|
[ Mad Cow Disease Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Well, you may be in the future if you eat commercial meat. Read the following article on future endeavors:
Products from a new source: manure
Engineers and animal scientists in the US are exploring new ways to transform manure into valuable products such as cosmetics, plastics, antifreeze and even deodorants.
That waste could be transformed into new animal feed. For example, a cow’s diet includes about 18% protein and 30% carbohydrates and through the extraction of proteins and amino acids, manure can be recycled and be fed to non-dairy cows to prevent any possible contamination of products resulting from milk.
As for carbohydrates in the animal manure, they can be used to make chemicals. Rather than extracting underground resources like petroleum in order to process chemicals (to be later on be used in plastics and cosmetics) a much cheaper and easier method has been suggested and that’s animal waste.
The idea came as a result of the abundance of animal waste (cows, pigs, poultry) deposited annually (around 160 million tons in the US). And its most important contribution is in the prevention of Phosphate and Sulfate leakage from wet manure into lakes, rivers or any type of water bodies and consequently the prevention of water pollution.
This new process once began, can be less costly and twice as energy efficient as using petroleum.
______________________________________________________
MMMM, MMMM Good - our food supply will just keep on improving, won't it? I am scared.
In Reply to: Would you eat a cow that eats it's own sh**? posted by Eat Manure on November 01, 2002 at 13:30:15:
I take it you are city boy/girl. Am I right?
In Reply to: Re: Would you eat a cow that eats it's own sh**? posted by R. on November 01, 2002 at 20:00:18:
They are definately city folk!
In Reply to: Would you eat a cow that eats it's own sh**? posted by Eat Manure on November 01, 2002 at 13:30:15:
Hi, Eat.
Why not? Mad Cow disease has come from the feed manufacturers grinding up cows to feed to cows.
So long as the FDA execs are dependent upon the companies they are regulating, for their jobs after their political term in ofice is done, what can we expect?
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Would you eat a cow that eats it's own sh**? posted by Walt Stoll on November 02, 2002 at 09:49:38:
"Mad Cow disease has come from the feed manufacturers grinding up cows to feed to cows."
Not necessarily, Dr. Stoll. It's one of the theories. And this one, BTW, doesn't explain all facts. There's a better one, in my opinion. According to research done by Mark Purdey, an organic farmer, BSE is NOT infectious and has come from the use of organophosphates for warble fly by many farmers. BSE has occurred ONLY where organophosphates were in use. Read http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_mad.html and http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_mad2.html.
In Reply to: A better theory of mad cow disease posted by R. on November 02, 2002 at 18:06:54:
Thanks, R.
If this is true, where do the prions come from?
I have no doubt that these other factors might make the animal (or human) more susceptible to the infectious agent (as with any infectious agent) but a whole new paradigm would have to be created when a perfectly simple explanation as already functional.
Walt
In Reply to: Would you eat a cow that eats it's own sh**? posted by Eat Manure on November 01, 2002 at 13:30:15:
I heard that the astronauts recycle a lot of
stuff. Rabbits do also.
In Reply to: Re: A better(?) theory of mad cow disease. posted by Walt Stoll on November 03, 2002 at 08:31:55:
"If this is true, where do the prions come from?"
I wish, you, Dr. Stoll had taken the time to read referenced articles. Prions are malformed native proteins. They don't come from anywhere but get damaged inside an animal.
"a perfectly simple explanation as already functional"
I take it you meant to say "IS already functional". Is it really functional? Since when did you stop questioning someone else's theories, especially those that come from your mainstream science and medicine "friends"? I will paste below flaws with current mainstream explanation of BSE, taken from Mark Purdey's (the organic farmer I had mentioned) article:
"The Flaws in the Conventional Hypothesis
1. Thousands of tons of the incriminated UK MBM feed was exported for cattle feed during the 1970s/1980s/1990s to countries that have remained BSE-free to date. - eg, South Africa, Sweden, Eastern Europe, Middle East, India, Third World, etc. NB; MBM was exported in both straight form, as well as an ingredient of the compounded concentrated feed pellets.
