Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
I guess you can survive if you like to take pills. I chuckle every time I see this argument. I have worked very hard to be able to survive without the handful of pills everyday. The drug companies are one of the reasons that the doctors do not receive good nutritional educations. Life out of a bottle is not sustainable. Taking supplements is not the same as using food to get all your nutrients. This is very true. The "best" diet is a varied one. In addition, soy is one of the most heavily chemical foods in agribusiness! As soon as you start to use soy as a main protein, you are supporting factory farming, big time. Having lived as a lacto ovo vegetarian for better than 35 years now (far longer without meat than with), I can honestly say that the most effective way to deal with protein deficiency is to combine grains and legumes. (I grew up eating brown rice and beans.) I'm healthy and have never had a problem with cognitive function. I don't take pills, dietary supplements, and in general, avoid "textured vegetable protein" entirely. One other fallacy, that meat eating animals eat food that humans could somehow use. Most land that is used for raising animals is not capable of producing any kind of cereal or vegetable crop. It is marginal land, that can grow grass and not much else. You will feed fewer people without the meat, since nothing will grow where the animals have been raised. This argument typically comes from people who view the lives of animals with the same degree of "value" associated with human life. Ironically, the argument turns on its head when the marginal land you've described comes into consideration. Remove grazing animals (those creatures humans typically eat) from the landscape, and the health of grasslands will decline, resulting in a productivity reduction that exacerbates human hunger. There is a synergy at work in the natural world that we do not fully understand, and we have discussed this issue many times in the past. I heard a feature on NPR several weeks ago, wherein a high functioning autistic woman who holds a doctorate and works at a university in Colorado described adjustments necessary to make slaughterhouses "humane". She said that cattle do not fear death in the same way that we do, but they ARE afraid of changes in their environment that they do not comprehend. Therefore, a glint of light, an unfamiliar sound, a change in footing or some other subtle thing that might escape our attention causes cattle distress. Removing these from the slaughterhouse completely alters the environment. She said that bovines will march fearlessly to their demise in quiet order when distractions are removed from their path, and further, the "humane" slaughterhouses are virtually silent. Others have said it here, including, I believe, you. Humane slaughter should involve an animal that is happy and breathing one moment, then quickly dead in another WITHOUT transport or any other stressor in the creature's existence. Doing this, coupled with abandoning factoring farming altogether, should address the concerns of the more radical vegetarians among us, if this is possible. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782> Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
Look up Amaranth. The seed has all the amino acids ( in nutritional quantities ), and the young leaves, can be used raw or cooked. Greg H. - Original Message - From: "jon forster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 05:29 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians > >Excellent information about surviving as a vegetarian. I'd just like to > add that I was informed a long time ago that sesame seeds are the only > vegetable product that contains all the amino acid groups (protein types) of > meat. This may or may not be true, I'm not a scientist and pay more > attention to my body and mind and heart than studies, but they certainly > don't hurt. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
- Original Message - From: "Jones, Raina Tamsyn (UMC-Student)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:33 PM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians Excellent information about surviving as a vegetarian. I'd just like to add that I was informed a long time ago that sesame seeds are the only vegetable product that contains all the amino acid groups (protein types) of meat. This may or may not be true, I'm not a scientist and pay more attention to my body and mind and heart than studies, but they certainly don't hurt. I've found sesame seeds to be a staple in my diet mostly because i like them. Eaten in the various forms as tahini, sesame butter, roasted and ground with a little salt as a condiment (I use my coffee grinder ) , as salad dressings with lemon and garlic and a little tamari-soy sauce; with honey as a sweet spread, etc. Each person knows what their body needs or should find out. No judgemental feelings for those who eat meat, if they know its coming from a sustainable and humane source, or are caring for the animals themselves and love and respect them through all stages. The way animals are treated in the factory farm industry is appalling. Like Ghandi said about western civilization- it would be a good idea. Of course even the killing of humans to secure selfish interests is acceptable in todays world, so its no surprise that they treat animals as a commodity, rather than as a unique life form. Got Sesame? jon forster ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
agribusiness! As soon as you start to use soy as a main protein, you are supporting factory farming, big time. There is such a thing as an organic soy market. As for this: One other fallacy, that meat eating animals eat food that humans could somehow use. Should one presume that what you meant to say is 'One other fallacy, that animals raised for meat eat food that humans could somehow use?' No matter, as neither statement is in error. But the following is. Most land that is used for raising animals is not capable of producing any kind of cereal or vegetable crop. It is marginal land, that can grow grass and not much else. You will feed fewer people without the meat, since nothing will grow where the animals have been raised. Those who raise livestock are not puritans when it comes to the land they let their animals graze on. Yes, much of it may be vertical. Yes, much of it may be abused, degraded, chaparral or something of similarity. But an nordinate amount of grazing land is indeed suitable for food production. One look at land use outside of the Texas "dustbowl" and this would be apparant. Couple that with all the cropland that is strictly dedicated to feeding livestock and that statement is left to turn turtle and bake in the hot sun. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 8:14 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians Greetings, I am glad that you are happy with your diet. There is no one right diet for everyone. This does not change the fact that some humans get very sick without eating meat. I can go for 72 hours then my body temperature starts to drop. The only thing that will bring it back up is a serving of meat. I guess you can survive if you like to take pills. I chuckle every time I see this argument. I have worked very hard to be able to survive without the handful of pills everyday. The drug companies are one of the reasons that the doctors do not receive good nutritional educations. Life out of a bottle is not sustainable. Taking supplements is not the same as using food to get all your nutrients. In addition, soy is one of the most heavily chemical foods in agribusiness! As soon as you start to use soy as a main protein, you are supporting factory farming, big time. One other fallacy, that meat eating animals eat food that humans could somehow use. Most land that is used for raising animals is not capable of producing any kind of cereal or vegetable crop. It is marginal land, that can grow grass and not much else. You will feed fewer people without the meat, since nothing will grow where the animals have been raised. Bright Blessings, Kim At 05:33 PM 3/10/2005, you wrote: Greetings listers, Just thought I'd say a word or two about vegetarianism, being one who has survived quite well with such a diet. I think that the idea that many vegetarians can't stay healthy with a no-meat diet is somewhat outdated now. Current ideas about health and nutrition are shifting completely -- indeed, the entire standard "food pyramid" guide that we all grew up learning, with its bulwark of grains at the bottom, is being entirely reconsidered. For vegetarians of the past, their biggest problem was eliminating the major protein staples proffered by meat, which was a true problem. It was one of the first criticisms I received as a mid-teenager when I decided to go veggie, and I had to fight to convince certain of my family members that I could handle a vegetarian diet and still get the protein necessary. Nowadays, there are lots more common options for getting excellent sources of protein: a suite of soy-based products, like soy seitan, tofu, "imitation" soy-based meats, cottage cheese, eggs, tempeh. Used judiciously, vegetarians can reap the benefits of an entirely balanced diet, without some of the associated health and ethical dilemmas of meat eating that often bother aspiring vegetarians: cholesterol problems; high fat levels in some meats; concerns over ethical farming/husbandry of animals; concerns over killing animals in general; concerns over the food distribution food problem in the world (by switching to a vegetable-based diet, more actual primary production farming goes to feed more people, whereas eating meat actually reduces the number of people fed because cattle and sheep and other animals consume far more green matter than is reaped via the animal itself). There is also a huge world of supplements and vitamins out there that more than makes up for any potential vitamin/nutrient deficiencies lost from giving up meat. In fact, the best Omega-3 sources come from fish -- and vegetarians can get molecularly distilled fish oil pills that also ensures no harmful trace elemen
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
I totally agree that VASTLY less meat can be easily done. There is no need for a 16 ounce steak. I eat a 6 ounce serving, 5 days a week. 90% of the meat raised at my place feeds Miss Dusty and Miss Hayley, my two canine companions. Bright Blessings, Kim At 07:59 PM 3/10/2005, you wrote: on 3/10/05 3:33 PM, Jones, Raina Tamsyn (UMC-Student) at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thx for the detailed reply. I was a vegetarian for several years, and then backslid -- soon I will become less wealthy, and will be a (sloppy) vegetarian again. I can vouch that with proper forethought, one can do quite well -- also, when I occasionally go out for dinner, a filet mignon is very nice. In general, I think VASTLY less meat can be easily and safely done... ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
pert little packages of ready-wrapped meats. The connection with the animal and the hard fact of having to kill an animal to survive or eat meat is all but gone from the better part of society. I think if many people knew what happened behind factory farm doors, they would be appalled. So, I applaud those who are sensitive to the needs of animals, and who have that relationship. Many earlier human societies were the same way; killing an animal was done out of necessity, for survival. At any rate, not to blather on, but I just wanted to add my two cents, and point out that it's actually extremely easy to stay healthy today as vegetarians -- so long as vegetarians (or vegans) know how to do it right. Fascinating discussion! Best, tamsyn From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kim & Garth Travis Sent: Thu 3/10/2005 6:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Greetings, Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. Many of us get very sick when we cut out all meat. Just eating dairy and eggs is not enough. Besides, I do need the manure from my animals to fix my burnt out land. If you read through the small farms section of JTF, you will find all kinds of information about this. The only cure I have found for cotton rot in the land is blood and offal. When I asked Texas A&M how to cure cotton rot, they told me it could not be done. Well I did it. There are many reasons as to why to eat meat. Good 100% grass fed beef and lamb has Omega 3s and lots of CLA that keeps you healthy. It also does not have the mercury that fish has these days. I know that some people can stay healthy as vegetarians, but not many. I know I read a study, I can't remember where that vegetarians have shorter life spans, on average. At 07:55 PM 3/9/2005, you wrote: >I hear you -- my sister's a vegan, but she eats her own eggs (ie, her >CHICKENs' eggs :-)) because she knows they're well-treated. Far be it >for me to preach vegetarianism -- that would be extremely hypocritical. >But it's an issue I'm addressing now. Why eat "lower" lifeforms at all? >Dirt would be best, plants next, animals last if ever. > >-K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
Greetings listers, Just thought I'd say a word or two about vegetarianism, being one who has survived quite well with such a diet. I think that the idea that many vegetarians can't stay healthy with a no-meat diet is somewhat outdated now. I don't think the articles I posted links to yesterday are outdated: http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20050307/006741.html [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Current ideas about health and nutrition are shifting completely -- indeed, the entire standard "food pyramid" guide that we all grew up learning, with its bulwark of grains at the bottom, is being entirely reconsidered. For vegetarians of the past, their biggest problem was eliminating the major protein staples proffered by meat, which was a true problem. It was one of the first criticisms I received as a mid-teenager when I decided to go veggie, and I had to fight to convince certain of my family members that I could handle a vegetarian diet and still get the protein necessary. Nowadays, there are lots more common options for getting excellent sources of protein: a suite of soy-based products, like soy seitan, tofu, "imitation" soy-based meats, cottage cheese, eggs, tempeh. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/soydangers.html Dangers of Soy Products Tragedy and Hype The Third International Soy Symposium Far from being the perfect food, modern soy products contain antinutrients and toxins and they interfer with the absorption of vitamins and minerals. Nexus Magazine, Volume 7, Number 3 (April-May 2000). © 2000 by Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig, PhD http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNF01SoyBeatrice.htm THE DOWNSIDE OF SOYBEAN CONSUMPTION by Beatrice Trum Hunter, who is one of America's foremost food experts and an Honorary Member of NOHA. She is the Food Editor of Consumers' Research Magazine and the author of many books on food issues, including Food Additives and Federal Policy: The Mirage of Safety; The Great Nutrition Robbery; and her classic Natural Foods Cookbook. Soy consumption is being promoted vigorously. Despite many alleged benefits, there is a downside, which is being ignored. http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtsoy.html Myths and Truths About Soy Used judiciously, vegetarians can reap the benefits of an entirely balanced diet, without some of the associated health and ethical dilemmas of meat eating that often bother aspiring vegetarians: cholesterol problems; http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/oilingamerica.1.html The Oiling of America - Part 1/2 http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/oilingamerica.2.html The Oiling of America - Part 2/2 Modern-day diets high in hydrogenated vegetable oils instead of traditional animal fats are implicated in causing a significant increase in heart disease and cancer. Nexus Magazine, Volume 6, Number 1 (December 1998 - January 1999). © 1998 by Mary G. Enig, PhD © 1998 by Sally Fallon http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html The Benefits of High Cholesterol By Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD People with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one«s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny2.html The Skinny on Fats by Mary Enig, PhD, and Sally Fallon Fats from animal and vegetable sources provide a concentrated source of energy in the diet; they also provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormonelike substances. Fats as part of a meal slow down absorption so that we can go longer without feeling hungry. In addition, they act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption and for a host of other processes. http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Case_for_butter.html The Case for Butter by Trauger Groh, Farmer and Lecturer Butter and Honey shall He eat that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good -- Isaiah 7:15 http://www.nexusmagazine.com/margarine.html THE MARGARINE HOAX --Margarine, Fatty Acids and Your Health-- To maintain good health it is important that we have the correct intake of omega fatty acids in our diets. Hydrogenated fats like margarine are non-foods with toxic effects and should be avoided at any cost. Nexus Magazine, Volume 4, #2 (February-March 1997). by Dane A. Roubos, D.C. ©1995-97 http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm The Cholesterol Myths - some astonishing facts by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD high fat levels in some meats; concerns over ethical farming/husbandry
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
on 3/10/05 3:33 PM, Jones, Raina Tamsyn (UMC-Student) at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think that the idea that many vegetarians can't stay healthy with a no-meat > diet is somewhat outdated now. Current ideas about health and nutrition are > shifting completely > > There is also a huge world of supplements and vitamins out there that more > than makes up for any potential vitamin/nutrient deficiencies lost from giving > up meat. > Of course, I'm not opposed to people eating meat. I do believe humans evolved > as omnivores -- and so I don't really believe the argument (which I've heard) > that Homo sapiens was really originally an herbivore. > > At any rate, not to blather on, but I just wanted to add my two cents, and > point out that it's actually extremely easy to stay healthy today as > vegetarians -- so long as vegetarians (or vegans) know how to do it right. > Thx for the detailed reply. I was a vegetarian for several years, and then backslid -- soon I will become less wealthy, and will be a (sloppy) vegetarian again. I can vouch that with proper forethought, one can do quite well -- also, when I occasionally go out for dinner, a filet mignon is very nice. In general, I think VASTLY less meat can be easily and safely done... -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
Very well said... --- "Jones, Raina Tamsyn (UMC-Student)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings listers, > > Just thought I'd say a word or two about > vegetarianism, being one who has survived quite well > with such a diet. I think that the idea that many > vegetarians can't stay healthy with a no-meat diet > is somewhat outdated now. Current ideas about > health and nutrition are shifting completely -- > indeed, the entire standard "food pyramid" guide > that we all grew up learning, with its bulwark of > grains at the bottom, is being entirely > reconsidered. For vegetarians of the past, their > biggest problem was eliminating the major protein > staples proffered by meat, which was a true problem. > It was one of the first criticisms I received as a > mid-teenager when I decided to go veggie, and I had > to fight to convince certain of my family members > that I could handle a vegetarian diet and still get > the protein necessary. > > Nowadays, there are lots more common options for > getting excellent sources of protein: a suite of > soy-based products, like soy seitan, tofu, > "imitation" soy-based meats, cottage cheese, eggs, > tempeh. Used judiciously, vegetarians can reap the > benefits of an entirely balanced diet, without some > of the associated health and ethical dilemmas of > meat eating that often bother aspiring vegetarians: > cholesterol problems; high fat levels in some meats; > concerns over ethical farming/husbandry of animals; > concerns over killing animals in general; concerns > over the food distribution food problem in the world > (by switching to a vegetable-based diet, more actual > primary production farming goes to feed more people, > whereas eating meat actually reduces the number of > people fed because cattle and sheep and other > animals consume far more green matter than is reaped > via the animal itself). > > There is also a huge world of supplements and > vitamins out there that more than makes up for any > potential vitamin/nutrient deficiencies lost from > giving up meat. In fact, the best Omega-3 sources > come from fish -- and vegetarians can get > molecularly distilled fish oil pills that also > ensures no harmful trace elements, such as mercury, > are getting into their bodies. Additionally, a > Harvard study done recently testing for mercury > levels in human hair pointed out that mercury can > come from red meats just the same as fish. Those on > vegetarian diets have far, far lower levels of > mercury in their bodies than meat eaters (I know, I > was tested and was well below the EPA reference > number of 1.0). Green foods supplements, > antioxidants from tea and berries -- some of the > highest sources of antioxidants anywhere -- cacao > seeds, and other supplements can provide all the > vitamins and more necessary for excellent health > that most people arent' aware of, unless they've > done a little bit of research. > > Of course, I'm not opposed to people eating meat. I > do believe humans evolved as omnivores -- and so I > don't really believe the argument (which I've heard) > that Homo sapiens was really originally an > herbivore. But, someone here posted earlier that if > you analyze the diets of our forebears, meat -- in > general -- was not consumed nearly as regularly as > grains, fruits, nuts and vegetables. It was a > luxury item that our pre-human ancestors got every > so often, and poor people even in today's world > still often can't afford. I also do believe in > supporting sustainable, humane family farms, and > will encourage my meat-eating friends and relatives > to seek out those better sources for their meats. > Factory farms are unnatural, cruel, and often > invisible to the ordinary person shopping for meat > in the grocery store, looking at nice, pert little > packages of ready-wrapped meats. The connection > with the animal and the hard fact of having to kill > an animal to survive or eat meat is all but gone > from the better part of society. I think if many > people knew what happened behind factory farm doors, > they would be appalled. So, I applaud those who are > sensitive to the needs of animals, and who have that > relationship. Many earlier human societies were the > same way; killing an animal was done out of > necessity, for survival. > > At any rate, not to blather on, but I just wanted to > add my two cents, and point out that it's actually > extremely easy to stay healthy today as vegetarians > -- so long as vegetarians (or vegans) know how to do > it right. > > Fascinating discussion! > > Best, > tamsyn >
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms ... and vegetarians
Greetings listers, Just thought I'd say a word or two about vegetarianism, being one who has survived quite well with such a diet. I think that the idea that many vegetarians can't stay healthy with a no-meat diet is somewhat outdated now. Current ideas about health and nutrition are shifting completely -- indeed, the entire standard "food pyramid" guide that we all grew up learning, with its bulwark of grains at the bottom, is being entirely reconsidered. For vegetarians of the past, their biggest problem was eliminating the major protein staples proffered by meat, which was a true problem. It was one of the first criticisms I received as a mid-teenager when I decided to go veggie, and I had to fight to convince certain of my family members that I could handle a vegetarian diet and still get the protein necessary. Nowadays, there are lots more common options for getting excellent sources of protein: a suite of soy-based products, like soy seitan, tofu, "imitation" soy-based meats, cottage cheese, eggs, tempeh. Used judiciously, vegetarians can reap the benefits of an entirely balanced diet, without some of the associated health and ethical dilemmas of meat eating that often bother aspiring vegetarians: cholesterol problems; high fat levels in some meats; concerns over ethical farming/husbandry of animals; concerns over killing animals in general; concerns over the food distribution food problem in the world (by switching to a vegetable-based diet, more actual primary production farming goes to feed more people, whereas eating meat actually reduces the number of people fed because cattle and sheep and other animals consume far more green matter than is reaped via the animal itself). There is also a huge world of supplements and vitamins out there that more than makes up for any potential vitamin/nutrient deficiencies lost from giving up meat. In fact, the best Omega-3 sources come from fish -- and vegetarians can get molecularly distilled fish oil pills that also ensures no harmful trace elements, such as mercury, are getting into their bodies. Additionally, a Harvard study done recently testing for mercury levels in human hair pointed out that mercury can come from red meats just the same as fish. Those on vegetarian diets have far, far lower levels of mercury in their bodies than meat eaters (I know, I was tested and was well below the EPA reference number of 1.0). Green foods supplements, antioxidants from tea and berries -- some of the highest sources of antioxidants anywhere -- cacao seeds, and other supplements can provide all the vitamins and more necessary for excellent health that most people arent' aware of, unless they've done a little bit of research. Of course, I'm not opposed to people eating meat. I do believe humans evolved as omnivores -- and so I don't really believe the argument (which I've heard) that Homo sapiens was really originally an herbivore. But, someone here posted earlier that if you analyze the diets of our forebears, meat -- in general -- was not consumed nearly as regularly as grains, fruits, nuts and vegetables. It was a luxury item that our pre-human ancestors got every so often, and poor people even in today's world still often can't afford. I also do believe in supporting sustainable, humane family farms, and will encourage my meat-eating friends and relatives to seek out those better sources for their meats. Factory farms are unnatural, cruel, and often invisible to the ordinary person shopping for meat in the grocery store, looking at nice, pert little packages of ready-wrapped meats. The connection with the animal and the hard fact of having to kill an animal to survive or eat meat is all but gone from the better part of society. I think if many people knew what happened behind factory farm doors, they would be appalled. So, I applaud those who are sensitive to the needs of animals, and who have that relationship. Many earlier human societies were the same way; killing an animal was done out of necessity, for survival. At any rate, not to blather on, but I just wanted to add my two cents, and point out that it's actually extremely easy to stay healthy today as vegetarians -- so long as vegetarians (or vegans) know how to do it right. Fascinating discussion! Best, tamsyn From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kim & Garth Travis Sent: Thu 3/10/2005 6:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Greetings, Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. Many of us get very sick when we cut out all meat. Just eating dairy and eggs is not enough. Besides, I do need the manure from my animals to fix my burnt out land. If you read through the small farms section of JTF, you will find all kinds of information about this. The only cure I have fo
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Kim & Garth Travis wrote: I know I read a > study, I can't remember where that vegetarians have shorter life spans, > on average. > It must not have been this one: :) After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and social class, death rates were lower in non-meat-eaters than in meat eaters for each of the mortality endpoints studied [relative risks and 95% CIs: 0.80 (0.65, 0.99) for all causes of death, 0.72 (0.47, 1.10) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.61 (0.44, 0.84) for all malignant neoplasms]. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S?ck=nck If the Relative Risk includes 1 in the confidence interval, the difference is not significant. Thus, the heart disease endpoint is not significant, the All Causes of Death endpoint may or not be significant, depending on rounding, and the malignancy endpoint is significant. I'm also very surpised that they did not control for alcohol intake in the overall analysis, as that correlates positively with meat intake and is linked to cancer risk. Skimming the actual article suggests they *did* look at alcohol intake in relation to blood lipids, but did not include it in the overall analysis. Curious. More interestingly, excluding individuals with a prior history of CVD or diabetes from the analysis completely obliterates the all cause and heart disease risk effects: [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs): 0.83 (0.48, 1.43) for ischemic heart disease and 1.02 (0.82, 1.27) for all causes of death]. Of course, one should never consider a single epidemiological study in isolation, so ignore everything I said above. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. Many of us get very sick when we cut out all meat. Just eating dairy and eggs is not enough. Besides, I do need the manure from my animals to fix my burnt out land. If you read through the small farms section of JTF, you will find all kinds of information about this. The only cure I have found for cotton rot in the land is blood and offal. When I asked Texas A&M how to cure cotton rot, they told me it could not be done. Well I did it. There are many reasons as to why to eat meat. Good 100% grass fed beef and lamb has Omega 3s and lots of CLA that keeps you healthy. It also does not have the mercury that fish has these days. I know that some people can stay healthy as vegetarians, but not many. I know I read a study, I can't remember where that vegetarians have shorter life spans, on average. Try these Kim. http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html Myths and Truths- About Vegetarianism(by Stephen Byrnes, ND, PhD, RNCP) The Myths Of Vegetarianism by Stephen Byrnes, PhD, RNCP Originally published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, July 2000. This paper is posted at http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00509.htm The Great Fallacies of Vegetarianism http://www.chetday.com/b12.html Vitamin B12 and the Hallelujah Diet http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitaminasaga.html Basic Nutrition: Vitamin A Saga "... A key player in this fascinating story is Weston A. Price, who discovered that the diets of healthy traditional peoples contained at least ten times as much vitamin A as the American diet of his day. His work revealed that vitamin A is one of several fat-soluble activators present only in animal fats and necessary for the assimilation of minerals in the diet. He noted that the foods held sacred by the peoples he studied, such as spring butter, fish eggs and shark liver, were exceptionally rich in vitamin A." [more] http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.760/healthissue_detail.asp ACSH > Health Issues > an Volume 9 Number 2 1997 Why I Am Not a Vegetarian by Dr. William T. Jarvis http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nasty_brutish_short.html Traditional Diets-Nasty, Brutish and Short "In order to believe that our society has "progressed," we must believe first that the lives of our ancestors were indeed nasty, brutish and short. But, as study after study has confirmed, the health of traditional peoples was vastly superior to that of modern industrial man." [more] Best wishes Keith At 07:55 PM 3/9/2005, you wrote: I hear you -- my sister's a vegan, but she eats her own eggs (ie, her CHICKENs' eggs :-)) because she knows they're well-treated. Far be it for me to preach vegetarianism -- that would be extremely hypocritical. But it's an issue I'm addressing now. Why eat "lower" lifeforms at all? Dirt would be best, plants next, animals last if ever. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
I know I read a > study, I can't remember where that vegetarians have shorter life spans, > on average. > It must not have been this one: :) After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and social class, death rates were lower in non-meat-eaters than in meat eaters for each of the mortality endpoints studied [relative risks and 95% CIs: 0.80 (0.65, 0.99) for all causes of death, 0.72 (0.47, 1.10) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.61 (0.44, 0.84) for all malignant neoplasms]. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S?ck=nck -- -- Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob -- - The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness JKG --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. Many of us get very sick when we cut out all meat. Just eating dairy and eggs is not enough. Besides, I do need the manure from my animals to fix my burnt out land. If you read through the small farms section of JTF, you will find all kinds of information about this. The only cure I have found for cotton rot in the land is blood and offal. When I asked Texas A&M how to cure cotton rot, they told me it could not be done. Well I did it. There are many reasons as to why to eat meat. Good 100% grass fed beef and lamb has Omega 3s and lots of CLA that keeps you healthy. It also does not have the mercury that fish has these days. I know that some people can stay healthy as vegetarians, but not many. I know I read a study, I can't remember where that vegetarians have shorter life spans, on average. At 07:55 PM 3/9/2005, you wrote: I hear you -- my sister's a vegan, but she eats her own eggs (ie, her CHICKENs' eggs :-)) because she knows they're well-treated. Far be it for me to preach vegetarianism -- that would be extremely hypocritical. But it's an issue I'm addressing now. Why eat "lower" lifeforms at all? Dirt would be best, plants next, animals last if ever. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
CHICKENs' eggs :-)) She's ovo-vegetarian. Lacto-ovo if she also consumes milk. Not vegetarian at all if she eats fish. Kind of a contradictary identifiers altogether though. One would think that "vegetarian" is pretty straight forward. Guess not. Vegan is no animal products whatsoever, inclusive of honey if adhered to in the strictest manner. And then there are "airians,". - Original Message - From: "Ken Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms on 3/9/05 5:42 AM, Kim & Garth Travis at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, we are not hypocrites, but totally aware of what it takes to get factory meat to the table..I do not send my animals out to be slaughtered because I do not like the way the local processor treats the animals. I am taking responsibility for my food. I hear you -- my sister's a vegan, but she eats her own eggs (ie, her CHICKENs' eggs :-)) because she knows they're well-treated. Far be it for me to preach vegetarianism -- that would be extremely hypocritical. But it's an issue I'm addressing now. Why eat "lower" lifeforms at all? Dirt would be best, plants next, animals last if ever. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.0 - Release Date: 3/8/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
on 3/9/05 5:42 AM, Kim & Garth Travis at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Actually, we are not hypocrites, but totally aware of what it takes to get > factory meat to the table..I do not send my animals out to be slaughtered > because I do not like the way the local processor treats the animals. I am > taking responsibility for my food. > > I hear you -- my sister's a vegan, but she eats her own eggs (ie, her CHICKENs' eggs :-)) because she knows they're well-treated. Far be it for me to preach vegetarianism -- that would be extremely hypocritical. But it's an issue I'm addressing now. Why eat "lower" lifeforms at all? Dirt would be best, plants next, animals last if ever. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Actually, we are not hypocrites, but totally aware of what it takes to get factory meat to the table. People who name their animals generally treat their animals in a reasonable fashion. I am not going into details of how bad the factory process is this early in the morning, but there are far too many reported cases of animals being skinned alive, being forced to walk on broken legs and other tortures to support this kind of processing. Not to mention the feedlots and other disgusting tactics that are used on the poor animals. My animals are raised to be food. That is why I have them. This does not stop me from scratching their ears, petting them and making their life as wonderful as possible while they are alive. I also thank each one of them for the gift of their life energy, before we kill them. This is not hypocrisy, but reality. I do not send my animals out to be slaughtered because I do not like the way the local processor treats the animals. I am taking responsibility for my food. Bright Blessings, Kim At 08:27 PM 3/8/2005, you wrote: on 3/8/05 5:30 AM, Kim & Garth Travis at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yes, we turn vegetarian in public. Our rule, if I don't > know its name, I am not eating it. > I dunno -- sounds a little hypocritical (tho in general I like your stuff. I'll think about this longer). Why eat your friends at all? I have 13 birdies, and I eat chicken or turkey maybe twice a week -- an I feel Sh**ty about it. As soon as it's not PUT in front of me, I won't. It's so wasteful, and each of those birdies would've PREFERRED to live longer, even if they WERE conscientiously DISPATCHED. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
on 3/8/05 5:30 AM, Kim & Garth Travis at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yes, we turn vegetarian in public. Our rule, if I don't > know its name, I am not eating it. > I dunno -- sounds a little hypocritical (tho in general I like your stuff. I'll think about this longer). Why eat your friends at all? I have 13 birdies, and I eat chicken or turkey maybe twice a week -- an I feel Sh**ty about it. As soon as it's not PUT in front of me, I won't. It's so wasteful, and each of those birdies would've PREFERRED to live longer, even if they WERE conscientiously DISPATCHED. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Thanks for the support Keith. I am thinking about the 100% grass fed people, who raise animals strictly by pasture and hay. Many of them also raise pork this way. It takes about 6 months longer to get the animals to slaughter weight this way, but it is not bad for the environment and is much healthier meat for us. That extra six months must be paid for, so, selling the tallow and lard for fuel could be profitable. Some of the family farms that are run this way are quite large, with hundreds of head of cattle, sheep and pigs. I have found, myself, that one does get lots of lard from pigs, and if you don't use it to cook, there is only so much soap you need. A gallon of lard, much more than that on a single pig. I got almost 2 gallons off the last goat I had to slaughter. [He was at my place for a whole 20 minutes, but he was mean and no animal is going to head butt me!] He made wonderful dog food and fantastic soap. Comparing all people that raise animals for meat to slaveholders is totally unjust. My animals live the healthiest, most natural lives right up until the second they die. No torture of trailer rides, being poked and prodded to walk on broken legs or any of the other abuse that goes on in the factory world. Yes, we turn vegetarian in public. Our rule, if I don't know its name, I am not eating it. Bright Blessings, Kim At 12:56 PM 3/7/2005, you wrote: Hello Bo But Kim is right. Unless you add some such proviso to your exclusion, your blanket condemnation could indeed harm the good guys. For one thing, though you might be well aware of the difference, you shouldn't presume that others will be. You could well be persuading them to condemn the wrong people, possibly in other spheres too, not just biodiesel. Factory farms are an anachronism, they don't have a future; farmers like Kim are the future, and blanket condemnations now could warp that future for them and for us all. My friend, there is no large enough source of lard or tallow feedstock from a family farm. I appreciate your concern about blanket condemnations, but once again, would you say "don't condemn all slaveholders; many are small plantations who treat their slaves decently?" It's a poor comparison, as what you say below of your own practices demonstrates. Best wishes Keith I am not a vegetarian, because I AM a family farmer. I've been involved in animal husbandry and subsistence farming for many years; I am not an urbanite discussing this from an armchair in my drawing room. If my milk cow has a boy calf, there is no other future for him than to be eaten. If one of our laying chickens dies, or we have too many roosters, they must be eaten. If we were not willing to eat this occasional meat, we could not raise milk or eggs. So I am not naive about necessary and natural relationships. Factory farming, whether owned and operated by a family or a large corporation, is a despicable abuse of power by our species, just like slavery, and is unnatural and extremely unhealthy for everyone in all directions. No one is going to be able to produce biodiesel from collecting a gallon of lard from one little farm and two gallons from another every few weeks or months. That's not what my e-mail was about. Sometimes blanket condemnations are actually appropriate, as in the case of slavery or genocide. What we do with animals every day and every night in factory farms is both slavery and genocide. Sorry, I cannot hedge on that. To me, that's false tolerance and is a problem of our age. Bo ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
I don't call myself an animal lover. I do find I have great respect for them as individuals. Come on girl. Admit it. Yes you are :-) and your existance would be much poorer without them, as would everyone's. Most just don't realize it. Might you not need to let the professional facade slip a skosh and allow that "respect" to manifest itself as affection just jumping to be unpenned?. Todd Swearingen Bunny luvin', frog huggin', dirt worshipin', respector of trees :-) - Original Message - From: "Marylynn Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Well said. I work with animals using a variety of alternative approaches so I've gotten to know lots of them. I don't call myself an animal lover. I do find I have great respect for them as individuals. I sometimes find the "human" decision to judge animals as "lesser" .. because, based upon the tests we have devised, they can't quite muster enough to pass them .. but of course the "humans" keep raising the bar .. what I find telling is that .. at least to my knowledge .. there isn't a human I know of that has mastered WHALE or SPARROW as a language. .. so instead of lingering on simply the cruelty of the factory farm practice .. I'd like to also suggest looking at the spread of pollution .. both water, land, and air .. and the spread of dis-ease. This is one of the most gruesome practices in all respects. .. but .. I also find a strong similarity between factory farms and the practices of all "corporations". The word "fodder" leaps to mind. Mary Lynn Mary Lynn Schmidt ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART TTouch . Animal Behavior Modification . Behavior Problems . Ordained Minister . Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Radionics . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy . Herbs. . Polarity . Reiki . Spiritual Travel The Animal Connection Healing Modalities http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/ From: "Bo Lozoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:46:35 -0500 Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory farming -- not the discharge of wastes. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. Ever been inside one? Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. Bo Lozoff From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:24:15 +0900 http://www.alternet.org/story/21391 Cleaning Up Factory Farms By J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service. Posted March 2, 2005. The Bush administration thinks it's perfectly OK to let factory farms discharge waste into the nation's waters. A federal appeals court says the policy stinks. The Bush administration's regulations to limit water pollution from factory farms violate the Clean Water Act and must be revised, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court found the regulations failed to ensure that factory farms would be held accountable for discharging animal wastes into the nation's waters. The ruling, released Monday by a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, is a major victory for environmentalists who filed suit against the February 2003 rules. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and an NRDC senior attorney, called the regulations the "product of a conspiracy between a lawless industry and compliant public officials in cahoots to steal the public trust." "I am grateful that the court has taken the government and the barons of corporate agriculture to the woodshed for a well-earned rebuke," Kennedy said. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued the rules, was not available for comment on the ruling. The decision continues a long-running battle over how to regulate factory farms - known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs have emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of agricultural livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over the past two decades. These operations produce some 500 million tons of animal waste annually - disposal and storage of this waste presents serious risks to public health and the environment. CAFOs often over-apply liquid waste on land
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
I work with animals using a variety of alternative approaches so I've gotten to know lots of them. I don't call myself an animal lover. I do find I have great respect for them as individuals. I sometimes find the "human" decision to judge animals as "lesser" .. because, based upon the tests we have devised, they can't quite muster enough to pass them .. but of course the "humans" keep raising the bar .. what I find telling is that .. at least to my knowledge .. there isn't a human I know of that has mastered WHALE or SPARROW as a language. .. so instead of lingering on simply the cruelty of the factory farm practice .. I'd like to also suggest looking at the spread of pollution .. both water, land, and air .. and the spread of dis-ease. This is one of the most gruesome practices in all respects. .. but .. I also find a strong similarity between factory farms and the practices of all "corporations". The word "fodder" leaps to mind. Mary Lynn Mary Lynn Schmidt ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART TTouch . Animal Behavior Modification . Behavior Problems . Ordained Minister . Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Radionics . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy . Herbs. . Polarity . Reiki . Spiritual Travel The Animal Connection Healing Modalities http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/ From: "Bo Lozoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:46:35 -0500 Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory farming -- not the discharge of wastes. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. Ever been inside one? Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. Bo Lozoff From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:24:15 +0900 http://www.alternet.org/story/21391 Cleaning Up Factory Farms By J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service. Posted March 2, 2005. The Bush administration thinks it's perfectly OK to let factory farms discharge waste into the nation's waters. A federal appeals court says the policy stinks. The Bush administration's regulations to limit water pollution from factory farms violate the Clean Water Act and must be revised, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court found the regulations failed to ensure that factory farms would be held accountable for discharging animal wastes into the nation's waters. The ruling, released Monday by a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, is a major victory for environmentalists who filed suit against the February 2003 rules. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and an NRDC senior attorney, called the regulations the "product of a conspiracy between a lawless industry and compliant public officials in cahoots to steal the public trust." "I am grateful that the court has taken the government and the barons of corporate agriculture to the woodshed for a well-earned rebuke," Kennedy said. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued the rules, was not available for comment on the ruling. The decision continues a long-running battle over how to regulate factory farms - known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs have emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of agricultural livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over the past two decades. These operations produce some 500 million tons of animal waste annually - disposal and storage of this waste presents serious risks to public health and the environment. CAFOs often over-apply liquid waste on land, which runs off into surface water, killing fish, spreading disease, and contaminating drinking water supplies. Waste can leak onto the land and into groundwater and drinking water supplies from the massive waste storage units on the farms. Three decades ago the U.S. Congress identified CAFOs as point sources of water pollution to be regulated under the Clean Water Act's water pollution permitting program. The 2003 rule aimed to implement that decision - it applies to some 15,500 livestock operations across the country. Large CAFOs are defined in the regulations as operations raising more than 1,000 cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, 10,000 sheep, 125,000 chickens, 82,000 laying hens, or 55,000 turkeys in confinement. T
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
But Kim is right. Unless you add some such proviso to your exclusion, your blanket condemnation could indeed harm the good guys. For one thing, though you might be well aware of the difference, you shouldn't presume that others will be. You could well be persuading them to condemn the wrong people, possibly in other spheres too, not just biodiesel. Factory farms are an anachronism, they don't have a future; farmers like Kim are the future, and blanket condemnations now could warp that future for them and for us all. My friend, there is no large enough source of lard or tallow feedstock from a family farm. I appreciate your concern about blanket condemnations, but once again, would you say "don't condemn all slaveholders; many are small plantations who treat their slaves decently?" It's a poor comparison, as what you say below of your own practices demonstrates. Best wishes Keith I am not a vegetarian, because I AM a family farmer. I've been involved in animal husbandry and subsistence farming for many years; I am not an urbanite discussing this from an armchair in my drawing room. If my milk cow has a boy calf, there is no other future for him than to be eaten. If one of our laying chickens dies, or we have too many roosters, they must be eaten. If we were not willing to eat this occasional meat, we could not raise milk or eggs. So I am not naive about necessary and natural relationships. Factory farming, whether owned and operated by a family or a large corporation, is a despicable abuse of power by our species, just like slavery, and is unnatural and extremely unhealthy for everyone in all directions. No one is going to be able to produce biodiesel from collecting a gallon of lard from one little farm and two gallons from another every few weeks or months. That's not what my e-mail was about. Sometimes blanket condemnations are actually appropriate, as in the case of slavery or genocide. What we do with animals every day and every night in factory farms is both slavery and genocide. Sorry, I cannot hedge on that. To me, that's false tolerance and is a problem of our age. Bo From: Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:28:31 -0600 Greetings, But what if your lard or tallow came from the small family farms trying to survive? Any blanket statement is against improving the farming picture. Many people do raise animals in a humane, environmentally friendly manner. And we have a hard time staying alive with the competition from the factory farms. Cutting off a source of income, to us, without investigating who is doing what is harmful and promotes the factory farms. Trace your sources and be picky about whom you support, yes. Blanket condemnation is what is killing the small farmer who is doing it right. Bright Blessings, Kim At 10:36 AM 3/7/2005, you wrote: To answer your question, Keith, my organization, Carolina Biodiesel Inc (www.carolinabiodiesel.org) has already discussed and made official policy that we would not morally be able to use animal waste as a feedstock no matter how cheap it was or who else was doing it. We decided we did not want to benefit from the back door of factory farming, even if it meant we could no longer compete with other producers. wrong is wrong. Sounds like you and I see the connection between factory farming and the ecological movement in much the same way. Glad it's being said somewhere. Bo From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:24:45 +0900 Hello Bo Hi Keith, I apologize for hyperbole in using terms like "the least of the problems," but to be more accurate, my point is still that I have met biofuels folks who have made enthusiastic friendships with factory farmers as though waste and fuel were the only issues, not the horrific treatment of living beings. Did you read my whole reply to you? Including the last paragraph? One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. There's more to it than "the horrific treatment of living beings" too - or at least the living beings being factory farmed aren't necessarily the only ones being horrifically treated. It hu
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
