Rogi Surta wrote:
> Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed. Cattle are one of the most
> destructive food sources Americans use. The calorie per bushel of grain invested
> to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same grain.

You are misinformed, you top-posting goofball. The
grain cattle eat is not considered edible by humans.
It is grown AS livestock feed.

Anyway, your sense of "efficiency" is irrelevant and
misguided. The goal in producing food is not to get
the highest caloric value from the smallest possible
resource input, and you're not even proposing that we
do that. You can prove it for yourself by looking at
the resource requirements to grow a bushel of potatoes
versus the requirements to grow a bushel of
raspberries. You aren't proposing that we grow and
consume only the most resource-efficient vegetables, so
the idea that meat be produced and consumed is no
different.

A Mercedes-Benz requires more resources to produce than
a Kia, you dummy, but you're not proposing that people
ONLY should have Kias available for purchase.


> The number of acres of rain forests cleared each year in south america to raise
> the cattle for fast food industries alone (a notoriously empty calorie food
> source) is nothing more than rape of the earth.

Bullshit. You're an ignorant environmental extremist.
You're also full of shit in your claim that the
calories are "empty".

>
> The areas you refer to that cattle graze on are devastated by the input of
> cattle. Your statement that I seem to be in support of petro chem companies
> indicates you did not read my comments. Grain raised cattle requires MORE petro
> chems. That is a fact. You seem to see what you want just to argue your beliefs
> with no regard for reality!
>
> How do you think a billion south east asians and a billion Chinese survive? Do
> you think they are eating more meat or more grain?

Relative to 10 years ago? They're eating more grain
per capita today than they did 10 years ago, idiot.

> They live with less land and
> less cash and they do it with way less meat.

With way MORE meat than they ate per person 10 years
ago, dummy.

> Why? Because it is the most
> efficient way to live.

Efficiency is not the only consideration.

>
> Deny this all you want. Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
> NOT and never have been) live longer

Prove it.

> and cost less tax dollars in medical care.

Prove it.

> Heart disease is the number one killer in the country and the largest chunk of
> medical costs that your tax dollars pay for. Your defense of meat is based not
> on common sense but group identity. Perhaps you should just watch sports on tv
> instead.
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
>
>>"Rogi Surta" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>You make a post using a persons false assumption about bushels of food per
>>
>>acre;
>>
>>>plants versus animal.
>>
>>===============
>>And your assumptions are what?
>>
>>
>>> Being a vegetarian is about less fat and cholesterol in your diet. It is
>>
>>about
>>
>>>living longer with less medical costs. Forget the fact that it takes more
>>
>>farming
>>
>>>to grow grain and feed to animals and then eat the animals.
>>
>>===========================
>>No, it does not. It takes *zero* amounts of grains or other crops to raise
>>many meat animals...
>>Animals can, and do live, thrive, and grow in areas that crops are not
>>easily grown without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry. An
>>industry you appear to really support... Trying to grow human edible crops
>>where the land is minimal takes far more resourses, and causes far more
>>environmental damage than from eating meat raised in the same area.
>>
>> It is about less
>>
>>>farming needs and therefore less herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers in
>>
>>the
>>
>>>rivers I catch trout and salmon in.
>>
>>======================
>>Sure, but if veg*ns would replace 100s of 1000s of calories from their
>>mono-culture crop foods with the same amount of calories from one grass-fed
>>animal, or game animal, then the impact from farming would be less.
>>
>> Your entire premise is exactly backwards and
>>
>>>embarrassingly stupid!
>>
>>=======================
>>You've made a few false claims of your own here...
>>
>>
>>>You have made a fool of yourself. For the vast majority of people that
>>
>>live on a
>>
>>>plant only diet it is not because they love Bambi in her forest home, it
>>
>>is because
>>
>>>of poverty. They have little land and the implements to grow with. The
>>
>>huge list of
>>
>>>claims are made by misinformed person, much like yourself!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Your
>>>
>>>LizH228 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here is a letter to the editor taken out of yesterday's Denver paper
>>
>>(Rocky
>>
>>>>Mountain News):
>>>>Letters to the Editor, February 10
>>>>February 10, 2004
>>>>
>>>>Worldwide vegan diet would be catastrophic
>>>>
>>>>With the recent mad cow disease scare I've noticed a lot of people have
>>>>suggested that we all eat vegetarian. Let's think about that for a
>>
>>minute. Here
>>
>>>>are a few reasons why a total vegetarian planet would be a horrific
>>
>>idea:
>>
>>>>1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,
>>
>>national
>>
>>>>parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.
>>>>
>>>>2. Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, goats, etc., would wreak havoc on those
>>
>>crops
>>
>>>>because their natural food source would no longer be available to them.
>>
>>We
>>
>>>>would not like that and we would insist that someone do something about
>>
>>it.
>>
>>>>What do we do? Shoot them? Chase them away? To where? We would come to
>>
>>look at
>>
>>>>them as "pests." These predators would eventually become extinct due to
>>
>>lack of
>>
>>>>natural prey.
>>>>
>>>>Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.
>>>>
>>>>3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations, deer,
>>
>>elk,
>>
>>>>etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
>>
>>becoming
>>
>>>>extinct themselves.
>>>>
>>>>4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like wool
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>dairy products, will no longer be available.
>>>>
>>>>5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
>>
>>know
>>
>>>>eat fish and seafood.
>>>>
>>>>6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of control,
>>
>>creating
>>
>>>>floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.
>>>>
>>>>7. What would happen if we had a drought? A lot of human deaths would
>>
>>occur, of
>>
>>>>course, but our crops will die, too. The planet will become a desiccated
>>>>tinderbox waiting for something to ignite it.
>>>>
>>>>Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts . .
>>
>>. and
>>
>>>>meat. If you wish to eat vegetarian, fine. In fact, if we all decided to
>>
>>be
>>
>>>>totally carnivorous (eating only meat products) a similar worldwide
>>
>>catastrophe
>>
>>>>would occur. We need to be omnivorous. Otherwise, this planet will die.
>>>>
>>>>We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.
>>>
>