in the countryside 89% would prefer to continue to do so.
If you asked people living in an inner city area if they would
prefer to continue doing so, only 21% would say so, with 51%
preferring the countryside.
..'
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/mi...r/bg060608.htm

now answer the question where is evidence that these people want to give up
their jobs and go back to subsistance agriculture, not do people just dream
of a nice house in the country

Growing food would naturally be part of countryside living,
at least for the "working class". What else do you imagine?

then if you have these figures why are you in denial. Why are you
refusing
to admit that there isn't enough food to go round and that we are going
to
be the ones who are short?

Huh? In caps, as I'm running out of options to get through
to that dim bulb you call a brain, jim:

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.


good, you've finally grasped it

So you still haven't, or are pretending that you haven't.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.

False. Where is your feed coming from, more to the point.

'In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food
chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people.
An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and
lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of
soya, 30 times more.
...
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

look at the vegetarian society page, soya is a recommended protein
source
for vegetarians

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

good, you've finally grasped it

So you still haven't, or are pretending that you haven't.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.

False. Where is your feed coming from, more to the point.

'In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food
chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people.
An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and
lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of
soya, 30 times more.
...
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

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_??

Well?

well what, or were you about to tell us about your diet, a subject you
seem
strangely coy about

Answer the question.

when you name your protein sources, or even give a list of the plants you
get food from

Answer the question. Why are you determined to continue to eat meat?

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 conversing with you here, right now. You should leave.

why, I'm enjoying you struggle to cope with the idea that actually, the
world doesn't owe you a living
How are you going to convince the rest of the world to feed you

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

good, you've finally grasped it

So you still haven't, or are pretending that you haven't.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.

False. Where is your feed coming from, more to the point.

'In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food
chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people.
An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and
lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of
soya, 30 times more.
...
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

Table 1: Agricultural land uses in East Cumbria, 2004
Description Area (in hectares)
..
Wheat 4,5031
Total cereals 17,936
..


duhh East Cumbria and Kendal are not the Lake District,

http://www.cumbrian-cottages.co.uk/region-map.aspx

yes and you look at the map of the lake district national park you will see
that East Cumbria is east of the M6 and outside the park.

'County's record wheat harvest

NEAR-PERFECT conditions brought record wheat yields to
Cumbria this year while crops elsewhere in the country were
devastated by the summer heatwave.

Cumbria and the north-west's wheat yield increased by an
average one tonne per hectare with highs of 9.3 tonnes per
hectare in some parts of the county.

The average yield for the north-west and Cumbria was 6.3
tonnes of wheat per hectare - almost 20 per cent more
than last year - according to figures released by Defra. It
compares to 5.3 tonnes per hectare brought in last year.

Guy Gagen, chief arable adviser with the NFU, said: "The
growing conditions must have been just about perfect in
the region."

http://www.businessgazette.co.uk/Far...spx?aid=427991

'Cumbria County Council: This would cover the whole of the
existing county council area, with a population of 487600. ...
http://www.boundarycommittee.org.uk/...r.cfm/news/280

'Table 1: Agricultural land uses in East Cumbria, 2004
Description Area (in hectares)
...
Wheat 4,503
Total cereals 17,936
...
http://com5.uclan.ac.uk/carlisle/cre...griculture.pdf

At 5.8t = 0.58 kg (580 grams) cereals pp/pd. More than enough.

You also recommended I check up
"We grow an extensive range of organic vegetables, herbs
and fruit, and operate a local organic box scheme."
http://www.howbarroworganic.co.uk/


so I did
Howbarrow Farm is situated close to the village of Cartmel, on the Furness
Peninsula and in the Southern Lake District.


The farm has been organic since 1996 and is licensed with the Soil
Association.



We farm without the use of herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilisers,
antibiotics, growth promoters or genetically modified organisms.

All our livestock is born and raised on the farm. It is slaughtered and
butchered in a local abattoir .

We grow an extensive range of organic vegetables, herbs and fruit, and
operate a local organic box scheme.

Our aim is to sell our meat and produce competitively priced. It is
available direct from the farm, or via our Home Delivery Service. Deliveries
can also be arranged nationwide (but we would prefer you to buy locally!!)

We also offer farmhouse B and B - with an organic breakfast, much of it
home-produced.

Howbarrow is now part of the Soil Association Open Farms Network.


Like the vast majority of Cumbrian organic farmers these people realise that
livestock is vital to keep fertility in the soil

Nonsense.

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

You've just been demoted from fool to a silly fool.

yawn, no arguments, just insult, your diet is letting you down

That's rich coming from you, webster, and a lie.

so what are the constitutents of your diet?

I've already told you.

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

I 'had it' from the very beginning. Go look.

then you hid it damned well

I didn't hide it. Go look.

So you still haven't, or are pretending that you haven't.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.

False. Where is your feed coming from, more to the point.

'In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food
chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people.
An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and
lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of
soya, 30 times more.
...
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

so how are you going to convince them to sell you food?

Why would I need to do that.

what are the consitutents of your diet?

A fraction of the plant matter required to feed livestock.

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

There's nothing to stop people producing their own food,
except for your business festering across most of the land.

yawn,
people in the UK are so keen on manual labour that most farm workers come
from Eastern Europe, and before you rant about poverty wages, go to the
defra statistics pages and discover farm incomes

Why don't you tell us all about it.

just did

Poverty wages. What's your income, including grants, subsidies, etc.

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

Bullseye. You buy what is readily available, regardless.

of course, because I'm not a hypocrite, I admit I make a living out of
producing and selling food

So why do you claim not to buy soya?

because I haven't bought soya for over 30 years

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 January 2007 14:47

'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.

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What were you referring to, if not soya?

How do you make a living?

Irrelevant.

so you daren't say what you do for a living and you won't say what the
ingredients of your diet are

No, it is irrelevant, and I have already told you what I eat.

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.

so what,

Displaced people, deforestation, species extinction, global warming.

I don't use soya, don't need to

What changed a year ago to eliminate that need?

see above,30 years ago

What were you buying from Brazil a year ago?

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.

and if I produced milk this might be of relevence

You raise cattle.

yes, so what, the difference in diet between a beef animal and a high
yielding dairy cow is considerable. If you don't know that then you really
know nothing on bovine nutrition

'Finishing cattle
Bull beef and finishing steers, irrespective of silage quality,
require supplements with high quality protein eg soya bean
or rapeseed meal.'
http://www.kt.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/FACT%...files/kt49.pdf

so now find and paste an uptodate website which discusses the current
issues
not history

No need. The issues were explained very well.

but didn't contradict what I said

It certainly did, in more ways than one.

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.

So you say.

well you haven't produced any evidence to the contary

Your say so doesn't count as evidence, jim.

no, its just you haven't been able to find anything that contradicted the
press story that I quoted

$100 million isn't going to go far in a population of nearly 38 million.

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

And livestock in the 'developed' world will eat what?

Grass as usual, which is the majority feed of most beef and dairy cattle,
all that rape meal and maize gluten produced as a result of biofuel, the
traditional food industry wastes like citrus pulp from juice production,
Plenty to go at

So WHY is the UK importing soya from Brazil, etc?

vegetarians, pigs, poultry, some dairy rations,

You're a liar.

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

I already told you, blame shifter.

assume I forgot, let us have some details

Go back and look.

have done, weren't there, not in any of the messages that were crossposted
to this group

Yes it is, in a message you replied to. You snipped it.

Sustainable farming includes crop rotations and not ploughing land
that
erodes

Very good.


which means grass and livestock grazing it

False.


'The negative impacts of soil erosion due to inappropriate land
management have become increasingly apparent in England and
Wales since the 1970s. A number of factors are responsible
for this increase, including animal and crop production on
inappropriate land, overstocking, bad timing of agricultural
practices, degradation of river banks by stock, and lack of
ground cover in winter months.


which backs up my comments on sustainable agriculture, crop production on
inappropriate land is as big a danger as livestock production on
inappropriate land, which is why some land has to be stocked with livestock

No, that makes no sense.

37.5m tonnes of petroleum products a
year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country
is
rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of
rapeseed
produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could
provide
1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run our cars and busses and lorries
on
biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are
5.7m
in
the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume
almost
all our cropland".
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2004

That doesn't provide support for your above claim.

duhh
work out the numbers pearl, work out the numbers, do the sums

Support your claim, jim.

I did, that is why I posted the Monbiot piece, if you cannot understand it,
that is your problem

You didn't.

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.





And of course we note that pearl refuses to answer questions on her
diet

I have and you've snipped it. That makes you a silly foolish liar,
jim.

well I cannot find it, so could you repeat it please

No.


Fair enough, pearl refuses to admit the details of her diet because she
knows we'd take the rip out of her because of the air miles and the fact
that most is imported from third world countries with water deficits.

You've some cheek, blame shifter.

You can't twist and wiggle your way off the hook, try as you might,
and the more you try, the more foolish and ignorant you look, jim.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:44:32 -0000, "pearl"
wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

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


You are competing with the Chinese on the world market to feed
livestock.

so? At least I admit it and am not in denial

That's the first time you have admitted it.

it must have been in something that wasn't crossposted, because it is
something I've never made any bones about

You keep trying to foist the blame onto those who use
a fraction of the resources required to raise livestock.

At least I admit what is in my diet

Boy, are you dumb.


OK so name your protein sources

I have. You shouldn't have snipped it the first time.

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

Nonsense.

OK, so produce the figures to show that the UK can produce food and fuel
for
the current population

Forget your precious biofuels. There are sustainable alternatives.

dont tell me to forget them, I am merely pointing out what the world is
actually doing, I am not the one in denial, the EU has set down the
quantities

Biofuels: Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelsBiod...tionHunger.php

But the world is changing, as you keep pointing out.

..
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

Shit happens when people are angry enough.

or greedy

Indeed.

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

Of course they were producing food -- for *themselves*.

no, that is what imports means, Russians weren't even producing food for
themselves

Nonsense. The UK imports feedstuffs for livestock, yet
most of the UK's arable land is used to produce feed..

what on earth has this got to do with the Russians unable to grow their own
food?

"no, that is what imports means, Russians weren't even producing food for
themselves" Ergo, you are unable to produce feed for livestock in the UK.

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

Do a survey. All those millions of English people in the urban slums
can't afford to pay the premium price of houses in the countryside.

that isn't what was said, where is evidence that these people want to
give
up their jobs and go back to subsistance agriculture

'Many people want to live in the Countryside. Of those people
living in the countryside 89% would prefer to continue to do so.
If you asked people living in an inner city area if they would
prefer to continue doing so, only 21% would say so, with 51%
preferring the countryside.
..'
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/mi...r/bg060608.htm

now answer the question where is evidence that these people want to give up
their jobs and go back to subsistance agriculture, not do people just dream
of a nice house in the country

Growing food would naturally be part of countryside living,
at least for the "working class". What else do you imagine?

then if you have these figures why are you in denial. Why are you
refusing
to admit that there isn't enough food to go round and that we are going
to
be the ones who are short?

Huh? In caps, as I'm running out of options to get through
to that dim bulb you call a brain, jim:

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.


good, you've finally grasped it

So you still haven't, or are pretending that you haven't.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.

False. Where is your feed coming from, more to the point.

'In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food
chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people.
An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and
lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of
soya, 30 times more.
..
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

look at the vegetarian society page, soya is a recommended protein
source
for vegetarians

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

good, you've finally grasped it

So you still haven't, or are pretending that you haven't.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.

False. Where is your feed coming from, more to the point.

'In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food
chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people.
An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and
lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of
soya, 30 times more.
..
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

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_??

Well?

well what, or were you about to tell us about your diet, a subject you
seem
strangely coy about

Answer the question.

when you name your protein sources, or even give a list of the plants you
get food from

Answer the question. Why are you determined to continue to eat meat?

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 conversing with you here, right now. You should leave.

why, I'm enjoying you struggle to cope with the idea that actually, the
world doesn't owe you a living
How are you going to convince the rest of the world to feed you

THERE _IS_ ENOUGH FOOD TO GO ROUND - TO FEED
PEOPLE DIRECTLY; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO FEED
LIVESTOCK TOO. IT IS EITHER PEOPLE, WILDLIFE,
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, OR, PEOPLE EATING MEAT.

good, you've finally grasped it

So you still haven't, or are pretending that you haven't.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.

False. Where is your feed coming from, more to the point.

'In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food
chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people.
An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and
lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of
soya, 30 times more.
..
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

Table 1: Agricultural land uses in East Cumbria, 2004
Description Area (in hectares)
..
Wheat 4,5031
Total cereals 17,936
..


duhh East Cumbria and Kendal are not the Lake District,

http://www.cumbrian-cottages.co.uk/region-map.aspx

yes and you look at the map of the lake district national park you will see
that East Cumbria is east of the M6 and outside the park.

'County's record wheat harvest

NEAR-PERFECT conditions brought record wheat yields to
Cumbria this year while crops elsewhere in the country were
devastated by the summer heatwave.

Cumbria and the north-west's wheat yield increased by an
average one tonne per hectare with highs of 9.3 tonnes per
hectare in some parts of the county.

The average yield for the north-west and Cumbria was 6.3
tonnes of wheat per hectare - almost 20 per cent more
than last year - according to figures released by Defra. It
compares to 5.3 tonnes per hectare brought in last year.

Guy Gagen, chief arable adviser with the NFU, said: "The
growing conditions must have been just about perfect in
the region."

http://www.businessgazette.co.uk/Far...spx?aid=427991

'Cumbria County Council: This would cover the whole of the
existing county council area, with a population of 487600. ...
http://www.boundarycommittee.org.uk/...r.cfm/news/280

'Table 1: Agricultural land uses in East Cumbria, 2004
Description Area (in hectares)
..
Wheat 4,503
Total cereals 17,936
..
http://com5.uclan.ac.uk/carlisle/cre...griculture.pdf

At 5.8t = 0.58 kg (580 grams) cereals pp/pd. More than enough.

You also recommended I check up
"We grow an extensive range of organic vegetables, herbs
and fruit, and operate a local organic box scheme."
http://www.howbarroworganic.co.uk/


so I did
Howbarrow Farm is situated close to the village of Cartmel, on the Furness
Peninsula and in the Southern Lake District.


The farm has been organic since 1996 and is licensed with the Soil
Association.



We farm without the use of herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilisers,
antibiotics, growth promoters or genetically modified organisms.

All our livestock is born and raised on the farm. It is slaughtered and
butchered in a local abattoir .

We grow an extensive range of organic vegetables, herbs and fruit, and
operate a local organic box scheme.

Our aim is to sell our meat and produce competitively priced. It is
available direct from the farm, or via our Home Delivery Service. Deliveries
can also be arranged nationwide (but we would prefer you to buy locally!!)

We also offer farmhouse B and B - with an organic breakfast, much of it
home-produced.

Howbarrow is now part of the Soil Association Open Farms Network.


Like the vast majority of Cumbrian organic farmers these people realise that
livestock is vital to keep fertility in the soil

Nonsense.

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

You've just been demoted from fool to a silly fool.

yawn, no arguments, just insult, your diet is letting you down

That's rich coming from you, webster, and a lie.

so what are the constitutents of your diet?

I've already told you.

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

I 'had it' from the very beginning. Go look.

then you hid it damned well

I didn't hide it. Go look.

So you still haven't, or are pretending that you haven't.

So now answer the question, where is your food coming from because all these
people are determined to continue to eat meat and you are in the
overpopulated country that cannot supply all its own food and energy.

False. Where is your feed coming from, more to the point.

'In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food
chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people.
An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and
lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of
soya, 30 times more.
..
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

so how are you going to convince them to sell you food?

Why would I need to do that.

what are the consitutents of your diet?

A fraction of the plant matter required to feed livestock.

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

There's nothing to stop people producing their own food,
except for your business festering across most of the land.

yawn,
people in the UK are so keen on manual labour that most farm workers come
from Eastern Europe, and before you rant about poverty wages, go to the
defra statistics pages and discover farm incomes

Why don't you tell us all about it.

just did

Poverty wages. What's your income, including grants, subsidies, etc.

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

Bullseye. You buy what is readily available, regardless.

of course, because I'm not a hypocrite, I admit I make a living out of
producing and selling food

So why do you claim not to buy soya?

because I haven't bought soya for over 30 years

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 January 2007 14:47

'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.

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What were you referring to, if not soya?

