On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:13:01 GMT, (Richard A.
Lewis) wrote:


You, on the other hand, confused "stereotyping" (which you did to the
MS group as a whole) with "critique" of me. perhaps you might want to
look up both of those words before you misuse them the next time.

ral

Fran does have a disturbing tendency to get a bit hoity toity and sit
up there in her ivory tower and make pedantic proclamations to the
rabble below..shrug

Gunner

" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65355 rec.gardens:259011 misc.survivalism:499529 misc.rural:114723 rec.backcountry:171947

On 15 Dec 2003 19:14:00 -0800, (Edgar S.) wrote:

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:41:00 -0800,
(paghat) wrote:

If you care about the environment, give up
your car & whatever else generates huge amounts of difficult-to-recycle
waste, but don't convince yourself that leaving parts of your car in the
garden & trying to hide it with rhubarb is ecofriendly. Eco is not spelled
u-g-l-y.

Got to love this girl. Retarded in many ways..but sharp in others. I
think this is called idiot savant.

Gunner, who lives in beautiful So.California..where all the beautiful
homes are sterile and look like ticky tac and have no charector.

Yes, the ghastly "MacMansions". Imagine paying top dollar to live in
those horrors.

Give me my somewhat shaggy little farm any day. I suppose if someone
found the tire stack potato garden to be unattractive...they could
always fence it off.

or..as I would tell the whiners..**** off. But then Im not
particularly politically correct and dont suffer fools or whiners very
well.

Gunner

" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

"Fran" wrote in message . au...
"Tallgrass" wrote in message
(Edgar S.) wrote in message

Even just a dozen tire stacks with home raised potatoes

Tire stacks....what are these, adn how does one work with them?

Put a seed potato on the ground. Put a tyre (for those in the US, that
would be "tire" over it so that the seed potato sits in roughly the middle.
Through some old hay, some dirt, some autumn leaves, some compost, some
potting mix, some wilted weeds, some shredded paper mixed with some of the
previously mentioned or whatever organic material you have on hand into the
tyre (and stuff some into the cavity as well), water and wait for growth.
As the potato grows, add another tyre, add more organic matter, water, wait
for growth, add another tyre etc, etc.

At the end of the growing season when the stem has turned brown, or, prior
to that when you want "new potatoes", kick the stack apart, season the spuds
and store.

And a refrigerator....any suggestions, other than an aquarium?
Planter? Other?

As someone else has suggested, they make good smokers or if you dig a hole
and bury them on their backs with the door upward, they make good vegetable
"clamps".


hhhmmm....."clamps"?.....?root cellar?

Thanks for the info and gardening tips. Now I have a definitive use
for those old tires in the ravines.

This refrigerator is in a ravine, as well. Walkable, but don't think
I can get the garden tractor down there. Not quite sure how I will
get this bugger up the hill. In fact, I am not really sure how
anybody got this 'fridge Down the hill, through the forest/trees.
Hard to say how much of it is salvageable.

Linda H.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:08:42 GMT,
(Richard A. Lewis) wrote:

"Bob Peterson" wrote:


"Andrew Ostrander" wrote in message
...
But isn't it possible to grow oil-producing plants, like peanuts or
sunflowers or canola, and get calory-rich oils from them?

maybe. but wouldn't it be muich simpler to just grow some pigs and cows?

Animals can be seen as basically nothing more than calorie
accumulators in that their one real function is to eat massive amounts
of relatively low cal fodder and process/condense it into high cal
food for you with, hopefully, as little of your time as possible
invested. Wild animals are as close to perfect as you can get for the
role since you have nothing invested except a hunting trip. Anything
else, domesticated livestock and such, starts to force a tradeoff in
terms of the total cals spent obtaining the cals vs how much they
return.

Both herding and hunting are trade-offs. Herding vastly
increases your chances of finding the animal you're
"hunting," as well as allowing you to use the animal's milk
- at the cost of additional calories spent doing the
herding. The question is - do you spend fewer calories
hunting (in which case you may come up empty handed) or more
calories herding? The historic evidence seems to favor
herding.

The same holds true for vegetable oils/nuts etc.

Grains are another great example. In theory, they provide lots of
concentrated cals in a very dense food that seems to be perfect. In
reality, they take so much extra time and effort to process them into
food that they lose much of their advantage. One can easily say "I'll
simply eat three loaves of bread a day" and it sounds logical....but
that would be dismissing the 600 cals per loaf work that it took to
get that bread to your table.

It only takes 600 calories (assumning that is correct) if
there is no division of labor. It certainly doesn't take
600 calories to put a loaf of bread on a modern American's
table.

Self-sufficiency *sounds* easy....but in reality, our ancestors, who
had far more experience at it than we do, tended to starve to death on
a regular basis.

Self-sufficiency is just another way of saying - no division
of labor. It's the division of labor (along with technical
progress) that increases output. Self-sufficiency is a
great leap backwards.

Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

In article , "Fran"
wrote:

You are the one that assumes that anyone who DOES grow spuds in tyres is
a
"trashoid".

And you've reinforced the truth of it. When you said you "hide" the tires
with other plants (such as rubarb, I'm sure that's a year-round disguise
of a wondrous sort) you pretty much admitted even you can tell that a
stack of tires in the yard still looks like garbage & needs to be hidden.

Yet again you are displaying problems reading and understanding English.
You are also continuing to build your stereotypes to suit what you think
makes a "trashoid". As usual you've made a pigs ear of it and sound even
sillier.

I DO NOT hide tyre stacks of spuds behind rhubarb. NOR did I ever say that
I did that. You have made up your own story and not read what was written.

I wrote: "Putting a stack of car tyres behind a big healthy rhubarb plant
isn't going
to cause any real offence". I wrote that, so that you, as a stereotyper of
others, could perhaps manage to take it into your stereotyping brain and
could perhaps understand that even if one does recycle then it is possible
to disguise what one does in a way that even the most anal retentive
neatoids could possibly understand.

Heh. You keep pretending tires trashing up the garden are decorative AND
properly hidden by rhubarb but get offended when someone bothers to
mention they can be neither one! No one with even a rudimentary sense of
aesthetics would go for the jugular on that one. People who mistake
garbage tires for garden decorations ARE trashoid! No way around it. Just
like anyone who falls in their open sesspool IS covered in shit. They can
call it a pefume mudbath till the cows come home, but shit IS fecal & worn
out tires ARE garbage.

But then I'm sure that to any normal person who isn't anally retentive,
keeping a few tyres to use to grow spuds wouldn't be considered to be
garbage.

Trashoid thinking, no getting round it. The spuds don't need the tires
(indeed, they'd do better without the zinc leached from the rubber) & if
someone did need a raised bed it could be done with natural rocks, some
beautifully knotty wood, some sapling logs, some recycled bricks, or even
just by building a natural slope -- all of which could be made to look
very natural & pleasing & cost nothing or next to it. Or if one were
unutterably trashoid, it could be done with old tires. Doesn't take anal
retention to know that garbage is garbage & doesn't stop looking like
garbage because you put some dirt in the middle of it.

However, since we are on the point of what people DO keep, what do you keep
that you consider to be recyled and that others would see as junk? Or, are
you the arbiter of what is recycling and what is junk? Junk only being what
others keep but not what you keep?

I keep a rusty old millstone axe sharpener as a garden decoration. Yes
junk can be very attractive. Crappy old tires don't even come close --
that really is like mistaking a one's emptied whisky bottles for
windowsill decorations.

You know nothing about where I live,

I know from your own words that you think garbage in the garden is useful
& attractive. That says it all.

Just for your information Stereotype Girl, I no longer grow spuds in tyres

It wouldn't be important to make that so clear if you didn't just under
the surface know I'm absolutely right. Like, if you wanted to call me a
****** or a yid, I wouldn't feel too strongly the need to say which of
those two races I am & which I'm not, because to be either one is nothing
dirty. If you REALLY believed trashoid's used tire planters were as
attractive & useful as you've repeatedly alleged, you wouldn't need to
make such a big point of having wised up & finally gotten the garbage out
of your own lawn. You did wise up because in essence you know I'm right,
whether or not it's actually true you did finally throw away that garbage.

But what about you Steroetype Girl? If you were REALLY sincere about how
eco friendly you are, you wouldn't be using a computer would you Stereotype
Girl? If you know as much as you claim to about being eco friendly then you
would know that computers are EVEN more nasty for the environment that Tyres
(which can and are recycled here). You are being hypocritical and
hysterical to boot.

After ranting about evil computers while sitting at yours, you can still
convey this unutterable lack of perception by calling ME hysterical &
hyupocritical? Too bad your jests are all accidental ones. Are you by any
chance famous in one or two newsgroups as the resident idiot who can't
fashion a rational argument no matter how hard ya try?

