On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:16:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the lying shitbag troll blabbered:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:32:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>>>>>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>>>>>>> needed for crops
>>>>>> Don't be silly Jill.
>>>>> Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.
>>>> Go away Jonny
>>> I'm here, shitbag pete, and you'll take it and you'll like it.
>>
>> Yeah I had noticed you trying to lure us
>
>No.
>
>Why don't you just **** off

Why don't you make me jonny, but you'll need to do more than waddle in
and throw your donuts out of your pram!

How did you get on with punch & judy? They seem to have ditched you
jonny, I don't suppose it's because you're too embarrassing even for
them!

pete the lying shitbag troll blabbered:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:16:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> pete the lying shitbag troll blabbered:
>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:32:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>>>>>>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>>>>>>>> needed for crops
>>>>>>> Don't be silly Jill.
>>>>>> Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.
>>>>> Go away Jonny
>>>> I'm here, shitbag pete, and you'll take it and you'll like it.
>>> Yeah I had noticed you trying to lure us
>> No.
>>
>> Why don't you just **** off
>
> Why don't you make me

Why don't you just do it, pete? You don't serve any
useful purpose here; you're entirely without serious
purpose, anyway. Just **** off out of here and go find
something useful to do, like guzzle another couple
liters of bad beer.

On Mar 4, 4:41*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> There is a way to make Google Groups insert carats in your replies, maybe
> you could look for it.

I did but I couldn't find a way to alter my settings.

> 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.
>
> Negro men "generally", according to statistics, commit more crime and
> abandon their families more often than white men. Does that make negro men
> less moral by definition?

Of course not. You can choose what you eat. You can not choose a race.
Furthermore racial characteristics do not define an individual's
intelligence,
morality, athleticism or any other charcteristics.

> That in fact is a very common perception, and
> wrong. People, like diets, must be judged on their actual merits, not the
> characteristics of a larger group to which they may belong.

Sure. Undoubtedly there are some non-vegan diets that are more
ecologically efficient* than some vegan diets. Indeed it is plausible
that the most ecologically efficient diet possible includes some
animal products. However, as a general rule, cutting out meat
will reduce your ecological footprint.

* For the purposes of this discussion I am defining ecological
efficiency as the number of people who can meet all their RDAs
per unit of natural resource.

> My diet,
> although not a vegetarian one, probably has more positive attributes on most
> relevant criteria you can name than most vegan diets.

Quite possibly....

> > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > can easily pay $3000 or more for large plasma TV
> > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> Yes. Meat and grain are not the same product with regard
> to their value to the consumer but in terms of the resources
> that need to be used to keep a population adequately fed,
> they are comparable.
>
> Averting starvation is not the only goal of eating, it's arguably not even
> the primary one. If it were your argument might have some legs, but in fact
> almost everyone looks at food in a far richer context than that.

True. Eating meat is a luxury, like driving a car or posting on
usenet....

> > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > "inefficiency"?
>
> There is no misuse. The meaning of efficiency depends
> on context. They are not using the definition employed
> by economists. That's all.
>
> It is a thinly veiled attempt to pass off a moral judgment as an economic
> argument.

There is a moral argument in favour of ecologically efficient diets...
>
> If everyone in the world followed Christianty there would be far less
> conflict and destruction in the world. Does that make non-Christians
> immoral?

No. That isn't an argument in favour of Christianity per se. It is
an argument in favour of uniform beliefs or since this is never
going to happen, tolerance of other people's beliefs. A poor analogy
though. The issue is not whether universal veganism would make
the world a better place because it avoids conflict but whether it
would make the world better because of the actions themselves.

> No, in fact the real problem is the very narrow-minded attitude
> which perceives that either you think as I do or you are misguided.

Well, naturally If I disagree with you then by definition I believe
you are misguided. No?

> > They're clearly saying that the end
> > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > than others.
>
> Information on the relative ecological efficiency of those
> foods is not so widely available.
>
> Nobody is even looking, because efficiency is not their real concern, it's
> simply a club to use against people who aren't following the same
> restrictive lifestyle they are.

Yeah. This is largely true. Perhaps there are a few people who
have chosen to become vegan over concerns about efficiency but
I am not aware of any. I have met non-vegans who consider it
a strong argument but evidently not strong enough to prevent
them from eating meat.

Most vegans use the argument because it strengthens their
position, not because it determined thier position.

> > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > produce.
>
> Actually the prices are merely an approximation to the
> actual costs of production since we do not live in a
> completely free market with perfect information.
>
> Some of the most expensive food pound for pound is organic produce, which
> vegans should approve of, however it often contains hidden environmental
> costs, like transportation.

No more so than conventional produce... Organic produce
is expensive partly because it is more expensive to produce
but then the expense is partly because of externalities like
the environmental damage.

> > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > devices.
>
> > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > I hope this helps.
>
> Not at all. You have pointed out that many people prefer
> non-vegan diets and are prepared to pay market price for
> meat. You have also pointed out that most vegans don't
> always make the least resource-intensive choice either
> with food or anything else.
>
> So where do they get off pointing fingers ?

Well certainly on a vegan forum or if asked why they chose
to be vegan, they are entitled to explain their position...

> However you have not succesfully refuted the point that
> going vegan almost always reduces one's ecological footprint
> and that is all vegans mean when they make the efficiency
> argument.
>
> If that is all vegans were saying there would be no argument, but it's not..
> There is a carload of judgmentmentalism that invariably comes along with
> that observation

Maybe. I'm willing to admit to making value judgements such as
"we should all consider the effects of our actions on the
environment."
Naturally I don't always make the most ecologically efficient choice
in my diet or anything else. I try to take it into account but I don't
ignore aesthetic considerations and meat certainly tastes different to
grain...

All I am arguing is that the average vegan diet is ecologically
efficient.
Then again I'm not vegan either.

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:56:20 -0800 (PST), Buxqi >
wrote:

