pearl wrote:
> "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.

How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species
than is cultivable land?

You're an idiot. You don't have a clue.