In message >, Jim Webster
> writes
>
>"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> livestock.
>
>Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>footprint than a meat based one.
>
>but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>
>You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>aspect of their lives

I usually avoid mega-threads:-)

Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of
land are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.

There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown
without necessary rotation.

Taking the top end figures for each case does not make a strong
argument: ranched beef may well take 4 years to finish but not on land
that would support continuous Wheat. Soya may well produce high yields
of usable protein but I doubt it can be grown in all parts of the US.
Continuous cropping usually leads to reduced yields and higher chemical
inputs.

regards

--
Tim Lamb