So, Robert Luis, why can't they all be as calm and sane and open-minded and clear-minded as you are?
>Keith Addison wrote: > > > Of course you're right about the DDG, Motie, with ethanol you get it > > both ways - and Pimental doesn't know that, along with a lot of other > > things it seems he doesn't know? He does know it. The trouble is you > > soon hit another obstacle - Pimental's "studies" are much used by > > vegetarian and vegan activists who're after saving the world by > > eradicating livestock farming. Pimentel says: "With the world > > population at 5.5 billion, food production is adequate to feed 7 > > billion people a vegetarian diet, with ideal distribution and no > > grain fed to livestock." > > Like many positions, this one has SOME truth in it. Some, yes, but the "vegetarian" bit is superfluous and a distraction. He's proselytising, and not in an honest fashion. And grain can still be fed to livestock, if that's what a farmer wants to do (there are pros and cons, and it doesn't have to be all-grain, some grain in the winter can certainly be justified, for instance). But not the industrial way. >We Americans have been >raised with the belief that we "grow enough food to feed the world." >Unfortunately, much of the grain we grow goes toward feeding cattle, pigs and >poultry, rather than directly feeding people. Therefore, much of >the non-dairy >produce in our supermarkets comes from somewhere else and is trucked >or shipped a >VERY LONG (energy intensive) distance to feed us. One of the many >problems with >this agricultural model is that it's built upon and perpetuates the myth that >"modern" factory agriculture is superior when it comes to producing food for >people. In reality, much of that food feeds livestock. We >certainly would have a >HUGE surplus of grain if we fed only people with what we grow. Have you seen this page? http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? > While there is some justification that vegetarian diets are >healthier than non >vegetarian diets (I have been a vegetarian for almost 40 years), Yes, and there's some justification for the opposite view too - but, as you say below, it's not relevant, is it? Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything - other than the food industries and their spinmeisters, who thoroughly muddy the entire issue for both sides. >the idea that >we'll "run out of food" if we don't persist with our current >agricultural paradigm >is a difficult idea to sell to the average person. We've been >raised on "the four >food groups", two of which happen to consist of dairy products, and nobody >questioned that the organization supplying this information might >have a vested, >economic interest in increasing the money we spend buying meat, milk, eggs and >cheese. Didn't anyone ever wonder why half of our diet was supposed to come >directly from animals? (When I look at myself, I think I'd make a LOUSY >predator!) Well, traditionally everybody eats meat, but the question is, how much meat, and how is it raised? The one person who gets this right, beyond any doubt, is Weston A. Price. Name ONE must-read, this is it: http://journeytoforever.org/text_price.html The Darwin of nutrition - Weston A. Price > Meanwhile, factory farming reduces tilth, increases dependence on chemical >fertilizers and pesticides, giving us lower quality food that is >primarily fed to >animals in HUGE feed lots that produce way more waste than the local >environment >can handle. We ship the grain over great distances to the feed >lots, then ship >the cattle, hogs and chickens to slaughter, then ship the carcasses to >distribution centers and on to the stores where most of us buy our >food. This is >a very energy intensive business, and I can't help but think that a change in >paradigm is necessary to improve our standard of living, health, improve local >economies and help local farmers survive. To help us ALL survive, along with everything else. Again you raise the food-miles issue, so important and neglected. Who talks of this when they discuss cutting US dependence on foreign oil? Or of the rest of the industrial farming nightmare? But it's a huge contributor to oil dependance, and no need for it, every need to abandon it. > > > > Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but > > there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There > > is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never > > has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later > > fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed > > farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't > > do it, and neither can we. > > Some of us think that God actually MADE things this way, but that doesn't >really inform the excellent point you bring up. Oh, I agree with that! He's no fool. Contemplations of soil and of God go very well together, I find. The soil is a creature. We're part of it's skin. >I don't oppose people eating meat >and animal products. I am, however, vehemently opposed to the >current manner in >which this is done. Huge feed lots blight the landscape in >California. They're >ugly and they stink! Ground water contamination becomes a serious >problem because >of their effluent. Further, the operators of these feed lots must >inoculate the >cattle against all manner of disease because in no other environment >on earth do >creatures live in such close proximity. (I have spoken to hunters >who will not >eat livestock because they've told me they can taste the chemicals >in the meat.) >The problems with this type of livestock raising are manifold. > > This is not the kind of mixed farming you're advocating. You're damn' right