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

131–140 of 360 posts

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

#131

Post by Alupis »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #127
Alupis wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

People do not eat tart cherries directly. The overwhelming majority of people will never process them into something edible either.

"People in need" are not going to spend time and money processing tart cherries into juice concentrate or pie filling... especially when a can of either is cheaper than the raw ingredients to make your own.

Your point is ridiculous, absurd and pedantic beyond any reasonable purpose.

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

#133

Post by roncesvalles »

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…

I mean, it's both things. Humans are just really good at agriculture by now. Most countries, even those that we perceive as poor, produce crops well in surplus of their own nutritional needs and can often scale up to produce multiples more.

It's no exaggeration to say we can support feeding 100x the human population with current agricultural land and techniques (assuming you can modify their diets). Largely due to GMO, fertilizers, and industrial farming.

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

#134

Post by balderdash »

isn't the obvious answer not to eat less beef but rather not produce beef super fast with grain feed. if the beef we ate came from grass lands + hay in the the winter it would cost more, but would dramatically reduce the crop consumption...

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

#137

Post by rayiner »

selimthegrim wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We have A/B comparisons in India and Bangladesh keeping the underlying culture constant. Pakistan’s problem seems to be a Pakistan thing.

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

#139

Post by Barrin92 »

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…

>I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first.

is there a rational argument in here or is this just a cheap psychological reflex to keep eating beef? Because it's not clear to me how solving our energy problems and the consumption of beef even intersect so that we couldn't do both at the same time.

You might as well have said "man I really should stop drinking and smoking, but we gotta solve the energy problems first"

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

#140

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN