Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 314 posts

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#31

Post by karmakurtisaani »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #20
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #4

In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%. I can't help but wonder how it would be without any animal agriculture.

Do you have data/source for this? Interested in learning more, didn't think it was this much.

Sorry I'm writing this on my phone holding a baby, so not the best situation for in depth research. The numbers I quote are from memory based on watching the latest David Attenborough documentary. Not a great reference, I know.

Edit: highly recommend the documentary though.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#32

Post by Fezzik »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #20
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #4

In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%. I can't help but wonder how it would be without any animal agriculture.

Do you have data/source for this? Interested in learning more, didn't think it was this much.

https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests

and the rate at which we deforest and destroy grassland to make grazing land is ever-increasing.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#33

Post by sandworm101 »

fortysixdegrees wrote: post #24

Quoted post unavailable.

The solar panels don't do any harm. The issue is the people who think driving a fancy car make much of a difference in terms of their carbon footprint. Stop flying first class. Stop eating beef. And stop throwing water on dirt to support your golf addiction.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#34

Post by orionion »

The grass family contains over 9,000 species distributed throughout the world. Of that, 35 have been cultivated as cereals. Of these, the following are important today: Barley, Corn, Goat grass, Millet, Oats, Rice, Sorghum, and Wheat.

Of the important grains and/or cereals listed above, only corn (maize) is a New World native. Corn is an important member of the grass family.

Corn (Zea mays) was domesticated from a wild plant called teosinte (Zea mexicana) about 7000 years ago. This species was considered sacred and was central to Mayan creation myths. Famous Mayan images show an earth god sprouting from the corn stalk.

Corn is the most efficient of the modern cereal grains in converting water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. Maize formed the basis for the Mayan, Aztec, and Inca civilizations in the New World.

Corn, beans, and squash were planted together by early native Americans in companion planting to benefit all three species. There is no wild plant or evidence of one that resembles corn with giant husked ears; besides the ears, teosinte and corn look very similar.

Columbus took corn to Europe on the first voyage but it did not gain wide attention.

Native Americans had over 100 uses for the corn plant and its fruits. https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/ethnobotany/food/grains.sh...

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#35

Post by littlestymaar »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #5
codefreeordie wrote: post #2

Most of the world's grain is eaten by humans' food. We're really really good at efficiently producing grain -- especially field corn (which is not super desirable as human food without significant processing), and we grow lots of animals of all sorts. Naturally, when we can, we feed those animals on field corn -- they don't complain, and it's the cheapest food we can produce for them. In the US we also subsidize corn…

> which is not super desirable as human food without significant processing I see this repeated all the time. Is making cornmeal or cornflour really that much more involved than wheat flour, semolina, or rolled oats?

It isn't really relevant anymore because the food source is much more diverse than what it used to be, but when some western people started cultivating corn, and feading mostly out of it, they started to suffer from acute lack of tryptophan and vitamin b3, called pellagra, causing millions of death over several centuries.

Mesoamerican civilizations built on top of corn had a specific corn processing step called nixtamalization, which avoided the issue altogether, but unfortunately wasn't imported along with corn during the colonizations of the Americas.

But as long as you can get enough tryptophan and vitamin b3 otherwise, corn is completely fine as a main source of energy.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#36

Post by oDot »

fortysixdegrees wrote: post #24

Quoted post unavailable.

Or eat grassfed beef, which is grown consuming human-inedible grass that grows for free, instead of being fed human foods that have to be farmed.

White Oak Pastures even claims to have a negative carbon footprint[0], according to a report by a third party which, if I remember correctly, also authored the report behind one of the vegan burger's sustainability claims.

0: https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grass...

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#37

Post by samatman »

Which is a very good thing indeed, because it makes our food system robust by operating at a large caloric surplus.

When crop failures lead to rising grain prices, ranchers respond by not buying as much grain for their animals. The result is less Prime-grade beef and a whole lot more grain available.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#38

Post by melling »

fortysixdegrees wrote: post #24

Quoted post unavailable.

Well, providing supporting evidence would be helpful.

After a quick look, the data doesn’t seem to support your claim?

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

I still get the feeling that 40% of the electricity globally being generated from coal is a far bigger problem.

Because of the war, coal usage is actually increasing.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/24/all-the-european-c...

Those fancy Tesla’s are helping move the world to EVs, which will help the world reduce the 100 million barrels of oil we use every single day.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#39

Post by kirubakaran »

wintermutestwin wrote: post #8

A staggering amount of California's water is used for alfalfa, which gets shipped to China to feed cows. In essence, we are allowing certain farmers to sell CA's water to China.

On top of that, that water is heavily subsidized by CA tax payers!

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#40

Post by heretogetout »

zamfi wrote: post #29
fortysixdegrees wrote: post #24

Quoted post unavailable.

The problem with this kind of post is not, as you might surmise, that people disagree with the notion that reducing meat consumption is helpful from an emissions perspective. It is that the binary presentation implies an either-or when in fact both are helpful. Plus it just shits on people and nobody likes that.

Isn't the math clear that meat consumption requires more emissions than non-meat consumption, on average (as in per calorie)?
Post reply on HN