ta wrote: > Rat & Swan <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message <news:btph59$phk$1@reader2.nmix.net>... >>ta 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?
I think the most important thing is to recognize that any major change in ecology and food-production can go either way -- it can be a change for the vastly better or vastly worse depending on how it comes about. Ecology is always a tricky subject, and each change has so many possible side-effects that it is impossible to say exactly what the total effect of any change will be before it comes about. Most single ecological changes _tend_ to have negative results, both because the obvious effects aren't considered -- what will the introduction of a new species in an area where it has no natural checks do? -- and because we can't see the less-obvious effects, such as the spread of a disease from a domestic species to a closely-related wild species or vice versa -- AIDS in humans, brucillosis in bison, scrappie in cattle and humans as "mad-cow disease", various strains of flu, etc -- and so on. Often, we don't even recognize the negative effects after they become ingrained in a society: the nutritional defects caused by dependence on one or two major sources of food (the corn-and-beans diet of the Ancestral Puebloans, the degradation of the status of women created by a change from farming to herding cultures in ancient Europe).
That's not to say that results of a major change cannot be positive. I think the most important factors are a determination to do what is right, and a holistic view of what the good society is.
<snip>
>>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.
Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a good idea.
>>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.
All good, IMO.
>>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.
Again, reducing human population would be critical to success. I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now. There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways they did it. Think of such traditional activities as gathering pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it, but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology.
>>We'd also have to discuss the question of >>fertilizer for non-animal crops, > Are animal products absolutely required for fertilizer?
No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India. Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil -- couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill disease organisms. We're animals, too.
>>and whether a society without farm >>animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence >>and organic, sustainable agriculture, > Yes, assume that.
> > My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be > > re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
Doesn't it ring alarm bells when you consider that the wild ancestors of domesticated animals are not very common? When did you last see a wild cow, or a wild sheep, or even a wild dog or cat? These species owe their very existence to domestication. You complain about exploitation but then seem quite content to discard entire species when you alone feel you no longer have a use for them. Not very ethical.
> Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very > good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and > natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a > good idea.
It seems that vegetarian apes generally have very small populations anyway, and always have done. Perhaps non apes on the planet might be better of with all non-vegetarian apes being removed. But is it your choice to make? Best decide soon though before all the non human apes have gone, or there will be none.
> Again, reducing human population would be critical to success. > I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of > re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now.
I could agree with this. I would fully support any proposal that people may only purchase a proportion of their food, thuse ensuring that everyone takes the trouble to learn how to forage, to cultivate, to store, to cook, to fish, to hunt, etc.
> There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild > areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways > they did it.
Indeed. Though most who do so at present will also take meat, eggs, etc. as members of our species, and related species always have done.
> Think of such traditional activities as gathering > pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not > suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology > was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it, > but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology.
Or traditional european activities such as hunting deer and boar.
>>>> 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?
> ...Ecology is always a tricky subject
It completely flummoxes YOU. You don't know anything about it, and don't care to learn.
> Again, reducing human population would be critical to success. > I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of > re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now. > There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild > areas
There is no valid reason you can't get your fat ass the hell out of trendy urban areas and into the wild areas RIGHT NOW.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:55:44 -0000, "Michael Saunby" <msau...@despammed.com> wrote: >"Rat & Swan" <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message news:btuiaf$kh2$1@reader2.nmix.net...
>> > My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be >> > re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
>Doesn't it ring alarm bells when you consider that the wild ancestors of >domesticated animals are not very common? When did you last see a wild >cow, or a wild sheep, or even a wild dog or cat? These species owe their >very existence to domestication.
Thank you for your demonstration in the belief of the logic of the larder, Saunby. I knew it anyway.
"No. Before you got here, there was one other person, also a lying moron, who claimed to believe that animals' "getting to experience life" was something that *ought* to happen, because she saw it as a good thing in and of itself." Jonathan Ball 2001-10-31
> That good ole practicing 'organic farmer' spreads ag'chem' saturated muck > from a conventional industrial livestock operation on her fields, jim.
*** That's what organic is. I do not understand why it is that vegans and other consumers of organic crops are willing to pay more for such food and not willing to pay more for sustainably raised food but that's the way it is. FWIW We do not spread hog manure on our farm. Only on rented land that does not join our farm and in a few years will have houses on it. On our farm we spread the winter manure from the dairy herd, our small herd of steers, a few hogs, and the heifers.
Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, WI
-----= 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! =-----
> Would the replacement of animal operations with small-scale > sustainable, organic operations
*** Pick one. I would say yes the sustainabvle and no to organic.
prevent the soil erosion problems
> experienced with larger, industrial agriculture operations?
*** Soil erosion problems are not a factor of how large a farm is. It is a matter of what crops are raised and how they are raised. If you want to build soil organic matter without the use of chemical herbacides then you need to grow sod forming crops. That is how much of our best farm land was created in the first place. Permant grass land grazed by animals. For sustainabiliety you need long crop rotations including sod forming forages.
> > Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
> Do you have a reference on that? Thanks.
*** No I do not have a reference as in a web site I could point you to. I have my notes and lecture hand outs. I am sure it is out there but I have't tried to look. www.eatwild.com has some stuff on pasture being good for the enviroment. There is also what we have seen on this farm since it was first started as a wheat farm in 1903.
Kala
-----= 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! =-----
> '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, ..'
*** The problem with articals like this is that the author assumes a certain amount of agricultural background in the reader. Sort of like how medical jornals do not explain what a stethascope is when they mention it in the artical as they assume that the readers will know. People who are ignorant of agriculture read these articals and leap to the wrong conclusion due to their lack of backgroud info. The U of Wisconsin has found that land under controlled grazing actually builds soil rather than erodes it. How many tons of soild would be eroded from that same land if the grain grown was fed to people instead of animals?
Kala
-----= 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! =-----
Russ Thompson wrote: >>Would the replacement of animal operations with small-scale >>sustainable, organic operations
> *** Pick one. I would say yes the sustainabvle and no to organic.
I have a general idea of what "organic" farming is, as there is a legal definition to "organic" produce in the U.S. What do you mean by "sustainable", and how does it differ from organic?
FWIW, the criminally-convicted prostitute Lesley, who posts under the goofy "pearl" pseudonym, has claimed in the past that "sustainable" farming in the UK means the same thing as "organic" farming in the U.S. I seriously doubt she knows what she's talking about on either count, but I thought I'd at least throw it out there. Maybe one of the other, *knowledgeable* UK posters - that lets Lesley out - could elaborate on the terminological issue.
>> prevent the soil erosion problems >>experienced with larger, industrial agriculture operations?
> *** Soil erosion problems are not a factor of how large a farm is. It is a > matter of what crops are raised and how they are raised. If you want to > build soil organic matter without the use of chemical herbacides then you > need to grow sod forming crops. That is how much of our best farm land was > created in the first place. Permant grass land grazed by animals. > For sustainabiliety you need long crop rotations including sod forming > forages.
>>>Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
>>Do you have a reference on that? Thanks.
> *** No I do not have a reference as in a web site I could point you to. I > have my notes and lecture hand outs. I am sure it is out there but I have't > tried to look. > www.eatwild.com has some stuff on pasture being good for the > enviroment. > There is also what we have seen on this farm since it was first started > as a wheat farm in 1903.
> Kala
> -----= 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! =-----
You're a dirty liar, and I want to make that plainly known. .. You have nothing, you are nothing and you'll never be anything. Not because you are not like the rest of us, prepared to try, try and try again to succeed, but because you seek to drag everyone into the same gutter you have built for yourself, and you refuse to drag yourself out. Now that is how low you have become, in reality. This is the only life you know, self abuse, the only way to get people to talk to you is to abuse them, given a choice we would just pass you by and leave you in the gutter where you belong, and obviously were born.
"Russ Thompson" <p...@mwt.net> wrote in message news:40030855_2@corp.newsgroups.com... > > '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, ..'
<snip waffle>
> The U of Wisconsin has found that land under controlled grazing > actually builds soil rather than erodes it.
Why isn't such 'controlled grazing' widely practiced then?
> How many tons of soild would be eroded from that same land if the > grain grown was fed to people instead of animals?
Have you 800 million people to feed with the grain grown on that land?
Ho-Lee Kee-Rist! Please, *please* tell me you didn't create that... for lack of a better term, *thing*. An entire website full of kooky, barely coherent ranting devoted to one singular person you've had a beef with on Usenet? Do you realize just how incredibly nuts that little display makes you look? Usenet is virtual, not real. Why not reserve your obviously engorged reservoir of hatred for something that matters?
Yeah, Ball... you were right. Schwartz and pearl are seeing pretty much eye-to-eye.
Doc
-- "I'm at peace with my lust. I can kill because in God I trust. It's Evolution, baby."
> > "I'm at peace > > with my lust. > > I can kill because in God I trust. > > It's Evolution, baby."
> Sad doody. <plonk>
Actually, I didn't write that. They're song lyrics. Secondly, do you honestly think that the opinion or attention of a half-baked lunatic means all that much to me?
"Sad"? I'm not the one spending obviously enormous amounts of time and effort creating a web page devoted to a single person I've never met.
Michael Saunby wrote: > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message > news:btuiaf$kh2$1@reader2.nmix.net... >>>My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be >>>re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter. > Doesn't it ring alarm bells when you consider that the wild ancestors of > domesticated animals are not very common?
