al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) (12/07/90)
In article <1990Dec4.145421.25102@engin.umich.edu> picard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ronald V Picard) writes: >In article <1990Nov5.224851.19579@nntp-server.caltech.edu> dicely@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Christopher M. Dicely) writes: >>btiffany@pbs.org writes: >>> * $19,000,000 to study bovine flatulence. >>Yes, but recent preliminary studies have revealed that this ("cow gas") may be >>the most significant contributor to the greenhouse affect, or at least among >>the more significant ones, and that it may be reducable by dietary changes... >Sorry, this is a lie put out by the new pro-vegetarian groups. It is >a much easier target to say we shouldn't eat meat or the world will be >destroyed, than convincing us we're immoral for eating meat. >Check out the groups supporting this statement and the obvious solution. 1) Why do you think this is a lie? Was the research funded by vegetarian interests? I don't care who *supports* a statement. Hitler supported fresh air and exercise, but that doesn't make me skeptical about the value of fresh air and exercise. 2) What "obvious solution" do you mean? 3) BTW, I read "dietary changes" as dietary changes for the cows, not dietary changes for the humans. What was the intent? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA ) ( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daniel_C_Anderson@cup.portal.com (12/10/90)
al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) writes: >In article <1990Dec4.145421.25102@engin.umich.edu> picard@caen.engin.umich.e onald V >Picard) writes: >>In article <1990Nov5.224851.19579@nntp-server.caltech.edu> dicely@nntp-serv ltech.edu >>(Christopher M. Dicely) writes: >>>btiffany@pbs.org writes: > >>>> * $19,000,000 to study bovine flatulence. >>>Yes, but recent preliminary studies have revealed that this ("cow gas") ma >>>the most significant contributor to the greenhouse affect, or at least amo >>>the more significant ones, and that it may be reducable by dietary changes > >>Sorry, this is a lie put out by the new pro-vegetarian groups. It is >>a much easier target to say we shouldn't eat meat or the world will be >>destroyed, than convincing us we're immoral for eating meat. > >>Check out the groups supporting this statement and the obvious solution. > . > . > . > >2) What "obvious solution" do you mean? All cows must get cattle-lytic converters. Existing cows would have to be retro-fitted. Obviously. --Daniel Disclaimer: "Naaah."
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (12/10/90)
In article <1409@gtx.com>, al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) writes: > In article <1990Dec4.145421.25102@engin.umich.edu> picard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ronald V Picard) writes: >>In article <1990Nov5.224851.19579@nntp-server.caltech.edu> dicely@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Christopher M. Dicely) writes: >>>btiffany@pbs.org writes: > >>>> * $19,000,000 to study bovine flatulence. >>>Yes, but recent preliminary studies have revealed that this ("cow gas") may be >>>the most significant contributor to the greenhouse affect, or at least among >>>the more significant ones, and that it may be reducable by dietary changes... > >>Sorry, this is a lie put out by the new pro-vegetarian groups. It is >>a much easier target to say we shouldn't eat meat or the world will be >>destroyed, than convincing us we're immoral for eating meat. > >>Check out the groups supporting this statement and the obvious solution. > > 1) Why do you think this is a lie? Was the research funded by vegetarian > interests? I don't care who *supports* a statement. Hitler supported > fresh air and exercise, but that doesn't make me skeptical about the > value of fresh air and exercise. > Another interest that is pushing the 'cow gas' study is the coal/fuel industry. I think they may be hoping it will take some of the heat off them. No one seems to think about what it was like when millions of buffalo covered the western plains. The 'cow gas' problem sounds to me like a lot of 'bull'. > 2) What "obvious solution" do you mean? > This was a little vague. I also want to know what solution? > 3) BTW, I read "dietary changes" as dietary changes for the cows, not > dietary changes for the humans. What was the intent? > Don't see how you can have dietary changes for the cows. They produce some gas as a natural byproduct of eating grass. What ELSE would you have them eat? McNuggets? ;^)
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (12/11/90)
Bovine flatulence partially results from the fact that much (60% ?) of the food it eats is not digested. Part of the research is an attempt to innoculate the cow gut with bacteria to improve this conversion. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Chamove Massey University Psychology Palmerston North, New Zealand
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec10.093753.1992@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: > >Another interest that is pushing the 'cow gas' study is the coal/fuel industry. >I think they may be hoping it will take some of the heat off them. No one >seems to think about what it was like when millions of buffalo covered the >western plains. The 'cow gas' problem sounds to me like a lot of 'bull'. Just like the horse, there are more horses in the US today than in 1900, there are many more cows in the US today than there ever were buffalo in pre-colonial days. While I agree that the cow gas thing does sound like a lot of bull, I was really surprised when I discovered that the number of domestic animals in this country today is far greater than the number of wild creatures that existed prior to the white colonization of North America. Note: I'm not counting insects. If insects are counted, the number of living creatures hasn't changed significantly from prehistory. Gary