[Masthead] Fair ~ 69°F  
High: 69°F ~ Low: 51°F
Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014

Discussing rights and responsibilities with the family dog

Posted Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 3:55 PM

So I said to my dog the other day, "Flash, there are some people who think you and all the other animals in the world need to have rights."

She looked at me with that cocked-head look that conveys its message to a person better than any spoken sentence ever could.

In other words, I knew what she was thinking... "What are you talkin' about crazy lady?"

"Yes, Flash there is a group of people that want to give you the same rights we have. One of those is the right to sue if you don't like something we do. Like if I walk by you twice in the morning and forget to fill your dish, well, normally you just stand in front of me until I trip head first in to your dog food container. But now, instead you can just call a lawyer and have me sued."

"Of course, I guess that means we'll have the right to sue you too," I continued.

"Come to think about it, that place on the deck where you chewed the wood up -- I'll be needing you to pay soon. Well, as soon as you get a job that is," I said, as she cocked her head again.

"Yes, as it is with children as they grow up, with rights comes responsibility.

"Oh and since we're talking about 'animal rights,' that means the cows would be able to sue too. So I guess you should definitely stop biting them when you are trying to bring them in to the lot. After all you could be held liable."

"Oh, and about this job you'll get, it can't really be here. We can't afford any more workers. You are, of course, a member of our family so you can stay here. But since in human years you are actually 35, I guess that means you'll pay rent. After all you're a grown adul... ooops, I mean dog -- with rights. You can't expect to sponge off us for the rest of your life.

"And of course, with your new rights you'll have to pay taxes, follow the laws and for gosh sakes, take a bath every once in awhile.

"Come to think of it, quit rolling in dead things ... after all, it doesn't help your smell any and now that you have the same rights as humans, you need to ignore that whole survival of the fittest thing and those survival instincts. As for eating that fresh cow manure -- no more, that is disgusting. We've put up with because we knew it was something in your instinct. But if you are going to have rights, you're going to have to ignore those instincts.

"Of course, come to think about it, it means you can't harass the cats anymore, after all they have rights too. And they have the right to live here free of harassment ...Well, as long as they pay rent, that is. I don't think they are going to be happy about the whole working eight hours a day thing, or having to give up eating mice," I babbled on.

"Oh yeah, and let's not tell anybody about the rabbit, opossum and raccoons you've killed in the last few years. After all, they are animals, too. They have rights. So I suppose the laws of survival no longer apply when you get 'rights.'

"And we don't want any 35-year-old from our house in jail. How embarrassing would that be?

"So after you get a job (at least you have skills, what will the cats be able to get in this economy.) We'll have to get you in touch with the accountant. You'll need to plan for your retirement. Again, you can't just sponge off us, you have rights you know."

I rattled on like that for quite awhile, while the dog continued to cock her head from side to side. Well, at least until she got bored with the sound of my voice and went out to the yard.

While I watched her, I thought about the animal rights versus animal welfare debate. As farmers I think it is our duty to provide the proper "welfare" to our animals. We have to care for them, feed them and protect them with the best available methods and technology.

But "animal rights" advocates do not distinguish between human beings and animals. Some of the most famous quotes from those activists include: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals." and "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect."

The most extreme "animal rightists" believe even owning an animal as a pet is "exploiting" that animal.

I consider it all as I watch Flash search our yard, intently looking for something.

I was lost in thought when I felt her nudge my leg as she stood in front of me with one of her many balls in her mouth. I knew the signal. She wanted to play.

As I tossed the ball and watched her run as fast as she could towards it, I was still thinking about the animal rights versus animal welfare debate.

As a farmer, I love my dog and love my cows. But in caring for them day after day, I realize they are not the same as humans. They are driven by a God-given instinct to survive. They live by the laws of nature, the food chain and the laws of survival. If as humans, we ever lived by instincts, we have long since lost that ability -- probably to our detriment.

My dog is not the same as a rat, nor is she the same as a boy.

As smart as my dog is, she still is driven by her God-given instincts to hunt, to protect and as a border collie, to bring in the herd.

As I saw her heading back towards me, hopeful I'd play for a little while more, I realized what I already knew. In looking out for her welfare, I protect her right to live by those instincts.

Then I have another thought. Is pet ownership really an exploitation of that animal?

As I toss the ball for the 80th time, it finally becomes clear.

Someone in this relationship may be exploited, but it sure isn't Flash.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Thanks Marcia.

Thanks to SC for sharing Far Side cartoon. As I bend over with newspaper plastic sleeve on my hand to pick up "deposits" my dog is kicking grass and dirt in my face, looking over his shoulder as if to say, "Why are you doing THAT? I'll take care of it."

-- Posted by upsedaisy on Tue, Apr 27, 2010, at 9:51 PM

SC and Upsedaisy, Thanks for the comments. They made me laugh! I love Far Side cartoons.

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Tue, Apr 27, 2010, at 10:06 PM

Animal Rights has nothing to do with granting nonhumans the right to vote, drive a car, get an education or to marry. These are human rights.

Rights are recognized when they will benefit the receiver... No nonhuman would benefit from any "human right" that you recited.

However, we all do have an interest in our lives. We all value the life we possess. None of us wants our freedom or our lives taken away. Those who advocate for animal "rights" say this mutual desire of life is what is important to all who possess it; And in this one way, is how we are all "equal".

And you say that you "love your cows"... Do they not have the same "God-given instinct to survive"? And by what "right" do we steal this instinct to survive, that is equal to our own? Certainly "need" and "necessity" would be valid justification... If we were attacked or threatened by an animal. Or if we were isolated somewhere without any choice but to kill for survival. But as we know, we don't have to kill cows (or dogs) to live. Millions thrive on a plant based diet which respects the "rights" of cows and other "food" animals who have the same interests as you, me or Flash.

Finally, any being that is "owned" will be treated as a "commodity" and their (equal)interests in their lives, will be secondary to the owners "wants" or "profits". I share my home with many animals, but I don't "own" them - I am their "guardian" and the interest they have in their lives is protected by me... Do you really protect the interest's of "your" herd?

-- Posted by Bea Elliott on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 8:59 AM

Apparently some are a little guilty about the spot we humans occupy at the top of the food chain. At least we think we do...

It seems a little unrealistic to argue against thousands of years of humans raising animals for meat. The sucess of veganism (is that a word?)as a means of sustinance seems somewhat unsupported by history.

-- Posted by Smart Dog on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:24 AM

Bea Elliott, you took all the words right out of my mouth. All very well said.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:35 AM

Smart Dog, I agree.

Bea, I do protect the interest of my herd when they are in my care. Most of our cows will live the majority of their lives on our farm.

I realize you and I may never agree on this subject but I believe animal protein is an important part of a healthy diet. Also, what many don't realize is that 85 percent of the available agriculture land in the U.S. is unsuitable for raising vegetables, but perfect for raising cattle and other meat animals.

That said, I do understand why some people are against eating animals and it is a subject I have thought a lot about. An article I wrote last summer sums up my thoughts the best. http://www.marshallnews.com/blogs/1146/e...

Thank you both for reading.

Marcia

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:43 AM

@"Smart Dog:" I'm not sure what you mean by feeling "guilty" for being "at the top of the food chain" (which, btw, we are not). The point is that we have the ability to make a conscious decision to avoid causing pain in and taking the lives of others. "Top of the food chain" or not is irrelevant. Would you allow a lion to tear you to shreds because he/she is higher up on the food chain than you? We don't need to eat animals to survive, as Bea was saying, and as many of us prove by being healthy (often healthier than flesh and secretion consumers). As for the success of veganism (yeah, that's a word) as a means of sustenance not being supported by history, are you referring to the small percentage of vegans? I see the problem being the small number of vegans; not the ability of a vegan diet to provide sustenance. And it does sustain millions quite well... We are not obligate omnivores. Check this out: http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/?page=b...

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:49 AM

@Marcia-

First, check out the link I just send "Smart Dog." You can also see my running resume if you want to know how "important" animal protein is to a healthy diet.

Secondly, do you really "protect the interest of [your] herd" when they are shot in their head and left to bleed do death hanging upside down?

Third (and these are in no particular order of importance) I can't believe you mentioned that "85 percent of the available agriculture land in the U.S. is unsuitable for raising vegetables, but perfect for raising cattle and other meat animals." What do your cows eat? Not plants, eh? It takes 7-10 pounds of plant matter to make just one pound of beef. Cattle raising IS WHAT IS MAKING OUR LAND UNSUITABLE FOR GROWING VEGETABLES. We need to stop now before it gets worse.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:56 AM

JNT - what a great link. I'd never seen that before. Thanks for sharing.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:00 AM

i agree with bea, pb1, and jnt...

when i first started reading this article i thought it was a joke... i kept waiting for the punchline... sad.

-- Posted by denise y on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:12 AM

PB1,

When I read comments like yours it becomes obvious you have never actually seen many areas of our country. Even here on our farm plowing grass up to plant vegetables or any crop would be damaging to the environment. As I said, 85 percent of the available farmland is not suitable for plowing and planting. It is suitable for growing grasses, which ruminants are built to digest. Instead the grass covers the soil, keeps it from eroding and provides our cows with a healthy diet.

Besides eating the grass and turning it into protein, proper cattle grazing is also important to keep dry grasses from accumulating and becoming kindling for forest fires, which I think you will agree are extremely detrimental to our environment.

Unfortunately much of the ground suited to growing vegetables has been taken up by urban sprawl in states like California and Florida.

As for your figures, it actually takes 2 pounds of corn for a pound of beef. http://www.extension.org/faq/4027

Also many people don't realize that many of todays feed animals - cattle, poultry and hogs are eating a diet high in DDGs or dried distillers grain which is the high protein product left over AFTER ethanol production.

Thank you bea, pb1, jnt and denise y for reading and taking the time to comment.

Marcia

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:40 AM

Marcia,

I've just read your article. I have to say that I've personally had far different experiences with cows when visiting various animal sanctuaries. I've only met a few who shied away from humans. Perhaps this was because they knew they were in a place where they would not be turned into steak; they weren't witnessing their fellow pasture-mates disappearing permanently after someone came out to get them. Do you not realize that your animals don't want you to nuzzle them because they know you are going to kill them?

As for your first cow running from you "just days after being led in a ring at the Missouri State Fair," you seem to be making the opposite point of what you intended. Of course she would run from you; she wanted to stay in pasture and probably thought you were going to take her back to that fair where she was exploited.

Just reading your latest comment now. Again, the land that you state is not suitable for growing plants is so largely BECAUSE of cattle rearing; also due to long-term chemical usage on those grounds. It is also being taken up by urban sprawl, but I fail to see how this makes it okay to make things worse by using even more land for cattle rearing. We are actually using a lot of good, usable land to raise cattle and grow food for them and other so-called "meat" animals; we're not just using the land that only grass can grow on. I fail to see your point on 2 lbs of corn making a pound of beef... A) cows are not meant to eat corn; it makes them unhealthy... I suppose you don't care about their health if you're just gonna kill and eat them... and B) back to my above point, um, I thought we didn't have enough land to grow plants besides grass... so, why are we using the land we have to grow corn for cows to eat when we could be growing other plants, eh??

Re, cattle raising supposedly being the only method to prevent forest fires, I don't think we even need to go there, do we?

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:03 AM

Thank goodness that while the lion may be bigger and faster, I am smarter, have opposable thumbs, and know how to use tools. Weapons to defend myself logically follow. Whew, just about fell out of my tree for a second there.

I am more in favor of placing virus and bacteria at the top of the food chain. After all, we are all just thier hosts, much as mother earth is ours. I say we stop all production of antibiotics immediately!

Gardening seems another logical target here. I mean aren't our plant neighbors also alive. Who are we to say that they, too, do not cling to life and sense it's ultimate loss? Perhaps we could stir up some recipes for crabgrass as I don't think anybody will rise up to defend the lowly weed.

Maybe I better stop...... my steaks are about ready.

-- Posted by Smart Dog on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:07 PM

PB1,

I wonder where you have gotten your information. Much of it is sadly very ill-informed. I would hope that you would reach out to an area farmer and talk to them about these issues. You certainly have a right to your views, but I would hope they are formed after thorough research beyond your computer.

The internet is a wonderful world allowing us to reach out and talk to those with differing opinions, but there is as much misinformation on here (probably more) than there is correct information.

So please go visit a farmer who raises meat animals, ask him or her questions, or better yet stick around and work their for a few days. You may leave more convinced you are right than ever, or you may even realize some of what you were "shown" or told on the internet was not correct after all.

Here is a column which covers some of the issues you have brought up, especially about corn being unhealthy. Is not unhealthy if given in correct amounts. Cows love corn, but will not limit themselves. http://www.marshallnews.com/blogs/1146/e...

I realize I won't change your mind. You don't have to believe me, of course, but my columns are based on 25 years of experience on a family farm, after 22 years of living in the city.

Marcia

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:39 PM

"Smart Dog," thanks for answering my question about the lions - you would indeed NOT allow them to kill you simply because they are above you on the food chain. Why should they feel "guilty" for being above you on the food chain? It's their right to eat you, so why not let them? My point is, why kill cows and other animals who do not want to be killed? Lions require meat to survive; humans, however, do not require any animal products to survive (and are better off without them) and are also able to make the conscience-based decision to avoid it. Re plants, do we really need to go there? Plants do not have central nervous systems and do not feel pain. I am amused that you mentioned them, as so many defensive animal-eaters do so often. Check out this bingo sheet: http://vegansaurus.com/post/254784826/de... We're all quite used to these antics you display.

Marcia, please list, point-by-point, where I have been "ill-informed" throughout this conversation. You have --unsurprisingly-- failed to respond to most of my points and have been repeatedly contradicting yourself when you do respond (including with your comment about corn, above, as well as in the article you linked to me, written by no other than you, the cow farmer, of course). Your article talks about antibiotics (which I have not mentioned) and how corn-fed cows taste better than grass-fed, as well as how cows and deer enjoy eating corn. I fail to see how this disproves any of my points, and find it funny that you went from stating that we needed cows to graze on grass to prevent forest fires to saying that we need them to eat corn so they will be better able to please our palates -- that was my point in my last comment. You completely contradicted yourself. It all comes down to our taste buds (and wallet, in your case) in the end, eh?

The most important question you have failed to answer is why we must continue to blow cows' brains out, as well as whether or not you truly believe these animals want that to happen. I'm curious to know your response to my comment above about why the cows may run from you and not want to nuzzle you...

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 3:25 PM

I'm with denise y. I was also waiting for the punchline and then realized I was reading sarcasm.

Sad.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 4:12 PM

PS, Marcia - in response to your "go visit a farmer" and "research beyond your computer" comment, I have worked on a farm for a few days, on more than one occasion (the same farms, of the non-murdering kind, that I mentioned earlier). Which of the points that I have raised do you propose I have "learned" on my computer, anyway? That the cows I've met didn't run from me? I wasn't talking about a "virtual" computer farm with virtual cows earlier...

...That humans don't need animal products to be healthy? I already mentioned my own health and running resume and my masters degree in nutrition also helped a bit with this knowledge... For that matter, why don't YOU stop believing everything you read online about veganism not being healthy and try it for yourself, eh?

...That cows are better suited to non-corn grass? Learned that at the farms as well as from former cattle ranchers (cast of Peaceable Kingdom...ever see that movie?)

...That cows want to live out their normal lifespans and not be shot in the head when they are perfectly healthy? I learned this not only by meeting cows personally and with simple reasoning, but also from speaking with the aforementioned former cattle ranchers, and perhaps most importantly, videos depicting fear of animals headed for slaughter (such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUkHkyy4u... ) Does that cow look and sound like he is ready to "do the job God [you say] intended him to do?"

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 5:20 PM

@Smokin' Cheetah - Up until your comment, all the other comments were actually very much related to the blog entry. As for your comment, I honestly don't know of any self-proclaimed animal rights activists who promote the exploitation of any of the creatures you mentioned... and I know a whole lot of animal rights activists. Just who are these hypocrites of whom you speak? It is interesting that you claim you "couldn't agree more" with animal rights, then claim that animal rights activists are hypocrites because THEY supposedly are anti-bug, then you state YOU would deliberately kill a roach.....

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 7:10 PM

Um, PB1, I think Smokin' was gently goshin' ya.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 7:42 PM

Um, Taxedpayer, I got that. Your point?

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 8:04 PM

C'mon Cheetah, this is a serious subject to PB1. Don't poke fun.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 8:29 PM

I find it very ironic that it is ok to eat a plant (they are living organisms) and wrong to eat a steak. Please look at those tiny lttle stems and take pity as you are about to eat the your next bite.....

-- Posted by litlmissme on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 8:33 PM

The land is not farmable because of animal raising OMG! Anyone with an once of farm knowlege knows that good farm land is used to raise the value crops. The less desirable, more clay bound, rock infested ground and on a grade undesirable to be traveled by farm equipment is the ground that the grasses are to be planted and let Bessie get fat on.

If these patches of ground were to be palnted in any crop other than a grass, they would wash away to a large cavern.

BTW-My degree is in Agriculture. Let's Dance.

-- Posted by litlmissme on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 8:46 PM

Aw shucks, Marcia, you have all the fun! I'm so jealous that I have to drop in with a comment.

Years ago in a New York magazine story called "The New Puritans" the author made the interesting point that only people who have an abundance of food from which to select their daily diet would ignore entire food groups, as vegans and vegetarians do. I don't argue tell them what to put on their plates and I would appreciate it if they'd stop telling me what to put on mine.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:29 PM

Night Sky and TaxedPayer, did you (or TaxedPayer) actually read my response to Smokin' Cheetah? I don't see your point that he/she was joking/ "poking fun." He/she was wrong about AR activists promoting the exploitation of those species.

litlmissme - ah, another mention of plants. You missed an earlier post... as well as maybe third grade science class...

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:36 PM

Just noticed RNT's post from this morning has mysteriously disappeared... interesting... Well, here is the link he/she had posted, in response to Marcia's evident lack of understanding of the concept of animal rights: http://www.cok.net/lit/animalrights.php

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:45 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
I can shed some light on the mystery: The post included insults hurled at another participant in the conversation. Not acceptable according to our comment policy.

Now PB1, Cheetah said he would only kill a roach in the unfortunate case that he was forced to. I got the impression he meant if it was him or the roach. Surely you don't advocate leniency when it comes to ravenous rogue roaches?

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:47 PM

PB1, you don't think Cheetah's post with jokes and comparing cows to insects wasn't poking fun?

It often happens on here that those who do not agree with another's opinion will make fun of the person or the issue. I don't like seeing that.

Just tried to send a little support your way. You don't have to slap me with a dead fish. I'm backing away now -- yer on yer own, sailor.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:53 PM

TP - I got the impression that SC was being sarcastic, since he/she had just gotten done saying that animal rights people were hypocrites: "Seriously. Animal rights. I couldn't agree more. But may I suggest a little more consistency in that philosophy and a little less hypocrisy?".. then listed the species he/she apparently, incorrectly, assumes we are okay with exploiting...

Re the roach, he/she mentioned killing it with Raid. In what scenario would one's survival require destroying a roach with poisonous chemicals?

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:54 PM

NS - yes, I got that he/she was poking fun. My response to him/her was not about him/her poking fun or not. It was about him/her stating that AR activists are okay with exploiting insects. WE ARE NOT.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:56 PM

Kathy - what kind of "abundance of food" is required to be vegan? Nuts, grains, seeds, vegetables, fruit... not very hard to come by. Re "I don't argue tell them what to put on their plates and I would appreciate it if they'd stop telling me what to put on mine," give me a break. A) no one is "telling" you what to put on your plate and B) what reason could you possibly come up with to tell a vegan that they should eat animals? We are not the ones deliberately inflicting suffering upon sentient beings despite it not being necessary for our health.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:02 PM

PB1 - you ARE in fact telling us all what to put on our plates. You make your choices and I will make mine. Your variety of activism is no different from, nor any more palatable, than any other form of extremism. Disagree if you wish, but keep your nose out of my shopping list.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:05 PM

Marcia - first of all, read my comment that I just posted to Kathy.

RE "Arguing with some people is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. Pretty soon you realize the pig enjoys it." That sure seems to be the case here. I suppose that is the entire purpose of this blog site of yours. Surely it was the idea behind this particular blog, which was noto only snide and sarcastic, but loaded with MISINFORMATION about the concept of animal rights. I repost this link again that someone deleted earlier: http://www.cok.net/lit/animalrights.php I would advise you to check it out, since you don't understand the concept of animal rights at all.

Re litlemissme "doing a great job pointing out my misinformation," .... I am misinformed about plants not feeling pain? Hmm, interesting. I think litlemissme might have missed elementary school.

As far as me being "misinformed," I'm reposting an earlier comment that you apparently overlooked entirely. Please tell me where I am misinformed:

"In response to your "go visit a farmer" and "research beyond your computer" comment, I have worked on a farm for a few days, on more than one occasion (the same farms, of the non-murdering kind, that I mentioned earlier). Which of the points that I have raised do you propose I have "learned" on my computer, anyway? That the cows I've met didn't run from me? I wasn't talking about a "virtual" computer farm with virtual cows earlier...

...That humans don't need animal products to be healthy? I already mentioned my own health and running resume and my masters degree in nutrition also helped a bit with this knowledge... For that matter, why don't YOU stop believing everything you read online about veganism not being healthy and try it for yourself, eh?

...That cows are better suited to non-corn grass? Learned that at the farms as well as from former cattle ranchers (cast of Peaceable Kingdom...ever see that movie?)

...That cows want to live out their normal lifespans and not be shot in the head when they are perfectly healthy? I learned this not only by meeting cows personally and with simple reasoning, but also from speaking with the aforementioned former cattle ranchers, and perhaps most importantly, videos depicting fear of animals headed for slaughter (such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUkHkyy4u... ) Does that cow look and sound like he is ready to "do the job God [you say] intended him to do?"

Please do respond to these points.... especially the video of the terrified cow headed for slaughter.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:17 PM

Kathy - Again, no one on this blog has "told anyone what to eat or what not to eat." Marcia wrote a nasty blog which proved she had no understanding of the concept of animal rights, so people, including me, responded by telling her what animal rights actually was about. She then went on to claim that animal protein was necessary for good health, that cows WANT to be killed to feed us, and other bogus misinformation, and was again provided with the realities - that animal protein is not necessary for good health and that sentient animals actually do not want to be killed. That is simply the truth. I'm not going to lie and tell you things are any different. If you can't handle those realities, that is not my problem.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:27 PM

OMG - PB1 working on a "animal sanctuary" for a few days and thinking you knwo about raising livestock or farming is like going to the circus and thinking you know all about elephants!! Geez.

Glad you're not a farmer, with all your "knowledge" there would be no topsoil left. Yes, lets plant veggies in the rocks and gullies and see if they'll grow.

Oh by the way, The cow was probably scared because it saw some hippie with a video camera standing in front of it.

-- Posted by babygotback on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:34 PM

babygotback - You should probably read the comment of Marcia's that I was responding to. I had written that in response to Marcia telling me to "talk with an animal farmer" (I have) and insinuating that everything I know I learned online (such as cows wanting to be killed, animal protein being necessary for our health, etc). I wasn't claiming to know everything about animal farming. My point was that I had not simply "read stuff online," as she insinuated. Who suggested planting veggies in rocks and gullies? I suggested not using good land to grow corn to feed cows when that land could be put to better use growing other vegetables for us, since it takes 2-10 lbs of grain to make just one pound of beef. Someone else mentioned rocky land being unsuitable for vegetable farming, which wasn't a response to any of my points. Don't mix up posts.

Re your last comment...no response seems to be necessary there.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:46 PM

@Marcia - I read your article. And again we can be jubilant - How wonderful that cows and other "food animals" instinctually know their "higher calling"! Let there never be any doubt why they are so willing to "give" their lives for us! And how convenient it is that those who benefit from this arrangement are priviledged to know exactly what the animal's wishes are! Not only do you say that their "purpose" is to serve man... But they like this scenario too! Sounds like "suicide food" to me.

And it's interesting too that you call upon the sacred "circle of life", thereby dismissing yourself from any direct participation. You're just "following orders" right? But I've come to see it as the "circle of killing". Yes, I realize all who exist must eventually die --- That does seem to be "nature's plan"... Still I find it bizarre to include captive bolt guns and bleed rails in the mix. But then with such carefully crafted moral dissonance, it figures that anything goes...

You say "Most of our cows will live the majority of their lives on our farm." Well, I would think so... Except a few brief months "fattening up" - The way you phrase it though - "the majority of their lives"... That "majority" of time is what a year? A year and a few months? And "their lives"... Surely you don't really mean "their lives" - now do you??? It's not "their life" at all, for if it were, they wouldn't be on some predetermined schedule to have that life ended. And if it were REALLY "their life" - then wouldn't there be some misgivings about stealing that life?

Ah... But I forget - there's that devine "higher calling" - and that all explains everything away so nicely - Especially when we're about to dine on some bit of flesh "given" so willingly by the selfsacrifice of those who only wish to die on our behalf.

And about the "necessity" of animal protein - I'm in much better health since eating a plant based diet... As are several neighbors and friends who were quite reluctant to give it a try... It was the information from the American Dietetic Association that helped persuade them: "Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.as...

As far as sustainability or land use is concerned I don't think I could answer an better than PB1 already has. But since the focus seems to be on "cattle" I'd point to the works of Jeremy Rifkin's "Beyond Beef"

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/books/r...

And "Western Turf Wars" by Mike Hudak:

http://www.mikehudak.com/

Historically speaking there never has been enough room for cattle interests and citizens to coexist peacefully. Never.

As for me, I'd rather evolve beyond my cuspids. And I think the only way to do this is to "Leave the Cow Behind":

http://tinyurl.com/me56jy

Finally, to Smokin' Cheetah - The insects you list all feed on or are a danger to others... I don't like taking any life, but in the case of ticks, mosquitos, etc. I think it's a matter of "self defense" --- Are you claiming that the creatures we use as "food" are dangerous to us? Are we consuming wolves, mountain lions or bears? No... We are eating the gentle herbivores! The captive innocent! The young and the helpless... They are hardly a "threat" to us -So don't worry you need not feel "forced" to claim your place on the (very fragile) "food chain" - Indeed you USE force to maintain it.

-- Posted by Bea Elliott on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:48 PM

PS, babygotback, I said "a few days at a time on more than one occasion" (as in many occasions). And not once did the cows run from me, as Marcia alleges they do with her. They didn't run because they know they are not going to be killed. How much knowledge of animal farming would I need to notice that the cows didn't run from me? That was my only point in mentioning that I had visited farm sanctuaries.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM

Right on, Bea :).

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:55 PM

It's pretty obvious you all aren't from around here, and I'm not sure why you are on this blog. You sure don't know much about livestock

But here is a quick lesson: The cows, Marcia mentioned are the mothers. They can live up to 20 years old. Unless you are eating hamburger at a fast food restaurant you are not eating cows. Most people areound here are cow-calf farmers which means their cows have babies aobut every year. The calves (mostly the steers or males) are sold when they are weaned from the cows at about 9 months. (Most of the heifers or females are kept or sold to become cows.) They go to another farm or some straight to a feedlot, where they are "fed out." That is where the steaks come from, not the cows. There is a difference.

Still not sure why you are on this blog. I don't think it was "nasty." I thought it was funny.

If you don't want to eat meat, don't. But most of us like it and your probably not going to convert anybody here - probably just the opposite.

-- Posted by babygotback on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:05 PM

BGB- I know all about female cows being used for dairy/ males being raised for meat on feedlots, as well as what happens to their calves. In some cases during this thread I may have said "cows" when I meant "cattle." My deepest apologies for causing such confusion. And yes, I am also against raping cows for milk and stealing their babies, in case you were wondering.

I found this blog because someone posted it on Facebook. It has raised quite a few eyebrows. You thought it was funny because you also apparently don't understand the concept of animal rights (I shall repost this link for a third time: http://www.cok.net/lit/animalrights.php). Read up. "It's obvious you're not from around here."

Re your last two sentences, observe what I wrote to Kathy earlier.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:19 PM

sorry, parenthesis got in the way of the link before: http://www.cok.net/lit/animalrights.php

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:27 PM

Beef cows and dairy cows are not the same thing. Not even close. Two separate farms, no dairy farmers in this area. WOW! You are not very informed are you? And you seem to think we are stupid.

-- Posted by babygotback on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:31 PM

Huh? I just got done saying that I understood they were not the same thing and raised separately.....(??) Where have you misread?

-Beef cows are male and raised on cattle ranches, with feedlots.

-Dairy cows are female and raised on dairy farms (usually drylots).

-Calves to dairy cows are taken from their mothers and sold either for bob veal (if male), or kept in little huts until they are old enough to produce milk (if female).

What, exactly, am I misinformed about here?

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:37 PM

When did this become a contest about who knows the most about animal farming, anyway? It's a nice diversion from the point, huh, babygotback? A nice way of avoiding the questions that are posed to you. Why don't you respond to Bea's question to you above? We'll wait.

Here it is, lest you missed it:

"@babygotback and anyone else who believes one must work on a "farm" in order to think rationally about what a sentient being desires or not: ie: They desire to live. I know I have never been a prisoner - but I know it's wrong to imprison someone. I have never owned slaves... but I know that's wrong too. I've also never been a bigot - But I can smell them a mile away. You don't have to do the "act" to know it is vile. That's why we are reasoning beings... We don't have to experience everything in order to understand concepts and abstracts."

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:52 PM

You are very misinformed. What you just wrote would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. It is also sad that you are arguing about this and don't even know the basics.

It is why we need people who live on a farm to write about agriculture. You really, really need to go visit a farm. A farm with livestock.

-- Posted by babygotback on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:53 PM

babygotback, your defensiveness would be funny, if it wasn't so sa (and obnoxious). I am misinformed about dairy cows being different from beef cows? Funny, cuz you seemed to agree with me a minute ago... You disagree no matter what is said.

I think you missed my last comment above. Go check it out.

-- Posted by PB1 on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 11:59 PM

And some thought that political discussion had gotten out of hand. My take on this is that the locals are somewhat cornered, and that comments are driven more by emotion than reason. So many "responses" do not even seem to be vaguely linked to points raised by the alleged outsiders. Other responses scoff, and make light of points raised. Not often enough has the effort been to genuinely refute "outsider" arguments.

Disappointing.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 12:43 AM

Something funny to me is that we sit around in our porked out bodies defending the way we eat, and what we eat. Hooked on fat.

It is almost as bad as rationalizing smoking cigarettes because it keeps the weight off. Hooked on nicotine.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 12:48 AM

PB1 - Marcia's comments were not "nasty." The are her opinion, and thus her right to express. You may express your opinion, too, but instead of aggressively attacking everyone here with a verbal billy club, you might take a different tone, which might get you less-aggressive answers, don't you think?

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 6:00 AM

OK, PB1, you have a point. Here's the direct, humorless, answer: We understand the concept of animal rights. We don't agree with it.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 7:06 AM

Taxedpayer - simple and direct, great response. Wish I'd said that!

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 7:41 AM

Kathy - Marcia was not simply "sharing her opinion." She was showing that she doesn't understand the concept of animal rights by mentioning dogs having jobs, paying taxes, etc, and also incorrectly stating that her bovine want to die. That's not a matter of "opinion." A link was shared with her about what "animal rights" really means, so that she will perhaps stop criticizing, and that comment with the link was mysteriously removed.

As far as me "aggressively attacking you"... again, do you mean by responding to your questions/ points with the truth? Or are you referring to the slight display of anger that may have come through in my more recent posts, following all of the aggressive, attacking comments directed toward me? Yet another attempt to divert the attention away from the issue so you don't have to respond. Nice. You change the topic to my "aggression," BGB changed it to different types of bovine (?), litlemissme and [not-so-]Smart Dog changed it to plants having feelings (LOL), Smokin' Cheetah changed it to ARA's killing insects, etc, etc. Why not respond to the points raised by Bea and I? I know the answer to this.

Just noticed that Bea's second post from last night, directed at the aforementioned commenters, has been removed. That is the second critical comment that has mysteriously disappeared, the other being the Compassion Over Killing link that proved Marcia did not understand the concept of animal rights. I have to say I am now a bit suspicious. I would hate to think that posts that Marcia does not want others to see are deleted at her convenience. That would not make for a very fair conversation.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:00 AM

Love your blog.

Animals are animals and should be treated as they were first intended when they were created. :)

Enjoy your animal and treat it the best way you see fit.

Karma!

-- Posted by Spcldy on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:04 AM

TaxedPayer - actually, Marcia proved in her blog that she does not understand the concept of animal rights, by mentioning dogs having jobs, voting, etc, under the animal rights principle. Maybe you understand, but the author of the blog under which we are commenting does not, in addition to some of the other commenters. And I'm sorry you and Kathy don't agree with the real concept -- that we shouldn't cause needless harm to other sentient beings. I hope that someday you will agree.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:06 AM

Spcldy - Right, exactly -- animals should be treated as ANIMALS; not as commodities. Thanks for supporting the counter points to this blog.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:08 AM

PS, Spldcy - HUMANS ARE ANIMALS, in case you were unaware.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:09 AM

"What, exactly, am I misinformed about here?"

You seriously think that all female cattle are for dairy and all male cattle are for beef?

When my daughter was 4 years old, she told me "the black and white ones are for milk and the other ones are for steak".

It's an oversimplification, but in my region it's usually correct. Even a preschooler can figure it out.

Look up the difference between a Holstein and an Angus. Figure out why we've developed those separate breeds. Then come back here and defend that point.

-- Posted by dobie on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:25 AM

PB1, someone said you must not be from around here. After your comment about posts mysteriously disappearing, I know that's true.

The "great deleter", our own Eric, has magical powers to that regard. And he uses them wisely.

If you're going to post here, might as well get used to it. ;-)

-- Posted by Night Sky on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:43 AM

PB1:

I understand why you would come to the conclusion that Marcia doesn't understand animal rights, but I believe her commentary qualifies as satire. It's a dangerous breed of rhetoric, of course, depending on outrageous exaggeration to make a point. There apparently were folks who thought Jonathan Swift really was advocating cannibalism in "A Modest Proposal," after all. Donald Kaul (I think it was) once said that satiric writers should be aware that of their readers, half won't get that it's satire and of the half who do, half will violently disagree with the point. Makes for difficult odds.

-- Posted by Eric Crump on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:46 AM

I'll try posting the link again. I hope those who feel so passionately about their "rights" to own and use other sentient beings will pause and consider some of these questions and answers:

http://www.cok.net/lit/animalrights.php

-- Posted by jnt on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:54 AM

babygotback, there are a few dairy farmers in the area.

Oh, and the Holstein isn't the only breed for dairy. Don't forget the gentle Jersey. There are others, of course, but the Jersey is a sweetheart.

I'm partial to them because my grandfather and I raised an orphaned calf and it became (don't gasp, Marcia) the family farm "dog" and followed us around everywhere. Had a good, long life.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:54 AM

And here is another very helpful and interesting FAQ link. All the common objections (but what about killing plants? but other animals eat one another, why can't we? and so on...) are all addressed here in simple, easy-to-read blurbs:

http://ar.vegnews.org/Animal_Rights.html

-- Posted by jnt on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:58 AM

Eric, don't forget those who understand that it's satire but are passionate about the subject and object to use of such.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:00 AM

And! Underneath most satirical articles there runs a thread of the writer's personal belief.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:03 AM

@dobie - No, I know they are completely different breeds and that this is why male calves bred to dairy cows are sold as veal - because they are of no use to the dairy or beef industries. I even said that. When did I say they were the same breed? I'm not sure where you or babygotback read that. You both seemed to have pulled it out of thin air. I have met cattle formerly raised for beef - both male and female - as well as former dairy cows, at sanctuaries. And as I told babygotback, I don't understand the point of discussing which bovine are used for what. She brought that up to divert the attention away from the topic at hand. That was never what this conversation was about.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:25 AM

PB1 and Bea,

I have read the link and I agree it is a very good reference on animal rights.

And yes, my blog was satire and of course over the top. I certainly did not intend for it to be the last word on what animal rights activists believe in.

I also understand that you do not think it is right to kill animals for meat. I do not happen to share those views. Nor do I believe cows run from me because they know I want to kill them. The truth is they run towards me because they know I am going to feed them.

I do believe that meat, milk, cheese and eggs are a part of a healthy, well balanced diet. Of course, like any food they should be eaten in moderation.

I understand you disagree and you have that right.

Thanks to everyone who commented.

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:26 AM

Eric - so, what, exactly, was in the posts of Bea's and JNT's that made you feel the need to delete them?

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:27 AM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
Insults.

Our policy:

"The Marshall Democrat-News invites readers to share their views and questions on any issue. Open discussions are often useful and enlightening. Criticism is acceptable as an important part of public conversations, but we expect everyone to treat others with respect. Experience suggests it is best not to post comments while angry. We reserve the right to delete comments that we think include personal attacks, are disrespectful, threatening, obscene or in other ways objectionable. Anyone who repeatedly violates this policy will be banned from participating in our forums."

Nice article Marcia. Using absurdity to highlight something absurd is a necessary thing sometimes. Keep up the good work.

Troy Hadrick

-- Posted by troyhad on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:29 AM

The blog was of satire,

I wonder, if those so vegan where asked a question, what would they answer?

Which life is more precious, that of a human or animal?

I mean that if you were driving down the street, and little Johnny rolled into the path of your car on his little tricycle, and Rocky the squirrel was on the other side of the road, you were unable to stop, and had to swerve, who would get hit?

why?

Human are custodians of the creation given to us, we are to be stewards of our resources.

-- Posted by ceymore on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:32 AM

Marcia - so, now the cows run toward you, and not away from you? Interesting how your story suddenly changes....

Re meat, milk, and eggs being part of a healthy diet, you had stated before, "I believe animal protein is an important part of a healthy diet." ...As in required. That is what I was responding to. It is not required. Like I said, I would suggest not believing everything the USDA tells you about what we need to eat to be healthy. Try being vegan for a little while, if you really want to learn the truth (as you suggest I should visit a farm to learn that animals enjoy being murdered). If these products were truly "required" for our health, then I could see killing animals for food. But they are not required. You simply enjoy eating them and making a living off of the killings. That is all it comes down to in the end. And that is sad.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:35 AM

"-Beef cows are male and raised on cattle ranches, with feedlots.

-Dairy cows are female and raised on dairy farms (usually drylots)."

-- Posted by dobie on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:36 AM

ceymore - I repost this link a third (fourth?) time: http://www.cok.net/lit/animalrights.php

I would recommend that all of you who haven't yet read it, read it from top to bottom.

The question here is not "which would we avoid hitting with our car if we had to choose one - a human boy or a squirrel?" The question is would we deliberately kill a squirrel (or other animal) when it is unnecessary, just to fulfill our own interests (such as enjoying the taste of flesh). Bea went over this quite thoroughly earlier.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:42 AM

Marcia - again, I ask, what, EXACTLY, was in the posts of Bea's and JNT's that made you (or Eric) feel the need to delete them? As in what, specifically that they wrote did you believe to be "attacking, disrespectful, threatening, obscene or in other ways objectionable." JNT posted a link. Bea responded calmly, rationally, and nicely to other commenters' posts. Meanwhile, comments on your side have possessed all of the above traits. Your blog, in and of itself, DEFINED all of these things. Why was your entire blog not deleted?

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:48 AM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
I deleted the messages. The response feature includes the blog writer's name by default and I forgot to change it. Sorry. I already explained the reason for deletions.

I have not deleted any posts.

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:51 AM

For all those that keep mentioning that the blog "was of satire," including Marcia, what exactly is your point? How does it being "of satire" make it less utterly bogus?

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:54 AM

Marcia - I rephrase again:

What, EXACTLY, was in the posts of Bea's and JNT's that made ERIC feel the need to delete them? As in what, specifically that they wrote did HE believe to be "attacking, disrespectful, threatening, obscene or in other ways objectionable." JNT posted a link. Bea responded calmly, rationally, and nicely to other commenters' posts. Meanwhile, comments on your side have possessed all of the above traits. Your blog, in and of itself, DEFINED all of these things. Why was your entire blog not deleted?

I am responding to this post above:

MARCIA GORRELL

Insults.

Our policy:

"The Marshall Democrat-News invites readers to share their views and questions on any issue. Open discussions are often useful and enlightening. Criticism is acceptable as an important part of public conversations, but we expect everyone to treat others with respect. Experience suggests it is best not to post comments while angry. We reserve the right to delete comments that we think include personal attacks, are disrespectful, threatening, obscene or in other ways objectionable. Anyone who repeatedly violates this policy will be banned from participating in our forums."

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 9:59 AM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
Clarified below. It was a mistake. I deleted the posts, not Marcia. I replied, not Marcia. I fixed the mistake.

Okay, ERIC, please respond to my question addressed before at both you and Marcia. What, specifically, in JNT's and Bea's posts did you find inappropriate? Please list.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:00 AM

dobie - It was late. I'm not sure why I said beef cattle were male. I know they are not; as I said, I have met both male and female former beef cattle at multiple sanctuaries. I still never said they were the same type of bovine as dairy. I was trying to AGREE with babygotback that they were not, but both she and you misread my post as saying they were the same type of bovine. And you have not answered my question as to why any of this matters. It was introduced by BGB as a diversion from the topic at hand, so s/he wouldn't have to address the issues presented to him/her.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:06 AM

What do you want me to respond to. I eat meat, and a few vegetalbes too. Plan to keep it up.

and OKR - meat the same as nicotine? Really?

-- Posted by babygotback on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:11 AM

Eric, dang it, I am insulted cause PB1 called me "[not-so-]Smart Dog". Apparently he has not read my biography.

Ok, maybe I'm not that insulted. When considering that the argument against beef and pork production is being held with people actively engaged in just that, located in Saline County, Missouri, it seems a fools mission. Only a brave soul would get out on the front lines of this battle and face the enemy in his lair. Good luck with changing millennia of human omnivore culture.

I will speak for misinformed farmers and maybe we can provide some laughs for the next wine and cheese party. Stories of the front line battles in the war on animal agriculture as it has existed in all of human history should play well in a culture where not a single member would survive outdoors alone against Mother Nature for more than a few days.

Most of us raised on farms live a little closer to reality and the cold, hard fact that nature is both cruel and beautiful; life is a struggle to survive, and to the victors go the spoils. Nature would take my life in a second and not feel a bit of remorse if I do not play by her rules. If I do not protect against the cold, I will freeze in winter. Heck, once I thought I was going to die of a bad case of chiggers. If I am injured and alone in the woods, I will quickly become dinner for all manner of predators or opportunistic organisms if I cannot save myself.

This yields a great deal of respect for all things in nature, and the knowledge that for everything that lives, something else dies. I stop short of worship, but have significant admiration for those animals that live their lives to provide for humans. Every cowboy loves his horse because for him it exists to help him survive. He does not worship the animal and wish to bestow humanity on his horse as if that were somehow to elevate its status. He expects the animal to carry him on its back on demand, a symbiotic relationship. One can argue all day about winners or losers in their relationship, or who comes out on top, but in final analysis, neither one cares, it just is the way things are here in the real world.

Every cow/calf farmer loves his herd because of the same thing. It helps him survive and provide for his family. Domestic farm animals and humans have enjoyed this relationship for thousands of years yet somehow this is wrong from the perspective of urban folks who think beef comes from dairy cows and who have never raised, or foraged, for their own meals.

I have just two questions for those who seek to eliminate animal production. 1) Can you feed yourself without the grocery store and restaurants? I would hope the answer is yes as the arguments provided surely are coming from experts in food production. 2) Can you feed yourself, your family, and 100-150 additional people every day? This is what the average American farmer does routinely.

Perhaps now is a good time for one of history's great misquotes "If the peasants have no bread, let them eat cake." The ugliness of domestic animal slaughter pales in comparison to the starvation that would occur if all animal production were stopped. The attitude of some, who would apparently have no problem with this scenario, seems somewhat misguided.

It is quite a responsibility. If farmers don't produce, the world goes hungry. Look at what ethanol production did to the price of corn in 3rd world countries recently. If American farmers stop producing beef, pork, and poultry people will starve. This is another of those cold, hard facts that may not be attractive to some, but are none the less true.

-- Posted by Smart Dog on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:13 AM

Smart Dog,

Very well said.

You are a very Smart Dog and nice folk too!

Marcia

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:24 AM

"Smart Dog" - I shall repost Bea's first comment from last night for you. Have at it:

@Marcia - I read your article. And again we can be jubilant - How wonderful that cows and other "food animals" instinctually know their "higher calling"! Let there never be any doubt why they are so willing to "give" their lives for us! And how convenient it is that those who benefit from this arrangement are privileged to know exactly what the animal's wishes are! Not only do you say that their "purpose" is to serve man... But they like this scenario too! Sounds like "suicide food" to me.

And it's interesting too that you call upon the sacred "circle of life", thereby dismissing yourself from any direct participation. You're just "following orders" right? But I've come to see it as the "circle of killing". Yes, I realize all who exist must eventually die --- That does seem to be "nature's plan"... Still I find it bizarre to include captive bolt guns and bleed rails in the mix. But then with such carefully crafted moral dissonance, it figures that anything goes...

You say "Most of our cows will live the majority of their lives on our farm." Well, I would think so... Except a few brief months "fattening up" - The way you phrase it though - "the majority of their lives"... That "majority" of time is what a year? A year and a few months? And "their lives"... Surely you don't really mean "their lives" - now do you??? It's not "their life" at all, for if it were, they wouldn't be on some predetermined schedule to have that life ended. And if it were REALLY "their life" - then wouldn't there be some misgivings about stealing that life?

Ah... But I forget - there's that devine "higher calling" - and that all explains everything away so nicely - Especially when we're about to dine on some bit of flesh "given" so willingly by the self-sacrifice of those who only wish to die on our behalf.

And about the "necessity" of animal protein - I'm in much better health since eating a plant based diet... As are several neighbors and friends who were quite reluctant to give it a try... It was the information from the American Dietetic Association that helped persuade them: "Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.as...

As far as sustainability or land use is concerned I don't think I could answer an better than PB1 already has. But since the focus seems to be on "cattle" I'd point to the works of Jeremy Rifkin's "Beyond Beef"

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/books/r...

And "Western Turf Wars" by Mike Hudak:

http://www.mikehudak.com/

Historically speaking there never has been enough room for cattle interests and citizens to coexist peacefully. Never.

As for me, I'd rather evolve beyond my cuspids. And I think the only way to do this is to "Leave the Cow Behind":

http://tinyurl.com/me56jy

Finally, to Smokin' Cheetah - The insects you list all feed on or are a danger to others... I don't like taking any life, but in the case of ticks, mosquitos, etc. I think it's a matter of "self defense" --- Are you claiming that the creatures we use as "food" are dangerous to us? Are we consuming wolves, mountain lions or bears? No... We are eating the gentle herbivores! The captive innocent! The young and the helpless... They are hardly a "threat" to us -So don't worry you need not feel "forced" to claim your place on the (very fragile) "food chain" - Indeed you USE force to maintain it.

-- Posted by Bea Elliott on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:48 PM

As for you being a "[not-so-]Smart Dog," that was in response to your apparent inability to grasp the concept of "plant, animal, mineral." Plants don't have central nervous systems or brains. This is basic elementary school science. And we also need them to survive. We do NOT need to eat animals. It also takes more plants, as has been discussed, to make animal flesh. So by eating meat, you are killing far more plants than I.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:38 AM

Marcia, why don't you respond to that post of Bea's as well? I'll check for your detailed response later.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:38 AM

My family lives by the P.E.T.A motto PEOPLE EATING TASTY ANIMALS.

Vegans will never change my mind and I am sure I will never change theirs--

-- Posted by workingmom on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:46 AM

In case you missed it:

"PB1 and Bea, I have read the link and I agree it is a very good reference on animal rights. And yes, my blog was satire and of course over the top. I certainly did not intend for it to be the last word on what animal rights activists believe in. I also understand that you do not think it is right to kill animals for meat. I do not happen to share those views. Nor do I believe cows run from me because they know I want to kill them. The truth is they run towards me because they know I am going to feed them. I do believe that meat, milk, cheese and eggs are a part of a healthy, well balanced diet. Of course, like any food they should be eaten in moderation. I understand you disagree and you have that right."...

My mother-in-law had another saying: "If you think you are right, say what you have to say and then be quiet, no need to argue."

My MIL was a wise woman and I'll let my previous posts and articles speak for themselves. Argue if you must.

BTW- SC I'm with ya!!

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:50 AM

Love how my post can also get a "spin". This blog was intended as humor and appears to be overtaken by those with strong opinions.

Here are my opinions and beliefs. I will not change them based on what is written in these comments.

The creator I believe in deemed that plants, fruits, and animals have nutritional value and as such should be consumed following a specific method of cleaning.

Animals were placed on this earth just as plants were to sustain the lives of those beings that my creator declared to be "created in his image".

Therefore, based on my religious beliefs, animals are for food consumption or companionship. In addition, humans being created in the image of one spiritually higher than animals are not animals. Humans have souls - my religion does not clearly state that animals have souls. They are animals.

Next time I will be less vague so that spin is not available.

I eat meat, vegetables, fruits, grains etc. That is what those products are on this planet for. It is in my and the producers best interest to provide for the welfare of the animal, vegetable, fruit grain, etc both financially and for their own health. After all I would not leave the food product on the counter to spoil and then think I could eat it.

And YES! I DO CONSUME RAW MEAT!

-- Posted by Spcldy on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 11:04 AM

Jumping right into the fray...here's an interesting link to an article for our vegetarian and vegan friends who rely on soy protein for the necessary protein in our diet (And yes, protein from some source is in fact NECESSARY in a diet.)

'Is Your Veggie Burger killing you?' The risks of hexane in soy products

http://www.slate.com/id/2252002/?Gt1=380...

-- Posted by koeller77 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 12:59 PM

Well, I for one am a proud member of PETA, I support it daily.

I believe that animals need not be treated cruelly, they need room to roam, confinement housing does seem oppressive, chicken farms are not right, and puppy mills,,,,,well.. it's enexcuseable.

I am one of the People who Enjoy Tasty Animals though!

THOUGH ISN'T THE REAL STORY OR INTENT OF THE ARTICLE, THAT WE THINK WE HAVE OUR LITTLE ANIMALS IN CHECK, BUT IN REALITY THEY HAVE TRAINED US?

PB1, the reason people swerve to miss the child, and would hit the squirrel is....animals are meant to be serviant to us, and meet our needs. They are not our equals - with that said we humans hold a responsibilty to treat these animals with respect, and to show humane treatment in all aspects of our animals. We are their caretakerseither as pets, or commodities.

-- Posted by ceymore on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 1:04 PM

Boy, is this a hornet's nest!

To Bea Elliott - We DO eat the "dangerous" animals, ever had a good bear stew? We mostly eat cattle, swine, sheep, chickens, turkeys, and goats because our ancestors were able to domesticate and control those species. They weren't able to domesticate bear or bobcats.

To PB1 - Not all beef cattle are male, nor are all cattle connected with dairy farming female. Go back to your basic biological reproduction classes.

Certain breeds of cattle are known for high milk production relative to the needs of the unweaned calf's needs and time to weaning. These are used as dairy cattle. The services of a bull are needed periodically to ensure continued propagation of the breed.

Other breeds are generally used for meat. Both male and female will eventually find their way into the food chain either for human consumption or animal feed (not all dog and cat food is 100% plant based). Beef cattle start as calves in a cow-calf operation. Males are mostly castrated to become steers and quickly find their way to the grocer's meat counter. Excess heifers go the same way. Otherwise, heifers replace their mothers (or grandmothers or great-grandmothers) and are bred by the lucky little boy calf that is allowed to grow up to be a bull.

By the way, I've never seen those "little huts" that dairy calves are kept in. I've always seen them in the pasture.

And what do we do with the overpopulation of cattle that we will have if we all quit eating beef? How will all those pigs and chickens find food to live out their lives if we don't keep their populations in check?

To Marcia and TaxedPayer - I agree with you. Many animal rights activits are like religious fanatics - the only correct view on the subject is theirs!

OOPS!!! I think I just opened a can of worms!

And there's another! Are we violating worms' rights when we can them?

-- Posted by TerryM on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 3:05 PM

ceymore, I never thought the day would come when I could agree with you on something, but here it is! Let's celebrate!

-- Posted by koeller77 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 3:51 PM

Response to several people here:

Marcia, I did not miss that comment of yours earlier. I asked you for a DETAILED response to Bea's post - ie, a response to EVERY SINGLE POINT Bea raised in her comment. I will check back again later for your response. "If you think you are right..." you should be able to respond to points that are raised. If you fear you are wrong, then I can surely understand dodging points/ questions and saying something like "If you think you are right, say what you have to say and then be quiet, no need to argue" and "I'll let my previous posts and articles speak for themselves." Your previous posts and articles, Marcia, don't address most of what Bea brought up. What is your response to each of the links she posted, for starters?

Spcldy and ceymore, you may want to read that comment of Bea's as well. And Ceymore, you apparently still need to read the article that has been posted 5-6 times on this thread. Here it is AGAIN: http://www.cok.net/lit/animalrights.php

Animal rights is not about non-human animals being "equals" to humans. It is about treating them as animals, allowing them to be free and slive out their lives, AS ANIMALS. NOT as commodities. Although we would obviously swerve toward the squirrel, rather than the child, if we had to choose one, that doesn't mean we should intentionally be running over squirrels (OR SHOOTING COWS IN THE HEAD AND LEAVING THEM TO BLEED TO DEATH).

koeller77 - Uh, yeah, soy protein is the ONLY protein vegans can consume(?? LOL) and the only means by which we can consume it is via veggie burgers... and only the ones containing hexane.... Ha!

"People Eating Tasty Animals" folks - You are so very original. Never heard that before, ever.

Eric - still waiting for your response.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 4:04 PM

TerryM - First, it seems you missed Bea's point about dangerous animals entirely. You may want to re-read that. Second, I'm well aware of which bovine turn into what -- I told BGB that I understood they were different breeds right off the bat -- as well as the cruelty involved. I never said that "all cattle connected with dairy farming female." The ones who PRODUCE MILK are female (obviously). MOST of the male calves (who are not raised to be breeders) are turned into veal. And I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOUR POINT IS IN DISCUSSING THIS, much like I was not sure of BGB's point in bringing it up in the first place, other than to divert our attention from the topic at hand and try to quiz me on something that is completely irrelevant to the topic. Does what bovine turns into what somehow have anything to do with this blog post? It is all CRUEL AND UNNECESSARY; that is the point. Cows do not want to "serve us," as Marcia claims, by being murdered when they are young. That is the point. Touch on that for a second, why don't you?

As for "the overpopulation of cattle we will have if we stop eating them," first of all, the rate at which they are bred (oftentimes via artificial insemination) is unnatural, therefore we would not see anywhere near the numbers of cattle coming into the world if we left them on their own and did not lure or force them into breeding or AI them. Secondly, go ahead and feel free to eat them after they have died NATURALLY; I don't care. Your colon may not thank you, but if it makes you happy... But to kill them when they are practically still kids is unfair, especially by the means we tend to use (shooting them in the head and leaving them to bleed to death). Would you want your life taken from you early? Especially by those means? As for you never having seen the little huts ( http://www.polydome.com/calf_nursery.htm... )that female dairy calves are typically kept in until they are old enough to produce milk (ie be artificially inseminated --raped-- annually and kept pregnant against their will their entire (shortened) lives until they are no longer able to produce and are turned into hamburger).... well, it's not something "farmers" are usually proud of, much like what they do do "veal calves" (which is 50 times worse). There is a LOT we don't see. And as long as we continue to believe we are "superior" to animals, all of those atrocities will continue.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 4:18 PM

TerryM - do I really need to answer your question about whether or not canning worms violates their lives? May I can you? "I'd like a side of Terry pickles with that."

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 4:19 PM

koeller77 - apparently you still need to read Bea's comment from last night, as well.

-- Posted by PB1 on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM

PB1-- why bash Marcia-- this is her blog and she has every right to feel, think, and believe as she wishes, she does not have to respond to you-- it is an OPINION blog--she is entitled to her opinion-- and like it or not-- we are in the heart of a farming community-- both animal and plant products are produced-- most farmers are great people and have every right to be VERY PROUD of their work-- you are entitled to your opinion but, really do you have to keep arguing your point-- we all understand what you believe but let it be..........

-- Posted by workingmom on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 4:50 PM

I have two cats. =)

-- Posted by Green Eyes on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 4:59 PM

First off not many processing plants put a bullet in animal's heads any more, graghically that is very dramatic, however, realistically not happening.

If anyone has ever visited a confinement operation they know that the animals living there have all the basic needs in life met. They have all the feed they can eat, endless water, and in an environmentally controlled environment.

-- Posted by litlmissme on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 5:44 PM

Cheetah, LOL!

-- Posted by Night Sky on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 6:40 PM

Something for animal rights activists to think about, speaking of "sentient beings," is the following:

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1161.htm...

Apparently, plants have feelings, too. Bad news for the fruits, nuts and seeds crowd.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 7:38 PM

Of course they do, Kathy. But most people don't know that so it doesn't bother them to partake of them. ;-)

-- Posted by Night Sky on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 7:39 PM

koeller77

Don't get the punch and cookies out yet.

-- Posted by ceymore on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 8:38 PM

Whew! I left for an afternoon and apparently missed a lot! I think I learned my lesson about satire.

Thank you for all your comments.

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 11:24 PM

Green Eyes: Hanging on to those cats until Thanksgiving are you?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 12:03 AM

If these folks have their way all cows, pigs, poultry, fish, sheep, goats would only be allowed to exist on a sanctuary. Thus, forcing all the above species to become near extint.

My final thought on the subject is this: Just because beer exists doesn't mean I have to drink it, but that doesn't mean I want them to go out of business. The same analogy applies here if you don't want to eat meat, don't. But don't shut down agriculture as we know it. Agriculture is what has made this country. It has been a way of life since way back in the biblical years. Agricultural jobs are what keep our country functioning.

-- Posted by litlmissme on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 6:10 AM

OK Reader: I was hoping they would stick around longer. ;)

-- Posted by Green Eyes on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 8:14 AM

"I have just two questions for those who seek to eliminate animal production. 1) Can you feed yourself without the grocery store and restaurants? I would hope the answer is yes as the arguments provided surely are coming from experts in food production. 2) Can you feed yourself, your family, and 100-150 additional people every day?This is what the average American farmer does routinely."

I could! - And nearly do! I live in Florida. We grow everything from beans, broccoli, potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, avocados, sunflowers, strawberries, spinach,squash... Well, you get the idea. We compost for fertilizer... My husband was raised on a farm... Knows all about "cropping". His family had a few thousand acres - Corn, soy, beans, grapes, watermelon, cantaloupe, figs, pecans, peaches... I'll stop there... You get the point.

Wheat, oats, nuts and seeds is mainly what I source in bulk at the grocery store...

Short of a few vegan meals during the course of several years - I haven't been in a restaurant at all - And don't miss it a bit! ;)

Yes - If I had the land... Equipment and labor - Me (and my husband) could feed 100 people. Is that okay?

"By the way, I've never seen those "little huts" that dairy calves are kept in. I've always seen them in the pasture"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJjIIFngh...

"And what do we do with the overpopulation of cattle that we will have if we all quit eating beef? How will all those pigs and chickens find food to live out their lives if we don't keep their populations in check?"

My goodness - Do cows "breed like rabbits"? It seems to me from all the literature I've read on "herd management" the problem is more how to get cows artificially inseminated frequently/rapidly enough and how to get calves to survive!

And pigs? Well, doesn't the industry always say if we didn't keep them in crates they'd crush all their babies? Problem solved! (please note the sarcasm)...

And the chickens? They are wild here in the south-and not "overpopulated"! They don't starve either... They do fine without us...

But nothing drastic is going to happen "overnight" - I see in future decades, that the shift towards a plant based diet will gradually "off shore" animal "production" to other countries... They too will eventually, (through necessity) - and increased affluence, eliminate "meat" as well. So, it becomes a simple case of "making less" animals generation by generation. The truth is we have an "overpopulation" problem now - And we are competing with "farmed animals" for our resources. BTW the fastest growing food sector is for vegetarian/vegan based foods...

"Many animal rights activits are like religious fanatics - the only correct view on the subject is theirs!" Honestly? I've read most comments indicating their "right" to animal's flesh based in the will of "god". OR in the dogmatic insistence of the possession of a soul which can't be validated... I would think those are highly emotionally driven justifications... I mean gee, if (your) "god" is the foundation of your position- who on Earth stands a chance to disagree? Certainly if (my) God were to say differently... Say if "my" God laid down some kind of "first rule"... like a cornerstone of ethics... Something like "not killing"... Well, seems like someone else's "gOd" wrote in all the handy disclaimers and footnotes to skirt around that little restriction. You win! Bravo! Your god IS God --- cause He said you get to kill! And as long as that's the case... might as well make a few silver coins in the process...

But before you call me a heretic - Please do keep this in mind - That NO ONE stands more in "judgment" than someone about to dine on an Other's flesh. As for me I'd just as soon eat my little bowl of lentils and let the animals be.

-- Posted by Bea Elliott on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 1:29 PM

Bea,

I think you've alluded to a very practical reason why I'm betting veganism can't scale up -- at least not in the immediate future.

Those who live in Montana or Arizona or northern Minnesota (and many elsewheres) couldn't possibly grow their own the way you can. Their climates and terrains just won't support the wonderful variety and quantity of edible plants that fla. will.

The role of farmers is to average things out. They extract the most nutrition they can from the land using the best tools and techniques (and animals) for the job. They raise enough so most people everywhere -- in this country at least -- have a pretty good chance of getting enough to eat.

I'm still skeptical that we could raise enough plant material to keep everyone reasonably well fed without asking the government to take over and plant potatoes on all the golf courses in the country.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 2:32 PM

I was raised on a dairy farm and I have never seen a crated dairy cow or calf. The video that you posted is certainly not the "norm" for dairy farms, I have visited many.

Also, portraying farmers to be cruel to animals and mistreat them is so far from the actual truth.

The farmers I know get up in the middle of the night and check on the cows about to calve. They miss weddings, and other important events to insure their animal's welfare.

They drive tractors out into snowdrifts to get to the barn to check on animals and make sure they are fed before the same farmer eats his own breakfast.

You need to really investigate what you are writing and post more accurate scenarios in order to be believable.

-- Posted by litlmissme on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 6:39 PM

Here's what it takes to make "cheese"... Nothing like a little calves stomach to satisfy us unweaned adults:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f327/j...

The difference between it and "corn smut" is the issue of an ugly baby killing. In lieu of that, the corn smut looks like an exquisite flower.

Taxedpayer - It seems to me that one of the flaws of our present system is that most view our current state as the apex of what we are capable of. We can't know for sure how much further we'd be in our health, sustainability, productivity, economics and science if we had gone a different route... I know it's a mystery, but still one I don't rule out.

If we could have redirect all the money, energy and waste spent on trying to figure ways to continue old patterns and put them towards viable new technologies such as greenhouse and urban farming systems... We might be looking at (nearly) free food for all. Please see Leave the Cow Behind:

http://tinyurl.com/me56jy

And not far from vertical farms is "vat meat" for those die-hard flesh enthusiasts. The science is young but within a few decades it could well supplement any diet of plants. The creepy thing is we could actually eat our mothers, or ourselves... But that's another issue.

"Those who live in Montana or Arizona or northern Minnesota (and many elsewheres) couldn't possibly grow their own the way you can." But people in NYC and other metro areas can't grow cows and we sure do manage to get them in the grocery stores! From what I've heard of growing cows, pigs and chickens... If you can feed those herbivores you can feed humans too. None of those animals are raised in "rocky mountains" - Many graze on public land and vast amounts of feed and grain is (expensively) shipped in those places to fatten the animals... So why not ship vegetables for humans instead?

Finally, there is also the issue of water - It takes an awful lot of it to raise "livestock" and "process" meat. By necessity agriculture will have to shift to something more sustainable. But isn't that what the "fool hardy" were saying about fossil fuels 3 decades ago???

-- Posted by Bea Elliott on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 8:13 PM

Oh... If you delete someone's comments - As in PB1's - The responses directed to them make absolutely no sense. It's very confusing and disorderly to figure out what the "logic" is... But I guess I'm next with quelling the dissent so au revoir!

-- Posted by Bea Elliott on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 8:28 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
True. I'd much prefer everyone agree to follow our comment policy.

Bea, we're all sort of accustomed to that by now. You learn to read between the deleted lines.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 8:36 PM

Bea:

How much water do your veggies require per square foot?

Do you have pets?

What means of fertilization do you use for your veggies?

How many months of the year is your growing season?

What do you use as a subsitute for milk, soy or almond?

What do you use as a substitute for eggs?

Do you wear makeup?

Do you only wear fabric that is plant based?

How do you control erosion of the soil?

-- Posted by litlmissme on Sat, May 1, 2010, at 1:48 PM

When people who claim to know what is inside the brains of animals (animal rights activists) can show me with REAL science that they do in fact know that any animal that we choose to eat has a conscience as humans do, then I MIGHT consider their point of view. However, when animal rights activists attempt to claim they are not trying to tell me what to eat, or what NOT to eat and I refuse to listen then they throw red paint or blood on me or use other intimidation tactics that they so often use, then I tend to think that these people are nothing more than crazy people with nothing better to do with their lives than attempt to force THEIR view onto other people.

I dont know one meat eater, nor have I heard of a meat eater throwing medium/medium-well done steaks through the windows of an animal rights activist or any other use of intimidation tactics, nor have I heard any meat eater tell a veggie that they MUST eat meat...

The whole animal rights activism is extremely humorus to me.

-- Posted by mrxray on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 2:41 AM

litlmissme: They animal rights activists find the one or few places that may treat animals in an inhumane manner, THEN they use that as propaganda to attempt to convince the uneducated, or the illogical, that all farmers conduct their selves in this same manner.

You have to understand that THEIR opinion is the only opinion that matters and otherwise you might get red paint dumped on you.

-- Posted by mrxray on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 2:45 AM

in one article from the FAO (Food and Ag organization) of the UN, they tried to make a point about how much water livestock depleted from the environment... however their own numbers show that 70% of freshwater usage goes toward agriculture.... of the 70% only about 8% goes toward livestock. Of this 8% one percent is what the animals drink and the remaining 7% goes toward growing grain crops for the animals. So, if we do our math, 70% of water usage in the world goes toward AG. only 8% goes toward livestock. This leave 62% of the world's freshwater usage for growing CROPS for humans to eat.

So the point here is that water usage is used toward growing crops than goes toward raising livestock. While the FAO was trying to condemn livestock raising as a harmful waste of water, their own numbers do not really back this up.

You can google this information....

-- Posted by mrxray on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 3:13 AM

Mr. X-ray that was one of my points I was making on the water usage.

Also, I was pointing out some of the other mis-information, the calf stomach really have they never heard of cheese cloth; it does the same thing.

Plus, interestingly enough from a vegan website I read "Anyone living strictly on a vegan diet must supplement their diet to remain healthy". It seems the B vitamins are lacking from that diet; especially for the very young and elderly.

I just don't agree with posting false information , in an attempt to make others look bad

-- Posted by litlmissme on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 5:31 AM

here is a video eveyone should watch and take it to heart in my oppinionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpfj_pmv3W8

-- Posted by midniterebel on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 10:47 AM

sorry bout my last post i'm kindda new to this so i'll try it again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpfj_pmv3...

-- Posted by midniterebel on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 11:16 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Semi View
MARCIA GORRELL
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login