In regards to eating meat

[BrownEye]

That would mean there was no lesson in your experience.

[3DMonkey]

Or that the lesson isnt what is most apparent

---

Look to the finish line

---

Life isn't about me
Myself and I.

You are aware of all that goes on around us. Different entities here and there and everywhere. We work with them. We do our parts. Where it ends we do not know. But it's not about our self per se, but for the whole. Listening to our self is like listening to the song of the universe.

[Monica]

IMO, the best way to proceed is to raise animals your way, and be happy that it is enough. Cuz if you ain't happy, you ain't helping the world's happiness meter.

I wonder how much all those millions of animals being tortured on a daily basis, is affecting the world's happiness

I seriously doubt any at all. If I may, this is what I've been repeating
many times and in many ways throughout this thread, and I have been consistent.

You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree. I know that animals feel emotion, pain, and fear. Emotions carry an energy charge. Energy affects the whole planet. There's no way around that.

Billions of animals living in cruel condition, and cruelly slaughtered in a state of pain and terror...that is energy, and it's adding to the darkness of this planet. Highly charged emotional energy doesn't just disappear.

I like the way Monica moderates the ad hominem attacks on food-harmonizers. Character assassination and covert distractions can or should sharpen the STO wits. QED

Character assassination?

Like "you would allow a murderer to kill a child"

You said this yourself, Monkey. You are misrepresenting me. I have asked you to take this up privately. You are now being blatantly disrespectful, challenging a moderator publicly when I've asked you to discuss it privately.

Covert distractions?

Like reminding me to stick to forum rules when I've done nothing to break them?

Is that what you are talking about? I'm confused.
If I have made a comment toward any person here, please locate that comment and let me know.

On the other hand, if there are no comments as such to be found, please contact the moderators and let them know that. I am being accused. I need help in defense.

This is getting out of hand. I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply posted a reminder to heed the guidelines. I've done this many times before and no one ever objected to it. You are creating discord here, Monkey, by continuing to argue this publicly. I sent you a pm so we could work it out. This is turning into a much bigger issue than it needed to be, and the thread is getting more and more derailed, so now will be a mess to clean up.

For clarification, this is not me being angry that Monica said these things.

This is me demonstrating that I have not said anything more worthy of "invoking rules" than Monica has.

Monkey, by digging up old quotes and quoting them out of context. You know full well that I was incredulous at the time, after you explicitly said you were in favor of letting the murderer kill the child. There was no misunderstanding there. You have repeatedly stated this. All I did was echo it back to you, trying to get clarification.

You never denied believing that killers should be allowed to kill children, and in fact repeated it again and again. And now you throw it back at me, for repeating what you said yourself?

You are misrepresenting me, by quoting just snippets of the conversation. You are leaving out your part, where you were the one saying "those things" you now accuse me of, as though so awful.

This has to stop here. This thread has degenerated into petty bickering. I have asked you to pm me if you have a grievance, rather than continuing to post inflammatory and accusatory statements directed at me or anyone else.

These are new quotes!!! You brought these up on the 12th from a conversation from weeks past (so long ago I don't know the date). You brought them up out of context into a conversation where they certainly did not apply. Why? My guess is to exaggerate and to defame me in the process.

I most certainly did deny that I would allow a murder to take place. I denied it emphatically.

You accused me, Monica. You accused me. And it further defames me when you post comments like this, and then finish it with 'as a moderator I ask that you PM any further regards'. Well hell, you could have done that as well, but you didn't. Why? It certainly wasn't out of #1 rule RESPECT.

Not true. I did pm you. As I did the last time too.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Regarding the whole "killing a child" thing...

I'm pretty sure what Monkey meant was if we truly loved the murderer, we would allow the child to be killed.

In a conversation with me, he expressed that he would intervene in a torture scenario. But admitted that he did not love the torturer. I'm sure it is the same with the murderer.

What does the Ra material have to say about this?

The desire to protect individuals from harm from others persists throughout 4th density, but Ra hints that it does not persist through 5th density.

[3DMonkey]

Nothing is "getting out of hand".

---

The PM simply reiterated the public posts.

[BrownEye]

The desire to protect individuals from harm from others persists throughout 4th density, but Ra hints that it does not persist through 5th density.

Is that because we are wise enough to not cause harm?

4th may be that we love each other enough to keep them from harm.

5th may be that we have evolved past the selfish need to harm others.

[Monica]

Regarding the whole "killing a child" thing...

I'm pretty sure what Monkey meant was if we truly loved the murderer, we would allow the child to be killed.

In a conversation with me, he expressed that he would intervene in a torture scenario. But admitted that he did not love the torturer. I'm sure it is the same with the murderer.

Yes, I understand that. In fact, his comments about killing animals made more sense to me, knowing how he felt about not 'imposing your will over another.' My statement "I can understand how someone who thinks we shouldn't stop a murderer, wouldn't want to stop a butcher either" was a genuine show of respect for his views, even though I strongly disagree with that view.

The light bulb had gone on in my head. "Aha! Of course he doesn't want to tell the butcher not to kill animals! He wouldn't even tell a murderer not to kill a child! Now I get it! I finally understand Monkey!"

---

Nothing is "getting out of hand".

This thread is seriously derailed. I asked you to discuss this with the mods privately.

The PM simply reiterated the public posts.

Not true.

This is the last time I'm going to ask you, Monkey, to address any grievances privately, and cease making it public.

[Diana]

The desire to protect individuals from harm from others persists throughout 4th density, but Ra hints that it does not persist through 5th density.

Is that because we are wise enough to not cause harm?

4th may be that we love each other enough to keep them from harm.

5th may be that we have evolved past the selfish need to harm others.

I certainly hope so .

---

This is also about making conscious choices:

eat meat/don't eat meat

eat meat derived from cruelty/eat meat derived from respectful practices

That goes for plant-life as well:

eat plants derived from harmful commercial farming/eat plants from sustainable, respectful practices

[Bring4th_Austin]

The desire to protect individuals from harm from others persists throughout 4th density, but Ra hints that it does not persist through 5th density.

Is that because we are wise enough to not cause harm?

4th may be that we love each other enough to keep them from harm.

5th may be that we have evolved past the selfish need to harm others.

I believe that evolution to not harm others would occur in 4D. I don't believe that Ra was referring to harm brought by our own kind. 5D entities still interact and perceive the lesser densities. In 4D, the desire to protect our own as well as others from harm and suffering at the hands of another persists, while in 5D, it is still perceived, yet allowed.

[BrownEye]

I suppose another question would be, how did they evolve to 5d? Lessons? Or complacency?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Ra was very careful in dispensing that specific information. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to decide we should act like a 5D entity. Balancing love with wisdom requires love first.

[Monica]

Ra was very careful in dispensing that specific information. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to decide we should act like a 5D entity. Balancing love with wisdom requires love first.

The point is that it is our choices that cause us to evolve. I don't think we just go poof and we're in 4D, suddenly no longer interested in the taste of animal flesh. It makes more sense to me that, as we make our choices here in 3D, we gradually resonate with 4D vibrations, including the choice of 'living foodstuffs' as Ra said.

I don't think 4D entities eat the bloody flesh of still-living animals. Somehow I can't quite picture that! So for the food to be living, it must be plant.

[Bring4th_Austin]

What I meant by "I don't think it would be appropriate for us to decide we should act like a 5D entity" was that just because Ra describes a 5D entity as allowing a murderer to murder or a torturer to torture, that might not necessarily be the appropriate action for us to take.

[Monica]

What I meant by "I don't think it would be appropriate for us to decide we should act like a 5D entity" was that just because Ra describes a 5D entity as allowing a murderer to murder or a torturer to torture, that might not necessarily be the appropriate action for us to take.

Oh!!! I didn't realize what you were responding to. Well in that case, I agree 100%!

I would add that, since this is the density of Choice, allowing an STS action to take place, when we have the ability to stop it, is to polarize STS.

[βαθμιαίος]

I don't think 4D entities eat the bloody flesh of still-living animals. Somehow I can't quite picture that! So for the food to be living, it must be plant.

Snails? Oysters? American Indians supposedly ate the hearts out of freshly-killed game.

---

The catalyst itself - the cruel living conditions - are what triggers the self-awareness in cows and chickens.

....

To miss the potential of extreme suffering to awaken sentience, is to miss the point of catalyst, rendering the suffering even more abhorrent because it's without any purpose at all.

OK, I'm starting to see where you're coming from. It's possible, but I think it's unlikely. Green-ray love is what individuates pets. I doubt that red-ray survival needs would cause second-density entities to move towards third density.

I have repeatedly stated that eventually, we wouldn't be eating plants either, but that we have to start someplace.

Right. You think the place to start is not eating animals. I think it's to recognize and honor the sacrifice that the food is offering to you. I think a lettuce or a carrot is sacrificing just as completely as a cow or a pig.

I still don't get what the algae has to do with your point. Sorry, I guess I still don't get your point! Wild bluegreen algae from Klamath Lake is the single most sustainable food on the planet. Bar none. There just isn't any comparison.

Sustainable food doesn't need to be packaged and shipped thousands of miles. It's grown and consumed locally.

Regarding compassion for plants and animals -- I don't see why we can't have both.

Of course! Why does it seem you think I think otherwise?

Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

---

I would add that, since this is the density of Choice, allowing an STS action to take place, when we have the ability to stop it, is to polarize STS.

Not necessarily. Ra said that our lessons at this time involve the balance between love and wisdom. It would depend why one allowed the STS action to take place.

(Replying generally and not in the context of this thread, where you may be implying that allowing the butchering of animals is STS.)

[Monica]

I don't think 4D entities eat the bloody flesh of still-living animals. Somehow I can't quite picture that! So for the food to be living, it must be plant.

Snails? Oysters? American Indians supposedly ate the hearts out of freshly-killed game.

I said 4D entities.

The catalyst itself - the cruel living conditions - are what triggers the self-awareness in cows and chickens.

....

To miss the potential of extreme suffering to awaken sentience, is to miss the point of catalyst, rendering the suffering even more abhorrent because it's without any purpose at all.

OK, I'm starting to see where you're coming from. It's possible, but I think it's unlikely. Green-ray love is what individuates pets. I doubt that red-ray survival needs would cause second-density entities to move towards third density.

It's not just red-ray. Animals have herds, packs, social structures. Those are ripped asunder by humans who put them into unnatural and obscenely cruel living conditions. So orange comes into play here.

Further, I seem to recall Ra talking about the purpose of 2D catalyst. If only love from 3D entities caused 2D to become self-aware, then only pets would evolve! Then what would be the purpose of 2D catalyst at all?

I have repeatedly stated that eventually, we wouldn't be eating plants either, but that we have to start someplace.

Right. You think the place to start is not eating animals. I think it's to recognize and honor the sacrifice that the food is offering to you. I think a lettuce or a carrot is sacrificing just as completely as a cow or a pig.

Sacrifice means the entity chose it. Cows and pigs aren't sacrificing, because they have no choice in the matter.

I still don't get what the algae has to do with your point. Sorry, I guess I still don't get your point! Wild bluegreen algae from Klamath Lake is the single most sustainable food on the planet. Bar none. There just isn't any comparison.

Sustainable food doesn't need to be packaged and shipped thousands of miles. It's grown and consumed locally.

The term sustainable has nothing to do with whether it's local or not.

sus·tain·a·ble  [suh-stey-nuh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
capable of being supported or upheld, as by having its weight borne from below.
2.
pertaining to a system that maintains its own viability by using techniques that allow for continual reuse: sustainable agriculture. Aquaculture is a sustainable alternative to overfishing.
3.
able to be maintained or kept going, as an action or process: a sustainable negotiation between the two countries.
4.
able to be confirmed or upheld: a sustainable decision.
5.
able to be supported as with the basic necessities or sufficient funds: a sustainable life.

Bluegreen algae is the single most sustainable food on the planet, because if you removed half the algae in the morning, by the end of the day the lake would be full again. No other food reproduces that fast.

Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

You are oversimplifying my many thousands of words expended to explain my position.

I would add that, since this is the density of Choice, allowing an STS action to take place, when we have the ability to stop it, is to polarize STS.

Not necessarily. Ra said that our lessons at this time involve the balance between love and wisdom. It would depend why one allowed the STS action to take place.

Not caring about the suffering of others...lusting for the taste of animal flesh...Just what are the reasons for eating animals, especially those raised in factory farms?

(Replying generally and not in the context of this thread, where you may be implying that allowing the butchering of animals is STS.)

I think that the way Austin (abridgetoofar) does it - consciously, humanely, and lovingly - isn't STS at all. It's not something I could do. But I can see that Austin's intentions are to improve the overall conditions of the animals. We disagree as to whether the animals should even be killed at all, but I am able to see past that to his heart, which is plainly out in the open for all to see. He clearly cares a great deal, and has expressed how conflicted he is when he must kill bugs in order to raise crops. Even though his approach is different from mine, I consider us on the same team.

That's right: A farmer who butchers animals, and me, a vegetarian animal rights activist, on the same team!!

I see no conflict in this.

Now contrast that with those who aren't even willing to watch a video and get educated about what goes on in a slaughterhouse, or, worse, who can watch it and not even care...who insist on putting their own desires for taste above caring about the suffering of the animals.

NOT referring to any person on this thread!!! I am speaking in generalities. If someone is unaware of the suffering, they aren't responsible for it. For most people, eating a hamburger isn't STS at all, because they aren't even thinking about that animal. They are barely conscious enough to even realize it was once an animal.

But for someone who is aware, and chooses to not care, then yeah, I'd say that is depolarizing.

[Bring4th_Austin]

The term sustainable has nothing to do with whether it's local or not.

The use of limited resource fossil fuels to transport it to consumers would be the non-sustainable factor here.

Not disagreeing that it is a sustainable source. A lot of "sustainably" raised crops require just as much fossil fuel to work the land and harvest. Luckily, biodiesel (not to be confused with ethanol) is becoming much more of a possibility, and it is a completely renewable source of fuel (though not enough to support the entire world's fuel needs).

As far as the sustainable food movement goes, the general sentiment is the more local the better. Less packaging, less fuel cost, and directly supportive of local community which shares sustainability with its members.

[BrownEye]

Ra was very careful in dispensing that specific information. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to decide we should act like a 5D entity. Balancing love with wisdom requires love first.

Hmm, what if you happen to be a 5D in a 3D body? No wisdom to disburse amongst the others as a form of helping them over the steps?

---

AHA! I hope you don't tell me the dude in the slaughterhouse is that dude to disburse the wisdom

[Bring4th_Austin]

Ra was very careful in dispensing that specific information. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to decide we should act like a 5D entity. Balancing love with wisdom requires love first.

Hmm, what if you happen to be a 5D in a 3D body? No wisdom to disburse amongst the others as a form of helping them over the steps?

Good question.

Only thing I could say is that Ra discussed this while discussing Jesus and his crucifixion. Jesus was high 4d (harvestable to 5d), and his last lesson that he imparted on his followers was to lower their weapons and allow for his persecutors to torture and kill him.

[BrownEye]

"Forgive them father for they know not what they do"

Self sacrifice. And along the way he stood up for the rights of the downtrodden.

But. His lesson was a 4D lesson.

[Monica]

The use of limited resource fossil fuels to transport it to consumers would be the non-sustainable factor here.

Not disagreeing that it is a sustainable source. A lot of "sustainably" raised crops require just as much fossil fuel to work the land and harvest. Luckily, biodiesel (not to be confused with ethanol) is becoming much more of a possibility, and it is a completely renewable source of fuel (though not enough to support the entire world's fuel needs).

As far as the sustainable food movement goes, the general sentiment is the more local the better. Less packaging, less fuel cost, and directly supportive of local community which shares sustainability with its members.

True. So the total costs etc. would have to be weighed out.

In the case of bluegreen algae, it's such a powerful food - supplying the trace elements missing in the SAD diet - that its benefits far outweigh the costs of transport. A powerhouse compacted into a tiny space! A single gram a day can overcome many nutritional deficiencies.

And the only cost is harvesting, marketing and delivering. It grows wild so there's no manufacturing cost incurred.

I was thinking in terms of what crops do to the ecosystem, by depleting the soil, requiring pest control, etc. Wild foods in their natural habitat are much more sustainable in that sense.

---

Jesus was high 4d (harvestable to 5d), and his last lesson that he imparted on his followers was to lower their weapons and allow for his persecutors to torture and kill him.

Yes, that was his own sacrifice. He chose it. He did it willingly.

[βαθμιαίος]

I said 4D entities.

Right. That's what I was referring to. You said you thought living foodstuffs had to be plants. It could be animals.

Right. You think the place to start is not eating animals. I think it's to recognize and honor the sacrifice that the food is offering to you. I think a lettuce or a carrot is sacrificing just as completely as a cow or a pig.

Sacrifice means the entity chose it. Cows and pigs aren't sacrificing, because they have no choice in the matter.

Hmm. Maybe I chose the wrong word, but I don't think you answered the heart of what I was getting at. Cows, pigs, lettuce, carrots -- they've all given their bodies for our nourishment. Honoring that gift is what I'm suggesting.

The term sustainable has nothing to do with whether it's local or not.

As Austin noted, it does, actually. A product that relies on the petroleum industry for transportation over long distances is less sustainable than one grown in one's own backyard.

Not caring about the suffering of others...lusting for the taste of animal flesh...Just what are the reasons for eating animals, especially those raised in factory farms?

Not caring about the suffering of others...lusting for the taste of plant flesh...Just what are the reasons for eating plants, especially those raised in factory farms?

[BrownEye]

..lusting for the taste of plant flesh

Can you picture a skinny vegan addict sitting in front of a tv all day with a huge bag of......carrots?

[Monica]

I said 4D entities.

Right. That's what I was referring to. You said you thought living foodstuffs had to be plants. It could be animals.

Are you proposing that an entity who has graduated to 4D STO would be capable of eating an animal alive, inflicting torture on that animal, overcoming the animal's will to live by overpowering it and eating its body parts...while it's still alive??

Respectfully, I am incredulous.

Hmm. Maybe I chose the wrong word, but I don't think you answered the heart of what I was getting at. Cows, pigs, lettuce, carrots -- they've all given their bodies for our nourishment. Honoring that gift is what I'm suggesting.

I disagree. Cows, pigs, and chickens haven't given their bodies. Their bodies were forcibly taken.

It's stealing. There is no gift giving there.

As Austin noted, it does, actually. A product that relies on the petroleum industry for transportation over long distances is less sustainable than one grown in one's own backyard.

Not according to the dictionary definition.

Not caring about the suffering of others...lusting for the taste of plant flesh...Just what are the reasons for eating plants, especially those raised in factory farms?

That's not a fair response. You know that vegetarians do care...that's why we aren't eating animals. It's inaccurate and unfair to accuse vegetarians of not caring.

I've repeatedly stated that we must eat something, and if we want to avoid killing plants, then the solution is to quit feeding plants to animals and then eating the animals.

There is no lust for plants, except maybe for fruit. Yeah, I admit, I lust after a ripe, luscious strawberry! But rice and beans? Carrots? Nah, no lust there. We eat those because they nourish us, and we have to eat something.

That's not even taking into consideration all the many differences between plants and animals, that have been pointed out.

There is no comparing lust for animal flesh and consuming plants in order to survive.

People don't eat meat to survive. They eat it because they want it.

---

..lusting for the taste of plant flesh

Can you picture a skinny vegan addict sitting in front of a tv all day with a huge bag of......carrots?

Exactly! No one ever binges out on carrots and celery. Just doesn't happen.

So much for the lusting.

---

Snails? Oysters? American Indians supposedly ate the hearts out of freshly-killed game.

Anyone who eats a snail or oyster alive, is engaging in cruelty. Do you really think that's what Ra meant by living foodstuffs?

Not to mention, that a freshly-killed deer is no longer living.

+ Native Americans were/are 3D, not 4D.

[BrownEye]

The petroleum issue is a biggie. But, a huge amount goes into the farming of feed for the cows.

As far as I can see in either direction is corn. All to feed cows crammed into one of the many feedlots out here. The feedlots put out unhealthy fumes, which actually killed a family out here. On one of the farms a farmer died when a drain clogged. The wife tried to drag him away and she died. The daughter found them and also died before she could move either of them.

The animal farming issue would make a huge dent in the petroleum industry. A side effect would be a surplus of land for actual firsthand food rather than secondhand(getting nutrients by eating something that ate those nutrients)

It does not take much land or effort to grow food that goes straight to the mouth. It takes a lot more land and effort to grow enough food for the animals in order to eat them. Why so much effort?

[Monica]

The petroleum issue is a biggie. But, a huge amount goes into the farming of feed for the cows.

...

The animal farming issue would make a huge dent in the petroleum industry. A side effect would be a surplus of land for actual firsthand food rather than secondhand(getting nutrients by eating something that ate those nutrients)

It does not take much land or effort to grow food that goes straight to the mouth. It takes a lot more land and effort to grow enough food for the animals in order to eat them. Why so much effort?

The meat industry is so grossly inefficient and harmful to the environment that it's pointless to talk about sustainability...there's just no comparison.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I was thinking in terms of what crops do to the ecosystem, by depleting the soil, requiring pest control, etc. Wild foods in their natural habitat are much more sustainable in that sense.

Very valid points. Sustainable techniques, specifically permaculture, work to minimize all of these things. Permaculture is basically creating a stewarded environment which is as close to a natural environment as possible (in many cases, achieving this balance). However, many if not all successful permaculture systems created for production and distribution include animals and livestock in some manner.

Jesus was high 4d (harvestable to 5d), and his last lesson that he imparted on his followers was to lower their weapons and allow for his persecutors to torture and kill him.

Yes, that was his own sacrifice. He chose it. He did it willingly.

Perhaps in context the Ra material sheds more light on this:

33.9 Questioner: I think that I do. Then from this I will extrapolate the concept which is somewhat more difficult because as you have explained before, even fourth-density positive has the concept of defensive action, but above the level of fourth-density the concept of defensive action is not in use. The concept of defensive action and offensive action are very much in use in our present density.

I am assuming that if an entity is polarized strongly enough in his thought in a positive sense that defensive action is not going to be necessary for him because the opportunity to apply defensive action will never originate for him. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is unknowable. In each case, as we have said, an entity able to program experiences may choose the number and the intensity of lessons to be learned. It is possible that an extremely positively oriented entity might program for itself situations testing the ability of self to refrain from defensive action even to the point of the physical death of self or other-self. This is an intensive lesson and it is not known, shall we say, what entities have programmed. We may, if we desire, read this programming. However, this is an infringement and we choose not to do so.
...
33.11 Questioner: This motion picture brought out the point about which we have been talking. The Colonel had to make a decision. I was wondering about his polarization. He could have knuckled under, you might say, to the negative forces, but he chose to defend his friend instead. Is it possible for you to estimate which is more positively polarizing: to defend the positively oriented entity, or to allow suppression by the negatively oriented entities?
Ra: I am Ra. This question takes in the scope of fourth-density as well as your own and its answer may best be seen by the action of the entity called Jehoshuah, which you call Jesus. This entity was to be defended by its friends. The entity reminded its friends to put away the sword. This entity then delivered itself to be put to the physical death. The impulse to protect the loved other-self is one which persists through the fourth-density, a density abounding in compassion. More than this we cannot and need not say.

[Monica]

Very valid points. Sustainable techniques, specifically permaculture, work to minimize all of these things. Permaculture is basically creating a stewarded environment which is as close to a natural environment as possible (in many cases, achieving this balance). However, many if not all successful permaculture systems created for production and distribution include animals and livestock in some manner.

I'm learning about permaculture and attempting it in my tiny yard. I'm planning an earthworm colony and honeybees. If I had room, I wouldn't mind having goats for milk and chickens for eggs. We almost never use eggs - really just for baking, and now that we are going more towards high raw vegan, that is getting less and less - but I would feed the goat's milk and eggs to my dogs and cats.

[Bring4th_Austin]

The petroleum issue is a biggie. But, a huge amount goes into the farming of feed for the cows.

...

The animal farming issue would make a huge dent in the petroleum industry. A side effect would be a surplus of land for actual firsthand food rather than secondhand(getting nutrients by eating something that ate those nutrients)

It does not take much land or effort to grow food that goes straight to the mouth. It takes a lot more land and effort to grow enough food for the animals in order to eat them. Why so much effort?

The meat industry is so grossly inefficient and harmful to the environment that it's pointless to talk about sustainability...there's just no comparison.

Sustainable grass-fed beef systems are often self-contained systems with minimal inputs. I know of a farm here with literally no inputs for their cows. They graze on pastures their entire life, and any hay that is needed comes from the farm itself, all harvested with bio-diesel equipment.



As far as sustainable agriculture goes, systems with livestock have less inputs than systems without livestock. It's nearly impossible to grow crops without fertilizer inputs from outside sources without your own livestock. Cover crops and rotational systems only go so far. If you don't have 50+ acres to cultivate, you need some way to return nitrogen to your soil besides cover cropping, and this is either with synthetic fertilizer, imported compost, or livestock fertilizer. After it's all worked out, it becomes a more efficient closed system to raise animals along with crops. And very often, an organic farming operation gets most if its fertilizer from a livestock operation, usually chicken.

There has been some progress in the study of bio-char, a practice which imitates old agricultural practices of slash and burn, but it is hardly applicable yet without the use of livestock manure. Not to say there isn't progress to be made.

This is the state of sustainable agriculture at this moment.

---

I should also note that, at the rate consumers in America eat meat, these sustainable systems could not nearly fill the demand. There would have to be a major decrease in meat consumption for these systems to feed the communities they are intended for.

[3DMonkey]

Look at mr farming stud over here!