Live data from Hacker News

Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

economist.com

71–80 of 314 posts

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#71
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking genuinely: what point are you making with that EPA data? That switching our method of transportation is more impactful than switching our diet because transportation is a bigger chunk of the emissions pie?

Transportation and electricity add up to 52% of emissions. All of agriculture is 11%. What part of that is meat? A little more than half?

I see, thanks for the elaboration. You may be correct, but there is more nuance based on my reading of the report: in particular, the "agriculture" category is somewhat misleading. I read a bit of the report, so I might as well post my findings here :)

"Agriculture" appears to measure the emissions generated directly from agricultural processes themselves, as well as "secondary" combustion inputs. This includes "enteric fermentation in domestic livestock, livestock manure management, rice cultivation, agricultural soil management, liming, urea fertilization, and field burning of agricultural residues". However, based on my reading -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- large parts of the agricultural process are included in each of the transportation, electricity, and industry categories. Thus the effects of agriculture would be seen downstream and upstream in these other categories. For example, any agricultural use of electricity is included in "electricity", not "agriculture".

An aside on meat specifically: since meat production involves more inputs, such as feed, livestock, and additional processing, you would have to account for these when comparing to a non-meat diet. For example, every cow involves the transportation of the cow, the (industrial) production of fertilizers needed to grow its feed, the production of the materials to package the feed, the transportation of the feed to a facility for packaging, the transportation of the packaged feed to a farm, the transportation of the cow to a slaughtering facility, the refrigeration of the cuts of meat, etc. The emissions generated during these steps would belong to the transportation, industry, and electricity categories, not even counting the extra emissions included in the agriculture category. While all food production would have steps such as these, clearly there are more steps in meat production because there are more inputs.

Now, back to the original point of transportation versus agriculture: the report says that 25% of the transportation category is "freight" -- I believe the shipping I described above would be included in this. However, to your point, around 60% of transportation is due to passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks, which is quite significant and likely mostly personal use (rather than agricultural), and that's where changing transportation methods can make a difference. I'm too tired to find what percent of industry and electricity are related to the agricultural process, but you would need to calculate this and compare it to personal transportation use in order to get a fair comparison.

In my personal opinion, I think we should both reduce meat consumption and personal vehicle use. No need to pick favorites.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#72
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alfalfa is also used for cows grown in CA for CA residents. That's also a bad thing. Cow farms should be significantly limited in arid climates. There are ecologically better alternatives.

There are way too many cows, man, and all because of marketing and greed.

Greed only plays a supporting role here.

Gluttony is the cardinal sin more to blame.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#74

Most of the world's grain is eaten by humans' food. We're really really good at efficiently producing grain -- especially field corn (which is not super desirable as human food without significant processing), and we grow lots of animals of all sorts. Naturally, when we can, we feed those animals on field corn -- they don't complain, and it's the cheapest food we can produce for them. In the US we also subsidize corn…

You keep repeating the word "efficient" but there is nothing less efficient than animal farming. By far. Both in terms of land, water and energy usage.

Is there any way of obtaining beef that is more efficient than cow farming?

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#75
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have data/source for this? Interested in learning more, didn't think it was this much.

https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests and the rate at which we deforest and destroy grassland to make grazing land is ever-increasing.

Thanks very much for posting. I'd point out that the numbers from that very useful link are wildly, wildly different from what the parent commenter posted:

1. The graphs appear to be showing that 29% of the Earth's land surface is "barren land", i.e. deserts, glaciers, rocky terrain, etc. In 1900, 48% of the NON barren land was forests, so 34% of the Earth's total land was forested.

2. In 2018 the percentage of forested non-barren land was down to 38%, or 27% of Earth's total land.

34% to 27% of total land area from 1900 to 2018 is a major difference from the parent commenter's assertion of "In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%".

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#76

A staggering amount of California's water is used for alfalfa, which gets shipped to China to feed cows. In essence, we are allowing certain farmers to sell CA's water to China.

Don't worry, CA can't do it forever as that water is coming out of a giant underground sea that is collapsing, it will never fill up again.

https://energyskeptic.com/2021/aquifer-decline-in-california...

https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/c...

https://revealnews.org/article/9-sobering-facts-about-califo...

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#77

Most of the world's grain is eaten by humans' food. We're really really good at efficiently producing grain -- especially field corn (which is not super desirable as human food without significant processing), and we grow lots of animals of all sorts. Naturally, when we can, we feed those animals on field corn -- they don't complain, and it's the cheapest food we can produce for them. In the US we also subsidize corn…

You keep repeating the word "efficient" but there is nothing less efficient than animal farming. By far. Both in terms of land, water and energy usage.

Eh, beef, maybe, but the math basically comes down to: wheat, 4 million calories per acre, corn, 15 million. Take that 15 million calories of corn and feed it to chickens for a 3:1 calorie exchange and you've got 5 million calories of chicken per acre.

It's more complicated than that, but corn yields are so high that they can overpower the otherwise inefficiency of meat production.

Potatoes are as good as corn, and rice nearly so, but just from a land usage perspective chicken is no worse than eating wheat bread.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#78
post #76

A staggering amount of California's water is used for alfalfa, which gets shipped to China to feed cows. In essence, we are allowing certain farmers to sell CA's water to China.

Don't worry, CA can't do it forever as that water is coming out of a giant underground sea that is collapsing, it will never fill up again. https://energyskeptic.com/2021/aquifer-decline-in-california... https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/c... https://revealnews.org/article/9-sobering-facts-about-califo...

The profits that went to a few human owners of that agribusiness should be clawed back

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#79

I've started eating barley a couple of times a week, which is used primarily as an animal grain. I've found it makes a great alternative to rice or quinoa. From Wikipedia: > Globally 70% of barley production is used as animal fodder,[4] while 30% as a source of fermentable material for beer and certain distilled beverages, and as a component of various foods. It is used in soups and stews, and in barley bread of vari…

Black bean, bacon (turkey bacon, for me), and barley stew is my go-to Instantpot meal. I like to imagine I'm eating at a tavern in a vaguely D&D/Middle-Earth-esque setting. Sometimes I add turnips too.

Re: Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans

#80

Which is a very good thing indeed, because it makes our food system robust by operating at a large caloric surplus. When crop failures lead to rising grain prices, ranchers respond by not buying as much grain for their animals. The result is less Prime-grade beef and a whole lot more grain available.

In reality, rich countries are still buying all the grain they can to feed their livestock and carry on as before, just a bit more expensive, while the poorer populations experience the real shortages.

In reality, the United States is the largest exporter of calories in the world, and the overwhelming source of direct food aid, and has been since WWII.
Post reply on HN