Gaspode.
Let me give you my summary of how this unfolded:
VeraGemini: I think (I hope) we can all agree that while it is a less efficient use of agricultural resources to feed grain to animals, which are then consumed as food, it’s a moot point, because a lot of people want to eat meat.
Dale the Bold: No we don’t all agree on that. I think farm animals are shockingly efficient. … cows can eat alfalfa and grass and even those nasty “pickers” that grow in the field. … If cattle farming was as inefficient as so many people claim, then every farmer would have switched over to plants, and had done away with the animals.
Mudd: Well, yeah, they can eat grass. In fact, that’s what they’re supposed to eat. But feedlot operators don’t feed their cattle grass. … Saying that raising beef is efficient because cows can eat grass is like saying that diesel engines have less fuel emissions because they can run on vegetable-based fuel. They don’t. … Saying that raising beef is efficient because cows can eat grass is like saying that diesel engines have less fuel emissions because they can run on vegetable-based fuel. They don’t. …That being said, Tofu isn’t the most efficient use of soybeans. <description of tofu-making> Very inefficient - but worth it, if you’d rather eat tofu than baked soybeans. … I choose to eat tofu and other soya-protein products even though it’s “inefficient,” so I’m not about to criticize someone for eating steak because they like it better than bread.
Gaspode: Larry I’m thinking you missed Dale’s point. Meat production is a very efficient way to produce food under most circumstances. Just because some people choose to use inefficient production techniques does not mean we have to agree with VeraGemini’s assertion that meat is an inefficient food source. Cattle can eat grass, they can eat alfalfa, they can eat Acacia leaves and meat production from those foods is very efficient.
At this point, I reiterated that although superficially it would be “somewhat” more “efficient” to make bread with the grain, there is a demand for meat, and we have a grain surplus, so the argument is absurd. I provided a cite from the American Council on Science and Health, which thoroughly debunks the “efficiency” argument. However, they do acknowledge, “…cattle are relatively inefficient at converting feed into meat. It takes about nine pounds of feed to produce one pound of beef.” This is where I used the regrettable word “fact.” Facts are notoriously hard to pin down. Your cite from Agriculture Canada satisfies me that the grain-to-meat yield may be as much as three times that much. If you had supplied that cite earlier, it would have pleased me as well.
**Gaspode:**I pointed out that beef does not in fact require any grain to be produced, that it can be and frequently is quite easily produced using grass.
Yes, you did. I said that this didn’t seem to apply to the situation:
**Mudd: **This seems like sophistry to me. Almost all beef produced for human consumption in North America is raised on feedlots. Economics dictate that that’s the way it’s going to stay, so it doesn’t make any sense to argue that you could recycle lawn clippings for cattle-food.
**Gaspode:**No, it’s not sophistry. It can take the body fat of a dozen executed prisoners to make 2 cakes of soap. … Inefficiency in feedlotting =/= inefficiency in beef production and soap production in Dachau =/= sopa production in Arkansas.
This is where you seem to be losing it. Gaspode, I made it clear that I am talking about North America here. (There’s more grazing land in Australia and elsewhere, I know.)
If most soap was made from slaughtered jews, than it would be perfectly reasonable to say “It takes X slaughtered jews (and dissidents, homosexuals, etc. Let’s be inclusive,) to produce Y amount of soap.” But, thank god, there’s hardly any of that going on these days. I provided you with 3 industry cites li * * which show that Beef Production in America is reliant on feedlotting. It makes for better quality meat, and more of it.[/li]
When I said:
Mudd: It’s very hard to find beef that hasn’t come through a feedlot. You certainly won’t find it in a supermarket.
Your response was:
Gaspode:
It’s nearly impossible to find domestic olives in supermarkets. Would you say producing olives requires American soil?
If have a philosophical objecton to foreign imports am I forbidden form eating olives. Am I hypocritical for eating domestic olives?
If a morally acceptable product is difficult to find, it’s is, IMHO, still morally unacceptable to consume it and it’s still a lie if I say that all types of that product are morally unsound.
What the bloody blue fuck is that supposed to mean?
Can you explain it? Can someone else decipher it? When did I say “all types of that product are morally unsound?” I’m the guy that said:
Mudd: Most people like to eat meat, so it’s worthwhile to use the energy & resources to produce it.
Remember?
You get hung up on ‘It is a fact that it takes nine pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef,’ but decontextualize the hell out of it. I continued: ‘This is the basis of the “Vegetarian Fundamentalist” argument of beef’s inefficiency. There is a value judgement implicit in that argument: That we would be “better off” if we just kept the nine pounds of grain.’
I guess I should have said “It is a fact that in North America, feedlotted cattle produce somewhat less meat by carcass-weight than the weight of grain that they consume.”
Yes, you can raise a cow on nothing but grass. When I was growing up in rural British Columbia, we had a milkcow who did alright with the stuff. The horses got oats from time to time. But if you buy meat in North America, you can bet your ass it’s grain-fed. Unless it sucks. How many times do I have to repeat this? Oh, and another thing. In case you missed it the first four times. IT’S OKAY TO EAT MEAT IF YOU WANT TO.
Oh, and since this is the pit, I just want to take the opportunity to say.
Gaspode, I’m not 100% sure about this, but there’s a good chance you might be a dickhead.
I felt compelled to reply to this, because it was addressed specifically to me, but, as I said before, I am not an argumentative, proselytizing, whiny vegetarian. You’ll remember that when I joined the original thread, it was to politely point out to satori that he was being a pratt, and that John Robbins and Howard Lyman aren’t reliable sources of information. I have absolutely no interest in debating the relative merits of a vegetarian diet. Eat what you want to. It’s not going to have global consequences. I just don’t want my ass to get too fat. You got a problem with that?
I’d just like to say it again:
Gaspode, I’m not 100% sure about this, but there’s a good chance you might be a dickhead.
G’day.
