My earlier point, that the goods whose efficiency of
production is being examined must be as narrowly
defined as possible, can use some further elaboration.
The notion that the more resource-efficient good
should be produced to the exclusion of the less
efficient one is only valid if the goods are perfect,
or very close, substitutes for one another in the
evaluation of consumers.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s in Los Angeles, and
possibly elsewhere, house builders were building "Gold
Medallion All-Electric" houses. No natural gas was
supplied to these houses at all; the water heater,
house heating, clothes dryer, stove and oven all were
electric. It was considered very Jetsons, the wave of
the future; natural gas was viewed as SO Victorian.

Of course, the price of electricity climbed
dramatically, even long before the electricity "crisis"
of 2000-2001, and those houses came to be seen as white
elephants. The production of electricity clearly was
relatively inefficient compared to the production of
natural gas, as reflected in the prices of the two
utilities.

Does this mean that electricity production should have
been stopped, and natural gas production promoted?
Clearly not. While electricity and gas are fairly
close substitutes for some energy uses, they obviously
are not fully substitutable. No one has ever seen a
gas-powered television set or vacuum cleaner.

This is where people opposed to feeding grain to
livestock make a critical mistake. Consumers don't
merely buy generic "food", any component of which is a
perfect substitute for any other, but that is exactly
what the "inefficiency" argument against feeding grain
to livestock is suggesting. Instead, consumers
evaluate food items according to what nutritional and
taste requirements they meet.

Efficiency of production only realistically pertains to
goods that are, in the eyes of consumers, close
substitutes for one another. At the extreme of
substitutability, one may consider the exact *same*
good produced according to two different methods.
Thus, the consumer is completely indifferent, in terms
of his ability to use the commodity, among electricity
generated by coal-fired, gas-fired or nuclear
generating plants; electricity is electricity. In this
case, the efficiency of the means of production IS
relevant, and only the most efficient - lowest cost -
form of electricity generation should be used, where
"cost" takes into account all the private and social
costs. Broccoli, however, is a terrible substitute for
sirloin steak, as are raspberries, tomatoes, potatoes
and eggplant. The consumer RIGHTLY ignores efficiency
differences in the production of these items, and
considers each item separately, according to how much
he likes them and his willingness to pay for them.

The "inefficiency" argument against feeding grain to
livestock simply doesn't work.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
My earlier point, that the goods whose efficiency of production is being
examined must be as narrowly defined as possible, can use some further
elaboration. The notion that the more resource-efficient good should be
produced to the exclusion of the less efficient one is only valid if the
goods are perfect, or very close, substitutes for one another in the
evaluation of consumers.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s in Los Angeles, and possibly
elsewhere, house builders were building "Gold Medallion All-Electric"
houses. No natural gas was supplied to these houses at all; the water
heater, house heating, clothes dryer, stove and oven all were electric.
It was considered very Jetsons, the wave of the future; natural gas was
viewed as SO Victorian.

That was the trend everywhere, and it occurred up through the early '80s
here. Austin was one of the municipalities that bought into the South
Texas Nuclear Project (Austin is one of the last cities to run its own
electric utilities). The lure of STNP was "electricity that would be too
cheap to meter," and the reality was twenty years of delays and cost
overruns before getting *any* generation from the plant. Most Texans are
enjoying deregulated pricing. We have the highest rates in the state,
and among the highest utility costs in the country.

Of course, the price of electricity climbed dramatically, even long
before the electricity "crisis" of 2000-2001, and those houses came to
be seen as white elephants. The production of electricity clearly was
relatively inefficient compared to the production of natural gas, as
reflected in the prices of the two utilities.

Does this mean that electricity production should have been stopped, and
natural gas production promoted? Clearly not. While electricity and gas
are fairly close substitutes for some energy uses, they obviously are
not fully substitutable. No one has ever seen a gas-powered television
set or vacuum cleaner.

This is where people opposed to feeding grain to livestock make a
critical mistake. Consumers don't merely buy generic "food", any
component of which is a perfect substitute for any other, but that is
exactly what the "inefficiency" argument against feeding grain to
livestock is suggesting. Instead, consumers evaluate food items
according to what nutritional and taste requirements they meet.

Efficiency of production only realistically pertains to goods that are,
in the eyes of consumers, close substitutes for one another. At the
extreme of substitutability, one may consider the exact *same* good
produced according to two different methods. Thus, the consumer is
completely indifferent, in terms of his ability to use the commodity,
among electricity generated by coal-fired, gas-fired or nuclear
generating plants; electricity is electricity. In this case, the
efficiency of the means of production IS relevant, and only the most
efficient - lowest cost - form of electricity generation should be used,
where "cost" takes into account all the private and social costs.
Broccoli, however, is a terrible substitute for sirloin steak, as are
raspberries, tomatoes, potatoes and eggplant. The consumer RIGHTLY
ignores efficiency differences in the production of these items, and
considers each item separately, according to how much he likes them and
his willingness to pay for them.

The "inefficiency" argument against feeding grain to livestock simply
doesn't work.

Very well reasoned, Jon. I agree with you about the suitability of
substitutes, but let's entertain the activists on their own terms for a
moment.

Let's compare sirloin steak to a "fake meat" like seitan (wheat gluten).
Before one ends up with edible seitan, whole wheat has to be milled into
flour and then gluten is extracted by "washing" the starch out of dough.
Gluten makes up a small portion of wheat flour, so seitan is a very
inefficient use of wheat flour. It takes six to eight pounds of flour to
make one pound of seitan -- how much corn does it take to add a pound to
a steer on a finishing diet? The resulting protein in the seitan isn't
even complete, meaning it lacks certain essential amino acids.

The same is true with tofu. The finished product doesn't equate to a
pound-for-pound use of soybeans. Soybeans are boiled, milled, and
strained to make soy milk; the pulp, often called okara, can be consumed
in other products, but many tofu makers discard it (including to meat
producers). A coagulant is added to the soy milk. The curdle is pressed.
The water remaining from the coagulation and pressing is discarded. It's
a wasteful process. Tofu, like seitan, lacks certain essential amino
acids. The yield is similar to that of feed given to finish beef.

For the activists to be consistent when discussing "inefficiencies" of
meat production, they should dissuade "inefficient" veg-n use of wheat
(seitan) and soybeans (tofu) rather than promoting them as valid
alternatives. They should also note that grazed animals don't eat
grain-based feed. Since humans cannot easily convert grasses into
protein, these activists should promote grass-fed beef, venison, and lamb.

I also don't think it's dawned on these folks that there are plenty of
other areas in which grains are used "inefficiently" but which they
would never complain. Grains are malted to make sweeteners, which seem
to worry veg-n activists much from all the sugary recipes given at AFV
and other veg-n recipe sites. Nor do they object much to "wasting"
grains in beer or distilled spirits.

usual suspect wrote:

Grains are malted to make sweeteners, which

DON'T

seem
to worry veg-n activists much from all the sugary recipes given at AFV
and other veg-n recipe sites...

usual suspect wrote:
Jonathan Ball wrote:

[snip interesting elaboration of grain waste except for:]

Nor do they object much to "wasting"
grains in beer or distilled spirits.

That is the most noble use of grain imaginable ;-)

"THE texan PANSY" wrote in message
...
usual suspect wrote:

Grains are malted to make sweeteners, which

DON'T

seem
to worry veg-n activists much from all the sugary recipes given at AFV
and other veg-n recipe sites...

Trust you, you ****ing stupid ****, kowtowing to your god ~~jonnie~~. Are
all texans this lame?

You STUPID texan pansy.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
usual suspect wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:

[snip interesting elaboration of grain waste except for:]

Nor do they object much to "wasting" grains in beer or distilled spirits.

That is the most noble use of grain imaginable ;-)

LOL

"THE texan pansy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ball wrote:
usual suspect wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:

[snip interesting elaboration of grain waste except for:]

Nor do they object much to "wasting" grains in beer or distilled
spirits.

That is the most noble use of grain imaginable ;-)

LOL


Arhhh how sweet, just like two little love birds....

Suckhard wrote:
...
Arhhh how sweet, just like two little love birds....

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

"texan pansy boy" wrote in message
...
Suckhard wrote:
...
Arhhh how sweet, just like two little love birds....

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

Why are you cutting and posting the same quote from one post to another?

Too much to think of an original paragraph?

You ARE like two love birds. Just noting FACTS.

Suckhard wrote:

Why are you cutting and posting the same quote from one post to another?

To save time.

Too much to think of an original paragraph?

Just responding in kind. Why expend effort to respond to some nitwit who
merely says, "You're stalking, you're harassing..." over and over?

"kowtowing tex" wrote in message
...
Suckhard wrote:

Why are you cutting and posting the same quote from one post to another?

To save time.

Too much to think of an original paragraph?

Just responding in kind. Why expend effort to respond to some nitwit who
merely says, "You're stalking, you're harassing..." over and over?

I never mentioned it at all in this thread.

The topic here was your sickening kowtowing to ~~the evil Californian
dwarf~~

"Zakhar" wrote in message
...

"THE texan pansy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ball wrote:
usual suspect wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:

[snip interesting elaboration of grain waste except for:]

Nor do they object much to "wasting" grains in beer or distilled
spirits.

That is the most noble use of grain imaginable ;-)

LOL


Arhhh how sweet, just like two little love birds....

They're the best double act since Bonnie and Clyde:-)

History shows - they were both from Texas.

"Zakhar" wrote in message ...

The topic here was your sickening kowtowing to ~~the evil Californian
dwarf~~

No. The topic here is your refusal to properly engage
your opponents with anything other than puerile quips
followed by quick a dash for the door. As much as I
hate to agree with "usual suspect" and Jon, they're
both correct in saying you have nothing substantive
to offer in support of your position (whatever that may
be) at all.

unsnip
"usual suspect" wrote:
You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?
endsnip

You haven't changed one bit since;
[start Derek]
Are you going to start chasing me around this
forum calling me baldy, or something, now?
Let's face it: it's all you do anyway.

That's not true and you should know it.

It IS true, Zakhar. You and Ray run around
here like a couple of kids in a teenager's
chatroom. Your one-liners aren't even funny
or creative, yet day after day the pair of you
make right chumps out of yourselves by trying
to be cute.
[end]

"little baldy dwarf" isn't funny or imaginative, and
it certainly isn't a valid replacement for an answer
to the questions being put to you. If you can't
stand the heat in here, get out an find a nice little
chatroom somewhere.

"ipse dixit" wrote in message
...

**** off shit face.

Impotence wrote:

"ipse dixit" wrote in message
...

**** off shit face.

That's just doing it AGAIN, GregGeorge.

The topic here is your refusal to properly engage
your opponents with anything other than puerile quips
followed by quick a dash for the door. As much as I
hate to agree with "usual suspect" and Jon, they're
both correct in saying you have nothing substantive
to offer in support of your position (whatever that may
be) at all.

Saying "**** off shit face" and running for the door is
just doing it again.