Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Christopher Witmer]

No, no, I mean this --

B is for Beer (i.e., Biofuel for Human B'ns, to keep this on topic:
http://www.mcmenamins.com/Brewing/mrtipsy1.html#Anchor-363

And now I think I'll go have another glass of vitamins and protein, er, 
I mean, biofuel, or whatever.

Christopher Witmer
Tokyo

Appal Energy wrote:

 Sadly that practice has yet to be criminalized in the US yet.
 
 I believe it is unaffectionately called lawn mower or near
 beer.
 
 Todd Swearingen
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:38 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
 
Just make sure your draft beer hasn't had the yeast filtered

 out of it
 
and you'll be just fine. :-)

Appal Energy wrote:


What is easy is harming one's health by trying.


I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If

 I
 
had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this
never would have happened.

Todd Swearingen



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[kirk]

several pounds of undigested meat
found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters
[Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America,
John Robbins).


Maybe they died because they weren't healthy and digesting their food.
Slow bowels are often a product of white flour and other junk in the SAD
(standard American Diet)
The literal translation of the Cherokee word for cheese is choke ass
Americans eat wy too much dairy.
When you eat something and you get mucus, and you can tell because you are
now clearing your throat and have enhanced drainage, why do you eat it
again? Mucus is the reaction to an irritant.
Seems many are oblivious to their body. How can a mucus producing substance
be rationalized as healthy?

Kirk

-Original Message-
From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:21 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


Well Chris,

I'll tell ya' this. All that beneficial meat processing bacteria
is certainly not doing its job as efficiently as one would be led
to believe, considering the several pounds of undigested meat
found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters
[Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America,
John Robbins).

Yes, it's rather easy to see that different diets in different
environments would be metabolized in variant fashions and would
take some indeterminant period to completely adjust to. After
all, every living thing is one big biological and chemical
equation. Try going from 3,000' on any diet to 14,000 feet over
night and see if you get fully acclimatized before a two week
period has passed, no matter how much your continual fluid
uptake.

If your body and your mind are accustomed to something, they will
certainly take notice of its absence or any deviation from it.

I think the part I had most difficulty with was the suggestion
with such certainty that a departure from a heavily meat
concentrated diet (Western diet) would create harm, perhaps
catastrophically.

   What is easy is harming one's health by trying.

I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I
had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this
never would have happened.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 Todd,

 In a rare twist, it is a lot easier to find information on this
in
 Japanese Internet than in English; this may be due to Japanese
 researchers' language limitations.

 Japanese-only link at Chiba University:
 http://photo-m.tp.chiba-u.ac.jp/~adeno/sci/bio.htm

 I first heard about this on a Japanese television program --
 Japanese-only link to the television program's webpage on this
subject:
 http://www.ntv.co.jp/FERC/research/19980208/f0518.html

 I wasn't able to find anything in English on the Internet,
although I
 did find passing references to one of the key studies in this
area:

 Bergersen, F.J. and E.H. Hipsley (1970). The presence of N2 -
fixing
 bacteria in the intestines of man and animals. Journal of
Tropical
 Pediatrics 11: 28-34.

 To summarize the theory, the Papua highlander diet consists
primarily of
 yams and taro (average of about 1.5kg per day), from which they
are able
 to *directly* assimilate only 15g of protein. The amount of
directly
 assimilated protein is simply insufficient to maintain their
heavy
 musculature (and these people tend to be very muscular) let
alone the
 minimum level needed for survival over time. A professor
Mitsuoka of
 Tokyo University theorizes that the intestinal flora of the
Papua
 highlander are different from those of peoples accustomed to
eating
 meat. Indeed, when people from outside the region try to eat
the Papua
 highlander diet, they suffer from extreme flatulence, to the
great
 amusement of the Papua highlanders, who have very little or
none.
 Conversely, consumption of pork can make Papua highlanders ill,
 sometimes fatally so, whilst people accustomed to eating meat
suffer
 from no ill effects. Analysis of feces of Papua highlanders
reveals
 total nitrogen content to be double that of the pre-assimilated
food.
 This increase is in all likelihood due to the presence of
 nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the intestines of Papua
highlanders.
 (Apparently the same sorts of bacteria associated with
leguminous
 nitrogen fixation are taking atmospheric nitrogen and fixing it
in the
 intestines of the Papua highlanders.) These bacteria then in
turn become
 the source of adequate protein for the Papua highlanders.
Another
 possibility is that ammonia is somehow being converted into
protein
 (pigs and cows have this ability); Papua highlander feces are
found to
 have twice the ammonia content of Japanese. It is suspected --
though
 hardly conclusively proven -- that half of the protein

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Christopher Witmer]

This X lbs. of undigested meat in the intestine sounds like a bit of a 
  burpin' legend IMO.

FWIW:
http://www.snopes2.com/toxins/fecal.htm

I have Robbins' book and think there's a lot of good stuff in it, and I 
also think fasting and cleansing the body can be good for you, but if I 
do it, it's not because I'm worried about accumulations of undigested 
meat in my lower GI Joe.

By the way, I am a huge eater of cheese -- often on the order of half a 
kilogram per day -- and I am also a real regular guy and as mucus-free 
as anyone I know. I think this probably varies quite a bit from person 
to person. By all means, listen to what your body is telling you! (Your 
Body Knows Best is the title of a very good book on diet. I think it 
was written by Louise Gittleman. I also recommend her Guess What Came 
to Dinner, a book about parasites -- a much bigger problem even in 
advanced countries than most people suspect.)

I will say this, however: eating a lot of animal protein definitely 
gives anyone a stronger body odor than if they have a diet low in animal 
protein. On the other hand, a high veggie diet tends to give people a 
lot of gas -- hey, biofuel! Still on topic . . . ;-)

Christopher Witmer
Tokyo

kirk wrote:

several pounds of undigested meat
found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters
[Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America,
John Robbins).

 
 
 Maybe they died because they weren't healthy and digesting their food.
 Slow bowels are often a product of white flour and other junk in the SAD
 (standard American Diet)
 The literal translation of the Cherokee word for cheese is choke ass
 Americans eat wy too much dairy.
 When you eat something and you get mucus, and you can tell because you are
 now clearing your throat and have enhanced drainage, why do you eat it
 again? Mucus is the reaction to an irritant.
 Seems many are oblivious to their body. How can a mucus producing substance
 be rationalized as healthy?
 
 Kirk
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:21 PM
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
 Well Chris,
 
 I'll tell ya' this. All that beneficial meat processing bacteria
 is certainly not doing its job as efficiently as one would be led
 to believe, considering the several pounds of undigested meat
 found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters
 [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America,
 John Robbins).
 
 Yes, it's rather easy to see that different diets in different
 environments would be metabolized in variant fashions and would
 take some indeterminant period to completely adjust to. After
 all, every living thing is one big biological and chemical
 equation. Try going from 3,000' on any diet to 14,000 feet over
 night and see if you get fully acclimatized before a two week
 period has passed, no matter how much your continual fluid
 uptake.
 
 If your body and your mind are accustomed to something, they will
 certainly take notice of its absence or any deviation from it.
 
 I think the part I had most difficulty with was the suggestion
 with such certainty that a departure from a heavily meat
 concentrated diet (Western diet) would create harm, perhaps
 catastrophically.
 
 
What is easy is harming one's health by trying.

 
 I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I
 had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this
 never would have happened.
 
 Todd Swearingen
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:54 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
 
Todd,

In a rare twist, it is a lot easier to find information on this

 in
 
Japanese Internet than in English; this may be due to Japanese
researchers' language limitations.

Japanese-only link at Chiba University:
http://photo-m.tp.chiba-u.ac.jp/~adeno/sci/bio.htm

I first heard about this on a Japanese television program --
Japanese-only link to the television program's webpage on this

 subject:
 
http://www.ntv.co.jp/FERC/research/19980208/f0518.html

I wasn't able to find anything in English on the Internet,

 although I
 
did find passing references to one of the key studies in this

 area:
 
Bergersen, F.J. and E.H. Hipsley (1970). The presence of N2 -

 fixing
 
bacteria in the intestines of man and animals. Journal of

 Tropical
 
Pediatrics 11: 28-34.

To summarize the theory, the Papua highlander diet consists

 primarily of
 
yams and taro (average of about 1.5kg per day), from which they

 are able
 
to *directly* assimilate only 15g of protein. The amount of

 directly
 
assimilated protein is simply insufficient to maintain their

 heavy
 
musculature (and these people tend to be very muscular) let

 alone the
 
minimum level needed for survival

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Keith Addison]

Todd,
I'm really not saying highly meat centered diet... I've been through
the
diet gamut, vegetarianism, veganism, raw-foodism, brief flirtation with
fruitarianism, for lots of years (20), .  I am worried about the B-12 issue
which seems to be directly related to the ammount of animal food consumed as
shown in the studies.  I am enamored with the philosophy
of these theories...but my heros have expired at an early age, Fry,
Shelton, Lovewisdom etc. etc.
So I need to be realistic, I want truth in this matter...I wish, hope,
we can get along without killing/taking other LIFE, but really I'm not so
sure.  Any dialogue  appreciated.
Are you and Keith co-owners/conspirators of this web???

And just what exactly the hell is that supposed to mean??

Keith Addison


Thanks,
Ken


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Keith Addison]

I may be gullible enough to accept some things at face
value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.'

Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried?
Uhya.right.

Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like
hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s!

I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a
passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang
of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws
within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier
the better.

I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and
force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine
bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor
face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment?

I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted
for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not
a bunch of home biofuel officianados.)

The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating
8-(

Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their
Prozac.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


  Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such
extremely low
  levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to
death on
  them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria
than
  meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable
matter and
  then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their
source
  of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet
those
  particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of
bacteria, and
  it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition
from
  vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's
intestinal
  bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet,
but it is
  not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by
trying.
 
  Christopher Witmer
  Tokyo
 
  Ken wrote:
 
   http://www.beyondveg.com/
  
   More on that, and believe me I've tried...
   Ken
  
  
  Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet.  While I don't
eat a lot
  of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving,  five times a week.
Even the
  doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize
this fact.  I
  have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high
protein
  Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with
carbohydrates.
 


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Christopher Witmer]

I'm afraid I have pretty much used all my ammunition on this. I'm not 
totally convinced myself, frankly. It sounds interesting and plausible, 
but if the paucity of information on the web is any indicator (and it 
probably is), this is either an area that needs a lot more research, or 
zero additional research. Even if it turns out to be true, obviously 
humans are never going to be as efficient at the whole process as 
ruminants, are, but it might have some very interesting positive 
implications for better human nutrition in certain parts of the world.

And double thumbs up on Weston A. Price's books!

Christopher Witmer
Tokyo

Keith Addison wrote:

 If you have any references for that, Christopher, I'd be most 
 interested to see them.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Keith Addison]

 several pounds of undigested meat
 found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters
 [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America,
 John Robbins).


Maybe they died because they weren't healthy and digesting their food.
Slow bowels are often a product of white flour and other junk in the SAD
(standard American Diet)
The literal translation of the Cherokee word for cheese is choke ass
Americans eat wy too much dairy.
When you eat something and you get mucus, and you can tell because you are
now clearing your throat and have enhanced drainage, why do you eat it
again? Mucus is the reaction to an irritant.
Seems many are oblivious to their body. How can a mucus producing substance
be rationalized as healthy?

Kirk

But which particular dairy products are those, Kirk? Good clean stuff 
from a real dairy with milk from healthy cattle on healthy pasture, 
or the rBGH-laden, antibiotics-laden, over-processed, denatured stuff 
from badly-fed and badly-reared, diarrhoea-ridden, disease-ridden 
industrial beasts?

You're dead right about refined carbohydrates - see Cleave, for instance:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave

There's no arguing with that. That and all the processing, and 
5,000-odd food additives.

But dairy is complicated - Cherokee's would have had a 
lactose-intolerance, like many people are said to have. Including the 
Chinese, though it's not that simple - dairy is standard fare in 
North China, and now in the South too, and if there are ill-health 
effects it comes from replacing their traditional diet with junk 
food, not from the dairy (though a lot of it is now industrial dairy).

Best

Keith


-Original Message-
From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:21 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


Well Chris,

I'll tell ya' this. All that beneficial meat processing bacteria
is certainly not doing its job as efficiently as one would be led
to believe, considering the several pounds of undigested meat
found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters
[Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America,
John Robbins).

Yes, it's rather easy to see that different diets in different
environments would be metabolized in variant fashions and would
take some indeterminant period to completely adjust to. After
all, every living thing is one big biological and chemical
equation. Try going from 3,000' on any diet to 14,000 feet over
night and see if you get fully acclimatized before a two week
period has passed, no matter how much your continual fluid
uptake.

If your body and your mind are accustomed to something, they will
certainly take notice of its absence or any deviation from it.

I think the part I had most difficulty with was the suggestion
with such certainty that a departure from a heavily meat
concentrated diet (Western diet) would create harm, perhaps
catastrophically.

What is easy is harming one's health by trying.

I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I
had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this
never would have happened.

Todd Swearingen


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Keith Addison]

I'm afraid I have pretty much used all my ammunition on this. I'm not
totally convinced myself, frankly. It sounds interesting and plausible,
but if the paucity of information on the web is any indicator (and it
probably is), this is either an area that needs a lot more research, or
zero additional research. Even if it turns out to be true, obviously
humans are never going to be as efficient at the whole process as
ruminants, are, but it might have some very interesting positive
implications for better human nutrition in certain parts of the world.

And double thumbs up on Weston A. Price's books!

Christopher Witmer
Tokyo

Thanks for posting thos references Chris. Interesting, and we can do 
the Japanese stuff.

regards

Keith

Keith Addison wrote:

  If you have any references for that, Christopher, I'd be most
  interested to see them.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Hakan Falk]

 healthy cow. Feed them high-protein
concentrates and that no longer happens. One unhappy cow. A host of
unhappy beef-eaters. Perhaps some happy agribiz corporations, but I
doubt corps have the capacity for happiness, though they may be able
to gloat.

Actually earthworms and manure worms (red wrigglers, composting
worms) also do that. They eat soil and decaying organic matter, but
actually they derive their nutrition from explosions of
micro-organisms in their gut. Yet their castings (shit) contain 8
times as many micro-organisms as the surrounding soil. Weirdly (or
maybe not) the micro-organisms in the castings are the very ones
which best favour plant growth, and the ones they consume are mostly
pathogens. Isn't nature wonderful.

But I've never heard of this happening in humans, as Christopher
claims. No doubt the hyper-healthy Eskimoes of yore who only ate meat
and the hyper-healthy Hunzakats who ate not much meat but lots of
veggies, grains and fruit produced from their superb farming system,
had rather different spectra of gut micro-organisms. But I doubt they
could have been different in the way Christopher describes, with the
low-meat eaters getting their extra protein from the micro-organism
overgrowth.

If you have any references for that, Christopher, I'd be most
interested to see them.

This is the main question, I think: Which particular meat/vegetables?
How's it grown? Let's take produce raised from healthy, fertile soil
on a sustainable integrated farm, pesticide-free, additive-free, and
fresh. I'd venture to say that nobody will have health problems
eating meat from such a system, but that some people might not be
able to live healthily on the vegetables alone, though most people
probably would be able to.

Again (I have to say it often because it's an obstinate myth) there
is no environment or starvation issue here, and no versus. The
environment and starvation issues are between sustainable
mixed-farming systems and unsustainable industrial practices, and
between equitable economies and unjust economies. Sustainable
mixed-farming systems can easily be equitable, industrial farming
never is.

Regards

Keith


 OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face
 value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.'
 
 Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried?
 Uhya.right.
 
 Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like
 hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s!
 
 I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a
 passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang
 of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws
 within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier
 the better.
 
 I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and
 force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine
 bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor
 face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment?
 
 I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted
 for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not
 a bunch of home biofuel officianados.)
 
 The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating
 8-(
 
 Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their
 Prozac.
 
 Todd Swearingen
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
   Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such
 extremely low
   levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to
 death on
   them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria
 than
   meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable
 matter and
   then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their
 source
   of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet
 those
   particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of
 bacteria, and
   it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition
 from
   vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's
 intestinal
   bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet,
 but it is
   not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by
 trying.
  
   Christopher Witmer
   Tokyo
  
   Ken wrote:
  
http://www.beyondveg.com/
   
More on that, and believe me I've tried...
Ken
   
   
   Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet.  While I don't
 eat a lot
   of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving,  five times a week.
 Even the
   doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize
 this fact.  I
   have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high
 protein
   Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with
 carbohydrates.
  



Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Kim Garth Travis]

I do not consider 5 six ounce portions of meat a week, a highly meat 
centered diet.  I call it balanced.  There are major differences between 
types of meat, such as grassfed vs grain fed, beef vs emu as there are 
between miracle grow vegetables and organic vegetables.  Grass fed milk 
is a totally different product than grain fed milk.  It is real simple 
to understand, garbage in = garbage out.  Feed an animal it's natural 
diet, the product from the animal is much healthier.  The same goes for 
humans.  See eatwild.com for more info.

My doctor that attempted to put me on a vegetarian diet, says he is 
coming to believe it has something to do with metabolic rates.  People 
that have naturally high rates do require some meat to stay healthy. 
And my body temperature is .5 of a degree lower than normal. I have 
familial cholesterol, so I have had to learn about my food.

Everyone body has it's own idiosyncrasies.  Some of it is natural, other 
parts are damage caused by environment.  But we are all different.

Oh yeah, and not all westerners are raised on a meat centered diet. 
Especially in the city where one can grow their own veggies but not meat.

Bright Blessings,
Kim



Ken wrote:

 Todd,
 I'm really not saying highly meat centered diet... I've been through
 the
 diet gamut, vegetarianism, veganism, raw-foodism, brief flirtation with
 fruitarianism, for lots of years (20), .  I am worried about the B-12 issue
 which seems to be directly related to the ammount of animal food consumed as
 shown in the studies.  I am enamored with the philosophy
 of these theories...but my heros have expired at an early age, Fry,
 Shelton, Lovewisdom etc. etc.
 So I need to be realistic, I want truth in this matter...I wish, hope,
 we can get along without killing/taking other LIFE, but really I'm not so
 sure.  Any dialogue  appreciated.
 Are you and Keith co-owners/conspirators of this web???
 Thanks,
 Ken
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:47 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
   Ken,
  
   I don't see any reference within the body of text that you site
   which supports any belief that a highly meat centered diet
   (Western diet) is necessary for human health.
  
