Okay then, just spent some considerable time wading through a whole
thread on vegan/vegetarianism vs "meat-eating", and the first point
that springs to mind is along the lines of "why?". As has been said
elswhere in that thread, people have varied views and opinions, and
no-one else can state that they are more or less valid.
Personally, I haven't spend years researching this or that aspect of
diet-constituents, but, and this may be regarded as a cliche - it
matters not - but it is reasonable (as far as I know :-P) that the
majority of so-called health experts agree that a balanced diet,
including, but not limited to, fresh veg., meat (both red and white),
fish, dairy products and carbohydrates (both simple and complex).
Combined with any specific mineral or vitamen supplements that may be
required in higher concentrations than present in this balanced diet
(especially for specific conditions or physiological states eg folic
acid supplements etc.) should be adequate for any human being on this
planet.
It could be suggested (but I personally have no direct proof of this,
so don't expect me to provide it) that modern economic and
sociological environments have created the facility to be able to
choose to exclude certain food groups from the diet. The incidence of
certain intolerances to dietary constituents is also less in countries
where such conditions place the individual at increased risk of
death/injury. In the "more advanced" Western cultures, alternatives
are available, in the form of vitamin and other supplements.
More views to come when I have more time to post again

Before I go on, maybe I should state where I stand, and where I'm
coming from. I'm not vegan, or vegetarian, though I have numerous
freinds who are one or both, so I understand both sides of the
argument. I'm an Agriculture student, in the UK, and I work on farms,
not just with stock, but arable and mixed farms aswell. Obviously, my
livelihood is dependent in part on continued "meat-eating", or
consumption of dairy products, but the crops produced do not all go to
feed livestock, as some posts on other threads seem to suggest. We do
not import grain from the US, although I cannot say for sure where
everysingle ingredient of the concentrate is sourced from. The cows
form the dairy unit are fed primarily on hay cut on the farm, and
turnips grown on-farm in the winter. Concentrate is also fed,
depending on the stage of the lactation. The beef stock are fed
primarily grass grazing, with big-bale silage in the winter,
supplemented by some concentrate.
As before, more to come at a later date...:-P

This is in response to both of your artilces. I like yourself have
been doing alot of contemplating and exploring of the lifestlyes of
vegans and vegetarians. I am neither, though I do no not eat certain
meats and seafoods or indulge in alchol or caffine substances steming
from my religious beliefs (I am Seventh-Day Adventist). One reason for
my study has been that my church does teach that the healthiest way of
living is a vegetarian based diet and I trully believe this so.

Another twist to my situation is in my field as an Environmental
Student. Being in the area that you are in you should identify with
some of the points I am about to raise. Recently I took a
Sustainablity class as an elective for my Master's Degree. My papers
for this class focused on Industrial agriculture vs sustainable
agriculture. No one would argue that agriculture is the number one
consumer of the fresh water resources and contributes siginificanlty
to water pollution and the like. But people must eat but isn't it in
the best interest of all, not just the countries that have abundance
of water resources etc(if you can find one) to find the most efficient
means of doing this. Then to add in livestock production. It was
somewhat astonishing to sit down and go through article after article
of the extra resources that must be used to support a diet that is
meat based compared to that of a vegetarian. To see how many more
people can be fed with the grain and water used to raise just one cow.

Then when I had to calculate my ecological footprint (which is the
number of acres/hectares that it takes to produce all the energy and
food to sustain my lifestyle)http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp
I was totally ashamed to find out how many worlds it would take to
support the over 6 billion people on this planet if they lived like
myself.

I have cut back drastically on my meat eating (its kinda hard to go
cold turkey) and on my consumption of goods in general. The old I=PAC
(Impact= population*affluence*consumption). I may only be one person
but I do believe that that is where the whole battle of sustainablity
will be won person by person.. individual choices.

I just thought I would raise these few points for you to consider as
you continue to explore this topic.

"Dave Chalton" wrote in message
om...
Before I go on, maybe I should state where I stand, and where I'm
coming from. I'm not vegan, or vegetarian, though I have numerous
freinds who are one or both, so I understand both sides of the
argument. I'm an Agriculture student, in the UK, and I work on farms,
not just with stock, but arable and mixed farms aswell. Obviously, my
livelihood is dependent in part on continued "meat-eating", or
consumption of dairy products, but the crops produced do not all go to
feed livestock, as some posts on other threads seem to suggest. We do
not import grain from the US, although I cannot say for sure where
everysingle ingredient of the concentrate is sourced from. The cows
form the dairy unit are fed primarily on hay cut on the farm, and
turnips grown on-farm in the winter. Concentrate is also fed,
depending on the stage of the lactation. The beef stock are fed
primarily grass grazing, with big-bale silage in the winter,
supplemented by some concentrate.
As before, more to come at a later date...:-P

A simple question. Are there any difficulties with vagan child bearing and
lactation when taking no supplements of any kind just food. It worked for
eons for regular diets.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

Stacey Jennings wrote in message
m...
Another twist to my situation is in my field as an Environmental
Student. Being in the area that you are in you should identify with
some of the points I am about to raise. Recently I took a
Sustainablity class as an elective for my Master's Degree. My papers
for this class focused on Industrial agriculture vs sustainable
agriculture. No one would argue that agriculture is the number one
consumer of the fresh water resources and contributes siginificanlty
to water pollution and the like.

this depends entirely on what part of the world you live in, it might be
true in the US but is not necessarily true in more industrialised or
intensively inhabited countries.

But people must eat but isn't it in
the best interest of all, not just the countries that have abundance
of water resources etc(if you can find one) to find the most efficient
means of doing this. Then to add in livestock production. It was
somewhat astonishing to sit down and go through article after article
of the extra resources that must be used to support a diet that is
meat based compared to that of a vegetarian. To see how many more
people can be fed with the grain and water used to raise just one cow.

which is fine, except did you read any of the articles that point out
the areas where you can grow beef but not cereals?
Also did you read any of the articles which showed you that in much of
the world the grain used is not suitable for human consumption. You
would not enjoy bread made from feed wheat.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Stacey Jennings wrote in message
m...
Another twist to my situation is in my field as an Environmental
Student. Being in the area that you are in you should identify with
some of the points I am about to raise. Recently I took a
Sustainablity class as an elective for my Master's Degree. My papers
for this class focused on Industrial agriculture vs sustainable
agriculture. No one would argue that agriculture is the number one
consumer of the fresh water resources and contributes siginificanlty
to water pollution and the like.

this depends entirely on what part of the world you live in, it might be
true in the US but is not necessarily true in more industrialised or
intensively inhabited countries.

But people must eat but isn't it in
the best interest of all, not just the countries that have abundance
of water resources etc(if you can find one) to find the most efficient
means of doing this. Then to add in livestock production. It was
somewhat astonishing to sit down and go through article after article
of the extra resources that must be used to support a diet that is
meat based compared to that of a vegetarian. To see how many more
people can be fed with the grain and water used to raise just one cow.

which is fine, except did you read any of the articles that point out
the areas where you can grow beef but not cereals?
Also did you read any of the articles which showed you that in much of
the world the grain used is not suitable for human consumption. You
would not enjoy bread made from feed wheat.

He needs to take a trip through New Mexico. Hundreds of miles with out
enough rain to grow a tree except near the springs. Nothing west of western
Texas border will reliably raise dryland crops two years in a row with out
irrigation. You get very far west and nothing but some microclimates will
raise copes with out irrigation. That about a third of the USA.

Ruminates are one of the most important food sources on earth in arid
regions turning grasses, trees and forbs into top quality protien. Only in
countries that can raise a surplus of grain do you feed it to ruminants.
When I was running cows they seldom ate a bite of anything a human could eat
or took a bite of food from ground that could have fed a human. I did graze
wheat by adding extra nitrogen but on the average it had no effect on the
yield. Some years it would hurt it but some years it would help it.

Now the calves did go to the feed lot but that's the way it works today.
When my great grand folks first settled the ranch in 1874 they didn't get a
thing but grass and it can still be done that way. It works better if you
give them some added protien in the winter and we have a 3 billion pound of
cotton seed meal every year that is toxic to humans that is great for cattle
to feed them.

