PMWS pork entering food chain

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Because most of your food ingredients are actually imported from water
deficient countries you get awfully embarassed

What are you talking about? Let's have some examples. Anyhoo..

right, give us your food ingredients

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Because most of your food ingredients are actually imported from water
deficient countries you get awfully embarassed

What are you talking about? Let's have some examples. Anyhoo..

right, give us your food ingredients

A wide variety of vegetables, leafy greens, fruits, legumes,
seeds and nuts, and some wholegrains. Negligible soya.
(14 January 2007 15:04)

Better support any claims you make with proper evidence.

Yet, if your concern about water was sincere and honest, you
would not have snipped away the following without comment.

'Water, wheat and beef

All farming needs water. But the amount of water needed to produce
a pound of beef is far greater than that required for a pound of wheat.

Water usage

Earth is two-thirds water, and only 0.06 per cent of this is fresh
water and even less of this is available as drinking water.

Animal agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy and chemicals,
often with little regard for the long-term adverse effects. Between
1960 and 2000 worldwide usage of water doubled (25). Agriculture
uses 70 per cent of all water, while in many developing countries the
figure is as high as 85 to 95 per cent (26). Many irrigation systems
are pumping water from underground reservoirs much faster than
they can ever be recharged.

The production of meat is an inefficient use of such a vital limited
resource. [...] The University of California studied water use in
their state, where most agricultural land is irrigated, and said it uses
between 20 to 30 gallons of water to produce vegetables such as
tomatoes, potatoes and carrots to create an edible pound of food.
It takes 441 gallons of water to make a pound of beef (28).

Fresh water, once a seemingly abundant resource, is now becoming
scarce in many regions and that poses a real threat to the stability
of the world. Numerous countries are in dispute over water supplies,
and the seeds of future wars are clearly beginning to germinate.
...'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm

In the US:

'Feed-grain farming guzzles water, too. In California, now the
United States' leading dairy state, livestock agriculture consumes
nearly one-third of all irrigation water. Similar figures apply across
the western United States, including areas using water from
dwindling aquifers. The beef feedlot center of the nation -- Colorado,
Kansas, Nebraska, and the Texas panhandle -- relies on crops raised
with water pumped out of an underground water source called the
Ogallala aquifer, portions of which have been severely depleted.
With half of the grain and hay fed to American beef cattle growing
on irrigated land, water inputs for beef production mount. More
than 3,000 liters of water are used to produce a kilogram of
American beef. (Reisner & Bates 1990; Sweeten 1990; Weeks et al.
1988; Oltjen 1991; Ward, Dept. Animal Sciences)
...'
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/env_animalfarming.htm

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Derek Moody" wrote in message
...
In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message
news:ant230241313BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

No meanderings here.

You just did another one.

?

Look up 'meander'.

I know what the word means. I don't see how it applies to me.

I snipped the rest of it because I am able to scroll upthread if I
want to review. You have once more demonstrated that you cannot.

What a silly allegation. I'm using OE. It's very easy to use, really.

In that case post your copied verbiage once and once only. Don't
reinstate the stuff that already bored us all.

Quite the control freak, aren't you. A serial bully / psychopath.

If you're bored by my posts, you know what you can do, right?

it had numbers in btw, not an explanation of the underlying reasons.

oooh, numbers. Look, this part has even more numbers -

I checked the UN article when you first referred to it. No need to
quote -any- of it here.

LOL. Clearly there is.

The underlying reasons are all-important. Review
the thread to your heart's content, and ponder that.

The underlying reasons are political, price manipulation by a command
economy. To maintain the distorted market the USSR had to import
grain - it couldn't feed itself.

'Soviet grain production increases (predominantly in Russia and
Kazakhstan) of about 60 million tonnes per year from the early
1960s to the late 1970s was not sufficient to support the increase
in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year
in the 1980s (Shend, 1993).
..'
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5069e/y5069e03.htm

This is all in the UN document you quoted - but blinded by the numbers
you don't seem to appreciate that this entirely negates your own
argument.

See above.

Current production is hampered by the remnants of the collective
system leaving ownership and access to too many people who have not
the resources to work the land.

Huh?

Where thay have been bought out the
new farms are far more productive than the old collectives.

'The IMF has helped foster a severe depression in Russia

Russia in the 1990s has witnessed a peacetime economic contraction
of unprecedented scale. Many believe much of the blame for the social
and economic catastrophe rests with the IMF, which has had a central
role in designing and supervising Russia's economic policy since 1992.

The number of Russians in poverty has risen from 2 million to 60
million since the IMF came to post-Communist Russia. Male life
expectancy has dropped sharply from 65 years to 57. Economic
output is down by at least 40 percent.

The IMF's shock therapy - sudden and intense structural
adjustment - helped bring about this disaster

"In retrospect, its hard to see what could have been done wrong
that wasn't," Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research told a Congressional committee in late 1998.
"First there was an immediate de-control of prices. Given the
monopoly structure of the economy, as well as the large amount
of cash savings accumulated by Russian households, inflation
soared 520 percent in the first three months. Millions of people
saw their savings and pensions reduced to crumbs."

"Then the IMF and Russian policymakers compounded their
mistakes," Weisbrot explained. "In order to push inflation
down, the authorities slammed on the monetary and fiscal
brakes, bringing about a depression. Privatization was carried
out in a way that enriched a small class of people, while the
average persons income fell by about half within four years."

Meanwhile, Russia kept its economy functioning with an influx
of foreign funds, lent at astronomically high interest rates
because of the strong possibility of default. In 1998, with the
Asian crisis still unfolding and with Russian default seemingly
near, the IMF agreed to a $23 billion loan package to Russia,
seeking to maintain the rubles overvalued exchange rate. An
initial $4.8 billion portion of the loan left the country immediately
[...] some used to pay off foreign lenders, much of it stolen by
Russian politicians.

- IMF versus Russia by Vladimir Shestakov.

http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

I'm not the one arguing from recycled rags of second hand opinion.

You seem to be implying that I do, which I do not.

You raised the topic of recycled material. Or do you not know the
meaning of 'shoddy'?

'shod·dy

1. Made of or containing inferior material.
2a. Of poor quality or craft.
b. Rundown; shabby.
3. Dishonest or reprehensible: ..
4. Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.

http://www.answers.com/shoddy&r=67

I argue with facts. I'll give my own opinion from
time to time, and I sometimes quote others' views.

You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have
an argument. All you do is distort, lie and insult.

At least -read- the stuff you quote and try to understand it before you
rant.

There you go. You just can't help yourself, can you.

Well done, moody.

fx: Bows modestly.

Always the clown.

fx: Whirls illuminated bow tie and squirts water from fake rose

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/




Why the hell don't you restrict your posts to the newsgroup you read them
in, rather than keep distributing this rubbish over so many unrelated groups

In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant231514064BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

I checked the UN article when you first referred to it. No need to
quote -any- of it here.

LOL. Clearly there is.

No.

The underlying reasons are all-important. Review
the thread to your heart's content, and ponder that.

The underlying reasons are political, price manipulation by a command
economy. To maintain the distorted market the USSR had to import
grain - it couldn't feed itself.

in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year

It couldn't feed itself.

This is all in the UN document you quoted - but blinded by the numbers
you don't seem to appreciate that this entirely negates your own
argument.

See above.

Yes, it negates your argument.

Current production is hampered by the remnants of the collective
system leaving ownership and access to too many people who have not
the resources to work the land.

Huh?

Each individual owns too little to be worked economically.

Where they have been bought out the
new farms are far more productive than the old collectives.

snip text you haven't understood. As I said, price manipulation by a
command economy. When the brakes came off everything fell apart.

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

I'm not the one arguing from recycled rags of second hand opinion.

You seem to be implying that I do, which I do not.

You raised the topic of recycled material. Or do you not know the
meaning of 'shoddy'?

'shod·dy

1. Made of or containing inferior material.
2a. Of poor quality or craft.
b. Rundown; shabby.
3. Dishonest or reprehensible: ..
4. Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.

http://www.answers.com/shoddy&r=67

So you don't know what shoddy is.

N. Wool from shredded rags: cloth made from it, alone or mixed.
Chambers Dictionary.

Useful stuff, especially where oakum is too coarse.

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Because most of your food ingredients are actually imported from water
deficient countries you get awfully embarassed

What are you talking about? Let's have some examples. Anyhoo..

right, give us your food ingredients

A wide variety of vegetables, leafy greens, fruits, legumes,
seeds and nuts, and some wholegrains. Negligible soya.
(14 January 2007 15:04)

jolly good, but a bit like pulling teeth

do these vegetables, fruits and legumes have names?

Varieties,

Similarly the nuts

names would be nice

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Because most of your food ingredients are actually imported from water
deficient countries you get awfully embarassed

What are you talking about? Let's have some examples. Anyhoo..

right, give us your food ingredients

A wide variety of vegetables, leafy greens, fruits, legumes,
seeds and nuts, and some wholegrains. Negligible soya.
(14 January 2007 15:04)

jolly good, but a bit like pulling teeth

I don't see how.

do these vegetables, fruits and legumes have names?

Su potatoes, celery, plums, strawberries, peas, beans..

Varieties,

Red Arrow broccoli, Rondo garden peas, Nectar Queen
climbing french bean, Valdai lettuce, Westland winter kale...

Similarly the nuts

Walnuts, almonds, hazelnuts, pecans, sweet chestnuts, etc.

names would be nice

Give us the worst possible case scenario (with supporting
evidence of course), and then comment on the following:

'Water, wheat and beef

All farming needs water. But the amount of water needed to produce
a pound of beef is far greater than that required for a pound of wheat.

Water usage

Earth is two-thirds water, and only 0.06 per cent of this is fresh
water and even less of this is available as drinking water.

Animal agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy and chemicals,
often with little regard for the long-term adverse effects. Between
1960 and 2000 worldwide usage of water doubled (25). Agriculture
uses 70 per cent of all water, while in many developing countries the
figure is as high as 85 to 95 per cent (26). Many irrigation systems
are pumping water from underground reservoirs much faster than
they can ever be recharged.

The production of meat is an inefficient use of such a vital limited
resource. [...] The University of California studied water use in
their state, where most agricultural land is irrigated, and said it uses
between 20 to 30 gallons of water to produce vegetables such as
tomatoes, potatoes and carrots to create an edible pound of food.
It takes 441 gallons of water to make a pound of beef (28).

Fresh water, once a seemingly abundant resource, is now becoming
scarce in many regions and that poses a real threat to the stability
of the world. Numerous countries are in dispute over water supplies,
and the seeds of future wars are clearly beginning to germinate.
...'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm

In the US:

'Feed-grain farming guzzles water, too. In California, now the
United States' leading dairy state, livestock agriculture consumes
nearly one-third of all irrigation water. Similar figures apply across
the western United States, including areas using water from
dwindling aquifers. The beef feedlot center of the nation -- Colorado,
Kansas, Nebraska, and the Texas panhandle -- relies on crops raised
with water pumped out of an underground water source called the
Ogallala aquifer, portions of which have been severely depleted.
With half of the grain and hay fed to American beef cattle growing
on irrigated land, water inputs for beef production mount. More
than 3,000 liters of water are used to produce a kilogram of
American beef. (Reisner & Bates 1990; Sweeten 1990; Weeks et al.
1988; Oltjen 1991; Ward, Dept. Animal Sciences)
...'
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/env_animalfarming.htm

Alan Holmes wrote:
"pearl" wrote in message
...

an awful lot of rubbish, which I don't bother to read

Why the hell don't you restrict your posts to the newsgroup you read them
in, rather than keep distributing this rubbish over so many unrelated groups

I have told you Alan, Pearl doesn't read, she just posts. Typically she
posts the rubbish about which you are complaining *and* cross posts it
to many irrelevant groups.

If you don't like seeing it, killfile her.

Oh, if you ask a question you might:

a. snip the post

b. leave your group in so that you receive any responses.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]