X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham  	version=3.2.0-r431796
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l0QLBfTK014199 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:11:41 -0500
Received: from eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.131]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0QLBaou000707; 	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:11:36 -0500
Received: FROM wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.230]) 	BY eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45BA6E63.2B236.12905 ;  	26 Jan 2007 16:10:59 -0500
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s17so1004447wxc         for <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:10:57 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;         d=gmail.com; s=beta;         h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;         b=SeccXSBlu4PmKHPjS7gh4yHOj8nekzC3rIvcT46ecIIGjd30aZLwr7/Gq4NOCTRipvE3mv5BRaNdWS/aVczfGkmmDTMp5hf9V27pTbpF6cxlNpjIVHvkscb1yEUEgYtnCvqGBTbZVezL2fGlgWZVxwhT2wIM0Mt+UDn2rZlorNo=
Received: by 10.90.88.13 with SMTP id l13mr4187826agb.1169845856748;         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.113.9 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5ed707a10701261310t54375c8clee24ce47601b372c &AElig mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701261512500.8473 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <487288.95484.qm &AElig web81910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701261442160.30196 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701261512500.8473 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on  	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:10:56 -0500
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu, Mum <jud.soule &AElig gmail.com>
From: "bethany soule" <bsoule &AElig gmail.com>
Subject: Re: more reasons to be vegetarian
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 924

Small farms may not be efficient enough to feed the whole world and
taking advantage of economies of scale may well be a responsible and
necessary thing to do in terms of food production, but it is my
understanding that a lot of current big industry Ag practices are
harmful and possibly not sustainable (in terms of environmental cost?)
in the long run -- and not just the meat production parts..

Hey Mom, you got anything to say, or any resources to point us to on
the sustainability of big-industry Ag, specifically wrt what Kevin
points out below about the efficiency of factory farming?

B

On 1/26/07, Kevin Lochner <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
> can we get a consensus on factory farming in general?  There was an
> article in the economist last month making the case that local farming and
> organic farming cost the world more because they don't take advantage of
> economy of scale and efficient production, essentially making them more
> wasteful.  For example, taken to the extreme, small farms may not be
> able to feed the whole world at some point in the future.  I'll dig it up
> and try to post it somewhere, but thought I'd solicit thoughts in the
> meantime.  (this does not include erica's "eating down the food chain"
> idea, which clearly is the more enviro-friendly option).
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
> > I definitely agree that that's an upper bound!
> > Can we tighten it a bit?
> > For example, no fair counting medical costs -- you'll pay for those yourself
> > later.
> >
> > (That website really doesn't deserve to be looked at.  55 square feet of
> > rainforest lost per hamburger?  Puh-leez.)
> >
> > New proposal: set aside for an environmental charity an amount equal to what
> > you spend on environmentally unfriendly products, including factory-farmed
> > animal products.
> >
> > Who's in on that one?
> >
> >
> > --- \/   FROM Erica O'Connor AT 07.01.26 11:10 (Today)   \/ ---
> >
> >> (very) aproximately 100 yootles per hamburger
> >> http://www.spirulinasource.com/earthfoodch7a.html
> >> -Erica
> >>
> >>> I have a proposal:  let's estimate the long term
> >>> environmental cost of
> >>> eating a hamburger (ideas on how solicited -- don't
> >>> say it's impossible,
> >>> we can at least put an upper bound on it) and pledge
> >>> to set aside that
> >>> much money for an environmental charity per
> >>> hamburger (etc) we eat.
> >
> > --
> > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
> >
> > "Die?  That's the last thing I'll do!"
> >  -- final words of Lord Palmerston
> >
>