But, how (or perhaps more to the point, why) do your friends tolerate your
superiority complex?

I may well be superior to YOU, but hell, that'd be true even if I were
otherwise about ten points below average!

The only possible exception would be a garden
intentionally automobile oriented. I visited a garden decorated with
vintage gasoline pumps with lovely winding paths amidst beautiful shrubs.
Being aesethetic people they did NOT include tire planters nor even rusty
cars up on blocks -- but I could imagine how tires MIGHT have been used
in that context (in a satiric manner at least) given their collection of
gas-station kitsch & the gorgeous old gasoline pumps.

Snort! I would be quite prepared to lay a bet that the owners of that
particular kitsch ridden garden also had significant amounts of money. It's
amazing how often what is deplorable in the poor becomes highly desirable
when done by the moneyed.

Then again they might just be successfully WORKING class rather than on
welfare. You'll never know, what with your unutterable lack of perception.
Because unlike you I do not associate trashoid with income. Many rich
folks haven't a lick of taste; many po' folk have a natural habit of
cleanliness & beauty in everything they create or do. Indeed it seems to
me those on the edge of things have a better chance of getting it right
than those who never struggled at anything. But tthat doesn't cancel out
the trashoids of the world with their doublewides & tire planters who
ended up residents of Tirelands of their own tastelessness & ignorant
making.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:14:56 -0800,
(paghat) wrote:


Heh. You keep pretending tires trashing up the garden are decorative AND
properly hidden by rhubarb but get offended when someone bothers to
mention they can be neither one! No one with even a rudimentary sense of
aesthetics would go for the jugular on that one. People who mistake
garbage tires for garden decorations ARE trashoid! No way around it. Just
like anyone who falls in their open sesspool IS covered in shit. They can
call it a pefume mudbath till the cows come home, but shit IS fecal & worn
out tires ARE garbage.

Paggy old dear..who the **** gives a shit about aesthetics? Function,
utility, ability are the only criteria. Anything else is purely a
waste of resources. If you have the resources to Pretty it up, fine.
Go for it. Be my guest. Paint a new Cistine chapel, create a tofu
"Thinker".
But my dear paghat, aesthetics are for those who can afford it. Not I,
not in money or in time or in resources. Nor can many if not most
here, afford it.

Deal with lifes little reality checks, ok?

Gunner

" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:08:42 GMT,
(Richard A. Lewis) wrote:

"Bob Peterson" wrote:


"Andrew Ostrander" wrote in message
...
But isn't it possible to grow oil-producing plants, like peanuts or
sunflowers or canola, and get calory-rich oils from them?

maybe. but wouldn't it be muich simpler to just grow some pigs and
cows?

Animals can be seen as basically nothing more than calorie
accumulators in that their one real function is to eat massive amounts
of relatively low cal fodder and process/condense it into high cal
food for you with, hopefully, as little of your time as possible
invested. Wild animals are as close to perfect as you can get for the
role since you have nothing invested except a hunting trip. Anything
else, domesticated livestock and such, starts to force a tradeoff in
terms of the total cals spent obtaining the cals vs how much they
return.

Both herding and hunting are trade-offs. Herding vastly
increases your chances of finding the animal you're
"hunting," as well as allowing you to use the animal's milk
- at the cost of additional calories spent doing the
herding. The question is - do you spend fewer calories
hunting (in which case you may come up empty handed) or more
calories herding? The historic evidence seems to favor
herding.

The same holds true for vegetable oils/nuts etc.

Grains are another great example. In theory, they provide lots of
concentrated cals in a very dense food that seems to be perfect. In
reality, they take so much extra time and effort to process them into
food that they lose much of their advantage. One can easily say "I'll
simply eat three loaves of bread a day" and it sounds logical....but
that would be dismissing the 600 cals per loaf work that it took to
get that bread to your table.

It only takes 600 calories (assumning that is correct) if
there is no division of labor. It certainly doesn't take
600 calories to put a loaf of bread on a modern American's
table.

I'd be willing to bet you are wrong there. Modern agriculture uses an
enormous amount of energy.


Self-sufficiency *sounds* easy....but in reality, our ancestors, who
had far more experience at it than we do, tended to starve to death on
a regular basis.

Self-sufficiency is just another way of saying - no division
of labor. It's the division of labor (along with technical
progress) that increases output. Self-sufficiency is a
great leap backwards.

Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

"rick etter" wrote in message
...

"default" wrote in message
...

If you're talking about raising livestock confined to your own acreage,
it's ALWAYS more efficient to raise crops that you can eat directly,
rather than crops that you have to process through some other animal
first.
------------------------
What 'crops' *must* you raise for feeding to animals? You must be one of
the vegan loons that believe all the nonsense that cows only eat grains.



If you can raise your animals on acreage that you can't (for whatever
reason) crop, then that's different.
=======================
Why? If you have more than you can plant, grasses will grow just fine
without any input of mechinazation, fertilizers, time, or labor. Game
animals are bound to be around. Again, obtaining meat for the most part
would be a far easier, less labor consuming chore than growing every
calorie
you'd need. Vegan's have a hard time with that, but then, they have a
hard
time with any truth and reality.


Personally,
I'd try for coastal property, so that any agrarian effort could be
supplemented by fishing (using traps, where legal).
=======================
Coastal fishing? I'd daresay you'd require far more equipment and time
that
if you just lived along a lake or stream.


And seaweed makes pretty good fertilizer, once you've let it soak in the
rain and rot for a year.
=======================
So does the 'by-products' of the animals you can keep. And, no special
equipment needed to go get it like with your seaweed.



It *DOES* make for some pretty foul tasting
honey, if your bees get at it, though.


--Goedjn

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:34:09 -0600, "Bob Peterson"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:08:42 GMT,
(Richard A. Lewis) wrote:

"Bob Peterson" wrote:


"Andrew Ostrander" wrote in message
...
But isn't it possible to grow oil-producing plants, like peanuts or
sunflowers or canola, and get calory-rich oils from them?

maybe. but wouldn't it be muich simpler to just grow some pigs and
cows?

Animals can be seen as basically nothing more than calorie
accumulators in that their one real function is to eat massive amounts
of relatively low cal fodder and process/condense it into high cal
food for you with, hopefully, as little of your time as possible
invested. Wild animals are as close to perfect as you can get for the
role since you have nothing invested except a hunting trip. Anything
else, domesticated livestock and such, starts to force a tradeoff in
terms of the total cals spent obtaining the cals vs how much they
return.

Both herding and hunting are trade-offs. Herding vastly
increases your chances of finding the animal you're
"hunting," as well as allowing you to use the animal's milk
- at the cost of additional calories spent doing the
herding. The question is - do you spend fewer calories
hunting (in which case you may come up empty handed) or more
calories herding? The historic evidence seems to favor
herding.

The same holds true for vegetable oils/nuts etc.

Grains are another great example. In theory, they provide lots of
concentrated cals in a very dense food that seems to be perfect. In
reality, they take so much extra time and effort to process them into
food that they lose much of their advantage. One can easily say "I'll
simply eat three loaves of bread a day" and it sounds logical....but
that would be dismissing the 600 cals per loaf work that it took to
get that bread to your table.

It only takes 600 calories (assumning that is correct) if
there is no division of labor. It certainly doesn't take
600 calories to put a loaf of bread on a modern American's
table.

I'd be willing to bet you are wrong there. Modern agriculture uses an
enormous amount of energy.

I'm not talking about diesel fuel or electricity. I'm
talking about human energy expended.

(rest snipped)

Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

(bob peterson) writes:

Did you take a look at how much time was spent on this project? I
don't doubt it took every minute he admitted to. If you think self
suffiency is for you think about the amount of effort just to grow
enough food to starve.

If you translate this to a real life situation where you have 10
hours a day worth of other work to do just to survive, its clear
that this type of arrangement is only for desperation mode, and even
then you probably cannot do it alone.

Yes, that's right: nobody survived before industrialisation.

--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:14:56 -0800,
(paghat) wrote:


Heh. You keep pretending tires trashing up the garden are decorative AND
properly hidden by rhubarb but get offended when someone bothers to
mention they can be neither one! No one with even a rudimentary sense of
aesthetics would go for the jugular on that one. People who mistake
garbage tires for garden decorations ARE trashoid! No way around it. Just
like anyone who falls in their open sesspool IS covered in shit. They can
call it a pefume mudbath till the cows come home, but shit IS fecal & worn
out tires ARE garbage.

Paggy old dear..who the **** gives a shit about aesthetics? Function,
utility, ability are the only criteria.

