> *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil > fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
I take it you mean sustainable without chemical fertilizers. There is plenty of farm ground here in southeast Nebraska that is used for grain production only. Minimum and no till practices have lessened soil erosion. Crop rotation between corn and soybeans has increased dramatically since the Freedom to Farm Act and Roundup Ready soybeans came into being. Some of the local cattle feeders run their cattle in the cornstalks. One is thinking of stopping that practice. He thinks the compaction problems caused by the cattle might outweigh the benefits of pasturing the stalks.
Dean
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>>>Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits
> being
>>>reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
>>*** Well Duh! We are farmers. This is our business and life. This farmed
> was
>>converted from conventional to sustainable in 1982 and from sustainable to >>organic in 1993. >> We attend work shops, conventions, and expos. We attend classes >>every week all winter put on by the extension. My husband has a BS in
> dairy
>>science with a minor in crop and soils science. We both have a certificate >>in sustainable farming. We read industry publications and talk to other >>farmers all the time. >> So in reply to your condecending question YES! We have and do use >>green manure crops on our farm. I have personally planted crops for use as >>green manure. However I can see that you are an expert and know far more >>about the subject than I so why don't you tell us what you know?
> I'm sure you know *everything* there is to know about farming in the past, > present and the future.
She knows something about it, which is an infinite amount more than you know.
> yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a > huge world-wide surplus of grain?
At a price.
'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, ..' http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
It is unsustainable.
The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro focused on the sustainability of the world's natural resources and highlighted the need to link and balance environmental stewardship,economic development, and community vitality. Throughout the world, there are many instances where human-wrought pressures have resulted in environmental degradation through processes such as soil erosion and surface and ground water contamination. United Nations Environmental Program, Desertification Control Bulletin 17, 1988, p.15. http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/oce/sustainable-development/secmemo.htm
Natural resources are being degraded and depleted.
Excerpts from the REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)
14.34. Inappropriate and uncontrolled land uses are a major cause of degradation and depletion of land resources. Present land use often disregards the actual potentials, carrying capacities and limitations of land resources, as well as their diversity in space. It is estimated that the world's population, now at 5.4 billion, will be 6.25 billion by the turn of the century. The need to increase food production to meet the expanding needs of the population will put enormous pressure on all natural resources, including land.
Exhausted soil is unproductive.
14.35. Poverty and malnutrition are already endemic in many regions. The destruction and degradation of agricultural and environmental resources is a major issue. Techniques for increasing production and conserving soil and water resources are already available but are not widely or systematically applied. A systematic approach is needed for identifying land uses and production systems that are sustainable in each land and climate zone, including the economic, social and institutional mechanisms necessary for their implementation.
Productivity of huge areas of land is declining.
14.44. Land degradation is the most important environmental problem affecting extensive areas of land in both developed and developing countries. The problem of soil erosion is particularly acute in developing countries, while problems of salinization, waterlogging, soil pollution and loss of soil fertility are increasing in all countries. Land degradation is serious because the productivity of huge areas of land is declining just when populations are increasing rapidly and the demand on the land is growing to produce more food, fibre and fuel. Efforts to control land degradation, particularly in developing countries, have had limited success to date. Well planned, long-term national and regional land conservation and rehabilitation programmes, with strong political support and adequate funding, are now needed. While land-use planning and land zoning, combined with better land management, should provide long-term solutions, it is urgent to arrest land degradation and launch conservation and rehabilitation programmes in the most critically affected and vulnerable areas.
'Altogether, about 50% of the Earth's land surface is grazed by domestic livestock --' In addition, 'while about 10% (3.7 billion acres) of the Earth's terrestrial surface is cropland, nearly half of this land is used to grow food for livestock.' http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
Press Releases January 08, 2004 State of the World 2004: Richer, Fatter, and Not Much Happier RICHER, FATTER, AND NOT MUCH HAPPIER Consumer appetite erodes quality of life for rich and poor, reports State of the World 2004
Washington, D.C.—The world is consuming goods and services at an unsustainable pace, with serious consequences for the well-being of people and the planet, reports the Worldwatch Institute in its annual report, State of the World 2004.
Around 1.7 billion people worldwide—more than a quarter of humanity—have entered the "consumer class," adopting the diets, transportation systems, and lifestyles that were limited to the rich nations of Europe, North America, and Japan during most of the last century. In China alone, 240 million people have joined the ranks of consumers—a number that will soon surpass that in the United States.
"Rising consumption has helped meet basic needs and create jobs," says Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin. "But as we enter a new century, this unprecedented consumer appetite is undermining the natural systems we all depend on, and making it even harder for the world's poor to meet their basic needs."
"Higher levels of obesity and personal debt, chronic time shortages, and a degraded environment are all signs that excessive consumption is diminishing the quality of life for many people. The challenge now is to mobilize governments, businesses, and citizens to shift their focus away from the unrestrained accumulation of goods and toward finding ways to ensure a better life for all." .. "It would be foolish to underestimate the challenge of checking the consumption juggernaut," concludes Flavin. "But as the costs of unbridled appetites grow, the need for innovative responses becomes clearer. In the long run, meeting basic human needs, improving human health, and supporting a natural world that can sustain us will require that we control consumption, rather than allow consumption to control us." http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2004/01/08/
'In 1991, Dr. Sanchez accepted a position as the head of ICRAF in Nairobi, Kenya. There, he quickly discovered that African agricultural production lagged due to the extremely depleted nature of the soil. Dr. Sanchez’ most enduring contribution to ending world hunger has been his development of the means to replenish crucial nutrients in exhausted soils, through the development and promotion of agroforestry. This practice of planting trees on farms, when combined with adding locally available rock phosphate to the soil, has provided farmers in Africa with a way to fertilize their soils inexpensively and naturally, without relying on costly chemical fertilizers.
The 150,000 small scale farmers who are utilizing Dr. Sanchez’ methods are experiencing greatly increased yields, in some cases 200% to 400% above previous plantings. In response to this success, ICRAF plans to help African farmers plant 5.5 billion more trees over the next decade, the equivalent of another tropical rainforest. ICRAF’s goal is to move 20 million people out of poverty and remove more that 100 million tons of CO2 from the air with this project.'
> I'm sure you know *everything* there is to know about farming in the past, > present and the future. Your arrogance is not surprising.
*** You didn't ask about "everything" You asked about green manure crops. Not exactly a new idea. I take it from your refusal to address my invitation that you know little or nothing about agriculture. Your willingness you tell professionals their business while knowing nothing of the subject yourself is not surprising. Have you walked in fields that grew green manure crops? Have you planted crops in those fields and seen the results yourself? Have you ever plowed down a crop of sweet clover (a common green manure crop) and observed the results? I have done all these thing and more. As I said this is our business.
Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, WI USA
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>>yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a >>huge world-wide surplus of grain?
> At a price.
"At a price" sums it up.
Food is not getting to people who need it because they cannot pay the price. Or, as is the case in some parts of Africa, because the people in power are using famine as a means of committing genocide or selling it for money. (Mugabe and his supporters are diverting the grain meant for the starving masses and selling it on the market.)
How much food do we need to grow and give to Mugabe before he stops selling it instead of allowing it to get to the people who need it?
Vegan-organics is, briefly, any system of cultivation that avoids artificial chemicals and sprays, GMOs, livestock manures and animal remains from slaughterhouses or fish processing etc. Alternatively, fertility is maintained by vegetable composts, green manures, crop rotation, mulches, and any other method that is sustainable, ecologically viable and not dependent upon animal exploitation. This will ensure long-term fertility, and wholesome food for this and future generations. .. http://www.vegansociety.com/html/people/lifestyle/home_and_garden/veg...
IS IT TIME FOR A PLANT-BASED AGRICULTURE? .. Soil fertility does not originate from animals; it comes from plants at the bottom of the food chain. Nor does human nutrition originate from animals. When non-vegetarians eat flesh, they obtain nutrients that come from whatever that animal was fed. Obtaining nutrients in this manner is not only unhealthy, but also an inefficient utilization of energy and resources. Meat, for example, contains absolutely none of the beneficial fiber from the animat's diet, and its protein level is too high. Likewise, when grass is "filtered" through a cow, most of its nitrogen is lost in its urine.
