"Dave" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dave wrote:
>> >> The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came across.
>> >> If
>> >> anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the nature
>> >> of
>> >> these
>> >> types of calculations means that I shall be making major
>> >> approximations
>> >> in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data.
>> >>
>> >> "A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat"
>> >> http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm
>> >> Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on
>> >> grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't know
>> >> whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to
>> >> reach similar weights.
>> >>
>> >> One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein
>> >> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Nutrition data for beef
>> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141
>> >> Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not homogonous.
>> >>
>> >> Nutrition data for corn
>> >> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65
>> >>
>> >> Conversion from lbs to grams
>> >> http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm
>> >>
>> >> 459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964
>> >> calories
>> >>
>> >> one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein.
>> >> For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 calories
>> >> *95,700 = 3 115 879 calories
>> >>
>> >> calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7.
>>
>> Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e.,
>> the
>> entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight
>> gain
>> (consumable food).
>
> "For example a vested interests organisation such as the US National
> Cattleman's Beef Association has claimed that it takes only 4.5 kg of
> grain
> to produce 1 kg of beef raised intensively in a US feedlot. On the
> other hand,
> the US Department of Agricultural Economic Research Service puts the
> figure at 16kg to produce 1kg of beef."
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/..._Less_Meat.pdf
> page 22 References given for both these figures.
It *states* there that the USDA figure is 16/1, the reference[69] is to a
radical anti-meat book by John Robbins, not USDA dcoumentation. FYI Dave,
that document *and* John Robbins are both "vested interests", in that they
are not objective, they are flogging a particular view. On that basis the
"figures" they toss out are no less suspect than The Cattlemen's
Association.
Note that on that same page it specifically stipulates the following:
"Other than in areas where animals are fattened predominantly on grazing
land that could not easily grow food crops for direct human consumption,
or elsewhere they eat primarily crop residues or other waste products,
livestock farming actually wastes resources."
Therefore when animals *are* raised using the above-mentioned methods, they
actually make use of inputs that would otherwise go to waste. Where is the
admonition by these authors that we *ought to* use this conservation method?
>>That is not figured into that equation.
>
> It isn't relevant to the comparison between an acre of corn and one
> grass fed steer.
If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much
livestock feed that corn would produce and how much steer body
weight that translates to, compared to how much human-edible niblets
corn it would produce, not how much grazing grass would grow on
that acre of land. Those are two very different land uses.
>> >> No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1.
>> >> Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal production
>> >> according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20
>> >> Decline per acre = ~8.
>> >> % decline due to mortality unknown.
>> >> Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process.
>> >> Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn.
>> >
>> > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral
>> > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic.
>>
>> Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and
>> byproduct
>> feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive with
>> *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle..
>
> "Could concievably" is not the same as "actually does".
I realize that Dave. Vegans are fond of boasting that "the ideal vegan diet"
would involve *no* animal deaths, a point which I would dispute, however it
is at least as valid to point out that "the ideal non-vegan diet" also has
advantages. In fact more and more non-finished beef (free-range organic) is
becoming widely available. I buy it exclusively now. The reason that
dedicated feed crops are still used is because they are economical to
produce.
>> The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close
>> comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal
>> impact,
>> which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present,
>> which
>> is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna from
>> heaven.
>