"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 9, 8:42 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> > > wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>
> > Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> > that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> > animals like sheep?
>
> > ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> > wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> > Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>
> Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
> interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
> the observation that land has value to animals as well
> as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
> than the hills and moors?
>
> ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.

Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
contention anyhow.

--- With certainty, a substantial area could be woodland...

'Data on new woodland planting can give an indication of
the growth in woodland area across the country, which has
an important influence on landscape, biodiversity and water.

It is likely that a greater proportion of marginal land on
which production has become less profitable will be entered
into Environmental Stewardship, set-aside or left fallow.
Another alternative for this land is woodland.
...'
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ace/df2_fact.htm -----

> "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
> an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
> peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
> vegetables 15 times more."

I've seen a spread of estimates. Growing crops for animals
is an inefficient use of land. Grazing animals is also inefficient
*assuming* that the land in question is cultivatable...

--- Even if not, when needs can be met without grazing. ---

> Currently only 25% of the UK's "agricultural land" is used
> to produce human-consumable plant foods. Going by the
> above figures, in order to replace the 'food value' of meat:
> 75% / 10 = an additional 7.5% of current agricultural land.
> 10% of current total agricultural land is now used to grow
> grain crops for livestock, so there's you're needed 7.5% +.

Two problems with the analysis though correcting the
first would actually make your case stronger. A: You should
be measuring calories per acre rather than protein per acre.

--- lol. If measured in calories, you'd ask for protein...

'For every 3,000 calories in the form of corn that are fed
to a cow, only 600 are returned in milk; if the meat is
eaten, only 120 calories are available for human use.
...'
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-7409377.html

- 1/25th.

Here's a direct estimate of land needed:

'Depending on the type of meat, it takes 6-17 times more
land to feed the average American meat eater than to feed
a vegetarian.30
...
30 L. Reijinders and Sam Soret, PhDs 2003,
...'
http://www.massanimalrights.org/enviroflier.html -----

B: You should consider the % of world agricultural land or if
you want to consider just the food needs of the UK, the %
of agricultural land used to grow food for consumption in
the UK. % agricultural land in the UK is meaningless in
this context given how much crosses national borders.

--- It's not meaningless to consider the current situation
within the UK, and what the alternatives would look like.
As for the imports, we'd calculate using the same ratios of
protein, calories or land, substituting animal feed with food. ---

> And remember - we've just freed-up vast areas for Nature,
> Britain needn't be a vast grass mono-culture animal farm.

If we stopped growing mono-crops for animal feed it would
indeed free up vast areas for nature. If we use marginal lands
to raise animals it would free up fertile areas for nature.
Admittedly the acreage of fertile areas would be considerably
smaller than the acreage of marginal lands taken up but
then again the fertile areas can support more wildlife per acre
than the marginal. No?

--- What do you mean by 'marginal'? Any of the following?

'Around 37% of the land on agricultural holdings is considered
to be croppable land, i.e. land currently under crops, set-aside,
bare fallow or temporary grass. Almost half of this croppable
area is occupied by cereal crops. Horticultural crops (including
vegetables, orchards, soft fruit and crops grown under glass)
account for just 1% of the area on agricultural holdings.
Permanent grassland and sole right rough grazing accounts for
57% of the area on agricultural holdings - see Figure 1.

Cereal crops 17%
Other arable crops 8%
Horticultural crops 1%
Fallow land 1%
Set-aside 3%
Temporary grass 7%
Permanent grassland 33%
Sole right rough grazing 24%
Woodland 4%
All other land 2%

Figure 1: A breakdown of the total area on agricultural holdings
as at June 2007
...'
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/june_uk.pdf

More detailed figures at link.

<..>
> Interesting points. However is that not part of the point of
> rotations,
> so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
> season?
>
> ----- Again, large herbivores really do need a lot of land,
> so with a herd of any size, you require a large acreage of
> pasture. That's vast areas of grass, likely seeded as grass
> and sprayed with herbicides, and even grazed once a year
> will prevent regeneration of natural flora - food and shelter.
> In addition, to protect 'livestock' and feed, farmers will
> often kill native wild predators, 'competitors' and 'pests'.
> ----

How is the killing of native wild predators, 'competitors'
and pests to protect livestock different to farmers killing
pests to protect their crops?

--- Can you give some examples of that in the UK? --

> > > > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>
> > > I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> > > me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> > > briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
>
> > > ---
> > > But that's what addicts always say. It's called "denial".
>
> > Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.
>
> > --- You transgress your own moral convictions for it.
>
> > "They have moral rights."
>
> The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
> consuming animal fats in all circumstances.
>
> --- Meaning, as a last resort to survive?

I guess when I talk of animals having rights I mean that
we have an obligation to high welfare standards for the
animals we raise. I don't treat animal life as sanctitious.

--- There's no such word. If you mean "sanctified"...

'sanc·ti·fy
...
4. To give social or moral sanction to.
...'
http://www.answers.com/sanctified&r=67

'sanc·tion
...
3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates
an ethical choice.
...
http://www.answers.com/sanction

The moral rights you claim they have conveniently end
at the point where you get to have your fat fix, isn't it. ----

> Are you? ---
>
> > "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"
>
> Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
> from cruel animal practices.
>
> --- There's no such thing as "kind slaughter". ---

Compared with natural deaths?

--- Compared to not slaughtering animals. ---

> > > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
>
> > Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
>
> > > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
>
> > Remind me....
>
> > --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> > ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---
>
> Yup. I will try to find it.
>
> --- Here you go:
>
> 'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
> state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
> generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
> problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
> stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
> of the real situation.
>
> 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
> 20% are moderately exploited
> 17% are overexploited
> 7% are depleted
> 1% is recovering from depletion
>
> The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
> are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
> exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
> (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
> total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
> exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
> 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
> ..
> We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
> the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
> at risk of collapse.
> ..'http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php
> ----

This is not an indication that we can't fish sustainably but
that in many cases we don't. It seems highly improbable that
from an area of over 1 billion cubic kilometres of water, there is
not enough fish to make a meaningful contribution to our diet.
Indeed we have harvested the oceans for millenia and it's only
in recent years that overfishing has become a problem.

--- There are over 6 billion humans now. ---

Nor is the problem simply down to population growth - if it were
we could simply reduce fish consumption per person so that
total fish consumption remained constant.

--- ~6 billion fish a week? You think that's acceptable? ---

Problems: fishing
is now highly efficient, and can easily locate and wipe out whole
swarms at a time. Modern methods: (a) have significant bycatch,
which is wasteful if nothing else, (b) in some cases damage the
seabed thus harming populations not directly affected (c) target
a limited number of species heavily. There are over 100 edible
species surrounding the UK shores. How many do we eat in
significant quantities? (d) frequently target long-living,
slow-reproducing species

--- We don't need any. Marine life *needs to recover*. ---

However just as with meat and vegetables, one can choose
which fish to eat thus avoiding the problems described above.
At the very least we can eat less popular species and/or
species with greater reproduction rates. We can choose line
caught fish or hand picked shellfish. We can choose fish that
is recognized by the marine stewardship conservastion trust
as being from sustainable sources.

--- You think ~60 million fish a week for the UK is ok? ---

> > > Would you be prepared to have done to you what you
> > > seem to think there's nothing wrong with doing to others?
>
> > You mean being killed for food? Nope.

So tell me now, Dave.. how can you so easily have done
to others what you wouldn't want to have done to you?