"Dave" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:

>> >> "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?
>> >
>> > I'd argue that the quote you provide above is an implicit admonition of
>> > sorts. :-)
>>
>> How many vegans would take it as such?
>
> The article wasn't aimed at vegans.

Perhaps not, but that "implicit admonition" as you called it, should ring a
virtual bell in their alleged moral concern about animals harmed by humans.
I say it would not. They see the last line, "livestock farming actually
wastes resources", that's the message they take from that paragraph because
that's what they believe to be true, categorically.

>>
>> >> >>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.
>> >
>> > On this occasion though we were comparing the number of
>> > deaths caused per calorie of grass fed beef and corn.
>>
>> The discussion was about corn. Grass-fed beef cattle don't eat corn.
>
> I thought the discussion was about whether beef from grass fed cattle
> causes more or less animal deaths per calorie than cereal crops with
> corn being used as an example of a cereal.

No, it was not about grass-fed beef, all the links refer to conversion
ratios into meat of cereal crops used to "finish" cattle compared to the
gross weight of those crops at harvest. You might be thinking or Davis's
research.


>> >> >> >> 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.
>> >
>> > I would not dispute these advantages. In this thread I raised the issue
>> > of grass-clover leys being used in crop rotations and how having
>> > livestock grazing on it makes sense. I also wonder whether and
>> > to what extent we could feed animals on waste products. I seem
>> > to remember you saying you used to be involved in dairy farming.
>> > Do you think a cow could gain adequate nutrition entirely from the
>> > parts of plants that we normally throw away?
>>
>> Cows can get adequate nutrition with no help from humans at all, just as
>> ruminants have done for eons.
>
> I know they can. What I was specifically wondering is whether indoor
> raised
> cattle could do so using only the non-human-consumable parts of
> grain, vegetable and legume crops.

With *no* grazing? They could do it, but the amount that could be produced
that way would not come close to meeting the current demand. A more
practical question is could pastured cattle be supplemented only with hay
and waste and by-products, and produce an adequate supply to the market at
tolerable prices? That's NO grain specifically grown to "finish". I think
the answer is yes, but it would more expensive. Then the comparative death
tolls including collateral deaths and overall impact would in my opinion
swing towards pastured meat over cultivated crops as postulated by Davis.




[..]