Previous post from Axel dated: 02:08 AM 3/12/99 -0300:
>At 23:22 11/03/1999 GMT, you wrote:
>>you try to imply that _all_ animal husbandry have bad results.
>i was just making a point. i know that organic and especially permaculture
>animals are a lot less harmful to the environment, but still inefficient
>and wastful of space and resources.
But Axel you do not know the full story: proper farming methods increase
the fertility of the soil, and animal excreta is important in making soil of
the highest fertility; however this requires proper management for it to occur.
Put in this context, it is inefficient and wasteful not to have animals.
In addition, there are many people who need meat in order to have the best
of health.
> but it would be better to have plants and trees growing to produce an
>abundance of food.
there is already an abundance of food
There are places in the world where much grain is grown to feed to animals (
as you have abundantly pointed out): but this is part of an inappropriate
method of husbandry and land mismanagement. It is probable that the animal
numbers could be kept under organic methods that would maintain the
fertility of the land: this is the true wealth of our grandchildren.
>>Actually, there are many vegetable-growing practices that are worse than
>>many animal-growing ones. As an example, farmers that continually crop=
> the
>>land year after year.
>
>this is true only if you compare a good organic or permaculture animal
>operation with a conventional vegetable farm that uses chemical fertilizers
>and pesticides
no, you seem to be confusing about what you intend by the way you comment on
different aspects of it. From the subject line, it appears that you are
supporting the ideas that
1 ecology needs improving
2 if everyone eats vegetarian then this would improve ecology.
In fact, this could actually have arisen by someones attitude that
"vegetarian is good so everything that could support this must be used to
convince".
Well I agree that ecology need improving.
And I agree that eating vegetarian is good for a large number of the world's
population ( probably less than 50 percent though).
But I disagree that eating vegetarian helps ecology.
You were talking of destruction of the land: I am pointing out in plain
english that both animal and plant farming practices are doing this. It is
the farming practices that need to be changed.
What you are proposing is counter to the results you want.
Another argument about not rearing animals for food: Look at the number of
species that are becoming extinct. If man did not have a commercial reason
for keeping cattle, there would be few.
Man also has a track record for hunting food animals to extinction: The
Puffin and Moa come to mind. Ultimately we would have a world full of
pollution and billions of people in different (and declining) stages of
health. Even the sewage waste of humans is poisonous to farming.
An exeption to this paragraph is India, where cattle are sacred (and thus
are permitted to live, and in the process their excreta improves the soil),
and rural people bury their own wastes in a disciplined fashion (this is
also beneficial while the residents are free from antibiotics, pills etc)..
Rural India is relatively fertile as a result. (BTW, India also has a very
strong organic following). But also in India the Tiger is disappearing by
human encroachment.
>> there
>>were millions of bison on the plains in USA, soil was very fertile.
>i do not know what do you imply with the above,
What I imply is that the land was very fertile _with_ all those bison. But
not now. Its not the animals that are to blame, its the people's farming
methods.
> but if you read beyond beef
>by rifkin you will find out that the bison were killed by the millons TO
>MAKE ROOM FOR CATTLE. yes. it seems that people in europe did not like the
>taste of wild animals so they had to kill them all. it is in the book.=20
The reason why the bison were killed is to make money : the meat was railed
east to the city markets. Keeping cattle was a logical next step to make
commercial use of all that wonderful grass.
Which is no more because of stupid farming practices.
>main cause of world desertification: cattle ranching. also in the book.=20
This is simplistic at best. There are many causes of desertification.
So you've read one book, great. Do you think there's a chance you might
read another one day?
One of the main causes of world desertification: clearing forest. Causes
the land to dry up, remaining forest burns more easily. And stupid farming
practices. Just because there is a correlation between cattle numbers and
desertification doesn't imply simple cause and effect.
The problem with some authors is that they have an agenda, and quite a few
believe that they can solve the world's hunger by having everyone be
vegetarian. So they get every factoid they can and try to build an
overwhelming argument in favour of their agenda.
The problem is they think like accountants, able to count beans very well
but rather blinkered when it comes to more complex things like health of
land and people.
I don't think for more than a moment that any of what I say is any more to
you than a reason for you to respond yet again with the same repititions,
that's your choice.
Lynton
|
