tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post9178216657795580648..comments2023-10-29T15:32:19.571-04:00Comments on The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles: PeTa, Animal Rights, Animal Welfare: The Discussion ContinuesAlbert A Raschhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431765456546701021noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-42881554216585267492009-10-14T21:13:23.353-04:002009-10-14T21:13:23.353-04:00Mel,
Never a worry nor a problem! It is all associ...Mel,<br />Never a worry nor a problem! It is all associated and intertwined.<br /><br />Regards,<br />AlbertAlbert A Raschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431765456546701021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-13771342369449920642009-10-13T15:04:11.850-04:002009-10-13T15:04:11.850-04:00Albert, I wanted to say thank you for letting me s...Albert, I wanted to say thank you for letting me share my POV on this issue - I'm sorry that it is slightly out of the way as far as hunting is concerned. <br /><br />I know I can be lengthy and slightly repetitive, but at least you keep all comments on this board - pro and con to your views. Wish more people were like that.Melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-39553797910692060002009-10-12T14:12:42.133-04:002009-10-12T14:12:42.133-04:00Mel - This to acknowledge that I've read your ...Mel - This to acknowledge that I've read your comments.<br />Thank you for your time to explain your POV.<br />Good day.Bea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-43489152242387179602009-10-12T13:54:47.471-04:002009-10-12T13:54:47.471-04:00And, finally (sorry for so many posts Albert), Bea...And, finally (sorry for so many posts Albert), Bea, I take offense to the claim that I lack empathy in regard to "Really your (lack of) empathy with fellow citizens over their contaminated water sources is disturbing."<br /><br />Bea, for starters, as I said they were found out to skew the information because Waco hates the cattle industry in general. This was around long before I even came aboard the town. It's not uncommon knowledge to someone who actually has been there and lived in the town accused of causing the problem <br /><br />Something else interesting - and not posted in these articles - is Stephenville is no where NEAR the top of or near the river that the source of these claims was found - in fact, it's BELOW the source. So, the claims are highly suspect, and have been questioned to come from Waco itself.<br /><br />And, where I live now, the water has issues with sediment at times. I do understand where they're trying to come from, but when it was found out there was misinformation being touted by Waco, I will call it like I see it - a bunch of misinformation being distorted by a town attempting to make a fast buck.Melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-62453693931809121632009-10-12T13:48:10.039-04:002009-10-12T13:48:10.039-04:00And, BTW - you are attempting to classify tools as...And, BTW - you are attempting to classify tools as being raised to eat. This is an absolute - pardon me Albert - BULLSHIT excuse to justify your means.<br /><br />We don't raise hammers to build houses. We didn't raise rocks to create knives or to use with flint to create a fire. We saw them, thought "Hmm, how can we use them to our advantage," and manipulated their use to help us.<br /><br />The same holds true with animals - even in a vegan diet:<br /><br />1. The soil issue - quite frankly, besides earthworms digging holes and their feces acting as fertilizer, when an animal dies, it rots and becomes said fertilizer in the ground (ashes to ashes - decomposition). <br /><br />So, THIS ALONE - decomposition - is a tool for your food. Animals are a tool in that they become fertilizer for said food. Simply put too - all animals all sizes help out here.<br /><br />2. cross-pollination - bees and other insects transfer pollen from one plant to another when they feed. It sticks onto their legs - and the animal itself becomes the tool when it touches the pistil of the other plant. This can be done scientifically, but you can't certify that your food is done the scientific way).<br /><br />************<br /><br />We don't need to raise animals to create these tools - animals die like us all the time and as we simply cannot pick up all of them, they decay and create the fertilizer. <br /><br />We can also artificially cross pollinate fruits and vegetables, but we simply don't have the means to do it all the time (let alone possible mutation risks).<br /><br />So you see Bea, try as much as you want to, you can't escape the fact that you use animals as tools for even your own food. Trying to use the claim that "well, I didn't raise them/don't eat the meat" is a bunch of feel-good bull crap. It might feel good, but it's still crap.melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-17403654990047893102009-10-12T11:04:42.357-04:002009-10-12T11:04:42.357-04:00No... I'm sorry - I DON'T "use" ...No... I'm sorry - I DON'T "use" animals as "tools". I don't breed them specifically for my purpose... especially not specifically to kill them. If <br />animals are harmed during the harvest of my vegetables it is by "no other choice"<br /><br />**********<br /><br />Bea - animals are used in the production of fruits and vegetables. Cross-pollination, aeriating the soil, etc. <br /><br />You are trying to make your lifestyle more valid by putting the animals as essentially "collaterial damage."<br /><br />Animals die so you can eat - period. You use them as tools - directly or indirectly (pending if you grown your own food or not), to get what you want - your vegetables.<br /><br />I'm sorry - you are still wrong here: Animals are used by all those who eat food - period. You just don't eat the flesh that's the difference.<br /><br />************<br /><br />I am not deliberately growing rodents & rabbits to place them before the combine blade. It is without my instigation that they are harmed. Furthermore, since I've already established that pigs, cows & chickens eat a considerable amount more grain and vegetation than humans - One actually does "less harm" by consuming the vegetation directly.<br /><br />************<br /><br />Bea - you and others have said to me that even though I don't forcibly kill an animal to eat it, that I'm guilty by association. <br /><br />You are doing the exact same thing eating food that is harvested on a farm. Animals die in the process of that harvesting, therefore you are guilty by association same as you love to decry me.<br /><br />Frankly my dear, you have shown to me that you are naive of the real world, are condescending toward those who actually have seen both sides of the argument, and are totally ignorant - willingly so - of the fact that all of us use animals to our benefit, directly or indirectly, and that some animals die for any diet.<br /><br />Thank you and goodnight.melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-76507833206774898252009-10-12T10:59:25.114-04:002009-10-12T10:59:25.114-04:00"If you have statistics - valid ones (not PCR..."If you have statistics - valid ones (not PCRM or Wiki) regarding the exact percentage of grain eaten by a large sized animal"<br /><br />Of course large animals - cows and pigs eat more grain than humans... Proportionately it's 4 - 6 times as much. I realize this is dated, but the information is even more relevant now:<br /><br />Cornell University Science News from 1997: U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists Future water and energy shortages predicted to change face of American agriculture.<br /><br />"WHERE'S THE GRAIN? The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by <br />the entire American population."<br /><br />*******<br /><br />1997 - MORE RECENT INFORMATION IS NEEDED!<br /><br />Look, I'm not even going to debate you anymore until you give me information that is no more than 5 years old. Like with outlooks, things change in the span of 12 years or more. <br /><br />You have too much OLD information, and I know damn well there is more recent information supporting my case.Melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-38388407061408830332009-10-12T10:57:15.728-04:002009-10-12T10:57:15.728-04:00<<<<<<<<<
Vegetables a...<<<<<<<<<<br /><br />Vegetables and fruits have just as much dangers. - - - Yes! The spinach, tomatos and cantaloupe - But what do you think they were <br />sprayed with? Veggies & fruits do not "grow" ecoli. It is found only in the intestines (and waste) of animals. Literally, we have so much manure from animal agriculture that it is contaminating *my* "food". It is poisoning our *real* "food".<br /><br />*******<br /><br />You guys bitch about pesticides and going organic, but when they go organic (fertilizer) you bitch about the e-coli and make accusations about factory farms and the like.<br /><br />And - "REAL" food - meat, eggs, dairy, fruit and vegetables are all REAL food. <br /><br />FAKE food is stuff that is nothing but chemicals - aka styrofoam.<br /><br />Please, learn the difference.<br /><br />************<br /><br />"when the land becomes infertile, they have to mow down MORE land, therefore reducing the amount of rainforest we have." You mean <br />the rainforests which have existed for thousands of years are now becoming infertile? Huh? I really don't understand your point - and could you please cite your source?<br /><br />***********<br /><br />My source - a basic elementary education. We were taught this in school. <br /><br />They are NOT infertile as far as growing things - however, as I CLEARLY SAID, the fertile areas are only a few inches deep. The forest is so dense that the only true nutrition the ground gets is the rotting leaves and the growing plants eat as much of this as possible. It is unlike farmland, which constantly gets more nutrition and deeper nutrition than a rainforest.<br /><br />Therefore - when the land is bulldozed for land, that fertile land is only fertile for so many years because there's NOT enough nutrients in the ground. They have been sapped up by the original vegetation. That's why they can stay fertile for a few years before more land is bulldozed for growing crops.<br /><br />It's EASY Bea - just read closely.<br /><br />*********<br /><br />And in the meantime you might be interested in this: Slaughtering the Amazon <br /><br />http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/slaughtering-the-amazon<br />which documents how 25% of the rainforests did get "mowed down" for hamburgers & cattle grazing...<br /><br />**********<br /><br />Greenpeace is a slanted source - Give me a non-slanted source to verify this.<br /><br />**********<br /><br />Finally "no one diet is better than the other" Livestock's Long Shadow reports that the current method of fattening animals to feed humans is not sustainable. The whole system is based on fossil fuels which we will run out of... It is not a wise use of land or water:<br />http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM<br /><br />***********<br /><br />Bea - c'mon honey give it a rest. ANY agricultural diet uses fossil fuels to harvest the grain.<br /><br />C'mon, you have more sense that that - this one is a stupid argument simply because we use fossil fuels to move machines - which include the harvesters for your grain.<br /><br />You show here you've never been in the rural area - at least close up.melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-7523759915541794752009-10-12T10:56:58.974-04:002009-10-12T10:56:58.974-04:00And the Lake Waco incident?
*A 1992 report publi...And the Lake Waco incident? <br /><br />*A 1992 report published by the US Department of <br />Agriculture Soil Conservation Service determined that 190 miles of the North Bosque Watershed and 25 flood prevention structures were adversely affected by contaminated water from dairy run-off.*<br /><br />********<br /><br />Bea - 1992 isn't recent. Find a more recent source. Otherwise, this is manipulation.<br /><br />********<br /><br />The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) have also <br />documented water quality problems."<br /><br />http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/erath.html<br /><br />************<br /><br />Out of date evidence (read the bottom sources) and a slanted blog. Please try again.<br /><br />************<br /><br />Bea: Really your empathy with fellow citizens over their contaminated water sources is disturbing. Water is a resource that belongs to everyone. <br /><br />Yes, I think it's very appropriate that they care about high levels of fecal matter, coliforms and antibiotic residue in their water... Sooner or later, their water becomes my water - and yours too.<br /><br /><<<<<<<<<<<<<br /><br />Honey, I LIVED in Stephenville, the town that is accused of this (yes, it's a TOWN, not a county that is accused of this), and I know damn well that there was a huge exaggeration on the part of Waco here.<br /><br />Waco has hated Erath for years because the dairy industry there is successful. Waco doesn't have much to toot about themselves as far as stuff like this is concerned. All Waco has to its name is the infamous Koresh incident.melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-19963032191182812162009-10-12T10:38:30.383-04:002009-10-12T10:38:30.383-04:004. Swine flu - - - There are lots of theories and ...4. Swine flu - - - There are lots of theories and debates about swine flu. Yes, it is a mutation of avian, porcine and human influenza genes. <br />And the problem exacerbates with human population and animal agriculture which confines thousands of animals in unhealthy conditions. <br /><br />*********<br /><br />Again, you don't live in a rural area. You can't prove or disprove this - we have had diseases come from monkeys that are fatal - and they were in the wild. Last time I checked, those wild animals don't live in confined quarters.<br /><br />*********<br /><br />Bea: If you have millions of birds in a facility located near a hog barn with tens of thousands of pigs - It only takes one fly (or human) to carry the virus from one to another. These pathogens are 20th century ills. This triple reassortant did not exist prior to "modern" animal agriculture <br />techniques:<br /><br />Smithfield and swine flu<br />http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-25-swine-flu-smithfield/<br />CDC Confirms Ties to Virus First Discovered in U.S. Pig Factories: <br />http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/swine_flu_virus_origin_1998_042909.html<br />Dr. Michael Greger - Flu Factories: Tracing the Origins of the Swine Flu Pandemic<br />http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/swine_flu.html<br />Dr. Michael Greger - Flu a Virus of Our Own Hatching<br />http://birdflubook.com/g.php?id=5<br /><br />*********<br /><br />1. It may take ONE, but it takes a weak animal to actually create it. That weak animal doesn't have to be in a factory farm. It's just easier for ARs and others to claim this.<br /><br />2. We have also been known to create antibiotic resistant medicines and increase health issues by becoming TOO sterile. <br /><br />My point is that it's easy to blame something on a factory farm when we simply do NOT know it's the truth. And I love how people such as you assume (ass of you and me) that all factory farms are filthy. While I will even say that not all are pristine, there are many many more that are better than what you guys love to piecemeal as evidence.<br /><br />*********<br /><br />Bea: Oh... and the reason we're supposed to refer to "swine flu" as H1N1? The pork industry has pleaded that the government and media do such so their profits don't continue to plunder. --- Funny though... no one seems to be listening!<br /><br />********<br /><br />No - it's because they figured out it wasn't directly swine flu. As I've said, it's a combination of viruses - not just swine like back in the 1970s. (in fact, given the two strains are different, this is also a good reason why they would rename the flu to the H1N1 - to avoid confusion.)<br /><br />And - eating the meat doesn't make you sick, so of course they don't want people to be confused. Simple enough for anyone to grasp...<br /><br />... but no, it's easier to say that it's all for profit and this bullshit that they changed it to H1N1melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-4482303361125641692009-10-12T10:27:29.997-04:002009-10-12T10:27:29.997-04:00mel said... "Long before you and I were born,...mel said... "Long before you and I were born, humans discovered that animals were useful for many things: food, shelter, tools. <br />Even you vegetarians and ARs benefit from animals as tools - earthworms help with the soil by digging through it, insects fertilize some plants and others are used to defend pests from eating the crop."<br /><br />Yes, long before you and I were born there was no "urbanization" or indoor plumbing - However modern civilization has rectified all that!<br /><br />Simply because we did something "once upon a time" hardly justifies continuing the practice.<br /><br />**************<br /><br />Again, I highly doubt you live in a rural area. You do not look at the picture from all sides - I can and do. <br /><br />I really don't appreciate you being condescending toward myself or others because you disagree with us. All it does is make it where others feel that your arguments hold no water.<br /><br /><<<<<<<<<<<br /><br />Bea: Earthworms: They exist with or without me... That vegetation (which sustains life) grows in the earth and is shared by earthworms, and that insects eat each other is hardly a justification either ... that man is correct in "recreational hunting"... or in breeding animals to consume. <br /><br />*************<br /><br />Boy, you're arrogant and naive aren't you?