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

191–200 of 360 posts

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

#191

Post by r_p4rk »

b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #54
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.

those 33 calories are dirt cheap carbs. there's absolutely no shortage of soy and corn syrup for you to consume.

Soy is an excellent protein source?

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

#192

Post by ahhhhnoooo »

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…

We have 8 billion people. We have enough people to solve both the energy problem and the food efficiency problem.

That said, it's very, very funny that you responded to an article about energy inefficiency (calorie -> calorie) and said we should solve our energy problems. Beef is an energy problem! We're putting 30x the energy into the product against the energy we get out! Thats wasted energy!

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

#193

Post by victorbjorklund »

yesfitz wrote: post #179
tracker1 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large amount of beef is mostly grass fed and finished on a grain feed lot the last month of life.

Got a source for "last month of life"? Penn State University Extension says "...approximately 95% of the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to 30% of their life), on average."[1] Oklahoma State University Extension also cites a study that compares "growth and carcass attributes of calves finished for 98 to 105 days in a grass system or…

The world is bigger than US. A minority of the world is US.

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

#194

Post by r_p4rk »

Argonaut998 wrote: post #136
xvxvx wrote: post #73

Stop filtering your nutrition through animals. It’s inefficient.

Yes let me eat 5.7kg of broccoli per day instead of 500g of beef to meet my protein macros

Okay but what are you eating after your weekly allowance of 500g red meat to avoid needlessly increasing your bowel cancer risk?

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

#195

Post by danaris »

rayiner wrote: post #137
selimthegrim wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So..."Pakistan's problem is a Pakistan thing", unrelated to markets....

...but Bangladesh's success is purely attributable to markets? It's not "a Bangladesh thing"?

You might want to check your prejudices there.

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

#196

Post by jshen »

saalweachter wrote: post #87
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…

Actually, the last time I looked into it, if you grow 2 acres of corn and 1 acre of soy, and feed it to chickens, you get out a similar number of calories (and more protein?) as 3 acres of soy. Soy is pretty good, but corn is insane .

what?!?!

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

#197

Post by neuralRiot »

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

I’ve vegan for 20+ years and find weird the obsession people have with meat that without even talking about milk. Literally there are hundreds of alternatives better for health, for the environment and for the animals yet we keep looking for justifications to consume them.

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

#198

Post by jshen »

darth_avocado wrote: post #61
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…

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 absolutely survive and thrive on a vegetarian diet, and there is decent evidence suggesting you're health will be better.

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

#199

Post by asdff »

tracker1 wrote: post #77

I think we need more ruminant animals raised on grass as a means of regenerative farming... I think beef largely gets a bad rap for a lot of reasons that largely don't hold to grass fed cattle farming.

I'm starting to see goat herds used a lot for wildfire brush abatement for large business properties on steep hillsides (not sure if I've seen an individual residential lot goat-abated but maybe it happens too). Normally hard and dangerous work for people with power tools, but the goats seem happy and in their element.

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

#200

Post by colechristensen »

ahhhhnoooo wrote: post #192
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…

We have 8 billion people. We have enough people to solve both the energy problem and the food efficiency problem. That said, it's very, very funny that you responded to an article about energy inefficiency (calorie -> calorie) and said we should solve our energy problems. Beef is an energy problem! We're putting 30x the energy into the product against the energy we get out! Thats wasted energy!

Eh. Grow beef mostly grazed on marginal land that can't support other agriculture.

This is how a LOT of beef is produced and how most of it SHOULD BE.

They're not "lost calories" if they're produced on large swaths of semi-arid land that don't support any other kind of agriculture.

And on the opposite side... a LOT of those "lost calories" are corn. Corn is substantially more productive than other crops and people don't want to replace large portions of their diet with cereal grains or corn syrup so much of those "lost calories" would also be lost to much less efficient crops.

Post reply on HN