View Single Post
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
Rudy Canoza[_4_] Rudy Canoza[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Julie wrote:
> 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


No such thing. You're an idiot.