Jay Stevens, not-a-doctor and not-a-Hindoo, bullshitted:
> In >,
> > posted:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8662361.stm

Bullshit.


>
> Visit:
>
> http://www.nomilk.com/

More bullshit.


>
> Also visit:
>
> http://www.pcrm.org/

*More* bullshit.


> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishitbag

You got that right, Stevens.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On May 6, 7:10*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote:
> Jay Stevens, not-a-doctor and not-a-Hindoo, bullshitted:
>
> > In >,
> > * > *posted:
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8662361.stm
>
> Bullshit.
>
>
>
> > Visit:
>
> >http://www.nomilk.com/
>
> More bullshit.
>
>
>
> > Also visit:
>
> >http://www.pcrm.org/
>
> *More* bullshit.
>
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishitbag
>
> You got that right, Stevens.
>
> --
> Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
> know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Wonder what Stevens Jyotishi Jai Maharaj offers rural Indians in jobs
as fool proof alternative to dairy farming to earn their living?

I would want Indians living in USA to get heards of buffaloes from
India and go into making mozzarella cheese production as some Italians
and Brits have done. Surely the Indians know better how to take care
of buffaloes.

On May 6, 7:48*am, and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article >,
> *Dayashankar Joshi "Romanise" > posted:
>
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > Visit:
>
> > >http://www.nomilk.com/
>
> > > Also visit:
>
> > >http://www.pcrm.org/
> > Wonder what Stevens Jyotishi Jai Maharaj . . .
>
> There's no "Stevens" in my name, and "Jyotishi" refers to a profession.
>
> > . . . offers rural Indians in jobs
> > as fool proof alternative to dairy farming to earn their living?
>
> What does a "fool proof alternative" mean to you, and for which
> region? The production of food needs to be more about the benefit to
> its consumer than the producer. *
>
> > I would want Indians living in USA to get heards of buffaloes from
> > India and go into making mozzarella cheese production as some Italians
> > and Brits have done. Surely the Indians know better how to take care
> > of buffaloes.
>
> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a diabetic, you
> probably already knew that.
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti

Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained without any animal
husbandary?

On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:

> On May 6, 7:48=A0am, and/or
> www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> .
>> =
>
> com>,
>
>> =A0Dayashankar Joshi "Romanise" > posted:
>>
>> > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>> > > Visit:
>>
>> > >http://www.nomilk.com/
>>
>> > > Also visit:
>>
>> > >http://www.pcrm.org/
>> >
>> > Wonder what Stevens Jyotishi Jai Maharaj . . .
>>
>> There's no "Stevens" in my name, and "Jyotishi" refers to a
>> profession.
>>
>> > . . . offers rural Indians in jobs as fool proof alternative
>> > to dairy farming to earn their living?
>>
>> What does a "fool proof alternative" mean to you, and for
>> which region? The production of food needs to be more about
>> the benefit to its consumer than the producer. =A0
>>
>> > I would want Indians living in USA to get heards of
>> > buffaloes from India and go into making mozzarella cheese
>> > production as some Italians and Brits have done. Surely the
>> > Indians know better how to take care of buffaloes.
>>
>> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a diabetic,
>> you probably already knew that.

Who needs cheese? Why do supposed plant product eaters try to emulate
animal product eaters?

Tofu cheese is gross. It is disgusting. It isn't even cheese.

There are _much_ better things to do with tofu.

>>
>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotish Om Shanti
>
> Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained without any
> animal husbandary?

Why should he answer stupid questions like that? No one needs to
engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They are farmers. They can
grow anything. There are hundreds of commercial crops to choose
from.

Better yet, they can use their land to support themselves
directly, growing grains and legumes and veggies and oilseeds
and nut and fruit trees and sugar plants and fiber plants and
so on. They can make their own energy from plant sources:
methane/alcohol/woodgas....

Milk is for babies. Cow's milk is for cow babies. Buffalo milk
is for buffalo babies. This is what a REAL scientist would
conclude after examining the evidence. Of course, common sense
will do the job just as well.


Sid

On May 6, 11:39*am, Sidney Lambe >
wrote:

> >> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a diabetic,
> >> you probably already knew that.
>
> Who needs cheese? Why do supposed plant product eaters try to emulate
> animal product eaters?

Would you want this be answered by Dr Jai Maharaj?

> Tofu cheese is gross. It is disgusting. It isn't even cheese.
>
> There are _much_ better things to do with tofu.

> > Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained without any
> > animal husbandary?
>
> Why should he answer stupid questions like that?

I did ask him several times what doctorate he received from what
university in what year with what name?
He has remained quiet.

To the question "how Rural economy of India can be sustained without
any animal husbandry?" he needs to reply because he claims to be an
Engineer trained at India's premier Institue of Technology at Delhi
which was established primarily to improve the lot of Indian people
most of whom live in rural regions of which 60% have no land and so
are not farmers but do keep a cow, a buffalo, a goat, to provide them
with some protein.

> No one needs to
> engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They are farmers. They can
> grow anything. There are hundreds of commercial crops to choose
> from.

There are lands in India which cannot be cultivated and cultivation
activity needs reducing to keep, reintroduce vegitation cover on the
land for getting back to climate that is contrubuting less to global
warming.

> Better yet, they can use their land to support themselves
> directly, growing grains and legumes and veggies and oilseeds
> and nut and fruit trees and sugar plants and fiber plants and
> so on. They can make their own energy from plant sources:
> methane/alcohol/woodgas....
>
> Milk is for babies. Cow's milk is for cow babies. Buffalo milk
> is for buffalo babies. *This is what a REAL scientist would
> conclude after examining the evidence. Of course, common sense
> will do the job just as well.

If what you are saying gets established there is no need for milking
animals, is there?

> Sid

On Thu, 06 May 2010 06:48:55 GMT, and/or
www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>In article >,
> Dayashankar Joshi "Romanise" > posted:
>
>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>> >
>> > Visit:
>> >
>> > http://www.nomilk.com/
>> >
>> > Also visit:
>> >
>> > http://www.pcrm.org/
>
>> Wonder what Stevens Jyotishi Jai Maharaj . . .
>
>There's no "Stevens" in my name, and "Jyotishi" refers to a profession.
>
>> . . . offers rural Indians in jobs
>> as fool proof alternative to dairy farming to earn their living?
>
>What does a "fool proof alternative" mean to you, and for which
>region? The production of food needs to be more about the benefit to
>its consumer than the producer.

How unfortunate for the farmers.

>> I would want Indians living in USA to get heards of buffaloes from
>> India and go into making mozzarella cheese production as some Italians
>> and Brits have done. Surely the Indians know better how to take care
>> of buffaloes.
>
>Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On May 6, 4:26*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 06:48:55 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article >,
> > Dayashankar Joshi "Romanise" > posted:
>
> >> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> >> > Visit:
>
> >> >http://www.nomilk.com/
>
> >> > Also visit:
>
> >> >http://www.pcrm.org/
>
> >> Wonder what Stevens Jyotishi Jai Maharaj . . .
>
> >There's no "Stevens" in my name, and "Jyotishi" refers to a profession.
>
> >> . . . offers rural Indians in jobs
> >> as fool proof alternative to dairy farming to earn their living?
>
> >What does a "fool proof alternative" mean to you, and for which
> >region? The production of food needs to be more about the benefit to
> >its consumer than the producer. *
>
> * * How unfortunate for the farmers.
>
> >> I would want Indians living in USA to get heards of buffaloes from
> >> India and go into making mozzarella cheese production as some Italians
> >> and Brits have done. Surely the Indians know better how to take care
> >> of buffaloes.
>
> >Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese.
>
> * · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

There are terrains in India where nothing can be cultivated, only
grass will grow. For any cultivation flat land with good soil cover
and adequate water supplies are required. Farmers in India cultivate
fodder which they can better use to support their cows and buffaloes
for milk. For example it is easy to raise maize (corn) in many places
in India as fodder than letting it to grow to the point of giving
serial. Many serial plant residues are used as cattle feed that will
otherwise will be hard and uneconomical to turn into manure.

Dr Steven Jay Maharaj an Engineering Ph.D. from prestigious Indian
Institute of Technology having turned to Astrology seems to have lost
touch with Indian Rural Realities.

On 5/6/2010 8:26 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 06:48:55 GMT, and/or
> www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>> In >,
>> Dayashankar Joshi > posted:
>>
>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>>>
>>>> Visit:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nomilk.com/
>>>>
>>>> Also visit:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pcrm.org/
>>
>>> Wonder what Stevens Jyotishi Jai Maharaj . . .
>>
>> There's no "Stevens" in my name, and "Jyotishi" refers to a profession.

His name is Jay Stevens - he is not Indian and does not have a
legitimate Indian name - and he is a Jyotishithead.


>>
>>> . . . offers rural Indians in jobs
>>> as fool proof alternative to dairy farming to earn their living?
>>
>> What does a "fool proof alternative" mean to you, and for which
>> region? The production of food needs to be more about the benefit to
>> its consumer than the producer.
>
> How unfortunate for the farmers.

No.


>
>>> I would want Indians living in USA to get heards of buffaloes from
>>> India and go into making mozzarella cheese production as some Italians
>>> and Brits have done. Surely the Indians know better how to take care
>>> of buffaloes.
>>
>> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese.
>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life,

Canned bullshit.

On 5/6/2010 8:39 AM, Romanise wrote:
>
>
> Dr Steven Jay Maharaj an Engineering Ph.D. from prestigious Indian
> Institute of Technology having turned to Astrology seems to have lost
> touch with Indian Rural Realities.

His name is Jay Stevens. He is not an engineer, and he is not Indian.

On May 6, 4:50*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/6/2010 8:39 AM, Romanise wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dr Steven Jay Maharaj an Engineering Ph.D. from prestigious Indian
> > Institute of Technology having turned to Astrology seems to have lost
> > touch with Indian Rural Realities.
>
> His name is Jay Stevens. *He is not an engineer, and he is not Indian.

Some years back an American poster who has been on Usenet longer than
this "Dr." has been wrote that guy when began to write here had very
poor English, a naural attribute for most Indians. The guy apparently
believes that more he spams more he can advertise his Astrology
business.

On 5/6/2010 9:27 AM, Romanise wrote:
> On May 6, 4:50 pm, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/6/2010 8:39 AM, Romanise wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dr Steven Jay Maharaj an Engineering Ph.D. from prestigious Indian
>>> Institute of Technology having turned to Astrology seems to have lost
>>> touch with Indian Rural Realities.
>>
>> His name is Jay Stevens. He is not an engineer, and he is not Indian.
>
> Some years back an American poster who has been on Usenet longer than
> this "Dr." has been wrote that guy when began to write here had very
> poor English, a naural attribute for most Indians. The guy apparently
> believes that more he spams more he can advertise his Astrology
> business.

Astrology is bunk, of course, and if Jay Stevens ever had any exposure
to engineering, he quickly would have washed out because the irrational
belief in supernatural phenomena required for belief in astrology is
incompatible with the supremely logical and rational basis for engineering.

Jay Stevens has adopted this phony Indian title because it helps him in
flim-flamming - swindling - stupid credulous people who believe in
astrology. Stevens is not a doctor and not an Indian. He's a crook.

On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
> On May 6, 11:39=A0am, Sidney Lambe >
> wrote:
>
>> >> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a diabetic,
>> >> you probably already knew that.
>>
>> Who needs cheese? Why do supposed plant product eaters try to emulate
>> animal product eaters?
>
> Would you want this be answered by Dr Jai Maharaj?
>
>> Tofu cheese is gross. It is disgusting. It isn't even cheese.
>>
>> There are _much_ better things to do with tofu.
>
>> > Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained without any
>> > animal husbandary?
>>
>> Why should he answer stupid questions like that?
>
> I did ask him several times what doctorate he received from what
> university in what year with what name?
> He has remained quiet.
>
> To the question "how Rural economy of India can be sustained without
> any animal husbandry?" he needs to reply because he claims to be an
> Engineer trained at India's premier Institue of Technology at Delhi
> which was established primarily to improve the lot of Indian people
> most of whom live in rural regions of which 60% have no land and so
> are not farmers but do keep a cow, a buffalo, a goat, to provide them
> with some protein.

You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land. Do you
have any idea how much plant material they consume? How about how
much water a cow or buffalo consumes? If they can keep a goat or
cow or buffalo they can use the land that supports those animals
for farming/gardening instead How about how much water a cow
consumes, which would be much more advantageous.

>> No one needs to
>> engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They are farmers. They can
>> grow anything. There are hundreds of commercial crops to choose
>> from.
>
> There are lands in India which cannot be cultivated and cultivation
> activity needs reducing to keep, reintroduce vegitation cover on the
> land for getting back to climate that is contrubuting less to global
> warming.

You do not need to cultivate land to grow crops on it.
Google "no-till farming".

And so what if there are lands that can't be farmed? There are
plenty that can. Duh.

Your stupidity and ignorance are getting to me.

>> Better yet, they can use their land to support themselves
>> directly, growing grains and legumes and veggies and oilseeds
>> and nut and fruit trees and sugar plants and fiber plants and
>> so on. They can make their own energy from plant sources:
>> methane/alcohol/woodgas....
>>
>> Milk is for babies. Cow's milk is for cow babies. Buffalo milk
>> is for buffalo babies. =A0This is what a REAL scientist would
>> conclude after examining the evidence. Of course, common sense
>> will do the job just as well.
>
> If what you are saying gets established there is no need for milking
> animals, is there?

Duh.

One more stupid post like this and I am going to killfile you.
Think and do your homework or keep your mouth shut.

As for whether that fellow is really a doctor or not is irrelevance.
That line of inquiry is a waste of time and amounts to nothing
but a personal attack.

You judge a person on the Usenet by the quality of their posts.

Sid

On 5/6/2010 10:17 AM, Sidney Lambe wrote:
> On alt.food.vegan, > wrote:
>> On May 6, 11:39=A0am, Sidney >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a diabetic,
>>>>> you probably already knew that.
>>>
>>> Who needs cheese? Why do supposed plant product eaters try to emulate
>>> animal product eaters?
>>
>> Would you want this be answered by Dr Jai Maharaj?
>>
>>> Tofu cheese is gross. It is disgusting. It isn't even cheese.
>>>
>>> There are _much_ better things to do with tofu.
>>
>>>> Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained without any
>>>> animal husbandary?
>>>
>>> Why should he answer stupid questions like that?
>>
>> I did ask him several times what doctorate he received from what
>> university in what year with what name?
>> He has remained quiet.
>>
>> To the question "how Rural economy of India can be sustained without
>> any animal husbandry?" he needs to reply because he claims to be an
>> Engineer trained at India's premier Institue of Technology at Delhi
>> which was established primarily to improve the lot of Indian people
>> most of whom live in rural regions of which 60% have no land and so
>> are not farmers but do keep a cow, a buffalo, a goat, to provide them
>> with some protein.
>
> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land. Do you
> have any idea how much plant material they consume?

Ruminants convert plants that are indigestible by humans into foods that
humans can consume.


> How about howmuch water a cow or buffalo consumes?

How about it?


> If they can keep a goat or
> cow or buffalo they can use the land that supports those animals
> for farming/gardening instead

But they don't want to eat only vegetable matter. They want animal
protein as well.


> How about how much water a cow
> consumes, which would be much more advantageous.

The water goes to its highest valued use. Obviously, people have strong
enough wants for animal protein that some water is most highly valued
when used to raise livestock animals.


>
>>> No one needs to
>>> engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They are farmers. They can
>>> grow anything. There are hundreds of commercial crops to choose
>>> from.
>>
>> There are lands in India which cannot be cultivated and cultivation
>> activity needs reducing to keep, reintroduce vegitation cover on the
>> land for getting back to climate that is contrubuting less to global
>> warming.
>
> You do not need to cultivate land to grow crops on it.
> Google "no-till farming".

There is a lot of land that is uneconomic to produce any
human-digestible crops, but that can be economically used for grazing of
animals.


>
> And so what if there are lands that can't be farmed? There are
> plenty that can. Duh.

Then there's enough land for multiple uses.


> Your stupidity and ignorance are getting to me.

Yours are staggering. More to the point, you *cultivate* your ignorance
and stupidity - you work at it. Why is that?


>
>>> Better yet, they can use their land to support themselves
>>> directly, growing grains and legumes and veggies and oilseeds
>>> and nut and fruit trees and sugar plants and fiber plants and
>>> so on. They can make their own energy from plant sources:
>>> methane/alcohol/woodgas....
>>>
>>> Milk is for babies. Cow's milk is for cow babies. Buffalo milk
>>> is for buffalo babies. =A0This is what a REAL scientist would
>>> conclude after examining the evidence. Of course, common sense
>>> will do the job just as well.
>>
>> If what you are saying gets established there is no need for milking
>> animals, is there?
>
> Duh.
>
> One more stupid post like this and I am going to killfile you.
> Think and do your homework or keep your mouth shut.
>
> As for whether that fellow is really a doctor or not is irrelevance.
> That line of inquiry is a waste of time and amounts to nothing
> but a personal attack.
>
> You judge a person on the Usenet by the quality of their posts.

Jay Stevens' posts are shit. So are yours.

On May 6, 6:17*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:

> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land.

In India many without land often living in mid size towns keep a cow
or two, a buffalo, or a couple of goats.

Almost a quarter of Mumbai milk is supplied by herds of buffalo
keepers who buy all required fodder from farmers or grass merchants.

> Do you
> have any idea how much plant material they consume?

I know that very well.

> How about how
> much water a cow or buffalo consumes? If they can keep a goat or
> cow or buffalo they can use the land that supports those animals
> for farming/gardening instead How about how much water a cow
> consumes, which would be much more advantageous.

Those who have land they too keep milking animals so that they can
have income from them too.

> >> No one needs to
> >> engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They are farmers. They can
> >> grow anything. There are hundreds of commercial crops to choose
> >> from.

> You do not need to cultivate land to grow crops on it.
> Google "no-till farming".

No till farming that was promoted by some Japanes man has not proved
very successful. Tractors, Harvestors, and the lot are still being
manufactured. Of course in India they use mostly castrated bullocks.

> And so what if there are lands that can't be farmed? There are
> plenty that can. Duh.

The lands those can be farmed are being farmed to maximum.

> Your stupidity and ignorance are getting to me.

That is a reaction of an ignorant person.

> >> Better yet, they can use their land to support themselves
> >> directly, growing grains and legumes and veggies and oilseeds
> >> and nut and fruit trees and sugar plants and fiber plants and
> >> so on. They can make their own energy from plant sources:
> >> methane/alcohol/woodgas....
>
> >> Milk is for babies. Cow's milk is for cow babies. Buffalo milk
> >> is for buffalo babies. =A0This is what a REAL scientist would
> >> conclude after examining the evidence. Of course, common sense
> >> will do the job just as well.
>
> > If what you are saying gets established there is no need for milking
> > animals, is there?
>
> Duh.
>
> One more stupid post like this and I am going to killfile you.
> Think and do your homework or keep your mouth shut.

With your killfile threat I am terrified.

> As for whether that fellow is really a doctor or not is irrelevance.
> That line of inquiry is a waste of time and amounts to nothing
> but a personal attack.

I am sure you have good practice of that.

> You judge a person on the Usenet by the quality of their posts.
>
> Sid

On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
> On May 6, 6:17=A0pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>
>> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land.
>
> In India many without land often living in mid size towns keep a cow
> or two, a buffalo, or a couple of goats.

If they don't have land to graze these animals on, how do they
eat, Einstein? Do you have any idea how much vegetation those
creatures consume?

And what do those plants grow on? LAND. Duh.

So they have land they can use. That land can be used to grow food
for people rather than animals. This is much more efficient.

Otherwise, you are telling us that those peasants have fodder for
their animals shipped to the animals, which is absurd. They couldn't
possibly afford that.

[delete]

Sid

On May 7, 2:46*am, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 6:17=A0pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>
> >> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land.
>
> > In India many without land often living in mid size towns keep a cow
> > or two, a buffalo, or a couple of goats.
>
> If they don't have land to graze these animals on, how do they
> eat, Einstein?

They buy cattle-feed. Most towns have markets for cattle-feed where
farmers from neighbouring villages bring their green corn stock,
alfalfa, carrots to be sold. Farmers have daily supply contract with
farmers too, which is supplied every morning like milk.

Take a trip to Mumbai, walk around and count cows and goats on the
street. For buffalo pens each having hundreds of buffalo take a ride
on western railaway's suburban line. You will find them on both sides
once you leave Andheri where Mumbai International Airport is. But do
check out how the cows in Fort, Kalbadevi, etc manage. There you will
not find any one with cattle-feed loaded on carts making early morning
rounds.

Does in USA every Dairy Farm produce its own cattle-feed?

Perhaps you are unaware that cattle-feed too is a marketable
commodity.


> Do you have any idea how much vegetation those
> creatures consume?
>
> And what do those plants grow on? LAND. Duh.
>
> So they have land they can use. That land can be used to grow food
> for people rather than animals. *This is much more efficient.
>
> Otherwise, you are telling us that those peasants

Those who keep cattle in towns and cities are not all in dairy
business. Some are like those with buffalo pens of Mumbai.

> have fodder for
> their animals shipped to the animals, which is absurd. They couldn't
> possibly afford that.
>
> [delete]
>
> Sid

On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
> On May 7, 2:46=A0am, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>>
>> > On May 6, 6:17=3DA0pm, Sidney Lambe > wro=
> te:
>>
>> >> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land.
>>
>> > In India many without land often living in mid size towns keep a cow
>> > or two, a buffalo, or a couple of goats.
>>
>> If they don't have land to graze these animals on, how do they
>> eat, Einstein?
>
> They buy cattle-feed. Most towns have markets for cattle-feed where
> farmers from neighbouring villages bring their green corn stock,

Then they are being subsidized by the government. A real peasant
can't afford to feed a dog. Their dogs have to live off of rats
and such. Feeding a cow for milk products is so incredibly inefficient
that it is a sad joke. Those farmers could be bringing in food to
feed those people directly.

Listen very closely. This is the last time I am wasting my energy
trying to educate you in the realities of agriculture.

A mature cow requires a minimum of an acre of natural land to
feed it. And this acre has to be as lush and verdant as the
Garden of Eden. An acre is 43,560 square feet. In the real world,
10 acres of grassland per cow would be the average. That same
acre could devoted to raising food for the animal. 'Wastes' from
larger plots devoted to farming could also be used to feed the
animal. Both of these latter solutions are unsustainable.

That acre can feed 20 herbies. That's right, a pure vegetarian can
live off of 1/20 of an acre of no-till, bio-intensive gardening.
This is a maintenance diet, and it's better to double the size
of the individual garden to 1/10 of an acre per person.

You are promoting the false idea that someone can keep cattle
without any land, and this is absurd. That minimum of an
acre of land is needed to feed that cow and that acre could
feed 20 people instead.

That cow will drink more water than those 20 people would need
to maintain their gardens.

Now I invite you to the comforts and pleasures of my killfile.

[delete]

Sid

On May 7, 1:10*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 2:46=A0am, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> >> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 6, 6:17=3DA0pm, Sidney Lambe > wro=
> > te:
>
> >> >> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land.
>
> >> > In India many without land often living in mid size towns keep a cow
> >> > or two, a buffalo, or a couple of goats.
>
> >> If they don't have land to graze these animals on, how do they
> >> eat, Einstein?
>
> > They buy cattle-feed. Most towns have markets for cattle-feed where
> > farmers from neighbouring villages bring their green corn stock,
>
> Then they are being subsidized by the government.

Indian Government subsidizes human food almost all the time,
subsidises education, subsidises medical care, subsidises public
transport, subsidises cooking fuel, but cattle-feed only occasionally
in the regions which occasionally face draught situation and even
then only for rural and constantly migrant (those who live on live
stock moving it from place to place) people.
> A real peasant
> can't afford to feed a dog.

Indians do not care to feed dogs.

> Their dogs have to live off of rats
> and such.

Dogs except of very rich Indians are street dogs.

> Feeding a cow for milk products is so incredibly inefficient
> that it is a sad joke.

Cows and buffaloes have lifted lot of rural poor where certain
cooperative dairies have come up. Check on Amul Dairy.

> Those farmers could be bringing in food to
> feed those people directly.
However much they can they do.

> Listen very closely. This is the last time I am wasting my energy
> trying to educate you in the realities of agriculture.

**** off you ****ing idiot.

> A mature cow requires a minimum of an acre of natural land to
> feed it. And this acre has to be as lush and verdant as the
> Garden of Eden. An acre is 43,560 square feet. In the real world,
> 10 acres of grassland per cow would be the average. That same
> acre could devoted to raising food for the animal. 'Wastes' from
> larger plots devoted to farming could also be used to feed the
> animal. Both of these latter solutions are unsustainable.
>
> That acre can feed 20 herbies. That's right, a pure vegetarian can
> live off of 1/20 of an acre of no-till, bio-intensive gardening.
> This is a maintenance diet, and it's better to double the size
> of the individual garden to 1/10 of an acre per person.
>
> You are promoting the false idea that someone can keep cattle
> without any land, and this is absurd. That minimum of an
> acre of land is needed to feed that cow and that acre could
> feed 20 people instead.
>
> That cow will drink more water than those 20 people would need
> to maintain their gardens.
>
> Now I invite you to the comforts and pleasures of my killfile.
>
> [delete]
>
> Sid

