"Jette" > wrote in message
...
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 4:00 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not necessarily. But that isn't really their argument about
>> efficiency. They're talking about resource use, not environmental
>> degradation.
>>
>
> There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can live on
> land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible by humans.
> You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland in the
> semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. Sheep and deer, OTOH, thrive on the
> food available to them there.
>

yes, and actually if you follow pre-modern 'folding' techniques where you
bring the animals down from the fell overnight to milk them, then they build
up the fertility of your crop ground around the steading, while being
sparsely stocked and not having a major effect on the ground they graze on

Jim Webster