>On Mar 4, 4:41*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> There is a way to make Google Groups insert carats in your replies, maybe
>> you could look for it.
>
>I did but I couldn't find a way to alter my settings.
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Negro men "generally", according to statistics, commit more crime and
>> abandon their families more often than white men. Does that make negro men
>> less moral by definition?
>
>Of course not. You can choose what you eat. You can not choose a race.
>Furthermore racial characteristics do not define an individual's
>intelligence,
>morality, athleticism or any other charcteristics.
>
>> That in fact is a very common perception, and
>> wrong. People, like diets, must be judged on their actual merits, not the
>> characteristics of a larger group to which they may belong.
>
>Sure. Undoubtedly there are some non-vegan diets that are more
>ecologically efficient* than some vegan diets. Indeed it is plausible
>that the most ecologically efficient diet possible includes some
>animal products. However, as a general rule, cutting out meat
>will reduce your ecological footprint.
>
>* For the purposes of this discussion I am defining ecological
>efficiency as the number of people who can meet all their RDAs
>per unit of natural resource.
>
>> My diet,
>> although not a vegetarian one, probably has more positive attributes on most
>> relevant criteria you can name than most vegan diets.
>
>Quite possibly....
>
>> > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>> > there must be agreement on what the end product is
>> > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>> > you're looking at the production of consumer
>> > electronics, for example, then the output is
>> > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>> > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>> > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>> > discontinue the production of television sets, because
>> > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>> > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>> > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>> > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>> > television set is going to cost several hundred
>> > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>> > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>> > can easily pay $3000 or more for large plasma TV
>> > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>
>> Yes. Meat and grain are not the same product with regard
>> to their value to the consumer but in terms of the resources
>> that need to be used to keep a population adequately fed,
>> they are comparable.
>>
>> Averting starvation is not the only goal of eating, it's arguably not even
>> the primary one. If it were your argument might have some legs, but in fact
>> almost everyone looks at food in a far richer context than that.
>
>True. Eating meat is a luxury, like driving a car or posting on
>usenet....
>
>> > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>> > "inefficiency"?
>>
>> There is no misuse. The meaning of efficiency depends
>> on context. They are not using the definition employed
>> by economists. That's all.
>>
>> It is a thinly veiled attempt to pass off a moral judgment as an economic
>> argument.
>
>There is a moral argument in favour of ecologically efficient diets...
>>
>> If everyone in the world followed Christianty there would be far less
>> conflict and destruction in the world. Does that make non-Christians
>> immoral?
>
>No. That isn't an argument in favour of Christianity per se. It is
>an argument in favour of uniform beliefs or since this is never
>going to happen, tolerance of other people's beliefs. A poor analogy
>though. The issue is not whether universal veganism would make
>the world a better place because it avoids conflict but whether it
>would make the world better because of the actions themselves.
>
>> No, in fact the real problem is the very narrow-minded attitude
>> which perceives that either you think as I do or you are misguided.
>
>Well, naturally If I disagree with you then by definition I believe
>you are misguided. No?
>
>> > They're clearly saying that the end
>> > product whose efficiency of production we want to
>> > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>> > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>> > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>> > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>> > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>> > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>> > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>> > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>> > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>> > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>> > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>> > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>> > than others.
>>
>> Information on the relative ecological efficiency of those
>> foods is not so widely available.
>>
>> Nobody is even looking, because efficiency is not their real concern, it's
>> simply a club to use against people who aren't following the same
>> restrictive lifestyle they are.
>
>Yeah. This is largely true. Perhaps there are a few people who
>have chosen to become vegan over concerns about efficiency but
>I am not aware of any. I have met non-vegans who consider it
>a strong argument but evidently not strong enough to prevent
>them from eating meat.
>
>Most vegans use the argument because it strengthens their
>position, not because it determined thier position.
>
>> > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>> > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>> > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>> > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>> > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>> > higher priced because they use more resources to
>> > produce.
>>
>> Actually the prices are merely an approximation to the
>> actual costs of production since we do not live in a
>> completely free market with perfect information.
>>
>> Some of the most expensive food pound for pound is organic produce, which
>> vegans should approve of, however it often contains hidden environmental
>> costs, like transportation.
>
>No more so than conventional produce... Organic produce
>is expensive partly because it is more expensive to produce
>but then the expense is partly because of externalities like
>the environmental damage.
>
>> > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>> > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>> > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>> > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>> > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>> > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>
>> > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>> > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>> > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>> > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>> > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>> > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>> > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>> > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>> > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>> > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>> > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>> > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>> > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>> > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>
>> > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>> > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>> > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>> > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>> > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>> > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>> > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>> > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>> > devices.
>>
>> > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>> > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>> > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>> > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>> > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>> > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>> > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>> > meat production falls to the ground.
>>
>> > I hope this helps.
>>
>> Not at all. You have pointed out that many people prefer
>> non-vegan diets and are prepared to pay market price for
>> meat. You have also pointed out that most vegans don't
>> always make the least resource-intensive choice either
>> with food or anything else.
>>
>> So where do they get off pointing fingers ?
>
>Well certainly on a vegan forum or if asked why they chose
>to be vegan, they are entitled to explain their position...
>
>> However you have not succesfully refuted the point that
>> going vegan almost always reduces one's ecological footprint
>> and that is all vegans mean when they make the efficiency
>> argument.
>>
>> If that is all vegans were saying there would be no argument, but it's not.
>> There is a carload of judgmentmentalism that invariably comes along with
>> that observation
>
>Maybe. I'm willing to admit to making value judgements such as
>"we should all consider the effects of our actions on the
>environment."
>Naturally I don't always make the most ecologically efficient choice
>in my diet or anything else. I try to take it into account but I don't
>ignore aesthetic considerations and meat certainly tastes different to
>grain...
>
>All I am arguing is that the average vegan diet is ecologically
>efficient.
>Then again I'm not vegan either.

You don't need to be vegan to make sense. The fact that Jonny and co
make no sense on a diet of donuts and burgers, has nothing to do with
their diet. Even if they were vegan I feel sure they'd still be
village idiots.

stupid lying shitbag troll pete lied:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:56:20 -0800 (PST), Buxqi >
> wrote:
>
>> [snip a whole load of shit the stupid ****wit shitbag troll pete unnecessarily left in]
>>
>> All I am arguing is that the average vegan diet is ecologically
>> efficient.
>> Then again I'm not vegan either.
>
> You don't need to be vegan to make sense.

You just don't make any sense at all, shitbag pete.

On Mar 4, 12:56*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 4:41*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > There is a way to make Google Groups insert carats in your replies, maybe
> > you could look for it.
>
> I did but I couldn't find a way to alter my settings.

Don't know what to tell ya, I'm using Google Groups now and your
replies are showing carated.
>
> > 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.
>
> > Negro men "generally", according to statistics, commit more crime and
> > abandon their families more often than white men. Does that make negro men
> > less moral by definition?
>
> Of course not. You can choose what you eat. You can not choose a race.
> Furthermore racial characteristics do not define an individual's
> intelligence,
> morality, athleticism or any other charcteristics.

The point I was trying to make was that it is a fallacy to attempt to
prejudge an individual case based on a generalization. Just because
vegan diets "in general" are more efficient from a resource use
standpoint says nothing about any indivdual diet.

>
> > That in fact is a very common perception, and
> > wrong. People, like diets, must be judged on their actual merits, not the
> > characteristics of a larger group to which they may belong.
>
> Sure. Undoubtedly there are some non-vegan diets that are more
> ecologically efficient* than some vegan diets. Indeed it is plausible
> that the most ecologically efficient diet possible includes some
> animal products. However, as a general rule, cutting out meat
> will reduce your ecological footprint.

So will any number of measures, none of which are suggested carry the
same kind of moral/ethical baggage that vegans imply are associated
with this one.

> * For the purposes of this discussion I am defining ecological
> efficiency as the number of people who can meet all their RDAs
> per unit of natural resource.

OK, but nobody uses that criterion when choosing food. What you are
doing is choosing your food for other reasons, then suggesting that
this is a reason you do it.

>
> > My diet,
> > although not a vegetarian one, probably has more positive attributes on most
> > relevant criteria you can name than most vegan diets.
>
> Quite possibly....
>
>
>
>
>
> > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > > can easily pay $3000 or more for large plasma TV
> > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > Yes. Meat and grain are not the same product with regard
> > to their value to the consumer but in terms of the resources
> > that need to be used to keep a population adequately fed,
> > they are comparable.
>
> > Averting starvation is not the only goal of eating, it's arguably not even
> > the primary one. If it were your argument might have some legs, but in fact
> > almost everyone looks at food in a far richer context than that.
>
> True. Eating meat is a luxury, like driving a car or posting on
> usenet....

Eating meat is not the only dietary luxury, eating tropical fruit is
one too, one of many. In fact any consumption of calories above and
beyond what one requires to survive is a luxury. Yet we all do it.
Meanwhile, again vegans single out *meat* as the luxury. It is highly
hypocritical..

>
> > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > > "inefficiency"?
>
> > There is no misuse. The meaning of efficiency depends
> > on context. They are not using the definition employed
> > by economists. That's all.
>
> > It is a thinly veiled attempt to pass off a moral judgment as an economic
> > argument.
>
> There is a moral argument in favour of ecologically efficient diets...

There is a moral argument in favour of ecologically efficient
lifestyles. There is no supportable moral argument which forbids the
consumption of meat per se, this is the axe that vegans have to grind.

>
> > If everyone in the world followed Christianty there would be far less
> > conflict and destruction in the world. Does that make non-Christians
> > immoral?
>
> No. That isn't an argument in favour of Christianity per se. It is
> an argument in favour of uniform beliefs or since this is never
> going to happen, tolerance of other people's beliefs. A poor analogy
> though. The issue is not whether universal veganism would make
> the world a better place because it avoids conflict but whether it
> would make the world better because of the actions themselves.

That is an argument that vegans have never successfully made.

>
> > *No, in fact the real problem is the very narrow-minded attitude
> > which perceives that either you think as I do or you are misguided.
>
> Well, naturally If I disagree with you then by definition I believe
> you are misguided. No?

Right, if you are representing the typical vegan view you believe that
as a consumer of meat I am misguided.


>
>
>
> > > They're clearly saying that the end
> > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > > than others.
>
> > Information on the relative ecological efficiency of those
> > foods is not so widely available.
>
> > Nobody is even looking, because efficiency is not their real concern, it's
> > simply a club to use against people who aren't following the same
> > restrictive lifestyle they are.
>
> Yeah. This is largely true. Perhaps there are a few people who
> have chosen to become vegan over concerns about efficiency but
> I am not aware of any. I have met non-vegans who consider it
> a strong argument but evidently not strong enough to prevent
> them from eating meat.
>
> Most vegans use the argument because it strengthens their
> position, not because it determined thier position.

I think in general it gives vegans a false sense of superiority. This
feeling of moral superiority in my view is a poor exchange for the
ability to enjoy a rich, varied diet.

