"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
You are absolutely correct.
The "efficiency" of of growing animals is about the same as that of a
gasoline engine: 33%.
Which means you lose, from the gitgo, about 2/3 of the food calories
the land can produce in grains etc.

Except there are millions upon millions of acres used for grazing that
would not or could not be used for grain......thus allowing food
production where none would exist......There are many more millions of
acres used for hay, alfalfa etc. that are not ideal or useful for other
food production.

We as well have no significant or appreciable need for more grain
production as the world has never been as dependably well fed.....optimum
calorie production is really only significant at the sustenance existence
level.....thankfully we are not. Rod

I disagree with *all* of these assertions, from a variety of povs, much too
lengthy to go into on ahr.
Two points, however.
1. There are myriads of other problems with cattle production.
2. You choose to ignore efficiency issues simply because they are not
problems *now*?

How Bush-ian. Think.... oil??????

AND,
That assumes they are NOT problems now, which I also disagree with.
Chemical fertilizers are about as good a long term solution for crops as
Lunesta is for sleep disorder.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs