"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.

I don't equate an ant with a cow, although vegans frequently agonize over
bees and silkworms. Mice and cows are a fair comparison though, both equally
intelligent social mammals. I do not agree with biomass as a measure either,
if the concern is animal deaths/suffering per unit of nutrition produced
then a large animal suffers no more or less than a small one, I presume.

> > 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.

Almonds and brazil nuts are not typical North American crops. Vegans
typically quote high-yield crops like potatoes.

> 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".

I don't recall advocating consumption of excess nutrients. *Production of*
high amounts of nutrients per acre however seems to be right on topic.

> > 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??

Yes, at the source price does reflect nutrient value, notwithstanding such
examples as over-packaged junk and convenience foods which do not follow
this rule.

> 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??

I might start taking netnanny tips from you when you start respecting the
normal practice of leaving spaces between your comments and the included
text, fair enough?