CPAPtalk.com

That's OK. I don't really want to be an herbivore anyway.

JeffH wrote:
And I've watched them go over the fields at least four times with tractors (fuel use) just to get all the chemicals and planting done. That doesn't include one more time for harvesting. Sorry, but farming just doesn't fly when compared to simple grazing of animals without the grain fed fattening process that sadly goes on.

JeffH

That is ok you can do it with oxen or a horse too - it takes longer but then you can get your cheap illegal aliens to do it. Later you can eat the horse or oxen when it gets too old.
Your economics is WAAAAAAAYYYYY off. Why do think historically, like for the last 9000 years, people have been growing grains and having population explosions?

JeffH wrote:And I've watched them go over the fields at least four times with tractors (fuel use) just to get all the chemicals and planting done. That doesn't include one more time for harvesting. Sorry, but farming just doesn't fly when compared to simple grazing of animals without the grain fed fattening process that sadly goes on.

Another point is that animals can graze land that can't really be cultivated. Lots of land in North America falls into this category.

Blackspinner has a point, though, about agriculture. Agriculture seems to be associated with the advent of people switching from the nomadic lifestyle to settling down in larger groups of people. Obviously, that came much later in the history of man, and man has had to adapt to crowded living conditions. Providing food via agricultural practices is part of that, resulting in grain-intensive diets. It is difficult to support many people otherwise if walking is the only mode of transportation.

But now that we have the ability to ship food over large distances, we can live in super crowded conditions, and have our choice of food. No need to stick to grains as the staple of the diet. It's just a matter of choice. And clearly one of the choices is a less-than-ideal diet based more on vegetables than on the superior protein found in eggs and meat.


Note that many people seem to be able to live quite well on vegetarian diets. My observation is that many of those who can are naturally thin and wouldn't gain weight on any diet. And the ones I know who have favored a less meat intensive diet but gained weight on it.....they often shift to a less anti-meat stance. Genetics is a cruel mistress.

Slartybartfast wrote:Graze cattle on one and raise the crop of your choice on the other. Then look at how many people each 160 acres feeds. You can feed more people if the land is devoted to grain/rice/corn, etc., than if it were used for cattle. At least that's what I was taught in school. I seem to recall the energy conversion efficiency is supposed to be about 10% from one trophic level to the next. In other words. 10 tons of grass will produce 1 ton of steer, which will feed one 200 lb. Homo sapiens, or two 100 lb Homo sapiens.

Reminds me of a discussion I heard on the radio one time about the overall energy efficiency of traveling 25 miles on a bicycle vs. driving a gas guzzling Buick that got only about 16 mpg. When you take into account all the energy required to produce the food, particularly meat, the bicyclist needs to consume to have the energy to make the ride, and compare it to the energy consumed by the Buick, the Buick is, overall, the more energy efficient mode of travel. I've never researched this for myself so I will not vouch for the accuracy of the claim being made. But it is food (pardon the pun!) for thought.

Same kind of issue with ethanol from corn. The energy from each gallon of ethanol available to propel a car is about the same, or less, than the total amount of energy required to produce that gallon of ethanol. Plus, you've removed that portion of the corn from the human food supply chain. That's why DOE is researching producing ethanol from weeds and other non-edible grass.

Some would say just drink the ethanol. Then you wouldn't care.

This episode of the Skeptoid podcast, Locally Grown Produce, goes into a lot of detail comparing the overall energy use of massive agricultural methods vs. the local farmer making deliveries. It's especially interesting from a distribution standpoint--the tanker moving tons and tons and tons of lettuce grown across the globe can be more efficient than the local farmer spending Sunday in their van making deliveries.

Blackspinner has a good point: there's no way we could support a population this size with a predominantly meat based diet. Farming grains and veggies can flat out produce more with less. However, if you consider a hypothetical small population where the resource issue isn't a problem, which way they should be eating is a different conversation. It'd be interesting to see how much farming vs. livestock would be required if the world's population was only 1,000 people, and we pretended the birth and death rates balanced out.

Of course, that would give a horribly grim view of our future. It's almost noon on the east coast; I'm going to go eat some chicken while it's still an option.

Wow, that's a great website. I have a pretty sensitive B.S. meter, and it's always going off, though I frequently find it expedient to hold my tongue while smiling and saying, "That's nice." Try doing that sometime. It's not easy.

Kilgore Trout wrote:This episode of the Skeptoid podcast, Locally Grown Produce, goes into a lot of detail comparing the overall energy use of massive agricultural methods vs. the local farmer making deliveries. It's especially interesting from a distribution standpoint--the tanker moving tons and tons and tons of lettuce grown across the globe can be more efficient than the local farmer spending Sunday in their van making deliveries.

Blackspinner has a good point: there's no way we could support a population this size with a predominantly meat based diet. Farming grains and veggies can flat out produce more with less. However, if you consider a hypothetical small population where the resource issue isn't a problem, which way they should be eating is a different conversation. It'd be interesting to see how much farming vs. livestock would be required if the world's population was only 1,000 people, and we pretended the birth and death rates balanced out.

