• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Cattle industry comes clean about why it supports horse slaughter

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
    No Bluey, you didn't make it clear at all that it was your LOCAL experience. What is your point? That rendered cats and dogs belong in pet food as bone meal and meat meal with a side of phenobarb?

    I don't even know where you are coming with those accusations.
    They really are not making any sense.
    I didn't go into any tangent about any of what you mention about dog food?
    Try re-reading what was being discussed.

    Comment


    • Bluey,I was responding to your complaint that "I have seen barrel full of euthanized pets go into the big trash bins at the shelter for the city trucks to pick up, right along our other bins full of trash, once they could not be sold any more, the local citizenry was so against any use of them."

      The any use of them would be to send them to a rendering plant, where the remains can be added to pet food, along with other uses, like the feeding of shrimp in Asia.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiera View Post
        Wow, good thing that you own animals since apparently this is what you think entails their emotional capacity: eating and pooping. Of course they can't feel depression, fear, deprivation, and stress from factory farm conditions, because humans monopolize emotion and thought. I hate to be rude, but people never fail to disgust me with their flippant disrespect for the lives of animals.
        On the other hand be careful that you don't give them more feelings than they have. I raise goats. On the occasion a baby dies right after birth, the doe will search, call and be distressed at trying to find the baby. For a short while. Then it is back to the important things in life EATING. Which =pooping.

        A man and woman will grieve a lifetime when a child dies. The whole problem here is that people don't keep things in perspective. Animals should be cared for and treated properly. Animals are not humans and the act of slaughter is not a crime. It just needs to be done humanely.

        Comment


        • http://www.examiner.com/article/horr...our-dog-s-food

          Horror story...what's really in your dog's food?

          #pet food
          November 10, 2011
          By: Cindy Marabito
          Subscribe

          Euthanized cats and dogs...where are they going?
          Euthanized cats and dogs...where are they going?


          #pet food
          "dog food"
          rendering plants




          The infamous ‘What’s really in pet food” report begins, “whole chickens, choice cuts of beef, fresh grains and all the wholesome nutrition your dog or cat will ever need.”

          “These are the images pet food manufacturers promulgate through the media and advertising. This is what the $10 billion per year U.S. pet food industry wants consumers to believe they are buying when they purchase their products.”

          Of course, presently, the informed pet owner realizes this information is an advertising gimmick and as false as misleading a child that the family dog was given to Uncle Jim to run free on his farm when actually taken to the local pound.

          We are no longer children and as guardians of our pets, must question as the article states, “what’s really in pet food?” As this study discloses, “The protein used in pet food comes from a variety of sources. When cattle, swine, chickens, lambs, or any number of other animals are slaughtered, the choice cuts such as lean muscle tissue are trimmed away from the carcass for human consumption.”
          AAFCO President admits what's in pet food
          AAFCO President admits what's in pet food

          “Whatever remains of the carcass -- bones, blood, pus, intestines, ligaments, and almost all the other parts not generally consumed by humans -- is used in pet food. These "other parts" are known as "by-products" or other names on pet food labels. The ambiguous labels list the ingredients, but do not provide a definition for the products listed.”

          This report brought up serious concerns, especially in regards to rendered by-products. According to an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, “How Dogs and Cats Get Recycled into Pet Food,” “each year, millions of dead American dogs and cats are processed along with billions of pounds of other animal materials by companies known as renderers. The finished product…tallow and meat meal…serve as raw materials for thousands of items that include cosmetics and pet food.”

          Enter the AAFCO, short for the Association of American Feed Control Officials. This is the regulatory body that sets the guidelines for pet food ingredients in the USA. In the video ‘The Truth About Dog and Cat Food,” AAFCO president Hersh Pendell admits on camera that it is not only allowed, but common practice that rendered pets end up in pet food.

          The illicit practice of rendering companion pets spins an immoral twist on the old phrase ‘it’s a dog eat dog world.’ Ethics aside, the rendering process is thought to be endangering the very pets its thought to sustain. In the report “Pet Food – Our Pets are Dying for it,” the author cites rendering plant studies with photos of dead companion animals. A rendering plant manager is quoted saying that “150 million pounds of rotting flesh are fed nto the plants grinders and cookers each year to produce 80 million pounds of the plants three products; meat and bone meal, tallow and yellow grease. Most goes into chicken feed, the rest into dry pet food.”