Bonsall explained that if you take grass that could go to feed a cow and instead put it directly into your compost pile, then you can get all the nitrogen you need, in addition to other nutrients not even found in manure. Using the grass yields more organic matter than manure, and subsequently more fertilizer. Tapping fertility at its source is simply a more efficient way to obtain nutrients. ..' http://www.navs-online.org/voice/plant.html
> >>yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a > >>huge world-wide surplus of grain?
> > At a price.
> "At a price" sums it up.
> Food is not getting to people who need it because they cannot pay the > price. Or, as is the case in some parts of Africa, because the people > in power are using famine as a means of committing genocide or selling > it for money. (Mugabe and his supporters are diverting the grain meant > for the starving masses and selling it on the market.)
Not just that degenerate psycho either.
'Today, production of livestock and livestock feed for the world market is supplanting the production of staple foods in many developing countries.
In Mexico, for example, where millions of people are chronically under-nourished, one third of the grain produced is fed to livestock. In Brazil, where 23 percent of the cultivated land is now being used to grow soybeans -- half of which is destined for export for livestock feed -- less land is available to grow corn and black beans, staples of the Brazilian peasant diet. The result has been less food at higher prices for an increasingly hungry and impoverished population. http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html
> How much food do we need to grow and give to Mugabe before he stops > selling it instead of allowing it to get to the people who need it?
Well, maybe if the demand for grain wasn't so high he'd have no incentive.
>>>U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat,
No, they couldn't. Most of the grain fed to livestock is not edible by humans. This is a settled issue.
The *resources* used to grow the grain eaten by livestock could instead be devoted to growing food for people, but that demands the question be asked: why aren't the resources being used for that right now? Could it be...that the people who eat meat are willing to pay more for the grain as livestock feed than so-called "starving" people are willing to pay for the same resources?
>>yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a >>huge world-wide surplus of grain?
> At a price.
Of course "at a price", you FUCKING moron. The people who have the food grew it using resources that cost them money. They are not in the habit of giving away the goods they produce.
Fundamentally, you don't understand the so-called "hunger" issue.
> > yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a > > huge world-wide surplus of grain?
> At a price.
> 'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons > per hectare per year. [..]
You didn't answer the question. What does it matter how many people all that grain could feed? People don't want to eat just grain, otherwise there would not be such a large surplus of the stuff now. The statement is just pure rhetoric.
"Russ Thompson" <p...@mwt.net> wrote in message <news:4001644d_1@corp.newsgroups.com>... > but I'm actually more interested in the > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, > no > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > your input.
> *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil > fertility.
Would the replacement of animal operations with small-scale sustainable, organic operations prevent the soil erosion problems experienced with larger, industrial agriculture operations?
> Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> I have discussed something similar to this before.
> I think we need to refine the question. First, are we talking about > eliminating the species which we now use as "farm" animals, or are we > talking about creating a space where members of those species could > survive as wild animals, but humans would no longer use them as > domesticated animals?
My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
> Second, are we talking about removing only one > part of the situation -- just animals -- or a major social change > where humans also develop a different worldview and act to control their > own population growth and ecological devastation?
Ideally, the latter is my assumption.
> Third, as I'm sure > you know, not all land used for animal "production" can be used for > production of non-animal foodstuffs. Certainly, a large amount of it > could be, but not all.
Right.
> We'd also have to discuss the question of > fertilizer for non-animal crops,
Are animal products absolutely required for fertilizer?
> and whether a society without farm > animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence > and organic, sustainable agriculture,
Yes, assume that.
> or whether such a society would > still depend, or depend even more, on massive chemical and artificial > food production -- are we envisioning many small, organic farms > fertilized with guano or buffalo chips, or are we talking about huge, > power-intensive hydroponic farms in giant buildings, and vegetable > equivalents of current factory farms?
I am envisioning the replacement of large-scale, industrial animal production facilities with many small, organic, sustainable farms. (this is a hypothetical question so I'm allowed to imagine here).
> There are all sorts of possibilities, depending on which way human > society went before and after the elimination of farm animals.
> But it's a fascinating question. Thanks.
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > your input.
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > your input.
> There are a number of very important drugs which rely > on farm animals for production. The most recent one I > ran into was a contrasting medium allowing an echo > cardiogram to "see" parts of the heart of interest.
> It requires eggs as a medium in the creation process.
Thanks for the input. On the other hand, these methods were developed by a society that presumably thinks it's OK to use animals as resources, so I'm wondering what other alternatives we might have developed if we did not hold that view. In other words, could humans, as extremely intelligent, resourceful creatures, have developed alternative means for maintaining our health, or perhaps more importantly, *can we* in the future. But you certainly bring up a valid point - the use of animals in "health care" is pervasive, and removing animals from the equation would present some serious challenges, to say the least.
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be > the > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both > good > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> That is an excellent question. I don't think the idea has been examined > closely at all, and I find that rather ironic considering that is exactly > what animal rights activists and vegans are proposing, don't you?
Let's be fair. *Some* AR activists and vegans advocate that. *Most* ARs and vegans are concerned with cruelty issues first and foremost. Everyone knows that animal products are not going to disappear overnight. However, it certainly does warrant understanding the ramifications if one is to propose such an ideal.
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, > no > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > your input.
> Look at the fundamental energy equation. The human race is sustained by > calories from plant material, including plant material cycled through > animals. Right now that includes virtually every plant on the face of the > earth, grasses that grow on hillsides and dry prairie are used for grazing, > hay is grown on marginal land, grains that do not meet human standards are > fed to animals, by-products from plant products like oils are all fed to > animals as mash. Plants grown for animal feed such as corn, are 100% > utilized. All of these sources would be lost. So, say as a race we consume > 100 trillion calories per month (or whatever), we would have to find a way > replace all those calories through agriculture. The massive factory farms > that would be needed would dwarf anything we see today
If it were a sudden, revolutionary change as I proposed, I'd certainly agree. A gradual, evolutionary change might yield different results though.
> Also large areas of the world lack the climate and conditions to sustain > themselves through plant agriculture. The task of bringing food to these > people alone would be monumental.
Yes, distribution seems to be one of the key stumbling blocks in finding alternatives to these huge industrial operations.
> The rational answer is that we need a mixed solution, utilizing resources > from every possible source, such as we have now. The answer to the problems > within the system lie in reform and education, not radical quasi-politics.
I think reality dictates that any changes would happen gradually over time. I'm just trying to anticipate what the obstacles are.
> > yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a > > huge world-wide surplus of grain?
> At a price.
> 'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons > per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, > at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may > exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, ..' > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
> It is unsustainable.
> The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development > (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro focused on the sustainability of the world's > natural resources and highlighted the need to link and balance > environmental stewardship,economic development, and community vitality. > Throughout the world, there are many instances where human-wrought > pressures have resulted in environmental degradation through processes > such as soil erosion and surface and ground water contamination. > United Nations Environmental Program, Desertification Control Bulletin 17, > 1988, p.15. > http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/oce/sustainable-development/secmemo.htm
> Natural resources are being degraded and depleted.
> Excerpts from the REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS > CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT > Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)
> 14.34. Inappropriate and uncontrolled land uses are a major cause of > degradation and depletion of land resources. Present land use often > disregards the actual potentials, carrying capacities and limitations of > land resources, as well as their diversity in space. It is estimated that > the world's population, now at 5.4 billion, will be 6.25 billion by the > turn of the century. The need to increase food production to meet the > expanding needs of the population will put enormous pressure on all > natural resources, including land.
> Exhausted soil is unproductive.
> 14.35. Poverty and malnutrition are already endemic in many regions. > The destruction and degradation of agricultural and environmental > resources is a major issue. Techniques for increasing production and > conserving soil and water resources are already available but are not > widely or systematically applied. A systematic approach is needed > for identifying land uses and production systems that are sustainable in > each land and climate zone, including the economic, social and > institutional mechanisms necessary for their implementation.
> Productivity of huge areas of land is declining.
> 14.44. Land degradation is the most important environmental problem > affecting extensive areas of land in both developed and developing > countries. The problem of soil erosion is particularly acute in developing > countries, while problems of salinization, waterlogging, soil pollution and > loss of soil fertility are increasing in all countries. Land degradation is > serious because the productivity of huge areas of land is declining just > when populations are increasing rapidly and the demand on the land is > growing to produce more food, fibre and fuel. Efforts to control land > degradation, particularly in developing countries, have had limited > success to date. Well planned, long-term national and regional land > conservation and rehabilitation programmes, with strong political > support and adequate funding, are now needed. While land-use > planning and land zoning, combined with better land management, > should provide long-term solutions, it is urgent to arrest land > degradation and launch conservation and rehabilitation programmes > in the most critically affected and vulnerable areas.
Yes, I certainly don't see why, in the long term, the discontinuation of animal farming would not significantly *increase* the amount of food available world wide, assuming of course that the land is farmed sustainably. Distribution is certainly a major consideration, but from a sheer standpoint of available food, I don't see how it could be a bad thing over the long haul.
> > > yawn.. that tired old saw. What about the fact that there already exists a > > > huge world-wide surplus of grain?
> > At a price.
> > 'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons > > per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, > > at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may > > exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, ..' > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
> > It is unsustainable.
> > The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development > > (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro focused on the sustainability of the world's > > natural resources and highlighted the need to link and balance > > environmental stewardship,economic development, and community vitality. > > Throughout the world, there are many instances where human-wrought > > pressures have resulted in environmental degradation through processes > > such as soil erosion and surface and ground water contamination. > > United Nations Environmental Program, Desertification Control Bulletin 17, > > 1988, p.15. > > http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/oce/sustainable-development/secmemo.htm
> > Natural resources are being degraded and depleted.
> > Excerpts from the REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS > > CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT > > Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)
> > 14.34. Inappropriate and uncontrolled land uses are a major cause of > > degradation and depletion of land resources. Present land use often > > disregards the actual potentials, carrying capacities and limitations of > > land resources, as well as their diversity in space. It is estimated that > > the world's population, now at 5.4 billion, will be 6.25 billion by the > > turn of the century. The need to increase food production to meet the > > expanding needs of the population will put enormous pressure on all > > natural resources, including land.
> > Exhausted soil is unproductive.
> > 14.35. Poverty and malnutrition are already endemic in many regions. > > The destruction and degradation of agricultural and environmental > > resources is a major issue. Techniques for increasing production and > > conserving soil and water resources are already available but are not > > widely or systematically applied. A systematic approach is needed > > for identifying land uses and production systems that are sustainable in > > each land and climate zone, including the economic, social and > > institutional mechanisms necessary for their implementation.
> > Productivity of huge areas of land is declining.
> > 14.44. Land degradation is the most important environmental problem > > affecting extensive areas of land in both developed and developing > > countries. The problem of soil erosion is particularly acute in developing > > countries, while problems of salinization, waterlogging, soil pollution and > > loss of soil fertility are increasing in all countries. Land degradation is > > serious because the productivity of huge areas of land is declining just > > when populations are increasing rapidly and the demand on the land is > > growing to produce more food, fibre and fuel. Efforts to control land > > degradation, particularly in developing countries, have had limited > > success to date. Well planned, long-term national and regional land > > conservation and rehabilitation programmes, with strong political > > support and adequate funding, are now needed. While land-use > > planning and land zoning, combined with better land management, > > should provide long-term solutions, it is urgent to arrest land > > degradation and launch conservation and rehabilitation programmes > > in the most critically affected and vulnerable areas.
> Yes, I certainly don't see why, in the long term, the discontinuation > of animal farming would not significantly *increase* the amount of > food available world wide, assuming of course that the land is farmed > sustainably. Distribution is certainly a major consideration, but from > a sheer standpoint of available food, I don't see how it could be a > bad thing over the long haul.
On 1/11/04 8:44 PM, in article c5c0e6e6.0401111844.7696a...@posting.google.com, "ta" <t...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Some, uh, stuff cut.
> Yes, I certainly don't see why, in the long term, the discontinuation > of animal farming would not significantly *increase* the amount of > food available world wide, assuming of course that the land is farmed > sustainably. Distribution is certainly a major consideration, but from > a sheer standpoint of available food, I don't see how it could be a > bad thing over the long haul.
