If you think a horse is a green vehicle, you are frankly deluded.
PST: Mr. Moto: I think that was a joke.
RTFFirefly: "I think we still have yet to calculate the resources standpoint effectively (though I have no idea how to do so.) "
I tried to do this, by taking a figure derived from a lifecycle study of automobiles, reflecting both emissions and energy usage (though not non-energy raw materials).
One factor I didn’t consider were the energy costs in transporting and refining the gasoline used by the automobile: they are not trivial and may inflate the gasoline part of the calculation by 10-12%.
Helpful link: ILEA’s study of a typical car (a 1990 Ford Taurus)
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html It estimates 119 Giga Joules for manufacture, about 10% of the Lifecycle energy costs for this 22MPG vehicle.
I don’t know whether my framework has very serious problems, but I thought I would redo it, with a comparison to a new relatively fuel efficient Toyota pickup truck: 22MPG.
Over 50,000 miles, the new truck would save 852 gallons relative to Scylla’s project. That’s a lot closer to the 350-700 gallon range I estimated for automotive manufacture.
And if we accept RTF’s 965 gallon estimate for Prius manufacture, then Scylla’s project comes out ahead.
Then again, the new truck would last longer of course: 50,000 miles is a little myopic.
It produces strictly biodegradable wastes, up to and including its carcass. The only significant environmental impact is in the production of fodder, which is at least a sustainable resource (and there was a time when it was reliably grown without petroleum-based fertilizers or petroleum-driven tractors).
A city horse produced 15-30 lbs of manure per day: they created serious disposal and respiratory problems for urban residents near the turn of the 19-20th century.
Precisely. And if we debate seriously the impact to the world of cattle (which we should) we shouldn’t ignore horses, which essentially eat the same diet and produce the same waste.
Horses are a decent form of recreation, and have utility as a vehicle in certain areas where other vehicles really cannot go. That’s about it. Even in third world countries where they are still used as draft beasts, small engined carts, pedicabs, and small tractors would work better with less environmental damage.
Not to join the pile-on on your calculator abilities, but…
…how the hell big is that pickup? Or the Rabbit, for that matter–I never saw one you could fit more than one rectangular bale into and none of the round ones.
Or is the better question, “How small are those bales?”
As for the “greenness” of horses, they produce a lot of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Why thank you 
Yes, but I corrected that as I misread a above post thinking it was you, when it was another poster
Now you misread me, I did say some people, I intentionally left out accusing you as I don’t know your motivation and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, though I am suspicious of anyone making environmental claims.
Really, it depends upon the truck. If you’re completely redoing a vehicle from scratch and putting it into a “like new” condition, exactly the way it was (or as close as humanly possible) when it rolled off the assembly line, then you’re probably better off, environment-wise buying a brand new truck. This is where the long tail, really comes into play. Odds are, the painting methods available to you won’t be as environmentally friendly as those used in a modern automotive plant, there’s also the environmental cost of getting the items you need to restore the truck from the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the retailer, which will be higher than in the case where they’re shipped from the manufacturer to the assembly plant.
However, if you don’t completely redo the vehicle and/or add improvements to the vehicle which weren’t available when it was built, then you’re coming out ahead, environmentally speaking.
I’ll give just two examples which should illustrate my point sufficiently, I think. The first is that the rustproofing methods back in 1979 weren’t very good, so treating the body with modern rustproofing compounds will extend the life longer than would be expected for a vehicle built in 1979. The second is dropping in a better engine than was original. For example, if you had subbed the original gas engine with a diesel and ran that off of biodiesel, I’d say that there would be a net gain, environmentally speaking, even if that diesel engine was a 1979 model.
Having grown up in farm country, I can state that it’s fairly common to see pick ups with hay bales stacked a good 10 feet or more above the roof of the pick up, so 100 bales may not be out of the realm of possibility (I’ve never counted them, even when I was loading them).