Hello Dermot >Hi Keith, > >I'd like to address some of the points you raised in your reply to me on >Oct 2nd. > >Before we start it may be useful to stress the views we probably have in >common and hopefully that the rest of the list have in common as well. > >1. Modern intensive farming is unsustainable and is unnecessarily cruel >to a wide variety of animals. > >2. To combat this cruelty we should boycott the produce of intensively >farmed animals thereby forcing farmers to adopt more sustainable and >cruelty free methods of farming. > >3. We should eat only free range meat or dairy produce. > >If this could be achieved I believe 90% of the suffering that is >inflicted on animals would be eradicated.
Regarding #2, "intensively farmed" is not a clear enough description. Sustainable food-production methods can also be very intensive, such as Ken Hargesheimer's "mini-farming" or John Jeavons's "Biointensive" method, or Chinese-type farming methods. Industrialised or concentrated are better terms, or perhaps fossil-fuel farming, since that's what it truly is. Nor does such a narrowly focused boycott make much sense, at least on its own. You should also boycott the produce of industrially grown plants. Though the two are separated in practice (a large part of the problem) they're absolutely part of the same phenomenon, along with the entire food processing and distribution system. You make a mistake by separating animal production as the focus for special attack. >There are a number of points which I disagree with you on, the chief >among them being that animal inputs are necessary for sustainable >agriculture. Sure. >I know you don't accept that there is such a thing as sustainable >farming without animals but the Vegan Organic Trust in Britain is an >organisation that is dedicated to the promotion of stockfree, organic, >sustainable farming. Yes I know. I'm unimpressed, I'm afraid. They make the same mistake you do below, that it all remains to be proved, but it ain't so. The burden of proof is on them, but they can't prove it, for the reasons you explain. Same with your previous examples (further below). >They are not some crackpot type of organisation that have vague >aspirations about veganism. I know that too. >Their certification process for declaring >farms to be truly organic, stockfree and sustainable is carried out by >the SOIL ASSOCIATION'S certifying body. As you are no doubt aware the >SOIL ASSOCIATION has an international reputation second to none and I >have faith in their integrity. I first worked with the Soil Association more than 20 years ago and I know their work from their founding. I wouldn't say they're "second to none", nobody is. I'm afraid I'm not impressed by organic certification. >There is no way of proving that an agricultural system is sustainable. Yes there is. >Sustainable means, by definition, that it can go on forever and it is >obviously impossible to test that. It's not impossible. You can philosophise about what "forever" means, but it's demonstrable in practical terms. >All we can say is that one system is >more likely to be sustainable than another one. So I don't agree with >your claim to have proved that animal farming systems are sustainable. I didn't claim to have proved it. >On the other hand, it is possible to prove that a given agricultural >system is unsustainable, if you can show that it uses up one or more of >the earth's resources faster than they are being replaced. So your claim Not MY claim! By now you should have gathered at least that this has been established not only through the long cumulative experience of human societies (below) but also by a large body of scientific work conducted by many distinguished scientists and investigators working in many different places and conditions. On the ground work, with real farms, replicable, not just laboratory-hermit stuff. >to have proved that stockless farming is unsustainable could in >principle be true, but I trust an organisation such as the SOIL >ASSOCIATION when they say it can be sustainable. They have no evidence of that, and it is a relatively new claim on their part. All their earlier work was with mixed farming organic systems. Please don't ask me to criticise some of the Soil Association's more recent work, I can but I don't want to. >It is true that mixed farming was the dominant form of agriculture for >centuries, if not millennia, but this does not in itself prove that it >is sustainable. There are traditional farming systems that have proved to be sustainable, very many of them. It's easily established, it's not hard to get indicators of the general levels of fertility, nutritional status and health (lit. "wholeness") of the "soil community" of which the system is a part. (If it's not an integral part of a soil community it won't be sustainable and indeed it won't be there anymore.) If the system is old (many generations) and the levels are high, that's really all you need to know. It's very difficult or impossible to do this work now because virtually all these systems are affected to a lesser or greater degree by distorting influences from beyond the soil community mainly during the last 50 years or so. However, the work can be said to have been done satisfactorily before that became the case. Of course it wasn't completed, how could it ever be, but it was firmly established. I know you won't like this, but you're just not qualified to discuss this subject fully unless you've read the work of Weston A. Price. See: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#price Unfortunately the book is no longer online. Darryl McMahon has been helping me prepare it for uploading at the Journey to Forever website, but it goes slowly (mea culpa). Meanwhile there's a lot available via that link that you can read, and you should try to find a second-hand copy of the book. There's much more, but Price is the place to start. More would be Howard's "Agricultural Testament", Wrench's "Wheel of Health", Cleave, McCarrison's work. You can find it all at the Small Farms Library. I've referred you to this before, but it seems you didn't go any closer than you had to in order to find a reason not to look any further. >A number of agricultural practices, such as ploughing, >were carried on for a very long time but have now been shown to be >unsustainable. Ploughing is not in itself unsustainable, it depends how you do it. There's certainly such a thing as sustainable ploughing. You choose a poor example. Growing rice in rice paddies is unsustainable, much better example. >It is also possible that a given system could be >sustainable at a certain human population size and unsustainable at a >greater population. > >In our last exchange you recommended Sally Fallon's site. >www.westonaprice.org > >I visited this site as you recommended and was immediately drawn to the >"Myths and Truths About Vegetarianism" section. >My reaction on reading this was that this site had no credibility. :-) You don't surprise me Dermot. Sorry, we stop right here. Read Price's book, do some more studying. I told you before: > >It's not up to me to prove anything, already done that, > >it's up to you to disprove it, and I think you have some studying to > >do. Studying, not just defending your position. Underneath it all over the months seems to be a focus on this: >My point is that IF we can tolerate this diet that we should >because it is unethical to kill sentient creatures for no good reason. >ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS. Just because they are dumb doesn't mean we can >deprive them of a happy existance because they happen to taste nice. You haven't really responded to what people have said about that. Your main concern seems to be with what's sentient and what's not. It's unethical to kill ANYTHING for no good reason, unethical and not sustainable. Your view isn't wholistic, though you think it is. You're compartmenting living things into cubicles of your own devising. Life doesn't work like that. It's biodiverse. The more biodiverse it is the better for all. Everything is connected to everything else, there are no false divisions such as yours between plants and animals, there are grey areas. The pasture animal is a composite creature, grasses, livestock, soil bugs, fungi, worms, the blue flies that lay eggs in the fresh cowdung, their maggots that accomplish the first stage of recycling the manure, the magpies that peck the readied cowpat to bits two weeks later and scatter it all over the field in their quest for the maggots - which of them is sentient and must be protected, and which not? What a meaningless question. If you're looking for an independent unit you'll have to settle for the soil community itself, and that's not so easy either (though it'd be a Good Idea!). It's inclusive, not exclusive, both-and, not either-or. Cutting the biodiversity of a farming system soil community in half for the sake of what boils down (again! sorry!) to a squeamishness that's not very soundly based is unlikely to be the true path to the sustainability of anything, not even delusion. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ >Here's why. > >A Dr Stephen Byrnes starts off the "myths" by telling us of a story >where a woman visits her doctor following a miscarriage: > > >"Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her >infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her >diet and was also mostly a vegetarian. Because of the plentiful media >rhetoric about the supposed dangers of animal product consumption, as >opposed to the alleged health benefits of the vegetarian lifestyle, >Tanya had deliberately removed such things as cream, butter, meats and >fish from her diet. Although she liked liver, she avoided it due to >worries over "toxins." > >Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and a >dietary prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats and >meat. Just before leaving my office, Tanya looked at me and said >ruefully: "I just don't know