2. Changes in the temperature / manufacturing techniques of the MBM rendering process in the UK were blamed for permitting the survival of the scrapie agent in dead sheep’s brain; thereby enabling the “agent” to jump across into cattle, producing BSE. Yet in other scrapie endemic countries, such as USA and Scandinavia, the exact same continuous flow system of rendering was adopted five years before the UK, yet these countries remained BSE-free.
3. Several US trials failed to invoke BSE in cattle after feeding/injecting them with massive doses of scrapie contaminated brain tissue.
4. Forty thousand plus cows that were born after the UK’s 1988 ban on MBM inclusion in cattle feed have still developed BSE. Furthermore, a small number of cows born after the further additional 1996 ban on MBM inclusion in feed destined for all types of livestock have already developed BSE
5. Several countries such as Ireland, Portugal and France have witnessed more cases of BSE in cows born after their respective bans on MBM, than in cows born before their bans.
6. There have been no cases of BSE in other TSE-susceptible (Transmissible Spongiform encephalopathy ) ruminants such as goats and sheep in the UK despite the customary inclusion of the same MBM protein source in their feeds.
7. Four of the original five kudu antelope that developed BSE at the London zoo had had no possible access to MBM containing feeds.
8. The UK government’s former experimental farm at Liscombe on Exmoor was designed to raise suckler beef cattle on a pure grass/silage system - without resort to feeding any concentrated feeds at all. Yet BSE struck down four animals on this holding.
9. The UK’s mechanically retrieved meat products / baby foods blamed for causing vCJD in the UK were exported all over the world to countries where vCJD has not erupted to date. Likewise, the practise of ‘skull splitting’ in small rural butchers was offered as an explanation for the growing number of vCJD clusters in rural areas. But this was practised by the smaller butchers all over the UK."
And another interesting excerpt:
"Despite the myriad of epidemiological flaws and millions of pounds worth of research failing to ascertain any association between the origin of these diseases and the scrapie agent, the whole propaganda myth that BSE was caused by scrapie became impregnated as ‘gospel’ into mainstream public/professional mentality.
But It is easy to see how such a reductionist mindset took a hold ; The media loved the theory because they could drum up a viral holocaust-horror scoop. The vegetarian lobby found themselves landed with a powerful propaganda weapon on their plate, whilst the scientific institutions could carry on drawing generous funding for their hyperinfectious witchhunt without the embarrassment of having to account for years of barking up the wrong tree. And the government could conveniently offload the blame onto the vagaries of some naturally occurring phenomena for which no vested interest or official directive could ever be held accountable.
And more recently, the multinational corporations have been opportunistically capitalizing off this hyperinfectious ‘prion’ theory too; by coercing governments and their media spin doctors into scaring consumers away from so called ‘prion contaminated’ livestock sources of protein. More disturbingly they are mythmongering over the safety of organic foods, alleging that organic agriculture utilizes “prion contaminated” animal manures as fertilizer.
Perhaps it is no surprise to learn that these same corporations have been simultaneously buying up vast tracts of cheap farmland across Eastern Europe, Third World countries, North America to expand their GM soya protein empire. And that the dollar profits which they are reaping from the package of agrichemicals and GM seeds required to grow arable crop proteins, such as soya, greatly exceeds that which is gleaned from the zero pesticide inputs required for growing pasture to produce meat and milk.
Despite the failure of repeated attempts to eradicate TSE hot spot regions in Colorado and Iceland – by wholesale livestock slaughter / fallowing regimes enacted across the cluster regions - governments still adopt this same slaughter strategy as a first choice means of control. But such extreme mammaliogeddon measures do little more than remove the superficial evidence of the disease. They merely mislead the public into illusory notions that TSE has been controlled (a good vote catching policy for any government ) , whilst the environmental causes are still well and truly cemented into the foodchain. History has shown that TSEs will invariably re-erupt as soon as fresh livestock are introduced once again."
If you would like more information on this, go to
In Reply to: Re: A better(?) [Yes, better!] theory of mad cow disease. posted by R. on November 08, 2002 at 19:55:27:
Thanks, R.
I will accept the judgement of history.
Namaste`
Walt
|
[ Mad Cow Disease Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |