Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: "rick" <stop@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:40:56 GMT
"Dave" <prplbn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134100119.355799.253390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Doug Jones wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2005 17:27:33 -0800, "Dave" <prplbn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >> >I'm sorry I meant to state my source.
>> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/The_Global_Benefits_of_Eating_Less_Meat.pdf
>> >> >page 23. They reference the data as:
>> >> >source: USDA: FAO/WHO/Unicef Protein advisory group.
>> >>
>> >> Considering that the US national average yield for soybeans
>> >> is 42.5
>> >> bushels per acre, or approximately 100 bushels per hectare,
>> >> corn
>> >> yields are 160.4 bushels per acre (400 bushels per
>> >> hectare), one has
>> >> to wonder how they managed to come up with less than a
>> >> pound of
>> >> protein (454 g) per hectare for these.
>> >
>> >I have checked my original data and it turns out they
>> >didn't - I'm
>> >afraid I
>> >was guilty of extreme sloppiness. They gave their numbers in
>> >units of
>> >pound per acre, not grams per hectare. Using your figures for
>> >corn we
>> >have 160.4 bushels of corn per acre = 160.4*56lb
>> >(http://www.scda.state.sc.us/pro&services/consumerservices/measuretrivia.htm)
>> >
>> >1 acre yields an average of 8 982.4 lb corn per acre.
>> >Using the nutritional data found at
>> >http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrientprofile&dbid=65
>> >lbs corn protein per acre = 8982.4 *5.44/164 = 298. The
>> >Protein
>> >advisory
>> >group's figure is 211.
>> >>
>> >> Source:
>> >> news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2005/050331.Hurt.planting.html
>> >>
>> >> You might also consider that the weight of grazing (not
>> >> feedlot)
>> >> cattle per acre can be over 300 pounds per acre. Source;
>> >> http://animalscience.tamu.edu/ansc/publications/beefpubs/ASW104-brownmidrib.pdf
>> >>
>> >> In short, your source document has questionable assertions
>> >> to begin
>> >> with. Simple mathematics don't even begin to match up,
>> >> using real
>> >> USDA and other figures.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Then there is the little problem with the massive leap
>> >> >> to a conclusion
>> >> >> from a small subset of data (organic farming in
>> >> >> Switzerland) to all
>> >> >> agriculture.
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you have a more reliable estimate?
>> >>
>> >> Point being, you've pretty much shown your estimates aren't
>> >> reliable
>> >> to begin with.
>> >
>> >It isn't my estimate. It's an estimate based upon a 21 year
>> >study
>> >measuring results on actual farms for which I have provided a
>> >link.
>> >
>> <sigh> No, your "obvious conclusion" (quote) is that this
>> study is
>> applicable worldwide. What it did was to compare organic
>> farms (a
>> subset) with matching non-organic farms (another subset) to
>> each
>> other in one country. You have a controlled set of variables.
>> You
>> jumped to the conclusion that this applies to *all* farming
>> around the
>> world.
>
> It is the basis for an estimate (not a conclusion) of the
> relative land
> efficiency of organic agriculture. As such it provides good
> evidence
> in support of the claim that organic farming can provide
> sufficient
> food to feed the world if we adapt our eating patterns.
=========================
There's another typical vegan delusion. There already IS enough
food produced to feed the world, and still have extra.
>>
>> You also are applying the idea of "feedlots", and crops grown
>> specifically for animal consumption to the entire world.
>> First off,
>> for the most part crops grown to feed animals are "excess",
>> and
>> principally an American/European phenomenon.
>
> That accounts for ~21% of our arable land.
> http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/x5305e/x5305e05.htm
>
>> Even there, the types of
>> animals grown and feeding parameters vary. Cattle for most of
>> their
>> lives are raised quite successfully on pastureage. In much of
>> the
>> world, animals used for food are generally forage fed, or fed
>> food not
>> fit for human consumption. IOW, they turn non-useable biomass
>> into
>> useable biomass.
>
> True but in some (not all) cases the land on which this
> non-usable
> biomass
> grows could instead be used to grow usable biomass.
==========================
It does now, and in natural form. It provides biomass that is
perfect, and natural for animals to eat without conversion of the
environment by people . Those animals then turn that into
perfectly good, edible protien. Why would you want to take land
that is natural and convert it to mass crop production with the
large inputs from the petro-chemical industry that would be
required to change the land to crop production.
>
.
- References:
- Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: Dave
- Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: rick
- Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: Doug Jones
- Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: Dave
- Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: Doug Jones
- Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: Dave
- Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: Doug Jones
- Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- From: Dave
- Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- Prev by Date: Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- Next by Date: Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- Previous by thread: Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- Next by thread: Re: Organic farming is practical on a large scale
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
