The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes animals to lead miserable lives.
Rupert wrote:
Based on the references I gave elsewhere.
Singer, DeGrazia, et al, are not references. They're activists. Their literature is propaganda.
Dutch wrote:
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
[..]
I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?
Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?
Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
Rupert wrote:
You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your
data, killer.
see below...
No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive
rearing of animals.
From activists.
Established.
"Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable
description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of >>>> it in the literature.
But please do so we can see which specific activist group(s) you're
parroting.
See my reply to Rudy.
I did.
Without evidence. I just linked to photos of horrendous "factory" porkNo, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any
data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done
all the research.
I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably. >>>
farms. Where are the small pens, lack of sun or straw, etc.?
Sorry, I couldn't see the link.
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/images/I-AN_PigFarm.gif http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/photogallery/images/hogfarm.jpg http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
I'll post them in every damn reply to you until you admit you've seen
them and until you explain how those "factory" farm conditions are in
any way congruent with the absurd descriptions you've parroted from your activist propaganda.
I do have some evidence,
No, you do NOT have evidence. You're repeating activists. Activists are
not evidence. They're biased. They put an agenda ahead of the truth.
You've accepted their BS propaganda at face value instead of doing any research to see if it's true.
I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant >>>> production than plant food production.
And ignored rebuttal that grains and legumes fed to livestock are
generally unfit for human consumption.
No, I haven't ignored that rebuttal, it hasn't been made.
I believe Dutch made it, or he at least noted that most grazing land
isn't suitable for crop production.
While the
point you made makes a difference to the calculation, are you really
denying the claim?
Absolutely.
It is often claimed that feeding cereals to animals and then
eating the animals is much less efficient than eating the
cereals directly (Millward, 1999).
Frequently gross calculations
about animal production and grain use are made. For example
production figures have been presented to show that it requires
2 kg, 4 kg and 6 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of poultry, pork
and beef respectively (Khush, 2001). The implication is that
this is an inefficient use of scarce food materials. However
this is a rather simplistic analysis and takes little account of
the actual forms and types of grains used and of the mechanisms
of animal nutrition and production using modern techniques.
All animal and human nutrition ultimately depends upon only five
basic types of raw materials, all of plant origin; forages,
oilseeds, cereals, fruits and vegetables. These five classes of
materials must feed both humans and animals. A very large
proportion of the five basic classes of food raw materials
cannot be utilised directly by humans especially forages and
many other feed ingredients are actually inedible by-products of
human food manufacturing. Humans as omnivores require foods of
both animal and plant origin for optimum growth and development.
Forages which include pasture, silages, hay and straw are
produced in very large quantities and cannot be utilized by
humans at all in their native state. Consequently ruminants play
an important role in the ecosystem as they can digest these high
fibre forages which humans cannot utilise and convert them into
valuable human food products such as meat and milk. Ruminants
are also an important source of non-food items such as leather
and wool.
It should also be emphasised that many animal feeds for
non-ruminants such as pigs and poultry actually contain a large
amount of raw materials which are basically inedible for humans.
...Modern ruminant production also relies less and less on
feeding animals human food-grade cereals. For example dairy
rations can be, and frequently are, produced without any cereal
components whatsoever. Dairy cows can be adequately fed upon a
forage source, usually silage or fresh grass together with a
manufactured concentrate feed that does not necessarily contain
any human food-grade cereals.
http://www.afma.co.za/AFMA_Template/20034.htm
See also:
http://www.eugrainlegumes.org/summary/
Can you show me your calculations?
I addressed your particular claim about hogs requiring 8 pounds of grain
to make a pound of meat. Can you show ME a calculation? Here's one I
found on the following feed company website:
http://tinyurl.com/85e6j
A 20-25kg hog will feed for 40-50 days on 82-91kg of feed and gain about 32kg. That's not an 8:1 ratio, it's a ~3:1 ratio.
I've also addressed the issue of other livestock including the infamous
lie attributable to John Robbins and perpetuated by urban vegan idiots
that it takes sixteen fucking pounds of grain to make a pound of meat:
The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain
diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May
and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or
November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be
maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when
it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle
generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds
(calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves
may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about
1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and
be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter
at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds.
How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a
pound of retail beef?
* 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have
consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds
per year).
* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5
pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement)
per pound of gain.
* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume
7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein
supplement) per pound of gain.
* Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound
(.35 pound for cows).
Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to
produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for
heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the
figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not
consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided
by cattle during grazing and finishing.
Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of
grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows
are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4
pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of
ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef
animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to
market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained.
Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not
occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the
production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture
high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen.
http://tinyurl.com/93mwm
The ratios are similar for other livestock. It doesn't take other
mammals two or three times as many calories as it takes us to gain a pound.
If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately
supported by all of this, tell me what it is.
1. That some kinds of agriculture are "factory" and others aren't.
I didn't say this, and I don't really think there's any serious
question about it.
*I* think there's a serious question about it. Farming has always been a "factory" operation. The current (leftist) opposition to large-scale
farming is based on opposition to free enterprise and technology. The
animal rights argument is a veneer over the misanthropy of the activists opposing such farming practices.
2. That the activists are correct that the exceptions are the rule.
I didn't say this.
You don't have to. I'm familiar with their claims. You've accepted their presentation as factual. It isn't. Look at the pics of the "factory"
farms above and tell me how they square with the grotesque mental images
the activists painted for you.
I've given you my references.
They're not good references.
You tell me what's wrong with them.
For starters, they're biased and polemic. They also portray the most egregious exceptions as the norm, rather than portraying the norm.
That's because their goal is to get you to emote and take sides, not to
give you an accurate picture. The accurate pictures are linked above. Go
on, take a good look.
3. That animals suffer inordinate abuse from modern farming methods.
I believe this is supported by the evidence I've referred to.
You've only told us that you've read activist literature.
You have not
supported anything with any evidence. Quote me Singer, I'll show you pictures. Quote me DeGrazia, I'll show you pictures. Quote me Robbins,
and I'll give you links to information like that above showing that he's
a complete fraud when it comes to issues relating to agriculture.
4. That veganism causes less animals to die than any other diet.
I didn't say this, I said it was one way to minimize your contribution
to animal suffering.
Ipse dixit and unproven.
If you've got a suggestion for a better way, let's
hear it.
Read my replies to your posts from yesterday.
5. That the solution to all man's problems is based on meat.
I didn't say this.
You don't have to because the writers of all your "evidence" do. You
really don't want to hang your philosophical hat on Singer's and
DeGrazia's writings.
I'll add more if I remember them later.
But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that
research, right killer?
You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have
made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should have
gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you
have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me
with the arguments.
I'm convinced your decision was uninformed: you read vegan/AR propaganda >>> and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. You never once sought out any
other side of the story (much less the accurate one).
Established.
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes animals to lead miserable lives.
[...]
On 6/12/2005 2:39 PM, Tidal Wave wrote:
[...]
In 2005, it may have been true that "'vegan' is the new Black."
A more apt comparison today would be, "'vegan' is the new LGBT." The
most essential thing in regressive "progressivism" is the insane and
toxic focus on minority identity. "vegans" absolutely celebrate and
revel in their status as a put-upon minority.
On 6/22/2005 4:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
Dutch wrote:
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes >>>>>> animals to lead miserable lives.
That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
not only "factory farmed" meat.
It's not a lie.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.
Which is a lie. We know it's a lie because "vegans" won't eat any meat
at all, from any kind of farm or from hunting and fishing. The main
point of "veganism" is to fashion a moral pose based on what they don't consume. That's the *only* point.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 65:28:37 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,841 |
