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

151–160 of 360 posts

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

#151

Post by rayiner »

mhurron wrote: post #107
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…

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.

> 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?

Scandinavian countries have highly market oriented economies. Denmark and Norway are in the top 10 in Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index and Sweden is #11. Capitalism is what generates the surplus to feed the socialists in Scandinavia.

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

#152

Post by californical »

tracker1 wrote: post #128
foxyv wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

Well nobody is upset at the cows. We’re talking about excessive consumption of cows, in agriculture.

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

#153

Post by [deleted] »

ux266478 wrote: post #57
Hikikomori wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market also decided that the Irish could only eat potatoes.

It was actually a disgusting set of edicts and regulations called the Penal Laws, enacted by the English crown, which formalized and wrote into law the informal restrictions imposed on Irish Catholics after the Tudor conquest, as part of a broader genocidal colonialization scheme. Very cool attempt to try and sweep that little fact under the rug. Fun fact, Adam Smith cites the penal laws as an example of the dangers…

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by tracker1 »

capitainenemo wrote: post #98
tracker1 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit for vegetation farming... because of excess rocks, etc. Ruminants that are being naturally (grass) fed are also regenerative in terms of soil health. They don't tend to "bulk up" as much as conventional (grain fed and/or finished) options though, so are more expensive to produce... the gas emissions are another issue that is largely different for grass fed, wher…

So, I was saying ecosystems. Filling the world with cows is not the same as natural ecosystems. Also, kurzgesagt did a pretty good episode on meat production (edit - they did several, but one was on the production demands in terms of energy and environment), and if I'm to trust their figures, the "cattle grazing exclusively on the pampas" is far from the majority of world cattle. If it was, that probably would be an…

I don't think the answer is reduce though... I think it's increase... humans wiped out so many of the ruminant animals (buffalo mainly) that kept the grasslands healthy... we've largely over-farmed in the interim since. We need more ruminants, not less.

This means raising much more than we currently do, and probably a reduction in slaughter numbers for the next 50+ years to increase the domestic supply. Can't speak for other nations... but it's literally expanding grasslands as opposed to desert.

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

#155

Post by ErroneousBosh »

sixhobbits wrote: post #89
bryanlarsen wrote: post #74

Cows eat grass. Humans use more calories digesting grass than they gain from eating grass, so cows are infinitely more efficient than humans at gaining calories from grass. And there are places in the world where growing human food would destroy the land. Semi-deserts like Texas and Montana. Grazing cattle there is a good idea. Bison would be even better because the native prairie there is adapted to bison, but cattl…

I think a vast majority of the beef we eat is grainfed unless you're buying the super hip, small-scale, expensive stuff

Here in the UK, pretty much 100% of cattle are grass fed. In the winter, when there isn't enough grass, they're fed on silage (which is basically just grass cut and baled while still green, which turns it into kind of grass sauerkraut, which smells exactly like you'd expect) and "draff" or "spent grains" (depending on where you are) which is the stuff left over from brewing beer or the pot ale that goes to make whisky.

It's all a pretty delicate balance, but ultimately what happens is you end up growing a bunch of things humans can't eat so that cows can shit solid gold all over the fields and chop it into the soil with their hooves.

We eat because there's six inches of earth on the ground, it rains, clover grows, and cows (and pigs) shit solid gold.

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

#157

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

capitainenemo wrote: post #64
cameldrv wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The current world population is 8.3 billion and is expected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2080 and then begin declining. Now, there are a number of other reasons we might have food shortages, but population per se I don't think is a significant factor.

Even if food shortages aren't an issue, reducing the amount of land dedicated to food production is a win for ecosystems. Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place. And, really, with the whole neu5gc thing, it might be that humans would be better off focusing on…

>Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place.

I've seen articles and threads like this for decades at this point. And the only thing any of you have convinced me of is that I must start securing my own production of meat. This is, I think, the exact opposite of "more efficiently" at least from your point of view. I will be unlikely to reach the feed-to-gain ratios that professionals regularly achieve.

Swine and poultry already in progress, beef and more exotic stuff within the next 2 years.

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

#158

Post by shafyy »

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.

[flagged]

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

#159

Post by ErroneousBosh »

balderdash wrote: post #134

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...

> hay in the the winter

Here in the UK, we use silage because the weather is a bit too variable to trust with letting hay dry out. It feels like it's probably more energy-dense and has more nutrition in it, you certainly don't need to feed as much.

Other things that work well are sugar beet (grows well as part of a cycle of crop rotation, clears weeds pretty well) and all that barley left over from brewing beer and making whisky.

Even soya-based cattle feed is made from the tough cellulosey bits that humans can't eat. If you want to try, I'm sure I can get you some - but maybe have something on hand for the inevitable constipation because it is all fibre.

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

#160

Post by capitainenemo »

tracker1 wrote: post #154
capitainenemo wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I was saying ecosystems. Filling the world with cows is not the same as natural ecosystems. Also, kurzgesagt did a pretty good episode on meat production (edit - they did several, but one was on the production demands in terms of energy and environment), and if I'm to trust their figures, the "cattle grazing exclusively on the pampas" is far from the majority of world cattle. If it was, that probably would be an…

I don't think the answer is reduce though... I think it's increase... humans wiped out so many of the ruminant animals (buffalo mainly) that kept the grasslands healthy... we've largely over-farmed in the interim since. We need more ruminants, not less. This means raising much more than we currently do, and probably a reduction in slaughter numbers for the next 50+ years to increase the domestic supply. Can't speak f…

Yes. I saw that TED talk about desertification being reversed by ruminants, and while it got a lot of critics, it had some pretty good points. But, those ruminants would be better off not being beef cattle in terms of biodiversity. Also, if they were beef cattle due to the lack of anything better, hopefully it would be short term, and if you're making a case for use of marginal land, they really shouldn't be finished in a feed lot, since that is using a lot of cropland to support that.

... and only some places would (possibly) benefit from that.

Post reply on HN