Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
pearl wrote:

Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.

Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".

As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point. The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.

I happen to be a great cook,
but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?
And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes? You're
wackier than the tobacco
I smoke!! And what's this
got to do with boats?

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
is perfectly legitimate and proper.


http://www.hyundaiusa.com/Vehicles/A...le_Details.asp

http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container... V&class=06_S