From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Pollution and Cows
Date: 26 Jan 1993 06:47:57 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1FCAC.Du9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1k0ckmINNlno@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by
alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
 
>> Its amazing that you continue to harp about methane when that has 
>> already been proven a worthless point for you.  
>
>I disagree with your claim that the methane arguments have been
>disproven.

It looks like you are the only one that disagrees then.  Methane, like
Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are part of the normal atmospheric cycle no
matter what your loonie World Watch says.

>> And to mention 
>> Nitrate Pollution?  Why where do you think most of the nitrates 
>> on this country's soil come from?  Ever heard of ammonia nitrate?  
>> The fertilizer sprayed in mass quantity to grow your prescious 
>> grains. 
>
>Are you referring to the grain used to raise livestock?

And feed people like you and me.
>
>> And acid rain, oh i'd like to see you link that to 
>> cattle, blame industry for that one, just look at where most of 
>> the acid rain is coming from...the industrialized northeast!  
>
>A study conducted by the Netherlands government demonstrated that
>ammonia from produced by the livestock industry was the single 
>largest source of acid deposits on Duct soil.  

Is ammonia an acid?

>> Desertification has been occuring cyclically for eons as I stated 
>> previously and you seemed to concur with.  
>
>This is true, but such an argument wouldn't justify policies
>that aggravate desertification.

How can you say that cattle agriculture "aggrivates" desertification if
cattle are often raised in very arid regions anyway and these arid regions
expand and contract naturally?  Who cares what a farmer in west texas does
with his land?  At least he's not trying to pump water in from the
mississippi river.  Actually some texas ranchers got the idea that they
wanted to grow crops that required more water than was available and so
they introduced a bill to build a canal across the state and across
methane-rich louisanna to take water from the mississippi.  Fortunately
voters had the sense to defeat this in a state wide referendum.

>> As far as 
>> petrochemicals are concerned, you surely realize that driving 
>> tractors around a field to first plow it, then plant seed, then 
>> harvest it, not to mention the cropduster that flys overhead 
>> spraying pesticide and nitrate fertilizer...dont you see 
>> petrochemicals at work here as well?   Note that cattle are often 
>> rounded up either on horseback or with a single jeep that gets 
>> much better gas mileage than a tractor, combine, or airplane.  
>
>Don't forget the herbicides and fertilizer and tractor gas that
>are required to produce cattle feed.

Thats exactly the point! most of the petrol is used in producing grain.  It
doenst significantly increase the total amount if you use that grain for
producing cows.

>> Also cattle dont have to be replanted each year, free grazing 
>> ones dont require their food be replanted every year, not to 
>> mention the fact that they release their own natural fertilizer, 
>> but it seems that Russ already knows all about bullshit.  
>
>Again, 70% of the grain produced in the US in 1990 was consumed
>by cattle.  Did this grain require replanting, Alex?

It seems that you are taking the position that grain is bad for the
environment (ie methane release, petrol use, and ammonia) and that
livestock is bad because it perpetrates grain production.  Doesnt it occur
to you that if people dont eat livestock then they'll have to eat grain and
this grain must be produced anyway?  I dont see where you get any net
environmental gain because the beef if fairly benign and the grain will
still be produced?  Isnt it clear that it doesnt matter if a person farts
or a cow fart that the methane is still there?  

Russ, Your technique of flames for sake of flames themselves tends to cloud
the otherwise clear issue.

alex the omnivore

Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11814 alt.activism:21486 rec.food.veg:12639