Vegetarian Discussion: Collateral Deaths In Rice Production

Collateral Deaths In Rice Production
Posts: 115

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

P*@pbs.edu
2009-01-15 13:02:46 EST
_________________________________________________________
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
From: diderot <tamerln@wcnet.net>
Message-ID: <3790844B.34A3@wcnet.net>
. . .
a very conservative annualised estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic
rice farming is ~20 pound (arithmetic follows). this works out a bit
less than two vertebrate deaths per square foot, and, again, is *quite*
conservative. for conventionally grown rice, the gross body-count is
*at least* several times that figure. collateral included deaths from
'conventional' agriculture are more inferential than from 'organic'
production (explained later) and, although the number of deaths is fewer
in organic v. conventional, they are far more visible in organic
production.

the vertebrate deaths come from: frogs (5+ species), toads (common
bufo), anole lizards, shrews (3 species), voles, mice, rats, snakes, a
couple of kinds of turtles, cats, rabbits, skunk, nutria & muskrats,
raccoons, possums, deer (never less than a pair of fawns harvested per
50 acres), pheasants, quail, pigeons, cattle egrets, sparrows,
starlings, waxwings, .... although all of these are not harvested
*every* time, they are the 'regulars.' occasionally a canvasback, teal,
heron, mallard, black duck, coot, spoonbill, crow, hawk, kite, eagle,
buzzard ... is shredded, as is the occasional feral pig or lost calf,
coyote or dog.
. . .
most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
across the header, it is somewhere between 10K & 50+K per acre
harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still conservative)
number of amphibian and anole deaths through the combine is 35,000 of
all species harvested per acre, combined average for two cuttings. in
spite of these seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards
escape than are combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian
deaths represents less than 20% of the total population, and probably
far less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not
killed.
. . .
from death comes life. agriculture: is now, always has been and always
will be a bloody business.

buon apetité.

cordially,
diderot
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Rupert
2009-01-15 19:33:39 EST
On Jan 16, 2:02 am, p...@pbs.edu wrote:
> _________________________________________________________
> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> From: diderot <tame...@wcnet.net>
> Message-ID: <3790844B.34A3@wcnet.net>
> . . .
> a very conservative annualised estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic
> rice farming is ~20 pound (arithmetic follows).  

Is that ~20 per pound? Why "annualised"?

Dutch
2009-01-15 20:50:36 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b518c830-830f-492c-9d58-34b3de06cb87@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 2:02 am, p...@pbs.edu wrote:
> _________________________________________________________
> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> From: diderot <tame...@wcnet.net>
> Message-ID: <3790844B.34A3@wcnet.net>
> . . .
> a very conservative annualised estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic
> rice farming is ~20 pound (arithmetic follows).

Is that ~20 per pound? Why "annualised"?

I assume diderot meant per pound there. And I think by annualised he meant
the total of all the annual processes. He hasn't posted here for years, and
I doubt this is diderot.


UNmaiviLambi
2009-01-15 21:46:53 EST
On Jan 15, 1:02 pm, p...@pbs.edu wrote:
> _________________________________________________________
> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> From: diderot <tame...@wcnet.net>
> Message-ID: <3790844B.34A3@wcnet.net>


Misplaced calculation. No doubt rice production or any grain
production will kill. But raising cattle or animals for meat will kill
this much and far more as they are fed grains and other feed any way.

Hence meat production kills far far more.

The question is whether we should kill more and more and more or less
and less and less!! Simple

Our goal should be to produce *least harm*. For most humans that is
the best alternative, for ethics, health and ecology. At least limit
meat as much as possible remembering that the goal should be avoiding
meat and murder

UNmaiviLambi
2009-01-15 21:47:52 EST
On Jan 15, 1:02 pm, p...@pbs.edu wrote:
> _________________________________________________________
> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> From: diderot <tame...@wcnet.net>
> Message-ID: <3790844B.34A3@wcnet.net>


Misplaced calculation. No doubt rice production or any grain
production will kill. But raising cattle or animals for meat will kill
this much and far more as they are fed grains and other feed any way.

Hence meat production kills far far more.

The question is whether we should kill more and more and more or less
and less and less!! Simple

Our goal should be to produce *least harm*. For most humans that is
the best alternative, for ethics, health and ecology. At least limit
meat as much as possible, remembering that the goal should be
avoiding meat and murder

Dutch
2009-01-16 05:52:53 EST

"uNmaiviLambi" <tripurantaka@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3eb01720-1e64-4add-adbf-d5bd50a34b6a@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 1:02 pm, p...@pbs.edu wrote:
> _________________________________________________________
> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> From: diderot <tame...@wcnet.net>
> Message-ID: <3790844B.34A3@wcnet.net>


Misplaced calculation. No doubt rice production or any grain
production will kill. But raising cattle or animals for meat will kill
this much and far more as they are fed grains and other feed any way.
----------------------

Cattle are are generally only fed grain to "finish" them. In conventional
cattle farming most of the weight is gained from grazing.

Hence meat production kills far far more.
--------------------
See above.

The question is whether we should kill more and more and more or less
and less and less!! Simple
-------------------

So if eating large animals killed less that would be better?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972951/posts
The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy,
not a Vegan Diet


Our goal should be to produce *least harm*. For most humans that is
the best alternative, for ethics, health and ecology. At least limit
meat as much as possible remembering that the goal should be avoiding
meat and murder.
------------------

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human.


Pearl
2009-01-16 07:37:19 EST
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:gkpoub$q71$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurantaka@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3eb01720-1e64-4add-adbf-d5bd50a34b6a@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 15, 1:02 pm, p...@pbs.edu wrote:
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> > From: diderot <tame...@wcnet.net>
> > Message-ID: <3790844B.34A3@wcnet.net>
>
>
> Misplaced calculation. No doubt rice production or any grain
> production will kill.

That post by some anonymous person on newsgroups has been called
a hoax by a real organic rice farmer, and there's no supporting evidence
for any of it anywhere. These meathead trolls use it as a subterfuge.

> But raising cattle or animals for meat will kill
> this much and far more as they are fed grains and other feed any way.
> ----------------------
>
> Cattle are are generally only fed grain to "finish" them. In conventional
> cattle farming most of the weight is gained from grazing.

'Beef cattle feedlot operations continue to be financially dominated
by large corporations with diversified interests that have refined the
process of raising calves to slaughter-ready weight. Calves are
typically housed on a feedlot for six months and fed grain, along
with antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, and protein
supplements to push the animals' weight up as quickly as possible.
The result is readily available beef products at relatively low prices.
..'
http://www.answers.com/topic/beef-cattle-feedlots

'When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the
livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-
related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful
greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide,
which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.
Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane
(23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive
system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes
significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly
permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land
used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are
cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation,
especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of
former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

Land and water

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral
reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and
hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used
to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles,
reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources.
Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land
and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss;
15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline,
with livestock identified as a culprit.
..'
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

> Hence meat production kills far far more.
> --------------------
> See above.

Yeah, see above.

> The question is whether we should kill more and more and more or less
> and less and less!! Simple
> -------------------
>
> So if eating large animals killed less that would be better?
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972951/posts
> The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy,
> not a Vegan Diet

There's something _very_ wrong with you to keep doing this, ditch.

'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land animals
are raised and slaughtered for human consumption. Given the suffering
these animals endure, and given that all our nutritional needs can easily
be satisfied without eating these animals, arguments that vegetarianism
is morally required have been advanced from a wide range of ethical
perspectives: utilitarianism (Singer, 2002), rights-based deontology
(Regan, 1983), contractarianism (Rowlands, 2002; Bernstein, 1997),
virtue ethics (Hurst-house, 2000), common-sense morality (DeGrazia,
1996; Engel, 1999; Sapontzis 1987), and religious moralities (Linzey
and Regan, 1988). Common to these arguments is the belief that
vegetarian diets cause the least harm - to animals, human health, and
the environment - and are thereby morally obligatory.

In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis (2003) accepts the common
moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the "least harm
principle") but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian diets do
in fact cause the least harm.
...
Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
production (15) [guesstimate] is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as
many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food,
a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop
production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and
one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount
of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on
as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as
pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar, 1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to
obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a
vegan- vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian
would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill
1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-
vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals,
followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.
..'
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf

> Our goal should be to produce *least harm*. For most humans that is
> the best alternative, for ethics, health and ecology. At least limit
> meat as much as possible remembering that the goal should be avoiding
> meat and murder.
> ------------------
>
> Murder is the unlawful killing of a human.

We rightly don't restrict personhood to homo supposedly sapiens.




Mr.Smartypants
2009-01-16 13:15:09 EST
On Jan 16, 5:37 am, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in messagenews:gkpoub$q71$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> > "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3eb01720-1e64-4add-adbf-d5bd50a34b6a@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 15, 1:02 pm, p...@pbs.edu wrote:
> > > _________________________________________________________
> > > Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> > > From: diderot <tame...@wcnet.net>
> > > Message-ID: <3790844B.3...@wcnet.net>
>
> > Misplaced calculation. No doubt rice production or any grain
> > production will kill.
>
> That post by some anonymous person on newsgroups has been called
> a hoax by a real organic rice farmer, and there's no supporting evidence
> for any of it anywhere.  These meathead trolls use it as a subterfuge.
>
> > But raising cattle or animals for meat will kill
> > this much and far more as they are fed grains and other feed any way.
> > ----------------------
>
> > Cattle are are generally only fed grain to "finish" them. In conventional
> > cattle farming most of the weight is gained from grazing.
>
> 'Beef cattle feedlot operations continue to be financially dominated
> by large corporations with diversified interests that have refined the
> process of raising calves to slaughter-ready weight. Calves are
> typically housed on a feedlot for six months and fed grain, along
> with antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, and protein
> supplements to push the animals' weight up as quickly as possible.
> The result is readily available beef products at relatively low prices.
> ..'http://www.answers.com/topic/beef-cattle-feedlots
>
> 'When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the
> livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-
> related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful
> greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide,
> which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.
> Most of this comes from manure.
>
> And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane
> (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive
> system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes
> significantly to acid rain.
>
> Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly
> permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land
> used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are
> cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation,
> especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of
> former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
>
> Land and water
>
> At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
> 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
> compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
> where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
> contribute to advancing desertification.
>
> The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
> earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
> things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral
> reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and
> hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used
> to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles,
> reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources.
> Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
>
> Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
> and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
> biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.
>
> Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
> terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land
> and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss;
> 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline,
> with livestock identified as a culprit.
> ..'http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
>
> > Hence meat production kills far far more.
> > --------------------
> > See above.
>
> Yeah, see above.
>
> > The question is whether we should kill more and more and more or less
> > and less and less!! Simple
> > -------------------
>
> > So if eating large animals killed less that would be better?
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972951/posts
> > The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy,
> > not a Vegan Diet
>
> There's something _very_ wrong with you to keep doing this, ditch.
>
> 'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land animals
> are raised and slaughtered for human consumption. Given the suffering
> these animals endure, and given that all our nutritional needs can easily
> be satisfied without eating these animals, arguments that vegetarianism
> is morally required have been advanced from a wide range of ethical
> perspectives: utilitarianism (Singer, 2002), rights-based deontology
> (Regan, 1983), contractarianism (Rowlands, 2002; Bernstein, 1997),
> virtue ethics (Hurst-house, 2000), common-sense morality (DeGrazia,
> 1996; Engel, 1999; Sapontzis 1987), and religious moralities (Linzey
> and Regan, 1988). Common to these arguments is the belief that
> vegetarian diets cause the least harm - to animals, human health, and
> the environment - and are thereby morally obligatory.
>
> In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis (2003) accepts the common
> moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the "least harm
> principle") but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian diets do
> in fact cause the least harm.
> ...
> Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
> production (15) [guesstimate] is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
> If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as
> many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food,
> a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop
> production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and
> one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount
> of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on
> as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as
> pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
> grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar, 1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to
> obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a
> vegan- vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian
> would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill
> 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-
> vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals,
> followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.
> ..'http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf
>
> > Our goal should be to produce *least harm*. For most humans that is
> > the best alternative, for ethics, health and ecology. At least limit
> > meat as much as possible  remembering that the goal should be avoiding
> > meat and murder.
> > ------------------
>
> > Murder is the unlawful killing of a human.
>
> We rightly don't restrict personhood to homo supposedly sapiens.



