Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 253 posts

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#91

Post by moreranchplease »

monksy wrote: post #63
dashundchen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article the author talks about eating both a beef burger and cheese, so I don't think he has a "vegan agenda". > 2. There are distinct benefits from eating meat (vitamins), in which it's incredibly inefficient from getting them from plants Raising meat with today's common production methods (feed lots) is incredibly inefficient. In fact, a plant based diet can meet all nutritional requirements with just B12 vi…

> just B12 vitamins Those require processing, and often times the supplement industry isn't exactly that clean. (I'm looking at you cheap fish oil sups) Also you should consider the efficency of what the equillence of plans would take. (More plants requires more land+water, which requires more infrastructure, more transportation, etc). Also, don't forget about soil quality and erosion. You can't just grow infinitely…

You should really look into this more. We already grow more than enough plants to feed the world. The vast majority of them are fed to livestock. Just like the vast majority of water is used for livestock. Just like the vast majority of antibiotics are used for livestock. Just like the vast majority of land is used for livestock.

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#92

Post by wcoenen »

TACIXAT wrote: post #47
moreranchplease wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considerably more water is used to raise cattle than plants. And then the plants that they feed on also need water.

Efficiency isn't really an argument that is going to get people to change their preferences. Case in point, Electron apps. Even if beef becomes the Electron of the food world, you know a ton of people are still going to consume it.

Higher efficiency should eventually result in a lower price, as mentioned in the article. Prices do affect consumer behavior.

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#93

Post by zentiggr »

ribs wrote: post #37
soperj wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way about vegetables. I know other animals do it all the time, but when you add them up all the plant deaths are horrific.

Right? At least a cow has a chance to run away. But a carrot - it’s stuck in the ground, no legs, no sensory apparatus. It doesn’t have a chance.

I know this is going to get downvoted, but...

"...these are the cries of the carrots, for tomorrow is the harvest time, and for them, it is the apocalypse!"

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#94

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

omarhaneef wrote: post #54
soperj wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way about vegetables. I know other animals do it all the time, but when you add them up all the plant deaths are horrific.

What is wrong with death? Its not death that is the issue. It is pain and suffering.

Many biologists are not convinced that other animals experience suffering in the same way that we do. There was recently a thread about whether insects feel pain on HN.

This is the result of the special status accorded to humans. One side of it is that we are the only animals capable of moral reasoning and so we should abstain from eating meat even if other animals do it, because we are uniquely placed to understand the harm it causes. The other side of it is that we are justified by being special among all animals to treat animals in the way we do.

Both sides of the coin start from the belief that we are not like other animals. This is obviously a very anthropocentric view: we, ourselves, think we're special. Most likely, no other animal does.

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#95

Post by mythrwy »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32
wyldfire wrote: post #5

I just learned this bit on the radio the other day and was quite surprised: out of 1.9 billion acres in the US, the #1 and #3 ranked uses are cattle and crops (respectively) [1]. Out of the crops, much of it is used for livestock. [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745731823/the-u-s-has-nearly-...

And why is that land used for livestock? Much of this is land in the west, and there's not much else you can do with it. You can't grow crops on it - not enough water. You can't even grow trees on it - not much land got cleared of trees to make room for grazing. All you can do is run some cows or sheep on it. And, behold, it becomes part of this huge acreage used for cattle.

Cattle _can_ be extremely environmentally destructive.

I was always angry to see them out grazing on public lands in the Sonoran desert where they trample emerging small cactus and graze down the nurse plants small saguaro need to get started. They also trash sensitive riparian areas. There was no animal like that there, cattle should not be in that area in my opinion, most especially on public ground.

However environments that natively supported animals of that size, plain or grass type areas, no problem, lease it out. Cattle actually do environmental good in these areas helping to keep brush down and building grasslands.

Unfortunately this isn't most of the public ground in the Western US.

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#96

Post by artimaeis »

ziddoap wrote: post #82
artimaeis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But are these plant burgers actually claiming or marketing themselves as healthy? > Yes. That's not how I read that at all, look at your own quote again. > "Imagine your favorite meaty dishes[...]while being better for you [...]"[1]" Evaluate the context -- they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables. They're saying it's better for you than the other places you get "your…

> they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables I'm not claiming that they said that either? They claim they are better (read: health ier ) than the products they are trying to replace (read: meat). > they're marketing them self as better than animal So... healthier than animals? I understand there's some semantic ambiguity, but come on.

Given GP's statement about "not as healthy as eating less processed plant based foods", your reply of "yes" to the question of whether their marketing copy is selling them on "healthy", there was some confusion on my part. If that wasn't your intention then that's my bad.

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#97

Post by antisthenes »

Falling3 wrote: post #59
technothrasher wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't hold it against tigers and lions I additionally wouldn't hold it against a tiger or lion for eating me . I'd certainly attempt to avoid it, but I won't blame the animal. Animals eat other animals. We're animals. While not eating other animals seems morally virtuous, I don't necessarily see it as a moral imperative simply because we can think about it in a more abstract way than other animals likely can.

That's a Naturalistic Fallacy. You can justify just about any behavior (theft, murder, rape) by the same reasoning that other animals do it.

First of all, it's called Appeal to Nature fallacy, not Naturalistic fallacy.

Second, theft, murder and rape aren't necessary for immediate survival. Also, animals don't commit murder in nature, because the target of the murder has to be a human, and it has to be within the context of human law. Same with rape and theft.

In the context of nature those actions are just competition for resources. I'm actually not entirely sure what your point was.

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#98

Post by sharx »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #87
omarhaneef wrote: post #11

I think the part that rings clearly in my head is the ethical part. I really cannot believe we eat animals. I know other animals do it all the time -- and I don't hold it against tigers and lions -- but its still strange to me that we, humans, do it. If you don't feel that strong surprise, then I think the other arguments may or may not work for you. But if you have that sense that it is strange and perhaps off, then…

>> I really cannot believe we eat animals I don't understand this. We are animals. Why is it specially prohibited to us that we eat other animals? Note also that, as animals, we are not plant-eaters: we can't survive on plant matter alone. We are made [1] to eat other animals. We are omnivores, yes? So why is it unethical for us, specifically, to eat other animals when it's not unethical for other animals? __________…

The way I see it, we've exited the food chain. We systematically breed and "process" animals for consumption in astounding numbers. Also meat makes up a much larger proportion of the modern American diet than it did for our early ancestors.

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#99

Post by dashundchen »

monksy wrote: post #63
dashundchen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article the author talks about eating both a beef burger and cheese, so I don't think he has a "vegan agenda". > 2. There are distinct benefits from eating meat (vitamins), in which it's incredibly inefficient from getting them from plants Raising meat with today's common production methods (feed lots) is incredibly inefficient. In fact, a plant based diet can meet all nutritional requirements with just B12 vi…

> just B12 vitamins Those require processing, and often times the supplement industry isn't exactly that clean. (I'm looking at you cheap fish oil sups) Also you should consider the efficency of what the equillence of plans would take. (More plants requires more land+water, which requires more infrastructure, more transportation, etc). Also, don't forget about soil quality and erosion. You can't just grow infinitely…

> Those require processing, and often times the supplement industry isn't exactly that clean. (I'm looking at you cheap fish oil sups)

B12 comes from bacteria, and is very frequently supplemented into cattle as well. Animals do not produce their own B12, it's from bacteria consumed in the soil.

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/livestock-biosecurity/cobalt-def...

> Also you should consider the efficency of what the equillence of plans would take. (More plants requires more land+water, which requires more infrastructure, more transportation, etc). Also, don't forget about soil quality and erosion. You can't just grow infinitely on the same land. Let's not forget yield loss due to pests and diease.

> Cows are huge and they feed a lot of people with very little waste. (Assuming you don't throw out the organs and bones)

I am not sure what you think feeds animal agriculture. Huge amounts of plants (and therefore fossil fuel energy via fertilizer) are required to produce a much smaller amount of animal protein. With the size of animal agriculture, most are not roaming around grazing grass, they are eating farmed plants [1]. Because it takes many plant calories (I've seen estimates from 10-25 plant calories for one calorie animal) animals are using way more land, fertilizer, transportation, no matter how much of the animal is being used

[1] https://sentientmedia.org/u-s-farmed-animals-live-on-factory....

>According to the latest Sentience Institute analysis, the percent of U.S. farmed animals living on factory farms is…

* Broiler chickens (99.9%) live on factory farms

* Turkeys (99.8%) live on factory farms

* Egg chickens (98.2%) live on factory farms

* Pigs (98.3%) live on factory farms

* Cows (70.4%) live on factory farms

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-indus...

> A 212-page online report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet’s arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation.

Re: The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry?

#100

Post by ziddoap »

artimaeis wrote: post #96
ziddoap wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables I'm not claiming that they said that either? They claim they are better (read: health ier ) than the products they are trying to replace (read: meat). > they're marketing them self as better than animal So... healthier than animals? I understand there's some semantic ambiguity, but come on.

Given GP's statement about "not as healthy as eating less processed plant based foods", your reply of "yes" to the question of whether their marketing copy is selling them on "healthy", there was some confusion on my part. If that wasn't your intention then that's my bad.

I did answer the quoted part in isolation, so I understand the ambiguity and probably could have done more to make myself clear.

For what its worth, I have nothing against Beyond Meat or their mission.

Post reply on HN