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

321–330 of 360 posts

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

#321

Post by tracker1 »

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.

Would it really be though? From my experience, most of the anti-meat crowd is against all meat, for any reason.

As to alternatives for real meat not grown as animals... we don't even get micro-nutrients for baby formula right... I won't trust alternatively grown meat for a very long time. I and my brother wouldn't have survived on conventional baby formula... I have issues with just about everything outside eggs and red meat.

As for all beef being grass fed/finished... I'd be way more than happy to see it become the norm, exceptions for snowy parts of the year only. I'd like to see regenerative farming, which pretty much requires ruminant cycles, be the norm everywhere... we need more ruminants, not less imo.

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

#322

Post by tracker1 »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #176
tracker1 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>In terms of the Amazon... that was done BY humans... the cattle didn't tear down any trees literally the funniest thing I have ever read on HN, well done

The point is... blame the specific organizations and nations that allow(ed) such practices, not all of meat producers and consumers.

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

#323

Post by tracker1 »

asdff wrote: post #199
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.

I've seen it on undeveloped (or, I should say not yet developed) land in a few places... Would be cool to see more of this.

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

#324

Post by tracker1 »

luqtas wrote: post #180
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.

then your next step is to cite research from the guy who used to hunt elephants in Africa and it's the heirs of a multi-million livestock industry, doing TED talks about the topic meanwhile no independent or state funded research except their organization could replicate the findings over the decades?

What happened to US grasslands when eliminating the majority of the ruminants from those lands? What has happened to the grassland reserves for Buffalo in MT since re-introducing and growing said populations?

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

#325

Post by r_p4rk »

b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #245
r_p4rk wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soy is an excellent protein source?

1. "protein" is a blanket term for a number of amino acids we need, and vegetable sources tend to miss a bunch of them. 2. atrocious calorie to protein ratio due to carbs. I imagine eating a pound (dry weight!) of any legume every day would get real old real fast. 3. phytoestrogens. not just soy, all legumes are full of them, even peanuts.

1. yeah, i know, soy is packed full of them though and considered a complete protein hence my reply :)

2. i imagine eating a pound of most unprocessed food sources would be bad, tofu and tempeh are very competitive and have macros similar to egg or cheese

3. not sure where you're going with this? surely you're not referencing the well debunked claim that soy feminizes men or something?

---

I'm not even vegan and I make plenty of room for soy derived foods in my diet because the benefits are so concrete. It helps with muscle recovery and inflammation via soy isoflavones, and the gut health benefit from diversifying protein sources is very important. It has marginally less leucine, but I am ingesting 200g of protein a day because I actually lift so that really doesn't matter.

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

#326

Post by some_random »

whalesalad wrote: post #320
some_random wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Take your pills bud

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

#327

Post by selimthegrim »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #303
danaris wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a Civilization-game style “tech tree” for cultural and social development. ...I'ma stop you there. There really isn't. 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.

> 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…

Nursing homes are too American by his lights.

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

#328

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#329

Post by kshahkshah »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #88
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 understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first. You don’t think the two are related at all? When you say “solve” energy problems, do you mean from supply-side solutions or demand-side solutions?

Just getting back here, didn't expect all these replies.

I meant supply-side.

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

#330

Post by Argonaut998 »

r_p4rk wrote: post #194
Argonaut998 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nothing, like the 10s of generations before me.
Post reply on HN