On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:47:16 -0700, Ken Stuart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>As explained in many places, such as:
>http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm
>vegetarianism uses up more environmental resources than meat eating.

Ken, I used to think so too, 20 years ago when my mother went vegetarian
and I thought of all the vegetarian specialities which would be so costly
to produce. I learned that it's different.

First of all, this is not directely a nutrition theme, at the first view.
At the second view a *lot* of nutrition problems are related to the
production process. Animal scandals like BSE, Schweinepest, mouth and
hoof, hormones and antibiotic residues...) they all come from the feeding
industry. Fedder is just too much needed and too expensive to produce the
amounts necessary at the price wanted.

So, you said
>vegetarianism uses up more environmental resources than meat eating.

and quote mercola.
Ok, Mercola.
"unfortunately the bulk of livestock are not range fed, but stall fed".
and "The open range and desert and mountainnous areas yield their fruit to
grazing animals".
This is just dreaming. Dreaming about the productivity of a desert.
To get 1 lbs of beef protein from animals kept *in a barn*, you need
about 8 lbs of plant protein. Did you ever think of how much protein grows
there in a desert? The chemical agriculture which produces all the fedder
today produces just a *100-fold*.
That means cou could have 1/100th of the animals grazing over the land.
And the meat production in Europe and in USA as well I think is near it's
limits. Already some 50% of all crops are used as fedder to produce the meat
people eat today (which would be little in the eyes of most of you).
No big cuts are possible.
But there is the next step: Open grazing animals don't grow so quickly as
barn animals. A cow can reach 14-17 years. Today they reach 2-3 years, meat
cattle in the stall even less. If the animals move around and aren't
force-fed a *lot* more fedder and waiting time is required for the same lbs
of protein. There are some experienced people here on the list. Some
reported how many acres are necessary for a range-fed cow in certain areas.
How much more would it be in a desert/mountain area.

And the next problem with Mercolas dreams:
Grazing animals need some supervision. If they are not concentrated
in a barn you need a lot of "cowboys" taking care of them.
Human labor is costly. Cowboy life is hard. Many would like to to it,
shurely. For a week until they know how it is.

My position: it's possible to produce some grazing animal meat at high cost
and high quality only for a small percentage of people.

Mercolas second topic: mixed agriculture is more productive.
This is also the view of Jared Diamond. Societies with had domesticated
animals had a big advantage over others which hadn't.
Domesticated animals draw the plow, they give milk, they produce fertilizer
from green waste (a little more quickly as compost does). Some meat.
And much more interesting like diseases (which killed enemies like 95% of
the native american of 1492).
Agreed in some parts.
Basically animal dung is quicker as plant compost -which can be done as
well. The mixed agriculture doesn't go better of you kill the animals
rapidly. For each lbs killed you first have to fed up annother working lbs.

Summary of both:
If it would be possible to produce meat more easily as is done today, by
mixed agriculture, grazing in deserts or whatever it *shurely* would be
done today. We live in a free market. Each slightest advantage of money is
immediately used. Corn is grown for cattle and not opposite.

All that domesticated animals are of course not paleo.
They are part of after-neolithic agriculture industry.
To the most horrifying extent in large parts today.

Do you have some more texts claiming that
>vegetarianism uses up more environmental resources than meat eating.
?

Last note: That's all only about environmental production cost.
It does influence the common food quality.
Every individual can choose the food in the quality one whishes.
Particularly if some personal health topics demand it.

Cheers

Amadeus

My Statement was:
>>I think *we* should be glad if not all Indian and Chinese (2,200 Million
>>people) would start to eat beef and meat as the west does.
>>If you consider the agricultural space and energy only the 250 million US
>>citicen and the 360 millio Europeans use up.
>>2,200 million beef-eaters in asia would have the potential to end in a
>>disaster.
>