On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:13:51 GMT, "Marvin" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:08:17 GMT, "Marvin"
> wrote:
>>
>> >Where I live, grass feeding requires tons of hay during
>winter
>> >months at least. There may be places where cattle can
>survive
>> >by grazing the range year around, but I'm not familiar with
>> >them. I've never done a count, but I've mowed enough hay
>to
>> >know that ground nesting birds, rabbits, and reptiles are
>> >sometimes killed in the process.
>>
>> If you compare what it takes to produce hay and what it
>> takes to produce soy beans, which do you think would
>> involve the deaths of more animals? How about if you
>> compare what it takes to produce hay and what it takes
>> to produce rice?
>>
>I tried to check your links to see whether there was
>information about ranking the various crops' potential for
>animal deaths, but none of them would work. The net may just
>be overloaded right now. My guess is that these things would
>differ according to where they are more than according to
>which crop is being grown, but I'd find it of minor interest
>to learn about rankings and the methods used to establish them
>if any such thing exists.

I doubt that they do. But you can do some figuring on
your own. For rice and soybeans, the ground it plowed up
and disced killing animals in that way which hay fields
usually do not. Then it is run over and planted, again killing
animals in ways that hay fields usually do not. The rice fields
are flooded, and later drained, again killing animals in ways
that hay fields--and soybean fields (this time)--do not. How
about different types of *icides? From what I've seen, soybean
fields and rice fields use more of them than hay fields do--hay
fields often not using any. And then there are the animals killed
in storage of the grains compared to those killed in storage of
hay....