it's not. We're totally against it, while being totally pro-livestock raising. Pimental's well aware of the differences between industrial agriculture and sustainable agriculture when it comes to crops, but not when it comes to livestock? I don't believe it. Something doesn't smell good. >The animals in feed >lots are segregated from the land that supports them. They are not utilizing >those parts of the plants we cannot digest, nor are they benefiting from our >husbandry. We, in turn, cannot benefit from the all products >(especially their >waste) given to us while the animals are living--we take mostly >those derived from >their slaughter. Our current factory farming model is seriously >flawed. We need >to change the way we think. And do. And quick. > (WARNING--Socio-political rant ahead. . .) Maybe we should get rid of ALL >subsidies. Maybe we should redistribute land so that people who >want to farm can >get 10 affordable and arable acres of land. Then, and only then, >let the market >select those who survive and weed out those who don't. Used to be that way, could be again, to the general good. But: "From the 1930's to the 1960's the free-range system was the popular way to raise poultry in the United states. It produced meaty, tender birds at a reasonable cost, using a reasonable amount of labor and providing valuable fertility to the land. Many farmers raised 10,000-20,000 birds per year on short-grass pasture ("range"), both chickens and turkeys. With the rise of industrial agriculture and the development of the confinement broiler barn, this sustainable and profitable system was discontinued by means of withdrawing growers contracts. Left with no market or processing facilities the practice was abandoned within two or three years." http://www.free-rangepoultry.com/ The big corps bought up all the slaughterhouses, got the laws changed - there was nowhere to get your birds slaughtered unless you used their broiler systems. So how do you prevent that happening again? That and many other such things. > > It's absolutely no use trying to argue with these people - it's not > > rational, it's a moral crusade, and if you don't agree, then you're > > the enemy. > > I don't eat meat, but I hear you. We don't have to agree on >something silly >like diet. It's nice, however, to read an intelligent discussion of >this issue. Yes, isn't it! :-) Same to you! > > Well, I just hope somebody will save the world from these people - > > all the Third World needs is this kind of bent-headed crap. Just to > > put that little quote above from Pimental in perspective, there's > > enough food available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per > > person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, > > about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of > > meat, milk and eggs - enough to make most people fat. No need to cut > > the meat. "With ideal distribution", Pimental says, as if it's but a > > simple matter, whereas in fact it's the whole problem, the only > > reason people go hungry - an inequitable economic system. > > Precisely! That's where our moral outrage needs to be aimed. But people will perform extraordinary mental contortions rather than accept that - including imposing all sorts of noxious do-gooding crap an poor and abused Third World farmers. Something akin to the voting with your pocket that Alan was referring to, maybe. > > I'm not against vegetarianism, or vegetarians, but I am against > > vegetarian farming systems being promoted as sustainable, they're > > simply not, and I'm very against the idea of their being promoted as > > the solution - the only solution - to Third World poverty and world > > hunger. > > It's nice to know you're not my enemy!!! Third World poverty >and hunger are >two issues that are much too complex to be addressed with simple fixes like >changing a farming system. Besides, you're right about vegetarian farming >systems. I have an uncle in Brasil who farms on the fringes of Belo >Horizonte, >and he laughs at the way we farm in North America. Once, while we >were driving >through the rice paddies in Northern California he remarked: "California is >exporting its soil. What will you do when it runs out?" I didn't >understand what >he was saying then, but I'm better informed now, and his words no >longer seem like >the envious rant of a poor, uneducated Third World farmer. He was absolutely right. > > Enough of that. But there may be a similar problem with this > > anti-ethanol guy and his website in Winnebago. Moral > > self-righteousness backed by ignorance - he'll probably just go into > > denial. But don't be put off, he needs to be told the error of his > > ways, the more publicly the better. > > > > There's an awful lot of bad publicity about the energy balance of grain >ethanol. Your site is one of the few advocating it. Ethanol also >carries more >political baggage than biodiesel or SVO, which don't seem to raise the ire of >government as much as the prospect that I might do something other >than pour that >liquid sunshine into the fuel tank of my truck. I joined this list >to learn more >about ethanol production. While the idea of locally grown, fermented and >distilled fuel appeals to me, it doesn't seem as practical as >biodiesel or SVO. >Sigh! I don't own a diesel. . . I think you can do ethanol. There are some good still designs at our site, and more coming soon. Steve's got great fuel ethanol resources at WebConX. Terry Wilhelm's Revenoor is very much about fuel ethanol, have you been there? Recommended. http://revenoor.com/revenoor_001.htm Best wishes Keith >robert luis rabello ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
