Re: OT - Re: Program templates as Object Classes

>>> One third of energy consumed in the US is used to produce meat. 
 

> Agriculture is the major component in industrial.

Here is an actual figure for agriculture:

"""Few people realize that an enormous amount of energy is required to
produce our food. In fact, 17% of all fossil fuel used in the U.S. is
consumed by the food production system.4
...
Large amounts of fossil fuel are required to power heavy farming
machinery, to process foods, to refrigerate foods during
transportation, to produce packaging materials, and to manufacture and
transport chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides."""

So actual statistics report that 17% is used for _ALL_ food production,
including transport and packaging, versus your claim that _twice_ that
amount is used to produce a part of that food.



4. Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "How
Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health
Harms of Industrial Agriculture." Environmental Health Perspectives Vol
110, 5 May 2002.

On 8 Dec 2004 10:00:36 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
 
>
>In this country we put animals on land that would be difficult to use
>for anything else.  You can't grow wheat or potatoes on hill sides.

New Zealand could produce ALL its beef on grassy hillsides. Why does
it have feedlots? Because consumers prefer higher fat content
(marbling) and white colored fat, as opposed to yellow.

The US has 700M acres of grassland, 600M acres of farmland, 525M acres
of woodland, 118M acres Developed and 319M other (swamps and deserts).
Of the grassland, only half could be used for crops, and most of it
wouldn't be because it is marginal.

The amount of woodland is increasing, contrary to what
environmentalists say, because farmland and grassland is being
abandoned.
 
>
>You can't just take land area and multiply it up.  There is a reson
>that they grow lots wheat in Kansas and not much in Texas.  You can't
>take a cattle ranch and plant it with corn, it just doesn't work.

My model took into account: climate, varying yields, etc.  I also know
that all grains are grass seed. Corn, wheat, barley, milo and quinoa
will grow on grassland that has the right climate and water. The Texas
South Plains (my home base) used to be monoculture cotton and grazing.
Now in the Hereford area, they grow some of the best and most diverse
grains in the US.

Anyway, my model left fallow some 500M acres of former grassland. In
the corn belt, I adjusted yields from that of feed crops to that of
human food.

In article <0ruer0ljmvd6d80dohmidt8spdckrks0a5@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 8 Dec 2004 10:00:36 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>
>New Zealand could produce ALL its beef on grassy hillsides. Why does
>it have feedlots? Because consumers prefer higher fat content
>(marbling) and white colored fat, as opposed to yellow.

Hmmmmm... the consumers want what is within the bounds of the law, the
consumers get what is within the bounds of the law.  To do otherwise might
lead to a Command Economy... is that your goal, Mr Wagner?

DD

On 8 Dec 2004 10:32:09 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>I very much prefer to have a half pound steak rather than a pile of
>grass.

A loaf of bread is a pile of grass (seed). If made artfully enough,
it's better than muscle tissue (IMO).

> In general, farm animals eat what I wouldn't, or can't. In many
>cases byproducts of other food production, or rejected food of
>inadequate quality, such as unripe, or hail damaged fruit, or even
>insect damaged, is used as feedstock. If it wasn't used for animal feed
>it would be a disposal problem.

Sounds like you're talking about swine. Cattle and poultry don't eat
trash, they eat grains.

>Meat is a source of proteins and nutrients which are not found in
>sufficient quantities in the usual vegetables or fruit.

"Vegetables" doesn't mean green leafies. You'd starve to death if
that's all you ate. A sustainable vegetarian diet is based on grains
and beans, with vegetables and fruits added for variety. For instance,
my menu last w:

M: Fresh pasta & tomato sauce, salad, breadsticks
T: Asparagus with cheese, roasted potatoes, garlic bread
W: Paprikash (stew of mushrooms, kale, carrots, sour cream), imitation
chicken cutlet, salad
T: Cassoulet, homemade applesauce, bread
F: Barley-mushroom pilaf, sweet corn, fruit salad
S: Artichokes & wild rice au gratin, carrots vichy, cottage cheese

I've eaten like that for 30 years, without being under (or over)
nourished.

On 8 Dec 2004 18:12:14 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <0ruer0ljmvd6d80dohmidt8spdckrks0a5@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote: 
>
>Hmmmmm... the consumers want what is within the bounds of the law, the
>consumers get what is within the bounds of the law.  To do otherwise might
>lead to a Command Economy... is that your goal, Mr Wagner?

No. I want them to follow The American Way -- sue meat producers for
the 'deceptive practice' of not telling customers that too much fat
leads to obesity.

You laugh. They laughed when lawyers sued Big Tobacco for not telling
customers that cigarettes are bad for them. After $1.25 Billion in
legal fees, they're not laughing anymore.

Richard wrote:
 
>
>You imply that feedlots are common here.  They do have them at the
>works because animals are stocked after transport for a few days and
>need to be fed.  There would be inadequate pasture for the number of
>animals.  Some cattle are finished in feedlots for a few ws but
>generally about 90% of beef cattle and 95% of sheep production is on
>hill country.
>
>
>
Yes and you just let the little baa-lambs wander, usually 'escorted' by
black and white friends like my Emma - she'd sure love her own flock !

It beats me - an NZ leg of lamb sells for about $26-28 currently - twice
the price of equal poundage of beef !  We also 'grow' our on sheep in
southern Alberta; never see it but you can bet the price is just as
steep. If you saw  a rack of lamb being served here, you would snottily
say to the waiter, "Take these skeletal bones away please". Just don't
get it. I once wrote to Pete, we had car stickers here, "Eat Alberta
lamb. 30,000 coyotes can't be wrong".

PS: What do all you folks do for entertainment when you aren't zipping
around the Web searching out all the references, on  acreage, crop
yields, water usage, economics etc. ?

Jimmy

In article <jlbfr09f2nndfkh5tdc1b54sv4bb1unlgv@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 8 Dec 2004 18:12:14 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
>
>No. I want them to follow The American Way -- sue meat producers for
>the 'deceptive practice' of not telling customers that too much fat
>leads to obesity.

Oh, *I* see... you don't want to sully your own hands with the task but
you wish for others to take care of it.  What stops you from initiating
the action you outline here?

DD

On 8 Dec 2004 21:14:17 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
 
>customers that cigarettes are bad for them.
>
>No. That is not true.  They sued because the tobacco companies _lied_
>and said their research 'proved' that cigarettes were not the cause of
>cancer, when in fact they knew it did.

They lied about addiction. The link with cancer has been widely
reported in research literature since the '50s. Interestingly, it has
never been shown that cigarettes are the _cause_ of cancer, only that
there is a statistical corelation between smoking and cancer.

What's the difference, you ask. Nit-picking. Well, it hasn't been
shown that meat is the _cause_ of premature death, but the difference
in life expectancy between smokers and non-smokers is the same as the
difference between omnivores and vegetarians. Why doesn't equal
corelation evoke the same alarm?

Because the public's logical detachment has a double standard,
depending on whether or not it likes the thing.

On 9 Dec 2004 05:26:48 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <jlbfr09f2nndfkh5tdc1b54sv4bb1unlgv@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote: 
 
>
>Oh, *I* see... you don't want to sully your own hands with the task but
>you wish for others to take care of it.  What stops you from initiating
>the action you outline here?

I was being facetious. The real solution is simpler: don't buy meat.
If everyone did that, the problem would be solved. The culinary
quality of restaurant food would go up;  people would be slimmer and
healthier.

In article <5j1hr01c9edlivnucn3kdltutth79p5mu0@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2004 05:26:48 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
> 
>
>I was being facetious.

Thanks for the clarification.

>The real solution is simpler: don't buy meat.
>If everyone did that, the problem would be solved.

Mr Wagner, given the difficulty of getting a mere hundred people to
whistle 'Yankee Doodle' simultaneously I do not believe that any
recommendation which contains a phrase like 'if everyone did that'
has a high probability of being implementable.

DD