NationStates Jolt Archive

Supposedly is the farming of shell fish, not fish but shell fish.

Shell fish, actually filter the water reducing waste, wereas farmed fish, since they are so pakced together carry disease and pass that along to wild fish. The salmon farming industry in BC is a example of this.

Soya beans are a very OVER rated source of energy, if not properly prepared soya beans can actually be toxic. Soya beans also leach out important nutrients in ones body. Remember Soya beans were used as a condiment never as a large scale food stuff.

Beef, when properly raised is actually very polution free. A free ranch using natural prarie grasses to feed the cattle requires very little energy imput beyond antibodics.

anyways heres some links, post your thoughts.

this is not a vegan tirade thread either...

Pro soya site, just dont eat soya flour
http://morelife.org/FAQindex.html

Soy can cause thyroid issues
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/soyinfo/a/soy.htm

Soy was never a food
Soy critics draw attention to the fact that soybeans, as provided by nature, are not suitable for human consumption. Only after fermentation for a while, or extensive processing, including chemical extractions and high temperatures, are the beans, or the soy protein isolate, able to be digested when eaten. A review of history reveals that soy, as a crop, was first used as a means of restoring nitrogen to the fields of other crops, and was used on a rotation basis to renew the soil, not as a food in and of itself.
http://www.prescription4health.com/articles/art-0028-a.htm

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy2.htm

BEEF:

http://www.eatwild.com/

http://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/natural-grass-farmers.asp

http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/sustainag/NewFarmer/Animal.asp

http://www.biblelife.org/beef.htm (i know its from a bible group)

Seems like if we spend a little more on grass fed beef we have some of the most productive food around. Remember the cattle in a natural long grass prairie can share the land with the natural wildlife, cant sya the same thing about soy...

In any event your thoughts......

sigh

I'm not a big fan of most soy products, but a big fan of beef. As for my diet, I find variety to be the best option, so I'm highly omnivorous. I'm of the opinion that if you have to take supplements in order to maintain your diet, that should be a clue that your dietary intake is insufficient and therefore abnormal.

Thanks for the links, by the way. It'll take me a bit to get through all of them, but I'll get there...

Really you mean the most efficient meat source, not food source. You get a greater harvest of vegetables from the same amount of land that you would of meat if you had used it for growing beef or lamb.
And cows aren't pollution free. They emit a huge amount of methane, which is contributing to global warming. In NZ, the methane from farm animal's farts and belches are that country's biggest contributors.
Incidently, in NZ all the beef and lamb is grass raised, not grain-fed. Tastes a helluva lot nicer too, I might add.

thats the thing though, grass fed cattle require less energy than soy does per unit of protein. Not to mention the lack of fertilizier, but ya cows fart.

Most effecient Protein source?

Most effecient Protein source?

Soylent Green!!!

Most effecient Protein source?
Possibly Hemp. No pesticides needed, no pollution and it returns nitrogen to the soil.

A friend of mine got sick eating clams in Vietnam. Personally I think it was a dumb move. Don't eat filter feeders in a country that doesn't treat it's sewage.

My vote for most efficient food source would be genetically modified dandelions. Modify them to have every vitamin and mineral necessary plus complete protein. Ever try to kill dandelions? They grow anywhere without the need for pesticides, herbicides, or even fertilizer.

The problem with beef (and most other animal production) is the environmental impact is has along with the realted agricultural industires as a whole. Prairie fed beef still cause a great deal of dammage to the natural eco-system, and take up a lot of land. Agriculture in general is a widely overlooked beast of burden on this planet. We as humans need to be more willing to co-exist with our natural environments, rather than finding new but less harmful (read: more efficient) ways of exploiting them. The fact that something has a reduced environmental impact does not exonerate it from scrutiny. If you don't beleive me, perhaps you should look into the mineral/topsoil devastation caused by agriculture that is relatively widespread across the mid-west North American continent. Worse yet, take a look at the examples given to use by agricultre in South America... countries like Brazil and Argentina are only now learning the errors of their ways. Perhaps we should take a closer look at the effects of agriculture on global sustainability of natural resources too.

My vote for most efficient food source would be genetically modified dandelions. Modify them to have every vitamin and mineral necessary plus complete protein. Ever try to kill dandelions? They grow anywhere without the need for pesticides, herbicides, or even fertilizer.

Efficient, yes. Pleasing, no. I've eaten dandelion leaves in salads, and while they're ok, I wouldn't want to have to subsist on them. Clever idea though...

Efficient, yes. Pleasing, no. I've eaten dandelion leaves in salads, and while they're ok, I wouldn't want to have to subsist on them. Clever idea though...
Besides, its already been proven in the prairies that GMO's are nothing but bad news. Once the organism mutates into something that isn't desirable (as has happened) you end up with a super strain of crop that kills off or beats out other valuable natural crops and food sources. Theres a reason Canada had trouble selling its GMO's - I don't think that should be overlooked when attemptimg to best mother nature.

It saddens me that a bunch of crackpot scientists think they can better thousands upon thousands of years of evolution. It hasn't worked yet, and its not going to.

Besides, its already been proven in the prairies that GMO's are nothing but bad news. Once the organism mutates into something that isn't desirable (as has happened) you end up with a super strain of crop that kills off or beats out other valuable natural crops and food sources. Theres a reason Canada had trouble selling its GMO's - I don't think that should be overlooked when attemptimg to best mother nature.

It saddens me that a bunch of crackpot scientists think they can better thousands upon thousands of years of evolution. It hasn't worked yet, and its not going to.
That's the beauty of my GM dandelions. You don't need to make them insect and weed resistant. They're already resistant. You just modify them to make them more nutritious, and perhaps more pallatable.

That's the beauty of my GM dandelions. You don't need to make them insect and weed resistant. They're already resistant. You just modify them to make them more nutritious, and perhaps more pallatable.

Make them taste like chocolate ice cream, or maybe pizza, and I could jump on board this bandwagon.

That's the beauty of my GM dandelions. You don't need to make them insect and weed resistant. They're already resistant. You just modify them to make them more nutritious, and perhaps more pallatable.
Yeah, and if you spread the seeds of dandelions all across the continent as crop you don't think it might cause a bit of problems for the naturally occuring crops?

In Alberta, the production of Cereal and Oilseed crops which are not native to Canadian soil has choked out the natural prairie grasses to a point where they are almost non-existent in agricultural areas. The seed from these growing farmlands spreads much further than the extent of the farm, creating a self perpetuating cycle of destruction. Speargrass, for instance, in southern Alberta is nearly endangered for all of the much stronger varieties of production crop seed that choke it out in its natural environment. Dandelion would be no different.

Yeah, and if you spread the seeds of dandelions all across the continent as crop you don't think it might cause a bit of problems for the naturally occuring crops?

In Alberta, the production of Cereal and Oilseed crops which are not native to Canadian soil has choked out the natural prairie grasses to a point where they are almost non-existent in agricultural areas. The seed from these growing farmlands spreads much further than the extent of the farm, creating a self perpetuating cycle of destruction. Speargrass, for instance, in southern Alberta is nearly endangered for all of the much stronger varieties of production crop seed that choke it out in its natural environment. Dandelion would be no different.
Where I live dandelion is already growing everywhere. I just assumed it was common throughout North America.

Where I live dandelion is already growing everywhere. I just assumed it was common throughout North America.
Dandelions are actually a Northern Eurasian weed, and were introduced into North America and Australia because early settlers liked the way they looked and thought they had medicinal and food value. Of course no concession was made for the fact that natural plant predators that keep the population of dandelions somewhat in check in North Eurasia were not also brought along. The weeds spread much more quickly in the warmer climates they were introduced to and quickly became problematic for the natural crops and grasses of both Australia and North America. They are common in North America, but as a problem. They didn't belong here, and they still don't - making a GMO strain of this already problem plauged plant would decimate what is left of an already fragile natural eco-system.

It saddens me that a bunch of crackpot scientists think they can better thousands upon thousands of years of evolution. It hasn't worked yet, and its not going to.

With the slight meaningless exception of inventing the wheel that is. :p

Most efficient food source would be to develop some means of providing us with the energy we need directly from sunlight (Sorry mitochondria, you are no longer needed). This is not going to happen for a long time. Try bacteria or yeasts modified to produce the proteins we need for the time being.

Where do Popes come from?
Most Efficient food sources


come on, tell me I don't have to connect the dots for ya XD

yes, this post is a joke. A bad one

The problem with beef (and most other animal production) is the environmental impact is has along with the realted agricultural industires as a whole. Prairie fed beef still cause a great deal of dammage to the natural eco-system, and take up a lot of land. Agriculture in general is a widely overlooked beast of burden on this planet. We as humans need to be more willing to co-exist with our natural environments, rather than finding new but less harmful (read: more efficient) ways of exploiting them. The fact that something has a reduced environmental impact does not exonerate it from scrutiny. If you don't beleive me, perhaps you should look into the mineral/topsoil devastation caused by agriculture that is relatively widespread across the mid-west North American continent. Worse yet, take a look at the examples given to use by agricultre in South America... countries like Brazil and Argentina are only now learning the errors of their ways. Perhaps we should take a closer look at the effects of agriculture on global sustainability of natural resources too.


Grasslands like prairies developed along with cattle like creatures: bison. YOur arguement makes no sense. If you can have unfenced prairieland with grazing cattle it IS A NATURAL econo system as bison can co exist. Then you have all the natural wildlife associated.

Growing soy, wheat, hemp, whatever cannot make this claim..

Yeah, and if you spread the seeds of dandelions all across the continent as crop you don't think it might cause a bit of problems for the naturally occuring crops?

In Alberta, the production of Cereal and Oilseed crops which are not native to Canadian soil has choked out the natural prairie grasses to a point where they are almost non-existent in agricultural areas. The seed from these growing farmlands spreads much further than the extent of the farm, creating a self perpetuating cycle of destruction. Speargrass, for instance, in southern Alberta is nearly endangered for all of the much stronger varieties of production crop seed that choke it out in its natural environment. Dandelion would be no different.

Agrocore is developing a natural speargrass ~ native grass fed cattle farm...

Grasslands like prairies developed along with cattle like creatures: bison. YOur arguement makes no sense. If you can have unfenced prairieland with grazing cattle it IS A NATURAL econo system as bison can co exist. Then you have all the natural wildlife associated.

Growing soy, wheat, hemp, whatever cannot make this claim..
I include all agriculture, so I am not saying that any mass produced crops of any kind can make that claim.

As far as cattle co-existing, the numbers and inability to freely travel as truly nomadic animals (like the bison used to) prevent it from being the same as the natural system Jay. Just because they are grazing on grasslands and prairies like bison doesnt make them have the same instinct for nomadic behaviour. In fact, even domesticated bison quickly lose this behaviour. No rancher in the world is going to let his herd freely travel all over Alberta as they follow food supply - hence, my argument stands.

Agrocore is developing a natural speargrass ~ native grass fed cattle farm...
Your words are a hypocrasy of themselves! GMO's are GMO's even if they are disguised as a wolf in sheeps clothing. Making a stronger more resistant strain of speargrass to compete against introduced non-natural species is hardly the answer.

Where do Popes come from?
Most Efficient food sources


come on, tell me I don't have to connect the dots for ya XD

yes, this post is a joke. A bad one
wait, you mean to tell me soylent pope is catholics?

IT'S CATHOLICS?!

wait, you mean to tell me soylent pope is catholics?

IT'S CATHOLICS?!


meheheheh

Most Effiecient Food sources?
The Pope has Passed!

The Pope has Passed!
THROUGH MY BELLY!

THROUGH MY BELLY!

and when he comes out...









he will be brown and... smelly.

Your words are a hypocrasy of themselves! GMO's are GMO's even if they are disguised as a wolf in sheeps clothing. Making a stronger more resistant strain of speargrass to compete against introduced non-natural species is hardly the answer.

No dude they are using speargrass as its drought resistant. They are trying to buyout a string of ranches to make a mega ranch from rocky mountain house to ponoka.

The goal is to have no watering of the grass and have limited hay feeding for antibotics and see if they can have 2000 head of cattle price at 150% of the regular mass produced cattle.

The cattle have to be free ranged so as to not over graze the grass...

The ranch is huge 60 km long and 4 km wide at parts...

No dude they are using speargrass as its drought resistant. They are trying to buyout a string of ranches to make a mega ranch from rocky mountain house to ponoka.

The goal is to have no watering of the grass and have limited hay feeding for antibotics and see if they can have 2000 head of cattle price at 150% of the regular mass produced cattle.

The cattle have to be free ranged so as to not over graze the grass...

The ranch is huge 60 km long and 4 km wide at parts...
Not that the effort isnt great Jay, but youre missing my point - its still an attempt to re-create nature. I think that the idea is a great one, and if we are to have controlled cattle farming (which we always will due to the demand for beef) this is a good thing and a model for future farming. But no matter how well man tries to imitate nature, we can't expect to have purely positive results from such an effort. If we truly co-existed with the natural world, then there would be no need to farm at all. The simple fact that it is called a development is the clue here - we can't call something natural just because its an attempt to mimic the natural world. I guarantee that they are dusting wild seed mix onto patches of reclaimed land for this exact purpose - I know, I used to do recclaimation work - turning land once used for traditional agriculture and leases/pipeline back to its natural state is not an easy, nor an exact process. Its far from it as a matter of fact. Its a step in the right direction for sure - but I disagree with the use of the word natural. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the seed used will be seed mill product, thus using engineered strains of grasses found naturally in the prairies - theres still the risk of the crops mutating when using 'natural' seed.

and when he comes out...
he will be brown and... smelly.
the only thing more delicious than the irony that i'm sure is in here somewhere, is the pope.

I'm not quite sure why there's such phobia about GM crops. They've been in existence for decades, and are much more widespread than most people seem to realize. Unless you live in the EU, chances are that quite a bit of the foods you eat were made using a GM crop. The world hasn't ended yet because of them, and I don't expect it to.

Not that the effort isnt great Jay, but youre missing my point - its still an attempt to re-create nature. I think that the idea is a great one, and if we are to have controlled cattle farming (which we always will due to the demand for beef) this is a good thing and a model for future farming. But no matter how well man tries to imitate nature, we can't expect to have purely positive results from such an effort. If we truly co-existed with the natural world, then there would be no need to farm at all. The simple fact that it is called a development is the clue here - we can't call something natural just because its an attempt to mimic the natural world. I guarantee that they are dusting wild seed mix onto patches of reclaimed land for this exact purpose - I know, I used to do recclaimation work - turning land once used for traditional agriculture and leases/pipeline back to its natural state is not an easy, nor an exact process. Its far from it as a matter of fact. Its a step in the right direction for sure - but I disagree with the use of the word natural. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the seed used will be seed mill product, thus using engineered strains of grasses found naturally in the prairies - theres still the risk of the crops mutating when using 'natural' seed.


i dont they are doing this out of any sort of need to be environmental, the plain old grass the prairies used to have seems to work best I am lead to believe, they are using it cause it is high in nutrients and drought resistant no need to gm it, so its cheaper.

It is probably intermixed with over grasses though...

Another problem with beef is that it takes enormous amounts of clean water and land to raise cattle. Huge tracts of the rainforest are cut down daily to make room for cattle farms, and the clean water that is used to make one potential pound of beef could be either given directly to those in need of it as drinking water, or used to irrigate ten potential pounds of vegetables.

Uh... if I recall my OAC bio, seafood is extremely inefficient to obtain for the amount of calories you get out of it. Shrimp is up there as one of the worst. I think wheat or rice were pretty good. Veggies themselves are usually pretty good in terms of energy for extraction vs energy used.

As for soy not being edible in its natural form... for one thing it's been a food stuff in asia for quite some time and they have lower rates of certain cancers and heart conditions (due to soy mimicing estrogen and estrogen reduces the risk of heart disease or some such) and for another, you wouldn't go about eating a raw cow so I don't know why you're saying that something shouldn't be eaten at all because it's not good to eat it raw.