The Oil We Eat (Harpers.org)
Popularity Report
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
URL Tag Cloud
Groups (1)
Public Sticky notes
Green eaters, especially vegetarians, advocate eating low on the food chain, a simple matter of energy flow. Eating a carrot
gives the diner all that carrot's energy, but feeding carrots to a chicken, then eating the chicken, reduces the energy by
a factor of ten. The chicken wastes some energy, stores some as feathers, bones, and other inedibles, and uses most of it
just to live long enough to be eaten. As a rough rule of thumb, that factor of ten applies to each level up the food chain,
which is why some fish, such as tuna, can be a horror in all of this. Tuna is a secondary predator, meaning it not only doesn't
eat plants but eats other fish that themselves eat other fish, adding a zero to the multiplier each notch up, easily a hundred
times, more like a thousand times less efficient than eating a plant.
Highlighted by kjc6688
Animal rights aside, vegetarians can lose the edge in the energy argument by eating processed food, with its ten calories
of fossil energy for every calorie of food energy produced. The question, then, is: Does eating processed food such as soy
burger or soy milk cancel the energy benefits of vegetarianism, which is to say, can I eat my lamb chops in peace? Maybe.
If I've done my due diligence, I will have found out that the particular lamb I am eating was both local and grass-fed, two
factors that of course greatly reduce the embedded energy in a meal. I know of ranches here in Montana, for instance, where
sheep eat native grass under closely controlled circumstances—no farming, no plows, no corn, no nitrogen. Assets have not
been stripped. I can't eat the grass directly. This can go on. There are little niches like this in the system. Each person's
individual charge is to find such niches.
Highlighted by kjc6688
Chances are, though, any meat eater will come out on the short end of this argument, especially in the United States.
Highlighted by kjc6688
Eighty percent of the grain the United States produces goes to livestock. Seventy-eight
percent of all of our beef comes from feed lots, where the cattle eat grain, mostly corn and wheat. So do most of our hogs
and chickens.
Highlighted by kjc6688
It takes thirty-five calories of fossil fuel to make a calorie of beef this way;
sixty-eight to make one calorie of pork.
Highlighted by kjc6688
Still, these livestock do something we can't. They convert grain's carbohydrates to high-quality protein. All well and good,
except that per capita protein production in the United States is about double what an average adult needs per day.
Highlighted by kjc6688


Public Comment
on 2006-08-22 by chefranden
on 2007-01-03 by gingembre
Tremendous thought piece on the inefficiency of our food production systems and the resulting ecological and societal costs.