"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.
==================
Sure, go right ahead, fool. You'd lose really really big time then.
Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat destruction and
environma=ental damage. Using natural grasslands for grazing is just that,
natural. Whether you use farmed animals, or wild game off the land.


> 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.
=====================
No, no one here *ever* brings up bugs except vegan loons! That's *your*
strawman. That's your attempt to ignore the millions upon millions of
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians that die in crop production.
You think that be switching to billions of bugs you can pretend that the
other animal deaths don't happen. But, if you want, be my guest, add the
billions of bugs to your count. Afterall, they aren't mineral or plant, are
they, hypocrite?


>
>> 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.
=====================
And neither can you, see above....
And, looks like you have to, as stinky puts it, compare apples to oranges.
Where is this world-wide supply of almonds and brazil nuts that can feed
everybody?



> 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".
=====================
If we are meant to eat so much plant material, why then is far more of it
totally inedible to people, or downright poisonous? You can't say the same
for meats, hypocrite. Looks to me like we aren't made all that much for
plants only...

>
>> 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
>
>
>