Far from being a luxury the cow, sheep or goat can be the difference between
making the arid lands habitable or not. Anyone that thinks deferent doesn't
understand dry areas at all.

The goat is probably the most versatile of all ruminates.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message ...
"Dave Chalton" wrote in message
om...
Before I go on, maybe I should state where I stand, and where I'm
coming from. I'm not vegan, or vegetarian, though I have numerous
freinds who are one or both, so I understand both sides of the
argument. I'm an Agriculture student, in the UK, and I work on farms,
not just with stock, but arable and mixed farms aswell. Obviously, my
livelihood is dependent in part on continued "meat-eating", or
consumption of dairy products, but the crops produced do not all go to
feed livestock, as some posts on other threads seem to suggest. We do
not import grain from the US, although I cannot say for sure where
everysingle ingredient of the concentrate is sourced from. The cows
form the dairy unit are fed primarily on hay cut on the farm, and
turnips grown on-farm in the winter. Concentrate is also fed,
depending on the stage of the lactation. The beef stock are fed
primarily grass grazing, with big-bale silage in the winter,
supplemented by some concentrate.
As before, more to come at a later date...:-P

A simple question. Are there any difficulties with vagan child bearing and
lactation when taking no supplements of any kind just food. It worked for
eons for regular diets.

Sorry, a bit low on sleep at the moment, not quite sure if we're
talking about cows or humans at this point. Therefore, I'll try to
answer both - as far as I'm aware (and I reiterate the fact that I'm
no expert on anything here), doctors and other healthcare
professionals encourage the likes of folic acid and other supplements
if these are not likely to be provided in sufficient quantities by the
patients standard diet. What are "sufficient quantities" in this
respect? I have no idea, although for doctors to reccomend it would
suggest that at some level, research has suggested that mothers with
an intake of over a certain amount of these substances exhibit less
chance of various complications for both the mother and child. Are
these supplements therefore essential? I would say not, because it is
possible that the diet provides the compounds in sufficient
quantities. Further, it is entirely possible for childbearing, vegan
or otherwise, to go without any complications or problems at all,
without any form of supplement, or indeed medical intervention/advice
of any sort. However I would ask, if a doctor (and I'm the first to
admit that no-one, even trained and qualified doctors, can hope to
know everything about everyone in this respect) suggested that to take
these supplements would reduce possible problems, what would your
response be? To go along the road of saying that whatever practice has
gone on for "eons" would suggest that at least a certain percentage
would survive any problems they did encounter, but how do you put that
to the mother who has lost their child due to such a problem? To her,
that earlier percentage doesn't mean much - in her case it is a 100%
failure. To then say that this problem may have been prevented by a
certain dietary supplement during pregnancy...
I'm not sure if I'm getting this across too well, but that may answer
your question.
With respect to cows, if that was what you were asking, supplements in
the form of concentrate are not fed to ease gestation, calving or
lactation. They are fed to keep the cow in good condition if - and
this is the central point - their intake of whatever their main food
is contains insufficient dry-matter.
Any farmers reading this may be able to back up or refute the
following, but they are the figures used by the Agricultural College I
attend, and they are the primary supplier of research results and
advice in the area.
If a cow has an intake of about 15kgDM/day (where DM is Dry matter),
at approx. 12MJ/kgDM, this is roughly 180MJ/day. Of this, about
75MJ/day is used to keep the cow at stable condition. Obviously this
varies from animal to animal and breed to breed, but for arguments
sake...call it 75. In the case of dairy cows, roughly a further 5MJ/kg
milk produced. So, again for arguments sake and ease of calculation,
say that cow produces 41kg milk per day. That equates to roughly
205MJ, plus the 75 for maintenance, gives 280MJ/day. With the intake
of 180MJ/day, this is a 100MJ short. Left un-checked, that would
result in about 3kg of body weight loss per day, as the cow burn her
own fat reserves, so over a month this is about 90kg - not good by
anyones estimates. So concentrate id fed to balance the output with
intake of DM. Take into acount substitution rates (the cow will eat
less grass for every kg conc. provided) and the picture is not quite
as simple as it looks, but that's the gist of it - roughly :-P

Dave Chalton writes

With respect to cows, if that was what you were asking, supplements in
the form of concentrate are not fed to ease gestation, calving or
lactation. They are fed to keep the cow in good condition if - and
this is the central point - their intake of whatever their main food
is contains insufficient dry-matter.

They are fed because otherwise many cows loose a *lot* of condition.

They are also fed as a carrier to mineral and vitamin supplements,
although the quantities here need not be large.

It's also true that either excessive feed or inadequate feed are not
conducive to a high survival rate at and immediately following calving.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:
Ruminates are one of the most important food sources on earth in arid
regions turning grasses, trees and forbs into top quality protien. Only
in
countries that can raise a surplus of grain do you feed it to ruminants.

While not knwoing much about arid land, I imagine it to be not very
productive whatever use it is put in. Most beef must originate elsewhere.

Well it is not as productive as high rain fall areas with out irrigation but
it makes a very damn large part of the world.
http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hyd.../rainfall.html

In my lifetime we have increased the wheat production by 100 to 125%. The
successful no till farmers are getting 10 to 20% more out of cotton as well
and organic mater increases of 1 % a years and fuel reductions of 50 to 70%
per acre. It is closing the gap on weather areas. As we lean that tillage is
on of the worst the worst enemy the farmer has it burns fuel, oxidizes
organic matter in the soil, dries out the ground and gets the soil ready to
blow and wash on the next rain.

Many of the arid soils are fertile and high pH becase they have not been
ravaged by man and mother nature by using up the fertility and washing out
and carrying of the nutrients that are washed away in high rain fall areas.
High rainfall is the main culprit in using or washing away all the nutrients
and leaving an acid soil.

I guess that you could call it low production when I take 30 or 40 bushels
of wheat and 150 pounds of beef off an acre of wheat from grazing the tops.
We have wheats you must graze or run the chance of freezing out. The have
tropical geneticist in them and when enough time has pasted they start to
boot unless you keep enough cattle on to slow it down in maturing. Fifty
years a go 2 to 2 & 1/ 2 bales of cotton crop was a great. Now with half the
water we are making 4 bales to the acres. Alfalfa even beats that for
profit if you are good a marketing. Both dryland and irrigated.

There are genetic modified crops in the pipeline that use brackish water,
need a third less water and hang on for days longer waiting for a rain than
the crops we have to day. Doubling our yield again in the next 50 years in
not impossible.

Pasture management has the same potential to improve production with strip
grazing and controlled burning double, triple and quadruple stocking rates
are possible here. We feed more and more every day than the high rain fall
areas in the tropics.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

Michael Percy writes

My argument stands. Sahara is very big, but even then it must be sustaining
a pitifully small cattle herd.

Remember most of n.africa was the breadbasket of rome.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:


"Michael Percy" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:
Ruminates are one of the most important food sources on earth in arid
regions turning grasses, trees and forbs into top quality protien.
Only
in
countries that can raise a surplus of grain do you feed it to
ruminants.

While not knwoing much about arid land, I imagine it to be not very
productive whatever use it is put in. Most beef must originate
elsewhere.

Well it is not as productive as high rain fall areas with out irrigation
but it makes a very damn large part of the world.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hyd.../rainfall.html

My argument stands. Sahara is very big, but even then it must be
sustaining
a pitifully small cattle herd.

In my lifetime we have increased the wheat production by 100 to 125%.
The
successful no till farmers are getting 10 to 20% more out of cotton as
well and organic mater increases of 1 % a years and fuel reductions of
50
to 70% per acre. It is closing the gap on weather areas. As we lean that
tillage is on of the worst the worst enemy the farmer has it burns fuel,
oxidizes organic matter in the soil, dries out the ground and gets the
soil ready to blow and wash on the next rain.

Many of the arid soils are fertile and high pH becase they have not been
ravaged by man and mother nature by using up the fertility and washing
out
and carrying of the nutrients that are washed away in high rain fall
areas. High rainfall is the main culprit in using or washing away all
the
nutrients and leaving an acid soil.

I guess that you could call it low production when I take 30 or 40
bushels
of wheat and 150 pounds of beef off an acre of wheat from grazing the
tops.

On the contrary, I'm very impressed. That is much more than I had
imagined
could come from arid land. I thought New Mexico was semidesert with very
little plant production, only about 200 lbs dm/acre, I thought wheat could
not be grown there at all.

Many areas do not grow wheat. Some area are measured in square miles to
carry a cow. But the bread basket of the world is under 40 inch rain fall.
Timeliness of rains matter a great deal as well. My wife inherited a place
2/3 of the way between Lubbock and Clayton New Mexico. It has 20 inches of
rain a year and I was raised in a an area that has 30 inches and the dryland
cotton yields were nearly the same. Up until then I didn't realize Texas had
a monsoon season. It's usualy only good for 3 or 4 inches of rain but it
comes in July an August. Years ago when I was trying to model cotton yields
that best model I could get was the inches of rain in July and august time
80 plus 50. Were I was from July and August were dryer.

Framing in high rainfall areas has it's own special set of problems. Low pH
is number one from the rain leaching all the calcium out of the soils. I had
an average pH of 7.2 with spots as high as 9 in alkali springs. They also
have an order of magnitude more insect problems and disease problems. If you
add tropical to that it is a real big problem. With out fertile,
insecticide, fungicide it easy for tropical agriculture to be less
productive than arid areas.

The tropics are where GM crops have the most promise. The Round UP Ready
gene was easy to isolate if lived it had it. It showed a clear and quick pay
off to the farmer any one with an IQ greater than his belt size can figure
out it works and it met the need of the increasing problem of incresing
extremely difficult to control weeds. BT was an already proven safe
herbicide that in the case of cotton that uses about 1/4 of the all
insecticides in the world a good part of the rest used on the same bug when
it ate corn an easy choice.

They increase the US farmers profits and help the yields a little But BT
cotton doubles the yield of third world farmers and they don't have to spray
insecticides I would only apply by airplane and wouldn't go in the feild for
a week by hand. The third world will be the real winner with GM crops where
it dramatically increases yield, saves lives and save them from clutches of
loan sharks in the first world it just cuts cost and increase yield -5 to
+10%. depending on the method of farming. If the farmer is going for max
profit sometimes the yield suffers a little when they don't get it all just
right.

Very little wheat is grown in New Mexico. Just the South east corner that is
in the monsoon pattern. Mostly it is cow and sheep country.

Gordon

Michael Percy writes
Oz wrote:

Michael Percy writes

My argument stands. Sahara is very big, but even then it must be
sustaining a pitifully small cattle herd.

Remember most of n.africa was the breadbasket of rome.

You are probably thinking of the semi-arid or sub-humid parts of
Algeria and Tunis, but we are talking about arid land.

No, I think you are talking about desert.

I can't think of any arid part of N.Africa being the breadbasket of Rome
except Egypt.

Well you would be wrong. Libya and Tunisia for a start.

However we are talking about land with low plant production
per acre, arid, unable to sustain a grain crop, yet with a significant
production of beef in absolute terms, due to vast area.

Most of the sahel, you mean.

That just isn't Egypt.

Of course not, egypt isn't the sahara.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Michael Percy writes

Yes, but you were talking about arid land, which I would loosely define
as under 10 inches.

!

That's quite a lot.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Michael Percy wrote in message
...
Oz wrote:

Michael Percy writes

My argument stands. Sahara is very big, but even then it must be
sustaining a pitifully small cattle herd.

Remember most of n.africa was the breadbasket of rome.

You are probably thinking of the semi-arid or sub-humid parts of
Algeria and Tunis, but we are talking about arid land.

remember it didn't use to be arid


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Michael Percy writes

I do not mean Sahel, but a good part of Sahel must be arid.
By all means post how much beef is produced from it if you know.

I've been to parts of it, and similar areas round kenya-Tanzania. They
are almost all pastoralists (like the masai) although in wetter areas
some grain is grown.

It's not the sort of place that does government records, and even if
they did I wouldn;t believe them.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.