"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> His main objection to Davis's study is the way he compares deaths per ha,
> rather than deaths per pound of food. He makes a lot of hay on this point,
> the rest of the discussion is mostly window dressing. Well, pounds of food
> is not an accurate comparison, ...
True, however an accurate and honest metric of CD's resulting from any
agricultural system would be to compare the TOTAL animal biomass killed or
displaced from the same area of virgin ecosystem through its transformation
into "food" production.
The anti-vegans intentionally skew the non-existent data in their own
favor by falsely claiming the death of an ant is equal to the death of a
cow: one death = one death.

> because a pound of meat and a pound of grain are not equivalent. A pound
> of meat is far more calorie-dense and particularly far more nutrient dense
> than any[sic] pound of plants.

All values for a pound of the "food", rounded to whole numbers.

beef, almonds brazil nut
composite retail
cal 301 578 656
%pro 26 21 14
%fat 21 51 66
%cho 0 20 12,

so we see that when an anti-veg*n, on a very rare occasion, comments about a
verifiable -fact-, instead of spewing his own unsupportable dogma, he can't
get even simple facts right.
Dutch, your credibility remains zero.
You also willfully fail to recognize that there are limits to the human
ability to digest concentrated nutrients, and that consuming excess
nutrients is a fundamental cause of most human "diseases of civilization".

> The monetary value of it, not insignificant in itself, demonstrates this
> fact.
Are you REALLY claiming that the price of a "food" reflects its nutrient
value?? Ever heard of potato chips or junk food??

Hey, Dutch, why don't you follow the ng convention and snip text that
you are not replying to? Would that be just too polite for you??

Laurie