>
> > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > > produce.
>
> > Actually the prices are merely an approximation to the
> > actual costs of production since we do not live in a
> > completely free market with perfect information.
>
> > Some of the most expensive food pound for pound is organic produce, which
> > vegans should approve of, however it often contains hidden environmental
> > costs, like transportation.
>
> No more so than conventional produce... Organic produce
> is expensive partly because it is more expensive to produce
> but then the expense is partly because of externalities like
> the environmental damage.

It's expensive because of economies of scale, although organic farms
are becoming larger all the time.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > > devices.
>
> > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > > I hope this helps.
>
> > Not at all. You have pointed out that many people prefer
> > non-vegan diets and are prepared to pay market price for
> > meat. You have also pointed out that most vegans don't
> > always make the least resource-intensive choice either
> > with food or anything else.
>
> > So where do they get off pointing fingers ?
>
> Well certainly on a vegan forum or if asked why they chose
> to be vegan, they are entitled to explain their position...

There is a fine line between explaining one's position and condemning
others. Vegans frequently cross this line.

>
> > However you have not succesfully refuted the point that
> > going vegan almost always reduces one's ecological footprint
> > and that is all vegans mean when they make the efficiency
> > argument.
>
> > If that is all vegans were saying there would be no argument, but it's not.
> > There is a carload of judgmentmentalism that invariably comes along with
> > that observation
>
> Maybe. I'm willing to admit to making value judgements such as
> "we should all consider the effects of our actions ...

Yes, as opposed to focusing exclusively on the effects of the actions
of others. Vegans have plenty to say about the suffering and death
associated with animal products but are noticeably silent on the
suffering and death associated with plant-based products such as rice,
wheat, apples, bananas, or cotton. It all comes across as self-
serving.

On Mar 4, 5:39*pm, Jette > wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 4:00 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > Not necessarily. *But that isn't really their argument about
> > efficiency. *They're talking about resource use, not environmental
> > degradation.
>
> There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can
> live on land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible
> by humans. *You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland
> in the semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. *Sheep and deer, OTOH,
> thrive on the food available to them there.

Yes, that is indeed an important point for anyone motivated by the
concept of ecological efficiency to bear in mind. It's not always an
argument for not eating meat if you know where it comes from.

It is also worth considering the use of animals in organic
agriculture.
Crop rotations are a popular way to maintain soil fertility and
prevent crop-specific pests from taking hold. The traditional
rotations usually involve grazing animals. I don't know if they
are necessary though....

On Mar 4, 7:09*am, "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

I realise that simply adopting a vegan diet does not automatically
make you a green person.

On Mar 4, 5:48*pm, Julie > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:38:15 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Jill" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Julie wrote:
>
> >>> There will always be horses and other livestock. They just wont have
> >>> to endure the suffering to feed fat faces like yours.
>
> >> There might be horses, but there would be little else.
> >> You do not breed if you do not cull.
> >> Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep.
> >> [we have already managed to do that to our deer population]
>
> >oh goodie, so we have all this land being used to feed livestock that
> >doesn't actually contribute to human nutrition. Effectively using livestock
> >as a green manure, meaning that you only get a food crop from it perhaps
> >three years in ten
> >Far less efficient that what we do now when at least we eat the livestock
> >Jim Webster
>
> It's quite painful to see the village idiots playing on their own..
>
> Which one are you. Judy?

From the evidence of this thread I think you should start taking
Jill and Jim more seriously. Point is in order to grow crops you
need to have a way of maintaining soil fertility and protecting
the crops from pests. You could use plenty of chemicals with
all the implied environmental implications or you could use
organic methods. If you are using farm animals to provide the
manure then you have a choice. You can use the meat and
milk from the animals or you can grow more crops. If you choose
to grow more crops then you must use more land and that
means destroying wild animal habitats.

If you are comparing the standard method of continuous chemical
intensive cropping with the standard method of feeding said crops
to a cow then the vegan diet is clearly less land intensive. Where
more responsible farming methods the "efficiency argument"
against meat has been made to look rather superficial.

Perhaps there is a way of maintaining adequate soil fertility on
a large scale (it is easy enough to do on a small scale) without
animals. If all the food waste that currently goes to landfill were
to be used as compost instead would that work perhaps?

On Mar 4, 1:37*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pete the lying shitbag troll blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:16:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > > wrote:
>
> >> pete the lying * * * * shitbag troll blabbered:
> >>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:32:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
> >>>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
> >>>>>>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
> >>>>>>>> needed for crops
> >>>>>>> Don't be silly Jill.
> >>>>>> Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.
> >>>>> Go away Jonny
> >>>> I'm here, shitbag pete, and you'll take it and you'll like it.
> >>> Yeah I had noticed you trying to lure us
> >> No.
>
> >> Why don't you just **** off
>
> > Why don't you make me
>
> Why don't you just do it, pete? *You don't serve any
> useful purpose here; you're entirely without serious
> purpose, anyway. *Just **** off out of here and go find
> something useful to do, like guzzle another couple
> liters of bad beer.-


oooooh.........~jonnie~ found *another* unserious person.

Whaddaya gonna do Goobs?.............throw a hissy fit?

LOSER ****stain jerk-off runny hamilton the ass-pumper
lied:
> On Mar 4, 1:37 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> pete the lying shitbag troll blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:16:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:32:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>>>>>>>>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>>>>>>>>>> needed for crops
>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly Jill.
>>>>>>>> Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.
>>>>>>> Go away Jonny
>>>>>> I'm here, shitbag pete, and you'll take it and you'll like it.
>>>>> Yeah I had noticed you trying to lure us
>>>> No.
>>>> Why don't you just **** off
>>> Why don't you make me
>> Why don't you just do it, pete? You don't serve any
>> useful purpose here; you're entirely without serious
>> purpose, anyway. Just **** off out of here and go find
>> something useful to do, like guzzle another couple
>> liters of bad beer.-
>
>
> oooooh

Close your mouth, queer.

"Buxqi" > wrote in message news:04b5a2ba-7ce2-4738-a90d-
Yes, that is indeed an important point for anyone motivated by the
concept of ecological efficiency to bear in mind. It's not always an
argument for not eating meat if you know where it comes from.

It is also worth considering the use of animals in organic
agriculture.
Crop rotations are a popular way to maintain soil fertility and
prevent crop-specific pests from taking hold. The traditional
rotations usually involve grazing animals. I don't know if they
are necessary though....
---------------

Work has been done and you can do organic rotations with green manures, but
they are described as 'fragile'
The main problem with them is that it reduces the food produced over the
period of the rotation and thus they are actually less 'efficient' than
conventional rotations including livestock

Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 5:48 pm, Julie > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:38:15 -0000, "Jim Webster"

Perhaps there is a way of maintaining adequate soil fertility on
a large scale (it is easy enough to do on a small scale) without
animals. If all the food waste that currently goes to landfill were
to be used as compost instead would that work perhaps?

-----------------
It would be useful, but the problem is that as we waste 'only' a third of
the food, then we would still need to replace at least two thirds of the
nutrients that go into making the food that is eaten.
To a certain extent if we returned the sewage produced by the population to
the land this would also go to help cover the gap left by the missing two
thirds, althrough even here so of the food you eat actually goes to make
'more you' and whilst we could technically deal with that by shredding and
recycling corpses as well I don't advocate that.
Because we import food, if all human sewage was returned to the land, then
the land would probably gain fertility because we would import it with the
food

Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 7:09 am, "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

I realise that simply adopting a vegan diet does not automatically
make you a green person.
---------------

Absolutely.
It is the whole package, diet is merely a part of it, and ironically it can
be a very small part of it depending on the persons life style

Jim Webster

Buxqi > writes

>It is also worth considering the use of animals in organic agriculture.

Indeed so. However remember 'organic' agriculture is not new, its been
used for about 20,000 years and also remember that older people can
still remember when UK farming had no pesticides (basically no effective
ones existed) and imported little fertiliser (it was too expensive).

So some of us have farmed in essentially organic days.

>Crop
>rotations are a popular way to maintain soil fertility and prevent crop-
>specific pests from taking hold.

Er, they were the ONLY way. No crops were ever grown consecutively and
even grass was often reseeded in the more fertile areas.

>The traditional rotations usually involve
>grazing animals.

Traditional rotations ALWAYS involved grazing animals. Essentially they
stripped the potash so it could be used for potash demanding crops (all
vegetables demand high potash).

>I don't know if they are necessary though....

You can use pig manure and human manure BUT you MUST recycle or
replenish your soil nutrient status somehow if you are going to crop it.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Wednesday, in article
>
"Jim Webster" wrote:

> "Buxqi" > wrote in message news:04b5a2ba-7ce2-4738-a90d-
> Yes, that is indeed an important point for anyone motivated by the
> concept of ecological efficiency to bear in mind. It's not always an
> argument for not eating meat if you know where it comes from.
>
> It is also worth considering the use of animals in organic
> agriculture.
> Crop rotations are a popular way to maintain soil fertility and
> prevent crop-specific pests from taking hold. The traditional
> rotations usually involve grazing animals. I don't know if they
> are necessary though....
> ---------------
>
> Work has been done and you can do organic rotations with green manures, but
> they are described as 'fragile'
> The main problem with them is that it reduces the food produced over the
> period of the rotation and thus they are actually less 'efficient' than
> conventional rotations including livestock

I do sometimes wonder how many people realise how vague a term
"efficient" can be.

And there's a lot of handwaving over just what might be measured. I can
see these "organic" methods requiring less use of energy-expensive
artificial fertilisers, but if they're measuring energy per acre, rather
than energy per unit output, the results could be misleading.

And, yes, it may matter where the energy comes from. I can see an
advantage in some inefficient process which can use a renewable energy
resource. But farmers are already in the sunlight capture business. Not
that the "organic" faction are likely to be happy about wheat which can
fix nitrogen. Still, a wheat variety which could do that at a reduced
yield could be a better bet, all round, than green manure.


--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.

""David G. Bell"" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, in article
>
> And, yes, it may matter where the energy comes from. I can see an
> advantage in some inefficient process which can use a renewable energy
> resource. But farmers are already in the sunlight capture business. Not
> that the "organic" faction are likely to be happy about wheat which can
> fix nitrogen. Still, a wheat variety which could do that at a reduced
> yield could be a better bet, all round, than green manure.

yes, nitrogen fixing wheat, perhaps with the nodules moved across from
legumes, would be a real bonus.

Jim Webster

On Wednesday, in article
>
"Jim Webster" wrote:

> ""David G. Bell"" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wednesday, in article
> >
> > And, yes, it may matter where the energy comes from. I can see an
> > advantage in some inefficient process which can use a renewable energy
> > resource. But farmers are already in the sunlight capture business. Not
> > that the "organic" faction are likely to be happy about wheat which can
> > fix nitrogen. Still, a wheat variety which could do that at a reduced
> > yield could be a better bet, all round, than green manure.
>
> yes, nitrogen fixing wheat, perhaps with the nodules moved across from
> legumes, would be a real bonus.

Trouble is, there's a lot of things which are not genetically simple.
Plants don't have some of the factors which can affect livestock, and
humans, but DNA isn't the whole story.

Nitrogen fixing in legumes is down to a bacteria, isn't it? You might
have the GM both the wheat plant and the bacteria, and that's really
going to be popular.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.

""David G. Bell"" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, in article
> >
> "Jim Webster" wrote:
>
>> ""David G. Bell"" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wednesday, in article
>> >
>> > And, yes, it may matter where the energy comes from. I can see an
>> > advantage in some inefficient process which can use a renewable energy
>> > resource. But farmers are already in the sunlight capture business. Not
>> > that the "organic" faction are likely to be happy about wheat which can
>> > fix nitrogen. Still, a wheat variety which could do that at a reduced
>> > yield could be a better bet, all round, than green manure.
>>
>> yes, nitrogen fixing wheat, perhaps with the nodules moved across from
>> legumes, would be a real bonus.
>
> Trouble is, there's a lot of things which are not genetically simple.
> Plants don't have some of the factors which can affect livestock, and
> humans, but DNA isn't the whole story.
>
> Nitrogen fixing in legumes is down to a bacteria, isn't it? You might
> have the GM both the wheat plant and the bacteria, and that's really
> going to be popular.
>
from memory the legumes have bacteria fixing nitrogen living in nodules on
their roots, a true symbiot.
No plant can fix nitrogen, but they can provide a home for the bacteria who
can, so whether it would be a genetic transfer to get the nodules to fix to
wheat, or merely a case of 'innoculating' the seed I'm not sure.
I remember reading that some work was being done on truffles and tree roots
which was the sort of work the author mentioned could be transferred to
nitrogen fixing

Jim Webster

Jim Webster > writes
>
>yes, nitrogen fixing wheat, perhaps with the nodules moved across from
>legumes, would be a real bonus.

I have half a memory that this has been done, perhaps not for wheat
though. The problem was that yields fell rather drastically, which is
probably not surprising given the energy cost of converting N2 to NO3,
particularly as this is not at all an efficient process. Indeed it may
well be that burning biomass and using the energy to fix nitrogen may be
more efficient overall than using biofixation.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Jim Webster > writes
>from memory the legumes have bacteria fixing nitrogen living in nodules on
>their roots, a true symbiot. No plant can fix nitrogen, but they can provide
>a home for the bacteria who can, so whether it would be a genetic transfer
>to get the nodules to fix to wheat, or merely a case of 'innoculating' the
>seed I'm not sure. I remember reading that some work was being done on
>truffles and tree roots which was the sort of work the author mentioned
>could be transferred to nitrogen fixing

Much more complex.

The seed contains zero bacteria, they have to be picked up from the
soil. Needless to say the bacteria are extreme specialists that have
only ever been found in nodules. So the sequence seems to be:

1) Legume roots exude something that causes the bacteria to come to it,
this probably means breaking dormancy of encysted bacteria at very low
level in the soil.

2) The bacteria has to exude something that causes the plant to
recognise its been infected.

3) The plant then builds a nodule for the bacteria to colonaise.

4) The plant has to provide the bacteria with a supply of nutrients.

I would imagine that this sequence is rather complex and requires many
genes on many chromosomes to be switched on or off depending on the
position of the cell and the stage arrived at.

Its likely to be scattered all over the genome and thus rather difficult
to transfer.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil
is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy
organic matter, kills much of the soil fauna and leaves the soil at risk
of erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and,
with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted
and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and
obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go
and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the
muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our
valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the sea.

In a field of wheat all the plants have the same nutritional requirements,
their roots occupy the same levels in the soil and will only be able to
obtain nutrients from this one level of the soil. Any nutrients that have
been washed lower down into the soil will be lost to the plants and
will eventually find their way into the water system either to be washed
out to sea or to pollute our drinking water. Genetically very similar,
these plants are all susceptible to the same pests and diseases and all
have similar climatic requirements. If one suffers, they all suffer. The
system is dependent on large inputs of fertilisers, herbicides,
pesticides, fungicides etc. The soil is little more than a medium to
hold the plant up, and even this it is becoming less able to do well
as soil structure and depth are destroyed. The Fenlands, for example,
are losing 30 mm of topsoil every year.

A field of wheat is like a desert to most of our wild animals and plants
- the intensive growing regime means that very few species of plants
will be able to grow in the field and thus there will be very few animals
that will be able to survive in and around the field. In the edition of
The Guardian newspaper dated 12/08/94 there was an article about
the declining population of some of our commonest species of birds.
Apparently, in the period between 1969 and 1991 tree sparrow
populations declined by 85%, corn bunting by 76%, grey partridge
by 73%, turtle doves by 75% and skylarks by 50%. The article went
on to blame current agricultural practices that have seen hedgerows
destroyed, meadows ploughed up and fields harvested before the
birds had a chance to finish rearing their young. It said that the dawn
chorus, that enchanting time of the morning when the air is alive to
the sound of bird song, is heard no more in many parts of E. Anglia,
where an eerie silence now greets the dawn.

It can be argued that yields of wheat have increased dramatically in
the last 100 years, from around 1 ton per acre at the beginning of the
century to 3 tons or more now. But is this sustainable? No it is not!
In fact when you take into account all the energy that is expended in
making the farm machinery, in fuelling it, in making the fertilisers etc.
and all the other things that need to be done in order to produce the
food, far more energy is actually used up in growing the food than
the food itself yields in energy! This ridiculous state of affairs is
only possible due to the current abundance of fossil fuels, but how
long are they going to last?
...'
http://www.pfaf.org/leaflets/whyperen.php

'In 1991, Dr. Sanchez accepted a position as the head of ICRAF
in Nairobi, Kenya. There, he quickly discovered that African
agricultural production lagged due to the extremely depleted nature
of the soil. Dr. Sanchez' most enduring contribution to ending
world hunger has been his development of the means to replenish
crucial nutrients in exhausted soils, through the development and
promotion of agroforestry. This practice of planting trees on farms,
when combined with adding locally available rock phosphate to
the soil, has provided farmers in Africa with a way to fertilize
their soils inexpensively and naturally, without relying on costly
chemical fertilizers.