<br /><br />You're again missing the point: You and others say that you *do not* benefit from the use of animals in your diet but that's simply a FALSEHOOD. The earthworms help with the ground and the animals eating the pests are protecting your grain.<br /><br />Hell, animals are even being killed in the harvest of your grain diet.<br /><br />What you are trying to do with this comment is gloss over that simple fact. Sorry gal - YOU BENEFIT FROM ANIMALS. The ONLY difference is you do not eat the meat.melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-9622968906798935352009-10-12T10:27:27.741-04:002009-10-12T10:27:27.741-04:00mel said... "Long before you and I were born,...mel said... "Long before you and I were born, humans discovered that animals were useful for many things: food, shelter, tools. <br />Even you vegetarians and ARs benefit from animals as tools - earthworms help with the soil by digging through it, insects fertilize some plants and others are used to defend pests from eating the crop."<br /><br />Yes, long before you and I were born there was no "urbanization" or indoor plumbing - However modern civilization has rectified all that!<br /><br />Simply because we did something "once upon a time" hardly justifies continuing the practice.<br /><br />**************<br /><br />Again, I highly doubt you live in a rural area. You do not look at the picture from all sides - I can and do. <br /><br />I really don't appreciate you being condescending toward myself or others because you disagree with us. All it does is make it where others feel that your arguments hold no water.<br /><br /><<<<<<<<<<<br /><br />Bea: Earthworms: They exist with or without me... That vegetation (which sustains life) grows in the earth and is shared by earthworms, and that insects eat each other is hardly a justification either ... that man is correct in "recreational hunting"... or in breeding animals to consume. <br /><br />*************<br /><br />Boy, you're arrogant and naive aren't you?<br /><br />You're again missing the point: You and others say that you *do not* benefit from the use of animals in your diet but that's simply a FALSEHOOD. The earthworms help with the ground and the animals eating the pests are protecting your grain.<br /><br />Hell, animals are even being killed in the harvest of your grain diet.<br /><br />What you are trying to do with this comment is gloss over that simple fact. Sorry gal - YOU BENEFIT FROM ANIMALS. The ONLY difference is you do not eat the meat.melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-49955174652362437502009-10-12T10:22:08.732-04:002009-10-12T10:22:08.732-04:001. If animals are not slaughtered, they must still...1. If animals are not slaughtered, they must still eat as much grain as they do. The problem would still be just as bad.<br /><br />Mel... The idea is that we would not create more animals. The ones that exist now would eventually die (or more likely be slaughtered)<br />while transitions occur. As time advances less and less animals will be bred - eventually, this means 10 billion less "livestock" animals in the US. The "problem" with feeding animals (instead of humans) would not exist. <br /><br />****************<br /><br />Bea - you don't really live in a rural area, or you'd know this wouldn't occur easily. Additionally, as others have said, not all grain is edible to humans that is to animals. There is a fallacy in ARAs comments when they think we can eat everything that animals eat - a lot are poisonous.<br /><br />Your idea is just that - an idea. I highly doubt it's realistic in the grand scheme of things. But what do I know? - I live in the country and see livestock all the time.<br /><br /><br />Bea: 2. Diseases such as e-coli can also be caused by humans touching something after using the bathroom and not washing their hands. Or <br />more simply - they're not all animal diseases.<br /><br />Uhhhh... Yes... they are. E-coli is an "animal disease"... Remember... we are animals too. :) The bacteria which remains on our unwashed <br />hands is the same as that which is found in the stomach (intenstines) of all animals. It is found in the poop. Hence irradiation of meat to render the feces harmless. It doesn't mean the feces is gone... just means it's been made "safe".<br /><br />This Times article published on the 3rd ought to be a real eye opener for you:<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&hpw<br /><br />***************<br /><br />Bea - you're missing the point: ARAs such as you are accusing that the cow's e-coli meat is the cause of the woman's illness and paralysis. However, we simply do not know that. I was giving a clear example of this with human e-coli. <br /><br />Or more simply - you are trying to say that it's something that may not be the case: that it may have been HUMAN e-coli and not bovine that cause the illness.<br /><br />Please do not be condescending toward me because you think you're superior to me. All you did was prove to me that you do not fully read my post with this response.<br /><br />Bea: 3. Regarding the credibility of comments from PETA (etc.)... I don't blame you one bit. I'm not affiliated with peta - nor do I ever cite their data, as you will note.<br />October 9, 2009 3:05 AM<br /><br />**************'<br /><br />I don't care about that - you are showing similar ideas with your response to me.melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-81503154990847931192009-10-10T17:56:46.483-04:002009-10-10T17:56:46.483-04:00Yes, I understand that the quality of the grain de...Yes, I understand that the quality of the grain determines its value. High-quality grain must be clean and free of weed seed, undamaged, uncontaminated, and identifiable. Controlling weeds, pests, and volunteer crops in the field can help keep quality high. Also, proper combine settings will help keep grain dirt free and undamaged.