[HN Gopher] 40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing...
___________________________________________________________________
40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed
per 1 cal
Author : randycupertino
Score : 142 points
Date : 2026-04-14 18:14 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (iopscience.iop.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (iopscience.iop.org)
| khelavastr wrote:
| Wait til they evaluate calories to produce ensembles of separable
| blends of protein and fats and more...beef is pretty efficient
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Soybeans do pretty well a lot more efficiently. Not perfect,
| naturally, but close, and other stuff can cover gaps.
|
| Obviously not all land is good for crops, but a lot of land
| used for animals or animal feed could be used for crops.
| synasties wrote:
| Then can human process grass?
| charlesabarnes wrote:
| Cattle feed is more than grass
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Correct, but many lands like parts of Alberta and Texas are
| not very good for growing foods humans can eat. So you may as
| well get marginal additional calories out of the non-
| productive land via cellulose digesters.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| 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.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Most cows don't eat grass like a wandering herd. Most cows eat
| stuff we grow on farms that could grow stuff we can eat
| instead.
|
| https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/december/ers-data-...
|
| and
|
| https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-gr...
|
| Let me surface a more direct article:
| https://insideanimalag.org/land-use-for-animal-ag/#:~:text=1...
|
| Of the total land area of the contiguous 48 states, ~45% is
| used for animal ag. This includes: Land for grazing livestock
| at ~35%. Land for crops going specifically to animal feed at
| ~9%. Animal ag farmsteads at <1%.[1-3]
| WorkerBee28474 wrote:
| The first link you posted says that 29% of the land is used
| for pasture and 15% is used for crops (which will include
| both human and animal).
|
| So yes, most cows are eating grass like a wandering herd.
| morsch wrote:
| The data doesn't prove either point. For all we know, a
| very low number of cattle are being grazed on those 29%. Or
| a lot of them. We don't know.
| duskwuff wrote:
| That doesn't follow. The chart is counting the number of
| acres of land which are used for specific purposes, not the
| number of cattle being raised on that land. And the
| category you're counting as "pasture" encompasses rangeland
| as well, which is used at an extremely low density (often
| as low as 1 head of cattle per 10 acres).
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > Most cows don't eat grass like a wandering herd. Most cows
| eat stuff we grow on farms that could grow stuff we can eat
| instead.
|
| Most cows do eat grass and other stuff we can't eat.
|
| "Hard feed" is made from crops grown as part of a rotation
| cycle, or from things like soya where 80% of it is only
| suitable for cattle feed.
| brightbeige wrote:
| Actual title: Only half of the calories produced on croplands are
| available as food for human consumption
| whalesalad wrote:
| This is a really big shocker to most people, especially in
| America. We see these big huge farmlands with rows and rows of
| corn. We hear the propaganda that farmers are the backbone of
| this nation and we can't live without them. Songs sing in our
| heads, "amber waves of grain, from sea to shining sea". People
| get a warm and fuzzy feeling. Country music psyop perpetuates
| this. Meanwhile a substantial portion (as noted here) is
| garbage. It's genetically modified crap from a fortune 100
| company that requires fertilizer and herbicide from the same
| fortune 100 company and any seeds harvested contractually
| cannot be re-used so the grower needs to re-buy every year. And
| it's not for human consumption! A lot of it isn't even for
| animal consumption, it's for ethanol or other uses. Whole
| situation just kinda cracks me up.
| raincole wrote:
| > it's for ethanol or other uses
|
| ... and? I read it so far down. Now could you please kindly
| explain why this is "garbage"?
| wield_overhaul wrote:
| In general, biofuels are a pretty inefficient use of land:
| https://ourworldindata.org/biofuel-land-solar-electric-
| vehic...
| roncesvalles wrote:
| I mean, it's both things. Humans are just really good at
| agriculture by now. Most countries, even those that we
| perceive as poor, produce crops _well_ in surplus of their
| own nutritional needs and can often scale up to produce
| multiples more.
|
| It's no exaggeration to say we can support feeding 100x the
| human population with current agricultural land and
| techniques (assuming you can modify their diets). Largely due
| to GMO, fertilizers, and industrial farming.
| asdff wrote:
| The farmer wants the gmo crop. They see the yields they get
| and go hell yeah. They can't use the seeds next year because
| these are often hybrids taking advantage of hybrid vigor.
| These crops get more out of existing fertilizer applications.
| This is the whole point of them: inputs cost less, yields go
| up, more profit.
|
| Look at this figure of corn yields per acre (1). Yellow is
| the "old age" where yields were stagnant. Red is when
| fertilizer began to be used. Now the huge slope change, has
| been in exploiting genetic hybrids. GMO allows protection of
| desirable hybrid traits that might be lost in breeding,
| introduction of traits to to other strains. Traits of
| interest are primarily around lessening usage of fertilizer,
| lessening usage of insecticides, as these are all input costs
| the farmer would rather not pay especially if they can get
| the same yield without paying. Thank you GMOs for keeping
| this linear change in yield even over the last 15 years!
| Could you believe we improved our corn yields substantially
| over these 15 years? Remarkable the work biologists do in the
| quiet of their field.
|
| But of course, lay people just think it is a big conspiracy.
| They don't understand any of this. They think GMOs are
| copyright but that belies a lack of education of the last
| century of agriculture development, since that doesn't make
| sense as farmers have been using hybrids and ordering new
| seed some 70 years now in certain crops. It is the nations
| who have to resort to reusing seed and these inferior strains
| that are suffering poor yields and food insecurity. Over
| here, we feed far more with far less land under the plow
| every year. Their yields are still stagnant at historical
| levels. And climate change is coming for them, while we are
| understanding the very genetic basis of our yield
| improvement. They will be using seeds we engineer for them to
| be high yield in their changing environment to survive
| widespread famine in the coming decades. GMO is the greatest
| human invention, more important than even computers.
|
| 1. https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/
| wp...
| some_random wrote:
| I'm sorry that is an insane thing to say, if this is
| genuinely representative of your worldview you need to step
| back and reevaluate some things.
| dcreater wrote:
| I think it would be better if you shared a logic based
| argument as to why you disagree with him?
| kshahkshah wrote:
| 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 problems first.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Exactly. The current world population is 8.3 billion and is
| expected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2080 and then begin
| declining. Now, there are a number of other reasons we might
| have food shortages, but population per se I don't think is a
| significant factor.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Even if food shortages aren't an issue, reducing the amount
| of land dedicated to food production is a win for ecosystems.
|
| Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat
| consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in
| terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and
| more interesting place.
|
| And, really, with the whole neu5gc thing, it might be that
| humans would be better off focusing on chickens and seafood
| anyway (clams being a pretty good option for seafood that is
| relatively environmentally friendly).
| tracker1 wrote:
| Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit for
| vegetation farming... because of excess rocks, etc.
| Ruminants that are being naturally (grass) fed are also
| regenerative in terms of soil health.
|
| They don't tend to "bulk up" as much as conventional (grain
| fed and/or finished) options though, so are more expensive
| to produce... the gas emissions are another issue that is
| largely different for grass fed, where the off gases are
| roughly the same as the grass's natural breakdown would
| release anyway.
|
| In terms of water use, naturally grass fed cattle are
| mostly using water that fell on the land as rain in terms
| of how much water they use. It's not much from municipal
| sources, unlike vegetation farming.
|
| Of course there are other ruminant options that are more
| efficient than cattle, such as goats and sheep, with
| similar benefits to the soil.
|
| It just bugs me that cattle gets such a bad repuation...
| especially in that it's one of the few things I can eat
| without issue.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| So, I was saying ecosystems. Filling the world with cows
| is not the same as natural ecosystems.
|
| Also, kurzgesagt did a pretty good episode on meat
| production (edit - they did several, but one was on the
| production demands in terms of energy and environment),
| and if I'm to trust their figures, the "cattle grazing
| exclusively on the pampas" is far from the majority of
| world cattle. If it was, that probably would be an
| improvement, esp if it was done in a way that allowed
| other species to exist too (maybe bring some buffalo
| back?). The percentage would be dramatically improved if
| finishing lots were eliminated though (still a minority
| though). So maybe that's a simple option. Plus, that's
| the cruelest part of the cow's existence.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
| (crazy amount of habitable surface of planet is
| livestock)
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01398-4 (study
| on what percent of production is actually "low-intensity
| grazing on marginal land")
|
| Again, not saying eliminate, just... reduce...
| tracker1 wrote:
| I don't think the answer is reduce though... I think it's
| increase... humans wiped out so many of the ruminant
| animals (buffalo mainly) that kept the grasslands
| healthy... we've largely over-farmed in the interim
| since. We need more ruminants, not less.
|
| This means raising _much_ more than we currently do, and
| probably a reduction in slaughter numbers for the next
| 50+ years to increase the domestic supply. Can 't speak
| for other nations... but it's literally expanding
| grasslands as opposed to desert.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Yes. I saw that TED talk about desertification being
| reversed by ruminants, and while it got a lot of critics,
| it had some pretty good points. But, those ruminants
| would be better off not being beef cattle in terms of
| biodiversity. Also, if they were beef cattle due to the
| lack of anything better, hopefully it would be short
| term, and if you're making a case for use of marginal
| land, they really shouldn't be finished in a feed lot,
| since that is using a lot of cropland to support that.
|
| ... and only some places would (possibly) benefit from
| that.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I think cattle are fine... though I'm also okay with more
| Bison, goats, sheep, deer, elk, etc. I'm also more than
| okay with less use of feed lots and direct butchery of
| grass fed ruminants.
|
| As for marginal land... personally, I can only handle
| mostly eating meat and eggs, doing much better with
| ruminants. I'd be just fine with the majority of
| uninhabited lands being used by mostly wild ruminants
| over any kind of farming, especially farming that is
| using chemical fertilizers and stripping the land.
| mcv wrote:
| > Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit
| for vegetation farming
|
| Can, but that doesn't mean it always is. There's lots of
| cattle that never even comes outside, and is fed food
| that humans could also eat.
|
| I recall reading that during the famine in Ethiopia in
| the 1980s, Ethiopian farmers were exporting beans to feed
| cattle in Europe because that was more profitable than
| feeding people in Ethiopia.
|
| Beef is simply extremely inefficient. And so,
| unfortunately, is cheese (I can do without beef, but not
| without cheese). If cattle is grazing on land that's
| simply not usable for anything else, that's a completely
| different matter, but that's not how most cattle are fed.
| krater23 wrote:
| Yes, we could concreting this land and build housings and
| streets.
| jamespo wrote:
| or could eat something less likely to give you bowel
| cancer
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| >Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat
| consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in
| terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and
| more interesting place.
|
| I've seen articles and threads like this for decades at
| this point. And the only thing any of you have convinced me
| of is that I must start securing my own production of meat.
| This is, I think, the exact opposite of "more efficiently"
| at least from your point of view. I will be unlikely to
| reach the feed-to-gain ratios that professionals regularly
| achieve.
|
| Swine and poultry already in progress, beef and more exotic
| stuff within the next 2 years.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| _shrug_ poultry is already several times more efficient
| than beef in regular production (to say nothing of if
| your coop just has chickens wandering around finding
| their own food), and healthier for you. And hopefully
| your swine and poultry are having overall decent lives.
| And, if your beef is entirely grass fed (I doubt you can
| afford a finishing lot) you 're still overall not using
| cropland to fatten up cows (but maybe that's your goal,
| who knows)
|
| Anyway, you do you. Just offering my opinion on this
| 'cause it seemed like a good place to do it.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| >Not saying people have to go vegetarian
|
| I've vegan for 20+ years and find weird the obsession
| people have with meat that without even talking about milk.
| Literally there are hundreds of alternatives better for
| health, for the environment and for the animals yet we keep
| looking for justifications to consume them.
| mcv wrote:
| Yeah. I used to be vegetarian (I eat some meat again),
| and I love cheese, but I'm well aware that it's almost as
| bad as beef. Quitting cheese feels like a bigger
| sacrifice to me than quitting meat. But I've been
| reducing my cheese consumption lately. That's something
| at least.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| If that helps, some non-cheese that might trigger your
| taste buds:
|
| - Brewer/nutritional/super yeast (with a bit of oil
| and/or smashed cashew): in place of Parmesan
|
| - Tahini: less cheesy but equally bold taste as yeast
|
| - Lactic acid fermented Tofu: whey cheese.
|
| - Tempeh: my favorite, just oiled-panned with salt and
| pepper. Between chicken and soft-Camembert
| all2 wrote:
| > Is feeding the world a real problem?
|
| Yes, but it is not a production capacity problem. The
| constraints on food are mostly in the logistics chain, often
| having to do with corruption or distribution targets (food goes
| where the money is), or regulation (did you know that cherry
| growers in the Upper Midwest are required --_by Federal law_--
| to destroy unsold crops?).
|
| A huge amount of food goes to waste simply because of
| regulation or subsidies, at least within the United States.
| ls612 wrote:
| This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce
| significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big
| negative shock you will still be able to produce enough to
| feed everyone merely by not destroying the excess anymore.
| voxl wrote:
| There is no reason to obliterate food, you should give it
| away to those in need.
| Alupis wrote:
| People do not eat _tart_ cherries directly. They are
| processed into other goods, like pie filling, juice
| concentrate, etc.
|
| Sweet cherries have no such regulation, and are the ones
| you consume directly as a fruit - without any additional
| processing.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect
| the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of
| flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook
| (by making a pie).
