Larry Fruity wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I've recommended that people consume products which cause the
fewest
> > number of dead animals if they're genuinely interested in causing
fewer
> > animal deaths.
> So, unlike the other propagandists making this claim, why don't
YOU
> present the results of several honest scientific studies that
estimate the
> total animal biomass lost

Because "biomass" is meaningless.

You never answered my earlier question, Fruity: IF someone is
concerned with the loss of sentient life - and if you're going to play
in this sandbox, Fruity, you simply have to accept that that's an issue
for some people - then should he consider the deaths of 40 chimpanzees
with a total "biomass" of 1800 kg to be less bad than the death of one
hippopotamus of 2200 kg?

"biomass" is meaningless, Fruity. It's just you trying to perpetuate
your imposture of someone who knows real science. You do not know
science.