Most of the world’s grain is not eaten by humans • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by bayesian_horse » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:02 PM UTC

avgcorrection wrote: post #62

bayesian_horse wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grass-fed beef is no real solution to the grain shortage. For one the meat is more expensive, for another there is a limit to the land that can be used as meadows but not for other crops.

Can you use the meadows above the tree line for agriculture? That’s what they eat during the summer.

As I said, there's a limit to such land, and a limit to how much cattle that can be raised on that land.

There's a reason why cattle farming went from extensive to intensive methods.

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

#82

Post by bayesian_horse » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:04 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #80

bayesian_horse wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a contradiction to my statement in what way? Do you think the United States is the only wealthy country? The fact is that the war in Ukraine is leading to shortages and those are felt by the poorest, not the richest.

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

#83

Post by diordiderot » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:04 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #77

goodpoint wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Fascinating! I had no idea corn was so calorific. Do you know how the inputs compare? As in are the amounts of fertilizer and pesticides similar?

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

#84

Post by tcfhgj » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:05 PM UTC

jazzyjackson wrote: post #70

heretogetout wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the math clear that meat consumption requires more emissions than non-meat consumption, on average (as in per calorie)?

depends on the meat and the non-meat. There is carbon-negative beef, and there are plants that require enormous amounts of artificial soil additives. Probably the biggest factor is whether the meat comes from a ranch in your general area and if the bell-pepper in your salad was flown in from holland.

meet the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Hq8eVOMHs&t=4s

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

#85

Post by diordiderot » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:10 PM UTC

zamfi wrote: post #51

wyre wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no more time left for this kind of pragmatism. It doesn’t matter it people disagree, the truth is supporting meat consumption is supporting industries that are actively killing us and the planet.

I assume you are being serious, but the truth is that supporting ICE vehicle sales and the fossil fuel industry as a result is supporting industries that are actively killing us and the planet also . I sure hope you bike (or drive a conflict-free electric car, I guess?) and are powered by your own solar panels if you feel this way.

AHH a classic right wing gotcha

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...

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

#86

Post by tcfhgj » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:10 PM UTC

zamfi wrote: post #51

wyre wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no more time left for this kind of pragmatism. It doesn’t matter it people disagree, the truth is supporting meat consumption is supporting industries that are actively killing us and the planet.

I assume you are being serious, but the truth is that supporting ICE vehicle sales and the fossil fuel industry as a result is supporting industries that are actively killing us and the planet also . I sure hope you bike (or drive a conflict-free electric car, I guess?) and are powered by your own solar panels if you feel this way.

why do you have to have your own solar panels? doesn't make any sense to me

I agree however on biking (or public transport). I will always try to live max 15-20km away from work, such that I always can use a bike or a velomobile.

Please don't try to make ad hominem arguments, thanks.

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

#87

Post by tcfhgj » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:14 PM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #68

fortysixdegrees wrote: post #24

Quoted post unavailable.

I generally see this argument pushed by vegans whose central issue is really animal rights, which is a valid concern, but the claim that a 100% vegan world, all other things being unchanged, would be one free from fossil-fueled global warming is simply not true. Generally speaking the claim is that significant amounts of agricultural energy go into growing grain for animals, and that domestic animal populations resul…

> but I don't think 'fixing the climate' is really a very strong one.

and why is that?

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

#88

Post by codefreeordie » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:19 PM UTC

baisq wrote: post #74

goodpoint wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nope. Especially given the extent to which "cow" is a thing that we created because we wanted more/better beef.

Over centuries, we have become increasingly efficient at producing beef, and are extremely efficient at it. It is probably not possible to be much more efficient using whole-plant crops and growing whole-animal beef.

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

#89

Post by sorenjan » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:20 PM UTC

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #4

In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%. I can't help but wonder how it would be without any animal agriculture.

Humans and our domesticated animals really dominate the planets resources. I wonder how long it can sustain us mistreating it like we do.

"Humans and their livestock represent 96% of all mammals on earth in terms of biomass, whereas all wild mammals represent only 4%"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#/media/F...

"The standing biomass of domesticated poultry, mostly chickens, has been calculated as 5 Mt C, about three times higher than the total biomass of all wild bird species combined"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.180...

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

#90

Post by tillinghast » Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 10:20 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #80

bayesian_horse wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is giving the dystopian chills when I consider that the Uber-wealthy proponents of population reduction (Bill Gates) are buying up crop land. Long game?