Wayne VanTassel wrote in response to:

>>As soon as you have more than 10% of your food from supermarcets
>>it'll be *opposite*.Because everything non-vegetarian you get there
>>simply is produced by *tenfold* the impact on nature ....

>This oft repeated factoid is a favorite argument among veggie types.
>Unfortunately, it no more holds water than Amadeus' earlier claim
>that prairies are composed of annual grasses.
Wayne, I didn't make claims about the praries.
Nevertheless anual grasses are very common in nutrition of animals.
If the prarie's grasses are different, that won't account for an
increased productivity of the grass (for more animals).

>I grew up on a farm, ....  No pesticides etc.  are used on the
>rangeland where cattle graze.
Fine, quite an organic and nature friendly way of producing meat.
When eating meat i'd try to get only game or *this* one.
But I'm afraid that the percentage of meat supplied in this way
is small to, let say NYC inhabitants.
Similar in Europe you *can* get something like angus free range
meat. Nice for the cattle. The grasses will be fertilized then.
The cost is somewhat multifold.

> Until recently, beef was wholly grass fed.  Today, they tend
>to be fattened before market, which does involve feeding grain--
>but less than veggies claim.
>Yes, the grains typically are grown with pesticides, etc.
See, even these few free range cattle fattened by "common", ugly
agriculture. You will know the percentage better, maybe you could
tell us (from you brother in law) how much grain/soy *these*
cattle get to become fat.
Then let's compute how much grain is used in comparison to the
fat and meat calories obtained.

This is *not* a critizism on your way of producing meat
(i think its the best) or on meat consumption.
Some percent of the population may demand such a way of nutrition.
I just wouldn't use *this* argument in defending meat,
i think most or the average is produced very different.
And this flaws the energy argument.

>BUT, what amadeus neglects to mention is that cattle do have to be
>grain fed.  They are because americans like fatty meat.
Have they?
Just an idea. Why not replace that animal fat with, say olive oil.
It's just fat, mere, pure energy, 9000kcal per kg fat.
Same for oil  and suet - no advantage for the suet.
Why should people be afraid to throw , say 100g of oil on the salad
if they consume equal amounts hidden in the meats?

>A paleo diet consisting of large amounts of grass fed beef (and

>other meats) would surely be less ecologically harmful than a veggie
>diet.
Agree if 100% grass fed free range unfattened cattle, living on
an area, where no (organic) agriculture is possible.
Disagree with all other areas and if "usual" grain fed meats
are included.
A cow (better sheep) can also be milked instead of killed.
But who worries about energy or ecological harms.
Not in a discussion, which diet is best for health.

>>If you want minimal nature impact for whole society,
>>IMHO the only way is to look for
>>organic producing.

>which extensively uses the by-products of animal agriculture ...

This is true in most cases, and i don't have any complaints about
this, because if these used byproducts of animal agriculture
(the animal shit) are required to come from the farmers own land
there will be enough land and less enough animals that these

by-products can be *used* instead of dumped.
If, like i know from animals beeing "grown" or fattened from buyed
land, much more animals live on a farm, then they have to live
on grains from america, soy from brasilia, fish flour or meat flour.
And the remains will over-fertilize the land and stink.
BTW i know an organic farmer *without* animal usage. It's possible
and the key is compost instead of animal shit.

peace, and no complaints about free range grass fed animals.

I saw so many posts requiring an answer, but i'm off for some days.
regards,
Amadeus


--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net