a family farm. I appreciate your concern about blanket condemnations, but once again, would you say "don't condemn all slaveholders; many are small plantations who treat their slaves decently?" I am not a vegetarian, because I AM a family farmer. I've been involved in animal husbandry and subsistence farming for many years; I am not an urbanite discussing this from an armchair in my drawing room. If my milk cow has a boy calf, there is no other future for him than to be eaten. If one of our laying chickens dies, or we have too many roosters, they must be eaten. If we were not willing to eat this occasional meat, we could not raise milk or eggs. So I am not naive about necessary and natural relationships. Factory farming, whether owned and operated by a family or a large corporation, is a despicable abuse of power by our species, just like slavery, and is unnatural and extremely unhealthy for everyone in all directions. No one is going to be able to produce biodiesel from collecting a gallon of lard from one little farm and two gallons from another every few weeks or months. That's not what my e-mail was about. Sometimes blanket condemnations are actually appropriate, as in the case of slavery or genocide. What we do with animals every day and every night in factory farms is both slavery and genocide. Sorry, I cannot hedge on that. To me, that's false tolerance and is a problem of our age. Bo From: Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:28:31 -0600 Greetings, But what if your lard or tallow came from the small family farms trying to survive? Any blanket statement is against improving the farming picture. Many people do raise animals in a humane, environmentally friendly manner. And we have a hard time staying alive with the competition from the factory farms. Cutting off a source of income, to us, without investigating who is doing what is harmful and promotes the factory farms. Trace your sources and be picky about whom you support, yes. Blanket condemnation is what is killing the small farmer who is doing it right. Bright Blessings, Kim At 10:36 AM 3/7/2005, you wrote: To answer your question, Keith, my organization, Carolina Biodiesel Inc (www.carolinabiodiesel.org) has already discussed and made official policy that we would not morally be able to use animal waste as a feedstock no matter how cheap it was or who else was doing it. We decided we did not want to benefit from the back door of factory farming, even if it meant we could no longer compete with other producers. wrong is wrong. Sounds like you and I see the connection between factory farming and the ecological movement in much the same way. Glad it's being said somewhere. Bo From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:24:45 +0900 Hello Bo Hi Keith, I apologize for hyperbole in using terms like "the least of the problems," but to be more accurate, my point is still that I have met biofuels folks who have made enthusiastic friendships with factory farmers as though waste and fuel were the only issues, not the horrific treatment of living beings. Did you read my whole reply to you? Including the last paragraph? One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. There's more to it than "the horrific treatment of living beings" too - or at least the living beings being factory farmed aren't necessarily the only ones being horrifically treated. It hurts to see that, much like it would if we were involved in this field during the ninetheenth century and formed affectionate relationships with slaveholders who were a good source of cottonseed oil. The people may indeed be nice individuals, but they are involved in a significant social evil that we must not turn a blind eye to. Indeed not, but it's hardly the only significant social evil involved in fuels and biofuels issues, or in food and fuel issues. That was all I was trying to get across. I love and respect animals for the same exact reasons I want to use and support biofuels. How can the two be separated? Would you use biodiesel or WVO containing lard or tallow or chickenfat? Actually I don't see ab
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
But what if your lard or tallow came from the small family farms trying to survive? Any blanket statement is against improving the farming picture. Many people do raise animals in a humane, environmentally friendly manner. And we have a hard time staying alive with the competition from the factory farms. Cutting off a source of income, to us, without investigating who is doing what is harmful and promotes the factory farms. Trace your sources and be picky about whom you support, yes. Blanket condemnation is what is killing the small farmer who is doing it right. Bright Blessings, Kim At 10:36 AM 3/7/2005, you wrote: To answer your question, Keith, my organization, Carolina Biodiesel Inc (www.carolinabiodiesel.org) has already discussed and made official policy that we would not morally be able to use animal waste as a feedstock no matter how cheap it was or who else was doing it. We decided we did not want to benefit from the back door of factory farming, even if it meant we could no longer compete with other producers. wrong is wrong. Sounds like you and I see the connection between factory farming and the ecological movement in much the same way. Glad it's being said somewhere. Bo From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:24:45 +0900 Hello Bo Hi Keith, I apologize for hyperbole in using terms like "the least of the problems," but to be more accurate, my point is still that I have met biofuels folks who have made enthusiastic friendships with factory farmers as though waste and fuel were the only issues, not the horrific treatment of living beings. Did you read my whole reply to you? Including the last paragraph? One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. There's more to it than "the horrific treatment of living beings" too - or at least the living beings being factory farmed aren't necessarily the only ones being horrifically treated. It hurts to see that, much like it would if we were involved in this field during the ninetheenth century and formed affectionate relationships with slaveholders who were a good source of cottonseed oil. The people may indeed be nice individuals, but they are involved in a significant social evil that we must not turn a blind eye to. Indeed not, but it's hardly the only significant social evil involved in fuels and biofuels issues, or in food and fuel issues. That was all I was trying to get across. I love and respect animals for the same exact reasons I want to use and support biofuels. How can the two be separated? Would you use biodiesel or WVO containing lard or tallow or chickenfat? Actually I don't see abusing animals as much different to abusing anything else, whether it's plants and trees, soil, air, water, other humans, or any other part of the biosphere - hubris in general, and indeed very much to do with supporting biofuels. Best wishes Keith Bo From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:51:56 +0900 Hello Bo Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory farming -- not the discharge of wastes. Nope - both are problems, and they're not the only ones. Of course without the factory farms the waste problem wouldn't exist, but the waste problem is nonetheless a useful approach, for raising awareness and for bringing pressure to bear. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. I fully agree. Ever been inside one? Yup. Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. Absolutely - and if not why not. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. The wastes are a severe problem in their own right. It's all a problem. There's nothing good about any aspect of it. You will, I believe, find previous posts on many or most of the other problems associated with factory farming in the list archives. That includes for instance how the feed is p
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
(www.carolinabiodiesel.org) has already discussed and made official policy that we would not morally be able to use animal waste as a feedstock no matter how cheap it was or who else was doing it. We decided we did not want to benefit from the back door of factory farming, even if it meant we could no longer compete with other producers. wrong is wrong. Sounds like you and I see the connection between factory farming and the ecological movement in much the same way. Glad it's being said somewhere. Bo From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:24:45 +0900 Hello Bo Hi Keith, I apologize for hyperbole in using terms like "the least of the problems," but to be more accurate, my point is still that I have met biofuels folks who have made enthusiastic friendships with factory farmers as though waste and fuel were the only issues, not the horrific treatment of living beings. Did you read my whole reply to you? Including the last paragraph? One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. There's more to it than "the horrific treatment of living beings" too - or at least the living beings being factory farmed aren't necessarily the only ones being horrifically treated. It hurts to see that, much like it would if we were involved in this field during the ninetheenth century and formed affectionate relationships with slaveholders who were a good source of cottonseed oil. The people may indeed be nice individuals, but they are involved in a significant social evil that we must not turn a blind eye to. Indeed not, but it's hardly the only significant social evil involved in fuels and biofuels issues, or in food and fuel issues. That was all I was trying to get across. I love and respect animals for the same exact reasons I want to use and support biofuels. How can the two be separated? Would you use biodiesel or WVO containing lard or tallow or chickenfat? Actually I don't see abusing animals as much different to abusing anything else, whether it's plants and trees, soil, air, water, other humans, or any other part of the biosphere - hubris in general, and indeed very much to do with supporting biofuels. Best wishes Keith Bo From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:51:56 +0900 Hello Bo Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory farming -- not the discharge of wastes. Nope - both are problems, and they're not the only ones. Of course without the factory farms the waste problem wouldn't exist, but the waste problem is nonetheless a useful approach, for raising awareness and for bringing pressure to bear. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. I fully agree. Ever been inside one? Yup. Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. Absolutely - and if not why not. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. The wastes are a severe problem in their own right. It's all a problem. There's nothing good about any aspect of it. You will, I believe, find previous posts on many or most of the other problems associated with factory farming in the list archives. That includes for instance how the feed is produced, a whole other nightmare, the effects of which are global, with some horrendous results. One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. Best wishes Keith Bo Lozoff From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Hi Keith, I apologize for hyperbole in using terms like "the least of the problems," but to be more accurate, my point is still that I have met biofuels folks who have made enthusiastic friendships with factory farmers as though waste and fuel were the only issues, not the horrific treatment of living beings. Did you read my whole reply to you? Including the last paragraph? One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. There's more to it than "the horrific treatment of living beings" too - or at least the living beings being factory farmed aren't necessarily the only ones being horrifically treated. It hurts to see that, much like it would if we were involved in this field during the ninetheenth century and formed affectionate relationships with slaveholders who were a good source of cottonseed oil. The people may indeed be nice individuals, but they are involved in a significant social evil that we must not turn a blind eye to. Indeed not, but it's hardly the only significant social evil involved in fuels and biofuels issues, or in food and fuel issues. That was all I was trying to get across. I love and respect animals for the same exact reasons I want to use and support biofuels. How can the two be separated? Would you use biodiesel or WVO containing lard or tallow or chickenfat? Actually I don't see abusing animals as much different to abusing anything else, whether it's plants and trees, soil, air, water, other humans, or any other part of the biosphere - hubris in general, and indeed very much to do with supporting biofuels. Best wishes Keith Bo From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:51:56 +0900 Hello Bo Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory farming -- not the discharge of wastes. Nope - both are problems, and they're not the only ones. Of course without the factory farms the waste problem wouldn't exist, but the waste problem is nonetheless a useful approach, for raising awareness and for bringing pressure to bear. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. I fully agree. Ever been inside one? Yup. Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. Absolutely - and if not why not. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. The wastes are a severe problem in their own right. It's all a problem. There's nothing good about any aspect of it. You will, I believe, find previous posts on many or most of the other problems associated with factory farming in the list archives. That includes for instance how the feed is produced, a whole other nightmare, the effects of which are global, with some horrendous results. One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. Best wishes Keith Bo Lozoff From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:24:15 +0900 http://www.alternet.org/story/21391 Cleaning Up Factory Farms ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
I apologize for hyperbole in using terms like "the least of the problems," but to be more accurate, my point is still that I have met biofuels folks who have made enthusiastic friendships with factory farmers as though waste and fuel were the only issues, not the horrific treatment of living beings. It hurts to see that, much like it would if we were involved in this field during the ninetheenth century and formed affectionate relationships with slaveholders who were a good source of cottonseed oil. The people may indeed be nice individuals, but they are involved in a significant social evil that we must not turn a blind eye to. That was all I was trying to get across. I love and respect animals for the same exact reasons I want to use and support biofuels. How can the two be separated? Bo From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:51:56 +0900 Hello Bo Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory farming -- not the discharge of wastes. Nope - both are problems, and they're not the only ones. Of course without the factory farms the waste problem wouldn't exist, but the waste problem is nonetheless a useful approach, for raising awareness and for bringing pressure to bear. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. I fully agree. Ever been inside one? Yup. Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. Absolutely - and if not why not. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. The wastes are a severe problem in their own right. It's all a problem. There's nothing good about any aspect of it. You will, I believe, find previous posts on many or most of the other problems associated with factory farming in the list archives. That includes for instance how the feed is produced, a whole other nightmare, the effects of which are global, with some horrendous results. One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. Best wishes Keith Bo Lozoff From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:24:15 +0900 http://www.alternet.org/story/21391 Cleaning Up Factory Farms By J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service. Posted March 2, 2005. The Bush administration thinks it's perfectly OK to let factory farms discharge waste into the nation's waters. A federal appeals court says the policy stinks. The Bush administration's regulations to limit water pollution from factory farms violate the Clean Water Act and must be revised, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court found the regulations failed to ensure that factory farms would be held accountable for discharging animal wastes into the nation's waters. The ruling, released Monday by a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, is a major victory for environmentalists who filed suit against the February 2003 rules. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and an NRDC senior attorney, called the regulations the "product of a conspiracy between a lawless industry and compliant public officials in cahoots to steal the public trust." "I am grateful that the court has taken the government and the barons of corporate agriculture to the woodshed for a well-earned rebuke," Kennedy said. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued the rules, was not available for comment on the ruling. The decision continues a long-running battle over how to regulate factory farms - known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs have emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of agricultural livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over the past two decades. These operations produce some 500 million tons of animal waste annually - disposal and storage of this waste presents serious risks to public health and the environment. CAFOs often over-apply liquid waste on land, which ru
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
i hear you bo, driving by a feed lot makes you thank god hamburger comes in a skin bag Bo Lozoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory farming -- not the discharge of wastes. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. Ever been inside one? Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. Bo Lozoff >From: Keith Addison >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms >Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:24:15 +0900 > >http://www.alternet.org/story/21391 > >Cleaning Up Factory Farms > >By J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service. Posted March 2, 2005. > >The Bush administration thinks it's perfectly OK to let factory farms >discharge waste into the nation's waters. A federal appeals court says the >policy stinks. > >The Bush administration's regulations to limit water pollution from factory >farms violate the Clean Water Act and must be revised, a federal appeals >court ruled Monday. The court found the regulations failed to ensure that >factory farms would be held accountable for discharging animal wastes into >the nation's waters. > >The ruling, released Monday by a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit >Court of Appeals in New York, is a major victory for environmentalists who >filed suit against the February 2003 rules. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., >president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and an NRDC senior attorney, called >the regulations the "product of a conspiracy between a lawless industry and >compliant public officials in cahoots to steal the public trust." > >"I am grateful that the court has taken the government and the barons of >corporate agriculture to the woodshed for a well-earned rebuke," Kennedy >said. > >The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued the rules, was >not available for comment on the ruling. > >The decision continues a long-running battle over how to regulate factory >farms - known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs have >emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of agricultural >livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over the past two >decades. These operations produce some 500 million tons of animal waste >annually - disposal and storage of this waste presents serious risks to >public health and the environment. > >CAFOs often over-apply liquid waste on land, which runs off into surface >water, killing fish, spreading disease, and contaminating drinking water >supplies. Waste can leak onto the land and into groundwater and drinking >water supplies from the massive waste storage units on the farms. > >Three decades ago the U.S. Congress identified CAFOs as point sources of >water pollution to be regulated under the Clean Water Act's water pollution >permitting program. The 2003 rule aimed to implement that decision - it >applies to some 15,500 livestock operations across the country. > >Large CAFOs are defined in the regulations as operations raising more than >1,000 cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, 10,000 sheep, 125,000 chickens, >82,000 laying hens, or 55,000 turkeys in confinement. > >The regulations require these operations to apply for discharge permits >under the Clean Water Act every five years and develop nutrient management >plans to manage and limit pollution - or otherwise demonstrate that they >have no potential for discharge. > >The Bush administration said the rules balanced environmental protection >with the concerns of a competitive and economically important industry. But >the court described the regulations as "arbitrary and capricious" and said >the Clean Water Act "demands regulation in fact, not only in principle." > >The court determined the rules illegally allowed permitting authorities to >issue permits without reviewing the terms of CAFO plans to manage and limit >pollution. > >"The CAFO rule does nothing to ensure that each large CAFO will comply with >all applicable effluent limitations and standards," the panel wrote in its >65-page ruling. > >The rule also "deprives the public of the opportunity for the sort of >regulatory participation that the Act guarantees because the rule >effectively shields the nutrient management plans from public scrutiny and >comment
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory farming -- not the discharge of wastes. Nope - both are problems, and they're not the only ones. Of course without the factory farms the waste problem wouldn't exist, but the waste problem is nonetheless a useful approach, for raising awareness and for bringing pressure to bear. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. I fully agree. Ever been inside one? Yup. Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. Absolutely - and if not why not. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. The wastes are a severe problem in their own right. It's all a problem. There's nothing good about any aspect of it. You will, I believe, find previous posts on many or most of the other problems associated with factory farming in the list archives. That includes for instance how the feed is produced, a whole other nightmare, the effects of which are global, with some horrendous results. One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes) that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after (except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem. Best wishes Keith Bo Lozoff From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:24:15 +0900 http://www.alternet.org/story/21391 Cleaning Up Factory Farms By J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service. Posted March 2, 2005. The Bush administration thinks it's perfectly OK to let factory farms discharge waste into the nation's waters. A federal appeals court says the policy stinks. The Bush administration's regulations to limit water pollution from factory farms violate the Clean Water Act and must be revised, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court found the regulations failed to ensure that factory farms would be held accountable for discharging animal wastes into the nation's waters. The ruling, released Monday by a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, is a major victory for environmentalists who filed suit against the February 2003 rules. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and an NRDC senior attorney, called the regulations the "product of a conspiracy between a lawless industry and compliant public officials in cahoots to steal the public trust." "I am grateful that the court has taken the government and the barons of corporate agriculture to the woodshed for a well-earned rebuke," Kennedy said. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued the rules, was not available for comment on the ruling. The decision continues a long-running battle over how to regulate factory farms - known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs have emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of agricultural livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over the past two decades. These operations produce some 500 million tons of animal waste annually - disposal and storage of this waste presents serious risks to public health and the environment. CAFOs often over-apply liquid waste on land, which runs off into surface water, killing fish, spreading disease, and contaminating drinking water supplies. Waste can leak onto the land and into groundwater and drinking water supplies from the massive waste storage units on the farms. Three decades ago the U.S. Congress identified CAFOs as point sources of water pollution to be regulated under the Clean Water Act's water pollution permitting program. The 2003 rule aimed to implement that decision - it applies to some 15,500 livestock operations across the country. Large CAFOs are defined in the regulations as operations raising more than 1,000 cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, 10,000 sheep, 125,000 chickens, 82,000 laying hens, or 55,000 turkeys in confinement. The regulations require these operations to apply for discharge permits under the Clean Water Act every five years and develop nutrient management plans to manage and limit pollution - or otherwise demonstrate that they have no potential for discharge. The Bush a
RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
farming -- not the discharge of wastes. There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture, cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way. Ever been inside one? Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to factory farming. The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view. Bo Lozoff From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:24:15 +0900 http://www.alternet.org/story/21391 Cleaning Up Factory Farms By J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service. Posted March 2, 2005. The Bush administration thinks it's perfectly OK to let factory farms discharge waste into the nation's waters. A federal appeals court says the policy stinks. The Bush administration's regulations to limit water pollution from factory farms violate the Clean Water Act and must be revised, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court found the regulations failed to ensure that factory farms would be held accountable for discharging animal wastes into the nation's waters. The ruling, released Monday by a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, is a major victory for environmentalists who filed suit against the February 2003 rules. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and an NRDC senior attorney, called the regulations the "product of a conspiracy between a lawless industry and compliant public officials in cahoots to steal the public trust." "I am grateful that the court has taken the government and the barons of corporate agriculture to the woodshed for a well-earned rebuke," Kennedy said. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued the rules, was not available for comment on the ruling. The decision continues a long-running battle over how to regulate factory farms - known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs have emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of agricultural livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over the past two decades. These operations produce some 500 million tons of animal waste annually - disposal and storage of this waste presents serious risks to public health and the environment. CAFOs often over-apply liquid waste on land, which runs off into surface water, killing fish, spreading disease, and contaminating drinking water supplies. Waste can leak onto the land and into groundwater and drinking water supplies from the massive waste storage units on the farms. Three decades ago the U.S. Congress identified CAFOs as point sources of water pollution to be regulated under the Clean Water Act's water pollution permitting program. The 2003 rule aimed to implement that decision - it applies to some 15,500 livestock operations across the country. Large CAFOs are defined in the regulations as operations raising more than 1,000 cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, 10,000 sheep, 125,000 chickens, 82,000 laying hens, or 55,000 turkeys in confinement. The regulations require these operations to apply for discharge permits under the Clean Water Act every five years and develop nutrient management plans to manage and limit pollution - or otherwise demonstrate that they have no potential for discharge. The Bush administration said the rules balanced environmental protection with the concerns of a competitive and economically important industry. But the court described the regulations as "arbitrary and capricious" and said the Clean Water Act "demands regulation in fact, not only in principle." The court determined the rules illegally allowed permitting authorities to issue permits without reviewing the terms of CAFO plans to manage and limit pollution. "The CAFO rule does nothing to ensure that each large CAFO will comply with all applicable effluent limitations and standards," the panel wrote in its 65-page ruling. The rule also "deprives the public of the opportunity for the sort of regulatory participation that the Act guarantees because the rule effectively shields the nutrient management plans from public scrutiny and comment," the judges wrote. The panel agreed with environmentalists who argued that the regulations violate federal law because they do not ensure that permits contain specific limits on the amount of pollution CAFOs can discharge. "To accept the EPA's contrary argument - that requiring a nutrient management plan is itself a restriction on land application discharges - is to allow semantics to torture logic," the court said. The agency also failed to require factory
[Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Cleaning Up Factory Farms By J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service. Posted March 2, 2005. The Bush administration thinks it's perfectly OK to let factory farms discharge waste into the nation's waters. A federal appeals court says the policy stinks. The Bush administration's regulations to limit water pollution from factory farms violate the Clean Water Act and must be revised, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court found the regulations failed to ensure that factory farms would be held accountable for discharging animal wastes into the nation's waters. The ruling, released Monday by a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, is a major victory for environmentalists who filed suit against the February 2003 rules. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and an NRDC senior attorney, called the regulations the "product of a conspiracy between a lawless industry and compliant public officials in cahoots to steal the public trust." "I am grateful that the court has taken the government and the barons of corporate agriculture to the woodshed for a well-earned rebuke," Kennedy said. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued the rules, was not available for comment on the ruling. The decision continues a long-running battle over how to regulate factory farms - known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs have emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of agricultural livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over the past two decades. These operations produce some 500 million tons of animal waste annually - disposal and storage of this waste presents serious risks to public health and the environment. CAFOs often over-apply liquid waste on land, which runs off into surface water, killing fish, spreading disease, and contaminating drinking water supplies. Waste can leak onto the land and into groundwater and drinking water supplies from the massive waste storage units on the farms. Three decades ago the U.S. Congress identified CAFOs as point sources of water pollution to be regulated under the Clean Water Act's water pollution permitting program. The 2003 rule aimed to implement that decision - it applies to some 15,500 livestock operations across the country. Large CAFOs are defined in the regulations as operations raising more than 1,000 cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, 10,000 sheep, 125,000 chickens, 82,000 laying hens, or 55,000 turkeys in confinement. The regulations require these operations to apply for discharge permits under the Clean Water Act every five years and develop nutrient management plans to manage and limit pollution - or otherwise demonstrate that they have no potential for discharge. The Bush administration said the rules balanced environmental protection with the concerns of a competitive and economically important industry. But the court described the regulations as "arbitrary and capricious" and said the Clean Water Act "demands regulation in fact, not only in principle." The court determined the rules illegally allowed permitting authorities to issue permits without reviewing the terms of CAFO plans to manage and limit pollution. "The CAFO rule does nothing to ensure that each large CAFO will comply with all applicable effluent limitations and standards," the panel wrote in its 65-page ruling. The rule also "deprives the public of the opportunity for the sort of regulatory participation that the Act guarantees because the rule effectively shields the nutrient management plans from public scrutiny and comment," the judges wrote. The panel agreed with environmentalists who argued that the regulations violate federal law because they do not ensure that permits contain specific limits on the amount of pollution CAFOs can discharge. "To accept the EPA's contrary argument - that requiring a nutrient management plan is itself a restriction on land application discharges - is to allow semantics to torture logic," the court said. The agency also failed to require factory farms to use the necessary technological controls to reduce bacteria and other pathogens from their pollution, according the ruling. "The court agreed that there is a better way than the Bush administration's plan," said Eric Huber, a Sierra Club attorney. "When technology and existing law can keep animal waste out of our rivers, why should Americans have to settle for a plan that puts polluters before the public?" J.R. Pegg is Washington D.C. Bureau Chief for Environment News Service. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
