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

151–160 of 314 posts

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

#151

Post by robocat »

melling wrote: post #52
mahogany wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking genuinely: what point are you making with that EPA data? That switching our method of transportation is more impactful than switching our diet because transportation is a bigger chunk of the emissions pie?

Transportation and electricity add up to 52% of emissions. All of agriculture is 11%. What part of that is meat? A little more than half?

> All of agriculture is 11%

I looked at the document, and it doesn’t seem to include the embedded CO2 from Urea production (fertiliser) which would be a large emission omission. Perhaps it shows up in the detailed breakdown somewhere.

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

#152

Post by photochemsyn »

ncmncm wrote: post #120
photochemsyn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Crappy science in the name of a decent moral agenda is still crappy science, I'm afraid to say.

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

#153

Post by Retric »

collegeburner wrote: post #128
Retric wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get more protein per X acres eating corn than feeding that same corn to cows and eating the cows. If you prefer meat then chicken is worse than eating corn but still much better than cows. We eat beef because it’s delicious and that’s it’s only advantage at scale.

No, ruminants use bacteria we don't have to get protein out of plants. Humans can not extract that protein, so we use animals to do it then eat them. Theres about 30 grams protein in 1000 calories of corn. There's about 90 grams in 1000 calories beef. This is because cows are very good at extracting protein. Also, I can just let cows graze on Texas praire. I can't necessarily do that with corn.

It’s not that they are more efficient at extracting protein it’s they preferentially use carbohydrates for energy. Human vegetarians can have that same ratio of protein to calories in their flesh as cows or non vegetarian humans. Though the actual ratios do depend on body composition for both cattle and humans.

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

#154

Post by Retric »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #110
Retric wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get more protein per X acres eating corn than feeding that same corn to cows and eating the cows. If you prefer meat then chicken is worse than eating corn but still much better than cows. We eat beef because it’s delicious and that’s it’s only advantage at scale.

The whole point of GP's post is that you can't grow corn everywhere. There is some soil that only supports grass, and the most efficient way to extract nutritional value from this land is through grazing animals.

Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. The availability of irrigation is largely a solvable problem. In the US for example the east coast, Alaska etc gets plenty of fresh water which just ends up in the ocean.

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

#155

Post by collegeburner »

Retric wrote: post #153
collegeburner wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, ruminants use bacteria we don't have to get protein out of plants. Humans can not extract that protein, so we use animals to do it then eat them. Theres about 30 grams protein in 1000 calories of corn. There's about 90 grams in 1000 calories beef. This is because cows are very good at extracting protein. Also, I can just let cows graze on Texas praire. I can't necessarily do that with corn.

It’s not that they are more efficient at extracting protein it’s they preferentially use carbohydrates for energy. Human vegetarians can have that same ratio of protein to calories in their flesh as cows or non vegetarian humans. Though the actual ratios do depend on body composition for both cattle and humans.

Yes it is. Cows can eat only grass and still get enough protein. Vegetarians can not do that and still get enough protein. They have to eat other plants as well. Those plants do not grow everywhere.

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

#156

Post by Retric »

collegeburner wrote: post #155
Retric wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that they are more efficient at extracting protein it’s they preferentially use carbohydrates for energy. Human vegetarians can have that same ratio of protein to calories in their flesh as cows or non vegetarian humans. Though the actual ratios do depend on body composition for both cattle and humans.

Yes it is. Cows can eat only grass and still get enough protein. Vegetarians can not do that and still get enough protein. They have to eat other plants as well. Those plants do not grow everywhere.

Humans can extract enough protein in terms of grams from grasses like wheat as long as their daily activity level is high enough to burn sufficient carbohydrates. We have more complex dietary needs, but daily protein requirements aren’t actually that high.

https://www.nutritionix.com/food/wheat/100g

Wheat 15g of protein per 100g or 329 calories. That’s 114g on a 2,500 calorie diet.

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

#157

Post by Retric »

CodeSgt wrote: post #99
Retric wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get more protein per X acres eating corn than feeding that same corn to cows and eating the cows. If you prefer meat then chicken is worse than eating corn but still much better than cows. We eat beef because it’s delicious and that’s it’s only advantage at scale.

We also prefer beef because that much corn consumption would be incredibly unhealthy. People like to shit on animal farms and say that more calories could be grown with less resources with plants. That's true, but the calorie count isn't the only factor to consider. Humans need a diverse diet.

It’s not like corn is the only viable crop on this land, humans can also be vegetarians.

That said, with wealth comes the desire to increase meat consumption in just about every culture. We have plenty of food and land to waste a large percentage of them on cattle, the only issue is the externalities of doing so.

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

#158

Post by stjohnswarts »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #69
mcdonje wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alfalfa is also used for cows grown in CA for CA residents. That's also a bad thing. Cow farms should be significantly limited in arid climates. There are ecologically better alternatives.

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…

soy can turn those same resources into protein as well, as can other beans. It's a poor use in arid climes like was stated before.

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

#159

Post by HWR_14 »

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.

The farmers spray that water all over their fields as opposed to using targeted irrigation, so most of the water is wasted instead of even being viable to be exported.

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

#160

Post by HWR_14 »

robocat wrote: post #139
sumy23 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That won't put the water back. Revenge is just the final form of prioritizing the comfort (or discomfort) of a handful of bad actors over the well-being of the other 99.9999% of the world. Punishing the perpetrators won’t put the water back in the same way punishing a murderer won’t bring the victim back. We don’t punish to make right. We punish to deter.

And in 20 years time, it will be your turn to be retroactively punished for currently belonging to a society that is burning the world?

1) It's not group membership, it's targetted

2) I try to live in such a way that I'm not a wasteful glutton who misuses communal resources.

Post reply on HN