Vegetarian Discussion: Turkeys Are Bred In Part For Pet Food

Turkeys Are Bred In Part For Pet Food
Posts: 18

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-03-30 10:54:23 EST
According to the USDA:

The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
foods.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf

If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
be bred.

George Plimpton
2011-03-30 15:42:47 EST
On 3/30/2011 1:53 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> According to the USDA:
>>
>> The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
>> supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
>> method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
>> for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
>> uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
>> and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
>> balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
>> turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
>> foods.
>>
>> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>>
>> If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
>> be bred.
>
> First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.

Yep - all of 'em, Fuckwit. Without the demand for meat for pets, fewer
of all of them would exist - not in dispute.

D*@.
2011-03-30 16:53:56 EST
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:

>According to the USDA:
>
> The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
> supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
> method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
> for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
> uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
> and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
> balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
> turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
>foods.
>
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>
>If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
>be bred.

LOL!!! First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.
Hilarious! The Goober could never find any evidence to support his claim about
cattle, yet he went on to imagine other similarly stupid things even though he
hasn't got the slightest bit of evidence to suggest he might possibly be correct
about any of it.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-31 11:28:18 EST
On Mar 30, 1:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
> >According to the USDA:
>
> >    The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
> >    supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
> >    method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
> >    for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
> >    uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
> >    and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
> >    balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
> >    turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
> >foods.
>
> >    http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>
> >If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
> >be bred.
>
>     LOL!!! First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.
> Hilarious! The Goober could never find any evidence to support his claim about
> cattle, yet  he went on to imagine other similarly stupid things even though he
> hasn't got the slightest bit of evidence to suggest he might possibly be correct
> about any of it.


I'd like to know if Goobs imagines these are raised for 12 years too.

George Plimpton
2011-03-31 11:33:18 EST
On 3/31/2011 8:28 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>> According to the USDA:
>>
>>> The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
>>> supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
>>> method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
>>> for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
>>> uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
>>> and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
>>> balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
>>> turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
>>> foods.
>>
>>> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>>
>>> If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
>>> be bred.
>>
>> First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.

Right - all of 'em.


>
>
> I'd like to know

No. You have no intellectual curiosity about anything. All you want to
do is fuck everything up.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-31 13:10:04 EST
On Mar 31, 8:33 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/31/2011 8:28 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 1:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
> >>> According to the USDA:
>
> >>>     The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
> >>>     supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
> >>>     method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
> >>>     for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
> >>>     uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
> >>>     and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
> >>>     balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
> >>>     turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
> >>>     foods.
>
> >>>    http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>
> >>> If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
> >>> be bred.
>
> >>      First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.
>
> Right - all of 'em.
>
>
>
> > I'd like to know
>
> No.  You have no intellectual curiosity about anything.  All you want to
> do is fuck everything up.


you're saying that because *you're* all fucked up and you think you
can blame it on me.

George Plimpton
2011-03-31 13:27:20 EST
On 3/31/2011 10:10 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 31, 8:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2011 8:28 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 1:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>> According to the USDA:
>>
>>>>> The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
>>>>> supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
>>>>> method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
>>>>> for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
>>>>> uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
>>>>> and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
>>>>> balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
>>>>> turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
>>>>> foods.
>>
>>>>> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>>
>>>>> If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
>>>>> be bred.
>>
>>>> First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.
>>
>> Right - all of 'em.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'd like to know
>>
>> No. You have no intellectual curiosity about anything. All you want to
>> do is fuck everything up.
>
>
> you're saying that because

I'm saying that because it is established beyond dispute that you're a
40+ year old juvenile delinquent who only wants to fuck up as much of
civil society as you can. You really ought to be put in prison.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-31 15:08:39 EST
On Mar 31, 10:27 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/31/2011 10:10 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 8:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/31/2011 8:28 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 30, 1:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
> >>>>> According to the USDA:
>
> >>>>>      The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
> >>>>>      supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
> >>>>>      method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
> >>>>>      for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
> >>>>>      uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
> >>>>>      and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
> >>>>>      balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
> >>>>>      turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
> >>>>>      foods.
>
> >>>>>    http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>
> >>>>> If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
> >>>>> be bred.
>
> >>>>       First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.
>
> >> Right - all of 'em.
>
> >>> I'd like to know
>
> >> No.  You have no intellectual curiosity about anything.  All you want to
> >> do is fuck everything up.
>
> > you're saying that because
>
> I'm saying that because it is established beyond dispute that you're a
> 40+ year old juvenile delinquent who only wants to fuck up as much of
> civil society as you can.  You really ought to be put in prison.

I don't try to convince people that cows are raised for 12 years for
no other purpose than to be pet food.......but you do.

Maybe you should be in a lunatic asylum, Goo.

George Plimpton
2011-03-31 15:48:31 EST
On 3/31/2011 12:08 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:27 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2011 10:10 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 31, 8:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2011 8:28 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 30, 1:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> According to the USDA:
>>
>>>>>>> The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
>>>>>>> supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
>>>>>>> method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
>>>>>>> for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
>>>>>>> uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
>>>>>>> and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
>>>>>>> balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
>>>>>>> turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
>>>>>>> foods.
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>>
>>>>>>> If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
>>>>>>> be bred.
>>
>>>>>> First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.
>>
>>>> Right - all of 'em.
>>
>>>>> I'd like to know
>>
>>>> No. You have no intellectual curiosity about anything. All you want to
>>>> do is fuck everything up.
>>
>>> you're saying that because
>>
>> I'm saying that because it is established beyond dispute that you're a
>> 40+ year old juvenile delinquent who only wants to fuck up as much of
>> civil society as you can. You really ought to be put in prison.
>
> I don't try to convince people that

You just bullshit and try to destroy civil discourse.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-01 23:44:32 EST
On Mar 31, 12:48 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/31/2011 12:08 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 10:27 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/31/2011 10:10 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 31, 8:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 3/31/2011 8:28 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 30, 1:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
> >>>>>>> According to the USDA:
>
> >>>>>>>       The food supply is usually a residual that makes the
> >>>>>>>       supply-utilization commodity table balance. The disappearance
> >>>>>>>       method of calculation relegates to the food supply all residual uses
> >>>>>>>       for which data are not available, such as miscellaneous nonfood
> >>>>>>>       uses, stock changes at retail and consumer levels, and sampling
> >>>>>>>       and measurement errors in the estimation of other components of the
> >>>>>>>       balance sheet. For example, an increasing proportion of the total
> >>>>>>>       turkey supply (especially backs, necks, and giblets) goes into pet
> >>>>>>>       foods.
>
> >>>>>>>    http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965b.pdf
>
> >>>>>>> If there were no pets and thus no pet food industry, fewer turkeys would
> >>>>>>> be bred.
>
> >>>>>>        First cattle, then chickens, then sheep, and now turkeys too.
>
> >>>> Right - all of 'em.
>
> >>>>> I'd like to know
>
> >>>> No.  You have no intellectual curiosity about anything.  All you want to
> >>>> do is fuck everything up.
>
> >>> you're saying that because
>
> >> I'm saying that because it is established beyond dispute that you're a
> >> 40+ year old juvenile delinquent who only wants to fuck up as much of
> >> civil society as you can.  You really ought to be put in prison.
>
> > I don't try to convince people that
>
> You just bullshit and try to destroy civil discourse.

You think that your lying to people about 12 year old cows is "civil
discourse"?

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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