sam wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> sam wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>>
>> You're asking the wrong question - as usual.
>
> Whaddya mean?
> I've never heard of you in my life,let alone written to you.

Irrelevant.

The implicit question you're asking is, "How can we get
the most calories out of the least amount of land,
water, labor, etc." That's the wrong question, because
people don't want to eat undifferentiated calories;
people want specific foods.

The correct question is to take a specific food, and
ask how to get the most *OF THAT FOOD* out of a given
amount of resources; or, what amounts to the same
thing, take a given amount of that specific food and
ask how to minimize the resource inputs used to create it.

I always love pointing out to "vegans" that their
arguments can be completely queered even if we look
only at a strictly vegetarian diet. It's obvious that
not all fruits and vegetables are equally efficient to
produce, and that they don't all yield the same
nutritional output. So, for example, a serving (172g)
of cooked soybeans yields 298 calories, and 29g of
protein
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c218a.html),
while a serving (192g) of durum wheat yields 651
calories and 26g of protein
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c21Ub.html).
So, since soy and wheat yields are approximately the
same - 35-45 bushels per acre in the U.S. - then there
is *NO* excuse for growing soy, because it doesn't
supply as much nutrition per bushel as does wheat, in
terms of caloric content - and your argument assumes
people only want basic calories, rather than particular
foods.

Stop producing soy now. Efficiency demands it.