which still leaves you with the problem of explaining on what grounds it is equivalent
No it doesn't, I have already clarified on what grounds I think they are equivalent, in this thread no less.
For example, not all Beef and Sheep farming takes place in areas that need to be clear felled first.
Not all sheep and beef farming requires grain to be successful.
Not all sheep and beef farming occurs in areas that can actually be used for anything else, for example, sheep farming can be carried out in areas that would require irrigation to grow anything useful.
Ploughing a field, then spreading superphosphates to it looses more nutrients to water than grazing it with cattle or sheep - even if superphosphate is required.
Diffuse pollution from effluent runoff can be mitigated or prevented with proper riparian management.
As I have said, a well managed sheep and beef farm does not neccessarily have to be any more damaging to the environment then a corn farm. Tell me, do you know what the prime cause of the expansion of the Gulf dead zone is? Yes, I know it's a natural phenomenom, however there is something that humans are doing that means that it is getting worse.
It has something to do with all that Corn and Maize farming in the mississippi catchment.
all you've done is talk bullshit about how you are right without the need to clarify your statements
The only person bullshitting here is you.
yeah sure
whats your point, minus the bullshit?
If you had, you would understand what my point is.
what you are doing is spending more time obfuscating your statements rather than clarifying them.
Technically its called bullshit.
:shrug:
The problem is that you're not addressing the statements that I have
actually made, and technically,
that is called bullshit.
I mean but if you would prefer to just make statements that on face value appear totally false and inaccurate and label anyone who points this out to you as a bullshitter, that's your prerogative.
:shrug:
You have yet to address any of my actual statements.
Take this statement of yours, for example:
and what?
there are zero agricultural/ecological issues for sustaining a paddock for pasture?
Made in response to this comment:
Here's the thing that annoys me about the arguments around grain fed beef.
It's not universally available.
Not everybody who eats beef, eats grainfed beef.
All beef (to my knowledge, acquiring grain fed beef requires importing it from Europe) currently on the market in NZ is grass fed, not grain fed.
I can go down to the supermarket and by Halal beef, if I desired it, but I can't find any grain fed beef.
Nothing in that statement implies that Sheep & Beef farming has zero environmental impact. Not by any remotely reasonable interpretation.
The
only thing that that statement says is that comments about the amount of water consumed growing grain for cattle, and the amount of land being cleared to grow grain for cattle, and the amount of grain consumed by cattle, and how much less protein per kg beef cattle have then the grain they consume, are only valid if you're talking about grain fed beef, however, not everywhere has access to grain fed beef, and so arguments against grain fed beef, are really only effective as arguments against factory farmed meat, not meat eating in general.
None of which implies that grass fed beef is without impact, or even that grass fed beef has less impact then horticultural farming.
Is that clear enough for you?
