TruePurple wrote:For one thing, biofuel reduces the cost of food by reducing the cost of fuel. Which is often a large component to the price of food.
True, but not fully. Fuel costs do rise the price of food for purchase, but ethanol does not offset that cost enough for a lot of reasons. In fact, in many cases, producing ethanol is not cheaper at all. (varies) source, which perhaps spells out the problem more clearly and specifically:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update69.htmIn many countries, the crops used to make biofuel take away farmland from subsistance farmers and produce oil for export. There is no trade-off in lower food costs because the people who get the money are not the people who would be buying the food. Food purchase prices have more to do with the world economy than local economy when it comes to crops like grains, rice, etc. (not 100% true, but true enough).
This gets very, very complicated. The economics are a huge matter of debate right now. However, no one supports the position you have put forward.. that ethanol will reduce the cost of food.
By-the way, my sources are NPR and Alternative Radio. I often question Alternative radio information, but NPR is trustworthy.
According to Alternative Radio, there is plain and simply not enough arable land to produce enough ethanol to meet our needs, even just in the US. This is actually born out by more conservative sources, wich is part of why the current energy policy is moving away from additional ethanol production and into other forms of energy production.
TruePurple wrote:Meat requires the same productive land that ethanol does. I would wager that meat wastes much more food then any biofuel, simply because there's vastely more meat "produced" then biofuel produced.
You make 2 logical errors here, as well as factual errors.
First, the logic errors: Whether there is more meat produce or ethanol produced is irrelevant to the basic question of efficiency. Also, even if meat did use the same amount of edible food as ethanol production, meat is not a 100% loss because, like it or not, people DO eat meat. That meat eating translates into a lower need for some other high-energy and high protein foods.
Second, you again recite "facts" that are just plain wrong.
Meat does NOT require the same productive land that ethanol does. I made that point earlier. NOR do ruminants, that is, the grazers with hoofs -- cows, goats, sheep, primarily -- eat portions of foods that we simply cannot eat. They eat leaves, grasses that can grow under food producing trees and shrubs, grasses on hillsides and rocky areas not suitable for most crops (the crops that can be produced are not enough). AND, in particular, they eat the stalks and inedible portions of grains and beans. This is precisely why humans have always been so closely tied to forage animals.
Chicken and egg production right now is pretty bad, in general (huge factory farms). However, chickens and other poultry are easy to raise in relatively small acreage. When raised sustainably, they eat insects (this is why chickens roamed free historically and still do in many areas that don't use pesticides), grasses and other "leavings" of humanity.
Now pigs, on the other hand, have a digestive system similar to our, so that they need food that we can eat. However, where pigs are common, they are fed on the scraps and leavings of humans. I still will not argue that pigs are efficient, but that is a different matter.
In each of the above cases, it is possible to compost all but the insects, BUT that does not necessarily translate into a better transfer of energy than using the manure would. In fact, the more direct the use, the more likelihood of disease transmission. That is, the diseases that impact a cow are different from those that impact corn, but corn of course has diseases that can spread to corn and other plants.
TruePurple wrote:I have heard estimates of that for every pound/kilogram of beef, 7 times more land is needed then a equal amount of plant food stuff. I am sure producing biofuel isn't anywhere near as inefficient. Biofuel isn't simply "gone" either, but allows us to power our lives. Rather then using a resource that is finite.
Its more like 4 times (quick source:
http://www.inklingmagazine.com/articles ... e-up-steak research article referenced:
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/74/6/1395.pdf?ck=nck)
Anyway, the point is that yes, IF you compare what has become standard -- feeding cattle corn and other high-end grains, etc. to people eating those grains directly, then grains and beans come out more efficient.
BUT, and this is a pretty big "but", right now, ethanol in the US is produce almost 100% from grain corn. Source:
http://zfacts.com/p/60.htmlSo, NEITHER meat nor ethanol are currently living up to their promise of sustainability. BOTH can. However, ethanol and meat will always be in competition to a large extent because the most of the byproducts that can be used for ethanol coul be used for meat production.
Your last statement, that biofeul is not "gone" is the most patently ridiculous. Ethanol produces energy, which we currently need, yes, but animals provide a fully natural fertilizer of extremely high quality, leather, meat, wool/hair, etc. Grain that goes into animals is absolutely NOT LOST!
TruePurple wrote:The climate also makes a huge difference. In colder climates, people tend more to meat because it is much harder to find enough plants to sustain oneself.
If people are "living off the land" yeah, but more likely they are living off the grocery store. Often too many people to sustain living off the land with a largely meat based diet. Those that don't eat from grocery stores are usually the poor and starving that don't eat much meat anyway (because it is so hard to get for many starving people)[/quote]
Again, you completely miss the relationship between the problem you put forward and the solutions that do exist.
The real
problem is overpopulation in some areas and poor transport of food. This has little to do with meat or lack of meat.
Grocery stores don't even exist in most of the world. In fact, they barely exist in Europe. That is, in Europe you are more likely to find fruits, vegetables, etc in various small shops and not in one big store as we are used to here in the US. This is changing and you find more and more combination "American-style" stores. Still, if you will live in a city, you need to buy your food from someone who brings it from the farm to you. It may be the farmer or marketers. This has nothing or little to do with how the food is produced or if its meat or produce. It has to do with whether people should live in cities or all move out to the country. The fact is that no land can sustain a bunch of individual growers. We need to let those who can so so effectively and efficiently farm, just as we leave other jobs to people in the cities.
Further, your reference to "starving people that don't eat much meat anyway" shows a decided lack of knowledge about the subject. The truth is that most of the world, not just those we consider poor, never mind starving, don't eat that much meat. Meat is, in much of the world, a luxury item. It is a sign of wealth, not lack of starvation.
However, this is not true in the far north. The inuit, the Laps, etc. all eat a significant amount of meat and do so in a quite sustainable manner. I will add, however, that the meat they eat is mostly not beef.
I already said that most Americans and Europeans eat far too much meat, but that is irrelevant to your basic comments on the production methods and efficiency. The answer is to return to better production, not insist everyone becomes vegetarien.
TruePurple wrote:But lack of small farmers who live their lives on the land, who really care about every acre and not just every acre they plow, but the lands around as well.
That would help. But even if the world were small farmers, meat is still very inefficient. And current meat demand would still require too much of our precious food stuff.
Again, you are confusing issues. The current world population cannot be sustained entirely by micro-farmers (what you probably think of in a small farm) or "small farmers" of the kind we saw a generation ago or so. (that is, farmers who live on their land and do produce large quantities) Nor is confining oneself, say to just what you grow either practical or even the most efficient way to do things.
Just as an example, you might think that bananas use more energy than a NY apple, but in truth, because that banana was transported largely by boat, etc, it turns out that banana may actually be the better choice for energy. Now, does that mean that we should give up apples or simply that we should look at better ways of producing and transporting the apples?
This is the same issue with meat. The problem is not eating meat. The problem is the way it is grown. However, that IS a problem for almost all crops. I mentioned soybeans earlier, but you could substitute wheat, rice, even lettuce and broccoli. ALL agriculture right now relies heavily upon artificial fertilization and pesticides/herbicides. (selective herbicides, that is)
Further, you ignore the bigger issue I mentioned before. What happens when you have generations of people who have never grown up eating meat, who's only real experience with animals is to see them on TV, in zoos or off in the distance in parks? Truth is you can probably look around you right now (I am making an assumption that you live in a town or city, but even if not, you know people who do and certainly you yourself don't seem to be involved in real agricultural production at all). What happens is that the you very quickly go from "oh neat" to "oh yuck". Animals become something you champion, but not something you understand or live with on a day to day basis.
When push comes to shove, the animals quickly take the boot. Look at a list of the endangered species. Perhaps you have illusions that they are largely hunted animals. It is true that several big game species are on the list. However, a bigger group are the birds, other animals that have been killed not by direct hunting, but through everything from chemical poisoning to loss of habitat. The PRIMARY cause of species eradication is habitat loss. Even in fisheries, which does have a high percentage of loss do to over-fishing (though I will say this has a lot to do with how we gain our knowledge of the species ...that is, what we know about are mostly the species we fish), habitat loss in the form of drained wetlands, reduced river flows, etc. all have caused significant numbers of species to become threatened. Arguably, more than just fishing.
Further, and you can take Ducks unlimited as an example, when a species people value becomes endangered, then all stops come out to bring it back.
Know who is MOST responsible for all our wildlife preserves? Its not the conservationists, its the hunters! Hunters who sometimes may just want a trophy, but who more often than not eat what they take. Its definitely NOT and efficient form of getting meat. But, that "waste" in dollars translates into money in people's pockets-- everyone from the cothing suppliers to the gas station attendant that supplies the gas for them to go on the hunt. Fisherman, likewise, are responsible for ensuring that lakes and streams across this country have been cleaned.
TruePurple wrote:Are you a farmer? If so, do you practice any no/till low till farming or organic farming?
Currently, I farm my yard. However, I grew up in agriculture, both her in the US and overseas, and I have studied it in school.
As for the "no till" and "low till" I suspect you are throwing out words you really don't fully understand. No till works in certain very dry climates and for certain types of crops. It is certainly not an efficient form of agriculture. I don't live on a steep hillside, so the contoring was done by the developer before I got here.
I compost, but the most effective fertilizer by far is manure. Sadly, my source is no longer in business, and raising any animals is against the ordinances where I live, but... I am working on it.
Anyway, my bottom line is not to convince you that you have to eat meat or any such thing. I am saying that If you will take a stand, then it behooves you to do far more than simply spout off pat phrases and partial facts that sound good. You owe it to yourself to really and truly look into the whole picture and to look beyond what those with particular agendas put forward.
When it comes to agriculture, there is absolutely a lot of room for improvement. However, it is in that improvement that I would say the focus should be, not in telling people to eliminate this or that.
Finally, regarding the "eating too much meat". You may not be aware, but if you are a low income american, then one thing you have a very hard time obtaining is produce. Fresh produce in a supermarket costs far more than tha box of mac and cheese, etc. That is even saying you HAVE a nice grocery store nearby. Many low income neighborhoods have nothing but fast food chains. Even for me, I am fortunate to live in an area with heavy rainfall. Still, sometimes I have to water for the first few days, when plants are just sprouting. And, just for that little us, my water and sewer bill increases to the point where the produce is barely cost-effective or even is simply not cost-effective. (I balance this by growing primarily the higher cost and more difficult to obtain produce -- I buy my potatoes, carrots, onions, etc.). I grow tomatoes, because while they are not efficient, there is just no comparison in taste between a store-bought one and one fresh out of the garden, never refridgerated.
)
