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

311–320 of 360 posts

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

#311

Post by all2 »

cogman10 wrote: post #276
fredthompson wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I grew up on a farm and lived around farmers. This is my lived experience. I saw first hand farmers tear up a barley fields to plant wheat when the price got high enough. Farming is a game of speculation. Planting last year's cash crop can be a successful strategy just like buying APPL today will likely yield good returns. Yet, it's a very hard market to predict with a lot of luck involved. Maybe only a few chase the…

> The free market does not work with crops.

I'd argue that this should be refined to something like "farmers that speculate heavily struggle in an under-regulated free market".

Financial stability in highly volatile markets depends on appropriate planning, saving, and distribution. I say this from the investment perspective, but I would venture to guess that it also applies to hard goods like food-stuffs.

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

#312

Post by cute_boi »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #39
charlesabarnes wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cattle feed is more than grass

depends on the phase of development. Most beef is pasture fed for a significant period, maybe supplemented with extra feed in the winter, but still grass, etc. It's only near the relatively short end they are consolidated & finished at the feed lot.

> Most beef is pasture fed for a significant period

Citations please.

When i looked into internet [1] it says "approximately 95% of the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain"

[1] https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production

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

#313

Post by cute_boi »

piva00 wrote: post #211
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…

I recommend you visiting the Brazilian region of Pantanal, if possible travel through Mato Grosso do Sul -> Mato Grosso -> southern Pará where it transitions into the Amazon. You will see vast areas of cattle ranching, soybeans plantation used for cattle feed, and other crops that can be used as cattle feed. All that area used to be the Pantanal and Amazon, now transformed to grow beef. If we would reduce the calorie…

If we stop subsidizing i think it will reduce a lot.

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

#314

Post by Alupis »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #294
Alupis wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all. Maybe just quit being needlessly pedantic? Every point you've attempted to raise in this thread has been entirely pointless and equally ridiculous.

> Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all. This applies to almost all fruit though. But saying people in need don't need any fruit would be a terrible stance. What gives?

So we're moving goalposts? Where did I say people in need don't need any fruit?

People in need don't need single/one calorie tart cherries that are rarely eaten on their own. Consuming tart cherries typically involves processing that is more costly in terms of ingredients and time than simply using the pre-processed versions. Tart cherries are sometimes donated and are rarely destroyed.

Which argument will you come up with next?

You've bounced all over the place in this thread. Just let it rest...

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

#315

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #306
TimorousBestie wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And you'll get a lot farther in life if you stop thinking of real people and their development and culture as video game abstractions. Oh, it’s far too late for that. As the kids say, he’s cooked. He’ll be complaining about hypothetical Appalachians invading New England or New York or the United States (all actual examples, see below) in the nursing home. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que…

I don’t understand. Do you (1) think Appalachia is great, or (2) you agree that Appalachia lags the rest of the U.S., but think that has nothing to do with how Appalachian parents socialize their children to behave what they teach their kids to value?

Pakistan spent quite a bit on education in East Pakistan up until 1971. and I've even pointed you to the article in Prothom Alo where Bangladeshi experts admitted that but you do you. It's not like Ibn Khaldun didn't hit on similar points with asabiyya but saying we have A/B testing here is wild.

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

#316

Post by mcv »

Solstinox wrote: post #265
mcv wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could other crops grow on that land? The crop you grow is a choice too.

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

#317

Post by some_random »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #253
some_random wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

You could make corn in the US free and that would not help it get to people in the DRC who are blockaded by Rwanda backed militias. It would not make transporting that corn to Syria cheaper or easier. I will give that it would make ethanol cheaper, so that's cool at least.

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

#318

Post by tracker1 »

foxyv wrote: post #236
tracker1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Carrots and beans take up a fraction of the land required for cattle. Especially considering that most beans are grown to feed cattle.

Cattle can be raised on land unsuitable for carrots or beans.

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

#319

Post by tracker1 »

throwaway-11-1 wrote: post #275
tracker1 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legumes and soy in particular is a pretty common allergy... it's nearly impossible to get sufficient protein without meat if you have a legume allergy. The impact of non-natural feeds on the overall nutrition profile for chickens and pork are larger than with ruminant animals. Chickens have been bred and changed a lot through environmental manipulation to grow much faster than in nature. There are a few breeds of cow…

Overall legume allergies affect 1-5% of the population, this is all legumes combined including peanuts etc. Soy allergies are 0.3 - 0.5%, not sure what you qualify as pretty common. For the record I have a fairly serious peanut allergy and abstain from meat and dairy with zero issues.

FWIW, I have pretty bad reactions to most foods outside of eggs and ruminant meat... so whatever the limited number of the population; across billions, you're still talking about millions of people. And it's pretty bad when you're one of those people, and there's others literally want to outlaw your food supply.

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

#320

Post by whalesalad »

some_random wrote: post #302
dcreater wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be better if you shared a logic based argument as to why you disagree with him?

No I will not argue with someone who thinks that country music is a psyop to make people ok with growing corn for animal feed and fuel, it is not a productive use of my time.

Do some research bud, you might be surprised.
Post reply on HN