<br /><br />But part of the reason why nothing else can grow in certain soils/conditions is because the land has been cultivated for nothing else but feed grains for animals. We have pour billions of dollars and untold research into growing "cheap" inferior plants for animals to eat. It was expedient to grow "only this crop" so no technology was invested to grow another. In short: we've been lazy and created a bad farming "habit".<br /><br />UN Food Security Project: "Investments in agricultural research and development are much lower than what is recommended by experts and are not directed towards the most important crops: those for human consumption".<br /><br />Furthermore, even the "inferior" grains can be utilized for human consumption if grown and harvested under the proper conditions:<br />For example we benefited when the internal combustion engine freed up large quantities of grain for human consumption that previously were allocated to feed draft animals. <br /><br />But even this is a moot point - we will run out of the fossil fuels sooner than animals to feed - and will run out of water shortly thereafter. The expected population growth is just unsustainable for a "meat based diet".<br /><br />BTW - Have you ever heard of Living Walls or Urban Farms?<br />http://www.verticalfarm.com/<br />http://tinyurl.com/5m49kmBea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-89589124587078695452009-10-10T13:43:50.567-04:002009-10-10T13:43:50.567-04:00Bea, the "animals eat more grain" argume...Bea, the "animals eat more grain" argument is continually spouted by the anti animal lobby yet it is flawed.<br /><br />I don't care what your source is, what you fail to understand is that nor all grain is equal.<br /><br />There are a large number of factors that affect feed quality and as a general rule it the lower quality grains that are fed to animals.<br /><br />The grain for flour and bread making is a far cry from the grain fed to our livestock.<br /><br />Different seed, different soil type, different weather conditions, different nutrient inputs, different farming practices, harvest timing, storage and transport all have an effect on the end product, the grain that is destined for either human or animal consumption.<br /><br />I can assure you, you would not want to eat weather damaged, or poor quality grain, but a cow or pig can convert that damaged grain into high quality protein.<br /><br />Furthermore, livestock can eat the whole plant, the stalk and the husk as well as the actual grain kernals.<br /><br />Have you ever stopped to consider what would happen to the food supply if these crops were NOT fed to animals?an animal lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03532571212046660978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-80776862822506663952009-10-09T03:34:31.350-04:002009-10-09T03:34:31.350-04:00Correction:
"Really your empathy with fellow ...Correction:<br />"Really your empathy with fellow citizens over their contaminated water sources is disturbing."<br /><br />Should read: "lack of emapthy".<br />(sorry)Bea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-78975440639243235632009-10-09T03:19:59.584-04:002009-10-09T03:19:59.584-04:00"If you have statistics - valid ones (not PCR..."If you have statistics - valid ones (not PCRM or Wiki) regarding the exact percentage of grain eaten by a large sized animal"<br /><br />Of course large animals - cows and pigs eat more grain than humans... Proportionately it's 4 - 6 times as much. I realize this is dated, but the information is even more relevant now:<br /><br />Cornell University Science News from 1997: U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists Future water and energy shortages predicted to change face of American agriculture.<br /><br />"WHERE'S THE GRAIN? The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by <br />the entire American population."<br /><br />"Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis. <br /><br />Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the US, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern US and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing <br />population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture." <br /><br />"More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by <br />humans," Pimentel said. "Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a <br />decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future."<br /><br />Abstract from: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 660S-663S, September 2003<br /> From the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. <br />Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet. <br />http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S<br /><br />"I'm sorry - you're just as guilty of using animals as tools, so please don't try to say you're more moral than we are for not eating animals."<br /><br />No... I'm sorry - I DON'T "use" animals as "tools". I don't breed them specifically for my purpose... especially not specifically to kill them. If <br />animals are harmed during the harvest of my vegetables it is by "no other choice". I am not deliberately growing rodents & rabbits to place them before the combine blade. It is without my instigation that they are harmed. Furthermore, since I've already established that pigs, cows & chickens eat a considerable amount more grain and vegetation than humans - One actually does "less harm" by consuming the vegetation directly.<br /> <br />And I have never said I was "more moral for not eating animals" this is your conclusion... But I will submit: "more responsible"; Or at least "more thoughtful".<br /><br />I would love to engage further on this topic - but unless someone can provide cited material to refute that which I have noted; Or if one can present a "new idea" on ethical matters, I believe I will refrain from these lengthy and time consuming responses, and just read comments for the enjoyment of the entries.<br /><br />And sorry to be so verbose, but it was necessary as I was responding to several people on many topics. Oh, and Mr. Rasch of course I'm anxious to hear your response as well.Bea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-8543850555247262092009-10-09T03:10:13.475-04:002009-10-09T03:10:13.475-04:00And the Lake Waco incident?
"The North Bosq...And the Lake Waco incident? <br /><br />"The North Bosque River Watershed is located in Erath County. The Bosque River also drains into Lake Waco, a drinking water supply for <br />the City of Waco. Water quality in the Bosque River Watershed is being degraded due to the enormous quantity of animal waste that is <br />produced by dairies in the region which is not properly managed by the dairy CAFOs. A 1992 report published by the US Department of <br />Agriculture Soil Conservation Service determined that 190 miles of the North Bosque Watershed and 25 flood prevention structures were adversely affected by contaminated water from dairy run-off.<br /><br />The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) have also <br />documented water quality problems."<br /><br />http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/erath.html<br /><br />Really your empathy with fellow citizens over their contaminated water sources is disturbing. Water is a resource that belongs to everyone. <br /><br />Yes, I think it's very appropriate that they care about high levels of fecal matter, coliforms and antibiotic residue in their water... Sooner or later, their water becomes my water - and yours too.<br /><br />6. Vegetables and fruits have just as much dangers. - - - Yes! The spinach, tomatos and cantaloupe - But what do you think they were <br />sprayed with? Veggies & fruits do not "grow" ecoli. It is found only in the intestines (and waste) of animals. Literally, we have so much manure from animal agriculture that it is contaminating *my* "food". It is poisoning our *real* "food".<br /><br />"when the land becomes infertile, they have to mow down MORE land, therefore reducing the amount of rainforest we have." You mean <br />the rainforests which have existed for thousands of years are now becoming infertile? Huh? I really don't understand your point - and could you please cite your source?<br /><br />And in the meantime you might be interested in this: Slaughtering the Amazon <br /><br />http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/slaughtering-the-amazon<br />which documents how 25% of the rainforests did get "mowed down" for hamburgers & cattle grazing...<br /><br />Finally "no one diet is better than the other" Livestock's Long Shadow reports that the current method of fattening animals to feed humans is not sustainable. The whole system is based on fossil fuels which we will run out of... It is not a wise use of land or water:<br />http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTMBea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-17161943830616302922009-10-09T03:07:56.941-04:002009-10-09T03:07:56.941-04:004. Swine flu - - - There are lots of theories and ...4. Swine flu - - - There are lots of theories and debates about swine flu. Yes, it is a mutation of avian, porcine and human influenza genes. <br />And the problem exacerbates with human population and animal agriculture which confines thousands of animals in unhealthy conditions. <br /><br />If you have millions of birds in a facility located near a hog barn with tens of thousands of pigs - It only takes one fly (or human) to carry the virus from one to another. These pathogens are 20th century ills. This triple reassortant did not exist prior to "modern" animal agriculture <br />techniques:<br /><br />Smithfield and swine flu<br />http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-25-swine-flu-smithfield/<br />CDC Confirms Ties to Virus First Discovered in U.S. Pig Factories: <br />http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/swine_flu_virus_origin_1998_042909.html<br />Dr. Michael Greger - Flu Factories: Tracing the Origins of the Swine Flu Pandemic<br />http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/swine_flu.html<br />Dr. Michael Greger - Flu a Virus of Our Own Hatching<br />http://birdflubook.com/g.php?id=5<br /><br />Oh... and the reason we're supposed to refer to "swine flu" as H1N1? The pork industry has pleaded that the government and media do such so their profits don't continue to plunder. --- Funny though... no one seems to be listening!<br /><br />5. Fecal matter in water - - - I could cite hundreds of documented cases where people have had their well water tested with results pointing to contamination from hog farms, feed lots & poultry barns miles away... This is what happens with the aquifer, it collects all the run off. You are welcome to google any combination of: "cafo", "e-coli", "epa" with:<br />Idaho, Illinois, Mich., Minn., Penn., Texas, Wisconsin, Iowa, NY, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio. I'm certain you'll find more evidence than I could possibly list here, that mega farms are a disaster to residents.<br /><br />But just as a brief example:<br />http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=89749<br />IDOA weighs request for 10,000-cow dairy, amid worries over water contamination<br /><br />AND:<br /><br />See what hog farms can do to property values?<br />http://www.ncifap.org/_images/factsheetRuralPropertyValues.pdf<br /><br />It's not only fecal contamination... it's the nitrates that lead to fish kills as in the Chesapeake Bay:<br /><br />"For years, poultry waste has been spread as fertilizer for crops. But as Delmarva's once-backyard chicken shacks have morphed into<br />factory farms, the sheer volume of waste has overwhelmed the ability of crops to absorb it. More than 600 million chickens are raised on<br />less ground than produced 380 million two decades ago, concentrating more pollutants than ever on shrinking farmland. <br /><br />Estimates from the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program office identify poultry manure as the largest source of excess nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the Chesapeake from the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia. Those two nutrients are basic parts of the food chain,but they overstimulate algae growth when too much reaches water. When algae dies, its decomposition consumes oxygen, choking fish and other water life. <br /><br />Throughout chicken country, as many as one-third of all wells exceed EPA safe drinking water standards for nitrate, a form of nitrogen concentrated in chicken waste that seeps into groundwater, according to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. <br /><br />USGS has also found trace amounts of arsenic in the Pocomoke, the likely residue of the arsenic added to chicken feed to kill harmful parasites and promote growth. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/aug99/chicken1.htmBea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-40069110482684436692009-10-09T03:05:47.485-04:002009-10-09T03:05:47.485-04:00"There ARE right and wrong answers to the hun..."There ARE right and wrong answers to the hunting question, but they are answers based on fact."<br />Please cite any "fact" which supports that (recreational) hunting is "right". You cannot. Nor can I produce any "fact" that it's wrong. Both are based on unprovable, abstract ethics. Ethics rest on what is most consistent with the values one holds and recognizes as worthy.<br /><br />The closest you can get to "recreational hunting is *right*", is to (rationally) state why it is correct to deliberately harm/kill any/all "other" <br />species. You would have to base it on a concept that no other species (besides humans) matter at all, in the rhelm of "rights" or "pain and suffering". In which case, you should also not be in favor of any legislation or cultural mores that "protect" animals... You should be in favor <br />of rooster, dog and bullfighting, live skinning of cats and dogs and any/all other creatures. You should also have no need for the beguiling "humane slaughter act", and should want the repeal of any animal "cruelty" statutes. Of course this would set you as quite a peculiar and deviant character... Being that the vast majority of people see "some" kind of moral and ethical obligation to treat other species with (some<br />kind) of consideration. But your contention is "All or nothing".... right?<br /><br />mel said... "Long before you and I were born, humans discovered that animals were useful for many things: food, shelter, tools. <br />Even you vegetarians and ARs benefit from animals as tools - earthworms help with the soil by digging through it, insects fertilize some plants and others are used to defend pests from eating the crop."<br /><br />Yes, long before you and I were born there was no "urbanization" or indoor plumbing - However modern civilization has rectified all that! <br /><br />Simply because we did something "once upon a time" hardly justifies continuing the practice.<br /> <br />Earthworms: They exist with or without me... That vegetation (which sustains life) grows in the earth and is shared by earthworms, and that insects eat each other is hardly a justification either ... that man is correct in "recreational hunting"... or in breeding animals to consume. <br /><br />One has nothing to do with the other. Your argument is not supported by any cohesive reference. Sorry.<br /><br />1. If animals are not slaughtered, they must still eat as much grain as they do. The problem would still be just as bad.<br />Mel... The idea is that we would not create more animals. The ones that exist now would eventually die (or more likely be slaughtered)<br />while transitions occur. As time advances less and less animals will be bred - eventually, this means 10 billion less "livestock" animals in the US. The "problem" with feeding animals (instead of humans) would not exist. <br /><br />2. Diseases such as e-coli can also be caused by humans touching something after using the bathroom and not washing their hands. Or <br />more simply - they're not all animal diseases.<br /><br />Uhhhh... Yes... they are. E-coli is an "animal disease"... Remember... we are animals too. :) The bacteria which remains on our unwashed <br />hands is the same as that which is found in the stomach (intenstines) of all animals. It is found in the poop. Hence irradiation of meat to render the feces harmless. It doesn't mean the feces is gone... just means it's been made "safe".<br /><br />This Times article published on the 3rd ought to be a real eye opener for you:<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&hpw<br /><br />3. Regarding the credibility of comments from PETA (etc.)... I don't blame you one bit. I'm not affiliated with peta - nor do I ever cite their data, as you will note.Bea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-2918312144393399172009-10-09T03:01:01.861-04:002009-10-09T03:01:01.861-04:00"I don't think we should try to justify w..."I don't think we should try to justify why we hunt... particularly not to people who obviously live in such a fantasy-land of moral superiority<br />(not to mention the total lack of connection between the cost of keeping wild places and the animals in them wild). " <br /><br />First, unless you are hunting for survival - I don't know that you can justify why you hunt. <br />Re: "moral superiority" - You mean the kind of "superiority" that decides who shall live and when/how they shall die? You mean like "nature" or "God" does? No... I don't claim to be "morally superior" enough for those decisions.<br /> <br />"the cost of keeping wild places and the animals in them wild"... I used to live on almost 7 acres, one of which was cleared, homesteaded, manicured and cultivated. That was the "expensive", maintenance & upkeep part of the land. Excluding nominal taxes the rest, the "wilderness" was "free". So with "wild places"... if they are being "kept" that disqualifies them from being "wild". Or do you mean roads and facilities that go to "wild places"? Honestly, your statement baffles me. Could you clarify? Expensive, controlled "wilderness" is that<br />what you're saying? I'm stumped.<br /><br />1. What does it hurt? <br />Do you mean "who" does it hurt? I think I indicated quite well throughout that both human and nonhuman animals can "suffer". Is this what you mean by "hurt"?<br /><br />2. Either ALL life is sacred, or NO life is sacred. <br />This is not the case for me, and here is my rationale: Although I would not wish any deliberate harm to anyone... But if there was no choice and I had to make a decision of whose life was of value or "sacred"... In the instance of my dog and the likes of a Jeffrey Dahmer - Then<br />(for me) that choice would be simple. I don't even know of two human lives that are of equal "value". Even Sophie had a "choice". But this is neither here, nor there. We are not talking about "choices" that must be made or validated. It's not like your life is "less sacred" if you don't hunt/kill an animal.<br /><br />3. Why is it that humans are supposed to set ourselves aside from the natural order?<br />If it is wrong for the human to hunt, it is wrong for the eagle to do the same.<br /> <br />No. The eagle (nonhuman) cannot quantify (recognize) "value" in any life (other than his own). It can't be "wrong" for the eagle to not do something it *cannot do*. It is not "wrong" for humans not to have wings... Or for humans to not be able to live under water. Just like it's not "wrong" for a nonhuman to not be able to stand upright, or operate a remote. However humans CAN distinguish "value" in life. And <br />not to do such is one of our greatest shortcomings of our species. ie: We don't use all our faculties.<br /><br />"For our species to survive, other creatures must die... whether at the hands of the hunter, in the abbatoir, or to the rakes, plows, traps, and poisons of the agricultural industry."<br /><br />Actually our species could survive and thrive quite well with less killing --- Because we cannot eliminate all suffering, does that support the idea that we should eliminate none? Sometimes I have a difficult time remembering to put gas in the car... should I try not remembering at all? Get it? ***That there will always be grief, there should always be much grief.*** That's really a poor argument.Bea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-21704562545275167902009-10-09T02:53:33.932-04:002009-10-09T02:53:33.932-04:00Anonymous said...
