Yes, well if you want to go into environmental accounting, you need to
consider range-fed stock separately from grain-fed stock. A lot of the
US literature is based on feedlots. Certainly, you find more bird
species around native pastures than around crop lands. Both, of
course, can have negative impacts on waterways and coastal seas.
There are a lot of swings and roundabouts involved in food production,
such that there are no zero impact options.
IMHO, if you are concerned about wildlife welfare, the best thing to do
is to consume locally derived food that doesn't require copious
quantities of toxic chemicals, fertilisers and energy etc. You also
want to make sure your plastic shopping bags [if you use them] don't
become wildlife killers.
Regards, Laurie.
On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, at 09:48 PM, Andrew Taylor wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:52:59PM +0200, John McAllister wrote:
At the risk of becoming a stirrer Ricki Coughlin's posting about
becoming a
vegan was very noble I'm sure, but it tends to oversimplify the
problem
somewhat.
I don't know about Aus, but in South Africa many rare an highly
threatened
grassland bird (and other taxa as well) are in trouble because their
habitat
has been irreversibly transformed by CROP farmers.
The FAO reckons one third of global cereal production is fed to
livestock.
In terms of energy (kilojoules) and protein produced this is much less
efficient than consuming the grain directly. A consequence is,
overall,
consumption of animals increases the area needed for crops as well as
the area need for grazing.
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