The 150,000 small scale farmers who are utilizing Dr. Sanchez'
methods are experiencing greatly increased yields, in some cases
200% to 400% above previous plantings. In response to this
success, ICRAF plans to help African farmers plant 5.5 billion
more trees over the next decade, the equivalent of another
tropical rainforest. ICRAF's goal is to move 20 million people
out of poverty and remove more that 100 million tons of CO2
from the air with this project.

http://www.worldfoodprize.org/2002La...essrelease.htm

'Robert Hart got things going for backyard folks with his
inspirational book Forest Gardening, first published in Britain in 1991.
Hart's vision of temperate climate forest gardening was the result of
his work with tropical agroforestry systems, his Gandhian beliefs and
his backyard experiments. His forest garden in Shropshire, England is
an incredibly beautiful testament to his vision, and the oldest known
temperate climate forest garden in the world (started in 1981). Patrick
Whitefield followed Hart's book with his more practical How to Make
a Forest Garden, a solid book with a British focus. These two pieces,
combined with Bill Mollison and David Holmgren's works on
permaculture ("permanent culture"), have sparked widespread interest
in and planting of forest gardens throughout Britain. These gardens all
demonstrate the potential of edible forest gardens, if not the actual
benefits.
...'
http://www.nofa.org/tnf/sp02/supplement/edible.php

'It is possible to plan out a woodland, using the guidelines that nature
has shown us, but using species that can provide us with tasty fruits,
seeds, leaves, roots and flowers. When well designed, such a system
can:-

* be far more productive than a field of annuals
* produce a much wider range of foods
* require far less work
* require far less inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides
* provide valuable habitats for wildlife
* be very pleasing aesthetically.

It all comes down to selecting the right mixture of species .There
are over 5,000 species of edible plants that can be grown outdoors
in Britain and about 2,100 of these can be grown in a woodland so
there really is no lack of variety to choose from.
...'
http://www.pfaf.org/leaflets/whyperen.php

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>
> 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil
> is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy
> organic matter,

now prove you understand what your talking about

explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy
organic matter

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil
> > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy
> > organic matter,
>
> now prove you understand what your talking about
>
> explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy
> organic matter

"Cultivation" also includes the application of agricides, in sum..

' kill[ing] much of the soil fauna and leav[ing] the soil at risk of
erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and,
with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted
and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and
obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go
and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the
muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our
valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the
sea.'

And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil
> > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy
> > > organic matter,
> >
> > now prove you understand what your talking about
> >
> > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy
> > organic matter

Possibly referring to destruction of the surface layer of organic
matter, which serves to reduce soil erosion and retain moisture.

Intensive cultivation can also destroy earthworm populations.

'... kills much of the soil fauna and leaves the soil at risk of
erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and,
with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted
and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and
obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go
and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the
muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our
valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the
sea.'

> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.

pearl wrote:
> 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems,
> [snip shit hemorrhage of stuff lesley didn't read]

You didn't read that bullshit.

pearl wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil
>>>> is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy
>>>> organic matter,
>>> now prove you understand what your talking about
>>>
>>> explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy
>>> organic matter
>
> Possibly referring to destruction of the surface layer of organic
> matter, which serves to reduce soil erosion and retain moisture.
>

You're not a soils expert, either. In fact, you have
no expertise of any kind that is applicable to the issue.

pearl wrote:

>
>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>

For those who still have doubts about just what is
meant by "inefficiency" when "aras" bring this canard
up, lesley's statement ought to dispel the doubts. Her
complaint above is *not* about environmental
degradation from agriculture; her complaint is that she
believes the resources are misused.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...

>
> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>

evidence for that statement please

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>>
>
> evidence for that statement please

It's an article of faith among "vegans". I personally
don't have a problem with it, and I think it's probably
true.

Anyway, check this out for some more commentary on the
issue:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill.
The web page author references an e-mail from PETA
that claims over half of all grain grown in the U.S. is
used as livestock feed. "Over half" hardly implies
"the lion's share", but I think in the U.S. at least,
significantly over half of crops are grown as animal feed.

The question is, SO WHAT?

Rudy Canoza > writes

>It's an article of faith among "vegans". I personally don't have a problem
>with it, and I think it's probably true.

Probably not, the US is not the world.

>Anyway, check this out for some more commentary on the issue: http://www.the
>bestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill. The web page author references an
>e-mail from PETA that claims over half of all grain grown in the U.S. is
>used as livestock feed. "Over half" hardly implies "the lion's share", but
>I think in the U.S. at least, significantly over half of crops are grown as
>animal feed.

That may be true, but the US has only about 250M people.
Its certainly not true of, say China or India.

>The question is, SO WHAT?

So the US eats a lot of meat?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >
> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
> >
>
> evidence for that statement please

'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its
people but not its animals'. Europe imports 70% of its protein
for animal feed .. this is on top of using large proportions of
its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come
from countries suffering from poverty or environmental
degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for
animal feed. In the UK, 39% of our wheat, 51% of our barley
and 75% of our total agricultural land is used to feed animals.
...'
http://www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david2.html

(In the US 70% of grain is consumed by livestock. )

"... to satisfy your addiction to animal fat." ...

'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted

CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.

Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals'
ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated
with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in
the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated
by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
...
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
...
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
"in-health" model of addiction. "
...'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm

'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to
how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry
and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to
meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize
one species from another. Without it, we may end up with
just a bland, general meaty taste. '
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm

"The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin (search)
who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the Fox News
Channel. "What that does is release certain chemicals that are
similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
...'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:03:34 -0800 (PST), Buxqi >
wrote:

>On Mar 4, 5:48*pm, Julie > wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:38:15 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Jill" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Julie wrote:
>>
>> >>> There will always be horses and other livestock. They just wont have
>> >>> to endure the suffering to feed fat faces like yours.
>>
>> >> There might be horses, but there would be little else.
>> >> You do not breed if you do not cull.
>> >> Otherwise the country would be overpopulated with starving sheep.
>> >> [we have already managed to do that to our deer population]
>>
>> >oh goodie, so we have all this land being used to feed livestock that
>> >doesn't actually contribute to human nutrition. Effectively using livestock
>> >as a green manure, meaning that you only get a food crop from it perhaps
>> >three years in ten
>> >Far less efficient that what we do now when at least we eat the livestock
>> >Jim Webster
>>
>> It's quite painful to see the village idiots playing on their own..
>>
>> Which one are you. Judy?
>
>From the evidence of this thread I think you should start taking
>Jill and Jim more seriously.

That would be hilarious even from a sock puppet! Neither are real
farmers and neither have any interest in improving things for
themselves or the planet. How can you take people like that seriously!

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:51:13 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> wrote:

>On Mar 4, 1:37*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> pete the lying shitbag troll blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:16:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> pete the lying * * * * shitbag troll blabbered:
>> >>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:32:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> >>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>> >>>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:23:32 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> >>>>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0000, "Jill" >
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> pete the shitbag troll blabbered:
>> >>>>>>>>> Grazing animals need grazing land not crops.
>> >>>>>>>> Where are you going to find this grazing land when every inch is going to be
>> >>>>>>>> needed for crops
>> >>>>>>> Don't be silly Jill.
>> >>>>>> Blow it out your pimply doughy arse pete.
>> >>>>> Go away Jonny
>> >>>> I'm here, shitbag pete, and you'll take it and you'll like it.
>> >>> Yeah I had noticed you trying to lure us
>> >> No.
>>
>> >> Why don't you just **** off
>>
>> > Why don't you make me
>>
>> Why don't you just do it, pete? *You don't serve any
>> useful purpose here; you're entirely without serious
>> purpose, anyway. *Just **** off out of here and go find
>> something useful to do, like guzzle another couple
>> liters of bad beer.-
>
>
>oooooh.........~jonnie~ found *another* unserious person.
>
>Whaddaya gonna do Goobs?.............throw a hissy fit?

It's all she knows.

Posted by Voroshilov >

But so good it deserves a wider audience.

On Mar 5, 4:55 pm, "Pat Gardiner" > wrote:
> Anyway, I hope to able to record
> the unravelling of the Pig MRSA scandal on uk.business.agriculture now,
For those who can't keep up with them all, here's a handy cut-out-and-
keep guide to The History of Pat's Scandals

Aug 21 2001, 11:06 am
There you have it - the biggest scandal for years

Dec 26 2001, 12:09 pm
The scandal is about to break

Jan 10 2002, 8:45 am
This scandal will eventually bring the present government down.