"Animal rights activists a...Anonymous said... <br />"Animal rights activists are self-hating hypocrites motivated by the same instincts that drove the worst of the Puritans. They pick a behavior that is relatively common and confound it with SIN, thereby justifying themselves as the moral superiors."<br /><br />Hi Anonymous... I'm certainly not "self-hating" - nor am I a hypocrite. I do live my life as closely to the values I advocate, as possible. And the "Puritans"? Their issues mainly focused on an ideology that rendered "God" as the devine and ultimate "good"... And that all practices should reflect what "he" ascribed or "commanded". I think you'll find the majority of ARA seek a "justice and fairness" beyond what is found in most religious teachings. Furthermore, most who advocate the killing of animals do such with this preface: "God gave man permission". So who really is the "religious ideologue"?<br /><br />"If animals are truly no different from humans" AND "They ARE just like us! Aren't they?" <br /><br />NO. No one is saying "just like us in everyway"... And no two humans are "just like each other" either... But they are the same as us in the only way that really matters: sentience. They "own" a life. That fact is the common denominator which we all share equally. We all are the same in that each of us, like the other, wishes to live. Animals and humans - this is how we are "same".<br /><br />Phillip said... "some sort of equality between different species of animals. No such thing does, or can, exist in nature."<br /><br />When we abandoned our caves in favor of concrete, steel buildings, Hummers, ipods and the like - We made a deliberate choice to remove ourselves from nature. Furthermore, when a person hunts - Have they not come equipped with store bought cammo? Factory made gear? Machined weapons? GPS systems, etc? Don't hunters drive to their chosen spot... to the "nature" that is away from their lives. They wish to live those hours/days away from the civilization they actually do exist in. Most bring city/bottled water, cell phones, and all sorts of modern conveniences that exist outside of "nature". All the while claiming to "go back" to their primitive "survival" skills.<br /><br />I have the greatest respect for sustaining hunters... Those who must utilize that which raw nature provides, fashioned only by their hands - for the sake of their very lives. <br /><br />And they hunt what they "need" to, in order to live. In this case the contest seems fair and the killing in harmony with "nature". What "modern" man does with sophisticated gear is an antithesis of all that is "nature".<br /><br />"Equality is a two-way street, not something we can simply apply to an unwilling, or unknowing recipient." <br /><br />Really? Then I suppose a foreigner who didn't speak our language would be disqualified from protection under our laws? Or an infant - they also aren't "willing" or aware recipients of our consideration. Nor would someone who has alzhiemers, or any number of<br />incapacitating brain injuries.<br /><br />"The deer will see us as predators or as competition... but never as equals. They're going to eat our crops without concern for what they leave for us. They'll live in our neighborhoods, not because they want to share the habitat with us, but because we provide great plants to eat." <br /><br />Yes indeed the deer probably do see us as competitors - being that we live in THEIR neighborhoods and we don't want to SHARE our habitat with them.Bea Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981537551810309024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-38578867989635358552009-10-07T22:19:12.723-04:002009-10-07T22:19:12.723-04:00Phillip, you hit the nail square on the head.Phillip, you hit the nail square on the head.an animal lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03532571212046660978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-862154153215895772009-10-07T20:00:44.461-04:002009-10-07T20:00:44.461-04:00Slam dunk!
Point scored! Mel!
Nicely played Sir.
...Slam dunk!<br />Point scored! Mel!<br /><br />Nicely played Sir.<br /><br />AlbertAlbert A Raschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431765456546701021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999508328036467805.post-10189991665330751682009-10-07T15:54:35.061-04:002009-10-07T15:54:35.061-04:00And one more thing I thought of regarding the envi...And one more thing I thought of regarding the environmental impact - rainforests are being mowed into farms for soy products.<br /><br />Thing about rainforests though is that the land only is fertile for a few years at best due to the fact the ground doesn't get sun and other nutrients due to dense covering and survival of the fittest.<br /><br />Therefore, when the land becomes infertile, they have to mow down MORE land, therefore reducing the amount of rainforest we have.<br /><br />C'mon Bea - no matter what diet you're on, you cause harm to nature, to animals and to the wildlife. What we can do is reduce the impact, but no one diet is better than the other for this sheer fact alone.melnoreply@blogger.com