Halcitron wrote:
>>From: Keynes
>>Newsgroups: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, talk.politics.animals,
>>misc.rural, uk.business.agriculture, alt.food.vegan
>>Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:49:38 -0600
>
>
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:25:22 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>Rubystars wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>>>>>>farm animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
>>>>>wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
>>>>>right things have to stop.
>>>>
>>>>They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
>>>>aren't necessary to feed people.
>>>
>>>At the population we have now, I think they are.
>>>
>>>If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
>>>we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.
>>>
>>>-Rubystars
>>
>>It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as
>>much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform
>>of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury
>>for many (bacon possibly excepted).
>
>
> Can you name that politician? And was not the promise based on more jobs?
It was Herbert Hoover, and the slogan was very much a
promise of overall prosperity. The full slogan is, "A
chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." Now,
THAT has to make the vegetarian/environmental
extremists happy!
[...]
>>It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef,
NO!!! That's wrong. It takes about 6-8 pounds of feed
to produce an *additional* pound of animal, once the
animal has gone to the feedlot. However, the animal
*enters* the feedlot already weighing 500-750 pounds, a
lot of which is edible beef. It takes ZERO pounds of
feed to make all the edible beef already on the animal
when it entered the feedlot.
This is one of the most common and most egregious
errors made by the "animal rights" loons every time
they stupidly try to discuss the issue: they assume
that the ratio of grain:beef, ranging from 6:1 to 8:1,
applies to *all* the edible beef. It doesn't; it only
applies to the additional weight gained in the feedlot.
>>not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed.
>>(You have to feed a cow for years. That feed is gone away.)
>
>
> Nope it is recyled as nitrogen-rich fertilizer.
>
>
>>Purely grass fed beef would be economical, but feeding them
>>is wasteful. Chickens, turkeys and fish have a 2-3 pound feed
>>to one pound of meat ratio. Eggs are even more efficient.
>>(Unfortunately, livestock is chock full of added hormones
>>and antibiotics. That can't be good in the long run.)
>>
>>Most of the US grain goes into feed, with excesses exported to
>>feed livestock in other countries. If we ate plants directly we'd have
>>a huge surplus (which would be a bit of an economic problem since
>>grain is already grown at a loss, requiring subsidies).
>
>
> Are you sure there wouldn't be more competiton for vegetables, thus driving the
> prices up?
No, there would not be more competition for vegetables.
There would be more *competitors* on the supply side
of vegetables, probably driving prices down.
There's no getting around it: meat is more expensive
to produce than vegetables, which is why it costs more.
It's beside the point, though: people are *willing*
to pay more for meat, and there's no reason they
shouldn't have that for which they are willing to pay,
assuming the product is legal and no rights are
violated in producing it. Those conditions are met for
the production, sale and consumption of meat. Thus,
the market provides us with meat.