Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

111–120 of 314 posts

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

#111

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.

The water is owned by the farmers, not by California. Probably the state should eminent domain it, but I have no idea what it would cost to do so.

Treating water allocation as if it were property, which it manifestly is not, leads to what would charitably be described as neurotic behavior. We have no need to continue that.

Outlawing alfalfa growth in California from allocated water would not conflict with anybody's "rights". They can grow something else there that uses less water. Or (and this is something being done, in the Sacramento River delta) flood the land and collect carbon credits for sinking swamp vegetation.

Much of the farmland in the Sacramento River delta is well below river and, indeed, sea level, some over 20 feet below, behind dikes (called there "levees") which threaten to collapse in the next big earthquake, pulling in a toxic load of salt water from the bay. (This has happened more than once; the dikes are not in better shape today.) Flooding fields gradually is hoped to lead to a sustainable future for the river. Erstwhile farmers could also float solar panels and collect more revenue. Raise freshwater fish and shrimp, besides.

California agriculture north of Bakersfield does not use up quite so much water as allocation seems to indicate; the water evaporates and is blown to the Sierra Nevada mountains where much of it precipitates, and ends up in rivers again.

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

#112
post #107
post #102

Seems we need to reduce world population by 1/2 or more. Aren’t we at least contracting in developed countries? Anyway to ask India/China to stop growing so fast?

Easy. Educate women. As soon as that happens, the reproduction rate falls below the replacement rate. The problem is that global society is actually not ready for a population that shrinks instead of grows. Many of our institutions are effectively pyramid schemes that rely on more people entering the bottom and paying for them than pull out money and exit from the top. (Side note: I believe China is actually falling.…

No post body was provided.

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

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're pumping water to grow grass in the desert just for the beef, there are better uses for the water. However, cows have the unique ability to turn grass into protein, so if all an area can grow is grass, cows are a great way to get calories out of it. Properly allowed to graze freely, cows can be a net improvement on a particular ecology as a carbon sink (manure is an improvement to the soil), but shipping the…

Surely the methane they produce far outweighs any carbon sink benefits

I'm not an expert, but my sense of the carbon sink is that the more soil there is the better, and grazing cows eating grass and leaving manure behind is building soil and encouraging plant growth.

The carbon released by the cows "emissions" is part of a carbon cycle, first captured by the grass and then released by bacteria in the cow's gut. The more grass, the more cows, the more carbon is hanging out somewhere other than the atmosphere.

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

#114
post #107
post #102

Seems we need to reduce world population by 1/2 or more. Aren’t we at least contracting in developed countries? Anyway to ask India/China to stop growing so fast?

Easy. Educate women. As soon as that happens, the reproduction rate falls below the replacement rate. The problem is that global society is actually not ready for a population that shrinks instead of grows. Many of our institutions are effectively pyramid schemes that rely on more people entering the bottom and paying for them than pull out money and exit from the top. (Side note: I believe China is actually falling.…

Educating women isn't enough.

Women also need reproductive rights -- something that just took a hit in the US -- and the ability to support themselves. I'm not remembering/finding the rest of that list of 4 or 5 items.

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

#115
post #107
post #102

Seems we need to reduce world population by 1/2 or more. Aren’t we at least contracting in developed countries? Anyway to ask India/China to stop growing so fast?

Easy. Educate women. As soon as that happens, the reproduction rate falls below the replacement rate. The problem is that global society is actually not ready for a population that shrinks instead of grows. Many of our institutions are effectively pyramid schemes that rely on more people entering the bottom and paying for them than pull out money and exit from the top. (Side note: I believe China is actually falling.…

> Easy. Educate women.

Since men are physically more powerful, you also need a society with laws and people that will protect women and women’s rights. Women’s rights to mate with who they want, when they want, how they want, and earn income and be financially independent to be able to make those decisions independently.

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

#117
post #102

Seems we need to reduce world population by 1/2 or more. Aren’t we at least contracting in developed countries? Anyway to ask India/China to stop growing so fast?

Most places outside Africa are contracting or rapidly turning toward it, with only a few places avoiding that fate. As the other poster pointed out, this is certainly true (and disastrous) for China, who accelerated their own population crash through communism's attacks on traditional religion and policies against children.

Why would we need to reduce world population?

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

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization Best use of maize, IMO, is fermentation. Let the yeast have it first, take off the volatiles, then feed the mash leftovers to tasty critters.

Neither cornmeal nor cornflour are nixtamalized, but historically most consumed corn was before the inexperienced European colonizers began using it.

To have "nixtamalized" maize appears to be what ingredients lists call "processed with lime". Pellagra epidemics have arisen through failure to process with lime.

The Mayans got their cooking water from out of cenotes, skylights of limestone cave systems, which might have made it naturally nixtamalizing. Were their grinding stones of limestone? (The grinding platform, the metate, was not.) Don't know what the Navaho did or do.

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

#119
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I say somewhere that meat consumption is not problematic?

I'm responding to "people disagree with the notion that reducing meat consumption is helpful from an emissions perspective". People may disagree but it's like disagreeing that 100 > 1 -- who cares what they think?

What it says is

> "not ... that people disagree"

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

#120

Quoted post unavailable.

I generally see this argument pushed by vegans whose central issue is really animal rights, which is a valid concern, but the claim that a 100% vegan world, all other things being unchanged, would be one free from fossil-fueled global warming is simply not true. Generally speaking the claim is that significant amounts of agricultural energy go into growing grain for animals, and that domestic animal populations resul…

Assuming a "vegan" agenda is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

Not breaking the climate so much is plenty of reason. That reason does not conflict with renewables displacing fossil fuel use. We need to do both.

Post reply on HN