My point is this–where are you going to get all of the biomass–plant matter–in order to make enough organic fertilizer in a vegan fashion? Cut down trees? No–not a good choice? Gather all the fallen leaves from forests? A better option, however, then the forest suffers from a lack of humus made from the leaves that fall. You can use plant waste from farms–straw, cornstalks, bean plants that are finished producing–that sort of thing–but that isn’t usually enough.

Kelp was suggested by another commenter, but where are farmers in Ohio going to get kelp? There are no oceans nearbye.

One could cut grass and use that–one could use municipal lawn waste–but, only if no one used Chemlawn or other chemical treatments on their fields.

No–I am -not- ignorant, as you say–and the reason I didn’t make the case as well as I thought I did was because I didn’t make the case fully–it is meant as a topic in another separate essay. But, I -have- thought long and hard about this.

The reason that I think that animal waste, combined with plant waste (lawn clippings, leaf litter, cornstalks, etc) is more sustainable than -just- plant matter is because it is frugal, and local, the use of it is a perfect reflection of the way that natural systems work.

Grass-based farms have animals graze on land that is unsuitable for cultivation, while the farmer cultivates land that is arable. The animals’ waste products, along with the plant waste from the arable lands are then composted and used to fertilize the arable land. In addition the waste from the animals that falls in the pasture land enriches the soil of the fields, and better grass is produced. All of this takes place on the farm in a closed loop, with very little in the way of outside inputs.

Kelp would have to be purchased and trucked in–at a significant money and energy cost.

Modelling your farm as closely on naturally occuring ecosystems is more sustainable–and all naturally occurring ecosystems include animals and plants.

Animals make use of solar energy that we humans can not–they eat grass. That is a fact. They can do so on land that is not suitable for farming–that is also a fact. Animals do not -have- to be treated cruelly or raised in inhumane CAFO style feedlots. That is also a fact.

They can be raised ethically and sanely. They can be treated well while they live, and they can be killed in as painless and humane way possible so that their meat can be eaten by humans after they die.

These are also facts. I have witnessed it, growing up as I did watching how my grandparents farmed their land. They had a closed loop ecosystem going and it worked very well.

It -can- be done.

Vegan farming can also be done, but I am not sure that it could be done without significant cash outlay for fertitlizer produced off of the farm, or without significant energy cost in the form of trucking said outside-produced fertilizer onto the farm.

You clearly misunderstand what animal manure is, if you think that agriculture couldn’t be practised sustainably without it.

Basically, animal manure is recycled vegetable matter.

An animal’s digestive tract isn’t a magical source of vitamins and minerals or whatever else you seem to think it is. In essence, what goes IN is what comes OUT. You can get precisely the same result by composting vegetable matter, or using “green manure” crops.

Regards,
Sam

I actually think he is a pretty fascinating character, and the more I read of his work, even if I disagree with it, on rational or emotional grounds, the more I admire him for really pushing the limits.

But then, I admire people who push limitations outwards.

Re: rice growing in drought areas–yeah, you are right. That is just downright goofy. Not sustainable at all.

So May has come and gone and the challenge is over. I’m afraid I wasn’t as energetic as I could have been seeking out new sources of local food. And I think the people at the market think I’m seriously nutty. (”Eet’s that woman who always asks whe…

So, in comparison, I think the rice-growing habits of most other countries are just dandy.

I find Singer a fascinating character. Given there’s an Ethics major shoved into my two-thirds-completed degree (two semesters to go … ), and being Australian, with teaching staff who’ve had considerable interaction with him, I’ve come across a fair chunk of his stuff. And yes, the basic flaw with utilitarianism is that there are points at which you need to make decisions about whether you follow through the logic of your ethos, or draw a line in the sand. In some ways, I think Singer’s tendency to always take the former path in his writing does a considerable amount to make people think about where that line should be drawn. I can’t say whether or not that is/was his intention, but it’s what I get from a lot of his work.

But I am an ethics major, so my GPA has a vested interest in me overthinking about Singer, among other things.