[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Brashears on Hanson



In article <589olj$ohl@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
   joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields) wrote:
>
>Hmmm... I'm finding that I actually agree with Mr. Lloyd-Jones on a few
>points.
>
(cut)

>Actually, while your premise may have a sound start, yes, animals have
>been defecating and urinating for years, it ignores a frew very important
>points.  One, the concentration of animals is much greater on a far than
>in the wild.  For instance, North Carolina now has more hogs than people
>living in the state.  These hogs produce huge amounts of waste which is
>then contained in lagoons.  Unfortunately, many of these lagoons leak or
>rupture spilling very large amounts of waste into streams and rivers (i.e.
>Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Rivers).  Moderate amounts of a good thing is good
>but a lot can be deadly (as in the case of Vitamin A).  Non-point source
>pollution is largely responsible for eutrophication of water bodies.
>Phosphorus and nitrogen are nutrients in excess.  Algae blooms combined
>with increases in certain dinoflagellate populations cause a decrease in
>available O2 which (along with the dinoflagellates which can be toxic to
>fish) cause fish kills.  In the case of the rivers I cited in North
>Carolina fish kills of at least a million have been reported.  Not only
>does this cause obvious problems for the fishing industry as many of these
>fish are food resources - it also causes problems for the water treatment
>plants.  Large amounts of organic matter (high turbidity) can lessen the
>effectiveness of treatment.  Couple that with storm run-off (which, btw,
>often leads to the lagoons rupturing and leaking in the first place) and 
>you have an even bigger problem and a greater chance of filter
>malfunction.  
>
>In the end, it's a matter of degree.  Generally, hogs don't congregate in
>the densities these farms have them at.  Same with cattle etc. 
>
>
>
>joan


So, you didn't really answer my original questions.  If you decrease the 
population density of livestock, you will need either a lot more area for a 
particular farm, or a lot more farms.  If the "pollution" is spread out 
over 10 times the area, but the same amount of total waste is excreted into 
that area as before, do you really think that there will be a net positive 
effect from the lower population density?  If not, the only alternatives 
seem to be:

1) Turn people into vegetarians

2) Build waste treatment plants for livestock

3) Locate livestock in arid regions (where there is little or not rain 
water runoff, and pipe water into them

If you have a proposed practical solution, I'd like to see it.

Have a nice day.



References: