feeding the world

[knabe]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hamburgers-will-not-feed-the-world

Animal products, which require more calories to produce than they end up creating, also need more land and represent one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

if we move into a vegan diet, there would be millions of acres that would be idle," he added.

if we moved to soylent green, there would be millions of more acres that would be idle.

hmm.  the definition of progress is acres that are idle.  great.  there are lots more effective ways of creating idle acres than switching to a vegan diet.

 

[RyanChandler]

Why such opposition to choice?

 

[Tyler]

This is my favorite quote from the article...

"A limitation of this study is that it treats plant and animal proteins equally, even though their proteins differ in bio-availability and amino acid content," notes the study.

The essential amino acids that our body does not produce on its own are mostly found in animal proteins.

I agree we should have choices,  I choose to feed my calves $6 corn and enjoy a steak and anybody else can choose to buy that $6 corn and make corn flakes. 

 

[BTDT]

As mentioned, amino acids and proteins from plant sources differ greatly in absorption in the human body.  Similar to saying a dog food has "fiber" in it and that fiber is actually sawdust. True, it is in there, but it does the dog no good. (Same with iron in some cereals.... use a magnet on the cereal, then if your game, use it on your fecal material.... both will be magnetic proving just because the iron was in the cereal doesn't mean it is absorbed by the body!)

I am all for choice. Leaves more steak and bacon for me! 

knabe, instead of trying to feed the countries that can not feed themselves, maybe we need to send them birth control.  We should be less worried about feeding the world, and more worried about controlling population.

 

[knabe]

Why such opposition to choice?

i am totally for choice.  the article is clearly against it.

 

[knabe]

knabe, instead of trying to feed the countries that can not feed themselves, maybe we need to send them birth control.  We should be less worried about feeding the world, and more worried about controlling population.

;D

 

[ploughshare]

Cattle are carbon neutral, am I wrong?  Methods to get burgers to market certainly are not, and neither is ethanol, vegan foods, etc.  Cattle will create protein from lands too poor for vegan protein sources.

 

[RyanChandler]

Why such opposition to choice?

  the article is clearly against it.

I disagree.  The article calls for "small shifts in crop allocation" and even points out that an "overhaul" isn't realistic or feasible. 

In your excerpts, you also depict this author as suggesting idle land in a positive light.  Again, this is out of context, and IMO, the author presents this as an unfavorable consequence. 

 

[mark tenenbaum]

In those countries where either they have no natural resources to trade for foodstuffs-or are in a state of anarchy like alot of the African and Middle Eastern "cultures" it is coming down to natural selection= those who have the money will eat,and those who dont starve. Agriculture in different countries will follow thier markets;unless the industries are run by thier respective govts.JMO-the largest and most pressing issue is not land usage yatta yatta-ITS WATER O0

 

[Gargan]

In those countries where either they have no natural resources to trade for foodstuffs-or are in a state of anarchy like alot of the African and Middle Eastern "cultures" it is coming down to natural selection= those who have the money will eat,and those who dont starve. Agriculture in different countries will follow thier markets;unless the industries are run by thier respective govts.JMO-the largest and most pressing issue is not land usage yatta yatta-ITS WATER O0

An elder man told me when I was a teenager that I may see the day that you could trade a gallon of water for a gallon of gasoline.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

In those countries where either they have no natural resources to trade for foodstuffs-or are in a state of anarchy like alot of the African and Middle Eastern "cultures" it is coming down to natural selection= those who have the money will eat,and those who dont starve. Agriculture in different countries will follow thier markets;unless the industries are run by thier respective govts.JMO-the largest and most pressing issue is not land usage yatta yatta-ITS WATER O0

An elder man told me when I was a teenager that I may see the day that you could trade a gallon of water for a gallon of gasoline. (clapping) Yup-sounds like a West Va economist to me-When I was younger the word was "No crude-no food"-but now them RUGBEETERS are gettin scairt for another reason-WE are going to be independent of thier oil very soon: and then the fun REALLY begins. Because I dont think the rag head terrorists are going to be able to feed anyone-living in the stone age out in the desert. (lol)

 

[RyanChandler]

When it comes to that point, Mark- rest assured - the staunch upper middle class (the irony I know) won't be eating beef. 

 

[knabe]

we don't have to wait, they already don't.  they are called liberals.

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

When it comes to that point, Mark- rest assured - the staunch upper middle class (the irony I know) won't be eating beef.

So who will be eating it then? I damn sure will be and I'm a poor ol white guy in Ohio. I'm the equivalent to a fleck of flea poop to the govt. where will the beef go? Just the rich and the welfare hounds? Or mostly exported?

This is a great discussion. Both sides have been brought up. And I have laughed. "you buy 6 dollar corn and make cornflakes. "  <beer> <beer>

Middle eastern "cultures" O0

Glenstory made excellent points I shall remember while debating the tree huggers on Facebook.

 

[chambero]

These types of studies are evaluating things from a pure efficiency standpoint and they are correct.  Its why civilization as we know it took off when sedentary agriculture took off.

But in ancient times the rich were willing to pay for the import of spices, cloth, etc from the far edges of the earth.  The british empire developed because they wanted more than what they had on their island.  Humans will never do whats best for the common good and whats most efficient.  We are genetically programmed to want more and better "stuff" whether its meat, guns, or whatever.

I suspect there is a greater likelihood of people disappearing before cows/pigs/chickens do.

 

[RyanChandler]

When it comes to that point, Mark- rest assured - the staunch upper middle class (the irony I know) won't be eating beef.

So who will be eating it then? I damn sure will be and I'm a poor ol white guy in Ohio. I'm the equivalent to a fleck of flea poop to the govt. where will the beef go? Just the rich and the welfare hounds? Or mostly exported?

This is a great discussion. Both sides have been brought up. And I have laughed. "you buy 6 dollar corn and make cornflakes. "  <beer> <beer>

Middle eastern "cultures" O0

Glenstory made excellent points I shall remember while debating the tree huggers on Facebook.

When land becomes the scarcest resource, the price of beef with be out of reach to us commoners.  From a global wealth perspective, the American upper middle class has relatively little buying power.  Farm land is being developed at an unprecedented rate and the population will only continue to increase exponentially.  The apartments I'm building right now in Plano, TX are sitting on 19.5 acres of what used to be a wheat field.  Take a guess at what farmer John took home for those 19.5 acres?  To the tune of 30 mil.  So now, acreage that used to provide a food source for perhaps hundreds-maybe thousands, now only lined the pocket of one individual.  Capitalism, baby.  And because most 'farmers' are extremely risk adverse, it could be decades before these funds are injected back into the economy.  This outcome further increases the variance between those that 'eat steak' and those that don't- or can't, really.  * Refer to the price of beef in Japan for instance.  Or the price of any meat for that matter. 

These types of studies are evaluating things from a pure efficiency standpoint and they are correct.  Its why civilization as we know it took off when sedentary agriculture took off.

But in ancient times the rich were willing to pay for the import of spices, cloth, etc from the far edges of the earth.  The British empire developed because they wanted more than what they had on their island.  Humans will never do whats best for the common good and whats most efficient.  

Of course not, the Machine has ingrained in us that utilitarian-like mindsets are communistic and anti American in nature and anyone caught suggesting such should be guilty of treason.