   In fact, note was made that the levels of DHA and EPA (omega-3
   poly-unsaturated fatty acids) between lacto- and/or lacto-ovo
   vegetarians and a meat centered Western diet were largely
   similar.
  
   It's rather clear that a meat centered diet (Western diet) has
   more to do with indoctrination and cultural acceptance than
   necessity to human survival.
  
   Which is fine for those who so choose. But there is little to no
   valid cause for making book that vegetarians or even vegans are
   going to start dropping in their death throes left and right.
  
   Todd Swearingen
  
   - Original Message -
   From: Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:39 PM
   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
  
  
Check out this:
http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/topics/index.shtml
Ken
   
- Original Message -
From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
   
   
 OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at
   face
 value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability
   limit.'

 Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried?
 Uhya.right.

 Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds
   like
 hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s!

 I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a
 passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first
   pang
 of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death
   throws
 within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe
   greasier
 the better.

 I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in
   and
 force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine
 bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of
   lettuceor
 face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment?

 I'd like to see where this particular theory has been
   submitted
 for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here,
   not
 a bunch of home biofuel officianados.)

 The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating
 8-(

 Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without
   their
 Prozac.

 Todd Swearingen

 - Original Message -
 From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Christopher Witmer]

Keith's words below are very much in keeping with The Milk Book by 
William Campbell Douglass, MD:
http://www.westonaprice.org/book_reviews/milk_book.html

That book was a real eye-opener for me when I first read it several 
years ago! However, I'm sure most of it won't come as a surprise to 
people on this list, where there seems to be broad familiarity with the 
problems plaguing the modern meat and dairy industry.

Christopher Witmer
Tokyo

Keith Addison wrote:

 But which particular dairy products are those, Kirk? Good clean stuff 
 from a real dairy with milk from healthy cattle on healthy pasture, 
 or the rBGH-laden, antibiotics-laden, over-processed, denatured stuff 
 from badly-fed and badly-reared, diarrhoea-ridden, disease-ridden 
 industrial beasts?
 
 You're dead right about refined carbohydrates - see Cleave, for instance:
 http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave
 
 There's no arguing with that. That and all the processing, and 
 5,000-odd food additives.
 
 But dairy is complicated - Cherokee's would have had a 
 lactose-intolerance, like many people are said to have. Including the 
 Chinese, though it's not that simple - dairy is standard fare in 
 North China, and now in the South too, and if there are ill-health 
 effects it comes from replacing their traditional diet with junk 
 food, not from the dairy (though a lot of it is now industrial dairy).



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Keith Addison]

Hello Hakan

Keith,

Thank you for a very good piece on the food question. As usual, you
hit a lot of nails. I do want to add a couple of things and questions,

- During the last 200 years, the average life span for the human
   have gone from 35 years to around 80 years in the industrialized
   countries and are still very much lower in other places.

I don't have any faith in that figure, and it causes a lot of 
confusion. The work of Weston Price and many other investigators show 
it is a very one-sided statistic at best. Note the 200 years - what 
happened 200 years ago? The so-called Industrial Revolution 
(so-called because it wasn't really, mass-production long preceded 
it, it was an energy revolution, via steam).

That's when population statistics started being recorded in earnest, 
and what was being measured were largely rural populations dislocated 
to extremely unhealthy mass-living conditions in ready-made urban 
slums, for use as factory fodder. And indeed they didn't live long. 
One thing that was totally disrupted was their diet. A lot of other 
things started happening round then and not long afterwards - 
steel-milling that denatured flour and the bread, canning and 
preserving, rising use of sugar and refined carbohydrates, the spread 
of trade foods.

Looking at these same rural populations prior to their dislocation 
gives a quite different picture. In some instances it was not a 
pretty picture, mainly because of feudalism and induced poverty, but 
where traditional peoples were allowed to live on and off the land, 
people mostly lived a long time and had few ailments, and little or 
none of the degenerative diseases that have everywhere followed 
industrialization.

So many times I've seen newspaper and journal articles saying 
something like an ancient crypt had been discovered somewhere, and 
researchers expected to find what you say: early deaths, poor diet, 
arthritic joints, bad teeth. If you take the trouble to follow them 
up, they find quite the opposite, to their surprise - long lives, no 
arthritis, full sets of healthy teeth. But the myth that we're 
healthier now and live longer now has such a firm grip that they're 
all just written off as exceptions. I've had a doctor tell me 
angrily: Of course we're healthier now, we have six times as many 
hospital beds! LOL! I burst out laughing, and he got furious.

But see Weston Price - please!!
http://journeytoforever.org/text_price.html

What you have now in the industrialized nations is quite long 
life-expectancy, but not much health, and it's very expensive! 
Treating the symptom only, not the causes. In the countries where 
life-expectancy is low, it's mostly due to imposed poverty, that was 
not there previously. This happened usually during the colonial era, 
then it generally improved somewhat in the post-colonial era, and has 
been going backwards again since the rise of corporate globalization 
20+ years ago. Poverty and environmental degradation are closely 
inter-related, and neither necessarily has anything to do with 
overpopulation (mostly another myth).

Major contributors
   to this, was potatoes and antibiotics. Potatoes because it is one
   of the few food supplies that contains all what the body need and
   antibiotics because of its solution to the common infection problems.
   Potatoes are today covering up for much of the food habits in the
   industrial societies and give a fair survival rate for others. But the
   serious question is, if more than 35 years average life span is natural?
   If it is not, it might be a reason for much of the current problems.
   Personally, I find this to be a good development and if we work
   hard on solving the side effects in a good way, it would be responsible.

See above.

- Yes, it is enough food in the world, for everybody to eat. The
problem is the system of distribution. If we take away the
industrial food production and all the serious problems
around it, we might have a general food shortage. How do we find
a balance? Humanity is not known for its capacity to be balanced.

Don't look at it from the top down, Hakan. Sustainable food 
production systems that actually feed people instead of just 
producing commodities for trade are making great headway in the Third 
World and elsewhere. It's not either-or, it's a steady, accelerating 
replacement. Probably most people in many Third World cities would 
not be fed anyway were it not for strictly local city-farming 
initiatives, the industrial stuff doesn't help much. Only a fraction 
of the potential of city-farming has yet been explored. In fact many 
local governments still put obstacles in its path.

- Potatoes was accompanied by syphilis and we could maybe make
   a parallel with antibiotics and HIV. It is not a serious scientific
suggestion
   from my side, only a side note. Nature might have its own ways of
   trying to fight humanity and its un-natural growth,

I don't agree that human 

RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[kirk]

When you eat something and you get mucus, and you can tell because you are
now clearing your throat and have enhanced drainage, why do you eat it
again? Mucus is the reaction to an irritant.
Seems many are oblivious to their body. How can a mucus producing substance
be rationalized as healthy?

Kirk

But which particular dairy products are those, Kirk? Good clean stuff
from a real dairy with milk from healthy cattle on healthy pasture,
or the rBGH-laden, antibiotics-laden, over-processed, denatured stuff
from badly-fed and badly-reared, diarrhoea-ridden, disease-ridden
industrial beasts?

You're dead right about refined carbohydrates - see Cleave, for instance:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave

There's no arguing with that. That and all the processing, and
5,000-odd food additives.

But dairy is complicated - Cherokee's would have had a
lactose-intolerance, like many people are said to have. Including the
Chinese, though it's not that simple - dairy is standard fare in
North China, and now in the South too, and if there are ill-health
effects it comes from replacing their traditional diet with junk
food, not from the dairy (though a lot of it is now industrial dairy).

Best

Keith

Many Dairy cows today live without pasturage. This is true where the
business is close to a city and land is too valuable to be used to grow
grass. Price knew cows need green grass.

As for dairy I have eliminated ice cream and milk and don't eat any cheese
at the last meal of the day.
Doing much better as a result.

Kirk


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Hakan Falk]

At 10:25 PM 8/16/2002 +0900, you wrote:
Hello Hakan

 Keith,
 
 Thank you for a very good piece on the food question. As usual, you
 hit a lot of nails. I do want to add a couple of things and questions,
 
 - During the last 200 years, the average life span for the human
have gone from 35 years to around 80 years in the industrialized
countries and are still very much lower in other places.

I don't have any faith in that figure, and it causes a lot of
confusion. The work of Weston Price and many other investigators show
it is a very one-sided statistic at best. Note the 200 years - what
happened 200 years ago? The so-called Industrial Revolution
(so-called because it wasn't really, mass-production long preceded
it, it was an energy revolution, via steam).

I think that you will find the numbers about average life span well
collaborated. Apart from that Europe at that time had well functioning
registration of birth and death, the only thing that is needed for this. It
even exist studies from that time. You will be surprised if you study
engineering books published 150 years ago, I have some from my
family. At least I know quite a lot of what happened in my family
200 years back. They were also involved in forest management around
150 years ago, which came from Germany.

In Sweden and Ireland, the potato had already done major impacts and
the average life span was well above 40. Other countries were less.



That's when population statistics started being recorded in earnest,
and what was being measured were largely rural populations dislocated
to extremely unhealthy mass-living conditions in ready-made urban
slums, for use as factory fodder. And indeed they didn't live long.
One thing that was totally disrupted was their diet. A lot of other
things started happening round then and not long afterwards -
steel-milling that denatured flour and the bread, canning and
preserving, rising use of sugar and refined carbohydrates, the spread
of trade foods.

Population statistics, started with Napoleon and was introduced
in Europe during his reign. He was actually running the first large
consulting organization in state economy/organization.

With the introduction of the potato in Ireland, it tripled its population
in a very short time span, lower child death and longer life. They had
only one variety of potato, where other European countries used several.
(The original potatoes came from the Andes in South America). When the
variety that Ireland used was destroyed by a pest, it was a disaster and the
start of the famous Irish potato fame. Therefore many of the Irish left
for the New World.



Looking at these same rural populations prior to their dislocation
gives a quite different picture. In some instances it was not a
pretty picture, mainly because of feudalism and induced poverty, but
where traditional peoples were allowed to live on and off the land,
people mostly lived a long time and had few ailments, and little or
none of the degenerative diseases that have everywhere followed
industrialization.

The main killer, up to 70 years ago, was infections and bacteria.
Degenerative diseases occurs mostly after 40 years of age and in
this case we have no really reliable statistics. Many of those
diseases had no names or diagnoses until the last few decades.
We do not now very much, if anything, about the history of them,
or if they would have occurred more frequently under same
circumstances in the past.



So many times I've seen newspaper and journal articles saying
something like an ancient crypt had been discovered somewhere, and
researchers expected to find what you say: early deaths, poor diet,
arthritic joints, bad teeth. If you take the trouble to follow them
up, they find quite the opposite, to their surprise - long lives, no
arthritis, full sets of healthy teeth.

It it possible that if you go to the special people that you find in
crypts, they were amazingly healthy. The average life span for the
Egyptians and Romans, was maybe longer. They had a culture of
cleanliness and the big problems started with the Christians, when
a clean soul was more important than a clean body.

But the myth that we're
healthier now and live longer now has such a firm grip that they're
all just written off as exceptions. I've had a doctor tell me
angrily: Of course we're healthier now, we have six times as many
hospital beds! LOL! I burst out laughing, and he got furious.

If you look at the living population, I do not think that you can assume
that we are healthier now. Because it is so many diseases that are
not fatal any longer, we probably have a lot of more both sick and
ill people. It is a consequence of living longer.


But see Weston Price - please!!
http://journeytoforever.org/text_price.html

What you have now in the industrialized nations is quite long
life-expectancy, but not much health, and it's very expensive!
Treating the symptom only, not the causes.

Cannot agree more with this.

In the countries 

RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[kirk]

200 years back we were suffering the effects of industrialization. You have
to go further back than that.

Many of those diseases had no names or diagnoses until the last few
decades.
We do not now very much, if anything, about the history of them,
or if they would have occurred more frequently under same
circumstances in the past.

The old saw that cancer was prolific but they couldn't diagnose it stretches
credulity to the max. Anyone who has ever visited an oncology ward can
testify to that. To say a Dr. wouldn't know what it was staggers me, yet
that is the official explanation. What Price and Pottenger said is almost
universally met with denial. They have to sell us on how swell it is or we
might want to drop out. As Freud said, civilization may not be worth the
price.

Kirk

-Original Message-
From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:18 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


At 10:25 PM 8/16/2002 +0900, you wrote:
Hello Hakan

 Keith,
 
 Thank you for a very good piece on the food question. As usual, you
 hit a lot of nails. I do want to add a couple of things and questions,
 
 - During the last 200 years, the average life span for the human
have gone from 35 years to around 80 years in the industrialized
countries and are still very much lower in other places.

I don't have any faith in that figure, and it causes a lot of
confusion. The work of Weston Price and many other investigators show
it is a very one-sided statistic at best. Note the 200 years - what
happened 200 years ago? The so-called Industrial Revolution
(so-called because it wasn't really, mass-production long preceded
it, it was an energy revolution, via steam).

I think that you will find the numbers about average life span well
collaborated. Apart from that Europe at that time had well functioning
registration of birth and death, the only thing that is needed for this. It
even exist studies from that time. You will be surprised if you study
engineering books published 150 years ago, I have some from my
family. At least I know quite a lot of what happened in my family
200 years back. They were also involved in forest management around
150 years ago, which came from Germany.

In Sweden and Ireland, the potato had already done major impacts and
the average life span was well above 40. Other countries were less.



That's when population statistics started being recorded in earnest,
and what was being measured were largely rural populations dislocated
to extremely unhealthy mass-living conditions in ready-made urban
slums, for use as factory fodder. And indeed they didn't live long.
One thing that was totally disrupted was their diet. A lot of other
things started happening round then and not long afterwards -
steel-milling that denatured flour and the bread, canning and
preserving, rising use of sugar and refined carbohydrates, the spread
of trade foods.

Population statistics, started with Napoleon and was introduced
in Europe during his reign. He was actually running the first large
consulting organization in state economy/organization.

With the introduction of the potato in Ireland, it tripled its population
in a very short time span, lower child death and longer life. They had
only one variety of potato, where other European countries used several.
(The original potatoes came from the Andes in South America). When the
variety that Ireland used was destroyed by a pest, it was a disaster and the
start of the famous Irish potato fame. Therefore many of the Irish left
for the New World.



Looking at these same rural populations prior to their dislocation
gives a quite different picture. In some instances it was not a
pretty picture, mainly because of feudalism and induced poverty, but
where traditional peoples were allowed to live on and off the land,
people mostly lived a long time and had few ailments, and little or
none of the degenerative diseases that have everywhere followed
industrialization.

The main killer, up to 70 years ago, was infections and bacteria.
Degenerative diseases occurs mostly after 40 years of age and in
this case we have no really reliable statistics. Many of those
diseases had no names or diagnoses until the last few decades.
We do not now very much, if anything, about the history of them,
or if they would have occurred more frequently under same
circumstances in the past.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Appal Energy]

The end of the human race will be that we eventually die of
civilization.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

- Original Message -
From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


[snip]

 As Freud said, civilization may not be worth the
 price.

 Kirk

 -Original Message-
 From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:18 AM
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 At 10:25 PM 8/16/2002 +0900, you wrote:
 Hello Hakan
 
  Keith,
  
  Thank you for a very good piece on the food question. As
usual, you
  hit a lot of nails. I do want to add a couple of things and
questions,
  
  - During the last 200 years, the average life span for the
human
 have gone from 35 years to around 80 years in the
industrialized
 countries and are still very much lower in other places.
 
 I don't have any faith in that figure, and it causes a lot of
 confusion. The work of Weston Price and many other
investigators show
 it is a very one-sided statistic at best. Note the 200
years - what
 happened 200 years ago? The so-called Industrial Revolution
 (so-called because it wasn't really, mass-production long
preceded
 it, it was an energy revolution, via steam).

 I think that you will find the numbers about average life span
well
 collaborated. Apart from that Europe at that time had well
functioning
 registration of birth and death, the only thing that is needed
for this. It
 even exist studies from that time. You will be surprised if you
study
 engineering books published 150 years ago, I have some from my
 family. At least I know quite a lot of what happened in my
family
 200 years back. They were also involved in forest management
around
 150 years ago, which came from Germany.

 In Sweden and Ireland, the potato had already done major
impacts and
 the average life span was well above 40. Other countries were
less.



 That's when population statistics started being recorded in
earnest,
 and what was being measured were largely rural populations
dislocated
 to extremely unhealthy mass-living conditions in ready-made
urban
 slums, for use as factory fodder. And indeed they didn't live
long.
 One thing that was totally disrupted was their diet. A lot of
other
 things started happening round then and not long afterwards -
 steel-milling that denatured flour and the bread, canning and
 preserving, rising use of sugar and refined carbohydrates, the
spread
 of trade foods.

 Population statistics, started with Napoleon and was introduced
 in Europe during his reign. He was actually running the first
large
 consulting organization in state economy/organization.

 With the introduction of the potato in Ireland, it tripled its
population
 in a very short time span, lower child death and longer life.
They had
 only one variety of potato, where other European countries used
several.
 (The original potatoes came from the Andes in South America).
When the
 variety that Ireland used was destroyed by a pest, it was a
disaster and the
 start of the famous Irish potato fame. Therefore many of the
Irish left
 for the New World.



 Looking at these same rural populations prior to their
dislocation
 gives a quite different picture. In some instances it was not
a
 pretty picture, mainly because of feudalism and induced
poverty, but
 where traditional peoples were allowed to live on and off the
land,
 people mostly lived a long time and had few ailments, and
little or
 none of the degenerative diseases that have everywhere
followed
 industrialization.

 The main killer, up to 70 years ago, was infections and
bacteria.
 Degenerative diseases occurs mostly after 40 years of age and
in
 this case we have no really reliable statistics. Many of those
 diseases had no names or diagnoses until the last few decades.
 We do not now very much, if anything, about the history of
them,
 or if they would have occurred more frequently under same
 circumstances in the past.



  Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor -~--
 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
 http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
 ---
--~-

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Biofuels list archives:
 http://archive.nnytech.net/

 Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
 To unsubscribe, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Keith Addison]

Kim,

CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than economic
being the motivator.

Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat, veg
oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals.
Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's
possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less
impact.

Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer
kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop.

And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between a 
mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough, between 
poultry and pesticides.

Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, 
but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. 
There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and 
never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later 
fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed 
farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't 
do it, and neither can we.

Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one side of 
the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef farm (factory) 
on the other, with its shit-lagoon.

But I know you know that, and so does Kim.

Best

Keith


As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft wood
gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped.
Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity
and/or transportation.
http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm

Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will follow.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 
  It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists has
their own
  agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the choices
is very
  difficult.
 
  For example:  In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as cleaning my
butcher
  shop; Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or the
steam
  cleaners?  I know chlorine is feminizing the environment and is
real bad
  for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest of
the
  antibacterial cleaners are about the same.  So is using
electricity bad
  for the environment.
 
  Or:  Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were to
be
  burned, then burn it in a HAHSA and add a little electricity in
the form
  of recirculating pumps and use it for heat and hot water, or
let the
  piles be burned and use propane to heat?  The problem here is
that while
  my neighbors may eventually get more environmentally sound [I
wish] and
  quit burning brush piles, but I will be locked into burning
wood.
 
  Is anyone else interested in this kind of debate?
 
  Bright Blessings,
  Kim


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Appal Energy]

Keith and Kim,

Personally? I'd settle for a few goats and chickens. And when
need be, put the sharpest kitchen knife to butchering use.

Not exactly what anyone who owns a butcher shop wants to hear,
but centralized meat processing is one reason why the world
consumes so much meat. Literally 99.99% of western
[un]civilization has been desensitized to the process via their
removal from it.

Were everyone who ate meat forced to kill and clean their own,
you can bank on the fact that there would be considerably fewer
cattle on the face of the Earth, erego considerably more forest.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 Kim,
 
 CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than
economic
 being the motivator.
 
 Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat,
veg
 oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals.
 Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's
 possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less
 impact.
 
 Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer
 kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop.

 And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between
a
 mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough,
between
 poultry and pesticides.

 Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these
things,
 but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without
animals.
 There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used
animals, and
 never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or
later
 fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature
mixed
 farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God
can't
 do it, and neither can we.

 Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one
side of
 the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef farm
(factory)
 on the other, with its shit-lagoon.

 But I know you know that, and so does Kim.

 Best

 Keith


 As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft
wood
 gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped.
 Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity
 and/or transportation.
 http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm
 
 Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will
follow.
 
 Todd Swearingen
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM
 Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
  
   It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists
has
 their own
   agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the
choices
 is very
   difficult.
  
   For example:  In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as
cleaning my
 butcher
   shop; Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or
the
 steam
   cleaners?  I know chlorine is feminizing the environment
and is
 real bad
   for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest
of
 the
   antibacterial cleaners are about the same.  So is using
 electricity bad
   for the environment.
  
   Or:  Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were
to
 be
   burned, then burn it in a HAHSA and add a little
electricity in
 the form
   of recirculating pumps and use it for heat and hot water,
or
 let the
   piles be burned and use propane to heat?  The problem here
is
 that while
   my neighbors may eventually get more environmentally sound
[I
 wish] and
   quit burning brush piles, but I will be locked into burning
 wood.
  
   Is anyone else interested in this kind of debate?
  
   Bright Blessings,
   Kim


   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ADVERTISEMENT



 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Biofuels list archives:
 http://archive.nnytech.net/

 Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
 To unsubscribe, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Kim Garth Travis]

I am talking about my personal butcher shop.  I also use the same 
facility to make cheese, so cleanliness is vital.  All of my ruminants 
will be strictly grass fed, when I get them.  For now I buy on hoof from 
a certified grassfed farm.  My birds are all on the range, emus, ducks, 
geese and chickens.  My pigs are on concrete, but only so I can get 
something else done on the farm other than repenning them and fixing 
their pen.  I am slow at bringing in ruminants, since I had to rebuild 
my soil to support them, I bought an old cotton, corn, then cattle farm.

Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to butcher a goat with just a 
knife?  Cutting through the backbone is hard enough with a hand held 
[muscle powered] meat saw, I wouldn't want to try it with a knife.
What is wrong with have a meat saw?  Some of my neighbors have started 
to butcher their own animals, at my place, using my equipment.  This 
feeds the vultures and fire ants, not just the humans.

Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet.  While I don't eat a lot 
of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving,  five times a week.  Even the 
doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact.  I 
have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein 
Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates.

Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20 
acres, we need the help of our animals.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

Appal Energy wrote:

 Keith and Kim,
 
 Personally? I'd settle for a few goats and chickens. And when
 need be, put the sharpest kitchen knife to butchering use.
 
 Not exactly what anyone who owns a butcher shop wants to hear,
 but centralized meat processing is one reason why the world
 consumes so much meat. Literally 99.99% of western
 [un]civilization has been desensitized to the process via their
 removal from it.
 
 Were everyone who ate meat forced to kill and clean their own,
 you can bank on the fact that there would be considerably fewer
 cattle on the face of the Earth, erego considerably more forest.
 
 Todd Swearingen
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:16 AM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
   Kim,
   
   CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than
 economic
   being the motivator.
   
   Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat,
 veg
   oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals.
   Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's
   possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less
   impact.
   
   Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer
   kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop.
  
   And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between
 a
   mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough,
 between
   poultry and pesticides.
  
   Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these
 things,
   but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without
 animals.
   There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used
 animals, and
   never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or
 later
   fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature
 mixed
   farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God
 can't
   do it, and neither can we.
  
   Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one
 side of
   the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef farm
 (factory)
   on the other, with its shit-lagoon.
  
   But I know you know that, and so does Kim.
  
   Best
  
   Keith
  
  
   As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft
 wood
   gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped.
   Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity
   and/or transportation.
   http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm
   
   Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will
 follow.
   
   Todd Swearingen
   
   - Original Message -
   From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM
   Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
   
   

 It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists
 has
   their own
 agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the
 choices
   is very
 difficult.

 For example:  In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as
 cleaning my
   butcher
 shop; Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or
 the
   steam
 cleaners?  I know chlorine is feminizing the environment
 and is
   real bad
 for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest
 of
   the
 antibacterial cleaners are about the same.  So is using
   electricity bad
 for the environment.

 Or:  Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Ken]

http://www.beyondveg.com/

More on that, and believe me I've tried...
Ken

 Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet.  While I don't eat a lot 
 of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving,  five times a week.  Even the 
 doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact.  I 
 have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein 
 Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates.
 
 Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20 
 acres, we need the help of our animals.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Keith Addison]

Keith and Kim,

Personally? I'd settle for a few goats and chickens.

Not enough, if you're producing crops for your family and for sale.

And when
need be, put the sharpest kitchen knife to butchering use.

Not exactly what anyone who owns a butcher shop wants to hear,
but centralized meat processing is one reason why the world
consumes so much meat.

I don't think Kim is doing anything remotely like centralized meat 
processing. That's the worst of all worlds, for the animals and for 
the consumers, and those animals are generally raised with high 
environment costs, externalized of course.

Literally 99.99% of western
[un]civilization has been desensitized to the process via their
removal from it.

That's only the West though, and I think the number's too high anyway.

Were everyone who ate meat forced to kill and clean their own,
you can bank on the fact that there would be considerably fewer
cattle on the face of the Earth, erego considerably more forest.

No, I don't agree with this.

First, most of the world's people are not as divorced from it all as 
you think, a great many aren't divorced from it at all, and never 
have been. Western city-dwellers who take to the land don't seem to 
mind the butchery part of it at all - bit of a trauma the first time 
maybe, but they quickly get used to it. I follow the doings of 
American homesteaders, new homesteaders, would-be homesteaders, quite 
a lot, and it's not a major subject, surprisingly minor.

Grassland - grazing land - and forests are opposites, as you 
indicate. Take the grazing animals away and the grass reverts to 
forest, eventually, through several stages.

There have been several studies that found that grassland and pasture 
hold more carbon than forests do. I think it depends on the pasture, 
and on the forest, but there's probably not a big difference either 
way.

On a mixed, integrated farm, the cattle (beef and dairy produce) are 
a by-product. The primary product of the grassland is soil fertility. 
You rotate the grass leys over the whole farm; the grass sod, 
ploughed in, provides more than enough fertility for 3-4 years of 
subsequent cropping.

Trees are an integral part of a mixed farm - there are woodlots and 
orchards (plus livestock), hedges, and trees in the fields and 
everywhere else.

There are no either-or's here, no externalizations, and it's 
perfectly sustainable.

If you're talking about industrialized operations, I agree with you, 
but please don't confuse the two things.

Take a guess what the main grazing animal of Europe is. Cattle? 
Sheep? The vole.

Regards

Keith


Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


  Kim,
  
  CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than
economic
  being the motivator.
  
  Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat,
veg
  oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals.
  Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's
  possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less
  impact.
  
  Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer
  kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop.
 
  And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between
a
  mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough,
between
  poultry and pesticides.
 
  Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these
things,
  but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without
animals.
  There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used
animals, and
  never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or
later
  fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature
mixed
  farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God
can't
  do it, and neither can we.
 
  Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one
side of
  the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef farm
(factory)
  on the other, with its shit-lagoon.
 
  But I know you know that, and so does Kim.
 
  Best
 
  Keith
 
 
  As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft
wood
  gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped.
  Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity
  and/or transportation.
  http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm
  
  Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will
follow.
  
  Todd Swearingen
  
  - Original Message -
  From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM
  Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
  
  
   
It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists
has
  their own
agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the
choices
  is very
difficult.
   
For example:  In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as
cleaning my

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Appal Energy]

Kim,

Can't say as I've butchered a goat with the kitchen knife yet.
But I have done so with a white tail - sans back saw.

Was and wasn't kidding about moving the bandsaw to the woodshop
though. But then that would only be if there was no longer a need
for it in the butcher shop. I guess I had the picture of
something more akin to a butcher shop as a going concern, not a
summer kitchen.

By design we're rather lucky here, as we have little demand for
meat beyond the occasional addition in a chef salad, soup or
stew. Oddly enough, no one has reached withering status here
yet or gone into fits of delirium whilst craving a sausage egg
and cheese biscuit.

However, I will confess. When it comes to eggs we've moved
towards centralized production, as we don't consume enough to
warrant keeping the first hen, much less maintaining a coop .
Seems that trading services in exchange for a dozen or so eggs
from a neighbor now and then is about the extent of the household
needs.

Still rather partial to the whole successionary idea, however -
letting over-produced land return to the wild grass or forest
that it once was. It takes far less space and effort to feed a
human being with a less meat centered diet.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 I am talking about my personal butcher shop.  I also use the
same
 facility to make cheese, so cleanliness is vital.  All of my
ruminants
 will be strictly grass fed, when I get them.  For now I buy on
hoof from
 a certified grassfed farm.  My birds are all on the range,
emus, ducks,
 geese and chickens.  My pigs are on concrete, but only so I can
get
 something else done on the farm other than repenning them and
fixing
 their pen.  I am slow at bringing in ruminants, since I had to
rebuild
 my soil to support them, I bought an old cotton, corn, then
cattle farm.

 Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to butcher a goat with
just a
 knife?  Cutting through the backbone is hard enough with a hand
held
 [muscle powered] meat saw, I wouldn't want to try it with a
knife.
 What is wrong with have a meat saw?  Some of my neighbors have
started
 to butcher their own animals, at my place, using my equipment.
This
 feeds the vultures and fire ants, not just the humans.

 Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet.  While I don't
eat a lot
 of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving,  five times a week.
Even the
 doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this
fact.  I
 have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high
protein
 Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with
carbohydrates.

 Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to
revitalize 20
 acres, we need the help of our animals.

 Bright Blessings,
 Kim

 Appal Energy wrote:

  Keith and Kim,
 
  Personally? I'd settle for a few goats and chickens. And when
  need be, put the sharpest kitchen knife to butchering use.
 
  Not exactly what anyone who owns a butcher shop wants to
hear,
  but centralized meat processing is one reason why the world
  consumes so much meat. Literally 99.99% of western
  [un]civilization has been desensitized to the process via
their
  removal from it.
 
  Were everyone who ate meat forced to kill and clean their
own,
  you can bank on the fact that there would be considerably
fewer
  cattle on the face of the Earth, erego considerably more
forest.
 
  Todd Swearingen
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
Kim,

CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than
  economic
being the motivator.

Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal
fat,
  veg
oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less
chemicals.
Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then
it's
possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has
less
impact.

Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a
summer
kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop.
   
And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too
between
  a
mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough,
  between
poultry and pesticides.
   
Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these
  things,
but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without
  animals.
There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used
  animals, and
never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility
sooner or
  later
fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in
nature
  mixed
farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals.
God
  can't
do it, and neither can we.
   
Mixed farming does NOT mean miles

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Greg and April]

- Original Message -
From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 07:49
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?



 Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20
 acres, we need the help of our animals.


Actualy you still may be in good condition to better the soil, on your farm.
From you buchering opperation, the skin, hair, feathers and guts are high in
Nitrogen, the bones can be ground up and will provide a little Nitrogen,
plenty of Calicum as well as some Potassium, and Phospherous.  If you burn
the bone, ( need a hot fire ) it will decrease the amount of N, but, it will
make it easier to grind, and if you use hard wood to burn it and use the
ashes, you will add more Potassium, as well as some other macro, and, some
micro nutrents.  Wood ashes has a limeing effect on soil ( but, you need
more to obtain the same amount ), but, adds the extra nutrents as well.

Check out Kura Clover, at this web site ( I think you will like what you
see ), it is about useing Kura Clover as a living mulch:

http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/mjgca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%2
9SEARCHID=1029430130370_860TITLEABSTRACT=Kura+clover%2CLiving+Mulch+JOURN
ALCODE=FIRSTINDEX=0hits=10RESULTFORMAT=gca=agrojnl%3B92%2F4%2F698

Greg H.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Greg and April]

No problem, I am planning on getting my own small farm/ranch in the next
5-10 yrs., mean while I have been busy doing the learing now. If you have
more questions/problems, let me know, I might just have an answer.

Greg H.

- Original Message -
From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 Thanks for the information.  I generally brain tan the skins, but using
 the rest I had not thought of, other than to feed the buzzards, that is.
 Bright Blessings,
 Kim

 Greg and April wrote:

 
  - Original Message -
  From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 07:49
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
   
Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20
acres, we need the help of our animals.
   
 
  Actualy you still may be in good condition to better the soil, on your
farm.
   From you buchering opperation, the skin, hair, feathers and guts are
  high in
  Nitrogen, the bones can be ground up and will provide a little Nitrogen,
  plenty of Calicum as well as some Potassium, and Phospherous.  If you
burn
  the bone, ( need a hot fire ) it will decrease the amount of N, but, it
will
  make it easier to grind, and if you use hard wood to burn it and use the
  ashes, you will add more Potassium, as well as some other macro, and,
some
  micro nutrents.  Wood ashes has a limeing effect on soil ( but, you need
  more to obtain the same amount ), but, adds the extra nutrents as well.
 
  Check out Kura Clover, at this web site ( I think you will like what you
  see ), it is about useing Kura Clover as a living mulch:
 
 
http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/mjgca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%2
 
9SEARCHID=1029430130370_860TITLEABSTRACT=Kura+clover%2CLiving+Mulch+JOURN
  ALCODE=FIRSTINDEX=0hits=10RESULTFORMAT=gca=agrojnl%3B92%2F4%2F698
 
  Greg H.
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  ADVERTISEMENT
  http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_youh1.gif
 
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=231049.2208958.3660596.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17050832
69:HM/A=1175219/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/grp/300_youH1/g22lp?Tar
get=mm/g22lp.tmpl
 
 
  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
  Biofuels list archives:
  http://archive.nnytech.net/
 
  Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
  To unsubscribe, send an email to:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/.



 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Biofuels list archives:
 http://archive.nnytech.net/

 Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
 To unsubscribe, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Kim Garth Travis]

Thanks for the information.  I generally brain tan the skins, but using 
the rest I had not thought of, other than to feed the buzzards, that is.
Bright Blessings,
Kim

Greg and April wrote:

 
 - Original Message -
 From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 07:49
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
  
   Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20
   acres, we need the help of our animals.
  
 
 Actualy you still may be in good condition to better the soil, on your farm.
  From you buchering opperation, the skin, hair, feathers and guts are 
 high in
 Nitrogen, the bones can be ground up and will provide a little Nitrogen,
 plenty of Calicum as well as some Potassium, and Phospherous.  If you burn
 the bone, ( need a hot fire ) it will decrease the amount of N, but, it will
 make it easier to grind, and if you use hard wood to burn it and use the
 ashes, you will add more Potassium, as well as some other macro, and, some
 micro nutrents.  Wood ashes has a limeing effect on soil ( but, you need
 more to obtain the same amount ), but, adds the extra nutrents as well.
 
 Check out Kura Clover, at this web site ( I think you will like what you
 see ), it is about useing Kura Clover as a living mulch:
 
 http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/mjgca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%2
 9SEARCHID=1029430130370_860TITLEABSTRACT=Kura+clover%2CLiving+Mulch+JOURN
 ALCODE=FIRSTINDEX=0hits=10RESULTFORMAT=gca=agrojnl%3B92%2F4%2F698
 
 Greg H.
 
 
 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ADVERTISEMENT
 http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_youh1.gif 
 http://rd.yahoo.com/M=231049.2208958.3660596.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705083269:HM/A=1175219/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/grp/300_youH1/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
 
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Biofuels list archives:
 http://archive.nnytech.net/
 
 Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
 To unsubscribe, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[MH]

 Keith wrote:
 There have been several studies that found that grassland and pasture
 hold more carbon than forests do. I think it depends on the pasture,
 and on the forest, but there's probably not a big difference either
 way.

 MH wrote:
 I've heard of similar studies suggesting root growth from various
 grasses exceed above ground growth effectively storing CO2. 

 Trees, generally, on the other hand might produce more O2 but
 their growth above ground exceeds root growth thus slowly releasing
 CO2 during natural decomposition. 

 Having read prior to the formation of a glacial period trees defoliate
 eventually replaced by grasses, assuming on my part, to sequester CO2
 that may have caused or contributed to prior bouts with global warming
 and wild fires encouraging regrowth provided their drought tolerant. 

 I'm guessing this is theory based on scientific facts and
 would welcome additional information and corrections. 

 Thank you. 

``

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Christopher Witmer]

Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such extremely low 
levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to death on 
them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria than 
meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable matter and 
then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their source 
of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet those 
particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of bacteria, and 
it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition from 
vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's intestinal 
bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet, but it is 
not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by trying.

Christopher Witmer
Tokyo

Ken wrote:

 http://www.beyondveg.com/
 
 More on that, and believe me I've tried...
 Ken
 
 
Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet.  While I don't eat a lot 
of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving,  five times a week.  Even the 
doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact.  I 
have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein 
Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Ken]

Check out this:
http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/topics/index.shtml
Ken

- Original Message -
From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face
 value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.'

 Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried?
 Uhya.right.

 Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like
 hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s!

 I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a
 passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang
 of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws
 within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier
 the better.

 I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and
 force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine
 bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor
 face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment?

 I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted
 for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not
 a bunch of home biofuel officianados.)

 The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating
 8-(

 Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their
 Prozac.

 Todd Swearingen

 - Original Message -
 From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


  Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such
 extremely low
  levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to
 death on
  them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria
 than
  meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable
 matter and
  then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their
 source
  of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet
 those
  particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of
 bacteria, and
  it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition
 from
  vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's
 intestinal
  bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet,
 but it is
  not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by
 trying.
 
  Christopher Witmer
  Tokyo
 
  Ken wrote:
 
   http://www.beyondveg.com/
  
   More on that, and believe me I've tried...
   Ken
  
  
  Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet.  While I don't
 eat a lot
  of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving,  five times a week.
 Even the
  doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize
 this fact.  I
  have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high
 protein
  Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with
 carbohydrates.
 
 
 
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
 
  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
  Biofuels list archives:
  http://archive.nnytech.net/
 
  Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
  To unsubscribe, send an email to:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
 Service.
 
 



 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Biofuels list archives:
 http://archive.nnytech.net/

 Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
 To unsubscribe, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Christopher Witmer]

Todd,

In a rare twist, it is a lot easier to find information on this in 
Japanese Internet than in English; this may be due to Japanese 
researchers' language limitations.

Japanese-only link at Chiba University:
http://photo-m.tp.chiba-u.ac.jp/~adeno/sci/bio.htm

I first heard about this on a Japanese television program -- 
Japanese-only link to the television program's webpage on this subject:
http://www.ntv.co.jp/FERC/research/19980208/f0518.html

I wasn't able to find anything in English on the Internet, although I 
did find passing references to one of the key studies in this area:

Bergersen, F.J. and E.H. Hipsley (1970). The presence of N2 - fixing 
bacteria in the intestines of man and animals. Journal of Tropical 
Pediatrics 11: 28-34.

To summarize the theory, the Papua highlander diet consists primarily of 
yams and taro (average of about 1.5kg per day), from which they are able 
to *directly* assimilate only 15g of protein. The amount of directly 
assimilated protein is simply insufficient to maintain their heavy 
musculature (and these people tend to be very muscular) let alone the 
minimum level needed for survival over time. A professor Mitsuoka of 
Tokyo University theorizes that the intestinal flora of the Papua 
highlander are different from those of peoples accustomed to eating 
meat. Indeed, when people from outside the region try to eat the Papua 
highlander diet, they suffer from extreme flatulence, to the great 
amusement of the Papua highlanders, who have very little or none. 
Conversely, consumption of pork can make Papua highlanders ill, 
sometimes fatally so, whilst people accustomed to eating meat suffer 
from no ill effects. Analysis of feces of Papua highlanders reveals 
total nitrogen content to be double that of the pre-assimilated food. 
This increase is in all likelihood due to the presence of 
nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the intestines of Papua highlanders. 
(Apparently the same sorts of bacteria associated with leguminous 
nitrogen fixation are taking atmospheric nitrogen and fixing it in the 
intestines of the Papua highlanders.) These bacteria then in turn become 
the source of adequate protein for the Papua highlanders. Another 
possibility is that ammonia is somehow being converted into protein 
(pigs and cows have this ability); Papua highlander feces are found to 
have twice the ammonia content of Japanese. It is suspected -- though 
hardly conclusively proven -- that half of the protein in the Papua 
highlander diet comes directly from yams and taro, and the other half 
from nitrogen fixing bacteria and/or ammonia conversion. Otherwise, it 
is hard to explain how these people are able to survive. Reportedly, it 
is possible to for meat eaters to adjust to the Papua highlander diet; 
however, it takes half a year for the intestinal environment to get to 
the point where adequate nutrition can be derived.

(You can feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether this 
theory constitutes rationalization of meat eating.)

Christopher Witmer
Tokyo

Appal Energy wrote:

 OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face
 value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.'
 
 Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried?
 Uhya.right.
 
 Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like
 hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s!
 
 I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a
 passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang
 of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws
 within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier
 the better.
 
 I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and
 force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine
 bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor
 face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment?
 
 I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted
 for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not
 a bunch of home biofuel officianados.)
 
 The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating
 8-(
 
 Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their
 Prozac.
 
 Todd Swearingen
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
 
Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such

 extremely low
 
levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to

 death on
 
them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria

 than
 
meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable

 matter and
 
then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their

 source
 
of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet

 those
 
particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of

 bacteria

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Appal Energy]

Ken,

I don't see any reference within the body of text that you site
which supports any belief that a highly meat centered diet
(Western diet) is necessary for human health.

In fact, note was made that the levels of DHA and EPA (omega-3
poly-unsaturated fatty acids) between lacto- and/or lacto-ovo
vegetarians and a meat centered Western diet were largely
similar.

It's rather clear that a meat centered diet (Western diet) has
more to do with indoctrination and cultural acceptance than
necessity to human survival.

Which is fine for those who so choose. But there is little to no
valid cause for making book that vegetarians or even vegans are
going to start dropping in their death throes left and right.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 Check out this:
 http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/topics/index.shtml
 Ken

 - Original Message -
 From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


  OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at
face
  value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability
limit.'
 
  Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried?
  Uhya.right.
 
  Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds
like
  hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s!
 
  I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a
  passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first
pang
  of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death
throws
  within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe
greasier
  the better.
 
  I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in
and
  force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine
  bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of
lettuceor
  face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment?
 
  I'd like to see where this particular theory has been
submitted
  for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here,
not
  a bunch of home biofuel officianados.)
 
  The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating
  8-(
 
  Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without
their
  Prozac.
 
  Todd Swearingen
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
   Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such
  extremely low
   levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve
to
  death on
   them. The people that thrive have different intestinal
bacteria
  than
   meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable
  matter and
   then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be
their
  source
   of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet
  those
   particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of
  bacteria, and
   it will no longer be possible to get the necessary
nutrition
  from
   vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's
  intestinal
   bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal
diet,
  but it is
   not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health
by
  trying.
  
   Christopher Witmer
   Tokyo
  
   Ken wrote:
  
http://www.beyondveg.com/
   
More on that, and believe me I've tried...
Ken
   
   
   Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet.  While I
don't
  eat a lot
   of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving,  five times a
week.
  Even the
   doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize
  this fact.  I
   have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the
high
  protein
   Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with
  carbohydrates.
  
  
  
 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
   ADVERTISEMENT
  
  
  
   Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
   http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
  
   Biofuels list archives:
   http://archive.nnytech.net/
  
   Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list
address.
   To unsubscribe, send an email to:
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
  Service.
  
  
 
 
 
  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
  Biofuels list archives:
  http://archive.nnytech.net/
 
  Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
  To unsubscribe, send an email to:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
 



   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ADVERTISEMENT



 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Biofuels list archives:
 http://archive.nnytech.net/

 Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Appal Energy]

Well Chris,

I'll tell ya' this. All that beneficial meat processing bacteria
is certainly not doing its job as efficiently as one would be led
to believe, considering the several pounds of undigested meat
found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters
[Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America,
John Robbins).

Yes, it's rather easy to see that different diets in different
environments would be metabolized in variant fashions and would
take some indeterminant period to completely adjust to. After
all, every living thing is one big biological and chemical
equation. Try going from 3,000' on any diet to 14,000 feet over
night and see if you get fully acclimatized before a two week
period has passed, no matter how much your continual fluid
uptake.

If your body and your mind are accustomed to something, they will
certainly take notice of its absence or any deviation from it.

I think the part I had most difficulty with was the suggestion
with such certainty that a departure from a heavily meat
concentrated diet (Western diet) would create harm, perhaps
catastrophically.

   What is easy is harming one's health by trying.

I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I
had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this
never would have happened.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 Todd,

 In a rare twist, it is a lot easier to find information on this
in
 Japanese Internet than in English; this may be due to Japanese
 researchers' language limitations.

 Japanese-only link at Chiba University:
 http://photo-m.tp.chiba-u.ac.jp/~adeno/sci/bio.htm

 I first heard about this on a Japanese television program --
 Japanese-only link to the television program's webpage on this
subject:
 http://www.ntv.co.jp/FERC/research/19980208/f0518.html

 I wasn't able to find anything in English on the Internet,
although I
 did find passing references to one of the key studies in this
area:

 Bergersen, F.J. and E.H. Hipsley (1970). The presence of N2 -
fixing
 bacteria in the intestines of man and animals. Journal of
Tropical
 Pediatrics 11: 28-34.

