Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Rat & Swan · Guest

Dean Hoffman wrote:
[quote]On 1/12/04 10:18 AM, in article btuiaf$kh2$1@reader2.nmix.net, "Rat & Swan"
labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:

Some cut.

No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their
effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly
be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for
food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India.
Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil --
couldn>t be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill
disease organisms. We>re animals, too.

More cut.
It comes down to ease of application and money. There>s a little bit of
information here:

http://manure.unl.edu/v3n5_97.html

Note that a ton of sludge yields under 4# of nitrogen. It takes roughly
1# of N to produce a bushel of corn. Yields of 200 bu./acre aren>t that
unusual anymore on irrigated farms. I think the U.S. average yield is about
130 bu./acre.
Why do you think chemical fertilizers aren>t as good as manure etc.?
[/quote]

Thanks for the information. I guess I>m thinking mainly about low-tech,
local, sustainable solutions which don>t require much transportation.
One thing for sure, manure is a renewable resource and available locally
everywhere.

Rat

Torsten Brinch · Guest

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:20:33 -0700, Rat & Swan <labrat@cybermesa.com>
wrote:
[quote]Dean Hoffman wrote:
Note that a ton of sludge yields under 4# of nitrogen. It takes roughly
1# of N to produce a bushel of corn. Yields of 200 bu./acre aren>t that
unusual anymore on irrigated farms. I think the U.S. average yield is about
130 bu./acre.
Why do you think chemical fertilizers aren>t as good as manure etc.?

Thanks for the information. I guess I>m thinking mainly about low-tech,
local, sustainable solutions which don>t require much transportation.
One thing for sure, manure is a renewable resource and available locally
everywhere.
[/quote]
It is curious how often one meets the misconception that chemical
N-fertilizer and nitrogen in manure are alternative sources of
nitrogen for agricultural use.

Fran · Guest

"Dean Hoffman" <dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote in message
[quote]"Fran" <maura@takethisbitoutwebone.com.au> wrote:

"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
"Russ Thompson" <pmfb@mwt.net> wrote:

*** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and
soil
fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.

I take it you mean sustainable without chemical fertilizers.

How do you translate Farm animals into chemical fertilizers? Farm
animals
to traditional (or organic) fertilizers I could understand but chemical
fertilizers???????

I>m real glad you asked that. I don>t have the foggiest idea.
[/quote]
A most refreshing admission :-))

[quote]How about agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable without
chemical fertilizers?
[/quote]
Agreed that it isn>t sustainable, but it may unsustainable over a very long
time span. I don>t think that any production that exports the products from
where it is grown/produced can ever be considered "sustainable". It is
mining, but then given how long humans tend to class as a "sustainable"
period we could have a long discussion about what is, or isn>t, considered
sustainable.

Fran · Guest

"Rat & Swan" <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote in message

[quote]Thanks for the information. I guess I>m thinking mainly about low-tech,
local, sustainable solutions which don>t require much transportation.
One thing for sure, manure is a renewable resource and available locally
everywhere.
[/quote]
A quibbleable statement. Manure is indeed a renewable resource but the
matter that makes up the manure must still come from somewhere. The "where"
is vital in considering whether you have sustainability.

Guest

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:26:26 -0500, "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[quote]from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the
short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good
and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?

I>m imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative
(starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I>m actually more interested in the
long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no
one really knows for sure, but can>t we make educated guesses? Thanks for
your input.
[/quote]
Look at all these things which contain by-products from farm animals:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Do you believe there are or could be vegan alternatives to all of them?

Rudy Canoza · Guest

Zakhar wrote:
[quote]"Russ Thompson" <pmfb@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:4001a59b$1_2@corp.newsgroups.com...
Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it>s benefits
being
reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
*** Well Duh! We are farmers. This is our business and life. This farmed
was
converted from conventional to sustainable in 1982 and from sustainable to
organic in 1993.
We attend work shops, conventions, and expos. We attend classes
every week all winter put on by the extension. My husband has a BS in
dairy
science with a minor in crop and soils science. We both have a certificate
in sustainable farming. We read industry publications and talk to other
farmers all the time.
So in reply to your condecending question YES! We have and do use
green manure crops on our farm. I have personally planted crops for use as
green manure. However I can see that you are an expert and know far more
about the subject than I so why don>t you tell us what you know?

I>m sure you know *everything* there is to know about farming in the past,
present and the future.
[/quote]
He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.

Day Brown · Guest

On Oct 20, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
[quote]He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.
He>s not here anymore. Not that there isnt too much ignorance around.[/quote]

I was born on a farm in 1939, and witnessed the conversion from draft
animals to tractors. Animals can be raised in a decent way, and a
sustainable symbiosis worked out with decent rainfall and soil.
Archeaological exam of bog body stomachs and bone middens show that my
European ancestors were never vegetarian, but neither did they eat
much meat either.

All the PR in the records would give you the idea it was cattle or
deer, but the record shows its mostly rabbit. So much for the mighty
hunter mentality.

SHIVER ME TIMBERS · Guest

[quote]Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

All the PR in the records would give you the idea it was cattle or
deer, but the record shows its mostly rabbit. So much for the mighty
hunter mentality.
[/quote]
Hmmmmmm.... Easier for a hunter or poacher to kill a rabbit and hide it
from view till if met the stewpot and I wouldn>t be surprised if a lot
of that cooking was done in the middle of the nite when the baron,
landowner, or king wasn>t around snooping.

Correct me if I am wrong but in those days only royalty, landowners,
etc., could own, kill, and eat meat animals like cows, elk, etc.

Remember that first scene in the Errol Flynn Robin Hood movie where the
serf kills a deer and Sir Guy of whoever comes by to arrest him for
killing the kings deer.

Guest

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:42:43 GMT, SHIVER ME TIMBERS <shiver@me_timbers.com> wrote:

[quote]Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

All the PR in the records would give you the idea it was cattle or
deer, but the record shows its mostly rabbit. So much for the mighty
hunter mentality.

Hmmmmmm.... Easier for a hunter or poacher to kill a rabbit and hide it
from view till if met the stewpot and I wouldn>t be surprised if a lot
of that cooking was done in the middle of the nite when the baron,
landowner, or king wasn>t around snooping.
[/quote]
Very good point.

[quote]Correct me if I am wrong but in those days only royalty, landowners,
etc., could own, kill, and eat meat animals like cows, elk, etc.
[/quote]
That sounds familiar. People would probably get in trouble for
killing rabbits too, if they got caught. It>s quite likely things will
become similar to that again if it ever becomes illegal to raise
animals for food. Wild animals will become even more scarce
than they are now because people will still want to eat meat.
Meat will become extremely valuable, and animals will necessarily
be raised in much worse conditions than they are now because
they will have to be hidden, and kept quiet so other people
don>t find out about them. Vocal chords would be destroyed
in horrible ways, and many of them would probably be deliberately
crippled and other terrible things....

Guest

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:00:39 -0700, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

[quote]On Oct 20, Goo wrote:

He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.

He>s not here anymore. Not that there isnt too much ignorance around.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and witnessed the conversion from draft
animals to tractors. Animals can be raised in a decent way, and a
sustainable symbiosis worked out with decent rainfall and soil.
[/quote]
Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.

Rudy Canoza · Guest

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched
as always, working overtime to be stupid, afraid of
Rudy, lied and presented no challenge:
[quote]On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:00:39 -0700, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

On Oct 20, Rudy R. Canoza wrote:

He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.
He>s not here anymore. Not that there isnt too much ignorance around.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and witnessed the conversion from draft
animals to tractors. Animals can be raised in a decent way, and a
sustainable symbiosis worked out with decent rainfall and soil.

Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value,
[/quote]
Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.

Guest

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Goo wrote:

[quote]dh correctly predicted:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:00:39 -0700, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

On Oct 20, Goo wrote:

He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.

He>s not here anymore. Not that there isnt too much ignorance around.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and witnessed the conversion from draft
animals to tractors. Animals can be raised in a decent way, and a
sustainable symbiosis worked out with decent rainfall and soil.

Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.

Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.
[/quote]
You proved my prediction correct of course, Goo. Here>s another
prediction that you will prove correct:

You can not give any decent explanation for your claim that you
and farm animals do not benefit from your lives:

"Life is not a benefit" - Goo

Rudy Canoza · Guest

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched
as always, working overtime to be stupid, afraid of
Rudy, lied and presented no challenge:

[quote]On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Rudy R. Canoza wrote:

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched as always, working overtime to be stupid, afraid of Rudy, lied and presented no challenge:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:00:39 -0700, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

On Oct 20, Rudy A. Canoza wrote:

He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.
He>s not here anymore. Not that there isnt too much ignorance around.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and witnessed the conversion from draft
animals to tractors. Animals can be raised in a decent way, and a
sustainable symbiosis worked out with decent rainfall and soil.
Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.
Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.

You proved
[/quote]
I proved that your belief - that animals "benefit" by
coming into existence - is false.

Guest

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Goo lied:

[quote]dh again correctly predicted:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Goo wrote:

dh correctly predicted:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:00:39 -0700, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

On Oct 20, Goo wrote:

He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.

He>s not here anymore. Not that there isnt too much ignorance around.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and witnessed the conversion from draft
animals to tractors. Animals can be raised in a decent way, and a
sustainable symbiosis worked out with decent rainfall and soil.

Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.

Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.

You proved my prediction correct of course, Goo. Here>s another
prediction that you will prove correct:

You can not give any decent explanation for your claim that you
and farm animals do not benefit from your lives:

"Life is not a benefit" - Goo

I proved that your belief - that animals "benefit" by
coming into existence - is false.
[/quote]
That>s a lie Goob. You don>t even think you did that, otherwise
you would be able to present an example of how you think you
did it. You really, really do suck at this, Goo.

Rudy Canoza · Guest

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched
as always, working overtime to be stupid, afraid of
Rudy, lied,presented no challenge and FAILED to change
the subject:

[quote]On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched as always, working overtime to be stupid, afraid of Rudy, lied,presented no challenge and FAILED to change the subject:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Rudy M. Canoza wrote:

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched as always, working overtime to be stupid, afraid of Rudy, lied,presented no challenge and FAILED to change the subject:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:00:39 -0700, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

On Oct 20, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:

He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.
He>s not here anymore. Not that there isnt too much ignorance around.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and witnessed the conversion from draft
animals to tractors. Animals can be raised in a decent way, and a
sustainable symbiosis worked out with decent rainfall and soil.
Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.
Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.
You proved my prediction
[/quote]
No.

[quote]You can not give any decent explanation for your claim that you
and farm animals do not benefit from your lives:

"Life is not a benefit" - Rudy
I proved that your belief - that animals "benefit" by
coming into existence - is false.

That>s a lie Rudy.
[/quote]
No, it isn>t, Goo. That is your belief. It is
*necessarily* your belief, Goo, given the horseshit
cracker nonsense you>ve written on the topic:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I>m saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999

These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to you,
Goo: you believe they can experience a loss, be
"denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
experience "unfairness". Since the animals don>t exist
now in the real world, and since you say they
"...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
just "nothing", then *necessarily* you are saying they
"pre-exist": they>re sitting around somewhere before
their existence in this world, just waiting for their
turn.

That is your belief, Goo. It>s futile to deny it - I
have established that you believe it.

You will *ALWAYS* fail to change the subject, Goo - I
stop you every time.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7