Comments kimsikes has made

I can't help but think this is an absurd way to stimulate the economy. Right now, I can't even afford to take trade in my 1992 Honda through this program yet money is being taken from me so other people can. Perfect example: my co-worker said her father was disappointed the money ran out of the first round of the program because he was going to get rid of his JAGUAR for a more fuel efficient vehicle. What is the purpose of this program?? If it's economic stimulus, it's a failed attempt. Poor people cannot afford this program and the cars that are being traded in are rendered unusable so others who cannot afford it otherwise don't even have an opportunity to buy used. Plus you're taking money from everyone else (not now, since the money is being printed to satisfy this) but in the future all of us, including our descendents, will pay for a long time. There's nothing "stimulating" about this. If the purpose is environmental, again it's a failure. Continuing to drive your current car is seemingly the best option from what I've read on sites like Grist. Consider the energy, resources and waste that go into creating a new car. And forgein cars are shipped halfway across the world to get to us. Buying new is hardly worth the environmental impact. I wish this would stop. I feel like we are going in the wrong direction here.

These are the two best articles I've read to support our pastured cows: http://www.siteground217.com/~westonap/farm-a-ranch/1639-an-inconvenient-cow and http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/splendor-from-the-grass.

Umbra, thank you for not being overly critical on meat-eating this time. However when talking about food we must distinguish between industrial vs. real food.

Everything we call "food" that is produced industrially (basically everything in your grocery store) uses an immense amount of resources and damages the environment whether it is livestock or veggies. When you say that the grain used to feed industrial cows could be used to feed people instead is not a reality at this point. Those crops are genetically modified, use deadly amounts of chemical inputs (which kill most wildlife in that area and make the soil devoid of nutrients) and use farming methods that destroy the integrity of the soil which wash into local watersheds with all those yummy chemicals. After all this, they're not actually fit for human consumption. All those genetically modified and subsidized corn and soy crops are grown for the sole purpose to turn in into something else: a cow burger or soy burger. Either way it's highly processed and is shipped all over the world.

Livestock from your local bio-dynamic farms (ie: Polyface Farms) actually heal the land and people. Locally grown veggies use less resources and are more nutrient-dense than mass-produced crops. And I would dare say that a die-hard vegan whose diet is comprised of processed and packaged food products has a heavier footprint than an omnivore who sources all their meats and vegetables locally.

Raw milk rocks!

I'm a raw milk drinker but must get it from my black market milk club since it's illegal in my state. (May I make a point here how unconstitutional it is to tell me what I'm allowed to put in my body???)

Here are some quick factoids about raw milk: http://realmilk.com/what.html.

Legalizing raw milk actually became the #1 agricultural issue on change.org (Obama's unofficial sounding board). A ton of people are discovering the awesome health benefits (better digestion, no more allergies, etc). The risks of contamination are actually less than pasteurized milk. Would take paragraphs to get into but all the info is out there.

Look beyond the USDA and FDA - some believe (myself included) that they are bought and paid for by lobbyists for the industrial food corporations and there are some who are part of those agencies that come from those corporations. On Umbra on raw milk posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 20 Responses

Locally raised grassfed animals are okay!

This is all very true in regards to industrial farming. However, if you review the statistics in regards to biodynamic farming, it's a clear benefit to the environment. See below...

• Save massive amounts of water - 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of water for every pound of beef you avoid ...  Grass farmers don't use grain or soy feed and have no need to wash away all the animal waste (two main sources of water waste) since it's used to fertilize the grass.

• Avoid polluting our streams and rivers better than any other single recycling effort you do ... Manure from grazing animals is an invaluable resource for healthy, fertile and nutrient-rich soil.

• Avoid the destruction of topsoil ... Grazed grass improves water retention and erosion issues.

• Avoid the destruction of tropical forests ... This is not relevant at all to local biodynamic farms.

• Avoid the production of carbon dioxide (Your average car produces 3 kg/day of CO2. To clear rainforest to produce beef for one hamburger produces 75 kg of CO2. Eating one pound of hamburger does the same damage as driving your car for more than three weeks) ... Local farms do not clear rainforest and some farms do not deliver food more than a half day's drive. They typical fruit or vegetable travels an average of 1,500 miles to arrive on the average American's plate.

• Reduce the amount of methane gas produced ... "nitrous oxide from fertilizer adds up to 26 per cent [and] carbon dioxide from ploughing up grassland is the major contributor...45 per cent" compared to methane from livestock: 20%.

• Reduce the destruction of wildlife habitat, help to save endangered species ... Biodynamic farmers enhance the landscape, even ones that are not used directly for grazing, and welcome local wildlife to interact with their animals.

• Reduce welfare ranching ... Local farms refuse to take subsidies from the government, in fact, the government is generally their enemy! Most subsidies are for corn and soy which are used for industrial animal feed and all kinds of processed foods, like tofu.