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

261–270 of 360 posts

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

#261

Post by bluedino »

irishcoffee wrote: post #181
_aavaa_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard for the market to decide on its own when the environmental damage of meat production is left as an unpriced externality and when government subsidies are handed out like candy.

Pretty sure the western US states are in a water shortage because they grow almonds et. al. In places that were not meant to be agricultural, importing water, fucking up the entire ecosystem of the region and causing massive water shortages, and massive environmental damage. But yeah, we can keep focusing on the farting cows, that’s the problem.

I'd bet the people who don't eat beef eat a lot more almonds than those who do.

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

#262

Post by tzs »

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…

> Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red meat

I'd guess that has more to do with something like half a dozen different Fox hosts saying a few years ago that Biden's Inflation Reduction Act would prohibit Americans from eating hamburger more than once a month.

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

#263

Post by Copernicron »

jamespo wrote: post #205
colechristensen wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

This is the first I've heard of a lot of beef produced on semi-arid land incapable of supporting anything else, any source on that?

There are large areas of British Columbia not at all suitable for farming due to lack of water, or mountains, but you still see cattle ranchers. On top of that, most of Alberta is classified as semi-arid because the Rockies block the vast majority of the rain. Alberta is easily the largest supplier of beef in the country. Crown land in both provinces gets opened up from spring until fall to allow for cattle grazing. It's fairly widespread in some parts of the world.

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

#264

Post by TimorousBestie »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #260
mhurron wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How are you extrapolating overall quality of life from some anecdotes of high-prestige or high-income workers? Seems like a fallacy of composition slipped in somewhere.

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

#265

Post by Solstinox »

mcv wrote: post #232
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…

Exactly. Beef could be sustainable if it was done on a much smaller scale. But everybody wants beef, so we feed it enormous amounts of corn.

It’s not grain or corn you could eat though. Not fit for human consumption.

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

#266

Post by colechristensen »

jamespo wrote: post #205
colechristensen wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

This is the first I've heard of a lot of beef produced on semi-arid land incapable of supporting anything else, any source on that?

An additional suggestion, go to youtube or wherever and look up Mongolian herding where people are still nomads and conventional farming is done very little because it's not particularly possible.

It's not just cattle, you live yourself on some pretty marginal land and need to eat? Raise you some goats. They eat anything, not a lot, you don't have to feed them, you can eat them, milk them, and use their hair for making cloth.

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

#267

Post by Dylan16807 »

Alupis wrote: post #108
Dylan16807 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook (by making a pie).

If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock. It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about... > It's still food, full of flavor and calories Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good…

Coming back later, I realized earlier I looked up the calories but I didn't compare them to anything else. So while tart cherries "only" have 50 calories per 100g, sweet cherries are up around 60, not very different. An apple also has about 50-60 per 100g. So does an orange.

Fruit isn't super dense in calories to begin with because it has so much water, but it's still a meaningful amount, and tart cherries are pretty standard among fruit.

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

#269

Post by itbeho »

wolpoli wrote: post #147
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…

> EAT-Lancet healthy reference diet I am unable to find this diet. It's likely referring to something called Planetary Health Diet [0] [0] https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet/the-planetary-health-diet/

"please accept cookies to access this content"

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

#270

Post by Ferret7446 »

shafyy wrote: post #158
RhysU wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

I thought most of the corn goes to ethanol
Post reply on HN