biofuel | Search Last Month Search Last 6 Months Search All Messages | Search Since this date: | biofuel Home NNYTech.net |
| 54295 2005-11-27 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54297 2005-11-27 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54306 1969-12-31 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54315 2005-11-27 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54316 2005-11-27 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54328 2005-11-28 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54333 2005-11-28 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54336 1969-12-31 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54360 1969-12-31 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54366 1969-12-31 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54456 2005-12-01 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54490 2005-12-01 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54494 1969-12-31 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54514 2005-12-02 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54530 2005-12-01 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54531 2005-12-01 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54533 2005-12-01 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54549 2005-12-02 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54554 2005-12-02 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54561 2005-12-02 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
| 54563 2005-12-02 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. | 54567 1969-12-31 Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil .. |
Message #54561 of 54591
| Previous Message | Next message | Next in thread |
Date: 1969-12-31
From: Tom Irwin
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil seed crops and ley farming
From: Tom Irwin
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil seed crops and ley farming
lt 2003This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0947122627==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----------peace-on-earth-f503d0a4d409324bb2e52c91f9fac3bc"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------------peace-on-earth-f503d0a4d409324bb2e52c91f9fac3bc
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Dermot, =20
=20
I suppose a fair test, not a good one, would be how long has the organic=
trust farms been operating and can they still grow most all crop types =
with normal yields. If your have farms operating 100 years or so and can=
still grow most crops with noirmal yields I say you were sustainable. I=
f there are some things you could grow with normal yields and now cannot=
then something is missing. =20
=20
Tom Irwin =20
=20
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F =20
From: dermot [mailto:dermotx.net]
To: Biofuel.org
Sent: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:11:12 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil seed crops and ley farming
Hi Keith,
I'd like to address some of the points you raised in your reply to me on=
=20
Oct 2nd.
Before we start it may be useful to stress the views we probably have in=
=20
common and hopefully that the rest of the list have in common as well.
1. Modern intensive farming is unsustainable and is unnecessarily cruel=
=20
to a wide variety of animals.
2. To combat this cruelty we should boycott the produce of intensively=
=20
farmed animals thereby forcing farmers to adopt more sustainable and=20
cruelty free methods of farming.
3. We should eat only free range meat or dairy produce.
If this could be achieved I believe 90% of the suffering that is=20
inflicted on animals would be eradicated.
There are a number of points which I disagree with you on, the chief=20
among them being that animal inputs are necessary for sustainable=20
agriculture.
I know you don't accept that there is such a thing as sustainable=20
farming without animals but the Vegan Organic Trust in Britain is an=20
organisation that is dedicated to the promotion of stockfree, organic,=
=20
sustainable farming.
They are not some crackpot type of organisation that have vague=20
aspirations about veganism. Their certification process for declaring=20
farms to be truly organic, stockfree and sustainable is carried out by=
=20
the SOIL ASSOCIATION'S certifying body. As you are no doubt aware the=20
SOIL ASSOCIATION has an international reputation second to none and I=20
have faith in their integrity.
There is no way of proving that an agricultural system is sustainable.=
=20
Sustainable means, by definition, that it can go on forever and it is=20
obviously impossible to test that. All we can say is that one system is=
=20
more likely to be sustainable than another one. So I don't agree with=20
your claim to have proved that animal farming systems are sustainable.=
=20
On the other hand, it is possible to prove that a given agricultural=20
system is unsustainable, if you can show that it uses up one or more of=
=20
the earth's resources faster than they are being replaced. So your claim=
=20
to have proved that stockless farming is unsustainable could in=20
principle be true, but I trust an organisation such as the SOIL=20
ASSOCIATION when they say it can be sustainable.
It is true that mixed farming was the dominant form of agriculture for=
=20
centuries, if not millennia, but this does not in itself prove that it=
=20
is sustainable. A number of agricultural practices, such as ploughing,=
=20
were carried on for a very long time but have now been shown to be=20
unsustainable. It is also possible that a given system could be=20
sustainable at a certain human population size and unsustainable at a=20
greater population.
In our last exchange you recommended Sally Fallon's site.=20
www.westonaprice.org
I visited this site as you recommended and was immediately drawn to the=
=20
"Myths and Truths About Vegetarianism" section.
My reaction on reading this was that this site had no credibility.=20
Here's why.
A Dr Stephen Byrnes starts off the "myths" by telling us of a story=20
where a woman visits her doctor following a miscarriage:
"Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her=
=20
infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her=
=20
diet and was also mostly a vegetarian. Because of the plentiful media=20
rhetoric about the supposed dangers of animal product consumption, as=20
opposed to the alleged health benefits of the vegetarian lifestyle,=20
Tanya had deliberately removed such things as cream, butter, meats and=
=20
fish from her diet. Although she liked liver, she avoided it due to=20
worries over "toxins."
Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and a=
=20
dietary prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats and=
=20
meat. Just before leaving my office, Tanya looked at me and said=20
ruefully: "I just don't know what to believe sometimes. Everywhere I=20
look there is all this low-fat, vegetarian stuff recommended. I followed=
=20
it, and look what happened." I assured her that if she and her husband=
=20
changed their diets and allowed sufficient time for her weakened uterus=
=20
to heal, they would be happy parents in due time. In November 2000, Bill=
=20
and Tanya happily gave birth to their first child, a girl."
So we have a scenario where someone takes up a "mostly" vegetarian diet=
=20
with no knowledge of what constitutes a proper vegetarian diet and=20
suffers ill health. She is then prescribed a meat diet and hey presto,=
=20
everything is fine. The clear implication here is that vegetarianism is=
=20
inherently unhealthy but it can be cured by meat eating!
The fact that she wasn't following a proper vegetarian diet is neither=
=20
here nor there. This is very crude propaganda and is shallow in the extr=
eme.
If all the supposed "myths" presented were true then vegetarians and=20
especially vegans would be dropping like flies. Thankfully they are not.
Vegans are one of the most studied group when it comes to nutrition.=20
BBC2 television's HORIZON science programme recently had an=20
investigation into Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids and during the course=
=20
of this show a Cambridge University professor, not a vegan or=20
vegetarian, who had been studying vegan diet for thirty years was of the=
=20
opinion that it was a very healthy diet if followed properly.
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with what Dr.*Guillermo Romero=20
Ibarrola*,who has a Ph.D in Nutrition from Cornell University, thinks of=
=20
Sally Fallon:
// Ms Fallon is not a nutritioni///st, IMHO she has very little=20
understanding /
/of research methodology a//nd of the subject matter, beyond wh///atever=
=20
dogma she adheres to from the /
/theories of Pottenger and P//rice. Regardless of which, she is making=
=20
reckless and out of context /
/analyses and claims based on //third party scientific evidence=20
"interpreted" by her paid co-author. Ms. /
/Fallon probably has some //valid things to contribute, but she does not=
=20
help anyone by making biased /
/generalizations from seco//ndary analysis of relative information. I=20
might be mistaken, but as far /
/as I know there is no piec//e of original research published by Ms.=20
Fallon and her collegues. /
// /To me she is just one more author trying to sell yet another=20
"cookbook" //fad; IMO her merit comes //
from her interest in natural farming, not from her understanding of=20
//nutrition evidence.
//
//
///I would personally therefore take everything that is said on this=20
site with a grain of salt.
/
/
/
/Regards
Dermot Donnelly
/
//
/>>> /
/>>> I am not a friend of Ms Fallon, I once met her in a "conference"=20
and I /
/>>>can not say that I was imp /
/>>ressed by her comprehension of the evidence and data she used to=20
support /
/>>her tedious reading sessio /
/>>n ("conference"). Further on, I was troubled by the way she dismissed=
/
/>>questions with some unsustain /
/>>ed claims and a constant recommendation to buy her book as the only w=
ay /
/>>for her audience to find an /
/>> answer. IMHO not a very professional approach, but effective marketi=
ng /
/>>anyway. /
/>>> /
/>>> I see from your bio. that you are on the Board of Ms Fallon's=20
foundation /
/>>>(W. Price F.) so that I /
/>>must assume you are partial to her approach. /
/>>> /
/>>> Let me clear a point here: the "bantering" was not between Dr.=20
Campbell /
/>>>and Ms. Fallon, it was be /
/>>tween Ms. Fallon (mediated by Allan Balliet from BD-Now) and myself.=
=20
Dr. /
/>>Campbell sent some commen /
/>>ts to me re Vit B12 and vegetarianism (which I posted to Sanet and=20
sent to /
/>>Mr Balliet to be posted /
/>>in BD-Now), but Dr. Campbell refrained himself from reacting to Ms /
/>>Fallon's name calling discourteo /
/>>us attitude. /
/>>> /
/>>> I have a BS, MS and studies at PhD level in Nutriology (MS and PhD =
/
/>>>studies from Cornell U) and /
/>>I am also sympathetic to alternative health approaches, Anthroposophy=
, /
/>>Ayur-ved and Mexican traditi /
/>>onal therapies. I am a Biodynamic gardener as well and have an active=
/
/>>participation in the promot /
/>>ion of agroecology in my Country. IMHO I have the credentials to judg=
e /
/>>this sort of information on /
/>> my own. I do not need interpreters; I can understand the sources, bu=
t /
/>>again my thanks for bringin /
/>>g the above web sites to my awareness /
/>>> /
/>>> About the China study: Following Ms Fallon suggestion, I went to=20
see the /
/>>>info avail at the W.Pric /
/>>e F web site. There the author (=3F) mentions that the China study is=
/
/>>inconclusive, but then uses da /
/>>ta from Okinawa (from a different study, and experimental framework) =
to /
/>>support his/her views on th /
/>>e basis of both studies coming from "Asia". Is that a valid=20
comparison to /
/>>you =3F, IMO such thing i /
/>>s absurd and manipulative. /
/>>> /
/>>> Here is the (mis)quote from Ms. Fallon's web site: "Before we throw=
=20
up /
/>>>our hands and decide that /
/>> no conclusions can be made about diet and health in China, let us tu=
rn /
/>>our attention to the mixed /
/>>peoples of Okinawa" http://www.westonaprice.org/food=5Fin=5Fchina.htm=
/
/>>> /
////
/>>> /
/>>> If you have questions about the China study, I encourage you to sen=
d /
/>>>those to Dr. Campbell himsel /
/>>f. I am sure that he will be able to give you an honest answer about=
=20
the /
/>>validity of the research /
/>>claims he is making. (tcc1.edu=20
)/
....................
Note 1.from: Spedding, C.R.W., Agriculture and the citizen, 1996
area of farmland required to feed one person:
=5Fdiet=5F =5F(ha)=5F
conventional 0.32
vegetarian 0.14
vegan 0.07
from: Pimentel & Pimentel, Food, Energy and Society, 1979
fossil fuel energy needed to feed one person under 1979 U.S. conditions:
=5Fdiet=5F =5F(MJ)=5F
conventional 142
vegetarian 80
vegan 41
=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6
Prof C.R.W. Spedding, England's most eminent agricultural scientist:
"..... animal production nearly always appears much less efficient than=
=20
crop production ..... energy and protein production are always much=20
higher from crops than from animals ....." " ..... where the main=20
concern is the feeding of the maximum number of people ..... there will=
=20
generally be more emphasis on crop production, since, where crops can be=
=20
grown, more people can be supported in this way." " ..... maximising=20
crop production per unit of land and time during the available growing=
=20
season is a better way of using resources than by keeping animals .....=
=20
" "..... if the total amount of food produced from crops were only=20
sufficient for the needs of the world population,* then it would be=20
irrational to feed crops to animals if these crops could be consumed=20
directly ....."
* which it is now [my note]
...............
Prof. A.R. Rao and Prof. I.J. Singh, leading Indian scientists:
"Plants are better than animals as sources of human food ..... Animal=20
products like milk ..... and meat are extravagant to produce." " .....=
=20
Animal products have no place in a poor man's budget."
...............
Prof. J.F.D. Greenhalgh, a leading authority on animal farming and=20
formerly editor-in-chief of the journal 'Animal Feed Science and=20
Technology':
"Most domestic animals are kept to provide food for man, which they do=
=20
with a woefully poor energetic efficiency. While Britain's domestic=20
livestock consume three times as much metabolisable energy as Britain's=
=20
human population, they provide only one third of the energy intake of=20
their consumers." "There is a clear moral argument against feeding=20
animals on foods that could be consumed by man." "..... the resources of=
=20
land, labour and capital needed to grow forages [i.e. animal feed] could=
=20
often be used to produce plant foods for direct human consumption."
Keith Addison wrote:
>Hello Dermot
>
>=20
>
>>Keith Addison wrote:
>>
>>=20
>>
>>>Hello Dermot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>=20
>>>
>>>>Many very extensive studies have been done on various vegetarian gro=
ups
>>>>such as Seven Day Adventists and some vegetarians claim that as thes=
e
>>>>people are healthier than average that it must be due to their
>>>>vegetarian diet. I don't subscribe to this view because these people
>>>>don't smoke or drink either.
>>>>What I do conclude from this however is that a vegetarian diet doesn=
't
>>>>do these people any harm. This is the important point to realise.
>>>>=20
>>>>
>>>One of them, and there are exceptions.
>>>=20
>>>
>>I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
>>=20
>>
>
>It's only one of the important points to realise in connection with=20
>vegetarianism, and there are exceptions to that point. Not everybody=20
>thrives on a vegetarian diet.
>
>=20
>
>>Of course one can cite studies to
>> justify any case in the area of diet and health.
>>=20
>>
>
>Of course, as with all things.
>
>=20
>
>>We are still in the
>>dark ages as far as the "science" of nutrition and diet is concerned.
>>You can have two scientists who have received the same training who wh=
en
>>presented with the same evidence will come to diametrically opposite
>>conclusions. A bit like the dark art of economics!
>>=20
>>
>
>A bit like everything else too. This does not mean however that=20
>there's no way of sifting the wheat from the chaff (or the goats from=
=20
>the sheep perhaps).
>
>=20
>
>>>>It may be the case that some people cannot tolerate a vegetarian die=
t. I
>>>>don't know. My point is that IF we can tolerate this diet that we sh=
ould
>>>>because it is unethical to kill sentient creatures for no good reaso=
n.
>>>>=20
>>>>
>
>But there IS good reason.
>
>=20
>
>>>>ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS.
>>>>=20
>>>>
>
>That is not in question.
>
>=20
>
>>Just because they are dumb
>>=20
>>
>
>I don't agree that they are dumb. Quite a few of us have not been=20
>agreeing with that, didn't you notice=3F
>
>=20
>
>>doesn't mean we can
>>=20
>>
>>>>deprive them of a happy existance because they happen to taste nice.
>>>>=20
>>>>
>
>No, you didn't notice. :-(
>
>=20
>
>>>Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but
>>>there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There
>>>is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never
>>>has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later
>>>fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed
>>>farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't
>>>do it, and neither can we. Sustainable farms are mixed, integrated
>>>farms.
>>>
>>>
>>>=20
>>>
>>Can't see any reason to hate somebody who expresses an opposing view.
>>=20
>>
>
>If that view happens even unwittingly to challenge certain cherished=20
>notions it can be perceived as an unprovoked personal attack and=20
>often responded to with a vicious personal "counter" attack, rather=20
>common, especially these days.
>
>=20
>
>>Everybody should be open to having their views challenged. Scepticism =
is
>>something we can't have enough of! I'm glad you raised this objection
>>to vegetarianism because it is the first time I have heard this
>>particular view.
>>=20
>>
>
>Well, it's not just a view, there's massive and incontrovertible=20
>evidence to support it. We've discussed it here before, as we would,=20
>since sustainable farming is obviously a part of sustainable energy -=
=20
>if you can't grow biofuels crops sustainably how can they be=20
>sustainable fuels=3F And it takes animals in the system, as food, not=
=20
>just as respected working labourers who go into retirement when they=20
>get too old to work.
>
>In fact many sustainable farmers treat their breeding animals like=20
>that, but not the offspring.
>
>=20
>
>>I don't know a lot about the detail of sustainable agriculture
>>=20
>>
>
>Then you're not in a position to make a case for vegetarianism, as you =
did.
>
>=20
>
>>but I am
>>aware of at least one farm here in Ireland that is run on a stockless
>>system that the owners claim is sustainable. Similarly there is a
>>organisation in the UK called the Vegan Organic Trust that certifies
>>farms as being vegan and sustainable.
>>In America there is a guy called Will Bonsall who has run the Khadigha=
r
>>Farm near Farmington, Maine for the past 25 years, using veganic
>>methods, i.e. no animal inputs, for the past 20 years.
>>=20
>>
>
>I do know a lot about sustainable agriculture, in practice and in=20
>theory, and I've seen a lot of sustainable farms. I've seen a lot of=20
>farms too that claimed to be sustainable but they weren't. Yes, for=20
>20 years and more.
>
>=20
>
>>Just suppose for the sake of argument that it is possible to have
>>sustainable agriculture without any animal input
>>=20
>>
>
>But it's not.
>
>=20
>
>>and further suppose
>>that it is possible to lead a healthy life on a vegetarian diet, would
>>you then consider it wrong to eat non-human animals=3F
>>=20
>>
>
>No I wouldn't consider it wrong. But it's much too broad a brush,=20
>it's all black and white in your book, it's unrealistic, and I think=20
>you're aiming at the wrong target anyway. Don't eat meat=3F Which=20
>particular meat shouldn't I eat=3F Should I eat a quail that I knew had=
=20
>come from a horrendously crowded and evil factory farm=3F No I=20
>shouldn't, but that won't help the quail, will it=3F Market forces,=20
>yeah, right. What if the quail came from my farm=3F Sure I'd eat it,=20
>nice happy quail, very healthy too. What if I'd bought it in a local=20
>village market from an old peasant who'd raised it himself=3F Sounds=20
>okay=3F What if the old peasant obligingly skinned it for me - but=20
>without bothering to kill it first=3F With these sweet old peasant=20
>ladies waiting to buy their quail while the poor creature struggled=20
>and screamed itself to death and nobody even noticed except me=3F
>
>Try this:
>
>http://journeytoforever.org/MMT/keith=5Fdoggie.html
>Keith Addison: Pass the Doggie Bag
>
>=20
>
>>>Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one side of
>>>the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef "farm" (factory)
>>>on the other, with its shit-lagoon.
>>>
>>>Farming with animals means one of two things: killing the inevitable
>>>excess or competing with them as they eat you out of house and home.
>>>Killing them and not eating them would not be sane, and criminally
>>>wasteful.
>>>
>>>
>>>=20
>>>
>>I don't actually have a problem with animals being used in agriculture=
.
>>If they get reasonable care they can have a pretty decent existence an=
d
>>they can contribute to soil fertility. It's a win-win situation for
>>everybody.
>>I do have a problem with cutting short a sentient creature's life if i=
t
>>is unnecessary.
>>=20
>>
>
>On truly sustainable farms you find lots of animals living decent=20
>lives and you do not find them being killed unnecessarily.
>
>=20
>
>>I can't see how there needs to be an excess of animals that have to be
>>killed if we have the technology to limit their breeding.
>>=20
>>
>
>Oh, a technology fix! Sustainable farming hasn't thrived a lot on=20
>most of those so far.
>
>=20
>
>>If for some reason culling is required,
>>=20
>>
>
>It's part of the sustainable system, and it produces large quantities=
=20
>of valuable products without which the world would be much the=20
>poorer. There is no sound reason to curtail it. On the contrary, what=
=20
>we're after doing here is promoting it as widely as possible. Small,=20
>mixed, integrated farms are the sane road to the future.
>
>=20
>
>>I don't think that there would
>>not be any ethical dilemma in eating their flesh.
>>=20
>>
>
>Sorry, your double negative has me baffled.
>
>=20
>
>>>Widespread vegetarianism would condemn more animals than mixed
>>>farming ever could, and could easily condemn us all to the
>>>consequences (the further consequences) of unbalanced farming
>>>systems.
>>>
>>>=20
>>>
>>I would turn this argument on its head by saying that widespread meat
>>eating would condemn us all to the consequences of unbalanced farming
>>systems. Most people on this planet are vegetarian most of the time.
>>=20
>>
>
>That's not true, quite the opposite.
>
>=20
>
>>If
>>everybody was to eat a meat diet similar to the meat eating patterns i=
n
>>the West then everybody would starve.
>>I know this is not what you advocate
>>=20
>>
>
>No it's not, and therefore it turns nothing on its head.
>
>It's odd how often when one talks about sustainable farming to people=
=20
>opposed to eating meat they respond by attacking unsustainable=20
>farming to support their views.
>
>=20
>
>>but it's worth bearing in mind all
>>the same.
>>=20
>>
>
>Everybody says that about the meat-eating patterns of the West and it=
=20
>doesn't make sense to me. First there's no chance that everybody is=20
>going to start eating the same diet. Chinese will always eat Chinese=20
>food, Indians will always eat Indian food (both including plenty of=20
>meat). There's nothing particularly unsustainable about Western=20
>meat-eating per se, it's the production system itself that's=20
>unsustainable, not the categories of food it produces, and=20
>industrialised food production is not only Western.
>
>=20
>
>>>Even your healthy vegetables will not be very good for you
>>>if they're not properly grown in fertile soils, which means that a
>>>proportion of the "wastes" recycled back to the soil goes through the
>>>gut of animals en route.
>>>=20
>>>
>>Don't forget recycling food through our own guts. Human waste, with
>>proper treatment should be used to fertilise soils instead of pollutin=
g
>>the planet as at present. This would further
>>=20
>>
>
>Further than what=3F Further than vegetarianism=3F Vegetarianism doesn'=
t=20
>cut down the need for manure, it exacerbates it.
>
>=20
>
>>cut down the need (if there
>>is any)
>>=20
>>
>
>YES THERE IS ANY!
>
>It's been discussed often before, it's in the archives, and there's a=
=20
>lot more at the Journey to Forever website (which is not just about=20
>biodiesel!). It's not up to me to prove anything, already done that,=20
>it's up to you to disprove it, and I think you have some studying to=20
>do.
>
>=20
>
>>for animal manure. I think they are doing that very successfully
>>in Shanghai at the moment.
>>=20
>>
>
>They were doing it very successfully in Shanghai a hundred years ago,=
=20
>not so sure about now. The Chinese still composted absolutely=20
>everything possible then. We've discussed humanure composting here=20
>too, quite a number of us do that, successfully enough.
>
>But, sorry, even by traditional Chinese standards of how much land it=
=20
>takes to feed a human, or how little rather, human manure is not=20
>enough to put back what a human takes out. It helps, but you just=20
>don't get the biological knock-on effect you get with grazers like=20
>cows (see earlier message about ley farming), or even pigs, they're=20
>much better at it than we are. I tried every which way to get that to=
=20
>figure out, but it doesn't figure out.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Keith
>
>
>=20
>
>> "Food is fabricated soil fertility."
>>=20
>>
>>>(Albrecht of Missouri)
>>>
>>>Best wishes
>>>
>>>Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>=20
>>>
>>Regards
>>Dermot Donnelly
>>
>>
>>=20
>>
>
>
>=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel=5Fsustainablelists=
.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 mess=
ages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel.org/
>
>
>
>=20
>
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel=5Fsustainablelists.=
org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messa=
ges):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel.org/
=20
=20
=20
------------peace-on-earth-f503d0a4d409324bb2e52c91f9fac3bc
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BODY{font:10pt Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif;}
Hello Dermot,
I suppose a fair test, not a good one, would be how long has the or=
ganic trust farms been operating and can they still grow most all crop t=
ypes with normal yields. If your have farms operating 100 years or so an=
d can still grow most crops with noirmal yields I say you were sustainab=
le. If there are some things you could grow with normal yields and now c=
annot then something is missing.
Tom Irwin
From: dermot [mailto:dermotx.net]
To: Biofuel=
stainablelists.org
Sent: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:11:12 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New question on oil seed crops and ley farmi=
ng
Hi Keith,
I'd like to address some of the point=
s you raised in your reply to me on
Oct 2nd.
Before we start =
it may be useful to stress the views we probably have in
common and =
hopefully that the rest of the list have in common as well.
1. Mo=
dern intensive farming is unsustainable and is unnecessarily cruel
t=
o a wide variety of animals.
2. To combat this cruelty we should =
boycott the produce of intensively
farmed animals thereby forcing fa=
rmers to adopt more sustainable and
cruelty free methods of farming.=
3. We should eat only free range meat or dairy produce.
I=
f this could be achieved I believe 90% of the suffering that is
infl=
icted on animals would be eradicated.
There are a number =
of points which I disagree with you on, the chief
among them being t=
hat animal inputs are necessary for sustainable
agriculture.
=
I know you don't accept that there is such a thing as sustainable
fa=
rming without animals but the Vegan Organic Trust in Britain is an
o=
rganisation that is dedicated to the promotion of stockfree, organic, sustainable farming.
They are not some crackpot type of organisatio=
n that have vague
aspirations about veganism. Their certification pr=
ocess for declaring
farms to be truly organic, stockfree and sustain=
able is carried out by
the SOIL ASSOCIATION'S certifying body. As yo=
u are no doubt aware the
SOIL ASSOCIATION has an international reput=
ation second to none and I
have faith in their integrity.
The=
re is no way of proving that an agricultural system is sustainable.
=
Sustainable means, by definition, that it can go on forever and it is obviously impossible to test that. All we can say is that one system i=
s
more likely to be sustainable than another one. So I don't agree w=
ith
your claim to have proved that animal farming systems are sustai=
nable.
On the other hand, it is possible to prove that a given agric=
ultural
system is unsustainable, if you can show that it uses up one=
or more of
the earth's resources faster than they are being replace=
d. So your claim
to have proved that stockless farming is unsustaina=
ble could in
principle be true, but I trust an organisation such as =
the SOIL
ASSOCIATION when they say it can be sustainable.
It =
is true that mixed farming was the dominant form of agriculture for
=
centuries, if not millennia, but this does not in itself prove that it is sustainable. A number of agricultural practices, such as ploughing=
,
were carried on for a very long time but have now been shown to be=
unsustainable. It is also possible that a given system could be sustainable at a certain human population size and unsustainable at a greater population.
In our last exchange you recommended S=
ally Fallon's site.
www.westonaprice.org
I visited this site =
as you recommended and was immediately drawn to the
"Myths and Truth=
s About Vegetarianism" section.
My reaction on reading this was that =
this site had no credibility.
Here's why.
A Dr Stephen Byrnes=
starts off the "myths" by telling us of a story
where a woman visit=
s her doctor following a miscarriage:
"Upon questioning Tanya=
about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her
infections, as well =
as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her
diet and was als=
o mostly a vegetarian. Because of the plentiful media
rhetoric about=
the supposed dangers of animal product consumption, as
opposed to t=
he alleged health benefits of the vegetarian lifestyle,
Tanya had de=
liberately removed such things as cream, butter, meats and
fish from=
her diet. Although she liked liver, she avoided it due to
worries o=
ver "toxins."
Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, oth=
er supplements and a
dietary prescription that included plentiful am=
ounts of animal fats and
meat. Just before leaving my office, Tanya =
looked at me and said
ruefully: "I just don't know what to believe s=
ometimes. Everywhere I
look there is all this low-fat, vegetarian st=
uff recommended. I followed
it, and look what happened." I assured h=
er that if she and her husband
changed their diets and allowed suffi=
cient time for her weakened uterus
to heal, they would be happy pare=
nts in due time. In November 2000, Bill
and Tanya happily gave birth=
to their first child, a girl."
So we have a scenario where s=
omeone takes up a "mostly" vegetarian diet
with no knowledge of what=
constitutes a proper vegetarian diet and
suffers ill health. She is=
then prescribed a meat diet and hey presto,
everything is fine. The=
clear implication here is that vegetarianism is
inherently unhealth=
y but it can be cured by meat eating!
The fact that she wasn't follow=
ing a proper vegetarian diet is neither
here nor there. This is very=
crude propaganda and is shallow in the extreme.
If all the suppo=
sed "myths" presented were true then vegetarians and
especially vega=
ns would be dropping like flies. Thankfully they are not.
Vegans are =
one of the most studied group when it comes to nutrition.
BBC2 telev=
ision's HORIZON science programme recently had an
investigation into=
Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids and during the course
of this show =
a Cambridge University professor, not a vegan or
vegetarian, who had=
been studying vegan diet for thirty years was of the
opinion that i=
t was a very healthy diet if followed properly.
I'm afraid I'=
d have to agree with what Dr.*Guillermo Romero
Ibarrola*,who has a P=
h.D in Nutrition from Cornell University, thinks of
Sally Fallon:
// Ms Fallon is not a nutritioni///st, IMHO she has very little understanding /
/of research methodology a//nd of the subject matter=
, beyond wh///atever
dogma she adheres to from the /
/theories of=
Pottenger and P//rice. Regardless of which, she is making
reckless =
and out of context /
/analyses and claims based on //third party scie=
ntific evidence
"interpreted" by her paid co-author. Ms. /
/Fallo=
n probably has some //valid things to contribute, but she does not
h=
elp anyone by making biased /
/generalizations from seco//ndary analy=
sis of relative information. I
might be mistaken, but as far /
/a=
s I know there is no piec//e of original research published by Ms.
F=
allon and her collegues. /
// /To me she is just one more author tryi=
ng to sell yet another
"cookbook" //fad; IMO her merit comes //
f=
rom her interest in natural farming, not from her understanding of
/=
/nutrition evidence.
//
//
///I would personally theref=
ore take everything that is said on this
site with a grain of salt./
/
/
/Regards
Dermot Donnelly
/
//
/>>> /
/>>> I a=
m not a friend of Ms Fallon, I once met her in a "conference"
and I =
/
/>>>can not say that I was imp /
/>>ressed by her=
comprehension of the evidence and data she used to
support /
/&g=
t;>her tedious reading sessio /
/>>n ("conference"). Further=
on, I was troubled by the way she dismissed /
/>>questions wit=
h some unsustain /
/>>ed claims and a constant recommendation t=
o buy her book as the only way /
/>>for her audience to find an=
/
/>> answer. IMHO not a very professional approach, but effec=
tive marketing /
/>>anyway. /
/>>> /
/>>&g=
t; I see from your bio. that you are on the Board of Ms Fallon's
fou=
ndation /
/>>>(W. Price F.) so that I /
/>>must ass=
ume you are partial to her approach. /
/>>> /
/>>&g=
t; Let me clear a point here: the "bantering" was not between Dr.
Ca=
mpbell /
/>>>and Ms. Fallon, it was be /
/>>tween M=
s. Fallon (mediated by Allan Balliet from BD-Now) and myself.
Dr. //>>Campbell sent some commen /
/>>ts to me re Vit B12 =
and vegetarianism (which I posted to Sanet and
sent to /
/>>=
;Mr Balliet to be posted /
/>>in BD-Now), but Dr. Campbell refr=
ained himself from reacting to Ms /
/>>Fallon's name calling di=
scourteo /
/>>us attitude. /
/>>> /
/>>>=
; I have a BS, MS and studies at PhD level in Nutriology (MS and PhD //>>>studies from Cornell U) and /
/>>I am also sympa=
thetic to alternative health approaches, Anthroposophy, /
/>>Ay=
ur-ved and Mexican traditi /
/>>onal therapies. I am a Biodynam=
ic gardener as well and have an active /
/>>participation in th=
e promot /
/>>ion of agroecology in my Country. IMHO I have the=
credentials to judge /
/>>this sort of information on /
/&g=
t;> my own. I do not need interpreters; I can understand the sources,=
but /
/>>again my thanks for bringin /
/>>g the above=
web sites to my awareness /
/>>> /
/>>> About t=
he China study: Following Ms Fallon suggestion, I went to
see the //>>>info avail at the W.Pric /
/>>e F web site. The=
re the author (=3F) mentions that the China study is /
/>>incon=
clusive, but then uses da /
/>>ta from Okinawa (from a differen=
t study, and experimental framework) to /
/>>support his/her vi=
ews on th /
/>>e basis of both studies coming from "Asia". Is t=
hat a valid
comparison to /
/>>you =3F, IMO such thing i //>>s absurd and manipulative. /
/>>> /
/>>=
> Here is the (mis)quote from Ms. Fallon's web site: "Before we throw=
up /
/>>>our hands and decide that /
/>> no co=
nclusions can be made about diet and health in China, let us turn /
/=
>>our attention to the mixed /
/>>peoples of Okinawa" http://www.westonaprice.org/food=5Fin=5Fchina.htm /
/>>=
;> /
////
/>>> /
/>>> If you have question=
s about the China study, I encourage you to send /
/>>>those=
to Dr. Campbell himsel /
/>>f. I am sure that he will be able =
to give you an honest answer about
the /
/>>validity of the=
research /
/>>claims he is making. (tcc1.edu <mailto:tcc1.edu=3FSubject=3DRe:%20Sally%20Fallon/C=
olin%20Campbell&In-Reply-To=3D%3Cl03130300b4f6804daca7%5B148.233.75=
.195%5D%3E>)/
....................
Note 1.from: Speddin=
g, C.R.W., Agriculture and the citizen, 1996
area of farmland req=
uired to feed one person:
=5Fdiet=5F =5F(ha)=5F
convention=
al 0.32
vegetarian 0.14
vegan 0.07
from: Pimentel &=
amp; Pimentel, Food, Energy and Society, 1979
fossil fuel energy =
needed to feed one person under 1979 U.S. conditions:
=5Fdiet=5F =
=5F(MJ)=5F
conventional 142
vegetarian 80
vegan 41
=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6
Prof C.R.W. Spedding, England's most eminent agricultural scientis=
t:
"..... animal production nearly always appears much less effic=
ient than
crop production ..... energy and protein production are al=
ways much
higher from crops than from animals ....." " ..... where t=
he main
concern is the feeding of the maximum number of people .....=
there will
generally be more emphasis on crop production, since, wh=
ere crops can be
grown, more people can be supported in this way." "=
..... maximising
crop production per unit of land and time during t=
he available growing
season is a better way of using resources than =
by keeping animals .....
" "..... if the total amount of food produc=
ed from crops were only
sufficient for the needs of the world popula=
tion,* then it would be
irrational to feed crops to animals if these=
crops could be consumed
directly ....."
* which it is now [m=
y note]
...............
Prof. A.R. Rao and Prof. I.J. Sing=
h, leading Indian scientists:
"Plants are better than animals as =
sources of human food ..... Animal
products like milk ..... and meat=
are extravagant to produce." " .....
Animal products have no place =
in a poor man's budget."
...............
Prof. J.F.D. Gree=
nhalgh, a leading authority on animal farming and
formerly editor-in=
-chief of the journal 'Animal Feed Science and
Technology':
"=
Most domestic animals are kept to provide food for man, which they do with a woefully poor energetic efficiency. While Britain's domestic livestock consume three times as much metabolisable energy as Britain'=
s
human population, they provide only one third of the energy intake=
of
their consumers." "There is a clear moral argument against feedi=
ng
animals on foods that could be consumed by man." "..... the resou=
rces of
land, labour and capital needed to grow forages [i.e. animal=
feed] could
often be used to produce plant foods for direct human c=
onsumption."
Keith Addison wrote:
>=
Hello Dermot
>
>
>
>>Keith Addison wrote:>>
>>
>>
>>>Hello Dermot
>&g=
t;>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
&=
gt;>>
>>>>Many very extensive studies have been don=
e on various vegetarian groups
>>>>such as Seven Day Adve=
ntists and some vegetarians claim that as these
>>>>peopl=
e are healthier than average that it must be due to their
>>>=
;>vegetarian diet. I don't subscribe to this view because these peopl=
e
>>>>don't smoke or drink either.
>>>>Wha=
t I do conclude from this however is that a vegetarian diet doesn't
&=
gt;>>>do these people any harm. This is the important point to =
realise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>One of =
them, and there are exceptions.
>>>
>>>
>=
>I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
>>
>>
&=
gt;
>It's only one of the important points to realise in connectio=
n with
>vegetarianism, and there are exceptions to that point. No=
t everybody
>thrives on a vegetarian diet.
>
>
&g=
t;
>>Of course one can cite studies to
>> justify any =
case in the area of diet and health.
>>
>>
>>Of course, as with all things.
>
>
>
>>=
We are still in the
>>dark ages as far as the "science" of nutr=
ition and diet is concerned.
>>You can have two scientists who =
have received the same training who when
>>presented with the s=
ame evidence will come to diametrically opposite
>>conclusions.=
A bit like the dark art of economics!
>>
>>
>>A bit like everything else too. This does not mean however that >there's no way of sifting the wheat from the chaff (or the goats =
from
>the sheep perhaps).
>
>
>
>>>=
;>It may be the case that some people cannot tolerate a vegetarian di=
et. I
>>>>don't know. My point is that IF we can tolerate=
this diet that we should
>>>>because it is unethical to =
kill sentient creatures for no good reason.
>>>>
>=
>>>
>
>But there IS good reason.
>
> >
>>>>ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS.
>>>>
&=
gt;>>>
>
>That is not in question.
>
> =
>
>>Just because they are dumb
>>
>>>
>I don't agree that they are dumb. Quite a few of us have =
not been
>agreeing with that, didn't you notice=3F
>
>=
;
>
>>doesn't mean we can
>>
>>
&g=
t;>>>deprive them of a happy existance because they happen to t=
aste nice.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>No, y=
ou didn't notice. :-(
>
>
>
>>>Some peopl=
e really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but
>>&=
gt;there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There>>>is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animal=
s, and never
>>>has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertil=
ity sooner or later
>>>fails, and then everything else fails=
too. Likewise in nature mixed
>>>farming is the rule, plant=
s are always found with animals. God can't
>>>do it, and nei=
ther can we. Sustainable farms are mixed, integrated
>>>farm=
s.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
&=
gt;>Can't see any reason to hate somebody who expresses an opposing v=
iew.
>>
>>
>
>If that view happens even u=
nwittingly to challenge certain cherished
>notions it can be perc=
eived as an unprovoked personal attack and
>often responded to wi=
th a vicious personal "counter" attack, rather
>common, especiall=
y these days.
>
>
>
>>Everybody should be op=
en to having their views challenged. Scepticism is
>>something =
we can't have enough of! I'm glad you raised this objection
>>t=
o vegetarianism because it is the first time I have heard this
>&g=
t;particular view.
>>
>>
>
>Well, it's no=
t just a view, there's massive and incontrovertible
>evidence to =
support it. We've discussed it here before, as we would,
>since s=
ustainable farming is obviously a part of sustainable energy -
>i=
f you can't grow biofuels crops sustainably how can they be
>sust=
ainable fuels=3F And it takes animals in the system, as food, not
&g=
t;just as respected working labourers who go into retirement when they >get too old to work.
>
>In fact many sustainable farm=
ers treat their breeding animals like
>that, but not the offsprin=
g.
>
>
>
>>I don't know a lot about the deta=
il of sustainable agriculture
>>
>>
>
>Th=
en you're not in a position to make a case for vegetarianism, as you did=
.
>
>
>
>>but I am
>>aware of at le=
ast one farm here in Ireland that is run on a stockless
>>syste=
m that the owners claim is sustainable. Similarly there is a
>>=
organisation in the UK called the Vegan Organic Trust that certifies
=
>>farms as being vegan and sustainable.
>>In America ther=
e is a guy called Will Bonsall who has run the Khadighar
>>Farm=
near Farmington, Maine for the past 25 years, using veganic
>>=
methods, i.e. no animal inputs, for the past 20 years.
>>
&=
gt;>
>
>I do know a lot about sustainable agriculture, in=
practice and in
>theory, and I've seen a lot of sustainable farm=
s. I've seen a lot of
>farms too that claimed to be sustainable b=
ut they weren't. Yes, for
>20 years and more.
>
> >
>>Just suppose for the sake of argument that it is possib=
le to have
>>sustainable agriculture without any animal input>>
>>
>
>But it's not.
>
> >
>>and further suppose
>>that it is possible to l=
ead a healthy life on a vegetarian diet, would
>>you then consi=
der it wrong to eat non-human animals=3F
>>
>>
>=
;
>No I wouldn't consider it wrong. But it's much too broad a brus=
h,
>it's all black and white in your book, it's unrealistic, and =
I think
>you're aiming at the wrong target anyway. Don't eat meat=
=3F Which
>particular meat shouldn't I eat=3F Should I eat a quai=
l that I knew had
>come from a horrendously crowded and evil fact=
ory farm=3F No I
>shouldn't, but that won't help the quail, will =
it=3F Market forces,
>yeah, right. What if the quail came from my=
farm=3F Sure I'd eat it,
>nice happy quail, very healthy too. Wh=
at if I'd bought it in a local
>village market from an old peasan=
t who'd raised it himself=3F Sounds
>okay=3F What if the old peas=
ant obligingly skinned it for me - but
>without bothering to kill=
it first=3F With these sweet old peasant
>ladies waiting to buy =
their quail while the poor creature struggled
>and screamed itsel=
f to death and nobody even noticed except me=3F
>
>Try this:=
>
>http://journeytoforever.org/MMT/keith=5Fdoggie=
.html
>Keith Addison: Pass the Doggie Bag
>
>
=
>
>>>Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains=
on one side of
>>>the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/tu=
rkey/beef "farm" (factory)
>>>on the other, with its shit-la=
goon.
>>>
>>>Farming with animals means one of t=
wo things: killing the inevitable
>>>excess or competing wit=
h them as they eat you out of house and home.
>>>Killing the=
m and not eating them would not be sane, and criminally
>>>w=
asteful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>=
;
>>I don't actually have a problem with animals being used in =
agriculture.
>>If they get reasonable care they can have a pret=
ty decent existence and
>>they can contribute to soil fertility=
. It's a win-win situation for
>>everybody.
>>I do hav=
e a problem with cutting short a sentient creature's life if it
>&=
gt;is unnecessary.
>>
>>
>
>On truly sust=
ainable farms you find lots of animals living decent
>lives and y=
ou do not find them being killed unnecessarily.
>
>
>=
>>I can't see how there needs to be an excess of animals that =
have to be
>>killed if we have the technology to limit their br=
eeding.
>>
>>
>
>Oh, a technology fix! Su=
stainable farming hasn't thrived a lot on
>most of those so far.>
>
>
>>If for some reason culling is requir=
ed,
>>
>>
>
>It's part of the sustainable=
system, and it produces large quantities
>of valuable products w=
ithout which the world would be much the
>poorer. There is no sou=
nd reason to curtail it. On the contrary, what
>we're after doing=
here is promoting it as widely as possible. Small,
>mixed, integ=
rated farms are the sane road to the future.
>
>
>>>I don't think that there would
>>not be any ethical di=
lemma in eating their flesh.
>>
>>
>
>Sor=
ry, your double negative has me baffled.
>
>
>
>=
;>>Widespread vegetarianism would condemn more animals than mixed>>>farming ever could, and could easily condemn us all to th=
e
>>>consequences (the further consequences) of unbalanced f=
arming
>>>systems.
>>>
>>>
>&=
gt;>
>>I would turn this argument on its head by saying that=
widespread meat
>>eating would condemn us all to the consequen=
ces of unbalanced farming
>>systems. Most people on this planet=
are vegetarian most of the time.
>>
>>
>
&g=
t;That's not true, quite the opposite.
>
>
>
>&=
gt;If
>>everybody was to eat a meat diet similar to the meat ea=
ting patterns in
>>the West then everybody would starve.
>=
;>I know this is not what you advocate
>>
>>
&g=
t;
>No it's not, and therefore it turns nothing on its head.
&g=
t;
>It's odd how often when one talks about sustainable farming to=
people
>opposed to eating meat they respond by attacking unsusta=
inable
>farming to support their views.
>
>
>>>but it's worth bearing in mind all
>>the same.
&g=
t;>
>>
>
>Everybody says that about the meat-ea=
ting patterns of the West and it
>doesn't make sense to me. First=
there's no chance that everybody is
>going to start eating the s=
ame diet. Chinese will always eat Chinese
>food, Indians will alw=
ays eat Indian food (both including plenty of
>meat). There's not=
hing particularly unsustainable about Western
>meat-eating per se=
, it's the production system itself that's
>unsustainable, not th=
e categories of food it produces, and
>industrialised food produc=
tion is not only Western.
>
>
>
>>>Even y=
our healthy vegetables will not be very good for you
>>>if t=
hey're not properly grown in fertile soils, which means that a
>&g=
t;>proportion of the "wastes" recycled back to the soil goes through =
the
>>>gut of animals en route.
>>>
>>=
>
>>Don't forget recycling food through our own guts. Human =
waste, with
>>proper treatment should be used to fertilise soil=
s instead of polluting
>>the planet as at present. This would f=
urther
>>
>>
>
>Further than what=3F Furt=
her than vegetarianism=3F Vegetarianism doesn't
>cut down the nee=
d for manure, it exacerbates it.
>
>
>
>>cut=
down the need (if there
>>is any)
>>
>>
=
>
>YES THERE IS ANY!
>
>It's been discussed often b=
efore, it's in the archives, and there's a
>lot more at the Journ=
ey to Forever website (which is not just about
>biodiesel!). It's=
not up to me to prove anything, already done that,
>it's up to y=
ou to disprove it, and I think you have some studying to
>do.
=
>
>
>
>>for animal manure. I think they are doi=
ng that very successfully
>>in Shanghai at the moment.
>&=
gt;
>>
>
>They were doing it very successfully in =
Shanghai a hundred years ago,
>not so sure about now. The Chinese=
still composted absolutely
>everything possible then. We've disc=
ussed humanure composting here
>too, quite a number of us do that=
, successfully enough.
>
>But, sorry, even by traditional Ch=
inese standards of how much land it
>takes to feed a human, or ho=
w little rather, human manure is not
>enough to put back what a h=
uman takes out. It helps, but you just
>don't get the biological =
knock-on effect you get with grazers like
>cows (see earlier mess=
age about ley farming), or even pigs, they're
>much better at it =
than we are. I tried every which way to get that to
>figure out, =
but it doesn't figure out.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Kei=
th
>
>
>
>
>> "Food is fabricated soil=
fertility."
>>
>>
>>>(Albrecht of Missou=
ri)
>>>
>>>Best wishes
>>>
>&g=
t;>Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>=
>
>>Regards
>>Dermot Donnelly
>>
>&g=
t;<snip>
>>
>>
>
>
>=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
>Biof=
uel mailing list
>Biofuel.org>http://sustainablelists.org/m=
ailman/listinfo/biofuel=5Fsustainablelists.org
>
>Biofue=
l at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list arc=
hives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.=
com/biofuel.org/
>
>
>
> >
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel=
blelists.org
http://sustainable=
lists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel=5Fsustainablelists.org
Bio=
fuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50=
,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel=
ustainablelists.org/
------------peace-on-earth-f503d0a4d409324bb2e52c91f9fac3bc--
--===============0947122627==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel.org/
--===============0947122627==--
