Blocked by someone trying to make fun of vegetarians, LOL!!!

@SteelHands I'd love to see your link showing livestock produces more nutritional value per acre.

For myself, I'm not lacking in nutritional value; I'm trying to do less damage to the environment.

@ElwoodBlues Hint: Searched item result pages are designed to foster confirmation bias. Bots also maintain internet engagement through linking offensive or provocational engagement.

All I can offer you is that you'll find everything if you care to pretend anything.

@SteelHands [quote]Searched item result pages are designed to foster confirmation bias.[/quote] Great, then you should have no trouble finding pages that confirm your claim about scientists saying there's more nutrition per acre in livestock.

Don't worry about my research abilities; I've published several peer reviewed papers and been a reviewer on many more. Let's start with the raw data.

@ElwoodBlues Start with this elwood.

Peer review is crap. Anyone seriously interested in getting published knows they have to fit the data to the narrative these days.

Good. You think you know how to do research?

Go ahead. Look for yourself.

@SteelHands You have that exactly backwards. Novelty is what gets published, as long as valid data supports the conclusion. Lemme guess, you've never written or published a research paper, am I right?

[quote]Go ahead. Look for yourself.[/quote]
You're admitting you can't support your claim. Good to know.

@ElwoodBlues It's not my singular claim.

There's far more than a veggies better for the planet than meat position and I think you know it.

Cattle feed inputs and soil releases of co2 are far lower than human crop perturbations from soil prep, surface turnover, planting and harvest. Not even counting stem and shaft handles, seven counting that bring commuted into animal feed systems now. That less insecticide use as well as growth water consumption comparisons during dry seasons and crop stacking, container processing, paper and plastic disposal, not even counting spoilage of produce at higher levels per measurable amounts. Meat is lower overall in both market weight and number of truckloads for highway and rail transport systems. Then add in the end point delivery printed and plastic or cannery packaging.

It's a huge equation that a college mediated new age professor doesn't bother going deep into the data and analyzing, but I'm sure that my assertions are correct.

Besides. No amount of evidence can convince a new age neoliberal out of their 4 years or more of bad education by DEI dimwits.

Novelty isn't proof of correctness anyway. Because anywhere historical facts get in the way there are always mainstream ideologues to fudge and conveniently omit the details.

I still would never dare think that an automatic rejection of my findings instead of my comment stir a speck of intellectual curiosity on your part.

That's the difference between us. I don't take anyone's world views as a sign of my obligation to reject or accept what I'm told.

As I stated at the outset. You've a right to think whatever you want for whatever reason you want. However don't expect to convince anyone that's done their own fact checking.

@SteelHands Actually, it's pretty easy to measure protein per acre of various vegetable crops as well as protein per acre of beef, chicken, and other meats. [quote] Not even counting stem and shaft handles, seven counting that bring commuted into animal feed systems now.[/quote] Sorry, I couldn't make any sense of that. Incidentally, one of the things I learned in school is that communication is [b][i]half[/i][/b] of science. So if you're writing to sound erudite, it ain't working.

[quote] but I'm sure that my assertions are correct. [/quote] You're sure, even though you have no data. Interesting.

[quote]Meat is lower overall in both market weight and number of truckloads for highway and rail transport systems.[/quote] And how significant is transport? "The cost per ton-mile for IO-truck firms shipping meat ranged from 4.7 to 6.8 cents ..." That's on trucks; far cheaper by rail. No, I don't think its very significant; I think you're grasping at straws by that point.

[quote]Novelty isn't proof of correctness anyway.[/quote]
NOTHING is proof of correctness. Proof only exists in mathematics, and even then you have Gödel's Theorem limiting the validity of your proof. You made claims about the academic publication process which I know to be false and I said so.

[quote]I still would never dare think that an automatic rejection of my findings instead of my comment stir a speck of intellectual curiosity on your part. [/quote] I asked for the data behind your "findings" in the spirit of intellectual curiosity. Alas, your "findings" appear to be nothing more than opinions. I was hungry for data, and you did nothing to satisfy my hunger.

[quote]. I don't take anyone's world views as a sign of my obligation to reject or accept what I'm told.[/quote] I knew nothing about your worldview when I asked you for data. But now you know: my worldview is data driven.

@ElwoodBlues You're cherry picking, mixing economics with volumetric measures.

Typically you're also condescending. That's a conversation ender for even us po boys without a dead sheep's skin sticking out of our humunculous' asz.

Trying to point out the environmental inputs (soil and atmospheric effects) comparisons here and you hop on price per mile reefer vs stake truck.

That was really lame. A full reefer car or truck barely affects real costs, even if the shipping firm charges a premium because of the lower number of shipments.

Does putting little boxes up with bits of a post help you keep you feeling superior? What is the purpose? I know what I wrote and don't care that I don't meet your personal criteria. I'm writing down, not up, to your level of critical reasoning anyway.

How many huge combines, plows, furrows, chain spreaders were you saying were driven how many hours to raise cattle? (In all factitious intent)

A bit of consideration for my typing on a box about 2 inches tall and 2.5 inches wide. Add some for doing all I can not to provide you with internet noise and only simply worded statements please.

You asked for a link. I said nah, I'll pass.
That's because both of us know neither of us is going to change points of view unless we see hard evidence.

You say I haven't. I say you haven't.

One of us is lying.

Somehow, I can't figure out who. Lol

@SteelHands As I said, my worldview is data driven. And you've made it clear you refuse to provide data. So I'll link what I found. Here's the summary

[quote][b]Key Findings[/b]
• Soybeans are the highest producer of protein per acre at 513,066 (g)/acre
• Soybeans, dry peas, and dry beans all yield more protein per acre than the most productive animal product, chicken for meat (163,212 g/acre)
• Soybeans produce 314% more protein per acre than chicken
• Soybeans are the highest producer of calories per acre at 6,271,268 (g)/acre
• All plant-based crops (soybeans, dry beans, dry peas, lentils, wheat, and sunflower seeds) yield more calories (kcal) per acre than the most productive animal product, chicken for meat
(1,496,809/acre)
• Soybeans produce 419% more calories per acre than chicken[/quote]
[b]https://humaneherald.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/calories-and-protein-produced-per-acre-1.pdf[/b]

You've already claimed that Google will produce confirmation bias, so here's my search in bold:
[b]how to produce the most nutrition for humans per acre[/b]

If you think that query has confirmation bias built in, then please provide your own query and result that contains confirmation bias for your claims. I invited you to do that once, and you declined; I invite you again. As I said, my worldview is data driven, and I'm still open and willing to see your[b][i] data.[/i][/b]

@ElwoodBlues At what cost in energy pollution, water use, and other environmental degradation?

google some more.

@SteelHands

[quote] Water required to produce one pound (1 lb.):

Beef = 1850 gallons of water
Pork = 720 gallons of water
Chicken = 520 gallons of water
Soybeans = 256 gallons of water
Wheat = 220 gallons of water
Corn = 148 gallons of water
[/quote]

Still no data from you!

I did say Value. Not economic cost or tonnage.

Soybeans can't be eaten raw

That chicken egg protein is fine for baby's and small women but I'm not into eating a couple dozen eggs every day.

@SteelHands So far, all the data supports my position. But I'm open to fresh data. Go ahead, provide some data yourself that supports your position!!

@ElwoodBlues Nice. But adding water consumed by livestock that adds, rather than depletes topsoil of nutrients is a different kind of water consumption.

It doesn't take 1850 gallons of water to process an entire day's worth of frozen sides.

@ElwoodBlues The stats you're looking at have the water usage rates for crops in process but omit rainfall even though it's a fact that irrigation figures are staggeringly larger than those for livestock.

Whereas the water use for herd tending and butchering combined is far lower than groundwater pumps.

Demands data. Wins argument. Gets free outline.

Screw that.

@SteelHands Great, if you think you have better data than show it. So far, all you've produced are opinions. Opinions are nice, but no substitute for data.

@ElwoodBlues Data can be useful, but it's not an end in itself.

Yes sir. I'll get right on buying another set of EPA water table draws, AG crop and farmland subsidy reports, DMV and IRS Tractor Trailer mile/use/replacement deducts, FDA and USDA sales figures, and all domestic and import packaging, un recycled plastic product waste weights, spoilage reports from every produce retailer, and while I'm at it enter it all into a convenient Dbase for use later to build 123 macros for easy viewing in some quickly displayed pie charts.

You can fool some of the people but you won't fool me with your quick wide bs brush.

You know this kind of analysis is the sort that takes a team to gather that data. Then to assess it without over reliance on a predetermined/desired conclusion without being steamrolled and torpedoed by oppositional funding..

Then having that expensive research usurped selectively to create 5 or more creatively worded original "published" in the scientific urinals "studies" supporting a fake meat industry.

Yeah good luck with trying to pull another artificial sweetener is safe gig.

You're so sharp. How bout you put your cred where your mouth is and cite your study so I have a specific place to take aim.

I'll admit I'm getting a bit miffed now.

You mental microcosm.

@SteelHands [quote]You know this kind of analysis is the sort that takes a team to gather that data. [/quote]
And multiple teams have done so. Here's a source for ruminant H2O estimate:
[b]https://www.waterfootprint.org/resources/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1.pdf[/b]
Here's a food H2O estimate for California only
[b]https://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/kreith_1991_water_inputs_in_ca_food_production-excerpt.pdf[/b]

You can find links to many resource usage estimates here:
[b]https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/livestock-water-use#publications[/b]

You say
[quote]Data can be useful, but it's not an end in itself. [/quote]
And yet continued speculating while [i]refusing[/i] all data is a recipe for stasis and zero progress!

@ElwoodBlues Not that California is an interesting choice for a data source. And not that I don't respect your blind obedience to the non land barons who wish to be big as Monsanto. And not because that green revolution didn't come at an unacceptable cost, either.

Because I don't like being played off as a typical pot smoking pud pulling smut obsessed child of lodge run ngo funded uni fed media of a control freak billionaire boys club plan for a worldwide paternalist pants.

Also. Not because of californication's other primary industry. Which is, as anyone should know by now, dominating the flow of both western and hopefully eventually global a to z information from an area the size of roughly 87 square miles.

Because I just can't think of any of the other places in the west either where palm trees grow and huge orchards exist, millions of millions of miles of flatlands covered in irrigation wells nonstop water wheat and corn crops pine trees dot the landscape growing sorgum to soy, spinach to squash, sugar to coffee, bananas to pineapples, or for that matter, congressional veggies.

Heck, do they even have any big farms here in this hemisphere? Its so packed with cities packed with people living in houses built on top of houses where all us farmers kids kids kids now turnt into drug turf run franchises of various cartels controlled by shadowy members of black suv drepstate secret garda.

Shucks, it sure would be helpful if I knew of a farmer or rancher that could help me sipher or where to start in all this sciency chuted ladderyniss.

Mebbe then I could be happy knowing that I don't need to rely on other people telling me my neighbors eat too much macdonalds while post medical industry takeover control freaks manipulate the future's market.

Then they would be less likely to buy up lands from farmers with kids kids kids toking and playing with moms pannys in the bafroom instead of scoping out the real problems and dropping pins on the responsible people.

Maybe.

@SteelHands Translation: you didn't even [b][i]look[/i][/b] at the data!
I'm starting to think you might be [b][i]allergic[/i][/b] to data!!

@ElwoodBlues Yes that's the crux of it.

Perhaps it should have been addressed long ago when the iomega zip phobia surfaced and now that it's grown into a full blown terrabyte ddr reaction.

Why just the other day I had to wrap a full suitcase of 1.44s and prints up in tinfoil and plastic and bury it under 4000 test concrete to ensure that I could sneeze safely.

@SteelHands

My brain says my brain is my most important organ.

My brain tells me that I ought to believe my brain.

@SteelHands Brains need data!!