William Morris believed function & beauty could go hand in hand; it was
also what the American crafts movement was about. One doesn't have to live
in an ugly ******** in order for everything to be sufficiently
utilitarian!

Anything else is purely a
waste of resources. If you have the resources to Pretty it up, fine.
But my dear paghat, aesthetics are for those who can afford it.

It is ridiculous to justify ugliness with plaints about wastefulness or
perogatives of the wealthy or anything except simple bad taste, poor
judgement, & lack of creativity.

My sweety made a beautiful arbor out of alder trunks & branches that a
neighbor had cut down & which we dragged home for building material. It is
just fabulously beautiful, totally effective, & cost-free.

Rusticity doesn't have to be junky. A good sense of naturalness, of
beauty, can make a scared age-worn & cracked rail fence more beautiful
than any "expensive" fence. Indeed, a split rail fence with its natural
rustic charm vastly outpaces a plasticized never-needs-painting pizza-shit
that cost some tasteless moron a fortune.

Not I,
not in money or in time or in resources. Nor can many if not most
here, afford it.

I would like to believe "many of not most" who purport to love country
living using up minimal resources do in fact know the difference between a
junked up property making excuses for the trashy ugliness of every square
inch of it, & the rustic beauty of things permitted as much as possible to
have a natural woodland flavor, or American Gothic charm, or simple
wholesome rusticity.

Deal with lifes little reality checks, ok?

Sounds like advice you need to take: IF as you convey here you can't tell
the difference between wastefulness & good taste, then the reality you
need to check is you envy the the rich too much to think only they can
afford not to be ugly, & what you have merely is bad taste. Now could be
your property is more charming than you realize, because very often less
is more when it comes to aesthetic value; but as you seem not to know the
difference, that does put you at higher risk of junking the place up so
badly that you make a hooverville look ritzy by comparison.

-paggers

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

Noah Simoneaux wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:50:33 GMT, (dstvns) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:42:22 GMT, (Richard A.
Lewis) wrote:

On a 3,000-4,000cal diet, you'll need to eat approximately 12 pounds
of potatoes per day just to maintain your body weight. Add in the
artichokes, if they're of a comparable cal level as the taters, and
you got just over two days of food before you start starving.

Who the hell eats 4 thousand calories a day?

I doubt if many people trying to live a self-sufficient lifestyle would.

as being self sufficient takes a lot of physical work, I think they'd
at least eat that much. - But I think we had that already ...

Maren

(Tallgrass) wrote in message . com...
Thanks for the info and gardening tips. Now I have a definitive use
for those old tires in the ravines.

Excellent. Using existing materials is very commendable.


This refrigerator is in a ravine, as well. Walkable, but don't think
I can get the garden tractor down there. Not quite sure how I will
get this bugger up the hill.


If u decide to haul it up, remove the motor first. Maybe u could wrap
a rope around it and use the tractor to pull it up.

In article ,
(Edgar S.) wrote:

(Tallgrass) wrote in message
. com...
Thanks for the info and gardening tips. Now I have a definitive use
for those old tires in the ravines.

Excellent. Using existing materials is very commendable.


This refrigerator is in a ravine, as well. Walkable, but don't think
I can get the garden tractor down there. Not quite sure how I will
get this bugger up the hill.


If u decide to haul it up, remove the motor first. Maybe u could wrap
a rope around it and use the tractor to pull it up.

Old metal liners removed from refrigerators can be sunk in the ground &
used as waterily & goldfish ponds. Newer refrigerators often have plastic
liners that can crack so not as easily adaptable as ponds, but the old
metal liners are perfectly rectangular with the back completely flat to
serve as a "floor" of a tank, & so strong they can even be free-standing
full of water. They can even have a window cut on one long side, with
glass cemented to the inside, & used as fifty-five or sixty gallon
tropical tanks; if placed into a homemade wooden & lidded front-frame
cabinet, very tidy & attractive even for indoors.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

(simy1) wrote in message . com...

I have a feeling your argument does not stand up. At least here in the
US, the caloric production per acre is close to 12-15000 calories per
day for a whole year (and indeed US vegans do survive on far less than
1 acre).

Are you considering how much that production depends on oil for
fertilizer, or fuel for tractors?

How about food suplements from the store, such as soybeans or vit B12?
They could be shipped thousands of miles, and few would be aware of
that, or the ecological cost of that shipping.

Parts of the US cannot provide a balanced veg only diet grown locally,
due to weather and soil. (I live in one of these areas.)