Talk:Edible protein per unit area of land

message: I don't mean to be silly but: what is the production rate of these grams of protein? Can I harvest that much every day, month or year? Without that little piece of information, the rest does not help.
That's exactly what I was going to say.
This page reaks of being a POV Fork.--Shahar Goldin 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to address these concerns by removing the POV (and took down the POV tag), but in doing so I haven't been able to find the term used anywhere other than Wikipedia, and possibly the one book cited.  It seems that this measure isn't used by anyone except that one book, which was probably using it to push a POV.  I proposed deletion because of this.  If someone thinks it really is a legitimate, notable measure please remove the prod tag and add some citations and places where it is used.--Bibliophylax 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it bother anyone that the only source on this page is over 25 years old? The source itself can be bought on a very large on-line bookseller for as little as $0.28 (today, 3-15-08). This chart means absolutely nothing to me and I would not trust it for anything relating to the 21st century. I would just as soon delete this stub! PurdueAG 05 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Edible protein per unit area of land wouldn't really be a useful measurement, because it doesn't take into consideration that different crops are represented differently in different conditions (climates and soils). 138 pounds per acre for wheat for example. An acre where? On a central Saskatchewan wheat farm, or on a central China wheat farm? Obviously those two places are going to have different yields. And I think it would be impossible to correct for such differences in representation by different crops (and pasturelands), because different crops fare differently in the same conditions. --70.54.5.241 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

message: And what POV is the article expressing? Its mostly a chart of numbers. Its mathematics. I would say if one number was in bold or it was sorted in some unusual fashion to put one number ahead of another unfairly, then it would be point of view. If you have credible sources to show another number is more correct add it and list the source. If you think it should have another column showing lysine per acre, please add it. All numbers are grams per calendar year, as per the USDA. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: I have added the usable protein values in relation to the Biological Values of each foodstuff hoping to add relevence to the existing table. I have also reformated the article to improve it's overall appearence.
Good move, but it would be nice to use PDCAAS instead of BV as there are concerns about the usefulness of BV - see Biological Value. Even then I'm not sure if either measure takes account of digestive absorption of the food vs. losses during digestion. BV apparently does not, I'm not sure if PDCAAS corrects this. Spike 09:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: What does this mean?
IceDragon64 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'limiting amino acid? 

message: what order is this chart in?  I would have put it in descending order by grams/M2, which it sort of already is
IceDragon64 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order? 

message: It definately could do with a few more figures in there.  When you guys have decided on a figure for farmed fish, do put it in there.  Are there any comparible figures for nut production eg Peanuts or fungal production?
IceDragon64 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completeness

message: Using quantity as basis for protein/area is not just unscientific but also stupid, especially when "meat" is added to the list. 
What kind of land are we talking about? Pastures of high altitude, where only crop is the natural grass, like in Estern Anatolian plateaus? Or vast steppe regions of Mongolia? What about deserts of Arabian Peninsula? 
And why isn't dairy products included in the list? Does yogurt yield even less protein than beef?
This list is purely imagination, more a religion than science. A religion called "vegetarianism".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.28.82 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of land 

message: Quoting the table:
 Soybeans produce at least two times more usable protein per unit area than any other major vegetable or grain crop
Quoting the table, soybeans offer 263 lb/acre of usable protein.  Also quoting the table, rice offers 224 lb/acre of usable protein.  Last time I checked, 224 * 2 > 263.
Also, hemp is absent from the table.  Also, the primary reference is behind a paywall.  Overall, this is a low-quality article.
38.109.87.242 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: So reading between the lines here, a proponent of veganism would like to promote his lifestyle by writing this article. Fair enough, but he/she did a terrible job: 
The table is complete nonsense: 1. the source is purely about crops, everything in the table about animal products is unreferenced, the same goes for rice and legumes (peas and beans are in the original source, but the numbers here are not averages of those two) 2. the numbers for meat are far too low 3. there are no limiting amino acids in milk or meat -if you know anything about biology that just doesn't make sense! 4. the columns are totally messed up, the first column "Edible protein (g/m²)" contains the number of people who could survive on an acre of these crops in Canada in the 1970s if bulk protein weight were being investigated and limiting amino acids were not a factor, the same goes for the following columns, the data is used incorrectly: we are talking about humans per acre, not grams...
So after we delete the nonsensical table we are left with the info about soybeans from a rather biased source, the unreferenced info about hemp which appears, if not false, un-nuanced, and the mathematical relationship, which is clear enough, but sourced to a rather dubious reference.
Furthermore, this is very misleading. Worldwide, most of the land used for meat production is in areas where crops cannot be grown, as I understand it, some 65% of all agricultural land is unsuitable for use as arable land and can only be used to pasture livestock: Mongolia, Texas, Manitoba, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, much of the Sahel, Australia, northern Finland... This has been repeated in this talk page since 2006. It is complete nonsense to claim that if we forced the Mongolians or Texan ranchers to give up their livelihoods and beg on the streets for some crumbs of soya the agricultural productivity of Mongolia or Texas would go up!
Lastly, aren't there enough other articles already promoting veganism or complaining about conventional farming?    Leo Breman (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article must be deleted