Of course, that would give a horribly grim view of our future. It's almost noon on the east coast; I'm going to go eat some chicken while it's still an option.

Yes but - locally produced vegies taste so much better. Lettuce that has been shipped for several days has lost much of it's "fresh lettuce" benefits. Also it supports local workers, creates community and "trickle up" wealth.
Carbon foot print is not everything. Healthwise it is better to eat locally and what is in season. Even better is to grow your own because the exercise involved in gardening is very beneficial too.
There is a movement a foot in my city to create green roofs. A city can grow much of its fresh vegetables (during the summer - those 3 months of bad skating weather) if it converts its roofs to gardens. This would also benefit the air quality and reduce both heating and cooling costs. There is an energy investment in the conversion but you get it back in benefits in the future.
Yes meat eating would work if we scale back to the populations of about 10,000 BC. Of course you also have the problems that if your animals get sick, you die but at least you will die slim and healthy.

Kilgore Trout wrote:This episode of the Skeptoid podcast, Locally Grown Produce, goes into a lot of detail comparing the overall energy use of massive agricultural methods vs. the local farmer making deliveries. It's especially interesting from a distribution standpoint--the tanker moving tons and tons and tons of lettuce grown across the globe can be more efficient than the local farmer spending Sunday in their van making deliveries.

I'm sure you could make the same argument about using rail to move produce, and that would make for a little bit fresher delivery, the valid point blackspinner makes. CSX Railroad advertises they can move a ton of freight over 400 miles on one gallon of fuel. That's incredible compared to what it costs to move our 100 to 200 pound bodies in a car, or a ton of lettuce with a semi.

It would be interesting, I think, to know what the comparison would be for energy consumed for production for something like per tomato delivered to the dinner plate comparing these two situations. Locally grown fresh tomatoes that ripen at different rates and thus are picked with several trips through the field and/or are picked at the same time resulting in tossed out rotten tomatoes, vs. the tomatoes that have been genetically refined so they all ripen at the same time, are picked at the same time, and result in a very high percentage of delivery to the dinner plate. Of course the former taste far better.

BlackSpinner wrote:locally produced vegies taste so much better.

Interesting note on this... corporate produce is engineered to be (for example) the perfect shade of red that consumers love, with just the right crunch they heard in the commercial. Over time, there's a certain flavor profile that's going to come from cross pollinating almost identical plants. That's a contributing factor as to why people perceive a different flavor in locally grown produce. You can see the (admittedly slight) difference if you swing by Safeway on your way to the farmers' market, and live out the idiom of the apples-to-apples* comparison.

*Couldn't resist.

Kilgore Trout wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:locally produced vegies taste so much better.

Interesting note on this... corporate produce is engineered to be (for example) the perfect shade of red that consumers love, with just the right crunch they heard in the commercial. Over time, there's a certain flavor profile that's going to come from cross pollinating almost identical plants. That's a contributing factor as to why people perceive a different flavor in locally grown produce. You can see the (admittedly slight) difference if you swing by Safeway on your way to the farmers' market, and live out the idiom of the apples-to-apples* comparison.

*Couldn't resist.

Actually we can notice the difference easily - winter produce from california or Chilli compared to summer local produce. Strawberries from CA taste like artificially flavoured sawdust compared to fresh from the field strawberries in June. I never buy strawberries in the winter or bother with "fresh" tomatoes either. They are not worth the cost.
Vitamin wise anything frozen is infinitely superior to something that has travel for 5 days before appearing on the grocery shelves as "fresh"

Kilgore Trout wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:locally produced vegies taste so much better.

Interesting note on this... corporate produce is engineered to be (for example) the perfect shade of red that consumers love, with just the right crunch they heard in the commercial. Over time, there's a certain flavor profile that's going to come from cross pollinating almost identical plants. That's a contributing factor as to why people perceive a different flavor in locally grown produce. You can see the (admittedly slight) difference if you swing by Safeway on your way to the farmers' market, and live out the idiom of the apples-to-apples* comparison.

I think another factor involved in the fresh vs bland produce and fruits in the local supermarket is persnickety and fickle customers. In years past customers complained about the brown spots on peaches, the soft spots on apples, the squishiness of tomatoes, and on and on. To curtail these complaints food producers started to create fruits and vegetables that look and feel good lying in the bin at the store. Flavor and texture has been sacrificed in favor of appearance. If customers could once again realize the attitude should be, "Hmmmm, looks kind of bad but I'll bet it tastes good," we would find much tastier food in the store. I haven't bought peaches from the supermarket for ages. They look good, but taste yukky.

This thread is supposed to about carbos and dieting, so I'll close by saying crummy tasting "fresh" fruit and veggies sure does make eating right a whole lot harder!!

who do I report a hijacked post to?

just kidding...it was very interesting...and helped with my diet

I lost my appetite for food completely

I've been using the iPhone app LoseIt! for three days now to track my food and exercise. It is quite an eye-opener to see just how much I eat, and how satisfied I am eating within a calorie budget that allows me to lose weight at a reasonable, steady pace.