tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-860443827383964257.post3741309905664063325..comments2017-03-16T09:33:58.933+11:00Comments on Flood Street Farmlet: Religio-Industrial Vegetarianism And Peak OilGeoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862419826845781150noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-860443827383964257.post-4057063991185585802010-05-04T16:46:35.437+10:002010-05-04T16:46:35.437+10:00Hi Samantha,
It seems that back of the envelope c...Hi Samantha,<br /><br />It seems that back of the envelope calculations just don't cut it for this kind of thing :-( lol!<br /><br />It looks as though I've divided the KJ by 1000, so I must have assumed they meant calories rather than Calories.<br /><br />I'm going to have to revisit that topic when time permits and draw some better conclusions with better numbers!Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15862419826845781150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-860443827383964257.post-5421410365310006512010-05-04T14:52:02.018+10:002010-05-04T14:52:02.018+10:00Hi Geoff! It's Samantha from Sydney Peak Oil h...Hi Geoff! It's Samantha from Sydney Peak Oil here. I've been thoroughly enjoying catching up on your blog (I can't imagine why it's taken me this long to stumble across it).<br /><br />However! You're being a bit harsh on the vegetarians here. I believe your calculation on energy from soybeans is out by a thousand times.<br /><br />Going by the data you linked to, six tonnes of soybeans produces 43 *million* kJ (not 43 thousand).<br /><br />(i.e. 172g of soy = 298 calories = 298 x 4.2kJ = 1,250kJ) <br /><br />By my calculation, that means that the vegetarians are actually ahead by at least 42 million kJ in your scenario - although I certainly accept that sheep can get useful nutrition from marginal land that would never crop 3 tonnes per ha of soy, etc.Samantha in Ozhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08513872491655217256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-860443827383964257.post-57472620765884940242010-02-25T11:41:29.308+11:002010-02-25T11:41:29.308+11:00Oops, that should be "to a fifth" not &q...Oops, that should be "to a fifth" not "by a fifth" in the second paragraph.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15862419826845781150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-860443827383964257.post-35569192732874873612010-02-25T11:40:29.187+11:002010-02-25T11:40:29.187+11:00There were a few issues with using that reference ...There were a few issues with using that reference for carcass weights based on slaughter weight, but it was the only one that an admittedly brief search pulled up that gave a relationship between the two. Still, for a slow grown grass fed lamb to 36kg live weight then 15kg is not outside the realm of possibility for a meat breed sheep I would have thought.<br /><br />If we were to choose not to utilise the bones and offal as food, then a 19% muscle to bone ratio would reduce the numbers for lamb by a fifth, down to 48,000kJ for the lamb. This is then equable to the soybeans, and it becomes a question of input energy to the two systems.<br /><br />Unfortunately most energy databases only quote for lean lamb cuts, or trimmed to an 1/8" of fat. As most of the energy is in the fat then the quoted energy content is lower than it would be on my plate, because you wouldn't catch me eating a chop trimmed of fat!<br /><br />http://www.nal.usda.gov/ indicates that a lamb chop trimmed to 1/8" of fat contains 983kJ/100g which pushes our muscle:bone adjusted number closer to 60,000kJ. By leaving out the offal we're also losing a lot of extra energy: 573kJ/100g for the kidneys, 920kJ/100g for the liver for example. Sadly I can only find one reference for broth, and that's for beef too: http://chestofbooks.com/health/nutrition/Dietetics-3/Broth-And-Meat-Jellies.html which gives us a figure of 69kJ/100g, though even that is for a meat broth rather than a bone broth. I'm guessing there would be a moderate amount of energy there given that marrow is a fat.<br /><br />Once we start to consider the other factors, such as additional products that can be drawn from the land the lamb scenario again starts to pull away from the grain scenario. And of course offal and bones are also sources of energy.<br /><br />Organic no-till would still require at least 2 passes of the tractor over the land (sowing & harvest) and in considering a future without fuel then that would all need to be manual or animal labour.<br /><br />In terms of post-peak communities, is time going to be better spent growing grains or growing meat? I think it would be most cost effective to have integrated systems containing meat, rather than fields of grain. Dairy, eggs and other side products would add to the balance in favour of such systems.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15862419826845781150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-860443827383964257.post-41697060613341518092010-02-25T09:07:16.461+11:002010-02-25T09:07:16.461+11:00The 15 Kg carcass weight you referenced was for sh...The 15 Kg carcass weight you referenced was for sheep fattened with sugar cane, which is not included in your impact analysis. Otherwise, the carcass weight for the sheep breed mentioned is 9-12 kg (from your reference). Note that carcass weight is muscle, sinew, and bone. The actual muscle to bone ratio of heavy grain-fed sheep is in the 19% range;<br />http://ajol.info/index.php/sajas/article/viewFile/4059/11908<br /><br />What muscle to bone ratio are you expecting for grass-fed Martinik sheep (or what ever breed you are thinking of)?<br /><br />So your comparison has to take into account grass-fed weights and muscle to bone mass ratios.<br /><br /><br />I started with North Country Cheviot sheep, though have experimented with different breed mixes for wool quality. If raised strictly for meat on pasture, either breed of Cheviot would do quite well.<br /><br />We also raise chickens on pasture (Orpingtons, New Hampshires, Wyandotes, Leghorns) and are quite pleased with the results. They do require grain supplementation, of course, as pasture only replaces about 30% of their feed requirements. High insect population periods helps to lower the supplement ratio.<br /><br />I would think that dairy goats/sheep might be another way to go if one were looking for a daily supply of animal-based food (milk, cheese, yogurt,...)<br /><br />Note that organic no-till greatly reduces the need to furrow/plow/cultivate the land;<br />http://www.croproller.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com