On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:48:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
> wrote:

>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.

I don't think you need to tell an arable farmer how to grow arable
crops.