Live data from Hacker News

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

iopscience.iop.org

161–170 of 360 posts

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

#161
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…

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

It’s not unique at all! When my dad was a kid in the 1950s, Singapore, China, South Korea, and Taiwan were poor—all under $1,000 GDP per capita. They were a little ahead of Bangladesh but less than a factor of 2. The U.S. at the time was around $10,000.

Today, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea are rich, and China is getting there. Multiple dirt poor Asian countries getting rich within a few generations thanks to One Simple Trick!

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

#162

Then can human process grass?

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…

> 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.

Most cows do eat grass and other stuff we can't eat.

"Hard feed" is made from crops grown as part of a rotation cycle, or from things like soya where 80% of it is only suitable for cattle feed.

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

#163

Small anecdote Since about 2019 I have been anemic. My iron levels were just a hair above being low enough to require an immediate infusion, and my doctor kept pushing me to eat more iron. She would often ask if I was a vegetarian or vegan, presumably she was assuming I was bad at it. I would always tell her the same thing. "I don't eat much beef but I do eat it" Last summer I was diagnosed with celiac. Suddenly it a…

> My nutritionist tells me that recovering this quickly would have probably been just about impossible for a vegetarian or vegan, without having an iron infusion done.

"probably been just about impossible" doesn't mean "impossible", it more likely means changing your eating habits to a point where you'd have to be really conscious and careful of what you eat iron-wise unlike someone without Celiacs (vegan or not) or someone who likes and can afford beef and can eat as much of it as they want.

There are lentils, beans, tofu, dark leafy greens and other sources of iron. There are iron-fortified foods. IIRC there are other considerations that might prevent careless or food-addicted people from getting enough iron like vitamin C to help with the iron absorption or not eating foods that decrease it.

There are plenty of vegans with Celiacs who manage their iron adequately. But even if you're one of those cases where iron needs to be supplemented, even IV - why not? If you disregard all the arguments against beef or animal products in general it's easy to make the argument that beef would be the best solution.

This reads like appeal to authority (the nutritionist) but a lot of nutritionists take the easy road ("just eat beef") or aren't good at all (haven't kept up with research). That's true of the majority of doctors and the majority of programmers (something people here will be able to relate to in case they haven't realized how useless most doctors are). I've been in and out of hospitals for several relatives for years and have heard doctors tell me outright falsehoods that show they have a only basic understanding of something. That makes sense since those doctors must know about so much more than the patient (thousands of diseases, lots of scientific knowledge about biology) but with a depth-first search into a topic you can spot how most of them have either stopped reading new studies or have lost their motivation to explore all option or have just stopped caring for providing the best kind of care. I hope people here don't have to go through what I have. That was a bit of a tangent, but I already wrote it so I'll keep it as a mini-rant.

> Beef is kind of an important thing in our diets, that's all. Now that I'm back to a more normal level I'll go back to eating less of it, but I am now very conscious how important red meat is in a rounded diet.

That's not really true. I'm sure you could ask vegans or vegetarians or Hindus or anyone who doesn't eat beef but has Celiacs and you'd get a whole bunch of options for managing it. Sure, you'll find ignorant people who think eating fruits all the time is enough but that's the same kind of carelessness that leads to non-vegans eating the standard Western diet all the time or doing other basic mistakes.

The same is true for almost everything. Almost nothing is "an important thing in our diets". People live without nuts or fruits or vegetables or legumes or meat or eggs or dairy (not all at once, of course, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone managed to avoid all these) and are able to manage pretty much any disease other groups of people can manage.

> calories are only part of the picture when it comes to food

True, people should care about the macros and micros. But with the internet it's trivial to do so both wrt learning what does what and how much is needed, and to track how much one eats from each.

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

#164

> 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.

Global food production now produces more than enough calories to feed everyone, but still hasn't figured out how to produce enough nutrients to feed everyone.

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

#166
post #141
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…

Bangladesh has done well, in difficult circumstances Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have happened unless the state did sensible things Those same market reforms impoverished the entire middle class in New Zealand, where the state did not do sensible things (the reverse) Markets are good at fully allocating resources, which feudalism and central planning is not. But they also concentrate wealth int…

> Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have happened unless the state did sensible things

The state did almost nothing sensible! Bangladesh’s government, and the culture of the people more generally, is one of the most dysfunctional in the whole world. We just overthrew our government again! The free market is just a hardy plant growing in inhospitable ground as long as you don’t completely strangle it.

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

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "mo…

shrug poultry is already several times more efficient than beef in regular production (to say nothing of if your coop just has chickens wandering around finding their own food), and healthier for you. And hopefully your swine and poultry are having overall decent lives. And, if your beef is entirely grass fed (I doubt you can afford a finishing lot) you're still overall not using cropland to fatten up cows (but maybe that's your goal, who knows)

Anyway, you do you. Just offering my opinion on this 'cause it seemed like a good place to do it.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of proposal that might fly well when it comes to the discourse over meat. People say “but we could be growing other crops instead of feed for cows”. Well yes, but you need protein in the diet. You can’t grow potatoes and veggies and expect people to survive only on that. Then there’s the question of land utilization. Historically cattle was raised for meat and dairy where agriculture was more difficu…

> You can’t grow potatoes and veggies and expect people to survive only on that. I'm sure most medieval people survived (without food types being a detriment to their health/lifespan) on vastly less meat than most of us eat nowadays. I don't want to live a "medieval peasant" lifestyle, obviously, but I don't think the food part of it would be unhealthy (assuming enough food).

Medieval people were a lot shorter too. When I was in Saint Basil Cathedral in Moscow I was amazed how narrow and low were the corridors inside those side towers. I hit my head multiple in that church.

Btw- the average male and female height adjusted for location keeps increasing which points to protein deficit: https://ourworldindata.org/human-height

(In the world graph towards the end the height seems to decrease since 1990s-this is because countries with shorter people have a higher birth rate. Within the same population the height is still increasing)

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

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

In general, biofuels are a pretty inefficient use of land: https://ourworldindata.org/biofuel-land-solar-electric-vehic...

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the deforestation of the Amazon overblown? What about the draining of American aquifers?

[flagged]

> In terms of the Amazon... that was done BY humans... the cattle didn't tear down any trees.

This is a pedantic distinction that accomplishes nothing.

The humans did it to grow cattle for food. If the price of that destruction had to be paid by the producers/consumers there would be a lot less people eating meat.

Post reply on HN