"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
> There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.
>
> However, the idea that it is "inefficient" to use land to produce feed for
> livestock is completely wrong. Efficiency of resource use means looking
> at costs, not physical output. It is *irrelevant* that you can 20 kg of
> (say) potatoes from a given amount of land, vs. "only" 1 kg of meat. What
> matters is the cost of the resource compared with the price people are
> willing to pay for the good produced. If people value the kilogram of
> beef more highly than they value the 20 kg of potatoes, then the use of
> the land to produce feed for cattle is economically rational.

From a broad nutritional spectrum 1 kg of meat is nutritionally superior to
20 kg of potatoes.

> Physical outputs by themselves are meaningless. Costs and prices are what
> determine efficiency.

A bicycle is more fuel efficient than any car, must we stop producing cars,
and buses?

A pencil and paper uses less electric power than a computer, should be ban
computers?