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

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#111

Post by danans »

b5n wrote: post #99
danans wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then I moved to California, and one day had occasion to drive from SF to LA. North of Bakersfield I encountered the most profound stink I’ve ever smelled while driving, and eventually I saw the source: industrial operations with enormous numbers of cattle in fenced pens shoulder to shoulder so they could hardly move. Those feedlots are all over the country, the largest being in Colorado, Texas and Kansas: https://r…

'freely' is being a bit generous, they're all destined for the slaughterhouse or glue factory. Dairy cows are routinely bred to keep them producing milk and their calves taken away for other purposes such as veal.

> 'freely' is being a bit generous, they're all destined for the slaughterhouse or glue factory.

If it wasn't clear from context, I was comparing their freedom to that of the cattle in feedlots, not to Wildebeest or Bison.

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#112

Post by dredmorbius »

gus_massa wrote: post #107
dredmorbius wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are two ways to consider such charts.

One is the instantaneous biomass at any point in time.

The second would be something like "rate of new biomass formation".

A human lives ~82 years, a cow lives ~3, a chicken lives ~6 weeks (for a fryer or broiler). The human lives ~715 times longer than the chicken, but weighs only 30 times more. There's nearly 25 times more chicken biomass cycled per year than human.

(The fact that that chicken biomass goes to feed the human biomass is also a part of this, of course.)

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#113

Post by peoplefromibiza »

sweetheart wrote: post #105
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is also a string of videos saying otherwise.

I believe in science and data, not videos.

I'm not into "videos that corroborate my opinions" religion.

sorry.

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#114

Post by sweetheart »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #113
sweetheart wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is also a string of videos saying otherwise. I believe in science and data, not videos. I'm not into "videos that corroborate my opinions" religion. sorry.

lol

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#115

Post by carapace »

bjoli wrote: post #51
carapace wrote: post #16

Earth! What do I win? Seriously though, check out https://xkcd.com/1338/ "Land Mammals" it's one of the more mind-blowing XKCDs IMO. > Earth's LAND MAMMALS By Weight [[A graph in which one square equals 1,000,000 tons. Dark grey squares represent humans, light gray represent our pets and livestock, and green squares represent wild animals. The squares are arranged in a roughly round shape, with clusters for each type…

It is the green "wild animals" that make this diagram so mind boggling.

Right? If you encounter someone who doubts we're in the "Anthropocene" age just show them that chart, eh?

Re: Where is there more livestock than people?

#116

Post by seanwilson »

adrian_b wrote: post #59
seanwilson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Animals are not eaten as a source of calories, but mainly as a source of proteins. > When discussing the efficiency of using animals for food, they must be compared with the vegetables used for their food based on their protein content, not on their calories content. Why do you think that? I think you're overestimating how much protein people need and underestimating how much protein regular plant-based food contai…

Actually I have studied very carefully the various recommendations for the daily protein intake and also most of the proteins that I eat daily come from vegetables, so I know what I am talking about. I cook and eat chickpeas from time to time, but less frequently than lentils or peas, which have a higher protein content than chickpeas, so I am aware of their properties. While you are right that 200 g of chickpeas wou…

Isn't this why you combine proteins to make them complete? Like rice-and-beans? Soybean is a complete plant protein anyway.

How do your protein and calorie recommendation line up with what e.g. the US or UK recommend? You think they're missing something? So are you saying you think most people on plant-based diets are likely deficient in protein? And what does that do to their health?

I only meant potato as an example of how you'll get close to protein targets by eating enough daily calories of even things that aren't considered to be high in protein, so with a balanced plant-based diet where you hit daily calorie targets, I think protein is a nonissue that's overblown.

Crop-fed chicken might be cheap, but how does it make sense that it can be cheaper than eating the crops directly?

Post reply on HN