Vegetarian Discussion: Animal Rights?

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)

Pearl
2006-06-17 08:49:11 EST
Animal rights?
By Sadakat Kadri
Times Online June 16, 2006

Until the 17th century, many European countries routinely held animals
legally responsible for serious acts of mischief. Pigs that chewed on babies'
ears and sheep that yielded to human sexual temptations, for example,
were arrested, taken to court, put on trial and then hanged or burned. Such
proceedings may have fallen out of fashion, but the legal status of animals
remains a matter of lively debate - as shown by a flurry of recent news
reports that Spain will shortly be extending legal rights to life, liberty
and bodily integrity to chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orang-utans.

Reactions have been mixed. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at
Princeton whose work with the Great Apes Project inspired the Spanish
measure, saw it as the start of a trend. "I do think it is possible that we
might want to extend this to . . . elephants and dolphins," he told the BBC.
"Maybe even . . . .dogs or pigs." Others were less enthusiastic. Delia
Padron, a representative for Amnesty International, expressed "surprise"
that animals should be accorded "human rights" while they were still being
denied to plenty of men and women. Fernando Sebastian, the archbishop
of Pamplona, was more concerned by another of his constituencies:
given that the rights of embryos remained unrecognised, he thought giving
them to apes was "ridiculous."

To a certain extent, such hostility is based on a simple misreading of the
Spanish proposal. Although the Bill has been characterised by supporters
and opponents alike as one that grants "human rights" to the great apes,
chimpanzees remain as unlikely to sue for breach as they do to type the
complete works of Shakespeare. The Bill simply requires the Spanish
government "to take any necessary measures in international forums and
organisations for the protection of great apes from maltreatment, slavery,
torture, death, and extinction" - an obligation similar to hundreds of
others imposed on governments everywhere, every day.

But opponents of the law are not simply misunderstanding what it says.
Their scepticism rests on a deeper philosophical attitude towards rights -
the belief that they should be recognised only where they are balanced by
duties. Professor Steve Jones expressed the view pithily: "Rights come
with responsibility," he observed. "I've never seen a chimp being fined
for stealing a plate of bananas."

Such notions are particularly commonplace among politicians, who have
taken the idea one step further. Every Home Secretary in living memory
has made a point of observing, repeatedly, that rights come with duties -
and that as a result, people who have been irresponsible enjoy weaker and
fewer rights. The present incumbent, John Reid, warned within days of
taking over his job that the balance had gone badly awry. "There can be no
rights without commensurate responsibilities," he explained, "and we ought
to be talking more about responsibility rather than concentrating on rights."

The correlation sounds elegant and, like all elegant-sounding ideas, it is
more plausible as a result. But it is also false. We recognise the rights of
countless people who give nothing in return, from the underage and mentally
retarded to the comatose. And to say that criminals enjoy fewer rights
because they have failed in their responsibilities is as mystical as it is neat.
It assumes a magically coherent universe where wrongs automatically
balance rights - whereas cold logic dictates that there is only one legal
duty imposed by a right: an obligation on someone else, usually the state,
to respect it.

The beneficiaries of rights, whether they happen to be alleged paedophiles,
illegal immigrants, or war criminals, are not privileged because they have
shown themselves to be worthy. They possess rights because whatever
we may think of the specific individual concerned, we collectively and
traditionally believe that treating citizens with dignity is the civilised
thing to do.

None of that helps in deciding whether or how laws can best protect the
great apes; and it does not resolve the inevitable conflicts that arise
between different people's rights - between those of a soldier charged with
war crimes, say, and his alleged victim. But next time you hear someone
insisting that rights come with responsibilities, don't be fooled. It might
sound morally rigorous, but it makes as much sense as trying a pig.


Sadakat Kadri is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and author of
The Trial: A History, from Socrates to OJ Simpson which contains a
chapter on animal trials.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28009-2229192,00.html



D*@.
2006-06-17 12:04:52 EST
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:49:11 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>Animal rights?
>By Sadakat Kadri
>Times Online June 16, 2006
...

> John Reid, warned within days of
>taking over his job that the balance had gone badly awry. "There can be no
>rights without commensurate responsibilities," he explained, "and we ought
>to be talking more about responsibility rather than concentrating on rights."
>
>The correlation sounds elegant and, like all elegant-sounding ideas, it is
>more plausible as a result. But it is also false. We recognise the rights of
>countless people who give nothing in return, from the underage and mentally
>retarded to the comatose.
...

>The beneficiaries of rights, whether they happen to be alleged paedophiles,
>illegal immigrants, or war criminals, are not privileged because they have
>shown themselves to be worthy. They possess rights because whatever
>we may think of the specific individual concerned, we collectively and
>traditionally believe that treating citizens with dignity is the civilised
>thing to do.
...

· "aras" contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Pearl
2006-06-18 06:50:20 EST
<*h@.> wrote in message news:a0a892prjtpvg1i7bsfeft1hags2umr8ti@4ax.com...
<spam>
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. \ufffd

'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for
grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest
of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood
gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a
conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's
forestland each year.

Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed
roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
be seen on every continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality
in 1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most
arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not
occurring. Seven years later UNEP compiled, from
questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most complete data
on world desertification ever assembled. According to the
resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or
35% of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or
continued desertification. UNEP estimated that more than
3/4 of this land -- the vast majority of it grazed rangeland
-- had already been at least moderately degraded. About
15 million acres (the size of West Virginia) of semi-arid
or subhumid land annually are reduced to unreclaimable
desert-like condition, while another 52 million and acres
annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping
sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any other
influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
about 20% in the next 20 years.
....'
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

"If the earth's arable land were used primarily for the production
of vegetarian foods, the planet could easily support a human
population of 20 billion or more" -Noted from the book
Proteins: Their Chemistry and Politics / Dr. Aaron Altshul

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Farming/benefits.html

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:
- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
..'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm





D*@.
2006-06-19 15:33:08 EST
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:50:20 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
>more than has any other land use, and has transformed
>roughly half of it to desertlike condition.

We can see that your veggies are worse than grazing:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field
animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation,
mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole
population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to
plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause
additional harm to animals of the field.

In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require
fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed
pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades,
and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also
helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams.

"Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage,
would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said.

Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which
would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy
products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in
the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field
animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference,
according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in
pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain,
beans, and corn.
[...]
http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Mar02/vegan.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Leif Erikson
2006-06-19 16:57:05 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:50:20 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> >more than has any other land use, and has transformed
> >roughly half of it to desertlike condition.
>
> We can see that your veggies are worse than grazing:

Stop lying, Fuckwit. Davis is looking only at animal deaths, not total
ecological impact.

You just can't post without lying, can you, Goober Fuckwit?


Pearl
2006-06-19 19:21:22 EST
<*h@.> wrote in message news:7pud921gnrr9ajglmhe8bn32a98fsmqrs0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:50:20 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> >more than has any other land use, and has transformed
> >roughly half of it to desertlike condition.
>
> We can see that your veggies are worse than grazing:
> _________________________________________________________
> [...]
> Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field

'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
crop production (15) 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://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

ADD:

'Animal Enemies

In the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for
an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to
eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable,
a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as
possessing some offensive characteristic.

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html

Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.html

ADD:

'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast,
the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
naturally.Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997). Suffice it to say,
it is hard to imagine that the pain experienced by a mouse as
she or he is killed in a harvester compares to the pain even a
grass-fed cow must endure before being killed.
....'
http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

...



D*@.
2006-06-21 15:49:52 EST
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:21:22 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message news:7pud921gnrr9ajglmhe8bn32a98fsmqrs0@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:50:20 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
>> >more than has any other land use, and has transformed
>> >roughly half of it to desertlike condition.
>>
>> We can see that your veggies are worse than grazing:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> [...]
>> Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field
>
>'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
>crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).

Now we see how grass raised products are better for the
environment than grain based products like rice and soy:
_________________________________________________________
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pastures/Grazing/Systems/Techniques/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Rupert
2006-06-26 03:08:29 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:21:22 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:7pud921gnrr9ajglmhe8bn32a98fsmqrs0@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:50:20 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> >> >more than has any other land use, and has transformed
> >> >roughly half of it to desertlike condition.
> >>
> >> We can see that your veggies are worse than grazing:
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> [...]
> >> Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field
> >
> >'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
> >crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
>
> Now we see how grass raised products are better for the
> environment than grain based products like rice and soy:

Which "grass-raised" products? Are you talking about beef whose
production requires no crop inputs at all? What percentage of beef, or
even of beef that is labelled "grass-fed", does that account for? If
that's the section of the market you're talking about you should be
specific and say so.


D*@.
2006-06-26 10:29:05 EST
On 26 Jun 2006 00:08:29 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:21:22 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:7pud921gnrr9ajglmhe8bn32a98fsmqrs0@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:50:20 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
>> >> >more than has any other land use, and has transformed
>> >> >roughly half of it to desertlike condition.
>> >>
>> >> We can see that your veggies are worse than grazing:
>> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> [...]
>> >> Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field
>> >
>> >'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
>> >crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
>>
>> Now we see how grass raised products are better for the
>> environment than grain based products like rice and soy:
>
>Which "grass-raised" products? Are you talking about beef whose
>production requires no crop inputs at all? What percentage of beef, or
>even of beef that is labelled "grass-fed", does that account for? If
>that's the section of the market you're talking about you should be
>specific and say so.

Grass raised. The amount of grain allowed, if any, is up to the
individual.

Rupert
2006-06-28 19:04:36 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2006 00:08:29 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:21:22 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:7pud921gnrr9ajglmhe8bn32a98fsmqrs0@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:50:20 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> >> >> >more than has any other land use, and has transformed
> >> >> >roughly half of it to desertlike condition.
> >> >>
> >> >> We can see that your veggies are worse than grazing:
> >> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field
> >> >
> >> >'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
> >> >crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
> >>
> >> Now we see how grass raised products are better for the
> >> environment than grain based products like rice and soy:
> >
> >Which "grass-raised" products? Are you talking about beef whose
> >production requires no crop inputs at all? What percentage of beef, or
> >even of beef that is labelled "grass-fed", does that account for? If
> >that's the section of the market you're talking about you should be
> >specific and say so.
>
> Grass raised. The amount of grain allowed, if any, is up to the
> individual.

So you claim that all grass-raised beef products, regardless of the
amount of grain and forage inputs required, cause less harm to animals
and environmental destruction per calorie than soy and rice products?

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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