Hi Ken
I am pretty sure that our thinkings on these issues are fairly well
in line with one another.
I think so too. Sorry If I've been putting you on the defensive, but
IMO it's important to get it right, especially in the details. I'm
not always quoting you directly, as with this, from previous:
For what its worth, I never said anything to the affect that organic farming
couldn't feed everyone.
I know you didn't, and good for you, but it's the usual objection.
Thus with "meat is bad" and "milk is bad".
Keith,
Along with active and informed opposition to factory farming,
industrialised farming and the food industry, that might be more
effective than just condemning meat and meat-eaters. "Meat is bad"
vs "Do you know where that meat you're eating comes from?" That
particular meat.
First, I never said "Meat is bad". What I did say was "Frankly, I
can't imagine meat remaining a staple for much longer as it is just
not a sustainable food source." What I should have said is
"Frankly, I can't imagine meat remaining a staple for much longer as
it is just not a sustainable food staple."
But it IS a sustainable food staple.
Humans can eat meat sustainably when, as we both have stated, it is
eaten in moderation and is carefully farmed.
As with all other food.
As a matter of fact, my children eat meat and dairy as well. My
choice to not eat meat is exactly that - my choice. I am careful
about where it comes from, though, when they do eat it. The point
being, from the beginning, that we Americans need to learn to eat
less meat and less dairy.
I don't agree. You need to get your farmers to do farming instead of
soil mining, and to get your food distribution system and your food
industry in order. There is no choice, you will have to do it, the
longer you put it off the worse will be the consequences.
I'm not sure what the conditions are where you live but, where I
live, try finding anything that doesn't contain either meat or dairy
at a restaurant.
In regards to the lack of traditionally vegetarian societies, isn't
the Hindu community primarily meat-free?
No.
In fact aren't there many Asian cultures that incorporate little to
no meat in their diets and have so for centuries if not longer?
No.
I have come to understand that meat as a food, has in many cultures,
been more of a matter of convience for ages.
No.
A goat is food that could transport itself and also remains fresh
without refrigeration until you are ready to eat it. I may not
understand your meaning of a traditional vegetarian society or maybe
I'm just wrong.
There is no traditional society, one that has stood the test of time
and developed a sustainable way of living, that has been primarily
vegetarian. The main test of sustainability is how they produced
their food and their relationship with the soil. See Lowdermilk, for
instance:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#lowdermilk
You'll find societies that ate mostly vegetables and not much meat,
and others that ate mostly meat and very little vegetables or grain,
but none that only ate vegetables and grains and no meat. There have
been such communities within traditional societies, and there still
are, but on their own they would not be sustainable. "... there is no
sustainable way to maintain and renew soil fertility for crop growth
without raising animals too." If you raise them you either have to
eat them or compete with them. Cows have a calf a year, half of them
bulls, but you only need one bull for more than a hundred cows, what
will you do with the rest? For instance.
When properly produced, dairy products are valuable food. They're
an important part of sustainable agriculture, without them farming
is less sustainable.
What exactly, makes dairy products more valuable than other foods?
I didn't say they're more valuable than other foods, but I did say
that without them farming is less sustainable.
Lets say grains for instance?
Would you say that without grains farming is less sustainable? I
wouldn't. And there are as many problems with grain allergies as with
milk allergies, or more. On the increase, in both cases, so obviously
much of it has to do with how it's grown these days, and processed,
as Kim said, rather than with its inherent qualities.
How much wheat could be grown with the same water that is required
to produce a gallon of milk?
The point is that if you don't produce the gallon of milk you'll be
less likely to able to produce the grain sustainably.
I have read quite a bit on this subject. My findings seem to keep
indicating that the yields of grains are much higher with same water
inputs. And as we all know water is one of our very most valuable
resources. Likewise, I have read many times that dairy cattle tend
to require a considerable amount of medication and I see no
indication that cattle raised for organic milk are immune to that
trend.
Wrong. VERY wrong. I've referred you to our Small Farms Library, I
think you should do some reading there. Read about Albert Howard's
cattle in India that rubbed noses with foot-and-mouth cases over the
hedge but never got ill. Read what Newman Turner has to say about not
having to pay vet's bills when you start raising the animals
properly. Not just mythology, most organic farmers fine the same -
real organic farmers, that is. See:
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51743.html
Re: [Biofuel] Chemical use with organic farming.
I suppose that you might be correct about in that without dairy,
agriculture becomes less sustainable. That is assuming that by this
statement you mean that the milk would be wasted or that it is a
resource left unexploited
Not at all - less dairy means less grazing livestock, less grazing
livestock means less manure and less fertile soil. Without a dairy
market as well as a meat market, ley farming becomes much more
difficult.
but, I think that a tremendous amount of research would need to be
completed to determine the validity of that statement.
Wrong conclusion.
A lactating cow's manure contains less nutrients to be returned to
the soil because she is putting every possible nutrient into her
milk to nurture her young.
True, but she's not the only cow on the block, and even depleted, her
manure contains a hell of a lot more fertility potential than a bit
of wheat straw does. Or a fertiliser bag. Anyway the calf is also
producing manure.
So her value to soil fertilization is reduced. Additionally, when
considering the additional water consumed by the cow to produce the
milk, is the milk of a greater value than the grain that you might
be storing for the winter?
It's not an either/or Ken, it's both. You have to think inclusively,
there's an interdependence, these are mixed, integrated farms, at
their best everything is connected to everything else. One reason you
grazed the cows in the first place was to fertilise the soil to raise
the grain to supplement the cattle grazing in the winter to produce
more manure to fertilise the soil to raise the grain to... There's
ample excess at each turn of the wheel to send to the market. Or the
kitchen.
How do you quantify these factors?
Go to the Small Farms Library, you're asking the wrong questions.
I am pretty sure that our thinkings on these issues are fairly well
in line with one another. For the record, I never said that milk
was bad either, only that Americans in general consume entirely too
much of it.
Not true, the only issue is how it's produced.
Best wishes
Keith
Ultimately, this is a decision for the person making it, not me..
Take care,
Ken
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