 To summarize the theory, the Papua highlander diet consists
primarily of
 yams and taro (average of about 1.5kg per day), from which they
are able
 to *directly* assimilate only 15g of protein. The amount of
directly
 assimilated protein is simply insufficient to maintain their
heavy
 musculature (and these people tend to be very muscular) let
alone the
 minimum level needed for survival over time. A professor
Mitsuoka of
 Tokyo University theorizes that the intestinal flora of the
Papua
 highlander are different from those of peoples accustomed to
eating
 meat. Indeed, when people from outside the region try to eat
the Papua
 highlander diet, they suffer from extreme flatulence, to the
great
 amusement of the Papua highlanders, who have very little or
none.
 Conversely, consumption of pork can make Papua highlanders ill,
 sometimes fatally so, whilst people accustomed to eating meat
suffer
 from no ill effects. Analysis of feces of Papua highlanders
reveals
 total nitrogen content to be double that of the pre-assimilated
food.
 This increase is in all likelihood due to the presence of
 nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the intestines of Papua
highlanders.
 (Apparently the same sorts of bacteria associated with
leguminous
 nitrogen fixation are taking atmospheric nitrogen and fixing it
in the
 intestines of the Papua highlanders.) These bacteria then in
turn become
 the source of adequate protein for the Papua highlanders.
Another
 possibility is that ammonia is somehow being converted into
protein
 (pigs and cows have this ability); Papua highlander feces are
found to
 have twice the ammonia content of Japanese. It is suspected --
though
 hardly conclusively proven -- that half of the protein in the
Papua
 highlander diet comes directly from yams and taro, and the
other half
 from nitrogen fixing bacteria and/or ammonia conversion.
Otherwise, it
 is hard to explain how these people are able to survive.
Reportedly, it
 is possible to for meat eaters to adjust to the Papua
highlander diet;
 however, it takes half a year for the intestinal environment to
get to
 the point where adequate nutrition can be derived.

 (You can feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether
this
 theory constitutes rationalization of meat eating.)

 Christopher Witmer
 Tokyo

 Appal Energy wrote:

  OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at
face
  value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability
limit.'
 
  Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried?
  Uhya.right.
 
  Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds
like
  hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s!
 
  I think those sounds

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Christopher Witmer]

Just make sure your draft beer hasn't had the yeast filtered out of it 
and you'll be just fine. :-)

Appal Energy wrote:

What is easy is harming one's health by trying.

 
 I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I
 had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this
 never would have happened.
 
 Todd Swearingen



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Appal Energy]

Ken,

I kinda' figger it like this. If as a guest I'm served a meat
dish, accept it for the gift that it is. In between, treat meat
as a delicacy, rather than a mainstay.

I believe that it was Socates who said Hunger is good sauce.
Unbelievable levels of truth in those four simple words.

As for co-conspiracy to anything with Young Master Addison other
than the promotion of biofuels and sound principles, I must plead
true ignorance.

It just so happens that Keith is one very unique bird of
considerably similar mind set, albeit a bit more nimble than my
own.

He, I and numerous others simply realize that there exists great
need and make our feeble attempts to fill them. I gather that you
are largely of similar cloth. Maybe we'll all partly smooth the
path for future generations. Or better still help with the
building of a better path.

I know. I know. Who is to say that the path I or another might
choose or prefer is better or more noble than another. But I tend
to believe that if one is quiet or stands still briefly enough
the right answers are as apparent and surrounding as the
windor the lack thereof.

Todd

- Original Message -
From: Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 Todd,
 I'm really not saying highly meat centered diet... I've
been through
 the
 diet gamut, vegetarianism, veganism, raw-foodism, brief
flirtation with
 fruitarianism, for lots of years (20), .  I am worried about
the B-12 issue
 which seems to be directly related to the ammount of animal
food consumed as
 shown in the studies.  I am enamored with the philosophy
 of these theories...but my heros have expired at an early
age, Fry,
 Shelton, Lovewisdom etc. etc.
 So I need to be realistic, I want truth in this matter...I
wish, hope,
 we can get along without killing/taking other LIFE, but really
I'm not so
 sure.  Any dialogue  appreciated.
 Are you and Keith co-owners/conspirators of this web???
 Thanks,
 Ken

 - Original Message -
 From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:47 PM
 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


  Ken,
 
  I don't see any reference within the body of text that you
site
  which supports any belief that a highly meat centered diet
  (Western diet) is necessary for human health.
 
  In fact, note was made that the levels of DHA and EPA
(omega-3
  poly-unsaturated fatty acids) between lacto- and/or lacto-ovo
  vegetarians and a meat centered Western diet were largely
  similar.
 
  It's rather clear that a meat centered diet (Western diet)
has
  more to do with indoctrination and cultural acceptance than
  necessity to human survival.
 
  Which is fine for those who so choose. But there is little to
no
  valid cause for making book that vegetarians or even vegans
are
  going to start dropping in their death throes left and right.
 
  Todd Swearingen
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
 
 
   Check out this:
   http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/topics/index.shtml
   Ken
  
   - Original Message -
   From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:24 PM
   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
  
  
OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at
  face
value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability
  limit.'
   
Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried?
Uhya.right.
   
Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds
  like
hand tooled metal plates on rag bond.
B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s!
   
I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more
like a
passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the
first
  pang
of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning
death
  throws
within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe
  greasier
the better.
   
I suppose that federal governments are next going to step
in
  and
force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of
bovine
bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of
  lettuceor
face severe financial penalties for reckless
endangerment?
   
I'd like to see where this particular theory has been
  submitted
for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional
here,
  not
a bunch of home biofuel officianados.)
   
The things some people will do to rationalize meat
eating
8-(
   
Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive
without
  their
Prozac.
   
Todd Swearingen
   
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM
Subject: Re

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Appal Energy]

Sadly that practice has yet to be criminalized in the US yet.

I believe it is unaffectionately called lawn mower or near
beer.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?


 Just make sure your draft beer hasn't had the yeast filtered
out of it
 and you'll be just fine. :-)

 Appal Energy wrote:

 What is easy is harming one's health by trying.
 
 
  I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If
I
  had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this
  never would have happened.
 
  Todd Swearingen



   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ADVERTISEMENT



 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Biofuels list archives:
 http://archive.nnytech.net/

 Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
 To unsubscribe, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Ken Provost]

Kim writes:

  Is anyone else interested in this kind of debate?

Definitely! Is this the right place?

Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or the steam
cleaners?  I know chlorine is feminizing the environment
and is real bad for a septic system [my grey water] and I
imagine the rest of the antibacterial cleaners are about the
same.  So is using electricity bad  for the environment.

Electricity is only bad if it's made in ways that pollute more
than the chemical alternatives. But then chemicals are not all
bad either. Chlorine compounds can form dioxins when burned,
but hypochlorites (bleaches) in certain applications simply
revert to NaCl and oxygen. Usually they revert to NaOH and
chlorine, which, as you say, is bad.

Or:  Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were to
be burned, then burn it in a HAHSA and add a little electricity
in the form of recirculating pumps and use it for heat and hot
water, or let the piles be burned and use propane to heat?


That one's easy. Burn the wood for heat. It's not a tree anymore,
so it's doomed to become CO2 one way or another. May as well get
value out of it, and use the propane for something (like a car) that
needs a mobile fuel. Global warming is a much greater threat now
than smog.

I'll submit my own fuel to the fire here :-)  PAPER or PLASTIC?
(bags, that is).

I vote for plastic, using this logic -- polyethylene is nearly as
good a carbon sink as petroleum. If it gets recycled, great. If it
gets buried in a landfill, it sequesters carbon there for millions
of years, just like if the petroleum was left in the ground. The
only negatives are if it ends up getting burned, and also the energy
and pollution produced in its refinement. Chopping down the tree
not only removes the sequestering ability of the tree, but also
initiates a relatively rapid conversion into CO2 one way or another.
CO2 (and overpopulation) are the world's worst problems now.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?

[Appal Energy]

Kim,

CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than economic
being the motivator.

Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat, veg
oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals.
Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's
possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less
impact.

Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer
kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop.

As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft wood
gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped.
Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity
and/or transportation.
http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm

Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will follow.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Kim  Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?



 It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists has
their own
 agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the choices
is very
 difficult.

 For example:  In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as cleaning my
butcher
 shop; Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or the
steam
 cleaners?  I know chlorine is feminizing the environment and is
real bad
 for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest of
the
 antibacterial cleaners are about the same.  So is using
electricity bad
 for the environment.

 Or:  Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were to
be
 burned, then burn it in a HAHSA and add a little electricity in
the form
 of recirculating pumps and use it for heat and hot water, or
let the
 piles be burned and use propane to heat?  The problem here is
that while
 my neighbors may eventually get more environmentally sound [I
wish] and
 quit burning brush piles, but I will be locked into burning
wood.

 Is anyone else interested in this kind of debate?

 Bright Blessings,
 Kim


   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ADVERTISEMENT



 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Biofuels list archives:
 http://archive.nnytech.net/

 Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
 To unsubscribe, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~-

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/