Well, the wild ancestors of domestic plants aren't very common, either. One occasionally finds remnants like the small cobs of corn (maize) which were the ancestors of domestic corn in some areas. Humans tend to create large-scale monocultures of their crops, plant or animal. Gathering cultures or hunting cultures tend to have more diverse diets.
> When did you last see a wild > cow, or a wild sheep, or even a wild dog or cat?
Depending on the environment, they can be very successful. The coyote is an example of a wild canid which has increased its range dramatically by responding to human settlement and human elimination of larger predators like wolves.
> These species owe their > very existence to domestication. You complain about exploitation but then > seem quite content to discard entire species when you alone feel you no > longer have a use for them. Not very ethical.
I'm not talking about "discarding" any species out of hand. However, I don't think any species has any particular value in and of itself. If there is an ecological diversity, so that the ecology is relatively healthy and stable, any combination of species is good, as far as I can see. I'm concerned about individual animals, and ecologies as a whole, not about species survival _per se_. Species evolve and go extinct all the time. I do not feel great sorrow over the loss of the dinosaurs, although they are interesting to study.
>>Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very >>good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and >>natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a >>good idea. > It seems that vegetarian apes generally have very small populations anyway, > and always have done. Perhaps non apes on the planet might be better of > with all non-vegetarian apes being removed. But is it your choice to make?
No, of course not. But humans create their own cultures, and can live without farming animals, even if not without gathering animal food (such as eggs of wild birds or wild honey,perhaps).
> Best decide soon though before all the non human apes have gone, or there > will be none. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3383425.stm > "Orang-utans 'may die out by 2025'..." >>Again, reducing human population would be critical to success. >>I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of >>re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now. > I could agree with this. I would fully support any proposal that people > may only purchase a proportion of their food, thuse ensuring that everyone > takes the trouble to learn how to forage, to cultivate, to store, to cook, > to fish, to hunt, etc.
No reason why that would not be a good idea.
>>There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild >>areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways >>they did it. > Indeed. Though most who do so at present will also take meat, eggs, etc. > as members of our species, and related species always have done.
Yes, as of now, certainly.
>> Think of such traditional activities as gathering >>pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not >>suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology >>was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it, >>but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology. > Or traditional european activities such as hunting deer and boar.
Yes, if one is talking about an omnivorous culture.
Better a hunting culture than a factory-farming one, at least.
On 1/11/04 9:23 PM, in article 400214bd$0$1739$5a62a...@freenews.iinet.net.au, "Fran"
<ma...@takethisbitoutwebone.com.au> wrote: > "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???????
I'm real glad you asked that. I don't have the foggiest idea. How about agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable without chemical fertilizers?
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! =-----
> No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their > effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly > be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for > food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India. > Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil -- > couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill > disease organisms. We're animals, too.
More cut.
It comes down to ease of application and money. There's a little bit of information here:
Note that a ton of sludge yields under 4# of nitrogen. It takes roughly 1# of N to produce a bushel of corn. Yields of 200 bu./acre aren't that unusual anymore on irrigated farms. I think the U.S. average yield is about 130 bu./acre. Why do you think chemical fertilizers aren't as good as manure etc.?
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! =-----
> >>>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 think the most important thing is to recognize that any major change > in ecology and food-production can go either way -- it can be a > change for the vastly better or vastly worse depending on how it comes > about. Ecology is always a tricky subject, and each change has so many > possible side-effects that it is impossible to say exactly what the > total effect of any change will be before it comes about. Most single > ecological changes _tend_ to have negative results, both because the > obvious effects aren't considered -- what will the introduction of a > new species in an area where it has no natural checks do? -- and > because we can't see the less-obvious effects, such as the spread of > a disease from a domestic species to a closely-related wild species > or vice versa -- AIDS in humans, brucillosis in bison, scrappie in > cattle and humans as "mad-cow disease", various strains of flu, etc -- > and so on. Often, we don't even recognize the negative effects after > they become ingrained in a society: the nutritional defects caused > by dependence on one or two major sources of food (the corn-and-beans > diet of the Ancestral Puebloans, the degradation of the status of women > created by a change from farming to herding cultures in ancient Europe).
> That's not to say that results of a major change cannot be positive. > I think the most important factors are a determination to do what > is right, and a holistic view of what the good society is.
I hear you, but how can one do what is right without a reasonable understanding of the consequences of the decision?
> <snip>
> >>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.
> Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very > good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and > natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a > good idea.
The basic drive in all animals is to propagate, so population control is a sticky subject. You would think that we humans, given we are the only species who can actually contemplate, and hopefully anticipate, our own demise, would have a leg up, but it doesn't appear that way to me. Perhaps we are too adaptive for our own good.
> >>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.
> All good, IMO.
> >>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.
> Again, reducing human population would be critical to success. > I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of > re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now. > There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild > areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways > they did it. Think of such traditional activities as gathering > pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not > suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology > was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it, > but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology.
I've made the suggestion before that we ought to be moving toward a more primitive model of civilization in some ways, more akin to the foraging/hunting/gathering societies . . . at which I'm usually met with guffaws and chants of "luddite"! :-) I think we need to seriously consider such things, though I'm afraid it may happen too late.
> >>We'd also have to discuss the question of > >>fertilizer for non-animal crops,
> > Are animal products absolutely required for fertilizer?
> No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their > effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly > be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for > food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India. > Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil -- > couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill > disease organisms. We're animals, too.
> >>and whether a society without farm > >>animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence > >>and organic, sustainable agriculture,
> > > > 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.
I think population control is critical - mother nature may take care of that problem for us shortly anyway. Despite that, there is enough food to feed the world currently, so eliminating the ineffeciences associated with meat eating would be a major step in the right direction. And of course all this depends on using wiser, more sustainable farming methods, as "Rat" pointed out.
> > > 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 mass starvation are imminent anyway, given our current direction. Fundamentally changing our views about the natural world is necesssary to prevent that scenario.
> Ho-Lee Kee-Rist! Please, *please* tell me you didn't create that... for lack > of a better term, *thing*. An entire website full of kooky, barely coherent > ranting devoted to one singular person you've had a beef with on Usenet?
Is that unbelievable, or what? I mean, I can't even get angry over that. It's the most slap-dash, amateurish, WEIRD hate page I've ever seen.
> Do you realize just how incredibly nuts that little display makes you look?
Sad to say, I don't think there's any way she COULD realize how stupid it makes her look. That's one of the problems she's experiencing from letting her syphilis go untreated for so long.
> Usenet is virtual, not real. Why not reserve your obviously engorged > reservoir of hatred for something that matters?
> Yeah, Ball... you were right. Schwartz and pearl are seeing pretty much > eye-to-eye.
Well, without more exposure to Schwartz, I couldn't say for sure. All I know is that Lesley is one seriously addled slut.
> Well, the wild ancestors of domestic plants aren't very common, either. > One occasionally finds remnants like the small cobs of corn (maize) > which were the ancestors of domestic corn in some areas. Humans tend to > create large-scale monocultures of their crops, plant or animal. > Gathering cultures or hunting cultures tend to have more diverse diets.
Bob Yates wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote: >>Well, the wild ancestors of domestic plants aren't very common, either. >>One occasionally finds remnants like the small cobs of corn (maize) >>which were the ancestors of domestic corn in some areas. Humans tend to >>create large-scale monocultures of their crops, plant or animal. >>Gathering cultures or hunting cultures tend to have more diverse diets. > Bad example, corn/maize is not a wild plant, it's ancestor was very > different. > http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news260.htm
Yes, that was the ancestor I was thinking of. I remember reading about the discovery -- sorry if I got it a bit muddled in memory.
> I am envisioning the replacement of large-scale, industrial animal > production facilities with many small, organic, sustainable farms.
*** You can't have both. Pick one sustainable or organic.
Kala
-----= 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! =-----
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:56:25 -0600, "Russ Thompson" <p...@mwt.net> wrote:
>> I am envisioning the replacement of large-scale, industrial animal >> production facilities with many small, organic, sustainable farms.
>*** You can't have both. Pick one sustainable or organic.
Prat.
**********************************************
'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw.
Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me
If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world.
1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining they're having no effect. 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know how to avoid them. 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while secretly reading it. 10) Pretend you're a hard bastard when in fact you're as bent as a roundabout. 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet 12) Die of old age 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you will have a penis the girls can see.
---------------------------------------
"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"
"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" The Big Yin.
Dean Hoffman wrote: > On 1/12/04 10:18 AM, in article btuiaf$kh...@reader2.nmix.net, "Rat & Swan" > <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote: > Some cut. >>No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their >>effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly >>be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for >>food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India. >>Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil -- >>couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill >>disease organisms. We're animals, too. > More cut. > It comes down to ease of application and money. There's a little bit of > information here: > http://manure.unl.edu/v3n5_97.html > Note that a ton of sludge yields under 4# of nitrogen. It takes roughly > 1# of N to produce a bushel of corn. Yields of 200 bu./acre aren't that > unusual anymore on irrigated farms. I think the U.S. average yield is about > 130 bu./acre. > Why do you think chemical fertilizers aren't as good as manure etc.?
Thanks for the information. I guess I'm thinking mainly about low-tech, local, sustainable solutions which don't require much transportation. One thing for sure, manure is a renewable resource and available locally everywhere.
|
