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

40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

iopscience.iop.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 360 posts

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#101

Post by bee_rider »

unglaublich wrote: post #55
ls612 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big negative shock you will still be able to produce enough to feed everyone merely by not destroying the excess anymore.

But in a pure market that would mean that during overproduction times, prices should be low. Which they artificially aren't through industry price fixing.

I’m not sure what a pure market is.

The result that free markets are Prato optimal, though, requires conditions like low barriers to entry, perfect information, and low cost transactions… none of which seem very well met in the case of agriculture.

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#102

Post by tracker1 »

heathrow83829 wrote: post #84
kshahkshah wrote: post #6

Not 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…

meat uses up enormous quantities of water. potatoes for instance use about 75 gallons to produce 2000 calories compared to say 1500 to 2500 gallons for 2000 calories of beef.

For grass fed cattle, the vast majority of said water is from rain that would have fallen on the land with or without the cattle. It's not generally municipal supplies of water in use for naturally raised cattle.

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#103

Post by plufz »

kshahkshah wrote: post #6

Not 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…

Solve our energy problems first? How would decreasing cattle stop work on improving our energy system? I think a lot points to that we need to do both (and yesterday). It’s not like agriculture is a small part of our greenhouse gas emissions (25-35% globally).

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#104

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #69
mhurron wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The market should decide if beef consumption is viable The market has decided, ant it decided that the well off are more important than the rest so they get what they want at everyone elses expense. Maybe we should stop thinking market forces are in any way right or moral. At least saying 'I got mine, fuck you' would be honest.

This is stupid thinking indulged in by westerners who were born in the lap of luxury. The market is incredibly moral. When my dad was born in a village in Bangladesh, 1 out of 4 kids didn’t live past age 5. Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted. Bangladesh’s under-5 morality rate is better today than America’s was at the same time my dad was born. If I…

Why don't you ask noted anti-socialism state Pakistan (pre and post-1971) how that's going?

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#105

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

RhysU wrote: post #86
sirbutters wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And meat is heavily subsidized by the government. It's insanity and corruption.

In the US agricultural subsidies for 2024 were overwhelmingly for corn ($3.2B), soybeans ($1.9B), cotton ($998M), and wheat ($960M). Pasture comes in 5th ($741M). https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da... Tofu and ethanol may be more price-distorted by the US government than is beef, but I dunno how to quickly support that idea with hard data beyond what I cited above.

Have you been to the Midwest to observe the scale of corn and soybean operations? I would wager the number of calories per dollar subsidy produced by the corn and soybean industries outweighs handily the calories per dollar subsidy produced by cattle operations, especially given the 10% reduction in efficiency per trophic level.

Also, how much does beef benefit from cheap feed prices (corn and soy) due to subsidies as well?

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#106

Post by tracker1 »

eykanal wrote: post #33
kshahkshah wrote: post #6

Not 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…

This is being downvoted, but is raising a serious point. - Nearly 90% of Americans eat red meat [1]. - Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red meat. This issue does not poll well [1]. - Despite the above, Americans are eating less red meat than we used to [2]. - The vast majority of people who choose to reduce their meat intake do so fo…

There are absolutely a number of people that would love to ban meat consumption.

I eat mostly meat and eggs, because there isn't much else I can eat that doesn't cause a number of digestive or inflammation issues for me.

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#107

Post by mhurron »

rayiner wrote: post #69
mhurron wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The market should decide if beef consumption is viable The market has decided, ant it decided that the well off are more important than the rest so they get what they want at everyone elses expense. Maybe we should stop thinking market forces are in any way right or moral. At least saying 'I got mine, fuck you' would be honest.

This is stupid thinking indulged in by westerners who were born in the lap of luxury. The market is incredibly moral. When my dad was born in a village in Bangladesh, 1 out of 4 kids didn’t live past age 5. Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted. Bangladesh’s under-5 morality rate is better today than America’s was at the same time my dad was born. If I…

You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease and conditions that can be treated?

The market is not moral, it is amoral and it serves those with the money to direct it.

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#108

Post by Alupis »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #94
Alupis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do not eat tart cherries directly. They are processed into other goods, like pie filling, juice concentrate, etc. Sweet cherries have no such regulation, and are the ones you consume directly as a fruit - without any additional processing.

That's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook (by making a pie).

If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about...

> It's still food, full of flavor and calories

Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as a fruit in grocery stores.

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#109

Post by margalabargala »

cbolton wrote: post #66
lkbm wrote: post #9

> 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…

On the other hand I read chicken is much worse than beef in terms of animal suffering. But that's much more dependent on the producer than the energy calculation and climate impact I guess.

It depends I suppose as well whether one counts suffering the same in a cow vs a chicken vs a fish vs an insect.

Re: 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

#110

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

rayiner wrote: post #69
mhurron wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The market should decide if beef consumption is viable The market has decided, ant it decided that the well off are more important than the rest so they get what they want at everyone elses expense. Maybe we should stop thinking market forces are in any way right or moral. At least saying 'I got mine, fuck you' would be honest.

This is stupid thinking indulged in by westerners who were born in the lap of luxury. The market is incredibly moral. When my dad was born in a village in Bangladesh, 1 out of 4 kids didn’t live past age 5. Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted. Bangladesh’s under-5 morality rate is better today than America’s was at the same time my dad was born. If I…

Amazing that advancements in Bangladeshi quality of life is due to only market forces! What an incredibly unique geopolitical phenomenon.
Post reply on HN