Jan 28 2002, 7:24 pm
I know (and I do mean know) that the biggest political and
constitutional scandal since the abdication crisis is going to break
some day soon.

Oct 26 2003, 7:08 pm
You have just earned yourself the inside track on the scandal of the
century

Jan 7 2004, 4:43 pm
This is going to be the biggest scandal for many many years.

Feb 11 2004, 9:13 pm
I'm telling you now, as I told you then, this is the scandal of a
lifetime.

Dec 4 2005, 10:10 pm
There is going to be an international scandal of the first order

Dec 25 2005, 2:34 pm
I suspect we are about to see the scandal of the century unfold.

Oct 7 2006, 9:14 am
A major scandal is brewing

Dec 12 2006, 8:33 pm
There is going to be a massive scandal.

Jan 28 2007, 8:55 pm
This is an international scandal with its epicentre in Britain

Nov 27 2007, 8:16 pm
You are onto a bigger scandal than you ever imagined.

Feb 25 2008, 5:33 pm
No government can survive a scandal like this

Note to Pat - Just in case Prince Philip orders MI6 to bump you off, a
copy of this message has been stored in a disused nuclear bunker in
Montana guarded by crazed right-wing gun nuts.




--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>>
>> >
>> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
>> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>> >
>>
>> evidence for that statement please
>
> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its
> people but not its animals'.

which is not evidence for the statement

Europe imports 70% of its protein
> for animal feed .

which is not evidence for the statement

.. this is on top of using large proportions of
> its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come
> from countries suffering from poverty or environmental
> degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for
> animal feed.

which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and land is used
to feed animals"


In the UK, 39% of our wheat, 51% of our barley
> and 75% of our total agricultural land is used to feed animals.
> ..'
> http://www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david2.html
>
> (In the US 70% of grain is consumed by livestock. )

yes but you haven't covered Brazil, China or India, never mind Aus and
Canada

>
> "... to satisfy your addiction to animal fat." ...

not my addiction, my Chinese customers new found love. After generations of
being trapped in vegetarianism by poverty they have broken free and in their
prosperity are eating more meat, Lord love 'em.

Jim Webster

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>>
>>> >
>>> > And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
>>> > used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>>> >
>>>
>>> evidence for that statement please
>>
>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its
>> people but not its animals'.
>
>which is not evidence for the statement

The statement is based on fact and I think if we are looking at who to
listen to. The farmer brought up on handouts with no interest in
society or themselves. Or the EU who look to support the whole of
society and is a professional body. I think we know who to take
seriously.

Mind you no doubt the CLA would find your lack of knowledge and
pedantic dead ends a trifle embarrassing I'm sure.

pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> > wrote:
>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>>>>>
>>>> evidence for that statement please
>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its
>>> people but not its animals'.
>> which is not evidence for the statement
>
> The statement is based on fact

Prove it, pete.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
>>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>>>>>>
>>>>> evidence for that statement please
>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its
>>>> people but not its animals'.
>>> which is not evidence for the statement
>>
>> The statement is based on fact
>
>Prove it


Yeah sure. The signs are there Jonny but I'm not sure you're bright
enough to see the barn door!

'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its
people but not its animals'. Europe imports 70% of its protein
for animal feed .. this is on top of using large proportions of
its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come
from countries suffering from poverty or environmental
degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for
animal feed. In the UK, 39% of our wheat, 51% of our barley
and 75% of our total agricultural land is used to feed animals.
...'
http://www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david2.html

(In the US 70% of grain is consumed by livestock. )

"... to satisfy your addiction to animal fat." ...

'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted

CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.

Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals'
ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated
with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in
the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated
by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
...
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
...
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
"in-health" model of addiction. "
...'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm

'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to
how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry
and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to
meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize
one species from another. Without it, we may end up with
just a bland, general meaty taste. '
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm

"The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin (search)
who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the Fox News
Channel. "What that does is release certain chemicals that are
similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
...'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html


http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/
FEEDING THE WORLD
"The world must create five billions vegans in the next several
decades, or triple its total farm output without using more land."
Dennis Avery, Director of the Centre for Global Food Issues . [1]

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that around
840 million people are undernourished. That's roughly 14% of the human
population. On average, around 25,000 people die every day from
hunger-related causes. Each year 6 million children under the age of 5
die as a result of hunger and malnutrition - this is roughly
equivalent to all the under-5s in France and Italy combined. [2] With
the world's population expected to increase from 6 billion to 9
billion by 2050, one of the most urgent questions we now face is how
we, as a species, will feed ourselves in the 21st century.

Land availability is one of the main constraints on food production.
The earth has only a limited area of viable agricultural land, so how
this land is used is central to our ability to feed the world. At the
moment, the problem is not lack of food - it is widely agreed that
enough food is produced worldwide to feed a global population of 8-10
billion people - but lack of availability. Poverty, powerlessness,
war, corruption and greed all conspire to prevent equal access to
food, and there are no simple solutions to the problem. However,
Western lifestyles - and diet in particular - can play a large part in
depriving the world's poor of much needed food.

"In this era of global abundance, why does the word continue to
tolerate the daily hunger and deprivation of more than 800 million
people?"
Jacques Diouf, Director-General, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
[3]

THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION

World livestock production exceeds 21 billion animals each year. The
earth's livestock population is more then three and a half times its
human population. [4]

In all, the raising of livestock takes up more than two-thirds of
agricultural land, and one third of the total land area. [5] This is
apparently justifiable because by eating the foods that humans can't
digest and by processing these into meat, milk and eggs, farmed
animals provide us with an extra, much-needed food source. Or so the
livestock industry would like you to believe. In fact, livestock are
increasingly being fed with grains and cereals that could have been
directly consumed by humans or were grown on land that could have been
used to grow food rather than feed. The developing world's
undernourished millions are now in direct competition with the
developed world's livestock - and they are losing.

In 1900 just over 10% of the total grain grown worldwide was fed to
animals; by 1950 this figure had risen to over 20%; by the late 1990s
it stood at around 45%. Over 60% of US grain is fed to livestock. [6]

This use of the world's grain harvest would be acceptable in terms of
world food production if it were not for the fact that meat and dairy
production is a notoriously inefficient use of energy. All animals use
the energy they get from food to move around, keep warm and perform
their day to day bodily functions. This means that only a percentage
of the energy that farmed animals obtain from plant foods is converted
into meat or dairy products. Estimates of efficiency levels vary, but
in a recent study [7], Professor Vaclav Smil of the University of
Manitoba, Canada, calculated that beef cattle raised on feedlots may
convert as little as 2.5% of their gross feed energy into food for
human consumption. Estimated conversion of protein was only a little
more efficient, with less than 5% of the protein in feed being
converted to edible animal protein. These figures are especially
damning since the diet of cattle at the feedlot consists largely of
human-edible grains.

Feedlot-raised beef is an extreme example, being the least
feed-efficient animal product, but even the most efficient - milk -
represents a waste of precious agricultural land. Prof Smil calculates
that the most efficient dairy cows convert between 55 and 67% of their
gross feed energy into milk food energy.

Efficiency can also be measured in terms of the land required per
calorie of food obtained. When Gerbens-Leenes et al. [8] examined land
use for all food eaten in the Netherlands, they found that beef
required the most land per kilogram and vegetables required the least.
The figures they obtained can be easily converted to land required for
one person's energy needs for a year by multiplying 3000 kcal (a day's
energy) by 365 days to obtain annual calorie needs (1,095,000 kcal)
and dividing this by the calories per kilogram. The figures obtained
are summarised in table 1:


Food Land per kg (m2) Calories per kilogram Land per person per
year (m2)
Beef 20.9 2800 8173
Pork 8.9 3760 2592
Eggs 3.5 1600 2395
Milk 1.2 640 2053
Fruit 0.5 400 1369
Vegetables 0.3 250 1314
Potatoes 0.2 800 274


On the basis of these figures, a vegan diet can meet calorie and
protein needs from just 300 square metres using mainly potatoes. A
more varied diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, grains and
legumes would take about 700 square metres. Replacing a third of the
calories in this diet with calories from milk and eggs would double
the land requirements and a typical European omnivorous diet would
require five times the amount of land required for a varied vegan
diet.

In looking at land use for animal products this research makes the
very favourable assumption that by-products of plant food production
used in animal agriculture do not require any land. For example,
soybean land is assigned 100% to human soy oil consumption with no
land use attributed to the oil cakes used for meat and dairy
production. This stacks the odds in favour of animal foods, so the
figures in this paper are all the more compelling as to the higher
land demands of animal farming.

GHOST ACRES

Most of the land wasted on growing feed for livestock is in developing
countries, where food is most scarce. Europe, for example, imports 70%
of its protein for animal feed, causing a European Parliament report
to state that 'Eurpoe can feed its people but not its [farm] animals.'
[9] Friends of the Earth have calculated that the UK imported 4.1
million hectares of other people's land in 1996 [10].


"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used
to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres' belie
the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of the
Centre for Food Policy. [11]
This land contributes to developing world malnutrition by driving
impoverished populations to grow cash crops for animal feed, rather
than food for themselves. Intensive monoculture crop production causes
soils to suffer nutrient depletion and thus pushes economically
vulnerable populations further away from sustainable agricultural
systems. All so that the world's wealthy can indulge their unhealthy
taste for animal flesh.

PUT OUT TO PASTURE

Although grain-dependent industrial agriculture is the fastest growing
type of animal production, not all farmed animals are raised in this
way. Much of the world's livestock is still raised on pasture.
Worldwide, livestock use roughly 3.4 billion hectares of grazing land.

Proponents of animal agriculture point out that most pastureland is
wholly unsuitable for growing grain to feed for humans. They argue
that by converting grass, and other plants that are indigestible to
humans, into energy and protein for human consumption, livestock
provide a valuable addition to our food resources. The reality is that
land currently used to graze cattle and other ruminants is almost
invariably suitable for growing trees - such a use would not only
provide a good source of land-efficient, health-giving fruit and nuts,
but would also have many environmental benefits.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite simply, we do not have enough land to feed everyone on an
animal-based diet. So while 840 million people do not have enough food
to live normal lives, we continue to waste two-thirds of agricultural
land by obtaining only a small fraction of its potential calorific
value.

Obviously access to food is an extremely complex issue and there are
no easy answers. However, the fact remains that the world's population
is increasing and viable agricultural land is diminishing. If we are
to avoid future global food scarcity we must find sustainable ways of
using our natural resource base. Industrial livestock production is
unsustainable and unjustifiable.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:35 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
>>>>>> used to feed animals, to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>>>>>>
>>>>> evidence for that statement please
>>>> 'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its
>>>> people but not its animals'.
>>> which is not evidence for the statement
>>
>> The statement is based on fact
>
>Prove it

Sure. Straight from the United Nations themselves.

The UN advises us to go veggie if we want to save the planet:
Livestock’s long shadow Environmental issues and options

Livestock’s long shadow
Environmental issues and options


By H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, C. de
Haan - 2006, 390 pp

Summary: This report aims to assess the full impact of the livestock
sector on environmental problems, along with potential technical and
policy approaches to mitigation. The assessment is based on the most
recent and complete data available, taking into account direct
impacts, along with the impacts of feed crop agriculture required for
livestock production.
The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most
significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems,
at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report
suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with
problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water
shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive
scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally
large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with
urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable
cost.

Download the full document (PDF , 5Mb), click here ...
http://tinyurl.com/y8m7a8


Read the executive summary

Table of contents

http://tinyurl.com/37x4x2
Cover, preface & table of contents - Download PDF (253 Kb)
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations and acronyms
Executive summary

http://tinyurl.com/32tzq5
Chapter 1 - Introduction - Download PDF (186 Kb)
1.1 Livestock as a major player in global environmental issues
1.2 The setting: factors shaping the livestock sector
1.3 Trends within the livestock sector

Chapter 2 - Livestock in geographic transition - Download PDF (665 Kb)
http://tinyurl.com/2sczad
2.1 Trends in livestock related land use
2.1.1 Overview: a regionally diverse pattern of change
2.1.2 Globalization drives national land-use change
2.1.3 Land degradation: a vast and costly loss
2.1.4 Livestock and land use: the “geographical transition”
2.2 Geography of demand
2.3 Geography of livestock resources
2.3.1 Pastures and fodder
2.3.2 Feedcrops and crop residues
2.3.3 Agro-industrial by-products
2.3.4 Future trends
2.4 Production systems: location economics at play
2.4.1 Historical trends and distribution patterns
2.4.2 Geographical concentration
2.4.3 Increasing reliance on transport
2.5 Hotspots of land degradation
2.5.1 Pastures and feedcrops still expanding into natural ecosystems
2.5.2 Rangeland degradation: desertification and vegetation changes
2.5.3 Contamination in peri-urban environments
2.5.4 Intensive feedcrop agriculture
2.6 Conclusions

Chapter 3 - Livestock’s role in climate change and air pollution -
Download PDF (495 Kb)
http://tinyurl.com/ytkybe
3.1 Issues and trends
3.2 Livestock in the carbon cycle
3.2.1 Carbon emissions from feed production
3.2.2 Carbon emissions from livestock rearing
3.2.3 Carbon emissions from livestock processing and refrigerated
transport
3.3 Livestock in the nitrogen cycle
3.3.1 Nitrogen emissions from feed-related fertilizer
3.3.2 Emissions from aquatic sources following chemical fertilizer use
3.3.3 Wasting of nitrogen in the livestock production chain
3.3.4 Nitrogen emissions from stored manure
3.3.5 Nitrogen emissions from applied or deposited manure
3.3.6 Emissions following manure nitrogen losses after application and
direct deposition
3.4 Summary of livestock’s impact
3.5 Mitigation options
3.5.1 Sequestering carbon and mitigating CO2 emissions
3.5.2 Reducing CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation through
improved efficiency and diets
3.5.3 Mitigating CH4 emissions through improved manure management and
biogas
3.5.4 Technical options for mitigating N2O emissions and NH3
volatilization

Chapter 4 - Livestock’s role in water depletion and pollution -
Download PDF (532 Kb) http://tinyurl.com/37hou2

4.1 Issues and trends
4.2 Water use
4.2.1 Drinking and servicing
4.2.2 Product processing
4.2.3 Feed production
4.3 Water pollution
4.3.1 Livestock waste
4.3.2 Wastes from livestock processing
4.3.3 Pollution from feed and fodder production
4.4 Livestock land-use impacts on the water cycle
4.4.1 Extensive grazing alters water flows
4.4.2 Land-use conversion
4.5 Summary of the impact of livestock on water
4.6 Mitigation options
4.6.1 Improved water-use efficiency
4.6.2 Better waste management
4.6.3 Land management

Chapter 5 - Livestock’s impact on biodiversity -
Download PDF (518 Kb) http://tinyurl.com/3ybgos
5.1 Issues and trends
5.2 Dimensions of biodiversity
5.3 Livestock’s role in biodiversity loss
5.3.1 Habitat change
5.3.2 Climate change
5.3.3 Invasive alien species
5.3.4 Overexploitation and competition
5.3.5 Pollution
5.4 Summary of livestock impacts on biodiversity
5.5 Mitigation options for conservation of biodiversity

Chapter 6 - Policy challenges and options - Download PDF (370 Kb)
http://tinyurl.com/3yqefo
6.1 Towards a conducive policy framework
6.1.1 General principles
6.1.2 Specific policy instruments
6.1.3 Policy issues in climate change
6.1.4 Policy issues in water
6.1.5 Policy issues in biodiversity
6.2 Policies options for addressing environmental pressure points
6.2.1 Controlling expansion into natural ecosystems
6.2.2 Limiting rangeland degradation
6.2.3 Reducing nutrient loading in livestock concentration areas
6.2.4 Lessening the environmental impact of intensive feedcrop
production

Chapter 7 - Summary and conclusions - Download PDF (173 Kb)
http://tinyurl.com/3d9ou4
7.1 Livestock and environment in context
7.2 What needs to be done?
7.3 The challenge ahead
References - Download PDF (206 Kb)
Annexe 1 (maps) Part1: Download PDF (874 Kb) - Part 2: Download PDF
(724 Kb)
Annexe 2 (Tables) - Download PDF (97 Kb)
Annexe 3 (Methodology of quantification and analysis) - Download PDF
(504 Kb)

Executive summary

This report aims to assess the full impact of the livestock sector on
environmental problems, along with potential technical and policy
approaches to mitigation. The assessment is based on the most recent
and complete data available, taking into account direct impacts, along
with the impacts of feedcrop agriculture required for livestock
production.
The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most
significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems,
at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report
suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with
problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water
shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.
Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive
scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally
large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with
urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable
cost.

Global importance of the sector
Although economically not a major global player, the livestock sector
is socially and politically very significant. It accounts for 40
percent of agricultural gross domestic product (GDP). It employs 1.3
billion people and creates livelihoods for one billion of the world’s
poor. Livestock products provide one-third of humanity’s protein
intake, and are a contributing cause of obesity and a potential remedy
for undernourishment.
Growing populations and incomes, along with changing food preferences,
are rapidly increasing demand for livestock products, while
globalization is boosting trade in livestock inputs and products.
Global production of meat is projected to more than double from 229
million tonnes in 1999/01 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, and that of
milk to grow from 580 to 1 043 million tonnes. The environmental
impact per unit of livestock production must be cut by half, just to
avoid increasing the level of damage beyond its present level.

Structural changes and their impact
The livestock sector is undergoing a complex process of technical and
geographical change, which is shifting the balance of environmental
problems caused by the sector.
Extensive grazing still occupies and degrades vast areas of land;
though there is an increasing trend towards intensification and
industrialization. Livestock production is shifting geographically,
first from rural areas to urban and peri-urban, to get closer to
consumers, then towards the sources of feedstuff, whether these are
feedcrop areas, or transport and trade hubs where feed is imported.
There is also a shift of species, with production of monogastric
species (pigs and poultry, mostly produced in industrial units)
growing rapidly, while the growth of ruminant production (cattle,
sheep and goats, often raised extensively) slows. Through these
shifts, the livestock sector enters into more and direct competition
for scarce land, water and other natural resources.
These changes are pushing towards improved efficiency, thus reducing
the land area required for livestock production. At the same time,
they are marginalizing smallholders and pastoralists, increasing
inputs and wastes and increasing and concentrating the pollution
created. Widely dispersed non-point sources of pollution are ceding
importance to point sources that create more local damage but are more
easily regulated.

Land degradation
The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user
of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26
percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In
addition, the total area dedicated to feedcrop production amounts to
33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts
for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land
surface of the planet.
Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation,
especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation
is occurring – 70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is
occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the
remainder. About 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands,
with 73 percent of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some
extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by
livestock action. The dry lands in particular are affected by these
trends, as livestock are often the only source of livelihoods for the
people living in these areas.
Overgrazing can be reduced by grazing fees and by removing obstacles
to mobility on common property pastures. Land degradation can be
limited and reversed through soil conservation methods,
silvopastoralism, better management of grazing systems, limits to
uncontrolled burning by pastoralists and controlled exclusion from
sensitive areas.

Atmosphere and climate
With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and
glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change
is the most serious challenge facing the human race.
The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher
share than transport.
The livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2
emissions. The largest share of this derives from land-use changes –
especially deforestation – caused by expansion of pastures and arable
land for feedcrops. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares
of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The
sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the
global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric
fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic
nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from
manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64
percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute
significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.
This high level of emissions opens up large opportunities for climate
change mitigation through livestock actions. Intensification – in
terms of increased productivity both in livestock production and in
feedcrop agriculture – can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
deforestation and pasture degradation. In addition, restoring
historical losses of soil carbon through conservation tillage, cover
crops, agroforestry and other measures could sequester up to 1.3
tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, with additional amounts
available through restoration of desertified pastures. Methane
emissions can be reduced through improved diets to reduce enteric
fermentation, improved manure management and biogas – which also
provide renewable energy. Nitrogen emissions can be reduced through
improved diets and manure management.
The Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism (CDM) can be used to
finance the spread of biogas and silvopastoral initiatives involving
afforestation and reforestation. Methodologies should be developed so
that the CDM can finance other livestock-related options such as soil
carbon sequestration through rehabilitation of degraded pastures.

Water
The world is moving towards increasing problems of freshwater
shortage, scarcity and depletion, with 64 percent of the world’s
population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.
The livestock sector is a key player in increasing water use,
accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for
the irrigation of feedcrops. It is probably the largest sectoral
source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, “dead”
zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health
problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others. The
major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and
hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used
for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are
not available but in the United States, with the world’s fourth
largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55
percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50
percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and
phosphorus into freshwater resources.
Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting
soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses,
drying up floodplains and lowering water tables. Livestock’s
contribution to deforestation also increases runoff and reduces dry
season flows.
Water use can be reduced through improving the efficiency of
irrigation systems. Livestock’s impact on erosion, sedimentation and
water regulation can be addressed by measures against land
degradation. Pollution can be tackled through better management of
animal waste in industrial production units, better diets to improve
nutrient absorption, improved manure management (including biogas) and
better use of processed manure on croplands. Industrial livestock
production should be decentralized to accessible croplands where
wastes can be recycled without overloading soils and freshwater.
Policy measures that would help in reducing water use and pollution
include full cost pricing of water (to cover supply costs, as well as
economic and environmental externalities), regulatory frameworks for
limiting inputs and scale, specifying required equipment and discharge
levels, zoning regulations and taxes to discourage large-scale
concentrations close to cities, as well as the development of secure
water rights and water markets, and participatory management of
watersheds.

Biodiversity
We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodiversity. The loss of
species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than
background rates found in the fossil record. Fifteen out of 24
important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline.
Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial
animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth’s land surface that
they now pre-empt was once habitat for wildlife. Indeed, the livestock
sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of
biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well
as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate
change, overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation
of invasions by alien species. In addition, resource conflicts with
pastoralists threaten species of wild predators and also protected
areas close to pastures. Meanwhile in developed regions, especially
Europe, pastures had become a location of diverse long-established
types of ecosystem, many of which are now threatened by pasture
abandonment.
Some 306 of the 825 terrestrial ecoregions identified by the Worldwide
Fund for Nature (WWF) – ranged across all biomes and all
biogeographical realms, reported livestock as one of the current
threats. Conservation International has identified 35 global hotspots
for biodiversity, characterized by exceptional levels of plant
endemism and serious levels of habitat loss. Of these, 23 are reported
to be affected by livestock production. An analysis of the
authoritative World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened
Species shows that most of the world’s threatened species are
suffering habitat loss where livestock are a factor.
Since many of livestock’s threats to biodiversity arise from their
impact on the main resource sectors (climate, air and water pollution,
land degradation and deforestation), major options for mitigation are
detailed in those sections. There is also scope for improving
pastoralists’ interactions with wildlife and parks and raising
wildlife species in livestock enterprises.
Reduction of the wildlife area pre-empted by livestock can be achieved
by intensification. Protection of wild areas, buffer zones,
conservation easements, tax credits and penalties can increase the
amount of land where biodiversity conservation is prioritized. Efforts
should extend more widely to integrate livestock production and
producers into landscape management.

Cross-cutting policy frameworks
Certain general policy approaches cut across all the above fields. A
general conclusion is that improving the resource use efficiency of
livestock production can reduce environmental impacts. While
regulating about scale, inputs, wastes and so on can help, a crucial
element in achieving greater efficiency is the correct pricing of
natural resources such as land, water and use of waste sinks. Most
frequently natural resources are free or underpriced, which leads to
overexploitation and pollution. Often perverse subsidies directly
encourage livestock producers to engage in environmentally damaging
activities. A top priority is to achieve prices and fees that reflect
the full economic and environmental costs, including all
externalities. One requirement for prices to influence behaviour is
that there should be secure and if possible tradable rights to water,
land, use of common land and waste sinks.
Damaging subsidies should be removed, and economic and environmental
externalities should be built into prices by selective taxing of
and/or fees for resource use, inputs and wastes. In some cases direct
incentives may be needed.
Payment for environmental services is an important framework,
especially in relation to extensive grazing systems: herders,
producers and landowners can be paid for specific environmental
services such as regulation of water flows, soil conservation,
conservation of natural landscape and wildlife habitats, or carbon
sequestration. Provision of environmental services may emerge as a
major purpose of extensive grassland-based production systems.
An important general lesson is that the livestock sector has such deep
and wide-ranging environmental impacts that it should rank as one of
the leading focuses for environmental policy: efforts here can produce
large and multiple payoffs. Indeed, as societies develop, it is likely
that environmental considerations, along with human health issues,
will become the dominant policy considerations for the sector.
Finally, there is an urgent need to develop suitable institutional and
policy frameworks, at local, national and international levels, for
the suggested changes to occur. This will require strong political
commitment, and increased knowledge and awareness of the environmental
risks of continuing “business as usual” and the environmental benefits
of actions in the livestock sector.



Next (full PDF documents)
http://tinyurl.com/y8m7a8