How do you make a living?

Irrelevant.

so you daren't say what you do for a living and you won't say what the
ingredients of your diet are

No, it is irrelevant, and I have already told you what I eat.

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.

so what,

Displaced people, deforestation, species extinction, global warming.

I don't use soya, don't need to

What changed a year ago to eliminate that need?

see above,30 years ago

What were you buying from Brazil a year ago?

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.

and if I produced milk this might be of relevence

You raise cattle.

yes, so what, the difference in diet between a beef animal and a high
yielding dairy cow is considerable. If you don't know that then you really
know nothing on bovine nutrition

'Finishing cattle
Bull beef and finishing steers, irrespective of silage quality,
require supplements with high quality protein eg soya bean
or rapeseed meal.'
http://www.kt.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/FACT%...files/kt49.pdf

so now find and paste an uptodate website which discusses the current
issues
not history

No need. The issues were explained very well.

but didn't contradict what I said

It certainly did, in more ways than one.

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.

So you say.

well you haven't produced any evidence to the contary

Your say so doesn't count as evidence, jim.

no, its just you haven't been able to find anything that contradicted the
press story that I quoted

$100 million isn't going to go far in a population of nearly 38 million.

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

And livestock in the 'developed' world will eat what?

Grass as usual, which is the majority feed of most beef and dairy cattle,
all that rape meal and maize gluten produced as a result of biofuel, the
traditional food industry wastes like citrus pulp from juice production,
Plenty to go at

So WHY is the UK importing soya from Brazil, etc?

vegetarians, pigs, poultry, some dairy rations,

You're a liar.

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

I already told you, blame shifter.

assume I forgot, let us have some details

Go back and look.

have done, weren't there, not in any of the messages that were crossposted
to this group

Yes it is, in a message you replied to. You snipped it.

Sustainable farming includes crop rotations and not ploughing land
that
erodes

Very good.


which means grass and livestock grazing it

False.


'The negative impacts of soil erosion due to inappropriate land
management have become increasingly apparent in England and
Wales since the 1970s. A number of factors are responsible
for this increase, including animal and crop production on
inappropriate land, overstocking, bad timing of agricultural
practices, degradation of river banks by stock, and lack of
ground cover in winter months.


which backs up my comments on sustainable agriculture, crop production on
inappropriate land is as big a danger as livestock production on
inappropriate land, which is why some land has to be stocked with livestock

No, that makes no sense.

37.5m tonnes of petroleum products a
year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country
is
rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of
rapeseed
produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could
provide
1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run our cars and busses and lorries
on
biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are
5.7m
in
the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume
almost
all our cropland".
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2004

That doesn't provide support for your above claim.

duhh
work out the numbers pearl, work out the numbers, do the sums

Support your claim, jim.

I did, that is why I posted the Monbiot piece, if you cannot understand it,
that is your problem

You didn't.

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.





And of course we note that pearl refuses to answer questions on her
diet

I have and you've snipped it. That makes you a silly foolish liar,
jim.

well I cannot find it, so could you repeat it please

No.


Fair enough, pearl refuses to admit the details of her diet because she
knows we'd take the rip out of her because of the air miles and the fact
that most is imported from third world countries with water deficits.

You've some cheek, blame shifter.

You can't twist and wiggle your way off the hook, try as you might,
and the more you try, the more foolish and ignorant you look, jim.

That's our dimbo. He cares little for himself or his own family, let
alone the global community.

He obviously doesn't play chess, you checkmate him in so few
moves..lol

"(o)(o)" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:44:32 -0000, "pearl"
wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...
..
Fair enough, pearl refuses to admit the details of her diet because she
knows we'd take the rip out of her because of the air miles and the fact
that most is imported from third world countries with water deficits.

You've some cheek, blame shifter.

You can't twist and wiggle your way off the hook, try as you might,
and the more you try, the more foolish and ignorant you look, jim.

That's our dimbo. He cares little for himself or his own family, let
alone the global community.

That is clear, and he doesn't seem to realise that most people reading this
do care about other human beings, if not biodiversity and sustainability.

He's only continuing out of concern for status and the NG he inhabits.

He obviously doesn't play chess, you checkmate him in so few
moves..lol