          The argument regarding phenobarbital, or euthanasia fluid, showing up in pet food has become controversial and a subject of much debate. In fact, typing the words ‘phenobarbital’ and ‘pet food’ renders over half a million Google responses. This is overwhelming even to the sage animal lover.
          The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
          H. Cate

          Comment


          • The Examiner? Really?

            You do know that I could go register as an Examiner "reporter" right now and write whatever I want with no fact checking, right?
            "Are you yawning? You don't ride well enough to yawn. I can yawn, because I ride better than you. Meredith Michael Beerbaum can yawn. But you? Not so much..."
            -George Morris

            Comment


            • In February I checked the FDA website - even though they stated they would update this particular information - they have not.

              http://www.naturalnews.com/023710_food_FDA_pet.html

              As I wondered about the 'conflict' between the FDA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, I continued to dig a little further, and that's when I found the jaw dropper document. I wondered if the FDA had any information regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife report –- and low and behold, I found something...
              Dated July 21, 2003 (a little over a year after the FDA's report that pentobarbital found in pet food was determined to be safe for our pets to consume) –- the FDA posted a change in the labeling requirements for pentobarbital and a change in the definitions. The following are the quoted changes... "Special considerations. Product labeling shall bear the following warning statements: ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD: This product is toxic to wildlife. Birds and mammals feeding on treated animals may be killed. Euthanized animals must be properly disposed of by deep burial, incineration, or other method in compliance with state and local laws, to prevent consumption of carcass material by scavenging wildlife." And "Limitations. Do not use in animals intended for food."

              So this is what we have: Euthanized animals are being rendered and the end ingredients become ingredients used in pet food. The FDA determined that the pet food/treat ingredient most likely to contain pentobarbital is Animal Fat. Pets are consuming pentobarbital as you read this right now.
              Pentobarbital euthanized animal carcasses are killing wildlife. The FDA's own rules for the drug specify its limitations 'not for use in animals intended for food.' Yet it's still there. Granted, and geez I hate to give them this, the amount of pentobarbital in pet food –- since it is found in only some pet food and pet treat ingredients (but some very commonly used ingredients) –- is not at the same levels as would be consumed by wildlife in a euthanized carcass. But come on folks (FDA, CVM, and AAFCO) –- can you not add two and two and come up with four?

              Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023710_fo...#ixzz2MnLCt4cj
              The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
              H. Cate

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                Your logic is faulty there.
                The reason some animal rights extremists may have animals and not be vegans is because, well, their logic failed them.

                Animal rights extremists are demanding all animals be hands off, no human use of any animals.
                Those that follow their little battles here and there, here ban slaughter, are not thinking, or they would understand that the main idea behind animal rights extremists is to eventually ban their uses of animals also.

                Thus, some animal rights extremists may have animals, just don't know any better what they are fighting for, lack of foresight.

                "One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".
                What don't you understand there, to say animal rights extremists are not after all uses of animals?

                Oh, don't tell me that "horses are not domestic animals", so that didn't meant horses, as some clueless animal rights extremist follower said.
                You can be vegan and have animals, most vegans do. I actually know a few vegans that ride competitively.

                No one is demanding that humans have nothing to do with animals. You can keep repeating this over and over but that doesn't make it true.

                Even PETA, perhaps the most extreme AR group, promotes pet ownership.
                Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CruzN View Post
                  Umm, no the goal of agriculture is not to stay in business, the goal is to put food on YOUR table every day. Yes, we do have to make a living while doing it.
                  The large corporations that control the food system in America are motivated by the almighty buck and nothing else. If you honestly believe otherwise you're delusional. Time and time again big ag has put public safety at risk just so they can make a few million more when they are already making billions. If that's not greed I don't know what is.

                  However, local farmers are a different story entirely.
                  Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

                  Comment


                  • Monsanto anyone??? LOL
                    The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
                    H. Cate

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
                      You can be vegan and have animals, most vegans do. I actually know a few vegans that ride competitively.

                      No one is demanding that humans have nothing to do with animals. You can keep repeating this over and over but that doesn't make it true.

                      Even PETA, perhaps the most extreme AR group, promotes pet ownership.
                      Do you realize how absurd to believe that is?

                      We have animal rights groups bound and determined to eliminate all uses of animals by humans, as per their own words.

                      We have people that can't think their way out of a paper bag, supporting such groups and ideas, without realizing where that is going, that yes, that means THEIR animals eventually also.

                      Do you really think that, just because you donate and defend them in horse forums, they will now be so nice and make an exception when it comes to eliminating all animal use and say you can keep yours?

                      Remember, "one generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me" and, believe it or not, horses are also domestic animals, along with dogs and all others.

                      To support and defend animal rights extremists as an animal owner is not having thought this out.

                      There is a BIG difference between animal rights, that is eliminating all uses of animals by humans, that is what the ban slaughter is and animal welfare, that is doing what we do, including slaughter, the best we know how.

                      Comment


                      • “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

                        ― Albert Einstein
                        The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
                        H. Cate

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
                          You can be vegan and have animals, most vegans do. I actually know a few vegans that ride competitively.

                          No one is demanding that humans have nothing to do with animals. You can keep repeating this over and over but that doesn't make it true.

                          Even PETA, perhaps the most extreme AR group, promotes pet ownership.
                          http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

                          http://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof/

                          http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...tSo64mkmmM9SUN

                          http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/do...s-in-its-care/

                          just the top 4 results....

                          Yes, with an adoption rate of 1%, they certainly are working hard to promote pet ownership..... </sarcasm>

                          Not to mention that most animals do not strive on a strictly vegetarian diet, to some it is outright dangerous, like cats, dogs to a lesser extend, but even birds profit from the occasional bug or egg...flies in the face of Vegan principles....

                          now you were saying?

                          You can be strict Vegan and own animals?
                          I mean, with their welfare in mind......
                          Originally posted by BigMama1
                          Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
                          GNU Terry Prachett

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                            http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

                            http://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof/

                            http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...tSo64mkmmM9SUN

                            http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/do...s-in-its-care/

                            just the top 4 results....

                            Yes, with an adoption rate of 1%, they certainly are working hard to promote pet ownership..... </sarcasm>

                            Not to mention that most animals do not strive on a strictly vegetarian diet, to some it is outright dangerous, like cats, dogs to a lesser extend, but even birds profit from the occasional bug or egg...flies in the face of Vegan principles....

                            now you were saying?

                            You can be strict Vegan and own animals?
                            I mean, with their welfare in mind......
                            Ah I forgot about that. Regardless, I can assure you the goal of animal rights isn't to ban pet ownership. The only evidence you have of such a thing is a few ARA, who by no means represent the entire AR movement, and your own false speculation of what it means to be vegan. There's no rule book on being vegan, it's entirely up to the individual to do what they feel is ethical. I'm vegan and my dogs eat meat. Personally, I don't see how that goes against my choice to not consume animal products since it's necessary for them. Of course those who feel uncomfortable with that can choose from the many herbivorous pets.
                            Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

                            Comment


                            • sorry double post
                              Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

                              Comment


                              • Alagirl, as has been pointed out to the other side of the discussion, your posts aren't exactly "fair and balanced" sources. Note: I'm not a fan of PETA, not that my statement will stop anyone from labeling me a RARA. But go right ahead it that's what floats your boat. BTW, I'm not anti-slaughter, I'd just like to see some critical thinking skills and logic used in the debate.

                                Also, one can be vegan because they just don't like the taste and texture,not because of an animal rights belief. That's entirely possible. I know, because along with my 10 stint as a vegetarian, part of it was as a vegan. My daughter was allergic to dairy and my foster son was allergic to eggs. So we just didn't have either in the house.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                                  Alagirl, as has been pointed out to the other side of the discussion, your posts aren't exactly "fair and balanced" sources. Note: I'm not a fan of PETA, not that my statement will stop anyone from labeling me a RARA. But go right ahead it that's what floats your boat. BTW, I'm not anti-slaughter, I'd just like to see some critical thinking skills and logic used in the debate.

                                  Also, one can be vegan because they just don't like the taste and texture,not because of an animal rights belief. That's entirely possible. I know, because along with my 10 stint as a vegetarian, part of it was as a vegan. My daughter was allergic to dairy and my foster son was allergic to eggs. So we just didn't have either in the house.
                                  I don't see how my posts aren't entirely fair and balanced. I look at information from both agriculture and AR groups. Looking at only one side of the debate is narrow minded.
                                  Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

                                  Comment


                                  • If there are no such things as 'factory farms', as someone insists a few pages ago, and cruelty is a rarity, then why are feedlots and slaughterhouses so hellbent on preventing the filming of their operations? If none of them have anything to hide, and there's nothing wrong with any of what they do, they should be inviting people to film every. step. of. the process, right?

