A very selfish attitude

I had this page pointed out to me some time by a now banned member of hipforums.I tried explaining to her that the idea of vegan organic growing is a contradition in terms.

http://www.veganorganiced.org/gardening.html

But it is this bit that bothers me:

"

Animal-based fertilizers are unnecessary

Soil fertility doesn't originate from animals; it comes from plants at the bottom of the food chain. When grass is filtered through a cow most of the nitrogen is lost in her urine. Instead, take the grass that would go to feed a cow and put it directly into your compost pile - you'll get the nitrogen you need in addition to other nutrients that aren't found in manure. Using the grass and other plant-based materials yields more organic matter than manure."


What does this writer have against cows?It sounds like a very selfish attitude.They have a right to exist.They more than earn their keep.Cattle have been of tremendous befefit to mankind over the centuries.These vegans seem to begrudge the very existance of cattle.In any case what happens to a cow's urine?See also this thread:

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46975

 

You're sounding a little paranoid to me....I don't think the author was leading an anti-cow campaign. She probably just meant that cows shouldn't be allowed to pee and shit in the same area that crops are grown in (which is true anyway). It is more efficient to use dead plants in your compost pile, since the nitrogen is still very much present. Fertile soil has existed since before cows even evolved into the food chain, I think her point was that you don't need to use animals for fertilizer.

 

you sound like a moron to me

 

vegan organic farming is not a contradiction in terms. Plant compost is all the fertilizer thats needed.

 

In my garden I have grown the following and and produced food and even managed to give some away. Many of these foods I grew from seed:

Parsnips, various varieties of heirloom tomatoes, capsicuns,ironbark pumpkins, super 8 sweet corn,golden shallots,various varieties of potatoes, rhubarb, peaches, green beans,broad beans,basil,parsley,daikon radishes,garlic (BTW garlic when it is 3/4 through its life cycle, the whole plant can be cooked as a vegetable) rosemary, passionfruit, garlic chives and silverbeet (aka swiss chard).I have also a an olive tree that produced a heap of olives last year, but I didn't know what to do with them.

The only thing that I had real difficulty with was growing citrus trees.I have also grown some ornamentals just to fill in some empty spaces , but it isn't my passion.
So Whispers what have you managed to grow? If I am a moron, what does that make you?

 

It takes years for plant material to break down without animal byproduct additives.I know I have tried.

 

I honestly can't see that the author of this has anything against cows. To break it down in simple terms the author is only stating "This method of fertilization is superior to manure". The issue is over fertilizer, not cows. You have somehow fabricated within your mind that the author has some type of grudge against cattle.

 

Yeah, I'm sure her article was just countering the assertion that many meat-eaters make about cows being useful (even necessary) for fertilizer. Another argument that falls short.
I like cows, but I don't eat them. I think milking cows is fine and I grew up on a dairy farm. To raise them for meat though is not sustainable and very bad for the environment.

 

Ok what would be your solution for fertilizer?Blood & bone already is quite an expensive fertilizer but one of the most useful.Manures are only good on what is already fairly good soil.The thing about animal sourced fertilizers as well as being organic, they are sustainable unlike synthetic based ones.I don't see why raising cattle for meat is bad for the environment per se.I would have to agree that USA is overpopulated.

 

Well then you are highly uninformed. You can easily find out by simple internet search how raising animals for consumption is harmful to the environment.
Think about it, how long does it take for a beef cow to grow big enough to consume, think of all the grain it must eat to grow all those years. That food and crop land could be used to feed humans instead. The land that would be saved could be left as forest land, which would help slow global warming and provide habitat for wild animals. Eating low on the food chain is just common sense.
They also contribute to the methane, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere. Also, their waste pollutes rivers and streams.

 

Well, we feed cattle all the grain we humans don't want to eat. So we could use the land better (grow better grain) but all the bad grain can't be used to feed people.

 

TrippinBTM is about right, but most grain is grown on what is called "dry land".This is land that most years has a reasonable amount of rainfall and has more than arid areas such as the non-irrigation land around where I live.It is a bit of a hit and miss bussiness growing grain- the farmer is very much at the mercy of the weather.If it rains at the wrong time of year then the crop is only good for feeding livestock.Most of the land that is used to grow grain is not suitable to grow vegetables because you need to have a guaranteed supply of water.There is only a certain percentage of land in each country of the world that can be called arable.

Anyway Green_Thumb you still not have told me what to use for fertilizer if it is not animal based but is still going to be organic.Maybe corpses could be turned into blood&bone.Not all blood &bone comes from slaughterhouses.Some comes from knackeries, where the animals dies of natural causes.

As for damage to the environment, all forms of agriculture damage the environment.Tons of top soil are lost when a combine harvester is in use.Bananas are a very polluting crop in the amount of chemicals that are applied to the land.Synthetic fertilizers are bad for the environment.Sure there are problems with soil compaction with cattle and sheep.Maybe we should think raising camels and kangeroos instead.

As humans are omnivores there is only a certain amount of grain we can consume.Ever heard of the Atkins diet?

 

Bad grain? What are you talking about? We raise grain specifically for cattle. If fat-ass idiots wouldn't eat cattle, then we could use that land to grow crops (vegetables) for humans instead. Why on earth is this hard for you to grasp. Are you aware of how quickly the rainforest is being depleted for agriculture?

 

Tons of energy and resources are wasted because people eat meat. Even if we had to irrigate this land, it would still be more productive than to use it to feed cattle, which we would then eat.

I never argued that point of your post, inorganic fertilizers are not sustainable and we will soon run out. I think it's a good idea to use manure, we did on our farm. I don't think cattle should be raised for beef, but only for dairy. I encourage you to read this article, it is important. Eating Fossil Fuels Here's a relevant exerpt: "In place of fossil fuel-based fertilizers, we could utilize livestock manures that are now wasted. It is estimated that livestock manures contain 5 times the amount of fertilizer currently used each year. Perhaps the most effective would be to eliminate meat from our diet altogether."

Are you advocating the Atkins diet?? LOL. *puke* Yeah, I want clogged arteries...
Who said we have to use the land freed up from cattle grain for grain??
The bottom line is this: the less meat consumed, the more land available for human food and for animal habitat. That is all you need to know.

 

OK Green_thumb, what do you think of permaculture? What is wrong with good old fashioned mixed farming?Cattle are good at converting food waste such as maize plants after they have been harvested into food.Cattle more than earn their keep.

Clogged arteries: presumably you are refering to Atherosclerosis. I have just looked up Wikpedia on the subject.I did not see any reference to meat and saturated fat in general.Could you give some reference to the contrary?

 

Well, creating sustainable land use is obviously good. But can this be done worldwide? With people eating meat? I doubt it. Not unless Americans reduce their standard of living.
What "food" do cattle covert corn into btw? As far as I know, they are good at converting it to manure. That's about it. We don't get any food out of the deal.

Look again. I found a connection to saturated fat and hardening and clogging of the arteries all over online. Wikipedia had it as well. Many nutritionists believe the Atkins diet is unhealthy.

 

Cattle are good at turning waste food such as maize stalks into meat or dairy products.Did you not know this? I once read about a mango farmer in Queensland who also kept a few pigs.When it came to feeding rotten mangoes that had started to ferment, the pigs became intoxicated.
Getting back to the article that you mentioned, it essentially agrees with what I have often said.Mind you the article states that USA and Canada are the only wheat exporting nations of the world.Have they not heard of Australia?
When it comes to manure, it did not make it quite clear how their assertion was calculated.Was it calculated on the basis of feedlots or did it include manure from free ranging operations? It is hardly practical to collect manure from latter.In Australia there was a bit of an experiment done by a public broadcaster called "Grow Your Own Cotton".Listeners voted for the cotton to be grown using cow manure for fertilizer.The farmer who's land was being used pointed out that due to the cow's fairly efficient digestive system, cow manure contains relatively little N:K and is never consistant.I already knew this as would any other well seasoned organic gardener.The other thing he pointed out is that there is no where near enough cow manure in Australia to grow all the cotton we want as cotton is a hungry crop. Manure that is dropped on the grown in a free range set up goes back to refertilizing the ground.

Regarding fat, are you an advocate of the complex carb diet? Have a look at this link:

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/lowfatcapitalism.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/import_sat_fat.html

 

No, it takes much more than just corn stalks to feed a cow properly enough to produce milk, beef cattle also are fed more than just stalks. Around here anyways, maybe out West they graze on the endless grasslands, I have a feeling their diet is supplemented though.
I don't know, maybe things are done differently in Australia. My family has a dairy farm and all the crops we raised were for feeding the cows. None of it was for human consumption. You can't feed cows corn stalks and expect to get quality milk.

Yeah, I don't know what the best answer is, I just think the earth is overpopulated with humans, so perhaps population control is the ultimate solution. We can't expect to continue wringing the earth dry.

I'm an advocate of no diet in particular. It won't surprise you that I'm a vegetarian, but other than that, I just try to eat healthy. I'm at a normal weight, maybe a bit skinny. Carbs are fuel, so I think a person should eat a decent amount of them. If people want to lose weight they should stop pigging out at fast food restaurants. And excerise.

 

cows are the number one contributer to methane in our atmosphere which is a large factor in green house gases. in brazil more rainforest is cut down to make room for cattle farms than to feed the wood and paper industry demands,the excess of wood makes it go for a cheaper price than it needs be, which strains the market, and forces other lumber industries to over produce and cut down more trees to make up for the revenue loss of cheaper prices...all of which relates back to the cattle industry infringing upon what was once rainforest. the lack of trees also makes the environment take longer to revert all the green house gasses that the cows produce back to less harmful components in our environment.

the atkinds diet is the worst diet in the history of mankind, it has results because crabs are supposed to be our main source of nutrition, not meat, our body's can't process the nutrients in meats as effectively as they can process the nutrients in grains and other carbs. ever heard of bulemia? just because it can be effective, doesn't make it a sustainable or healthy dieting choice.

it takes 100 lbs of grain for every 10 lb of meat to be produced, but 1 lb of grain will feed more people than 1 lb of meat. which means grains provide over ten times the nutrients for us. cattle also need 10 times the space that grain does, so effectivley, grain is 100 times more effective for us to grow.

canada and u.s. are the only wheat exporting countries in the world, yes we've heard of australia, but just because you produce it doenst mean you export more than you import. australia is one of the largest consumers of canadian wheat.

idealy our diets should consist of a minimal amount of meat, but so long as tom dick and hairy keep soving their faces full of big macs and consuming way more than their share of what should be our ideal amount of meat produced, it'll take a many of us vegetarians willing to try to work to undo their damage. we can't eat all the things that cows can, and there are by products of things we produce that would otherwise go to waste if it wasnt for the meat and dairy industry, but without a smidgen doubt i can tell you at current levels the meat and dairy industry is doing us more harm than good.