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

211–220 of 314 posts

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

#211

Post by defrost »

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…

Unique in the sense of ignoring sheep, kangaroos, and other herbivores . . .

Speaking of which: Hop Over to Kangaroo Meat: The More Sustainable Choice https://biodiversityconservationblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/1...

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

#212

Post by [deleted] »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #82
samatman wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality, the United States is the largest exporter of calories in the world, and the overwhelming source of direct food aid, and has been since WWII.

That is a contradiction to my statement in what way? Do you think the United States is the only wealthy country? The fact is that the war in Ukraine is leading to shortages and those are felt by the poorest, not the richest.

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by samatman »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #82
samatman wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality, the United States is the largest exporter of calories in the world, and the overwhelming source of direct food aid, and has been since WWII.

That is a contradiction to my statement in what way? Do you think the United States is the only wealthy country? The fact is that the war in Ukraine is leading to shortages and those are felt by the poorest, not the richest.

Every time! I don't talk to dishonest people. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

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

#214

Post by chiefalchemist »

mcdonje wrote: post #48
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 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.

Cow farms should be limited regardless of climate. To make food to feed it to food (i.e., animals) because of some dated tradition is not longer appropriate. It's not sustainable.

This isn't a pro-animal talking point. It's a pro-humam and pro-ecology fact.

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

#216

Post by chiefalchemist »

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…

Or you can grow beans, hemp, etc. Some animal protein is good. But in many places the level of animal protein creation and consumption does not harm than good.

I know you mentioned cows, but do some research on factory farmed pigs. They're legal toxic waste sights. We need to rethink our (Western) approach to diet.

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

#217

Post by TomSwirly »

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?

If the people who are destroying our biosphere thought they would face appropriate consequences, they would behave very differently.

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

#218

Post by formerkrogemp »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #206
Jistern wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California will never, ever, ever run short of water... unless the Pacific Ocean dries up. Cheap electricity will result in cheap desalination. The sky is not falling.

running short of water does not mean you have nothing to drink, it means famine. madagascar has terrible famine right now, becauae there is no rain. In Syria, all crops that are not irigated have died. current irrigation water is free. You cant use water from desalination, because it takes many tons of water to grow one kilo of food, and tens of tons of water to grow a kilo of beef. that would drive up prices more th…

Multiple nations are having water issues. Not just in myopic California. South Africa, the Mekong delta including Thailand and Vietnam, the PO river, parts of the US southeast are dealing with depleted aquifers and drought conditions, the Nile river supporting Egypt and Jordan, Lake Chad of Africa, etc. The water issue is global, as will be the impact on food prices. I expect significant refugees/migrants and authoritarianism.

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

#219

Post by choxi »

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.

How does that square with this Nature paper claiming the tree coverage is increasing globally? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9

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

#220

Post by distances »

burntoutfire wrote: post #175
orionion wrote: post #34

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 wi…

> Of these, the following are important today: Barley, Corn, Goat grass, Millet, Oats, Rice, Sorghum, and Wheat. What about Rye?

Indeed, at least personally rye is the second or third most consumed cereal for me (after wheat, and maybe after barley through beer).

But looks like it's only 9th within the most cultivated cereals, which was a bit surprising for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereal

Post reply on HN