what to believe sometimes. Everywhere I >look there is all this low-fat, vegetarian stuff recommended. I followed >it, and look what happened." I assured her that if she and her husband >changed their diets and allowed sufficient time for her weakened uterus >to heal, they would be happy parents in due time. In November 2000, Bill >and Tanya happily gave birth to their first child, a girl." > > >So we have a scenario where someone takes up a "mostly" vegetarian diet >with no knowledge of what constitutes a proper vegetarian diet and >suffers ill health. She is then prescribed a meat diet and hey presto, >everything is fine. The clear implication here is that vegetarianism is >inherently unhealthy but it can be cured by meat eating! >The fact that she wasn't following a proper vegetarian diet is neither >here nor there. This is very crude propaganda and is shallow in the extreme. > >If all the supposed "myths" presented were true then vegetarians and >especially vegans would be dropping like flies. Thankfully they are not. >Vegans are one of the most studied group when it comes to nutrition. >BBC2 television's HORIZON science programme recently had an >investigation into Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids and during the course >of this show a Cambridge University professor, not a vegan or >vegetarian, who had been studying vegan diet for thirty years was of the >opinion that it was a very healthy diet if followed properly. > > >I'm afraid I'd have to agree with what Dr.*Guillermo Romero >Ibarrola*,who has a Ph.D in Nutrition from Cornell University, thinks of >Sally Fallon: > >// Ms Fallon is not a nutritioni///st, IMHO she has very little >understanding / >/of research methodology a//nd of the subject matter, beyond wh///atever >dogma she adheres to from the / >/theories of Pottenger and P//rice. Regardless of which, she is making >reckless and out of context / >/analyses and claims based on //third party scientific evidence >"interpreted" by her paid co-author. Ms. / >/Fallon probably has some //valid things to contribute, but she does not >help anyone by making biased / >/generalizations from seco//ndary analysis of relative information. I >might be mistaken, but as far / >/as I know there is no piec//e of original research published by Ms. >Fallon and her collegues. / >// /To me she is just one more author trying to sell yet another >"cookbook" //fad; IMO her merit comes // >from her interest in natural farming, not from her understanding of >//nutrition evidence. > >// > >// >///I would personally therefore take everything that is said on this >site with a grain of salt. >/ > >/ >/ > >/Regards >Dermot Donnelly >/ > > > > > > > > > > >// >/>>> / >/>>> I am not a friend of Ms Fallon, I once met her in a "conference" >and I / >/>>>can not say that I was imp / >/>>ressed by her comprehension of the evidence and data she used to >support / >/>>her tedious reading sessio / >/>>n ("conference"). Further on, I was troubled by the way she dismissed / >/>>questions with some unsustain / >/>>ed claims and a constant recommendation to buy her book as the only way / >/>>for her audience to find an / >/>> answer. IMHO not a very professional approach, but effective marketing / >/>>anyway. / >/>>> / >/>>> I see from your bio. that you are on the Board of Ms Fallon's >foundation / >/>>>(W. Price F.) so that I / >/>>must assume you are partial to her approach. / >/>>> / >/>>> Let me clear a point here: the "bantering" was not between Dr. >Campbell / >/>>>and Ms. Fallon, it was be / >/>>tween Ms. Fallon (mediated by Allan Balliet from BD-Now) and myself. >Dr. / >/>>Campbell sent some commen / >/>>ts to me re Vit B12 and vegetarianism (which I posted to Sanet and >sent to / >/>>Mr Balliet to be posted / >/>>in BD-Now), but Dr. Campbell refrained himself from reacting to Ms / >/>>Fallon's name calling discourteo / >/>>us attitude. / >/>>> / >/>>> I have a BS, MS and studies at PhD level in Nutriology (MS and PhD / >/>>>studies from Cornell U) and / >/>>I am also sympathetic to alternative health approaches, Anthroposophy, / >/>>Ayur-ved and Mexican traditi / >/>>onal therapies. I am a Biodynamic gardener as well and have an active / >/>>participation in the promot / >/>>ion of agroecology in my Country. IMHO I have the credentials to judge / >/>>this sort of information on / >/>> my own. I do not need interpreters; I can understand the sources, but / >/>>again my thanks for bringin / >/>>g the above web sites to my awareness / >/>>> / >/>>> About the China study: Following Ms Fallon suggestion, I went to >see the / >/>>>info avail at the W.Pric / >/>>e F web site. There the author (?) mentions that the China study is / >/>>inconclusive, but then uses da / >/>>ta from Okinawa (from a different study, and experimental framework) to / >/>>support his/her views on th / >/>>e basis of both studies coming from "Asia". Is that a valid >comparison to / >/>>you ?, IMO such thing i / >/>>s absurd and manipulative. / >/>>> / >/>>> Here is the (mis)quote from Ms. Fallon's web site: "Before we throw >up / >/>>>our hands and decide that / >/>> no conclusions can be made about diet and health in China, let us turn / >/>>our attention to the mixed / >/>>peoples of Okinawa" http://www.westonaprice.org/food_in_china.htm / >/>>> / >//// >/>>> / >/>>> If you have questions about the China study, I encourage you to send / >/>>>those to Dr. Campbell himsel / >/>>f. I am sure that he will be able to give you an honest answer about >the / >/>>validity of the research / >/>>claims he is making. ([EMAIL PROTECTED] ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:%20Sally%20Fallon/Colin%20Campbel >l&[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)/ > >.................... > >Note 1.from: Spedding, C.R.W., Agriculture and the citizen, 1996 > >area of farmland required to feed one person: > >_diet_ _(ha)_ > >conventional 0.32 > >vegetarian 0.14 > >vegan 0.07 > >from: Pimentel & Pimentel, Food, Energy and Society, 1979 > >fossil fuel energy needed to feed one person under 1979 U.S. conditions: > >_diet_ _(MJ)_ > >conventional 142 > >vegetarian 80 > >vegan 41 > >ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ > >Prof C.R.W. Spedding, England's most eminent agricultural scientist: > >"..... animal production nearly always appears much less efficient than >crop production ..... energy and protein production are always much >higher from crops than from animals ....." " ..... where the main >concern is the feeding of the maximum number of people ..... there will >generally be more emphasis on crop production, since, where crops can be >grown, more people can be supported in this way." " ..... maximising >crop production per unit of land and time during the available growing >season is a better way of using resources than by keeping animals ..... >" "..... if the total amount of food produced from crops were only >sufficient for the needs of the world population,* then it would be >irrational to feed crops to animals if these crops could be consumed >directly ....." > >* which it is now [my note] > >............... > >Prof. A.R. Rao and Prof. I.J. Singh, leading Indian scientists: > >"Plants are better than animals as sources of human food ..... Animal >products like milk ..... and meat are extravagant to produce." " ..... >Animal products have no place in a poor man's budget." > >............... > >Prof. J.F.D. Greenhalgh, a leading authority on animal farming and >formerly editor-in-chief of the journal 'Animal Feed Science and >Technology': > >"Most domestic animals are kept to provide food for man, which they do >with a woefully poor energetic efficiency. While Britain's domestic >livestock consume three times as much metabolisable energy as Britain's >human population, they provide only one third of the energy intake of >their consumers." "There is a clear moral argument against feeding >animals on foods that could be consumed by man." "..... the resources of >land, labour and capital needed to grow forages [i.e. animal feed] could >often be used to produce plant foods for direct human consumption." > > > > > > >Keith Addison wrote: > > >Hello Dermot > > > > > > > >>Keith Addison wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hello Dermot > >>> > >>><snip> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Many very extensive studies have been done on various vegetarian groups > >>>>such as Seven Day Adventists and some vegetarians claim that as these > >>>>people are healthier than average that it must be due to their > >>>>vegetarian diet. I don't subscribe to this view because these people > >>>>don't smoke or drink either. > >>>>What I do conclude from this however is that a vegetarian diet doesn't > >>>>do these people any harm. This is the important point to realise. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>One of them, and there are exceptions. > >>> > >>> > >>I'm not quite sure what you mean here. > >> > >> > > > >It's only one of the important points to realise in connection with > >vegetarianism, and there are exceptions to that point. Not everybody > >thrives on a vegetarian diet. > > > > > > > >>Of course one can cite studies to > >> justify any case in the area of diet and health. > >> > >> > > > >Of course, as with all things. > > > > > > > >>We are still in the > >>dark ages as far as the "science" of nutrition and diet is concerned. > >>You can have two scientists who have received the same training who when > >>presented with the same evidence will come to diametrically opposite > >>conclusions. A bit like the dark art of economics! > >> > >> > > > >A bit like everything else too. This does not mean however that > >there's no way of sifting the wheat from the chaff (or the goats from > >the sheep perhaps). > > > > > > > >>>>It may be the case that some people cannot tolerate a vegetarian diet. I > >>>>don't know. My point is that IF we can tolerate this diet that we should > >>>>because it is unethical to kill sentient creatures for no good reason. > >>>> > >>>> > > > >But there IS good reason. > > > > > > > >>>>ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS. > >>>> > >>>> > > > >That is not in question. > > > > > > > >>Just because they are dumb > >> > >> > > > >I don't agree that they are dumb. Quite a few of us have not been > >agreeing with that, didn't you notice? > > > > > > > >>doesn't mean we can > >> > >> > >>>>deprive them of a happy existance because they happen to taste nice. > >>>> > >>>> > > > >No, you didn't notice. :-( > > > > > > > >>>Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but > >>>there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There > >>>is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never > >>>has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later > >>>fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed > >>>farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't > >>>do it, and neither can we. Sustainable farms are mixed, integrated > >>>farms. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Can't see any reason to hate somebody who expresses an opposing view. > >> > >> > > > >If that view happens even unwittingly to challenge certain cherished > >notions it can be perceived as an unprovoked personal attack and > >often responded to with a vicious personal "counter" attack, rather > >common, especially these days. > > > > > > > >>Everybody should be open to having their views challenged. Scepticism is > >>something we can't have enough of! I'm glad you raised this objection > >>to vegetarianism because it is the first time I have heard this > >>particular view. > >> > >> > > > >Well, it's not just a view, there's massive and incontrovertible > >evidence to support it. We've discussed it here before, as we would, > >since sustainable farming is obviously a part of sustainable energy - > >if you can't grow biofuels crops sustainably how can they be > >sustainable fuels? And it takes animals in the system, as food, not > >just as respected working labourers who go into retirement when they > >get too old to work. > > > >In fact many sustainable farmers treat their breeding animals like > >that, but not the offspring. > > > > > > > >>I don't know a lot about the detail of sustainable agriculture > >> > >> > > > >Then you're not in a position to make a case for vegetarianism, as you did. > > > > > > > >>but I am > >>aware of at least one farm here in Ireland that is run on a stockless > >>system that the owners claim is sustainable. Similarly there is a > >>organisation in the UK called the Vegan Organic Trust that certifies > >>farms as being vegan and sustainable. > >>In America there is a guy called Will Bonsall who has run the Khadighar > >>Farm near Farmington, Maine for the past 25 years, using veganic > >>methods, i.e. no animal inputs, for the past 20 years. > >> > >> > > > >I do know a lot about sustainable agriculture, in practice and in > >theory, and I've seen a lot of sustainable farms. I've seen a lot of > >farms too that claimed to be sustainable but they weren't. Yes, for > >20 years and more. > > > > > > > >>Just suppose for the sake of argument that it is possible to have > >>sustainable agriculture without any animal input > >> > >> > > > >But it's not. > > > > > > > >>and further suppose > >>that it is possible to lead a healthy life on a vegetarian diet, would > >>you then consider it wrong to eat non-human animals? > >> > >> > > > >No I wouldn't consider it wrong. But it's much too broad a brush, > >it's all black and white in your book, it's unrealistic, and I think > >you're aiming at the wrong target anyway. Don't eat meat? Which > >particular meat shouldn't I eat? Should I eat a quail that I knew had > >come from a horrendously crowded and evil factory farm? No I > >shouldn't, but that won't help the quail, will it? Market forces, > >yeah, right. What if the quail came from my farm? Sure I'd eat it, > >nice happy quail, very healthy too. What if I'd bought it in a local > >village market from an old peasant who'd raised it himself? Sounds > >okay? What if the old peasant obligingly skinned it for me - but > >without bothering to kill it first? With these sweet old peasant > >ladies waiting to buy their quail while the poor creature struggled > >and screamed itself to death and nobody even noticed except me? > > > >Try this: > > > >http://journeytoforever.org/MMT/keith_doggie.html > >Keith Addison: Pass the Doggie Bag > > > > > > > >>>Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one side of > >>>the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef "farm" (factory) > >>>on the other, with its shit-lagoon. > >>> > >>>Farming with animals means one of two things: killing the inevitable > >>>excess or competing with them as they eat you out of house and home. > >>>Killing them and not eating them would not be sane, and criminally > >>>wasteful. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I don't actually have a problem with animals being used in agriculture. > >>If they get reasonable care they can have a pretty decent existence and > >>they can contribute to soil fertility. It's a win-win situation for > >>everybody. > >>I do have a problem with cutting short a sentient creature's life if it > >>is unnecessary. > >> > >> > > > >On truly sustainable farms you find lots of animals living decent > >lives and you do not find them being killed unnecessarily. > > > > > > > >>I can't see how there needs to be an excess of animals that have to be > >>killed if we have the technology to limit their breeding. > >> > >> > > > >Oh, a technology fix! Sustainable farming hasn't thrived a lot on > >most of those so far. > > > > > > > >>If for some reason culling is required, > >> > >> > > > >It's part of the sustainable system, and it produces large quantities > >of valuable products without which the world would be much the > >poorer. There is no sound reason to curtail it. On the contrary, what > >we're after doing here is promoting it as widely as possible. Small, > >mixed, integrated farms are the sane road to the future. > > > > > > > >>I don't think that there would > >>not be any ethical dilemma in eating their flesh. > >> > >> > > > >Sorry, your double negative has me baffled. > > > > > > > >>>Widespread vegetarianism would condemn more animals than mixed > >>>farming ever could, and could easily condemn us all to the > >>>consequences (the further consequences) of unbalanced farming > >>>systems. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I would turn this argument on its head by saying that widespread meat > >>eating would condemn us all to the consequences of unbalanced farming > >>systems. Most people on this planet are vegetarian most of the time. > >> > >> > > > >That's not true, quite the opposite. > > > > > > > >>If > >>everybody was to eat a meat diet similar to the meat eating patterns in > >>the West then everybody would starve. > >>I know this is not what you advocate > >> > >> > > > >No it's not, and therefore it turns nothing on its head. > > > >It's odd how often when one talks about sustainable farming to people > >opposed to eating meat they respond by attacking unsustainable > >farming to support their views. > > > > > > > >>but it's worth bearing in mind all > >>the same. > >> > >> > > > >Everybody says that about the meat-eating patterns of the West and it > >doesn't make sense to me. First there's no chance that everybody is > >going to start eating the same diet. Chinese will always eat Chinese > >food, Indians will always eat Indian food (both including plenty of > >meat). There's nothing particularly unsustainable about Western > >meat-eating per se, it's the production system itself that's > >unsustainable, not the categories of food it produces, and > >industrialised food production is not only Western. > > > > > > > >>>Even your healthy vegetables will not be very good for you > >>>if they're not properly grown in fertile soils, which means that a > >>>proportion of the "wastes" recycled back to the soil goes through the > >>>gut of animals en route. > >>> > >>> > >>Don't forget recycling food through our own guts. Human waste, with > >>proper treatment should be used to fertilise soils instead of polluting > >>the planet as at present. This would further > >> > >> > > > >Further than what? Further than vegetarianism? Vegetarianism doesn't > >cut down the need for manure, it exacerbates it. > > > > > > > >>cut down the need (if there > >>is any) > >> > >> > > > >YES THERE IS ANY! > > > >It's been discussed often before, it's in the archives, and there's a > >lot more at the Journey to Forever website (which is not just about > >biodiesel!). It's not up to me to prove anything, already done that, > >it's up to you to disprove it, and I think you have some studying to > >do. > > > > > > > >>for animal manure. I think they are doing that very successfully > >>in Shanghai at the moment. > >> > >> > > > >They were doing it very successfully in Shanghai a hundred years ago, > >not so sure about now. The Chinese still composted absolutely > >everything possible then. We've discussed humanure composting here > >too, quite a number of us do that, successfully enough. > > > >But, sorry, even by traditional Chinese standards of how much land it > >takes to feed a human, or how little rather, human manure is not > >enough to put back what a human takes out. It helps, but you just > >don't get the biological knock-on effect you get with grazers like > >cows (see earlier message about ley farming), or even pigs, they're > >much better at it than we are. I tried every which way to get that to > >figure out, but it doesn't figure out. > > > >Best wishes > > > >Keith > > > > > > > > > >> "Food is fabricated soil fertility." > >> > >> > >>>(Albrecht of Missouri) > >>> > >>>Best wishes > >>> > >>>Keith > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Regards > >>Dermot Donnelly > >> > >><snip> _______________________________________________ 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/
