Talk:Edible protein per unit area of land

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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurdueAG 05 (talk • contribs)

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)

Definitely needs some new sources. 20 pounds of beef per acre? That's crazy low. Two acres of farmland can support 1 cow/calf pair, which is going to yield hundreds of pounds of trimmed beef. I'd suggest looking at farm-management information, not meant to advocate for pro- or anti-meat cause, but meant to be a rule book for farmers. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of sources, are you really going to reference the "National Soybean Research Laboratory" to support soy beans being the most bountiful source of protein by area? That almost sounds like a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.184.91 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

POV?

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)

References

• Wheat protein as a percent of crop yield

Calculations

• Crude protein yield [is] calculated by multiplying the grain yield by grain crude protein concentration (GCPC). [1]

Fish farming

"Although not shown on the chart, Fish farming with integrated recycling systems is currently the most efficient form of agriculture by this measure." What is the source of the fats, carbohydrates, and proteins to feed the fish? And where would the combination fall on the chart?--Unsigned comment by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

The Fish farming article has that fact. I haven't been able to find ANY source ANYWHERE that lists how this measure is calculated for any foodstuff. I don't know the source of the fertilizers and other things that grow soy or wheat or anything. This is an encyclopedia, not a dissertation--it isn't necessary to have methodology discussed. What is the purpose of removing this? Do you just really want to glorify soy?--Bibliophylax 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've readded this fact, along with a number of citations to support it. I hope this satisfies your concerns. If you're curious about the source of food to feed the fish, one of the links explains how the fish farms using the integrated reclcying system uses algae in the tank to feed the fish, and recycles the fish waste to fertilize other plants... meaning that there are no additional acres needed to support the fish farming. I didn't include this in the article because it isn't directly relevant to the topic, but if you need to establish is for yourself it is in the links.--Bibliophylax 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, I just moved it here till I found a number myself. All the numbers are hard to find online. I was lucky to find them in a book, but I want to find references for each online. The problem is that most numbers are given as a percent of total weight in the Wikipedia articles, and at various agricultural websites, which requires you to do some math. For fish farming cycle do you use the human waste to fertilize the plants to, so its a closed loop?

Revisions

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)

Foodstuff?

Foodstuff? I must wikify that word.

'limiting amino acid?

What does this mean?

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It means that biological absorption of proteins is limited by having a complete set of essential amino acids. If one or more essential amino acids are not present in the foodstuff - or available elsewhere in the diet - then full use of all the ingested amino acids in protein synthesis is blocked or challenged, and so the incorporation of the dietary protein into body tissue protein is reduced. In some cases the body will use alternate protein synthesis pathways that conserve the essential amino acids, but this will be less efficient.

See here: Properties of the protein source and PDCAAS

Spike 09:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Order?

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)

Geez, I would argue that there are a few things wrong with such a plain statement of agronomic efficiency or "order". If the stated goal of ordering the protein production value of a "crop" is inherent, then what are the input variables and the implication of a lack of that statement. You can order land type with protein yield? certainly.. I would bet that soybean farming yields would look miserable in a station at Catherine, Australia. You cant fish farm without a lot of input, energy or raw material.

Its really like comparing barleys for beer manufacture... you are not going to make a range of beers on one barley. You arent going to eek out the last cent per hectare if you use the same crop everywhere. Crocodile farming in the deep south of australia is costly, cabbage farming in new guinea is possible... but why when pig and fish are free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihilodei (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Completeness

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)

Canola (rape seed) should be given as it is a major crop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.150.69 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality of land

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)

Inconsistency

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)

Article must be deleted

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)