frankthetank wrote:These cows look so happy dancing and frolicking....
These cows look sad, very depressed, almost suicidal
Although purslane is considered a weed in the United States, it can be eaten as a leaf vegetable, providing sources can be found which have not been poisoned deliberately. It has a slightly sour and salty taste and is eaten throughout much of Europe, Asia and Mexico.[3][1] The stems, leaves and flower buds are all good to eat. Purslane can be used fresh as a salad, stir-fried, or cooked like spinach, and because of its mucilaginous quality it is also suitable for soups and stews. Australian Aborigines used to use the seeds to make seedcakes.
Purslane contains more Omega-3 fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acid in particular[4]) than any other leafy vegetable plant. Simopoulos states that Purslane has .01 mg/g of Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). This is an extraordinary amount of EPA for land based vegetable sources. EPA is an Omega-3 fatty acid normally found mostly in fish, some algae and flax seeds. [5] It also contains vitamins (mainly vitamin A, vitamin C, and some vitamin B and carotenoids), as well as dietary minerals, such as magnesium, calcium, potassium and iron. Also present are two types of betalain alkaloid pigments, the reddish betacyanins (visible in the coloration of the stems) and the yellow betaxanthins (noticeable in the flowers and in the slight yellowish cast of the leaves). Both of these pigment types are potent antioxidants and have been found to have antimutagenic properties in laboratory studies.[6]
100 grams of fresh purslane leaves (about 1 cup) contain 300 to 400 mg of alpha-linolenic acid [7]. One cup of cooked leaves contains 90 mg of calcium, 561 mg of potassium, and more than 2,000 IUs of vitamin A.
I don't know where your 100 mil comes from but USDA says there are 95 mil beef and 20 mil dairy cows.deMolay wrote:Whether it is burps or farts, 100 million plus ruminants pre 1900 more than makes up for the cows running around N. America now.
Vogelzang wrote:The amount of methane produced by farm animals is insignificant compared to other sources. The fact that other people posting in this thread neglect that shows the extremely low level of scientific knowledge and amatuerish nature of the enviro-crazies posting here. It just further shows the level of psychiatric problems the enviro-crazies have.
deMolay wrote:Seems you where right POPS, but still doesn't explain why 100M plus Bison alone not counting all other ruminants pre 1900 did not cause any GW. http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/newsre ... livstk.htm
deMolay wrote:Seems you where right POPS, but still doesn't explain why 100M plus Bison alone not counting all other ruminants pre 1900 did not cause any GW. http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/newsre ... livstk.htm
frankthetank wrote:How do they estimate these Bison numbers? To me it sounds like its just a big ? how many there really were.
Although if you took a state, figured out land area suitable for Bison, amount of food/water available, u could make a good estimate?
American Bison: A Natural History
Ernest Seton rose the challenge of tracking the bison’s decline in a discussion titled “The Dwindle,” he estimated that the population had dropped from 60 million to 40 million by 1800, then sank to 20 million by 1850. Apparently giving up at this point.
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests