Hi Axel,
>
> >In a decade or so, we should have _way_ more food than we could eat (time
> >to get some pigs ;)). If it was done even more intensively, I suspect
> >several large families could be very nourished from this set up. Animals
> >walking about and eating is not stupid or mad. It's part of the way it
> >works.
>
> sounds pretty cool!
>
>
> >Besides, if you feel the world's population is too large, why would you
> >want feed more human mouths with the grain that goes to cattle? The
> >population would jump even faster, no?
>
> i do not know, just many would not starve to death...
>
I've been reading your posts on the subject of animal husbandry with
interest over the past few days and would like to make a few
comments of my own.

- Animal husbandry in such a densely populated country as Germany
is indeed an environmental hazard. Most animals in Germany (and
in most of Europe for that matter) are reared en masse indoors and
very rarely see the light of day. Apart from this cruelty issue,
they also produce thousands of tons of faeces which is expensive
to get rid off if one has to pay the high price of sending it
through water treatment plants. Thus much of the faeces is used
to feed monocrops with a high nutrient requirement (maize,
cabbages etc.) by spraying it indiscriminately on the land. This
inevitably results in a high nitrate levels in groundwater which
are expensive to the extent of being impossible to reduce to
safe levels. Germany is still not complying with the European
Drinking Water Ordinance where nitrate levels are concerned and
there are many areas in Germany where the water authorities
recommend that the tapwater not be given to infants. The
UK does not have such a problem in this respect because (in
contrast to Germany which uses drinking water to flush the
toilet and as bathwater) they have a two tier water supply
whereby drinking water of high quality is only supplied through
the cold tap. All hot water taps and toilets etc. are supplied
with water which is sufficiently treated but not of drinking
water quality.

- The U.S.A. has more free-range cattle (they still have enough
open spaces and much barren land which is sufficient for grazing
cattle..or buffaloes..but not moist enough to grow plant crops).
They are not so much a burden on the environment as a burden on
the people who eat the meat. Meat from the U.S.A. is still
banned in Europe (except in the PXs of U.S. troops stationed
here) because the levels of growth hormones are too high. In
addition free-range cattle are more subject to injury and are
thus given liberal doses of antibiotics at every round-up.

I have been told that organic farming (animal husbandry) is
also becoming popular over there but it is certainly not
practised on anywhere near the same scale as in Austria,
for example (where government support is given) or even
Germany (where government support is still lacking but
demand is growing enormously for this type of produce).

Neverthess, it is certainly true, as you say, that meat
is an inefficient food source. But only in those cases
where the meat animal is fed grain or other crops rather
than living off of the land (as with wild game or even
free-range cattle to some extent). Germany, for example,
has much more deer than the environment can support (the
fault of the hunters and the lack of enough predators
now that bears and wolves are to all extents and purposes
extinct in Germany). Either more need to be eaten (not
by me) or more need to be shot to restore the balance.

In many countries, the introduction of much smaller
species of foreign animals has had much higher
environmental impact. Rats which get onto islands
where rats are otherwise unknown can wreak havoc with
the native species. The same goes for dogs, goats, sheep
and rabbits (as in Australia, for example).

Alan