Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:56:18 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> <These vegetarians get their realms of discourse mixed up when they claim
> that we should all be vegetarian because it takes more land to produce
> meat (for human consumption) than it does to produce non-meat foods. >
>
this is especially true only in the mono cropping condition not in a
complex ecosystem that can provide plants and animals foods from the same
surface of land .
.
<I'm putting together a list of the arguments for including meat in our
> diets and I'd appreciate your ideas about the environmental costs of meat-
> eating compared with veganism. I'd be specially grateful for thoughts
> which include consideration of the full "environmental load" - the water,
> species loss, chemical wastes, energy costs etc.>
grain fed animals have a desastrous ecological foot print . the gain in
production is a very short lived one as the soil who support those animals
( in grains and overgrazed range ) get desertified in the proces ( loss in
biomass and diversity leading to erosion )
plants grown on tilled ground are contibuting in a very drastic manner to
the impoverishement of the soils in opposition of untilled pastures who can
contibute to growing soils ( via diversity and natural succession ) if not
overgrazed .
this argument will not apply to plants foods grown in untilled soils (
natural way of farming ).
jean-claude
|
|
|