Tom, we have discussed and mixed two basic topics
the morality of food and meat and the ecological facts.
For the first, vegans often choose to be such in the intent of
lowering the amount of suffering caused by them to other creatures.
Like some religions demand ("ahimsa") and like the common feelings may
demand. I understand this as I choose not to eat fish anymore after I saw
a couple of beautiful fresh caught fish dieing in a container.
It is clear that nobody can live *totally* without any impact on other
creatures. And it is not the least impact to use cars and roads, even if you
don't kill a deer or cat directly.
So you can point out that vegans are not innocent, of course. Still: if
your intent is to minimize the suffering caused to other creatures,
I think it's not the most promising approach to eat cows and pigs,
and lots of them. Shurely not.
Eather you accept to eat killed animal or not.
If you do - stick by it. It's your own life and decision.
Humans have done it in all ages to some extent.
On the other hand if you re-attack by claiming such things that killing the
carrot would be evil or corn fields would cause much more death by killing
all the insects... That just reveals a feeling of guilt, nothing else.
Those of you who have argued that all the millions of pigs should be *happy*
to have the nice and good opportunity to live a life on this earth.
I'm sorry - that's just ridiculous.
I hope that those won't have to life such a life in their own next life.
To the ecological facts.
You suggest that as little space as possible should be used to produce as
intensively as possible. Funny, I think almost opposite.
I think production should be as extensive as possible, on somewhat less
space. For the following reasons:
The intense production (which uses big machines, pesticides, artificial
fertilizers and big areas):
1.destroys the soil (by mineral depletion, permanent poisoning, erosion)
2.produces the least quality food
3.uses up a lot of energy (not sustainable)
4.is life-unfriendly (unpaleo, unnatural)
You wrote
>The green/vegan idea that we should double or quadruple the area of
>farmland and farm organically makes me sick. Mindless destructive
>religious fanaticism.
I've computed that even in Germany, which is one of the most densely
populated countries of the world (285 heads per sq km) only half of
the present agricultural space would be enough to feed all inhabitants
with organic farming, with plants only.
Presently the full area produces roughly 100% of the basic staples and meat,
while importing a lot of power fedder for the animals (soy) and vegetables
from warmer parts of the EU.
You wrote about harvest protection by fences:
>Which results in their deaths due to starvation and competition from
>other animals. There is no free lunch in a natural ecosystem. If an
>animal is pushed out of it's place, either it will die or another
>animal will die in it's place when they compete for the food that is left.
With agriculture, a given area produces the 1000-fold (stone age) to
10000-fold (chemical age) of edible energy and protein, compared to the
wild. This of course is a resource, where a competing animal population can
explode upon. Like mice, rats, certain birds, pests.
They are not displaced to starvation if they don't get access to the crop.
They only developed in the presence of the human production.
>> Usuall the "harvest competition" is small and easily tolerated.
>No. Completely false. Losses are often 50% or more in natural organic
>farming. They would be even higher if we made a serious attempt not to
>kill animals.
The neighbour farmer to my garden grows spelt, barley, potatoes etc.
I haven't heard of any competition from the wild.
The only competition is from competing plants, when the spelt plant is only
a few cm's high. He has to use a kind of rake between the rows, several
times in the first weeks (it's called "striegeln").
I can't see any impact from wild game, mice, birds or anything worth to
mention. The harvest is "only" 18 dt (1dt=100kg) per ha, compared to 60 dt
"chemical" wheat. But of best quality.
Even 50% loss - what is it.
>...crows.. rats...
I understand thet it's different at your place.
Probably because there's not enough natural balance against the
rats/crows. In the old days scarecrows were usual.
Blackthorn fences:
>Doesn't keep mice and rats and crows and blackbirds and sparrows and
>ants and aphids....
It seemed to work, even so good that nearly all of the mesolithic
huntergatherers at the time were "converted" and assimilated
in short time.
Medievial cats:
>By killing. Keeping a killer is morally equvalent to being a killer.
They seem not to have objected killing.
The old day crop storage seems to have required it.
> Farmers
>would not feed pure grain to pigs if not for the artificial prices of
>grains. Pigs traditionally in Europe foraged nuts and roots in the
>forests, or ate offal and gargage in the cities. Grain was never a
>major food for pigs, or chickens, until the government stepped in.
These traditionally foraging pigs of the old day farmers were probably
healthy and happy pigs. But usually one pig was slaughtered once or twice a
year. Where should the pigs for millions of inhabitants come from?
Now the food equation comes in.
A pig of 50kg needs 25MJ to live and gain 700g per day.
Or 34MJ for the same gain if has already 70kg.
One cow of 350kg eats 36MJ for the same gain
or 47 MJ for the same gain if it's 600 kg heavy.
What do you think where from the farmer gets these energy amounts for this
animals, gaining so quickly? Wherefrom?
Well simple "rare" grassland produces 4000MJ per ha and year.
An ordinary meadow 7000 MJ, intense fertilized grassland: 70000 MJ!
I looked for barley: 45000 MJ per ha, conventional (~25000 organic).
Intense grassland is far from an unfertilized meadow, and it's even a
fatter crop than a field of barley/wheat (with chemicals of course).
Do you see what farmers compute in their heads, and why the some cows
need 11 acres (1.6 ha) of grassland in some areas.
It's impossible to "produce" meat for hundreds of millions of people
without very intense crops, many many MJ per ha or acre.
For comparison of the above:
A human is ment to eat some 10 MJ per day (that's 2380 kcal) or 3650 MJ per
year. A cow eats 60000MJ per summer.
Gaining 100-200kg in this time and only a fraction of this is meat.
Here you have the 10-fold (to 20-fold) investment.
>All the best,
>most productive lands that once supported the great herds of animals
>are now being wasted to grow grain. Ecological wastelands.
All the grasslands supporting low growing big herds are now
intensified with grains to produce much more meat growth,
standing in a barn. Ecological wastelands.
Ok, at last comeing back to paleolithic eating.
All this is far from paleolithic, it's pure brutal modern agriculture.
In quality of production and in environmental consideration.
That's my point of critique on "modern implementations" of
what is supposed to be a paleo diet.
regards
Amadeus S.
|
