Ken Dunn wrote:
Interesting thought (basically the same reason that I gave up meat 6 years
ago), I am curious how many American meat-eaters would give up the habit if it
ever came down having your choice between meat or energy but not both.
The problem is not meat, per se, it's the manner in which beef, pork
and poultry are being produced that creates such high resource strain.
We could certainly thrive without fast food hamburgers and chicken,
as humanity has done for a very long time. This doesn't have to be an
"either / or" proposition.
In the past, some people on this list have asked legitimate questions
such as: "What do I do with all the bull calves and roosters that are
born on my ranch?" or, "What should I do with chickens and ducks that
no longer lay eggs?"
The answer, obviously, is for someone to eat them. Perhaps the offal
would be better used as dog food than "supplemental protein" for
cattle and poultry. Maybe the bones could be ground up and applied to
the soil again. Cow hide makes excellent leather for shoes and
clothing. Chicken feathers make lovely pillow stuffing. We don't
have to waste animal products to benefit from them.
Frankly, I can't imagine meat remaining a staple for much longer as it is just
not a sustainable food source.
In nearly every ecosystem on the planet (save for some very
specialized ones) plants and animals live together. Eliminating
animals from the equation will result in a different, but nonetheless
unsustainable, paradigm. I don't eat meat, but my garden depends on
composted bovine barn litter for its productivity. Recycling nutrient
streams makes sense, eliminates the concept of "waste", and promotes
tilth.
And we didn't discuss the water that is also
wasted, polluted and diverted in the process of raising animals for slaughter.
The American obsession is cheese is another that just amazes me. I wonder
what that price is a pound of cheddar would be were it not for farm and fuel
subsidies.
Water usage is a HUGE problem. In the western United States,
agriculture requires far more water than any other single use.
Farmers grow rice in California, where much of it evaporates in the
field, but any suggestion that the state restructure its water rights
will be met with fierce opposition from powerful agriculture lobbies.
I suspect the system will have to collapse before any real reform is
possible.
As for cheese, without subsidy it would probably be much more
expensive than it is. My wife and I will spend our money on locally
grown food even if it costs more, with the rationale that we neither
smoke nor drink, so why not invest in health and support of our local
farmers? Food remains very cheap in North America. My family spends
about 10% of its monthly income on food, and if you came to dinner at
our house, you'd realize before long that we eat very well!
Having written this, it seems to me that any increase in food prices
will likely hit poorer people significantly harder than it would those
who have been blessed with my level of prosperity. I believe that
your argument against the current food production paradigm contains
many valid points, but we need to be careful to replace what we have
with something that actually works well to feed everyone.
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
