This is the metabolic version of inflation: subsidized, hollow calories used to mask a decline in actual nutritional value. Fiat Food
40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
21–30 of 360 posts
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#22Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actually heading to? Is feeding the world a real problem? I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy probl…
Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is viable. Ultimately energy is the basis all food production. Cheap and plentiful energy solves the food production and distribution problem, then its just matter of preferences.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most cows don't eat grass like a wandering herd. Most cows eat stuff we grow on farms that could grow stuff we can eat instead. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/december/ers-data-... and https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-gr... Let me surface a more direct article: https://insideanimalag.org/land-use-for-animal-ag/#:~:text=1... Of the total land area of the contiguous 48 states, ~45% i…
The first link you posted says that 29% of the land is used for pasture and 15% is used for crops (which will include both human and animal). So yes, most cows are eating grass like a wandering herd.
[deleted]
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#24This is already covered in the Soylent Green protocol isn't it?
An alternate take: if calorie efficiency is so important we should focus on consumption more than production.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#25Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actually heading to? Is feeding the world a real problem? I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy probl…
[flagged]
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#26"lost calories" as if having people consume animal feed to reduce total caloric loss is a good idea.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#27Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actually heading to? Is feeding the world a real problem? I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy probl…
Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is viable. Ultimately energy is the basis all food production. Cheap and plentiful energy solves the food production and distribution problem, then its just matter of preferences.
Market also decided that the Irish could only eat potatoes.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#28it seems disingenuous to problematize beef. it turns grass into human energy and also requires civilizational practices that create and preserve human dignity and animal welfare. mainly, the so called problem serves to centralize the problematizer themselves. their arguments from a position of centrally planning and managing food economies are intellectual tarpits. however, that our food supply and rural ways of life have the attention of the perpetually concerned is worthy of note. when they start with their opinions, mind your wallets and assets. in short, avoid.
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#29> If excess beef consumption were reduced to healthy quantities, as defined by the EAT-Lancet healthy reference diet, and substituted with chicken in forty-eight higher-income countries, the lost calories avoided would be enough to meet the caloric needs of 850 million people. It's really impressive how efficient chickens are compared to beef. Obviously thinks like legumes are way more efficient, but we've really bre…
It absolutely is and in some ways we've only just started! Although we definitely shouldn't move fast and break things with living animals and our food supply;)
Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal
#30Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actually heading to? Is feeding the world a real problem? I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy probl…
Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is viable. Ultimately energy is the basis all food production. Cheap and plentiful energy solves the food production and distribution problem, then its just matter of preferences.
It’s hard for the market to decide on its own when the environmental damage of meat production is left as an unpriced externality and when government subsidies are handed out like candy.