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

251–260 of 360 posts

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

#251

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

worik wrote: post #120
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is feeding the world a real problem? Yes. > I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. I don't know how to respond to this. It's like saying you don't think breathing underwater is difficult, except for the secondary effects of water. War is a problem. Energy supply is a problem. Logistics is a problem. All these problems lead to starvati…

Feeding the world is a problem of economics and politics, not the ecological problems of growing food. There is huge capacity for food production in the world, and no reason anyone should go hungry Keeping people hungry is deliberate economic policy. In New Zealand where I live we make enough food for millions more than live here, yet many face food insecurity. As I say, it is deliberate, calculated, government polic…

Of course it's a political problem. So what are we going to do? Sit around and pray for a miracle that solves all of politics? Meanwhile people are suffering. Increasing efficiency of food production will actually create more food, which makes it cheaper, which makes it easier for people to get. That we can probably actually accomplish, unlike solving politics.

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

#252

Post by [deleted] »

mcv wrote: post #230
tracker1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For grass fed cattle, the vast majority of said water is from rain that would have fallen on the land with or without the cattle. It's not generally municipal supplies of water in use for naturally raised cattle.

Absolutely. But not all beef is grass fed. The situation would be very different if it was.

[deleted]

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

#253

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

some_random wrote: post #206
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is feeding the world a real problem? Yes. > I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. I don't know how to respond to this. It's like saying you don't think breathing underwater is difficult, except for the secondary effects of water. War is a problem. Energy supply is a problem. Logistics is a problem. All these problems lead to starvati…

>Another reason people starve is economics and market forces. The market decides it wants to use up more water and grain to feed cows. That grain and water is now not available for purchase as human food. That means it is more scarce on the human-feeding market. Scarcity drives up prices. So livestock feed makes grain more expensive, making it harder to purchase, for people to eat. None of these are logistics, energy…

Something doesn't have to be the main driver to still have an impact on the problem. Increasing food production efficiency would have a marked impact on the problem, without requiring you to to figure out how to end war or "fix" energy or logistics.

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

#254

Post by burnt-resistor »

One of the weakest and least persuasive arguments, like animal cruelty, against animal ag. Data will also never convince anyone that they're doing something dangerous or selfish especially when their salary or lifestyle can be justified and rationalized through denial and cognitive dissonance.

The stronger arguments are:

- Local air, water, and soil pollution.

- Climate change 16±2% contribution.

- Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution because the antibiotics over used in livestock are typically used in humans through the mostly different veterinary supply chain but they're the same fundamental molecules.

- Pandemic virus evolution due to both wildlife and (human, for now) workers getting very, very close to animals and animal waste crowded together creating a Petri dish. It's already happened several times throughout history.

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

#255

Post by satvikpendem »

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…

Insects are even more efficient, much as people don't want to eat them, at least in western cultures.

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

#256

Post by dh2022 »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #190
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Starving people in North Korea are surviving (since per definition they are surviving if they are not dead). Doesn’t mean North Korean diet is something we should strive for.

So much this ^^^^^.

Average North Korean is now about 3 inches shorter than the average South Korean [0]. 70 years ago they were the same people with the same height... Both nations have very little in the way of immigration so this difference is all due to the environment (i.e. in this case nutrition).

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17774210

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

#257

Post by boothby »

array_key_first wrote: post #247
fredthompson wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's true though, these regulations exists because speculation and profit-chasing in agriculture is what lead to the dust bowl and worsened the great depression. We really, really don't want a repeat of that.

The amazing thing about people failing to learn from history is that everybody thinks they're too smart to (a) learn history or (b) follow rules enacted to prevent the disasters of yesteryear.

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

#258

Post by rainsford »

eykanal wrote: post #33
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…

This is being downvoted, but is raising a serious point. - Nearly 90% of Americans eat red meat [1]. - Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red meat. This issue does not poll well [1]. - Despite the above, Americans are eating less red meat than we used to [2]. - The vast majority of people who choose to reduce their meat intake do so fo…

I think it's probably a mistake on any topic to conduct or not conduct research based on what's most useful to a particular side of an argument. Especially in this case, where the party split in the poll results suggest reasonable debate on this issue is yet another casualty of partisan culture war nonsense.

It's not like people aren't aware of the environmental arguments around red meat production. Deliberately ignoring research on that front to avoid triggering people concerned about a red meat ban and to make a better argument for people who want to reduce red meat consumption seems just as likely to backfire, leading people into believing they're being manipulated into supporting what's really an environmental argument with the Trojan horse of health and economic reasons.

Laying out all the facts but focusing the actual argument on the most relevant ones seems like a much better strategy. I personally have been cutting back on red meat for health reasons and because, while I can afford it, paying that much for beef is annoying when pork or chicken fits my cooking needs just fine for much cheaper. But I still find it useful to know that choice also has a positive environmental impact, even though that wouldn't otherwise be a deciding factor for me and certainly wouldn't be justification enough for me to support banning red meat. In fact it seems like a strong argument for caring about environmental things is pointing out to folks how there can be plenty of other reasons to do things that also have environmental benefits.

I think we have a serious problem with people being and acting stupid. One way we can improve that state of affairs is stop treating them as if they are stupid and that's what we expect of them.

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

#259

Post by jlaporte »

Treating protein as calories is a category error.

Fat and carbs are energy, properly treated as calories. Protein is not (in a non-starving person) used for energy, and it should be measured in grams not calories. The input calories weren't lost, they were converted to protein for use building body structure instead of energetic use.

If the authors wanted to make an honest argument here, they would show the relative conversion of feed calories to animal protein across different livestock.

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

#260

Post by JuniperMesos »

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.

I know a number of people who have immigrated from Scandinavian countries to the US, generally for high-prestige or high-paying work. If quality of life in Scandinavia was consistently higher than in the US, they wouldn't be doing this.
Post reply on HN