Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 08:15 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 55
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Curtain Cider wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

"Buxqi" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.
Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
footprint than a meat based one.

but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car

You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
aspect of their lives

Jim Webster


That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
really struggling.

The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
industry and swapping over to the much more efficient


Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
know the correct meaning of the word.


The meaning is clear and simple, apparently not to you though!

and planet
friendly vegetarian diet. What car or other habits people have is
irrelevant, although veggies will also usually be very conscientious
in other areas of their lives.


No, they're not. What an absurd claim.


Fact. Most of us veggies care enough about sentient beings not to eat
or abuse them. Only an ignoramus would eat meat without a thought for
the consequence.

snip Neanderthal grunts from the village idiot

Go veggie and we
instantly drop to around half the production levels with huge capacity
in reserve.


And people don't get what they want.


Getting what we want is what has placed the planet in dire straights.
It's now time to start think about needs rather *I want* *I want*. Man
has abused the system he has been given and that must change.

The maths are very simple.


Except they're based on fundamental misapprehension of
basic concepts. People want individual foods,
according to their preferences; they do not want
undifferentiated calories.


People will get what they are given. The simple fact is there is no
need whatsoever for a meat diet, that is based on personal preference.
When that preference is damaging the planet and ourselves we need to
do something about it. Staples like fruit and veg we must have.



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 08:48 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

In message , Jim Webster
writes

"Buxqi" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.


Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
footprint than a meat based one.

but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car

You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
aspect of their lives


I usually avoid mega-threads:-)

Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of
land are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.

There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown
without necessary rotation.

Taking the top end figures for each case does not make a strong
argument: ranched beef may well take 4 years to finish but not on land
that would support continuous Wheat. Soya may well produce high yields
of usable protein but I doubt it can be grown in all parts of the US.
Continuous cropping usually leads to reduced yields and higher chemical
inputs.

regards

--
Tim Lamb
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 08:56 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 92
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Julie wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Curtain Cider wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

"Buxqi" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.
Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
footprint than a meat based one.

but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car

You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
aspect of their lives

Jim Webster
That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
really struggling.

The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
industry and swapping over to the much more efficient

Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
know the correct meaning of the word.


The meaning is clear and simple,


The meaning escapes you entirely.


and planet
friendly vegetarian diet. What car or other habits people have is
irrelevant, although veggies will also usually be very conscientious
in other areas of their lives.

No, they're not. What an absurd claim.


Fact.


Not a fact.


Most of us veggies care enough about sentient beings not to eat
or abuse them.


No, you don't care about them at all. That's why you
commission their deaths in the course of farming fruits
and vegetables. All you care about is the disposition
of the corpses. Animals chopped to bits to produce the
vegetables and fruits you eat, and left to rot in
fields, are just fine with you. For some reason,
you're put off by people eating animals. But your
inconsistency is grotesque, and noted.


Only an ignoramus would eat meat without a thought for
the consequence.


Only an ignoramus would make a senseless comment like that.


Go veggie and we
instantly drop to around half the production levels with huge capacity
in reserve.

And people don't get what they want.


Getting what we want is what has placed the planet in dire straights.


You shouldn't get what you want, then.


The maths are very simple.

Except they're based on fundamental misapprehension of
basic concepts. People want individual foods,
according to their preferences; they do not want
undifferentiated calories.


People will get what they are given.


That's fascism. But thanks for coming out with it so
readily.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 10:23 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 94
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Jim Webster
writes


I usually avoid mega-threads:-)

Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of land
are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.

There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown without
necessary rotation.


There is a strong underlying lack of knowledge about the practicality. I
know that there has been work done now with organic systems of rotation
which will get yields up to about the same as conventional, continuous
cereals, but only for two or three yields a decade when you have the cereal
crop, in the other years you tend to be using livestock to build up the
fertility.
Also as you say there are problems of climate and land type. Anyone in the
UK dependent on soya as their protein source is going to be importing most
of their protein, althrough of course they could make do with broad beans
and peas.


Taking the top end figures for each case does not make a strong argument:
ranched beef may well take 4 years to finish but not on land that would
support continuous Wheat. Soya may well produce high yields of usable
protein but I doubt it can be grown in all parts of the US. Continuous
cropping usually leads to reduced yields and higher chemical inputs.

regards


this is true but one of the advantages of GM varieties is that it helps
limit this and allow continuous cropping to go on longer without depleting
soil moisture too much

Jim Webster


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 11:37 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 55
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:48:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , Jim Webster
writes

"Buxqi" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.


Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
footprint than a meat based one.

but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car

You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
aspect of their lives


I usually avoid mega-threads:-)

Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of
land are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.

There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown
without necessary rotation.

Taking the top end figures for each case does not make a strong
argument: ranched beef may well take 4 years to finish but not on land
that would support continuous Wheat. Soya may well produce high yields
of usable protein but I doubt it can be grown in all parts of the US.
Continuous cropping usually leads to reduced yields and higher chemical
inputs.


I don't think you need to tell an arable farmer how to grow arable
crops.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 11:39 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 55
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:56:36 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Julie wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Curtain Cider wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

"Buxqi" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.
Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
footprint than a meat based one.

but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car

You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
aspect of their lives

Jim Webster
That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
really struggling.

The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
industry and swapping over to the much more efficient
Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
know the correct meaning of the word.


The meaning is clear and simple,


The meaning escapes you entirely.


great argument!

and planet
friendly vegetarian diet. What car or other habits people have is
irrelevant, although veggies will also usually be very conscientious
in other areas of their lives.
No, they're not. What an absurd claim.


Fact.


Not a fact.


great argument!


Most of us veggies care enough about sentient beings not to eat
or abuse them.


No, you don't care about them at all. That's why you
commission their deaths in the course of farming fruits
and vegetables. All you care about is the disposition
of the corpses. Animals chopped to bits to produce the
vegetables and fruits you eat, and left to rot in
fields, are just fine with you. For some reason,
you're put off by people eating animals. But your
inconsistency is grotesque, and noted.


That old straw dog fallacy you always resort to when you lose the
plot! I thought we were discussing the benefits of arable over
livestock?

snip the village idiot


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 12:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 55
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:23:38 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
.. .
In message , Jim Webster
writes


I usually avoid mega-threads:-)

Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of land
are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.

There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown without
necessary rotation.


There is a strong underlying lack of knowledge about the practicality. I
know that there has been work done now with organic systems of rotation
which will get yields up to about the same as conventional, continuous
cereals, but only for two or three yields a decade when you have the cereal
crop, in the other years you tend to be using livestock to build up the
fertility.


No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?

To be honest it's quite a shock to see such deliberately misleading
rubbish coming from a CLA employee. Perhaps we should ask the CLA if
they would agree with you?

If you are going to join in civil debate, try at least to be honest.


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 12:32 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:09:36 +0000, Julie wrote:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:23:38 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
. ..
In message , Jim Webster
writes


I usually avoid mega-threads:-)

Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of land
are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.

There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown without
necessary rotation.


There is a strong underlying lack of knowledge about the practicality. I
know that there has been work done now with organic systems of rotation
which will get yields up to about the same as conventional, continuous
cereals, but only for two or three yields a decade when you have the cereal
crop, in the other years you tend to be using livestock to build up the
fertility.


No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?

To be honest it's quite a shock to see such deliberately misleading
rubbish coming from a CLA employee. Perhaps we should ask the CLA if
they would agree with you?

If you are going to join in civil debate, try at least to be honest.


What's more disturbing is that on a farming newsgroup the other
farmers are not prepared to notice the blatant lies and deceit, yet
quite happy to participate in bullying the sick and vulnerable!! Is it
any wonder the farming community has gone from being highly respected
to being a laughing stock of contempt and laziness.

Boy you must be proud of yourselves!


  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 02:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Julie wrote:
No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?


So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 03:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 92
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Julie wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:48:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , Jim Webster
writes
"Buxqi" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.
Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
footprint than a meat based one.

but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car

You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
aspect of their lives

I usually avoid mega-threads:-)

Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of
land are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.

There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown
without necessary rotation.

Taking the top end figures for each case does not make a strong
argument: ranched beef may well take 4 years to finish but not on land
that would support continuous Wheat. Soya may well produce high yields
of usable protein but I doubt it can be grown in all parts of the US.
Continuous cropping usually leads to reduced yields and higher chemical
inputs.


I don't think you need to tell an arable farmer


No such thing. You're an idiot.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 03:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 94
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate


"Jill" wrote in message
...
Julie wrote:
No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?


So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?


of course, the last thing he can cope with is organic agriculture. This
demands either livestock, or crops which will be ploughed in as green
manure.
Unfortunately the year in which the land grows green manure it produces to
food for humans, while leaving it down to grass and grazing livestock does

Jim Webster


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 03:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 92
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Julie wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:56:36 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Julie wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Curtain Cider wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

"Buxqi" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.
Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
footprint than a meat based one.

but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car

You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
aspect of their lives

Jim Webster
That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
really struggling.

The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
industry and swapping over to the much more efficient
Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
know the correct meaning of the word.
The meaning is clear and simple,

The meaning escapes you entirely.


great argument!


It works. You *don't* know what the word really means.
That's why you fall for this cheap sleazy "vegan"
word trickery.


and planet
friendly vegetarian diet. What car or other habits people have is
irrelevant, although veggies will also usually be very conscientious
in other areas of their lives.
No, they're not. What an absurd claim.
Fact.

Not a fact.


great argument!


It works. You claim something as fact that isn't fact,
without support for it, and I tell you.

It is *not* a fact that "vegans" are conscientious in
other areas of their lives; probably quite the
opposite, since "veganism" is nothing more than self
flattery.


Most of us veggies care enough about sentient beings not to eat
or abuse them.

No, you don't care about them at all. That's why you
commission their deaths in the course of farming fruits
and vegetables. All you care about is the disposition
of the corpses. Animals chopped to bits to produce the
vegetables and fruits you eat, and left to rot in
fields, are just fine with you. For some reason,
you're put off by people eating animals. But your
inconsistency is grotesque, and noted.


That old straw dog fallacy you always resort to


No such fallacy.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 55
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill"
wrote:

Julie wrote:
No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?


So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?


No. We have a choice?


  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:25 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 55
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:29:18 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Jill" wrote in message
...
Julie wrote:
No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?


So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?


of course, the last thing he can cope with is organic agriculture. This
demands either livestock, or crops which will be ploughed in as green
manure.
Unfortunately the year in which the land grows green manure it produces to
food for humans,


That's what fallow means. As a farmer one would have thought you'd
known this. It works wonders for the soil and it's what farming has
been about for centuries.

while leaving it down to grass and grazing livestock does


In a world free of the cruel livestock industry that wouldn't happen
anyway so you lose out there as well.


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 173
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Julie wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill"
wrote:

Julie wrote:
No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?

So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?


No. We have a choice?


Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But
if "vegans" suppress animal husbandry, there won't be
any manure. Kind of a paradox, eh?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_1_] Vegan 1141 04-05-2012 06:10 PM
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 05:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017