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.

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.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? 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.

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. 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.

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.
>
> 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.)
>
> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> "inefficiency"? 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.
>
> 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. 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.
>

This is a straw man argument.

If you want something to play DVD's - you'd buy a DVD player. If you
wanted to watch TV - you'd buy a TV. Two different items with two
different functions. The choice is FUNCTIONAL.

If you want to eat - you eat food. Food has the same function; to
nourish. The choice is NOT FUNCTIONAL. (In many cases, it's an aesthetic
choice).

If there's a non-functional choice of the item being discussed (be it
food or shirts) then it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of
relative efficiency).

PinBoard wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>> "inefficiency"? 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.
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>
> This is a straw man argument.

No, it isn't. "vegans" make this bogus "inefficiency"
argument all the time. Here's an example of it in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian from just yesterday:

The truth can no longer be dodged. Livestock farming
gobbles up agricultural land, water and energy that
could far more efficiently be devoted to growing
food for people to eat directly. Meat, therefore,
is a rich person's food and those who consume it -
whether in India, Denmark or England - cause
malnourishment and death among the world's poorest
people.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...87ba15c70a9667


This vegetarian extremist site,
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/tomeat.html, is
one of dozens or even hundreds that belabor the same
*wrong* point. This claim of "inefficiency" reveals
massive ignorance of what "efficient" means.


>
> If you want something to play DVD's - you'd buy a DVD player. If you
> wanted to watch TV - you'd buy a TV. Two different items with two
> different functions. The choice is FUNCTIONAL.

If I were to argue as the people who wrongly make this
bogus "inefficiency" argument, I would say that DVD
players and television receivers both supply
undifferentiated "electronic entertainment". Your
point about different functionality applies equally
well to animal and vegetable sources of nutrition:
meat provides a different function to the consumer than
vegetables.


>
> If you want to eat - you eat food.

No, that's completely wrong. Different foods are not
the same in the personal utility calculations of
consumers. NO ONE thinks, "I just want basic calories
and protein, and I don't care what form they're in."


> Food has the same function; to
> nourish. The choice is NOT FUNCTIONAL. (In many cases, it's an aesthetic
> choice).

The choice *is* functional: the function of consuming
the thing you want.


>
> If there's a non-functional choice of the item being discussed (be it
> food or shirts) then it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of
> relative efficiency).

The functional choice is there. You just want to
ignore it for ideological reasons.

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.
>
> 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.)
>
> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> "inefficiency"? 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.
>
> 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. 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.
>



'Fraid not,Rudy. You've gone to a lot of trouble to produce
this statement but I am afraid your logic is flawed.

Try looking at it this way:-

One acre of farmland will feed one adult for
77Days
if used for beef

527 days
if used for wheat

6 years
if used for soya.

Furthermore it takes 3 to 4 years to raise beef cattle
from gestation to slaughter,whereas you can get a
soya harvest every year.
So which produce gives the highest yield per acre,
in terms of human sustenance?

Sam.

sam wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>> "inefficiency"? 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.
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>
>
>
> 'Fraid not,Rudy. You've gone to a lot of trouble to produce
> this statement but I am afraid your logic is flawed.

Nope.


>
> Try looking at it this way:-
>
> One acre of farmland will feed one adult for
> 77Days
> if used for beef
>
> 527 days
> if used for wheat
>
> 6 years
> if used for soya.

Irrelevant. If a person can't or won't eat wheat or
soya, then it simply doesn't matter.

You're continuing to make the same fatal mistake:
thinking that people want to consume undifferentiated
calories. They don't. The demand is for particular
kinds of food, and the correct measure of efficiency is
to look at a given output and determine the lowest
amount of resource inputs needed to make that output.


>
> Furthermore it takes 3 to 4 years to raise beef cattle
> from gestation to slaughter,whereas you can get a
> soya harvest every year.
> So which produce gives the highest yield per acre,
> in terms of human sustenance?

You're asking the wrong question - as usual.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> sam wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:


>>>
>>
>>

>
> You're asking the wrong question - as usual.

Whaddya mean?
I've never heard of you in my life,let alone written to you.
Sam

sam wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> sam wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>>
>> You're asking the wrong question - as usual.
>
> Whaddya mean?
> I've never heard of you in my life,let alone written to you.

Irrelevant.

The implicit question you're asking is, "How can we get
the most calories out of the least amount of land,
water, labor, etc." That's the wrong question, because
people don't want to eat undifferentiated calories;
people want specific foods.

The correct question is to take a specific food, and
ask how to get the most *OF THAT FOOD* out of a given
amount of resources; or, what amounts to the same
thing, take a given amount of that specific food and
ask how to minimize the resource inputs used to create it.

I always love pointing out to "vegans" that their
arguments can be completely queered even if we look
only at a strictly vegetarian diet. It's obvious that
not all fruits and vegetables are equally efficient to
produce, and that they don't all yield the same
nutritional output. So, for example, a serving (172g)
of cooked soybeans yields 298 calories, and 29g of
protein
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c218a.html),
while a serving (192g) of durum wheat yields 651
calories and 26g of protein
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c21Ub.html).
So, since soy and wheat yields are approximately the
same - 35-45 bushels per acre in the U.S. - then there
is *NO* excuse for growing soy, because it doesn't
supply as much nutrition per bushel as does wheat, in
terms of caloric content - and your argument assumes
people only want basic calories, rather than particular
foods.

Stop producing soy now. Efficiency demands it.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> PinBoard wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
snip OP
>>
>> This is a straw man argument.
>
> No, it isn't.

It setup a false position comparing DVD and TV's to equate meat and non
meat foods. A straw man.

>"vegans" make this bogus "inefficiency" argument all the
> time. Here's an example of it in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian from
> just yesterday:
>
> The truth can no longer be dodged. Livestock farming
> gobbles up agricultural land, water and energy that
> could far more efficiently be devoted to growing
> food for people to eat directly. Meat, therefore,
> is a rich person's food and those who consume it -
> whether in India, Denmark or England - cause
> malnourishment and death among the world's poorest
> people.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...87ba15c70a9667
>
>
>
> This vegetarian extremist site,
> http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/tomeat.html, is one of dozens or
> even hundreds that belabor the same *wrong* point. This claim of
> "inefficiency" reveals massive ignorance of what "efficient" means.
>
>

As I wrote "..it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of relative
efficiency".

>>
>> If you want something to play DVD's - you'd buy a DVD player. If you
>> wanted to watch TV - you'd buy a TV. Two different items with two
>> different functions. The choice is FUNCTIONAL.
>
> If I were to argue as the people who wrongly make this bogus
> "inefficiency" argument, I would say that DVD players and television
> receivers both supply undifferentiated "electronic entertainment". Your
> point about different functionality applies equally well to animal and
> vegetable sources of nutrition: meat provides a different function to
> the consumer than vegetables.

You must be able to see that this is a very weak argument. - No one goes
out to purchase "electronic entertainment" per se, but they do go out to
get "food".

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...e+Search&meta=

>
>
>>
>> If you want to eat - you eat food.
>
> No, that's completely wrong. Different foods are not the same in the
> personal utility calculations of consumers. NO ONE thinks, "I just want
> basic calories and protein, and I don't care what form they're in."

Ask some one like this person, to dispel that assumption:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/od...arving-boy.jpg

(Or me when I've just come back from the pub!)

>
>
>> Food has the same function; to nourish. The choice is NOT FUNCTIONAL.
>> (In many cases, it's an aesthetic choice).
>
> The choice *is* functional: the function of consuming the thing you want.

Weak semantics. - It is plain to see that food's principle purpose, and
hence function is to provide nutrition; not to "consume the thing you want".

>
>
>>
>> If there's a non-functional choice of the item being discussed (be it
>> food or shirts) then it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of
>> relative efficiency).
>
> The functional choice is there. You just want to ignore it for
> ideological reasons.

I understand the different functions, and hence choices; it is you that
are ignoring them, or more correctly, dismissing them.

PinBoard wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> PinBoard wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> snip OP
>>>
>>> This is a straw man argument.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> It setup a false position comparing DVD and TV's to equate meat and non
> meat foods. A straw man.

No. First of all, it isn't a false comparison; the
comparison is apt. Secondly, you clearly don't know
what a straw man argument is. It is when you attribute
a position to your opponent that he doesn't hold, in
order to knock it down. That's not what I did. I made
an apt comparison. "vegans" fatuously wish to pretend
that what people want is just "food", undifferentiated.
I have shown that that is *like* saying people want
"electronic entertainment media", undifferentiated.
But we know that's wrong. Radio programs and
television programs are two different entertainment
vehicles. At some level, they are substitutable, but
they are not perfectly substitutable. If you take away
an hour of TV programming from someone and give him an
hour of radio programming in its place, he won't
consider himself as well off.


>
>> "vegans" make this bogus "inefficiency" argument all the time. Here's
>> an example of it in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian from just yesterday:
>>
>> The truth can no longer be dodged. Livestock farming
>> gobbles up agricultural land, water and energy that
>> could far more efficiently be devoted to growing
>> food for people to eat directly. Meat, therefore,
>> is a rich person's food and those who consume it -
>> whether in India, Denmark or England - cause
>> malnourishment and death among the world's poorest
>> people.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...87ba15c70a9667
>>
>>
>>
>> This vegetarian extremist site,
>> http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/tomeat.html, is one of dozens or
>> even hundreds that belabor the same *wrong* point. This claim of
>> "inefficiency" reveals massive ignorance of what "efficient" means.
>>
>>
>
> As I wrote "..it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of relative
> efficiency".

Except it's not reasonable at all, because you're still
trying to say that undifferentiated food calories are
what people want to consume, and that's false.

In fact, physical output isn't even the right measure
of efficiency at all; the correct thing to look at is
value. Say I have a hectare of land, and on it I can
grow wheat that will cost me $500 to raise (including
the imputed rent of the land), and which (for a stated
yield) I can sell for $600, so I realize a 20% return
on my investment. Now let's say I could have used that
same hectare of land to raise cattle, and it will cost
me $1000 (land rental, feed, water, fencing, etc.) but
I can sell the beef for $1300, or a 30% return. It
DOES NOT MATTER if the amount of beef produce will
"only" feed 50 people, while the amount of wheat I
could have produced would feed 100 people; the fact is
that those prices tell me people value beef more highly
than wheat, and in terms of value produced, it is more
efficient to produce the beef.


>>> If you want something to play DVD's - you'd buy a DVD player. If you
>>> wanted to watch TV - you'd buy a TV. Two different items with two
>>> different functions. The choice is FUNCTIONAL.
>>
>> If I were to argue as the people who wrongly make this bogus
>> "inefficiency" argument, I would say that DVD players and television
>> receivers both supply undifferentiated "electronic entertainment".
>> Your point about different functionality applies equally well to
>> animal and vegetable sources of nutrition: meat provides a different
>> function to the consumer than vegetables.
>
> You must be able to see that this is a very weak argument. - No one goes
> out to purchase "electronic entertainment" per se, but they do go out to
> get "food".

No, that's utterly false. People do *not* wish to
consume just "food", without regard to the components
of it. They want to consume *particular* foods.

Similarly, there's a category of goods in the national
accounts called "consumer durables", which includes
refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, home
electronics and more. If a given factory could produce
twice as many washing machines as it could
refrigerators, it would be insane to suggest, "Well,
washing machines are more 'efficient' that
refrigerators, and a consumer durable is a consumer
durable, so no more refrigerators." But that's the
equivalent of what you're proposing with food.


>>> If you want to eat - you eat food.
>>
>> No, that's completely wrong. Different foods are not the same in the
>> personal utility calculations of consumers. NO ONE thinks, "I just
>> want basic calories and protein, and I don't care what form they're in."
>
> Ask some one like this person, to dispel that assumption:
>
> http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/od...arving-boy.jpg

That kid is obviously going to be less picky than
someone who is usually better fed, but even that boy is
not overall indifferent between different types of
nutritionally equivalent food.


>>> Food has the same function; to nourish. The choice is NOT FUNCTIONAL.
>>> (In many cases, it's an aesthetic choice).
>>
>> The choice *is* functional: the function of consuming the thing you
>> want.
>
> Weak semantics.

No, it isn't weak at all. What is utterly weak is your
belief that consumers are indifferent among different
types of food.


>>> If there's a non-functional choice of the item being discussed (be it
>>> food or shirts) then it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of
>>> relative efficiency).
>>
>> The functional choice is there. You just want to ignore it for
>> ideological reasons.
>
> I understand the different functions, and hence choices; it is you that
> are ignoring them, or more correctly, dismissing them.

No, that would be you. A serving of chicken has a
different function to a consumer than does a serving of
potatoes.

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.
>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.
>
> 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.

>*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.

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.

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...

There is a way to make Google Groups insert carats in your replies, maybe
you could look for it.

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


> 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.

> 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.

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, in fact the real problem is the very narrow-minded attitude
which perceives that either you think as I do or you are 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.

>
> 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.


> 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 ?

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.

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.


> > 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.

But not the same. Value to the consumer is what matters. There is no
Diet Czar in any civilized society making macro-level decisions on how
to feed a population at the least cost - nor should there be. People
demand goods and services according to their own preference functions,
and the invisible hand directs resources to the satisfaction of that
demand.


> > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > "inefficiency"?
>
> There is no misuse.

There is.

> The meaning of efficiency depends
> on context. They are not using the definition employed
> by economists. That's all

They aren't using any valid meaning at all. No one looks at overall
resource usage in that way.

> > 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.

Not the issue.


> > 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.

They're a very good approximation, not "merely" one. Raspberries cost
more than apples because they're more expensive to produce: they
require more resources.

> > 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.

Sure it does.

> 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.

That second one proves that "vegans" aren't following their own
prescription; not even close.

>
> However you have not succesfully refuted the point that
> going vegan almost always reduces one's ecological footprint

That's false.


> and that is all vegans mean when they make the efficiency
> argument.

No, that is not at all what they mean.

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

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

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

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

Jim Webster

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

>
>"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> livestock.
>
>Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>footprint than a meat based one.
>
>but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>
>You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>aspect of their lives
>
>Jim Webster

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

The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
industry and swapping over to the much more efficient and planet
friendly vegetarian diet. What car or other habits people have is
irrelevant, although veggies will also usually be very conscientious
in other areas of their lives.

Presently we are nearing global capacity for meat production. Much
more and we are in serious, serious trouble. Go veggie and we
instantly drop to around half the production levels with huge capacity
in reserve.

The maths are very simple.

Curtain Cider wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>> livestock.
>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>
>> but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>> footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>
>> You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>> aspect of their lives
>>
>> Jim Webster
>
> That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
> too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
> party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
> really struggling.
>
> The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
> industry and swapping over to the much more efficient

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


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

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


>
> Presently we are nearing global capacity for meat production.

Ballocks.


> Much more and we are in serious, serious trouble.

Big steaming load.


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

And people don't get what they want.


> The maths are very simple.

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

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

>Curtain Cider wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>> livestock.
>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>>
>>> but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>>> footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>>
>>> You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>>> aspect of their lives
>>>
>>> Jim Webster
>>
>> That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
>> too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
>> party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
>> really struggling.
>>
>> The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
>> industry and swapping over to the much more efficient
>
>Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
>know the correct meaning of the word.

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

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

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

<snip Neanderthal grunts from the village idiot>

>> Go veggie and we
>> instantly drop to around half the production levels with huge capacity
>> in reserve.
>
>And people don't get what they want.

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

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

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

In message >, Jim Webster
> writes
>
>"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> livestock.
>
>Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>footprint than a meat based one.
>
>but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>
>You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>aspect of their lives

I usually avoid mega-threads:-)

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

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

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

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Curtain Cider wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>> livestock.
>>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>>>
>>>> but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>>>> footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>>>
>>>> You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>>>> aspect of their lives
>>>>
>>>> Jim Webster
>>> That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
>>> too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
>>> party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
>>> really struggling.
>>>
>>> The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
>>> industry and swapping over to the much more efficient
>> Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
>> know the correct meaning of the word.
>
> The meaning is clear and simple,

The meaning escapes you entirely.


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

Not a fact.


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

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


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

Only an ignoramus would make a senseless comment like that.


>>> Go veggie and we
>>> instantly drop to around half the production levels with huge capacity
>>> in reserve.
>> And people don't get what they want.
>
> Getting what we want is what has placed the planet in dire straights.

You shouldn't get what you want, then.


>>> The maths are very simple.
>> Except they're based on fundamental misapprehension of
>> basic concepts. People want individual foods,
>> according to their preferences; they do not want
>> undifferentiated calories.
>
> People will get what they are given.

That's fascism. But thanks for coming out with it so
readily.

"Tim Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Jim Webster
> > writes
>>
>
> I usually avoid mega-threads:-)
>
> Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of land
> are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.
>
> There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown without
> necessary rotation.

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

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

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

Jim Webster

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

>In message >, Jim Webster
> writes
>>
>>"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
>>On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>> livestock.
>>
>>Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>footprint than a meat based one.
>>
>>but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>>footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>
>>You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>>aspect of their lives
>
>I usually avoid mega-threads:-)
>
>Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of
>land are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.
>
>There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown
>without necessary rotation.
>
>Taking the top end figures for each case does not make a strong
>argument: ranched beef may well take 4 years to finish but not on land
>that would support continuous Wheat. Soya may well produce high yields
>of usable protein but I doubt it can be grown in all parts of the US.
>Continuous cropping usually leads to reduced yields and higher chemical
>inputs.

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

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

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Curtain Cider wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>>>>
>>>>> but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>>>>> footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>>>>> aspect of their lives
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim Webster
>>>> That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
>>>> too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
>>>> party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
>>>> really struggling.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
>>>> industry and swapping over to the much more efficient
>>> Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
>>> know the correct meaning of the word.
>>
>> The meaning is clear and simple,
>
>The meaning escapes you entirely.

great argument!

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

great argument!

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

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

<snip the village idiot>

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

>
>"Tim Lamb" > wrote in message
.. .
>> In message >, Jim Webster
>> > writes
>>>
> >
>> I usually avoid mega-threads:-)
>>
>> Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of land
>> are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.
>>
>> There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown without
>> necessary rotation.
>
>There is a strong underlying lack of knowledge about the practicality. I
>know that there has been work done now with organic systems of rotation
>which will get yields up to about the same as conventional, continuous
>cereals, but only for two or three yields a decade when you have the cereal
>crop, in the other years you tend to be using livestock to build up the
>fertility.

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

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

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

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

>On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:23:38 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim Lamb" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> In message >, Jim Webster
>>> > writes
>>>>
>> >
>>> I usually avoid mega-threads:-)
>>>
>>> Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of land
>>> are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.
>>>
>>> There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown without
>>> necessary rotation.
>>
>>There is a strong underlying lack of knowledge about the practicality. I
>>know that there has been work done now with organic systems of rotation
>>which will get yields up to about the same as conventional, continuous
>>cereals, but only for two or three yields a decade when you have the cereal
>>crop, in the other years you tend to be using livestock to build up the
>>fertility.
>
>No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>
>To be honest it's quite a shock to see such deliberately misleading
>rubbish coming from a CLA employee. Perhaps we should ask the CLA if
>they would agree with you?
>
>If you are going to join in civil debate, try at least to be honest.
>

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

Boy you must be proud of yourselves!

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

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

--

regards
Jill Bowis

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

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:48:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
> > wrote:
>
>> In message >, Jim Webster
>> > writes
>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>> livestock.
>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>>
>>> but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>>> footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>>
>>> You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>>> aspect of their lives
>> I usually avoid mega-threads:-)
>>
>> Somewhere, way back up this one, is the assumption that all acres of
>> land are equal and could produce average yields of Soya, Wheat beef etc.
>>
>> There is also the assumption that cereals and legumes can be grown
>> without necessary rotation.
>>
>> Taking the top end figures for each case does not make a strong
>> argument: ranched beef may well take 4 years to finish but not on land
>> that would support continuous Wheat. Soya may well produce high yields
>> of usable protein but I doubt it can be grown in all parts of the US.
>> Continuous cropping usually leads to reduced yields and higher chemical
>> inputs.
>
> I don't think you need to tell an arable farmer

No such thing. You're an idiot.

"Jill" > wrote in message
...
> Julie wrote:
>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>
>
> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>

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

Jim Webster

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:56:36 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Curtain Cider wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>>>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>>>>>> footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>>>>>> aspect of their lives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Webster
>>>>> That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
>>>>> too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
>>>>> party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
>>>>> really struggling.
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
>>>>> industry and swapping over to the much more efficient
>>>> Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
>>>> know the correct meaning of the word.
>>> The meaning is clear and simple,
>> The meaning escapes you entirely.
>
> great argument!

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


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

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

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

>
>>> Most of us veggies care enough about sentient beings not to eat
>>> or abuse them.
>> No, you don't care about them at all. That's why you
>> commission their deaths in the course of farming fruits
>> and vegetables. All you care about is the disposition
>> of the corpses. Animals chopped to bits to produce the
>> vegetables and fruits you eat, and left to rot in
>> fields, are just fine with you. For some reason,
>> you're put off by people eating animals. But your
>> inconsistency is grotesque, and noted.
>
> That old straw dog fallacy you always resort to

No such fallacy.

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

>Julie wrote:
>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>
>
>So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?

No. We have a choice?

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

>
>"Jill" > wrote in message
...
>> Julie wrote:
>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>
>>
>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>
>
>of course, the last thing he can cope with is organic agriculture. This
>demands either livestock, or crops which will be ploughed in as green
>manure.
>Unfortunately the year in which the land grows green manure it produces to
>food for humans,

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

>while leaving it down to grass and grazing livestock does

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

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
> wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>
>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>
> No. We have a choice?

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

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
> wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>
>>
>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>
> No. We have a choice?

What would you choose to use to replenish the land?

--

regards
Jill Bowis

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

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:26:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>
>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>
>> No. We have a choice?
>
>Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But
>if "vegans" suppress animal husbandry, there won't be
>any manure.

Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
it away these days, more than enough to go round. Then we have seaweed
etc In fact we could always go back to what farming is really about.
Farming and working with nature!

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:31:48 -0000, "Jill" >
wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>
>> No. We have a choice?
>
>What would you choose to use to replenish the land?

Good question although I fear it was not a real question.

Still you can live and learn by reading the following.

The grass on the other side…

The future’s bright, the future’s green with the growing popularity of
vegan organic farming
Food scares, health concerns, pesticide problems, environmental
worries and animal welfare issues have brought farming methods into
the spotlight. Most farmers are dependent on chemicals and animal
by-products – and even those specialising in organic farming use
animal manures and slaughterhouse by-products. This presents a
difficult dilemma for vegans who refuse animal-derived food yet are
still linked to the meat industry by their seemingly innocent
groceries. However, despite popular beliefs, animals aren’t necessary
to agriculture.

The number of farmed animals in the world has quadrupled in the last
50 years, and food production no longer nurtures the land. Both
animals and soil are pushed to their limits to satisfy the West’s
demand for animal products and profits. At present modern agriculture
is far from sustainable and the meat industry directly contributes to
all the major environmental catastrophes:

Rainforests are still being chopped down at an alarming rate either
for grazing or to grow crops to feed to animals.
Crops (mostly grown for animal feed) are doused in pesticides and
fertilisers that leach into waterways and cause massive pollution.
The increased number of animals means more manure, which contributes
to acid rain and river and lake pollution – rendering drinking water
unsafe.

Soil is pushed beyond its fertility limits, is not replenished or
fallowed and becomes prone to erosion.
Oceans are being destroyed by over-fishing, which is devastating
entire marine ecosystems, while coastal fish farms are causing
extensive pollution and wildlife decline.
Growing feed for livestock requires intense use of synthetic
fertilisers and thus causes the release of nitrous oxide into the
atmosphere. Producing feed and heating buildings that house animals
uses fossil fuels, emitting CO2. And the decomposition of liquid
manure releases large amounts of methane as well as forming nitrous
oxide – all of which are contributing significantly to global warming.
Millions of consumers in the West are dying from diseases such as
heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and cancer, caused by eating animal
products, while the world’s poor are dying from diseases of poverty.
Children in the developing world starve next to fields of fodder
destined for export as animal feed, to support the rich, meat-hungry
cultures. Livestock farming is generally inefficient: an area of land
the size of five football pitches will grow enough meat to feed two
people; or maize to feed 10; or grain to feed 24; or soya to feed 61.
If everyone in the world ate the typical US meat-centred diet (where
35% of calories come from animal products), the world could support
only 2.5 billion people. On a vegetarian diet all 6 billion of us
could be fed healthily. The world can feed less than half its present
population on a meat-based diet. In order to feed the world it is
imperative that vegan organic farming becomes widespread.
But it’s not all bad news!

Recent years has seen a growth in awareness and popularity of vegan
organic farming. Vegan-organics is any system of cultivation that
avoids artificial chemicals and sprays, GMOs, livestock manures and
animal remains from slaughterhouses or fish processing etc. Fertility
is maintained by vegetable composts, green manures, crop rotation,
mulches, and any other method that is sustainable, ecologically viable
and not dependent upon animal exploitation. This ensures long-term
fertility, and wholesome food for our and future generations.
Organic growing involves treating the soil, the growing environment,
and the world environment as a resource to be husbanded for future
generations, rather than exploited in the short term. The maxim of
vegan organic growing is to feed the soil and the soil will feed the
plants.

Instead of scattering animal manures and slaughterhouse waste products
on the land the above time-honoured techniques can be used to grow
over 60 different vegetables in the UK climate. Perennial crops
including perennial vegetables like artichokes and asparagus,
perennial soft fruit like strawberries, raspberries and currants and
tree crops like apples, cherries and nuts can also be grown
successfully.

The vegan organic system finally rejects the long-standing reliance on
animal products. It offers a different quality of food that stands
apart from the industrially produced, money-led foodstuffs available
now. Even small scale ‘grow your own’ farming can help promote
awareness of self-sufficiency and give something back to nature –
whether it’s a multi-functional allotment, a small vegetable patch in
your back garden or just a window box containing a few herbs! It’s
easier than you think!


A vision for the future

“If it was up to you there’d be no animals in the fields anymore!”
Vegans often hear this ignorant argument from meat-eaters who like to
see their food as well as eat it. True, farmed animals are bred for
people to eat and as the demand for meat falls, less animals will be
bred. But instead of being the end of the countryside as we know it,
like many imagine, in fact a huge toll of suffering would be
eliminated and wildlife allowed to recover from the pressures of the
animal industry.

The vast majority of farmed animals are kept in indoor units where
they never see the light of day. Those that are outside are only kept
alive for a fraction of their natural lifespans before being
slaughtered for meat – often in the most barbaric manner imaginable.
Modern farmed animals have been bred and mutated over generations to
produce as much meat as possible, and have become a far cry from their
wild ancestors. For example birds are often so obese they can barely
walk and suffer from crippling leg disorders. Dairy cows are bred to
produce so much milk that their udders can become painfully swollen
and infected. Sheep have been genetically manipulated to give birth
earlier in the year, and as a result each year 20 per cent of new born
lambs die within days of birth from sickness, exposure, malnutrition
and disease.

If people ate crops directly we would need far less land for food
production. In the UK, birds, butterflies and wild flowers would even
start to appear. And around the world the ancestors of today’s farm
animals could begin to thrive, as they would once again have space.
For example:

Wild turkeys live in North and Central America. They roost in trees
and roam in woodlands, eating vegetation and insects. An adult bird
can fly up to 50mph.
Chickens are decended from the red jungle fowl (gallus gallus) in
Asia. Wild hens like to move around almost ceaselessly in daylight
hours. Also they lay only 20 eggs a year and need a safe, private
place for laying.
It is believed cattle originally descended from the wild auroch, of
Eurasia and North Africa, a species that did not become extinct until
the 17th century. Banteng are a shy species of wild South East Asian
cattle found in hill forests.
The European Wild Boar is the ancestor of the farmed pig. They live in
forested areas, eating a wide variety of plants and occasionally small
animals and insects. They lived wild in Britain’s woodlands until
hunted to extinction in the 17th century. They can still be found in
countries such as Germany and France.
Most wild sheep and goats live in mountains but some inhabit desert
grasslands, tropical forests or Arctic tundra. Habitat loss, hunting
and resource competition from farmed animals have resulted in most
species being classed by the IUCN (World Conservation Union) as
threatened, endangered or critical.
Going veggie is a big step, going vegan is huge, and going vegan
organic is even larger than that. Although the option of completely
cruelty free food is available to very few of us at the moment, the
ethos of animal free farming is spreading. And, due to the number of
support groups setting up, anyone who wants to try it themselves will
not be alone.

Support Viva! and help us spread the vegan word. Click here to join.

Another organisation that helps is the Vegan Organic Network: “Our
commitment is to peace and justice for people, animals and the
environment in a sustainable balance. To achieve this we must change
our lifestyles and introduce a philosophy which will continue to
maintain our unique planet. VON attempts to come to grips with
politics and ethics in everyday living.”
They provide practical advice on how to start growing your own food,
details of the issues surrounding vegan organic farming and links to
other useful groups. Have a look at their website…
www.veganorganic.net

For more information on the issues raised above see Viva!’s Planet on
a Plate and Feed the World guides. Also read The Silent Ark.


Viva! Vegetarians International Voice for Animals
8 York Court, Wilder Street, Bristol BS2 8QH, UK
T: 0117 944 1000 F: 0117 924 4646 E:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:31:48 -0000, "Jill" >
wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>
>> No. We have a choice?
>
>What would you choose to use to replenish the land?

Vegan Organics

http://www.veganorganic.net/images/sheet8.pdf

• 1 •
Vegan-Organic Information Sheet #8 (60p)

Green Manures
Growing with concern for people, animals and the environment
Organic growing involves treating the soil, the growing environment
and the world environment as a resource to be preserved for future
generations, rather than exploited in the short term. Veganorganics
means doing this without any animal products at all, which is not
difficult when you know how. All soil fertility ultimately depends on
plants and minerals - these do not have to be passed through
an animal in order to work. Fertility can be maintained by plant-based
composts,green manures, mulches, chipped branch wood, crop rotations
and any other method that is sustainable, ecologically benign and not
dependent upon animal exploitation.

The guidelines below do not attempt to be fully comprehensive. The
extent to which you adhere to any system really depends
on you, your conscience and circumstances.

We can only do our best with our available time and money. The Vegan-
Organic Network has now published comprehensive Stockfree Organic
Standards, which are available to commercial growers and can also be
used as a reference for home growers. Of course, no one person or
organisation knows everything about the subject, so constant
co-operation and updating of ideas and information is needed.
Whilst conventional cultivation relies on synthetic chemicals and
animal products, traditional organic production also generally relies
on animal wastes and byproducts.

Both involve the exploitation of living creatures, and the inefficient
use of land, water and energy resources. Vegan-organic methods
minimise these drawbacks. Many people who are not themselves vegan or
vegetarian are coming to appreciate that animal-free growing is the
most sustainable system: it is the future of organics.

Introduction
Green manures are plants that are grown specifically to benefit the
soil, replacing nutrients, improving soil structure and increasing
organic matter content. All soil fertility cannot be derived from
plantbased compost. Shortages of raw materials and the problem of
removing crops from the garden, combined with losses due to leaching
and oxidation means that there will always be a shortage of compost
available1. To maintain organic matter levels in the soil therefore
gardeners must also rely on extensive use of green manures,
particularly legumes, for nitrogen and deep-rooting green manures for
the recovery of phosphate and potash from the subsoil.

• 2 •
Fertility building with a ley

A ley is an area of your plot taken out of cropping production and
replaced with growing green manures for fertility building.
Some green manures are from the legume family and have the ability to
take up nitrogen from the air, tapping a free source of soil
fertility. Red clover and lucerne are the usual nitrogen-fixing
green manures chosen for the ley, although mixtures including these
and grasses are also widely used.
The green manure ley may grow for several years and has the benefit of
improving soil structure, as the deep roots of a green manure like
clover penetrate and break up the soil and the subsoil and the root
channels remain long after decomposition.

A grower cannot create such a complex and intricate network of
tiny air pores and drainage channels with a fork. A subsequent crop
will be able to take advantage of this improved soil structure.
A simplified rotation that you might like to try on your patch may be:
Plot 1 – Fertility building ley (lucerne or clover sown early spring)
Plot 2 – Potatoes (followed by an overwinter green manure, e.g. cereal
rye)
Plot 3 – Brassicas (undersown with phacelia)
Plot 4 – Legumes / Alliums (followed by an overwinter green manure of
vetch)
Plot 5 – Roots and salads Summer sown green manure between rows of
onion Stéphane Groleau

• 3 •
How does nitrogen fixation work?

Nitrogen-fixation is essential to the cycling of nitrogen out of the
atmosphere and into the environment occupied by living organisms.
There are a group of nitrogen-fixing bacteria called rhizobia that
have a special intimate relationship with leguminous host plants:
peas, beans,pulses, peanuts, vetches, lupins, lucerne
and clover.
The rhizobia live in a free state in the soil and exist quite happily
in this way until a legume is planted into the ground close to where
they are living. As the legume seedlings develop, their roots start
to secrete substances into the soil, which attract the rhizobia
nearby. The bacteria eventually enter the roots and stimulate
the formation of swellings, called nodules,inside which the microbes
multiply.
At the same time, the bacteria take on different shapes to such a
degree that they no longer look much like the soil rhizobia from which
they came. For this reason, in the roots they are called
‘bacteroids’ and these now have the ability to fix nitrogen from the
air.
In exchange for a share of the legume’s sugars manufactured by the
leaves and stems of the plants, the bacteroids pass on nitrogen in a
usable form to the host plants and to adjacent plants and leave a
surplus in the soil to be taken up by subsequent vegetables via
rotation.

Carbon-rich green manures for building
humus
Digging in young lush green manures will add immediate nitrogen and
stimulate activity in the soil, but will not generally boost the
organic matter levels. On the other hand, mature, dry and carbonrich
residues like cereals and straw will take longer to break down but
will boost the humus reserves, releasing nitrogen over a longer period
of time. Carbon-rich green manures will decompose faster if
they are chopped, shredded and kept moist before digging in.
Choosing a green manure Green manures increase fertility and get
life back into the soil. Like any organic crops, green manures should
not be Table 1. Different green manures Ley for longer-term fertility
building before heavy feeding crops (e.g. potatoes) in rotation
Red clover, lucerne (pure stand) Grass mixes are not recommended
prior to potatoes Catch crop for maximising nitrogen fixation Crimson
red clover, vetch
Resistance to foot traffic soil damage in crops White clover, trefoil
Paths White clover various types
Undersowing outdoor crops Red clover, lucerne, vetch, cereals
Undersowing greenhouse crops Kent wild white clover, bird’s-foot
trefoil
Overwinter green manures that are winter
killed
Phacelia, buckwheat, mustard
Late autumn sowings Cereals in general, especially rye
Summer weed suppression Phacelia, rye and buckwheat
Reducing wireworm populations Mustard
• 4 •
grown in endless monoculture, as they
have their advantages and disadvantages
for following crops in rotation.
Sowing a green manure by hand
Timing of sowing:
1. At the beginning of the sowing period
(e.g. early May) generate a stale seedbed
prior to sowing and broadcast the
seed at the higher seed rate. The stale
seedbed technique (also known as false
seedbed) exhausts the weed ‘seed bank’
at the surface. The first flush of weeds is
scratched out of the surface by a shallow
cultivation. This will give the green manure
more than a fighting chance against
Table 2. Recommended nitrogen ‘fixers’ by growers
Green
manure
Suitability
dates
Hand
sowing per
metre
squared
Notes
Lucerne April -
July
2 grams Good perennial ley up to 5 years that is
drought resistant. Needs a high pH, welldrained
soil and inoculum to establish. Can
be grown as a pure stand or with nonaggressive
grasses.
Red
clover
April - E
Sept
1 – 2 grams Good perennial ley up to 3 years that can
tolerate wetter conditions. Roots have many
branches and a taproot, high yielding in terms
of green material, rapid recovery after
mowing. Ensure eelworm-free. Can be grown
as a pure stand or with more aggressive
grasses, e.g. ryegrass.
White
clover
April - E
Sept
1 – 2 grams Shallow-rooted, low-growing clover suitable
for paths for up to 9 years. Need stronggrowing
varieties to recover from mowing.
Best established in spring.
Crimson
red
clover
July - E
Sept
1 – 2 grams Annual, best for N fixing between crops and
is usually only grown for 2 – 3 months.
Vetch April - E
Sept
8 – 15 grams Deep-rooted, quickly produces a large weight
of green material especially in early spring.
Suitable for undersowing when it is to be
incorporated the following spring. Does not
recover from constant mowing and should
only be lightly topped once to control the
first flush of weeds.
Kent W
W
Clover
April - E
Sept
1 – 2 grams Low-growing clover suitable for undersowing
greenhouse crops. Trim with shears.
Bird-sfoot
trefoil
April – E
Sept
1 - 2 grams Low-growing suitable for undersowing
greenhouse crops and tolerant of shade. Trim
with shears. Seeds can be expensive.
• 5 •
the weeds.
• Prepare a seedbed two weeks ahead
of sowing the green manure.
• Once the fast emerging weeds appear
(at about 10 days), carefully cultivate the
area on a dry day by scratching it to a
depth of 1cm using a metal rake, taking
care to disturb only the very surface layer
of the soil.
• Allow the weeds to wilt and die and
Table 3. Recommended ‘lifters’ by growers
Green
manure
Suitability
date
Hand
sowing
per metre
squared
Notes
Cocksfoot
grass and
chicory
April –
late Aug
3 grams Strong taprooted species for improving soil
structure and building humus. Nonaggressive
species that can be grown in a ley
with red clover or lucerne.
Ryegrass Sept -Nov 2 grams Aggressive quick growing grass should be
mulched back or dug in before seed heads
appear. Good for foot traffic. Often included
in ley with red clover.
Cereal rye Sept -Nov 23 grams The most winter hardy of cereals, which
will
germinate at 3ºC. Best root system of annual
cereals, can reduce N leaching by two-thirds.
Incorporate in April when the seed head can
be felt at the base of the stem.
Barley Sept -
Nov
15 - 30
grams
Less hardy than cereal rye or winter wheat.
Likes cool and dry conditions. Produces more
biomass than other cereals and seeds are
inexpensive
Oats Sept -Nov 15 - 30
grams
More sensitive than barley, but can tolerate
wider pH, good on all soil types, fibrous
roots.
Buckwheat April - E
Sept
6 grams Good for summer use and grows quickly,
incorporate before it goes to seed. Will grow
on infertile soil, frost-sensitive.
Rape Mar –
Sept
2 grams Superior at mopping up nutrients, frostsensitive,
brassica family and can carry club
root.
Mustard Mar –
Sept
2 grams Frost-sensitive but provides large quantities of
green material in 6 - 8 weeks. Brassica family
and can carry club root, can be used to
suppress wireworm populations in
appropriate rotations, dig in before flowering.
Phacelia April -
August
1 grams Fern-like leaf for weed suppression. Flowers
attractive to beneficial insects especially bees.
Incorporate after 2 months.
• 6 •
then sow the green manure seeds immediately.
• Repeat and prepare a stale seedbed for
a second time if there has been a prolonged
wet period.
2. At the height of the sowing period
(summer), e.g. June and July, broadcast
the seed at the lower seed rate.
3. At the end of the sowing period (late
summer/early autumn), e.g. August and
early September, broadcast the seed at the
higher seed rate.
With all three timings:
• Rake the seed gently into the soil.
• Pat the soil down with a roller, your
feet or the end of the rake.
Overwinter green manures
Wind and water erosion may be prevented
by using green manures, as ‘cover
crops’. Since adverse weather conditions
tend to be in winter, bare soil at this time
is bad practice. The overwinter green
manure roots hold the soil and the top
growth prevents most damage from
splashing and surface run-off.
It must be remembered that the greatest
loss of nutrients is due to leaching and not
removing crops from your vegetable patch.
Vegetable growing makes heavy demands
on the soil and there is no point in building
fertility and then allowing it to wash
away with the winter rains. Green manures
will ‘fix nutrients in carbon’ in the
aerial parts of the plants and, even if the
green manure dies over the winter, the
nutrients are stored until the soil microorganisms
break them down and are unlikely
to be leached.
• The autumn-lifted crops which are
not suitable for undersowing (see below)
can be followed by a green manure once
the soil is cleared. This will typically be
potatoes and onions.
• Depending on the month it may be
possible to sow:
• clover before early September;
• cereals from mid-September to early
November.
Legumes do not fix nitrogen during the
winter months. Therefore, non-legumes
like cereals are more suited to the role of
overwinter cover, as their early growth is
vigorous and they can establish themselves
quickly.
Undersowing green manures
When using overwinter green manures,
clovers and vetches need to be sown by
August to get good establishment. There
is a conflict of land use, as crops may be
growing at this time. One way of getting
Clover by Jenny Hall around this problem, popularised in the
• 7 •
UK by Iain Tolhurst and in the US by
Eliot Coleman2, is the technique of
undersowing. Undersowing is where the
green manure seed is sown underneath
the growing crop. It is getting the best of
both worlds - cropping and soil protection/
increasing fertility. The undersown
green manure provides places for foot
traffic and other compaction damage
when harvesting the vegetables.
Undersowing green manures will, even
in a growing crop, add some nitrogen and
organic matter to the soil. But, as Iain
Tolhurst argues, its real value comes in ensuring
that the soil is covered prior to the
winter period, when so many nutrients will
Table 5. Crops not suitable for undersowing
Potatoes Too dense foliage
Onions Cannot tolerate root competition (see 3.5.7 for strip method)
Carrots Root crops cannot tolerate competition
Parsnips Too dense foliage
Lettuce Growing period too short
Winter salads Cannot tolerate root competition
Spinach, etc. Too dense foliage
Celery Cannot tolerate root competition
Beetroot Growing period too short – cannot tolerate root competition
Radish/turnips Growing period too short – cannot tolerate root
competition
Swede Cannot tolerate root competition
Table 4. Crops suitable for undersowing (adapted from Iain Tolhurst1)
Crop Height Preferred green
manure
Dates green
manure will
germinate &
cover
Optimum
undersowi
ng date
Brassicas 20cm / 8" Red clover April - E Sept July or
later
Leeks When early
leeks are fully
grown
Cereals Sept - Nov Late Oct
Squashes &
courgettes
6 leaves Red clover April - E Sept July
Sweetcorn 25cm / 10" Red clover April - E Sept July
Runner
beans
50cm / 20" Red clover April - E Sept July
Tomatoes 50cm / 20" Kent Wild White
clover / birdsfoot
trefoil
April - E Sept July
Cucumbers 50cm / 20" KWW clover / b
trefoil
April - E Sept July
Melons 6 leaves KWW clover / b
trefoil
April - E Sept July
Aubergine 20cm / 8" KWW clover / b
trefoil
April - E Sept July
• 8 •
be lost from the soil due to leaching. Their
use is also likely to favour the following
crop. Undersowing usually takes place at
the beginning of July.
Technique for undersowing
Eliot Coleman’s3 tips for successful
undersowing include:
• a clean, weed-free seedbed providing
the motivation for regular weeding;
• weed at least three times using a hoe
before undersowing;
• the last hoeing should be the day before
undersowing;
• the crops are then undersown with the
grower holding a container in their hands and
scattering the seeds as evenly as possible.
Mowing the green manure
The good news is that green manures can
generally out-compete the weeds, as long
as they are sown evenly. It may be necessary
to rogue the odd perennial weed.
When managing clover or lucerne it is
necessary to have a regime of mowing.
The first mowing prevents the annual
weeds from going to seed. Subsequent
mowing depends on how quickly the
plants are growing. It is important to
prevent the green manure growing too
long or they may be too much material
for the mower to process and it might lie
on the ground and be difficult to cut.
Frequent mowing will ensure that the
mulched material rapidly assimilates into
the soil and provides the ideal conditions
for earthworm breeding. However, it is
a good idea to let strips of the green manure
flower to encourage natural predators
like hoverflies and lacewings.
Tomatoes undersown with trefoil at Hardwicke
Stéphane Groleau
• 9 •
The equipment needed for mowing
is either a general garden mower; a
strimmer; a scythe or a pair of shears.
Principles of mowing:
• Make sure that the ground conditions
are dry, so that the mower wheels/your
feet do not compact the soil.
• Mow several times a year, making the
last cut of the year in late September or
early October.
• Do not allow the green manure to go
to seed.
• Mow tightly - as close as possible to
the base of the green manure stems to
ensure that the annual weeds are also
killed.
• If large quantities of material are deposited
by the mower, this suggests that
the green manure was too long before
mowing. Ensure that in future you do
not let the ley grow so long and spread
the piles of material evenly with a rake
so that the clumps do not kill the green
manure underneath.
• Do not mow large areas at once. Insects
will migrate to crops when green
manure leys are cut and pests like aphids
may increase because there is so much
raw fertility. It is better to leave areas or
strips for the insects to migrate to.
Digging in a green manure
• The green manure should be chopped
and shredded at ground level several days
before digging in to allow for wilting to
take place. (As rye can be particularly
difficult to kill, the green manure can be
pulled up, laid flat on the soil surface to
wilt and then dug in.)
• A green manure can be incorporated
by inverting the soil using a ‘turfing’ technique.
• Cleanly cut the edge of the turf with
a spade.
• Under cut the green manure turf at a
depth of at least 10cm/4" until it breaks.
• Turn the turf over by hand ensuring
that no greenery is present on the surface.
• Leave for at least two weeks before
trying to create a seedbed with a rake.
• If the green manure regenerates turn
it in again.
Avoiding nitrogen lock-up
How quickly the green manure breaks
down will be affected by soil temperature,
moisture content and the carbon :
nitrogen (C:N) ratio of the green manure.
When green manures are dug into
the soil, soil organic matter is one of the
products of their decomposition. When
a carbon-rich green manure such as a
cereal is turned in, the soil micro-organisms
multiply rapidly to feed on the organic
matter, decomposing it but also
consuming a lot of nitrogen doing so.
This process leaves less available soil nitrogen
(nitrogen lock-up) for subsequent
Vetch by Jenny Hall
• 10 •
crop growth, until breakdown has completed
and the microbes begin to die and
release their nitrogen to the soil.
A general rule of thumb is to leave
the soil for at least two weeks after turning
in the green manure, before attempting
to create a seedbed for another crop.
If you were to turn something in with an
even higher C:N ratio than a green manure,
for example sawdust, this might
cause nitrogen lock-up for several years
and should be avoided.
Weeds and green manures
If you have bare ground then weeds will
generate. Therefore it is a good idea to
have a green manure growing instead.
If you are reclaiming a weed-infested
patch then it is a good idea to dig out all
the weeds with a fork. Forking, which
involves lifting, turning and breaking up
the soil to remove the weeds, is the traditional
way of clearing weed-infested
ground. By loosening the soil and breaking
it into crumbs, it is possible to remove
the tiniest bits of roots. After all
the weed roots are removed then sow a
green manure straight afterwards (especially
if digging prior to the onset of winter)
and the green manure will also have
a cleaning effect.
If you have a green manure ley (see
above) in rotation then you will automatically
be lowering your weed burden.
After a ley break the weed population is
likely to be at its lowest. However, establishing
a ley can be very vulnerable to
dock infestation, because there is the potential
for huge numbers of dock seeds
in the soil to germinate in spring and autumn.
Fortunately, dock seedlings cannot
compete well with grasses at this stage
and so having a clover and grass mix will
reduce the likelihood of early invasion.
Cabbage white butterflies and
undersowing white clover
Stan Finch4 has pioneered research into
the benefits of undersowing for reducing
competing insect problems. Many
researchers have shown that the numbers
of competing insects found on brassica
crop plants are reduced considerably
when the crop is:
• allowed to become weedy,
• intercropped with another plant species,
or
• undersown with a living mulch such
as clover.
Stan Finch carried out laboratory and
field cage tests to determine how
undersowing brassica plants with subterranean
clover (trifolium subterraneum)
affected host plant selection by eight pest
insect species of brassica crops. The pest
species tested we
• Pieris rapae – small white butterfly
Lucerne by Jenny Hall
• 11 •
• Pieris brassicae – large white butterfly
• Delia radicum – cabbage root fly
• Phaedon cochleariae – mustard beetle
• Plutella xylostella – diamond back
moth
• Evergestis forficalis – garden pebble
moth
• Mamestra brassicae – cabbage moth
• Brevicoryne brassicae – cabbage aphid
In all tests (except one in which the brassica
plants were about three times as high
as the clover background) 39-100%
fewer of the competing insects (of all
eight species) were found on the host
plants presented in clover than those presented
on bare soil. The differences were
not accounted for by an increase in natural
predators and therefore, lower
colonisation accounted for fewer pest
species.
However, undersowing with clover
only reduced the small white butterfly
oviposition (laying of eggs) by 40-60%,
which may be insufficient to reduce the
damage to acceptable levels. In these circumstances
fleecing in early spring and
netting in the height of summer need to
be considered. Ensure the netting does
not rest on the plants and also has a narrow
mesh or the cabbage white butterflies
will push their way through. The
long-term solution includes encouraging
natural predators like parasitic wasps by
planting attractant flowers.
------------------------------------------------
1 TOLHURST I (2002) reprinted in
Growing Green International. No 9 page
22.
2 COLEMAN, E (1995) New Organic
Grower. A Master’s Manual of Tools and
Techniques for the Home and Market Gardener.
Chelsea Green publishing.
3 COLEMAN E (1995) New Organic
Grower. A Master’s Manual of Tools and
Techniques for the Home and Market Gardener.
Chelsea Green Publishing.
4 TOLHURST I (2002) Undersowing
Green Manures in Vegetable Crops. In
Growing Green International no.9 page
23 reprinted with kind permission of the
Soil Association.
5 FINCH S & EDMONDS GH (1994)
Undersowing Cabbage Crops with Clover
– Effects on Pest Insects, Ground Beetles and
Crop Yields. IOBC / WPRS Bulletin
17(8) 159 - 167.
• 12 •
The Vegan-Organic Network
The Vegan Organic Network is a registered charity (registered charity
number
1080847), providing education and research in vegan-organic principles
and has an
international network of supporters. VON supporters enjoy a wide
variety of contacts
and can obtain advice on cultivation techniques. The magazine Growing
Green
International is sent to supporters twice a year. For more information
and details of
how to join, please contact:
VON, 58 High Lane, Chorlton, Manchester M21 9DZ
Email:
General enquiries and advice on growing:
Phone: 0845 223 5232
Email:
Website: www.veganorganic.net
Vegan-Organic information sheets
This is one of several sheets produced on various topics by the
Vegan-Organic Network.
These are aimed mainly at those with allotments, kitchen gardens or
other
small growing areas, although many of the techniques will also apply
to larger-scale
situations. We welcome feedback on this information sheet and any
other related
topics. The information sheets currently available a #1 Propagation
and Fertilisers;
#2 Growing Beans for Drying; #3 Growing on Clay Soils; #4
Vegan-Organic Growing
- The Basics; #5 Fungi - FAQ: #6 Gardening for Wildlife; #7 Growers'
Guide to
Beetles; #8 Green Manures; #9 Chipped Branch-Wood; #10 Composting.
These are available on request. Please send £5.00 per set, or 60p each
(£6 and
75p respectively if outside the UK). The sheets are also available
free on our website.
Issued March 2005. This advice is given as guidance only, with no
responsibility for
any results, due to the nature of the processes involved!

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:26:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>
>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>> No. We have a choice?
>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But
>> if "vegans" suppress animal husbandry, there won't be
>> any manure.
>
> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance.

There wouldn't be any horses if "vegans" were to
succeed in imposing their benighted regime on the rest
of us.


> In fact the world cannot give
> it away these days, more than enough to go round. Then we have seaweed
> etc

Requires more energy to harvest, transport and convert
into fertilizer than is put back into the soil.


> In fact we could always go back to what farming is really about.
> Farming and working with nature!

Farming is about farming - nice little tautology.

Farming is about people producing food to feed
themselves - the foods they want to eat, not the foods
some repressive self-styled "visionaries" think they
"ought" to be eating.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:02:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:26:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>>
>>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>> No. We have a choice?
>>> Organic farming virtually requires animal manure. But
>>> if "vegans" suppress animal husbandry, there won't be
>>> any manure.
>>
>> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance.
>
>There wouldn't be any horses if "vegans" were to
>succeed in imposing their benighted regime on the rest
>of us.

There will always be horses and other livestock. They just wont have
to endure the suffering to feed fat faces like yours.

>> In fact the world cannot give
>> it away these days, more than enough to go round. Then we have seaweed
>> etc
>
>Requires more energy to harvest, transport and convert
>into fertilizer than is put back into the soil.

That's life Jonny. How do you think it gets to the fields anyway? You
think Duck Turpin strolls up on his ass and gets it to dump in a wheat
field!!

>> In fact we could always go back to what farming is really about.
>> Farming and working with nature!
>
>Farming is about farming - nice little tautology.
>
>Farming is about people producing food to feed
>themselves - the foods they want to eat, not the foods
>some repressive self-styled "visionaries" think they
>"ought" to be eating.

Farming is about a sustainable future for us and the planet. Stop
twisting it to suit you weird anti began agenda. I'm sure you'll still
be able to live on dunuts if you don't want to look after yourself in
the future.

"Jill" > wrote in message
...
> Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>
>>>

>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>
>> No. We have a choice?
>
> What would you choose to use to replenish the land?
>
the sensible recycling option would be to use the sewage sludge from the
people eating the food to replace the nutrients taken from the land

Jim Webster

Julie wrote:
>
> Horse shit!!! is around in abundance. In fact the world cannot give
> it away these days, more than enough to go round.

With plenty of wormers and other substances in which would kill the insect
life in the soil.
Clever one
There are also not enough equines in the right places so you would be
increasing your carbon footprint drastically moving this high bulk low
quality item around the country.

Then we have seaweed

So you are advocating stripping and decimating our marine environment to
produce food for too many people, let alone the colossal transportation
problems and its effect on any carbon footprint.

> etc In fact we could always go back to what farming is really about.
> Farming and working with nature!

Ahhh that is your method of population control :-- starvation and disease. I
know there had to be some logic somewhere.


--

regards
Jill Bowis

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

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:31:48 -0000, "Jill" >
> wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:02:13 -0000, "Jill"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> No Jim that's a blatant lie. When was the last time anyone saw
>>>>> livestock grazing on a well managed arable farm?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you agree with all artificial inputs to replenish the land?
>>>
>>> No. We have a choice?
>>
>> What would you choose to use to replenish the land?
>
> Good question although I fear it was not a real question.

Oh yes it was, it was deadly serious.

<snippage of the unsustainable waffle which addresses nothing that exists in
real life, not one solution for 21st Century United Kingdom as it exists
now>

--

regards
Jill Bowis

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

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]

--

regards
Jill Bowis

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