North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[hans brinkmann <hans-brinkmann@t-online.de>]

Hallo Mark and hallo Rivka,

I like it very much, reading your very interesting comments!
I like it also to hear about other culture/countries.

My father was plowing his fields only with horses - as he has been a 
young man.
Those days each house in our villages has had one or more porks.
As I have been young each farmer has had at least few or many porks.
Now-a-days not a single farmer in the whole area has a single pork, but 
the pork consumption is increased drastically...

But maybe because of the close contact with farm animals, my father 
taught me:
Never kill an animal just for fun!
Never hurt an animal for fun, because they feel the pain like human beings!
Never throw food away! (at least feed it to the porks, dogs or cats)!
Just to add, to avoid critics, he did not forgot the human beings:
He also taught me also - as a German with too much war experience: Never 
ever join the German Army!

I found a very interesting and informative American page - not only for 
younger people -
*http://www.youthxchange.net/main/b223_food-supply_meat-m.asp*
"If each American reduced his or her meat consumption by only 5%, 
roughly equivalent to eating one less dish of meat each weak, 7.5 
million tons of grain would be saved, enough to feed 25 million 
people-roughly the number estimated to go hungry in the United States 
each day."

*http://www.youthxchange.net/main/b223_food-supply_meat-d.asp
*"The world’s richest countries make up only 1/5 of global population, 
but account for 45% of all meat consumption…" With a very informative table!
"The typical American prepared meal contains, on average, ingredients 
from at least *5 countries* outside the United States;"
" For each hamburger passed up, as much water is saved as taking 40 
showers with a low-flow nozzle. In other words, save massive amounts of 
water - 3000 to 5000 gallons (about 11,350-19,000 litres) of water for 
every pound of beef you avoid;"

/"I think you're right about that; much of the population of the US has 
had no real hunger in their family history for several generations, and 
can't imagine that this could ever happen to them. I strongly suspect 
that part of my interest in food and in the production of it comes from 
the fact that my father nearly starved to death as a child (in Poland in 
the 1920's)."

/I have the same sad experience: Almost every German does not know or 
understand the real meaning of hunger. Many old ones just forgot or died 
and the other ones can not imagine or do not have any empathy or just do 
not want to think/to imagine!
I was working for some time in different African countries (Sudan, 
Ethiopia, Zimbabwe ...) never ever I can forget to see hunger! To see 
people just dieing because of less food or water. Simultaneously I was 
able to see our wonderful German G-3 machine gun at Sudan, where it is 
officially never sold...
America is the largest weapon seller at the world! Tiny Germany is No. 
3! But both countries are surprised about the increasing No of wars and 
terrorism...
At Ethiopia, I asked by chance my cook: "how often do you eat meat at 
home?" Answer: "Once a year at a special celebration day".
I stopped eating meat from that day on. But this is my very personal 
decision/history only for me!
Also really shocking has been one fact later on: Back home in 
food-wasting-Germany: Not even my German friends have been able to 
understand hunger, if I tried to explain... No way, but some few very 
old Germans understood well. Especially some old Germans do not accept 
the EU-food-wasting-programs to waste thousands of tons of foodstuff... 
Most others have "logical explanations to continue with this custom" for 
that crime...
Since those days I really "hate" Fast-food-culture in Germany! Many 
young people love Mc Donalds. Junk food, too much nonsense packing, 
after leaving they often just throw it out of the car and many young 
Germans do not say: e.g. Let's eat some food... They just say e.g.: 
"Let's rankle some shit".
The small "Slow-Food" fashion is a very good direction, but very 
personally for me (with my African experience) it is also a bit overdone 
(the meals).
Anyhow, they spread a very good knowledge, which is last not least very 
useful for the producers.

ciao
Hans Germany


Rivka: "No idea why this happened; but have noticed that posts to this 
list do sometimes come througn delayed and/or out of order."
Sometimes also my posts are fast, sometimes they need one day... I think 
it's just a weak server...


/
/


*
*






Mark & Helen Angermayer schrieb:

> Hi Rivka,
>
> Rivka wrote:
>
> "I don't think anyone is suggesting that we "go back to practices 50 years
> old"; at least if that's taken to mean, "do everything the way we did it 50
> years ago", rather than "select the best technique based on what we know
> now", which may result in combining techniques used many years ago with
> others developed only recently. Intensive rotational grazing, for instance,
> was as I understand it very rarely if ever practiced 50 years ago, but I
> believe does both increase production and decrease parasites, while
> improving the pastures."
>
> I agree we should "select the best technique based on what we know now."
> The problem is some groups (specifically welfare groups) care very little
> about the best technique or the industry even surviving.  As an example some
> want to get rid of the farrowing crate, but it is specifically because the
> sow is confined that she doesn't crush her piglets while laying down, it
> forces her to lay down slowly (sows are bad about laying on their young,
> especially on hot days).
> I also like the idea of intentional rotational grazing.  My old farming
> partner, whom I sold out to, started raising cattle with his dad.  They are
> using intensive rotational grazing.  Obvioulsy it wouldn't work with hogs,
> all you would get with hogs is an intensive mud hole, but I don't think
> you're talking about hogs.  As an aside, I would offer a caution.  Sometimes
> an idea sounds really great on paper, and maybe there are a few people
> actually claiming they're doing it and it's working great, but when it comes
> to actually implementing it, under your own personal circumstances, it
> doesn't work.  I'm sure you've run across that with a lot of fruit ideas
> that sounded good but didn't work (I know I have), it's the same thing with
> hogs.  People come up with ideas that are supposed to work just as good, or
> almost as good, but they don't.
>
> Rivka wrote:
>
> "However, if we're ever in a state of actual food scarcity in the USA (from
> your "300 million people", I assume you mean the USA),"
> Yes
>
> Rivka wrote:
> " I don't think we'll be able to afford confinement production. (Correct me,
> please, on any of this if I'm wrong; I'm not really a livestock person, and
> it's possible that I've got something wrong here.) Confined animals are
> usually fed grains as a large part of the diet, aren't they?"
> You're correct.
>
> Rivka wrote:
> "Humans can digest grains directly; if people are starving, running the
> grains through livestock first isn't the best way to go. There's a lot of
> land in this country that can grow quite good pasture, but that, because of
> steep slope and/or rocky or shallow soil, isn't suited to grain or vegetable
> production. (If the pastures are managed to do so, they can also sustain
> quite a lot of wild species, which doesn't happen in a feedlot; and the
> manure becomes a benefit rather than a problem.)"
>
> Much, or most, of the marginal land you speak of is already used for pasture
> for cattle, or is used for hay production which is fed to cattle.  There is
> little land in the U.S. that's idle.  I agree there is some land currently
> being dirt farmed that has no business being used for rowcrops, but I think,
> at least in the midwest, it's minimal.
>
> A valid point about it's more efficient for humans to eat corn and beans
> rather than allowing the livestock.  But a caveate:  Livestock production
> has grown very efficient to close that gap.  You can grow a pound of pork on
> 3 lbs of feed, a pound of chicken on 2 lbs of feed, and for commerical
> fisheries, you can grow a pound of fish on less than a pound of feed (this
> is because feed is measured as dry matter and animal tissue has a lot of
> water weight, hence feed efficiencies of less than one for fish).  Obviously
> we don't eat all parts of the animal (although our forefathers nearly did)
> so the efficiencies aren't as good for the amount we do eat, but it is also
> worth mentioning that meats are more nutrient dense than grain, so we get
> more out of them (although it still probably doesn't make up of for not
> eating the whole animal from an effieciency standpoint).
>
> Rivka wrote:
> "Livestock can also be grazed on fields in cover crop as part of a rotation,
> giving additional yield from those fields while fertilizing them for the
> next crop and (at proper stocking rates) improving the health of the soil;
> helping make it possible to raise vegetables and row crops on soils not
> suited to doing so in continuous production. Cattle and chickens, at least,
> can digest quite a lot of stuff that humans can't, and turn it into meat
> that humans can benefit from. While as I understand it the digestive system
> of pigs is a lot like that of humans, I think they can also eat things, such
> as acorns, that humans can't eat, at least without a lot of processing. Can
> they also digest, for instance, clover?"
>
> Yes they can digest clover.  On the chickens however, I would be surprised
> of being able to grow chickens range style with any kind of scale.  There
> may be someone doing it, but I'd be skeptical.  It seems to me broiler
> houses are a necessity with anything more than a handful of chickens.
>
> Rivka wrote:
> "Confinement-raised meat isn't cheaper because the feed source is cheaper;
> it's cheaper because it requires less human labor. Under our current
> economic setup, in the US human labor is priced higher than natural
> resources. Corn-fed meat is really a luxury item; available to us
> specifically because we're producing more corn than the humans can eat
> directly. Of course, if we start burning the corn all up in our cars
> instead, that's likely to change."
>
> Again I agree, it's largely driven by labor, but ultimately isn't that what
> we pay for when we buy anything?  I don't want to try to switch the
> argument, but at a personal level, I like to be able to buy cheap food.  Not
> so, as a family, we can waste money on other material goods, but because we
> don't have as much income as some other folks. We live frugally compared to
> most Americans, except I spend a lot on our backyard orchard, and probably a
> lot less efficiently than a real orchardist can produce it.  But since I
> don't do it for a living, I don't do it for efficiency, but for perhaps a
> bit better quality, and for fun.
>
> Mark
> Kansas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nafex mailing list 
> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
> This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web sites.
> Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have permission!
>
> **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
> Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
> No exceptions.  
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be used 
> to change other email options):
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
>
> File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
> TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
> Please do not send binary files.
> Use plain text ONLY in emails!
>
> NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
>
>
>