On alt.food.vegan, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>> On May 7, 2:46=A0am, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>>> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>>>
>>> > On May 6, 6:17=3DA0pm, Sidney Lambe > wro=
>> te:
>>>
>>> >> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land.
>>>
>>> > In India many without land often living in mid size towns keep a cow
>>> > or two, a buffalo, or a couple of goats.
>>>
>>> If they don't have land to graze these animals on, how do they
>>> eat, Einstein?
>>
>> They buy cattle-feed. Most towns have markets for cattle-feed where
>> farmers from neighbouring villages bring their green corn stock,
>
> Then they are being subsidized by the government. A real peasant
> can't afford to feed a dog. Their dogs have to live off of rats
> and such. Feeding a cow for milk products is so incredibly inefficient
> that it is a sad joke. Those farmers could be bringing in food to
> feed those people directly.
>
> Listen very closely. This is the last time I am wasting my energy
> trying to educate you in the realities of agriculture.
>
> A mature cow requires a minimum of an acre of natural land to
> feed it. And this acre has to be as lush and verdant as the
> Garden of Eden. An acre is 43,560 square feet. In the real world,
> 10 acres of grassland per cow would be the average. That same
> acre could devoted to raising food for the animal. 'Wastes' from
> larger plots devoted to farming could also be used to feed the
> animal. Both of these latter solutions are unsustainable.
>
> That acre can feed 20 herbies. That's right, a pure vegetarian can
> live off of 1/20 of an acre of no-till, bio-intensive gardening.
> This is a maintenance diet, and it's better to double the size
> of the individual garden to 1/10 of an acre per person.
>
> You are promoting the false idea that someone can keep cattle
> without any land, and this is absurd. That minimum of an
> acre of land is needed to feed that cow and that acre could
> feed 20 people instead.
>
> That cow will drink more water than those 20 people would need
> to maintain their gardens.
>
> Now I invite you to the comforts and pleasures of my killfile.
>
> [delete]
>
> Sid
>

From my kill-log:

Score -800 killed article
egroups.com>
Score 200: Reply to Me
Score -1000: From
Newsgroup: alt.food.vegan
From: Romanise >
Subject: No Milk (Was: Harnessing the sun to keep milk fresh : A story
from Goa)

Using land to produce fodder for dairy cows is something that only
very wealthy (in global terms) people can afford. It is an absurdly
inefficient use of water and arable land and labor.

There is widespread hunger in India and this stupid practice is
one of the main reasons for it.

Corn, which is a grain, is very rich in protein. That's why it is
used for fodder, often stored in silage. For human consumption,
drying is the preferred form of preservation in 'primitive' cultures.
It stores a very long time.

The corn provides not only whole grain, but meal and oil and
sugar. It is the basis of tens of thousands of delicious vegan
recipes.

Corn came from the Native Americans. THEY did not waste it by
feeding it to cattle or buffalo or goats for a little milk.

(Feeding corn to cattle is obviously not a traditional East
Indian practice. They didn't have corn until the British
brought it to them from the Americas.

I don't know what this clown "Romano" is trying to do. I think
he probably eats animal products in excess and has damaged his
brain.

We alreadly know that people behave stupidly, The idea is to
teach them to behave rationally.

Sid

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Sidney Lambe" > wrote in message
...
> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>> On May 6, 11:39=A0am, Sidney Lambe >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a diabetic,
>>> >> you probably already knew that.
>>>
>>> Who needs cheese? Why do supposed plant product eaters try to emulate
>>> animal product eaters?
>>
>> Would you want this be answered by Dr Jai Maharaj?
>>
>>> Tofu cheese is gross. It is disgusting. It isn't even cheese.
>>>
>>> There are _much_ better things to do with tofu.
>>
>>> > Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained without any
>>> > animal husbandary?
>>>
>>> Why should he answer stupid questions like that?
>>
>> I did ask him several times what doctorate he received from what
>> university in what year with what name?
>> He has remained quiet.
>>
>> To the question "how Rural economy of India can be sustained without
>> any animal husbandry?" he needs to reply because he claims to be an
>> Engineer trained at India's premier Institue of Technology at Delhi
>> which was established primarily to improve the lot of Indian people
>> most of whom live in rural regions of which 60% have no land and so
>> are not farmers but do keep a cow, a buffalo, a goat, to provide them
>> with some protein.
>
> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land. Do you
> have any idea how much plant material they consume? How about how
> much water a cow or buffalo consumes? If they can keep a goat or
> cow or buffalo they can use the land that supports those animals
> for farming/gardening instead How about how much water a cow
> consumes, which would be much more advantageous.
>
>>> No one needs to
>>> engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They are farmers. They can
>>> grow anything. There are hundreds of commercial crops to choose
>>> from.
>>
>> There are lands in India which cannot be cultivated and cultivation
>> activity needs reducing to keep, reintroduce vegitation cover on the
>> land for getting back to climate that is contrubuting less to global
>> warming.
>
> You do not need to cultivate land to grow crops on it.
> Google "no-till farming".
>
> And so what if there are lands that can't be farmed? There are
> plenty that can. Duh.
>
> Your stupidity and ignorance are getting to me.
>

that's nothing compared to what he does when he goes around knocking on
doors with bible in his hand. he associates hindu habit of vegetarianism a
big impediment to the growth of his religion and hence it is important his
psyche that animals get killed.

On May 7, 3:31*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> On alt.food.vegan, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
> >> On May 7, 2:46=A0am, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> >>> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>
> >>> > On May 6, 6:17=3DA0pm, Sidney Lambe > wro=
> >> te:
>
> >>> >> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land.
>
> >>> > In India many without land often living in mid size towns keep a cow
> >>> > or two, a buffalo, or a couple of goats.
>
> >>> If they don't have land to graze these animals on, how do they
> >>> eat, Einstein?
>
> >> They buy cattle-feed. Most towns have markets for cattle-feed where
> >> farmers from neighbouring villages bring their green corn stock,
>
> > Then they are being subsidized by the government. A real peasant
> > can't afford to feed a dog. Their dogs have to live off of rats
> > and such. Feeding a cow for milk products is so incredibly inefficient
> > that it is a sad joke. Those farmers could be bringing in food to
> > feed those people directly.
>
> > Listen very closely. This is the last time I am wasting my energy
> > trying to educate you in the realities of agriculture.
>
> > A mature cow requires a minimum of an acre of natural land to
> > feed it. And this acre has to be as lush and verdant as the
> > Garden of Eden. An acre is 43,560 square feet. In the real world,
> > 10 acres of grassland per cow would be the average. That same
> > acre could devoted to raising food for the animal. 'Wastes' from
> > larger plots devoted to farming could also be used to feed the
> > animal. Both of these latter solutions are unsustainable.
>
> > That acre can feed 20 herbies. That's right, a pure vegetarian can
> > live off of 1/20 of an acre of no-till, bio-intensive gardening.
> > This is a maintenance diet, and it's better to double the size
> > of the individual garden to 1/10 of an acre per person.
>
> > You are promoting the false idea that someone can keep cattle
> > without any land, and this is absurd. That minimum of an
> > acre of land is needed to feed that cow and that acre could
> > feed 20 people instead.
>
> > That cow will drink more water than those 20 people would need
> > to maintain their gardens.
>
> > Now I invite you to the comforts and pleasures of my killfile.
>
> > [delete]
>
> > Sid
>
> From my kill-log:
>
> Score -800 killed article
> egroups.com>
> *Score 200: Reply to Me
> *Score -1000: From
> * Newsgroup: alt.food.vegan
> * From: Romanise >
> * Subject: No Milk (Was: Harnessing the sun to keep milk fresh : A story
> * *from Goa)
>
> Using land to produce fodder for dairy cows is something that only
> very wealthy (in global terms) people can afford. It is an absurdly
> inefficient use of water and arable land and labor.
>
> There is widespread hunger in India and this stupid practice is
> one of the main reasons for it.
>
> Corn, which is a grain, is very rich in protein. That's why it is
> used for fodder, often stored in silage. For human consumption,
> drying is the preferred form of preservation in 'primitive' cultures.
> It stores a very long time.
>
> The corn provides not only whole grain, but meal and oil and
> sugar. It is the basis of tens of thousands of delicious vegan
> recipes.
>
> Corn came from the Native Americans. THEY did not waste it by
> feeding it to cattle or buffalo or goats for a little milk.
>
> (Feeding corn to cattle is obviously not a traditional East
> Indian practice. They didn't have corn until the British
> brought it to them from the Americas.
>
> I don't know what this clown "Romano" is trying to do. I think
> he probably eats animal products in excess and has damaged his
> brain.
>
> We alreadly know that people behave stupidly, The idea is to
> teach them to behave rationally.
>
> Sid

Would the idiot tell me what best use can be made of the residue (the
plant material) of all cereals, all pulses, all vegetables, all the
oilseeds ? Feed it to rats and rabbits ?

There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.

However, the idea that it is "inefficient" to use land to produce feed
for livestock is completely wrong. Efficiency of resource use means
looking at costs, not physical output. It is *irrelevant* that you can
20 kg of (say) potatoes from a given amount of land, vs. "only" 1 kg of
meat. What matters is the cost of the resource compared with the price
people are willing to pay for the good produced. If people value the
kilogram of beef more highly than they value the 20 kg of potatoes, then
the use of the land to produce feed for cattle is economically rational.

Physical outputs by themselves are meaningless. Costs and prices are
what determine efficiency.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
> There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.
>
> However, the idea that it is "inefficient" to use land to produce feed for
> livestock is completely wrong. Efficiency of resource use means looking
> at costs, not physical output. It is *irrelevant* that you can 20 kg of
> (say) potatoes from a given amount of land, vs. "only" 1 kg of meat. What
> matters is the cost of the resource compared with the price people are
> willing to pay for the good produced. If people value the kilogram of
> beef more highly than they value the 20 kg of potatoes, then the use of
> the land to produce feed for cattle is economically rational.

From a broad nutritional spectrum 1 kg of meat is nutritionally superior to
20 kg of potatoes.

> Physical outputs by themselves are meaningless. Costs and prices are what
> determine efficiency.

A bicycle is more fuel efficient than any car, must we stop producing cars,
and buses?

A pencil and paper uses less electric power than a computer, should be ban
computers?

On 5/10/2010 1:51 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
>> There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.
>>
>> However, the idea that it is "inefficient" to use land to produce feed
>> for livestock is completely wrong. Efficiency of resource use means
>> looking at costs, not physical output. It is *irrelevant* that you can
>> 20 kg of (say) potatoes from a given amount of land, vs. "only" 1 kg
>> of meat. What matters is the cost of the resource compared with the
>> price people are willing to pay for the good produced. If people value
>> the kilogram of beef more highly than they value the 20 kg of
>> potatoes, then the use of the land to produce feed for cattle is
>> economically rational.
>
> From a broad nutritional spectrum 1 kg of meat is nutritionally
> superior to 20 kg of potatoes.

Exactly: which is why consumers prefer it.


>
>> Physical outputs by themselves are meaningless. Costs and prices are
>> what determine efficiency.
>
> A bicycle is more fuel efficient than any car, must we stop producing
> cars, and buses?
>
> A pencil and paper uses less electric power than a computer, should be
> ban computers?

Both of those seem to be directly implied by those who think that
looking purely at physical inputs and outputs is the correct way to
think of efficiency.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On alt.food.vegan, harmony > wrote:

> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>>
>>> On May 6, 11:39=A0am, Sidney Lambe
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a
>>>> >> diabetic, you probably already knew that.
>>>>
>>>> Who needs cheese? Why do supposed plant product eaters try
>>>> to emulate animal product eaters?
>>>
>>> Would you want this be answered by Dr Jai Maharaj?
>>>
>>>> Tofu cheese is gross. It is disgusting. It isn't even
>>>> cheese.
>>>>
>>>> There are _much_ better things to do with tofu.
>>>
>>>> > Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained
>>>> > without any animal husbandary?
>>>>
>>>> Why should he answer stupid questions like that?
>>>
>>> I did ask him several times what doctorate he received from
>>> what university in what year with what name? He has remained
>>> quiet.
>>>
>>> To the question "how Rural economy of India can be sustained
>>> without any animal husbandry?" he needs to reply because he
>>> claims to be an Engineer trained at India's premier Institue
>>> of Technology at Delhi which was established primarily to
>>> improve the lot of Indian people most of whom live in rural
>>> regions of which 60% have no land and so are not farmers but
>>> do keep a cow, a buffalo, a goat, to provide them with some
>>> protein.
>>
>> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land. Do you
>> have any idea how much plant material they consume? How about
>> how much water a cow or buffalo consumes? If they can keep a
>> goat or cow or buffalo they can use the land that supports
>> those animals for farming/gardening instead How about how much
>> water a cow consumes, which would be much more advantageous.
>>
>>>> No one needs to engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They
>>>> are farmers. They can grow anything. There are hundreds of
>>>> commercial crops to choose from.
>>>
>>> There are lands in India which cannot be cultivated and
>>> cultivation activity needs reducing to keep, reintroduce
>>> vegitation cover on the land for getting back to climate that
>>> is contrubuting less to global warming.
>>
>> You do not need to cultivate land to grow crops on it Google .
>> "no-till farming" .
>>
>> And so what if there are lands that can't be farmed? There are
>> plenty that can. Duh.
>>
>> Your stupidity and ignorance are getting to me.
>
>
> that's nothing compared to what he does when he goes around
> knocking on doors with bible in his hand. he associates hindu
> habit of vegetarianism a big impediment to the growth of his
> religion and hence it is important his psyche that animals get
> killed.
>
>

Yeh. So-called "Christians" ignore almost everything Jesus taught
and anything else in the Bible that gets in their imperialistic
way, which is really a front for raw Capitalism.

1. The Missionaries go in and under the guise of converting the
"heathens" to Christians gather intelligence for the Military,

2. The Military moves in (or a local proxy army controlled and
armed and financed by the U.S./Europe) and destroys the native
economy.

3. The Corporations move in to exploit the poor people and their
land for the American Konsumer's greedy lifestyle. (Which is
considered normal in America, and everyone's God-given right.)

As Dr. Jai Maharaj points out, God tells them to be vegans in
the first book of their Bible:

Genesis 1:29 (New International Version)
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the
whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They
will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and
all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the
ground***everything that has the breath of life in it***I give
every green plant for food." And it was so.

Sid

On alt.food.vegan, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) > wrote:

> In article >,
> "harmony" > posted:
>
>
>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>> > On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On May 6, 11:39=A0am, Sidney Lambe
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> >> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a
>> >>> >> diabetic, you probably already knew that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Who needs cheese? Why do supposed plant product eaters try
>> >>> to emulate animal product eaters?
>> >>
>> >> Would you want this be answered by Dr Jai Maharaj?
>> >>
>> >>> Tofu cheese is gross. It is disgusting. It isn't even
>> >>> cheese.
>> >>>
>> >>> There are _much_ better things to do with tofu.
>> >>
>> >>> > Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained
>> >>> > without any animal husbandary?
>> >>>
>> >>> Why should he answer stupid questions like that?
>> >>
>> >> I did ask him several times what doctorate he received
>> >> from what university in what year with what name? He has
>> >> remained quiet.
>> >>
>> >> To the question "how Rural economy of India can be
>> >> sustained without any animal husbandry?" he needs to
>> >> reply because he claims to be an Engineer trained at
>> >> India's premier Institue of Technology at Delhi which was
>> >> established primarily to improve the lot of Indian people
>> >> most of whom live in rural regions of which 60% have no
>> >> land and so are not farmers but do keep a cow, a buffalo, a
>> >> goat, to provide them with some protein.
>> >
>> > You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land. Do
>> > you have any idea how much plant material they consume? How
>> > about how much water a cow or buffalo consumes? If they can
>> > keep a goat or cow or buffalo they can use the land that
>> > supports those animals for farming/gardening instead How
>> > about how much water a cow consumes, which would be much
>> > more advantageous.
>> >
>> >>> No one needs to engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They
>> >>> are farmers. They can grow anything. There are hundreds of
>> >>> commercial crops to choose from.
>> >>
>> >> There are lands in India which cannot be cultivated and
>> >> cultivation activity needs reducing to keep, reintroduce
>> >> vegitation cover on the land for getting back to climate
>> >> that is contrubuting less to global warming.
>> >
>> > You do not need to cultivate land to grow crops on it .
>> > Google "no-till farming" .
>> >
>> > And so what if there are lands that can't be farmed? There
>> > are plenty that can. Duh.
>> >
>> > Your stupidity and ignorance are getting to me.
>
>> that's nothing compared to what he does when he goes around
>> knocking on doors with bible in his hand. he associates hindu
>> habit of vegetarianism a big impediment to the growth of his
>> religion and hence it is important his psyche that animals get
>> killed.
>
> Maybe he needs to read this:
>
> The Christian Argument for Vegetarianism
>
> Excerpted from the book:
>
> Christianity and the Rights of Animals, (Crossroad Publ. Co.,
> NY)
>
> By Rev. Dr. Andrew Linzey Director of Studies Center for the
> Study of Theology University of Essex
>
> It is well known that during the last thirty years or more,
> farmers have been under increasing pressure to tailor
> traditional farming methods to the needs of cost-effective
> production. Farming animals intensively has become the norm.
>
> It seems to me the only satisfactory basis on which we can
> oppose systems of close confinement is by recourse to the
> argument drawn from theos-rights. To put it at its most basic:
> animals have the right to be animals. The natural life of a
> Spirit-filled creature is a gift from God. When we take over
> the life of an animal to the extent of distorting its natural
> life for no other purpose than our own gain, we fall into sin.
> There is no clearer blasphemy before God than the perversion of
> his creatures.
>
> To the question: 'Why is it wrong to deny chickens the
> rudimentary requirements of their natural life, such as freedom
> of movement or association?' there is, therefore, only one
> satisfactory answer: Since an animal's natural life is a gift
> from God, it follows that God's right is violated when the
> natural life of his creatures is perverted. Those who, in
> contrast, opt for the welfarist approach to intensive farming
> are inevitably involved in speculating how far such and such
> may or may not suffer in what are plainly unnatural conditions.
> But unless animals are judged to have some right to their
> natural life, from what standpoint can we judge abnormalities,
> mutilations or adjustments? Confining a de-beaked hen in a
> battery cage is more than a moral crime; it is a living sign of
> our failure to recognize the blessing of God in creation.
>
> What makes this situation all the more lamentable is the
> realization that the use to which animals are put in intensive
> farming goes far beyond even the most generous interpretation
> of need. It will be obvious that humans can live healthy,
> stimulating and rewarding lives without white veal, pate' de
> foie gras, or the ever-increasing quantities of cheap eggs. The
> truth is that we can afford to be much more generous to farm
> animals than is frequently the case today.
>
> Churches need to reflect in their own collective actions the
> sensitivity they frequently hope for in others. [In England],
> under present legislation, animals can be subject to intensive
> farming and are so on Church land. It is anomalous that the
> Church of England should allow on its land farming practices
> which many senior ecclesiastics oppose and which one bishop
> recently likened to an Auschwitz for animals.
>
> The Christian argument for vegetarianism then is simple: since
> animals belong to God, have value to God and live for God, then
> their needless destruction is sinful. In short: animals have
> some right to their life, all circumstances being equal. That
> it has taken Christians so long to grasp this need not worry
> us. There were doubtless good reasons, partly theological,
> partly cultural and partly economic, why Christians in the
> past have found vegetarianism unfeasible. We do well not to
> judge too hastily, if at all. We cannot relive others' lives,
> or think their thoughts, or enter their consciences. But what
> we can be sure about is that living without what Clark calls
> "avoidable ill" has a strong moral claim upon us now.
>
> Some will surely question the limits of the vegetarian world
> here envisaged. Will large-scale vegetarianism work in
> practice? I confess I am agnostic, surely legitimately, about
> the possibility of a world- transforming vegetarianism. But
> clairvoyance is not an essential prerequisite of the vegetarian
> option, and what the future may hold, and its consequences,
> cannot easily be determined from any perspective. What I
> think is important to hold on to is the notion that the God
> who provides moral opportunities is the same God who enables
> the world, slowly but surely, to respond to them. >From a
> theological perspective, no moral endeavor is wasted so long as
> it coheres with God's purpose for his cosmos.
>
> An appendix :
>
> Genesis also says only eat plants
>
> Also the following extracts are relevant
>
> 'Not by shedding innocent blood, but by living a righteous life
> shall ye find the peace of God ... Blessed are they who keep
> this law; for God is manifested in all creatures. All creatures
> live in God, and God is hid in them...
>
> 'The fruit of the trees and the seeds and of the herbs alone
> do I partake, and these are changed by the spirit into my
> flesh and blood. Of these alone and their like shall ye eat
> who believe in me and are my disciples; for of these, in the
> spirit, come life and health and healing unto man...'
>
> (From The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, trans. by G. J. Ouseley.)
>
> 'And the flesh of slain beasts in his own body will become his
> own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself,
> and whoso eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats the body of
> death.
>
> (From The Gospel of Peace of Jesus Christ by the Disciple
> John, Trans. by E. B. Szekely, C. W. Daniel, London 1937.)
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotish Om Shant i
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for
> the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
> The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and
> do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The
> contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> fair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail
> to me, it will likely not be read, considered or answered if
> it does not contain your full legal name, current e-mail and
> postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for
> information and discussion. Views expressed by others are not
> necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read
> the article.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material
> the use of which may or may not have been specifically
> authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being
> made available in efforts to advance the understanding of
> environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic,
> scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is
> believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
> copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the
> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
> 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research, comment,
> discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to USENET
> newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information go to:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to
> use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your
> own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from
> the copyright owner.
>
> Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one or
> more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several times.

No, I don't think that's happenning and I challenge you to provide
proof of those allegations, though I don't care if you take the
challenge or not.

I admire your style, Doc. Keep it up. I save quite a few of your
posts in their own directory here.

Sid

On May 11, 12:05*am, Sidney Lambe >
wrote:

> Yeh. So-called "Christians" ignore almost everything Jesus taught
> and anything else in the Bible that gets in their imperialistic
> way, which is really a front for raw Capitalism.

[snip irrelevancies]

> As Dr. Jai Maharaj points out, God tells them to be vegans in
> the first book of their Bible:
>
> Genesis 1:29 *(New International Version)
> Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the
> whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They
> will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and
> all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the
> ground***everything that has the breath of life in it***I give
> every green plant for food." And it was so.

The New Testament disagrees with you (and the fake Hindu):

1Ti 4:1-5: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot
iron;
Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe
and know the truth.
For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it
be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1Cr 10:25-26: Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising
questions of conscience,
for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

On May 10, 8:31*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.

It is profitable in India for farmers in villages located couple of
miles outside a town. Often the farmers cut green, not fully ripened
maize, sorghum, millet stocks or alfalfa feed early in the morning and
get it delivered to their fixed customers by 7 or 8. Having emptied
their carts they collect garbage collected by sweepers on the streets
and are back on their farms by midday. For carrots they need to be dug
previous evening and washed, Alfalfa and carrots are mainly for the
horses as still there are horse buggies, In towns there are carting
services which use bullocks or camels. Donkeys are used to carry
building material often in smaller quantities in narrow streets.

> However, the idea that it is "inefficient" to use land to produce feed
> for livestock is completely wrong. *Efficiency of resource use means
> looking at costs, not physical output. *It is *irrelevant* that you can
> 20 kg of (say) potatoes from a given amount of land, vs. "only" 1 kg of
> meat. *What matters is the cost of the resource compared with the price
> people are willing to pay for the good produced. *If people value the
> kilogram of beef more highly than they value the 20 kg of potatoes, then
> the use of the land to produce feed for cattle is economically rational.
>
> Physical outputs by themselves are meaningless. *Costs and prices are
> what determine efficiency.
>
> --
> Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
> know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On 5/10/2010 10:10 PM, Romanise wrote:
> On May 10, 8:31 pm, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.
>
> It is profitable in India for farmers in villages located couple of
> miles outside a town. Often the farmers cut green, not fully ripened
> maize, sorghum, millet stocks or alfalfa feed early in the morning and
> get it delivered to their fixed customers by 7 or 8. Having emptied
> their carts they collect garbage collected by sweepers on the streets
> and are back on their farms by midday. For carrots they need to be dug
> previous evening and washed, Alfalfa and carrots are mainly for the
> horses as still there are horse buggies, In towns there are carting
> services which use bullocks or camels. Donkeys are used to carry
> building material often in smaller quantities in narrow streets.

I guess I should have said there is no requirement to grow fodder for
livestock that are intended to be eaten as meat. I can see a case to be
made for growing vegetable matter to be fed to draught animals.


>
>> However, the idea that it is "inefficient" to use land to produce feed
>> for livestock is completely wrong. Efficiency of resource use means
>> looking at costs, not physical output. It is *irrelevant* that you can
>> get 20 kg of (say) potatoes from a given amount of land, vs. "only" 1 kg
>> of meat. What matters is the cost of the resource compared with the price
>> people are willing to pay for the good produced. If people value the
>> kilogram of beef more highly than they value the 20 kg of potatoes, then
>> the use of the land to produce feed for cattle is economically rational.
>>
>> Physical outputs by themselves are meaningless. Costs and prices are
>> what determine efficiency.
>>
>> --
>> Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
>> know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs
>

On May 11, 6:33*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/10/2010 10:10 PM, Romanise wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 8:31 pm, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.
>
> > It is profitable in India for farmers in villages located couple of
> > miles outside a town. Often the farmers cut green, not fully ripened
> > maize, sorghum, millet stocks or alfalfa feed early in the morning and
> > get it delivered to their fixed customers by 7 or 8. Having emptied
> > their carts they collect garbage collected by sweepers on the streets
> > and are back on their farms by midday. For carrots they need to be dug
> > previous evening and washed, Alfalfa and carrots are mainly for the
> > horses as still there are horse buggies, In towns there are carting
> > services which use bullocks or camels. Donkeys are used to carry
> > building material often in smaller quantities in narrow streets.
>
> I guess I should have said there is no requirement to grow fodder for
> livestock that are intended to be eaten as meat. *I can see a case to be
> made for growing vegetable matter to be fed to draught animals.

This thread was hi-jacked by fellow mostly referred to as Jay Stevens
from soc.culture.indian to alt.food.vegan, alt.food.vegan.science,
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian plus the group he has created for his
"fans". This he did when I asked him to name valid alternatives to
milk based economy of India.
Thread was started with following link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8662361.stm
Subsequently I added few more links mainly of older BBC reports.

As for meat there is no industry in India which has livestock,
mammals, at the centre. Only poultry industry.

In India fodder is raised largely for milking animals, buffaloes and
cows and some goats as there are customers in towns and cities who
seek out goat milk (made familiar to them by Gandhi).

On May 11, 12:05*am, Sidney Lambe >
wrote:

> I admire your style, Doc. Keep it up. I save quite a few of your
> posts in their own directory here.
>
> Sid

That is despite him running away from naming an alternative industry
for millions of people, largely in rural but some in urban India as
well.