3 ms·

Much of the land used to grow corn and soy should rightly be used to graze animals. It is only used to grow plants because of federal subsidies. Remove the su

Much of the land used to grow corn and soy should rightly be used to graze animals. It is only used to grow plants because of federal subsidies. Remove the subsidies and special water rights, and it would revert to grass lands best used for sheep and cattle. I'd go google up the data about heart disease declining in Japan and continental Europe in the post-war era, but I get the impression you're blind to facts.

jshen 17y ago
It's fascinating that you refused to give data in your past two posts. Regarding land, if we used the land used to grow animal feed to grow plants for human consumption we'd get a lot more food. This is clearly more efficient, yet the page you linked to tries to claim the opposite by ignoring facts and building logic on that false basis.
- kingkongrevenge 17y ago
  > This is clearly more efficient Animal feed is only grown on this land because it is subsidized. Growing plants on it is economically inefficient. If agriculture in the US were unsubsidized, nobody would try to grow plants on this land. It would be grasslands. And the only human use for the land would be to graze animals on it.
  - jshen 17y ago
    that's only true for a subset. I grew up in an area that had a lot of vegetable farming for 200 years or so, naturally and a wide variety, and it was replaced by soy farming due to the retarded policies we currently have in place. Anyway you cut it, growing primarily plants for food is far more efficient than meat production. I agree with you about the current absurdity of our system.
    - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
      > growing primarily plants for food is far more efficient than meat production. Dairy cows and egg laying chickens and farmed catfish are much more efficient at turning vegetable matter into complete proteins than humans. If you accept the premise that humans need almost a gram of complete protein per kg of body mass per day, animal production is more efficient and quite necessary.
      - jshen 17y ago
        you have to back that up with some studies.

jshen 17y ago

It's fascinating that you refused to give data in your past two posts. Regarding land, if we used the land used to grow animal feed to grow plants for human consumption we'd get a lot more food. This is clearly more efficient, yet the page you linked to tries to claim the opposite by ignoring facts and building logic on that false basis.

kingkongrevenge 17y ago
> This is clearly more efficient Animal feed is only grown on this land because it is subsidized. Growing plants on it is economically inefficient. If agriculture in the US were unsubsidized, nobody would try to grow plants on this land. It would be grasslands. And the only human use for the land would be to graze animals on it.
- jshen 17y ago
  that's only true for a subset. I grew up in an area that had a lot of vegetable farming for 200 years or so, naturally and a wide variety, and it was replaced by soy farming due to the retarded policies we currently have in place. Anyway you cut it, growing primarily plants for food is far more efficient than meat production. I agree with you about the current absurdity of our system.
  - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
    > growing primarily plants for food is far more efficient than meat production. Dairy cows and egg laying chickens and farmed catfish are much more efficient at turning vegetable matter into complete proteins than humans. If you accept the premise that humans need almost a gram of complete protein per kg of body mass per day, animal production is more efficient and quite necessary.
    - jshen 17y ago
      you have to back that up with some studies.