Perhaps one of these clowns could come up with some PHOTOGRAPHIC
evidence of this horrific destruction of life?

What's the bets they can't?


Dutch
2009-01-16 16:28:39 EST
"Mr.Smartypants" <bcpg@canada.com> wrote
Perhaps one of these clowns could come up with some PHOTOGRAPHIC
evidence of this horrific destruction of life?
--------------------------

I understand that people of your mental age need pictures to help them
understand stuff, but get an adult to explain to you the studies linked in
my last post, such as Tew and Macdonald (1993).


Pearl
2009-01-17 10:24:48 EST
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:gkqu6c$7c9$1@news.motzarella.org...
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bcpg@canada.com> wrote
>
> Perhaps one of these clowns could come up with some PHOTOGRAPHIC
> evidence of this horrific destruction of life?
> --------------------------
>
> I understand that people of your mental age need pictures to help them
> understand stuff, but get an adult to explain to you the studies linked in
> my last post, such as Tew and Macdonald (1993).

Like you? Explain to us kids: "The process of harvesting itself had
little direct effect on the mice". Contrary to your neverending claim.

'Titre du document / Document title
The effects of harvest on arable wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
TEW T. E. ; MACDONALD D. W. ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
Oxford univ., dep. zoology, wildlife conservation res. unit, Oxford OX1
3PS, ROYAUME-UNI

R\ufffdsum\ufffd / Abstract

The effects of cereal harvesting on the ecology of wood mice Apodemus
sylvaticus were investigated at three arable study sites in Oxfordshire from
1987 to 1991 using both radio-tracking and live-trapping methodologies.
The process of harvesting itself had little direct effect on the mice, but the
removal of the cover afforded by the crop greatly increased predation
pressure on the mice. After harvest, mice either emigrated from the arable
ecosystem or reduced activity. Nevertheless, over half (17 of 32) of the
mice radio-collared before harvest were taken by predators in the first
week following harvest. Together with emigration, this produced an 80%
decrease in the population. Post-harvest activities such as stubble burning
subsequently further increased mortality

Revue / Journal Title
Biological conservation ISSN 0006-3207 CODEN BICOBK
..'
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4854714

Predators benefit, but can you explain to us "removal of the cover" here?
Has the following anything to do with it (note the word "stubble" above)?

'Forage crop systems by their very definition of harvesting the entire plant
remove more pounds of N and P from the field than grain crops, thereby
justifying increased manure application rates. The following chart
demonstrates this point.
..
Crop Yield
..
Corn Silage 7 T DM.
..
Corn Grain 100 bu.
..
http://washington.umd.edu/AgNaturalResources/Nutrient%20Removal.cfm

'1 metric ton = 1,000 kilograms
..
1 bushel corn = 25.40 (25) kilograms
..'
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c6-80.html

100 x 25.40 = 2,540 kg removed, vs 7,000 (DM!). <1/3 vs ~100% .....




Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron