"Expert" my curvacious backside!!!

[patandchickens]

Yeah but, WZ, the vast majority of meat consumed by Westerners IS IN REALITY grain-fed. And I am under the impression that there is quite-clearly insufficient grassland available to feed the world's population the amount of meat they eat NOW, let alone if they ate the amount of meat you yourself eat and promote.

Also, what does "grain" have to do with "vegan". Most of the vegans I know eat less grains than most "normal american diet" people.

The main point of that article was: soon will be whole big lotta people (much much moreso than now), and how ya gonna feed 'em and provide 'em with the other things they consider 'necessities' of life, and what will doing that (feeding and providing) do to the Earth.

Are you saying they're WRONG, that you could easily feed ten or twenty billion people YOUR WAY without problems, or that the other aspects of 'aspiring to a Western standard of living' will not have a catastrophic impact on the earth???

Not everything is merely a debate about grain vs meat... look for the OTHER issues...

Pat

 

[lwheelr]

Yeah, some vegan anti-meat activist was blathering on about how it takes 21 lbs of protein to produce 1 lb of meat from a cow (I have no idea where she got her figures or what she was basing her conclusions on), and she decried that if we are feeding our cows that much soy, it could be doing SO MUCH MORE GOOD if we fed it directly to people instead!

First off, her figures were wrong. Second off, cows don't actually thrive on soy. And third, a cow returns so much soil enhancing waste into the system that it actually increases yields of vegetable crops by more than it depletes them, IF you raise them in a polyculture environment instead of a monoculture environment. And fourth, soy isn't all that good for people either, so why the heck would they be complaining about the soy being fed to cattle instead of people?

 

[colowyo0809]

Yeah but, WZ, the vast majority of meat consumed by Westerners IS IN REALITY grain-fed. And I am under the impression that there is quite-clearly insufficient grassland available to feed the world's population the amount of meat they eat NOW, let alone if they ate the amount of meat you yourself eat and promote.

Also, what does "grain" have to do with "vegan". Most of the vegans I know eat less grains than most "normal american diet" people.

The main point of that article was: soon will be whole big lotta people (much much moreso than now), and how ya gonna feed 'em and provide 'em with the other things they consider 'necessities' of life, and what will doing that (feeding and providing) do to the Earth.

Are you saying they're WRONG, that you could easily feed ten or twenty billion people YOUR WAY without problems, or that the other aspects of 'aspiring to a Western standard of living' will not have a catastrophic impact on the earth???

Not everything is merely a debate about grain vs meat... look for the OTHER issues...

Pat

I would agree with you, to a point, but I would also like to point out several things.
1. Grain based feeding systems are not self sustaining, and will eventually collapse. The problem with this system is that you use great areas of land to produce monocrops that in turn get shipped to other vast areas of land that tightly house the animals that eat those grains, some of whom were never meant to eat said grains.
2. Either Hong Kong or Tokyo, I don't remember which and I apologize as I don't remember where I read it, actually produces 50% of all the chicken consumed by the population of that city, in that city
3. These two combined means that people are going to start paying the real cost for their meat in the stores sometime within the next ten years, or growing their own and maybe enough for a couple neighbors. And if you convert those vast areas of land that grow the monocrops back to grassland, and convert those vast areas of land that house the animals into grassland, you can actually still manage to feed a great number of people.
Also, I took out of WZ's postings that the problems with the vegetarian/vegans is that they use one study to show that eating all meat is bad, not that its the way said meat is produced. But, I could be wrong and she could be a vegan hater

 

[colowyo0809]

Yeah, some vegan anti-meat activist was blathering on about how it takes 21 lbs of protein to produce 1 lb of meat from a cow (I have no idea where she got her figures or what she was basing her conclusions on), and she decried that if we are feeding our cows that much soy, it could be doing SO MUCH MORE GOOD if we fed it directly to people instead!

First off, her figures were wrong. Second off, cows don't actually thrive on soy. And third, a cow returns so much soil enhancing waste into the system that it actually increases yields of vegetable crops by more than it depletes them, IF you raise them in a polyculture environment instead of a monoculture environment. And fourth, soy isn't all that good for people either, so why the heck would they be complaining about the soy being fed to cattle instead of people?

 

[ohiofarmgirl]

"oh give me a home where the buffalo roam....."

say. just throwin' this out there.. isnt this the place where buffalo roamed? like millions and millions of millions of them? free ranging and such? my golly if a system that nature herself came up with worked.. well. hum. not sure why we have to monkey with it.

also has anyone pointed out to the rabid you-must-be-vegan crowd that not all land is arable and sometimes grazing animals are the best way to use the space?

just wonderin cuz i couldnt grow enough veggies to feed a cat with my existing soil. but them pigz did just fine. and right now Teddi Grumpkins is chewing on some pork. she seems happy.

people = crazy

*walks off to find more ham. its what for supper*

 

[Farmfresh]

The whole world over population problem is not really viable in my opinion. And current figures seem to support the fact that world population is actually declining these days. Population International Census.

The main problem currently with more population is NOT more births it is extended longevity.

With PROPER use of our land, our resources and our technology we should be able to sustainably and indefinitely feed the world. Factory farmed ammonia laced hamburgers and government supported GMO grain farms are NOT our salvation.

Now how about a bunny burger or some nice farm raised Tilapia for lunch?

 

[colowyo0809]

"oh give me a home where the buffalo roam....."

say. just throwin' this out there.. isnt this the place where buffalo roamed? like millions and millions of millions of them? free ranging and such? my golly if a system that nature herself came up with worked.. well. hum. not sure why we have to monkey with it.

also has anyone pointed out to the rabid you-must-be-vegan crowd that not all land is arable and sometimes grazing animals are the best way to use the space?

just wonderin cuz i couldnt grow enough veggies to feed a cat with my existing soil. but them pigz did just fine. and right now Teddi Grumpkins is chewing on some pork. she seems happy.

people = crazy

*walks off to find more ham. its what for supper*

lol, and if you rotate those piggies you can use the pasture they were in to grow veggies my inlaws had a pig one year, and that was like 10 years or more ago, and there is still green grass growing in that pen even though there isn't anything outside that pen I want pigs for this very reason! We have thick heavy can't do anything but grow prairie grass clay

FF I want a bunny burger!

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

Yeah but, WZ, the vast majority of meat consumed by Westerners IS IN REALITY grain-fed. And I am under the impression that there is quite-clearly insufficient grassland available to feed the world's population the amount of meat they eat NOW, let alone if they ate the amount of meat you yourself eat and promote.

Also, what does "grain" have to do with "vegan". Most of the vegans I know eat less grains than most "normal american diet" people.

The main point of that article was: soon will be whole big lotta people (much much moreso than now), and how ya gonna feed 'em and provide 'em with the other things they consider 'necessities' of life, and what will doing that (feeding and providing) do to the Earth.

Are you saying they're WRONG, that you could easily feed ten or twenty billion people YOUR WAY without problems, or that the other aspects of 'aspiring to a Western standard of living' will not have a catastrophic impact on the earth???

Not everything is merely a debate about grain vs meat... look for the OTHER issues...

Pat

Pat, almost all the cattle are grass fed until a few weeks prior to slaughter, so in reality, its just a marketing ploy to say we cannot feed on grass.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

The whole world over population problem is not really viable in my opinion. And current figures seem to support the fact that world population is actually declining these days. Population International Census.

The main problem currently with more population is NOT more births it is extended longevity.

With PROPER use of our land, our resources and our technology we should be able to sustainably and indefinitely feed the world. Factory farmed ammonia laced hamburgers and government supported GMO grain farms are NOT our salvation.

Now how about a bunny burger or some nice farm raised Tilapia for lunch?

I agree 100%

 

[lwheelr]

Given the rate of contamination of the food supply that is currently practiced in the US, increasing longevity isn't going to be a problem much longer...