                                    Sound of crickets.......
                                    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
                                    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
                                      Ah I forgot about that. Regardless, I can assure you the goal of animal rights isn't to ban pet ownership. The only evidence you have of such a thing is a few ARA, who by no means represent the entire AR movement, and your own false speculation of what it means to be vegan. There's no rule book on being vegan, it's entirely up to the individual to do what they feel is ethical. I'm vegan and my dogs eat meat. Personally, I don't see how that goes against my choice to not consume animal products since it's necessary for them. Of course those who feel uncomfortable with that can choose from the many herbivorous pets.
                                      Oh, boy, do you have much to learn, if that is really all you know.
                                      You could start by reading here:

                                      http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/

                                      http://www.ncraoa.com/AR_AW_WhatYouShouldKnow.html

                                      This is interesting also:

                                      http://www.sfponline.org/Uploads/20/Hearne.pdf

                                      ---"...
                                      The logic of the animal-rights movement places suffering at the iconographic center of a skewed value system. The thinking of its proponents -given eerie expression in a virtually sadopornographic sculpture of a tortured monkey that won a prize for its compassionate vision - has collapsed into a perverse conundrum. Today the loudest voices calling for - demanding - the destruction of animals are the humane organizations. This is an inevitable consequence of the apotheosis of the drive to relieve suffering: Death is the ultimate release. To compensate for their contradictions, the humane movement
                                      file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Joe%20Claro/De...OL/gr%2012%2003-04/Nonfic%20pieces/Hearne/Hearne.htm (2 of 8)11/18/2005 8:07:53 PM
                                      Untitled Document
                                      has demonized, in this century and the last, those who made animal happiness their business: veterinarians, trainers, and the like. We think of Louis Pasteur as the man whose work saved you and me and your dog and cat from rabies, but antivivisectionists of the time claimed that rabies increased in areas where there were Pasteur Institutes.
                                      An antirabies public relations campaign mounted in England in the 1880s by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organizations led to orders being issued to club any dog found not wearing a muzzle. England still has her cruel and unnecessary law that requires an animal to spend six months in quarantine before being allowed loose in the country. Most of the recent propaganda about pit bulls - the crazy claim that they "take hold with their front teeth while they chew away with their rear teeth" (which would imply, incorrectly, that they have double jaws) -can be traced to literature published by the Humane Society of the United States during the fall of 1987 and earlier. If your neighbors want your dog or horse impounded and destroyed because he is a nuisance - say the dog barks, or the horse attracts flies - it will be the local Humane Society to whom your neighbors turn for action.
                                      In a way, everyone has the opportunity to know that the history of the humane movement is largely a history of miseries, arrests, prosecutions, and death. The Humane Society is the pound, the place with the decompression chamber or the lethal injections. You occasionally find worried letters about this in Ann Landers's column.
                                      Animal-rights publications are illustrated largely with photographs of two kinds of animals - "Helpless Fluff" and "Agonized Fluff," the two conditions in which some people seem to prefer their animals, because any other version of an animal is too complicated for propaganda. In the introduction to his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer says somewhat smugly that he and his wife have no animals and, in fact, don't much care for them. This is offered as evidence of his objectivity and ethical probity. But it strikes me as an odd, perhaps obscene underpinning for an ethical project that encourages university and high school students to cherish their ignorance of, say, great bird dogs as proof of their devotion to animals."---

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                                        If there are no such things as 'factory farms', as someone insists a few pages ago, and cruelty is a rarity, then why are feedlots and slaughterhouses so hellbent on preventing the filming of their operations? If none of them have anything to hide, and there's nothing wrong with any of what they do, they should be inviting people to film every. step. of. the process, right?

                                        Sound of crickets.......
                                        I agree completely. For an industry that has nothing to hide they sure do spend a lot of money trying to keep the public in the dark.
                                        Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                          Oh, boy, do you have much to learn, if that is really all you know.
                                          You could start by reading here:

                                          http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/
                                          Now there's an entirely unbiased website.
                                          Even if HSUS is an evil group out to take over the world it won't change my feelings about animal rights. I prefer to base my opinions off the facts of the issue, not the shortcomings of a groups that happens to be involved in AR.
                                          Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X