This might be something to think about. Something like 20% of the American food dollar goes to the farmer. So 80% of the consumer food cost is for other things besides the cost of the raw materials in food. The link below is to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website. One of the links on that page will show prices for food items broken down as consumer cost and farm gate value.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> Yes, I certainly don't see why, in the long term, the discontinuation > of animal farming would not significantly *increase* the amount of > food available world wide, assuming of course that the land is farmed > sustainably. Distribution is certainly a major consideration, but from > a sheer standpoint of available food, I don't see how it could be a > bad thing over the long haul.
================== So, you don't see how growing even more foods that will just go to waste with all the rest that does now cannot be a bad thing? I thought you guys were against massive farming? And here you are calling for more farming and all the environamnetal damge that that entails, even in organic or sustainable, just to let even more excess go to waste.
"Dean Hoffman" <dh0...@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote in message > On 1/11/04 8:57 AM, in article 4001644...@corp.newsgroups.com, "Russ > Thompson" <p...@mwt.net> wrote: > > *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil > > fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
> I take it you mean sustainable without chemical fertilizers.
How do you translate Farm animals into chemical fertilizers? Farm animals to traditional (or organic) fertilizers I could understand but chemical fertilizers???????
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote > > "ta" <t...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> > > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be > > the > > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both > > good > > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> > That is an excellent question. I don't think the idea has been examined > > closely at all, and I find that rather ironic considering that is exactly > > what animal rights activists and vegans are proposing, don't you?
> Let's be fair. *Some* AR activists and vegans advocate that. *Most* > ARs and vegans are concerned with cruelty issues first and foremost. > Everyone knows that animal products are not going to disappear > overnight. However, it certainly does warrant understanding the > ramifications if one is to propose such an ideal.
Good idea, but as Tom Regan put it, "We must do what is right, though the heavens fall." That's the "leader" of the modern AR movement.
> > > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > > > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, > > no > > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > > your input.
> > Look at the fundamental energy equation. The human race is sustained by > > calories from plant material, including plant material cycled through > > animals. Right now that includes virtually every plant on the face of the > > earth, grasses that grow on hillsides and dry prairie are used for grazing, > > hay is grown on marginal land, grains that do not meet human standards are > > fed to animals, by-products from plant products like oils are all fed to > > animals as mash. Plants grown for animal feed such as corn, are 100% > > utilized. All of these sources would be lost. So, say as a race we consume > > 100 trillion calories per month (or whatever), we would have to find a way > > replace all those calories through agriculture. The massive factory farms > > that would be needed would dwarf anything we see today
> If it were a sudden, revolutionary change as I proposed, I'd certainly > agree. A gradual, evolutionary change might yield different results > though.
The dilemma would still remain, population X and growing, demanding Y calories and growing, to be fed by an ever shrinking number of sources of calories.
> > Also large areas of the world lack the climate and conditions to sustain > > themselves through plant agriculture. The task of bringing food to these > > people alone would be monumental.
> Yes, distribution seems to be one of the key stumbling blocks in > finding alternatives to these huge industrial operations.
> > The rational answer is that we need a mixed solution, utilizing resources > > from every possible source, such as we have now. The answer to the problems > > within the system lie in reform and education, not radical quasi-politics.
> I think reality dictates that any changes would happen gradually over > time. I'm just trying to anticipate what the obstacles are.
Economic disaster and starvation on an unprecedented scale. I think it would make an excellent theme for a sci-fi novel.
> Economic disaster and starvation on an unprecedented scale. I think it would > make an excellent theme for a sci-fi novel.
A SF novel on the opposite senario -- the sudden devastation of all grass-type grain crops due to a virulent new strain of blight -- has already been written as _No Blade Of Grass_. An equally interesting novel on the sudden wiping-out of most of humanity and its ecological impact has been written as _Earth Abides_. Two novels of the impact of massive human overpopulation and the elimination of most non-human animals are _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ and _Caves of Steel_. There were a whole flood of SF novels on ecological themes during the 1970s, and they continue to be written ever since. Most of them tend to be dystopian, since that makes for a more interesting story, but a number of stories set on alien world present positive views of non-animal-based or small-scale organic human ecologies.
[..] Organic farms can use manure from anywhere. Since we discontinued sustainable farming and went organic we have ben getting hog manure from a large total confinment hog farm near here to fertilize the grain crops.
|
