On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:59:00 -0600, Lynnet Bannion <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:


>Two points.  1. Soy is not "suited well for the people" anywhere.

May be, particularly for men.
Could you or someone point out good references for problems with soy,
please? (I'm collecting such peresently)

I didn't suggest to plant soy, I'd suggest to plant
1.fruit trees
2.organic nice vegetables
3.various grains

>2. And the problem is not the raising and eating of animals for food,
>it is the feedlot system.  Grazing animals on lands suited for pasture (and
>not
>suited for agriculture) produce more food for humans than any other use of
>that land.

I agree that the problem is the fedlot system.

I agree that there are some landscapes that are not suited for agriculture
but for grazing animals. Particularly so dry regions only suitable for goats
(like the island Fuerteventura).
However the amount of such land and of food producable on such land
is *very* very small compared to the millions of animals produced by the
fedlot system. If the area on which Argentinia produces soy for cattle would
be used for other crops many more people would be able to live on it.
And is Argentinia free of famine? Or is it allowed to view only one country
as a independent unit. Shouldn't we look at the world as a whole?

That's just some thoughts about populations, independent of nutrition.

Regards,

Amadeus S.