Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:00 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>> livestock.
>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>> footprint than a meat based one.
>
> Not necessarily. But that isn't really their argument about
> efficiency. They're talking about resource use, not environmental
> degradation.
>

There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can
live on land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible
by humans. You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland
in the semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. Sheep and deer, OTOH,
thrive on the food available to them there.

--
Jette Goldie

http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

"Jette" > wrote in message
...
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 4:00 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>> livestock.
>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>
>> Not necessarily. But that isn't really their argument about
>> efficiency. They're talking about resource use, not environmental
>> degradation.
>>
>
> There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can live on
> land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible by humans.
> You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland in the
> semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. Sheep and deer, OTOH, thrive on the
> food available to them there.
>

yes, and actually if you follow pre-modern 'folding' techniques where you
bring the animals down from the fell overnight to milk them, then they build
up the fertility of your crop ground around the steading, while being
sparsely stocked and not having a major effect on the ground they graze on

Jim Webster

Jette wrote:

>
> There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can
> live on land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible
> by humans. You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland
> in the semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. Sheep and deer, OTOH,
> thrive on the food available to them there.

They subsist, not thrive.

To thrive they need to come down to good pastures.
Man has taken sheep over to the eastern pastures for many centuries as he
recognised this gave a better carcase.

--

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 Mar 4, 5:39*pm, Jette > wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 4:00 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> >> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>> livestock.
> >> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
> >> footprint than a meat based one.
>
> > Not necessarily. *But that isn't really their argument about
> > efficiency. *They're talking about resource use, not environmental
> > degradation.
>
> There's also the point that some animals - goats, sheep, etc., can
> live on land where it wouldn't be possible to grow much that is edible
> by humans. *You can't grow wheat, or even soy, on high boggy moorland
> in the semi-Arctic moorlands of Scotland. *Sheep and deer, OTOH,
> thrive on the food available to them there.

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Webster

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Jim Webster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Webster

In message >, David G. Bell
> writes
>On Wednesday, in article
> >
> "Jim Webster" wrote:
>
>> ""David G. Bell"" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wednesday, in article
>> >
>> > And, yes, it may matter where the energy comes from. I can see an
>> > advantage in some inefficient process which can use a renewable energy
>> > resource. But farmers are already in the sunlight capture business. Not
>> > that the "organic" faction are likely to be happy about wheat which can
>> > fix nitrogen. Still, a wheat variety which could do that at a reduced
>> > yield could be a better bet, all round, than green manure.
>>
>> yes, nitrogen fixing wheat, perhaps with the nodules moved across from
>> legumes, would be a real bonus.
>
>Trouble is, there's a lot of things which are not genetically simple.
>Plants don't have some of the factors which can affect livestock, and
>humans, but DNA isn't the whole story.
>
>Nitrogen fixing in legumes is down to a bacteria, isn't it? You might
>have the GM both the wheat plant and the bacteria, and that's really
>going to be popular.

How about improving couch grass to give a useful yield of edible seed:-)

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

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

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

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

Buxqi > writes

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

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

So some of us have farmed in essentially organic days.

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

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

>The traditional rotations usually involve
>grazing animals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

now prove you understand what your talking about

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

Jim Webster

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intensive cultivation can also destroy earthworm populations.

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

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

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

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

evidence for that statement please

Jim Webster

On Mar 5, 2:26*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in ...
>
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil
> > > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy
> > > organic matter,
>
> > now prove you understand what your talking about
>
> > explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy
> > organic matter
>
> "Cultivation" also includes the application of agricides, in sum..
>
> ' kill[ing] much of the soil fauna and leav[ing] the soil at risk of
> erosion from wind and rain. The soil structure is damaged and,
> with continued cultivation, the sub-soil becomes very compacted
> and is unable to drain properly or allow roots to penetrate and
> obtain their nutrients. When it rains soil is washed away. Just go
> and stand in a country lane on a wet day and you will see all the
> muddy water flowing along the sides of the lane. This is our
> valuable top soil, being carried off to streams and thence to the
> sea.'

It's a very sad state of affairs!

> And let's not forget that the lion's share of grain and land is
> used to feed animals,

Sure, but let's also not forget that this is not being seriously
challenged. The issue I am interested in is whether vegan
diets are still more efficient for those whose diets are based
on food grown according to more responsible farming methods.

> to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.

I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
briefly and I could do it again, no problem.

In article >,
Jim Webster > wrote:

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

> now prove you understand what your talking about

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

> Jim Webster
I think it is fair to say that that action will pretty soon fundamentally
change the balance of the different types of bacteria and fungi there, in
terms of the loss of groundcover, increase in amount of air present,
drying out, exposure to sun at surface level etc.

Not that I think we have much choice to do things a lot different.

--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/

Robert Seago > writes
>In article >,
> Jim Webster > wrote:
>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > 'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil
>> > is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy
>> > organic matter,
>
>> now prove you understand what your talking about
>
>> explain how a plough, a metal bar dragged through the soil, can destroy
>> organic matter
>
>> Jim Webster
>I think it is fair to say that that action will pretty soon fundamentally
>change the balance of the different types of bacteria and fungi there, in
>terms of the loss of groundcover, increase in amount of air present,
>drying out, exposure to sun at surface level etc.
>
>Not that I think we have much choice to do things a lot different.
>

The explanation is quite simple and well known in agriculture for
decades. I am rather surprised the ecofreaks can't immediately state
what happens and why.

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

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

You didn't read that bullshit.