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

121–130 of 360 posts

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

#121

Post by 9rx »

shrubble wrote: post #47

There are people who for various ideological reasons hate beef. If the market demands more chicken over beef, producers are perfectly capable of making a switch. Cows are able to make delicious beef from grass and thistles; that they are often fed other things is not a proof that eating cows is bad.

> If the market demands more chicken over beef, producers are perfectly capable of making a switch.

Depends on local laws. In Canada, you cannot simply switch to chicken. It is supply managed.

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

#122

Post by brainwad »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #38
choilive wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"The market" doesn't work as long as costs to the environment can be externalized. If the cost of climate change and lost living space would be added to the cost of beef it might be fair. But it isn't. Methane released by cows, cutting down rain forests for feed, and all the transporting costs us all dearly. But it doesn't cost the manufacturers anything directly so beef can be cheap.

Just slap a pigouvian tax on it.

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

#123

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

The really good thing about this is that if we somehow do manage to "ruin earth" and lose a significant portion of agricultural production, we will just have less tasty food rather than starving to death.

Food waste is another kind of "slack" in the food supply chain that would help. Imagine how the world would look if food supply was as optimized as e.g. microchips and then we got any kind of disruption... except now you starve rather than not being able to upgrade your car.

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

#124

Post by Alupis »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #118
Alupis wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If you researched this regulation even a little Yeah yeah yeah I saw that in your other comment. That's a completely different argument . The argument you made in this comment is still a bad one. It's interesting to me how people are quick to move the goalposts...

So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them?

What was even the point of your snarky comment then?

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

#125

Post by ux266478 »

WorkerBee28474 wrote: post #15

> To feed a growing population, it is essential that the global agri-food system be managed to efficiently convert crop production into calories for human consumption. It's really not. Efficiency is the enemy of redundancy. Countries want food security, so they must therefore produce excess calories.

I think it's important to a point, to be pedantic. But yes, global food production is well over the hurdle of production volume to "feed everyone", even for highly redundant crop yields. The remaining challenge is purely logistical and of course combating unchecked profit motive that's become malignant.

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

#126

Post by raincole »

whalesalad wrote: post #37
brightbeige wrote: post #5

Actual title: Only half of the calories produced on croplands are available as food for human consumption

This is a really big shocker to most people, especially in America. We see these big huge farmlands with rows and rows of corn. We hear the propaganda that farmers are the backbone of this nation and we can't live without them. Songs sing in our heads, "amber waves of grain, from sea to shining sea". People get a warm and fuzzy feeling. Country music psyop perpetuates this. Meanwhile a substantial portion (as noted h…

> it's for ethanol or other uses

... and? I read it so far down. Now could you please kindly explain why this is "garbage"?

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

#127

Post by Dylan16807 »

Alupis wrote: post #124
Dylan16807 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you researched this regulation even a little Yeah yeah yeah I saw that in your other comment. That's a completely different argument . The argument you made in this comment is still a bad one. It's interesting to me how people are quick to move the goalposts...

So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them? What was even the point of your snarky comment then?

> So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them?

In the context of someone talking about home cooks using them, and you acting like "People do not eat tart cherries directly." is a counterargument, yes I felt compelled to correct that.

The incorrect thing you were implying had nothing to do with how often they're actually destroyed. So why would that stop me?

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

#128

Post by tracker1 »

foxyv wrote: post #81
shrubble wrote: post #47

There are people who for various ideological reasons hate beef. If the market demands more chicken over beef, producers are perfectly capable of making a switch. Cows are able to make delicious beef from grass and thistles; that they are often fed other things is not a proof that eating cows is bad.

Don't forget that cattle agriculture can make rainforests into wastelands. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802...

[flagged]

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

#129

Post by stvltvs »

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.

Depending on how we measure it, either 58% or 75% of that heavily subsidized soy goes to feed animals.

https://insideanimalag.org/share-of-soybean-crop-for-feed/

Post reply on HN