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

Where is there more livestock than people?

erdavis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#101

Post by bjoli »

hirundo wrote: post #18

I'm in a cow county, but here both people and cows are outnumbered many times by elk and deer. A large part of the local economy is about supporting hunters from the cities. A local rancher told me that they make almost all of their money from hunting parties in elk season. They wouldn't bother with cows except that the cows improve the foraging for the elk, improving their business. The cows are cultivating, seed di…

I have been thinking about this lately. In Sweden we have a huge amount of elk, held high by forresting practices (clearcutting releases a huge amount of energy for elk), virtually no predators (we have less than 500 wolves) and policies to keep the number high.

Elks are by far the most dangerous wild animal in Sweden, killing about 10 per year in traffic accidents. Add to hat the cost of the elks to the forresting industry and suddenly we are left with very few reasons to keep such an artificially huge elk population.

The outtake (in meat), which is already considered to be at a maximum, only covers 2-3% of Swedish meat consumption.

I have started considering it a very marginal industry eith large drawbacks and very small benefits.

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#102

Post by tinus_hn »

roflyear wrote: post #61
tinus_hn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively it’s a manufactured problem, designed to require the goal of halving the livestock.

Manufactured how?

They start with the goal of halving the livestock. Then they look for reasons why it’s necessary. So suddenly reports appear that seem to show nitrous deposition is way too high and we need to halve the livestock to fix it.

But when other scientists point out the reports are flawed they are brushed aside. When it is clear the nitrous deposition is not always caused by livestock (for instance because it happens in places where there is no livestock) the arguments are brushed aside. When flaws in the models are pointed out, the arguments are brushed aside. When it’s pointed out that the deposition has been falling for the last decades, the arguments are brushed aside.

Just so they can cling to their manufactured problem proven using pseudoscience, so the goal can be forced. Halving the livestock is a political goal, haggled as a deal during the last government formation. The arguments are mostly smoke and mirrors.

And what they don’t understand is by using the supposedly impartial ‘science’ departments (RIVM) to support their political goals, just as the same institutions are done supporting the governments COVID response with extremely poor science, they are completely destroying trust in that kind of institution in just another large part of the population. Trust is at an all time low.

The end result? The governing parties are up to be wiped away in any near term election so they’ll go any length to cling to power for the remainder of their term. Including manufacturing irrational pseudoscience to further the agreed upon political goals.

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#104

Post by chrisco255 »

mgrandl wrote: post #100
chrisco255 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, you should monocrop Monsanto's latest patented seeds and douse the land with insecticide and herbicide rather than raise some ruminants on prairie land they've roamed for millions of years.

There definitely have not been billions of cows millions of years ago. There is simply not enough „prairie land“ for them. So in reality we grow the latest Monsanto monocrop to feed the livestock, because otherwise there is no way to meet the demand for all of that meat.

1B+ ruminants with similar size / digestive systems? (including buffalo, aurochs, rhinos, etc) Absolutely. There were 30-60 million bison roaming the Great Plains just 170 years ago (not far off from America's current ~90 million head) [1]. The size of ruminants in the ice age and prior was also much bigger than modern cattle [2] [3].

[1] https://allaboutbison.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Bison-P... [2] https://softschools.com/facts/extinct_animals/aurochs_facts/... [3] https://www.theextinctions.com/articles-1/ns0atubs8qd60o16it...

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#105

Post by sweetheart »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #52
sweetheart wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about what you said is antithetical to veganism, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

well, this is the reason why people downvote these comments. muslims don't eat pork, Hindu don't eat cows, every religion impose dietary restriction, doesn't mean that non believers have to follow them. Veganism is no exception to the rule: if you believe you're reducing animal suffering, good for you, go on with your religion and be happy. But in truth you aren't, vegans kill a lot of animals too, there are billions…

This is a string of silly arguments. There are loads of videos debunking the points you try to make here, you should watch them.

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#106

Post by sweetheart »

aaron695 wrote: post #47
newman555 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have no idea why you get downvoted, but I did notice few times now how HN crowd doesn’t know much about veganism or appreciates people who think animal agriculture is cruel. Ah yeah, and also terribly destructive: https://youtu.be/LaPge01NQTQ

> Have no idea why you get downvoted The comment contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation. No definition, no solution, no relevance. If livestock is less than people is it ok then? These graphs are just hotspots it's impossible to use them quantifiably at USA levels. They only show there are a lot of "cows" "there" You are just roping your common repetitive viewpoints into the story. Why don't you care abou…

This is an unhinged reply. The fact that you ask why the other commenter doesn’t care about slavery really drives home the point that you don’t know what you’re talking about and you have a hard time constructing an argument. I hope you educate yourself about veganism. there are endless resources!

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#107

Post by gus_massa »

dredmorbius wrote: post #82
gus_massa wrote: post #3

It would be nice to repeat the maps using weight. The weight of a cow is like 700Kg (1500 pounds) and the weight of a chicken is like 3Kg (6 pounds). So a cow is like 250 chickens. (Can someone with CGI abilities make a gros image of a cow made of 250 chickens?)

Not a map, but trending of terrestrial vertebrate biomass from 10,000 BCE to (projected) 2050: https://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Terrest... I've seen another image which shows cubes indicating total biomass inclusive of plants and invertebrates. Humans aren't quite so prominant on that, though as a measure of all animal biomass, still a large fraction. This ... is close though not quite what I had…

About the last graph from xkcd: It's weird that is does not include chickens! As discussed in a sibling comment, raising a chicken takes 1/10 of the time of raising a cow, so I guess the current biomas is misleading lower.

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#108

Post by solotronics »

mgrandl wrote: post #100
chrisco255 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, you should monocrop Monsanto's latest patented seeds and douse the land with insecticide and herbicide rather than raise some ruminants on prairie land they've roamed for millions of years.

There definitely have not been billions of cows millions of years ago. There is simply not enough „prairie land“ for them. So in reality we grow the latest Monsanto monocrop to feed the livestock, because otherwise there is no way to meet the demand for all of that meat.

In the US we have more or less replaced wild buffalo with cows.

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#109

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

citilife wrote: post #84
bombcar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes the packed wintercows are fed grass (those big bales rolled up are quite heavy - and expensive).

> those big bales rolled up are quite heavy - and expensive Depends what you mean by "expensive". You can get one typically for $15 - $50 / bale. Here's a website: https://allhay.com/ Prices are much higher due to the fertilizer and fuel prices. Around me It's going for $50-$55 for a 4x5ft bale (a few years ago it was $20 / bale). That said, those can weigh quite a bit, a 4x5ft bale will be 800 - 1200 lbs depending o…

> Total you're looking at a cost of $3.67/lb of processed beef.

That's interesting. For a few years we used to buy a quarter beef from a retired farmer who was the father of a friend. It used to average out to $2.56/lb processed and picked up from the butcher shop. Granted, at this point he was retired and just doing it to keep busy, but that's quite a bit cheaper. I wonder if prices have gone up that much in the last few years or if it just costs less here in MN.

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#110

Post by citilife »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #109
citilife wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those big bales rolled up are quite heavy - and expensive Depends what you mean by "expensive". You can get one typically for $15 - $50 / bale. Here's a website: https://allhay.com/ Prices are much higher due to the fertilizer and fuel prices. Around me It's going for $50-$55 for a 4x5ft bale (a few years ago it was $20 / bale). That said, those can weigh quite a bit, a 4x5ft bale will be 800 - 1200 lbs depending o…

> Total you're looking at a cost of $3.67/lb of processed beef. That's interesting. For a few years we used to buy a quarter beef from a retired farmer who was the father of a friend. It used to average out to $2.56/lb processed and picked up from the butcher shop. Granted, at this point he was retired and just doing it to keep busy, but that's quite a bit cheaper. I wonder if prices have gone up that much in the las…

Since 2019 prices are up ~50%, so that tracks appropriately. Also depends on feed and transportation cost.

For instance, if you grow your own hay you're probably looking at a lower cost for feed, etc.

Post reply on HN