| Alupis wrote:
| If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd
| see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more
| often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated,
| or carried-over into next-season's stock.
|
| It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment
| about things they know nothing about...
|
| > It's still food, full of flavor and calories
|
| Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do
| not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they
| are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as
| a fruit in grocery stores.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > If you researched this regulation even a little
|
| Yeah yeah yeah I saw that in your other comment.
|
| That's a _completely different argument_.
|
| The argument you made in _this_ comment is still a bad
| one.
|
| It's interesting to me how people are quick to move the
| goalposts...
| Alupis wrote:
| So you _understood_ the crop we 're discussing is
| _rarely_ destroyed - and _more often_ donated, diverted
| to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or
| exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook
| could use them?
|
| What was even the point of your snarky comment then?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely
| destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary
| markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet
| still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them?
|
| In the context of someone talking about home cooks using
| them, and you acting like "People do not eat tart
| cherries directly." is a _counterargument_ , yes I felt
| compelled to correct that.
|
| The incorrect thing you were implying had nothing to do
| with how often they're actually destroyed. So why would
| that stop me?
| Alupis wrote:
| People _do not_ eat tart cherries directly. The
| overwhelming majority of people will never process them
| into something edible either.
|
| "People in need" are not going to spend time and money
| processing tart cherries into juice concentrate or pie
| filling... especially when a can of either is cheaper
| than the raw ingredients to make your own.
|
| Your point is ridiculous, absurd and pedantic beyond any
| reasonable purpose.
| nkurz wrote:
| Most of what you are saying is correct, but I feel the
| need to respond to your far too many repeated assertions
| that "People do not eat tart cherries directly": Except
| for when they do!
|
| I grow several varieties of sour cherries in my yard, and
| frequently use them whole and without further processing.
| Usually I use them in a recipe like this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clafoutis. Sometimes I pit
| them first, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'll even
| happily snack on them raw.
|
| No, like most small fruit you aren't going eat them
| because you are desperate for calories. But they actually
| aren't any harder to prepare or use than lots of other
| tasty things that people traditionally grow.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| Ok drive to Michigan and haul away 3 tons of cherries.
| munk-a wrote:
| Are Michigan tart cherry farmers allowed to sell direct
| to customers without additional licensing requirements
| and food inspections?
| voxl wrote:
| Insightful retort, did you forget the slight issue of it
| being illegal?
| unglaublich wrote:
| But in a pure market that would mean that during
| overproduction times, prices should be low. Which they
| artificially aren't through industry price fixing.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I'm not sure what a pure market is.
|
| The result that free markets are Prato optimal, though,
| requires conditions like low barriers to entry, perfect
| information, and low cost transactions... none of which
| seem very well met in the case of agriculture.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| It turns out that low barriers to entry, perfect
| information and low cost transactions are almost never
| present.
| bloppe wrote:
| I think your fun cherry fact is pretty inaccurate. If you're
| referring to USDA Marketing Order #930, it's basically about
| setting sales limits in bumper crop years to avoid a
| situation where so many cherries hit the market that farmers
| lose money simply by harvesting them. They're free to donate
| the cherries etc. but again, they would be essentially
| wasting their own money by putting in the time and effort to
| harvest them beyond the amount they're allowed to sell.
| Alupis wrote:
| _Tart_ cherries are supply-controlled because they are
| processed into other goods, like pie filling, and can be
| stored for long duration (multiple seasons). The supply-
| control regulation is designed to prevent a surplus crop from
| depressing the market to the point where it 's no longer
| viable to grow tart cherries - reducing future supply, ie.
| the regulation is designed to provide a consistent, stable
| supply.
|
| Surplus tart cherry crops are rarely destroyed. In the event
| of a surplus, they are often exported, diverted to secondary
| markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Yup. The regulations on food in the US is exactly to make
| sure the shelves stay stocked no matter what. Without such
| regulations, you'd experience random items being
| unavailable and price shocks.
|
| One thing people often don't figure or realize is food
| takes time to grow. It requires long term thinking to make
| sure supplies are sufficient. Left to their own devices,
| farmers will often chase after last season's cash crop.
| That is bad. It's far better for farmers to stick to more
| predictable growing and for more dedicated incentives to be
| issued.
| fredthompson wrote:
| Did you intend to be so insulting, condescending, and
| dismissive? "Left to their own devices, farmers will
| often chase after last season's cash crop. That is bad.
| It's far better for farmers to stick to more predictable
| growing and for more dedicated incentives to be issued."
| array_key_first wrote:
| It's true though, these regulations exists because
| speculation and profit-chasing in agriculture is what
| lead to the dust bowl and worsened the great depression.
| We really, really don't want a repeat of that.
| choilive wrote:
| Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is viable.
| Ultimately energy is the basis all food production. Cheap and
| plentiful energy solves the food production and distribution
| problem, then its just matter of preferences.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Market also decided that the Irish could only eat potatoes.
| ux266478 wrote:
| It was actually a disgusting set of edicts and regulations
| called the Penal Laws, enacted by the English crown, which
| formalized and wrote into law the informal restrictions
| imposed on Irish Catholics after the Tudor conquest, as
| part of a broader genocidal colonialization scheme. Very
| cool attempt to try and sweep that little fact under the
| rug. Fun fact, Adam Smith cites the penal laws as an
| example of the dangers wrought by mercantilism.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| It's hard for the market to decide on its own when the
| environmental damage of meat production is left as an
| unpriced externality and when government subsidies are handed
| out like candy.
| irishcoffee wrote:
| Pretty sure the western US states are in a water shortage
| because they grow almonds et. al. In places that were not
| meant to be agricultural, importing water, fucking up the
| entire ecosystem of the region and causing massive water
| shortages, and massive environmental damage.
|
| But yeah, we can keep focusing on the farting cows, that's
| the problem.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Ask yourself why they are growing almonds there if it's
| such a problem? Because those almond growers have water
| right contracts that are absurdly cheap and are use it or
| lose it.
|
| Fine by me though, add in the environmental costs for
| almonds too. Would you support an initiative of pricing
| these externalities on food, or is it just a snarky
| comment about cow farts?
| irishcoffee wrote:
| So you're good with artificially fucking the water
| supply?
| BadBadJellyBean wrote:
| "The market" doesn't work as long as costs to the environment
| can be externalized. If the cost of climate change and lost
| living space would be added to the cost of beef it might be
| fair. But it isn't. Methane released by cows, cutting down
| rain forests for feed, and all the transporting costs us all
| dearly. But it doesn't cost the manufacturers anything
| directly so beef can be cheap.
| sirbutters wrote:
| And meat is heavily subsidized by the government. It's
| insanity and corruption.
| RhysU wrote:
| In the US agricultural subsidies for 2024 were
| overwhelmingly for corn ($3.2B), soybeans ($1.9B), cotton
| ($998M), and wheat ($960M). Pasture comes in 5th ($741M).
|
| https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-
| what-da...
|
| Tofu and ethanol may be more price-distorted by the US
| government than is beef, but I dunno how to quickly
| support that idea with hard data beyond what I cited
| above.
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| Have you been to the Midwest to observe the scale of corn
| and soybean operations? I would wager the number of
| calories per dollar subsidy produced by the corn and
| soybean industries outweighs handily the calories per
| dollar subsidy produced by cattle operations, especially
| given the 10% reduction in efficiency per trophic level.
|
| Also, how much does beef benefit from cheap feed prices
| (corn and soy) due to subsidies as well?
| stvltvs wrote:
| Depending on how we measure it, either 58% or 75% of that
| heavily subsidized soy goes to feed animals.
|
| https://insideanimalag.org/share-of-soybean-crop-for-
| feed/
| shafyy wrote:
| You jabroni, what do you think they use that soybean and
| corn for? Exactly, to feed liveestock.
| brainwad wrote:
| Just slap a pigouvian tax on it.
| mhurron wrote:
| > The market should decide if beef consumption is viable
|
| The market has decided, ant it decided that the well off are
| more important than the rest so they get what they want at
| everyone elses expense.
|
| Maybe we should stop thinking market forces are in any way
| right or moral. At least saying 'I got mine, fuck you' would
| be honest.
| b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote:
| those 33 calories are dirt cheap carbs. there's absolutely
| no shortage of soy and corn syrup for you to consume.
| r_p4rk wrote:
| Soy is an excellent protein source?
| b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote:
| 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.
| rayiner wrote:
| This is stupid thinking indulged in by westerners who were
| born in the lap of luxury. The market is incredibly moral.
| When my dad was born in a village in Bangladesh, 1 out of 4
| kids didn't live past age 5. Thanks to market reforms and
| the resulting economic growth, child mortality in
| Bangladesh has plummeted. Bangladesh's under-5 morality
| rate is better today than America's was at the same time my
| dad was born.
|
| If India and Bangladesh hadn't fucked around with socialism
| for decades after independence, we could have reached the
| same point many years ago. Millions of children would have
| been saved. Talk about immorality.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Why don't you ask noted anti-socialism state Pakistan
| (pre and post-1971) how that's going?
| rayiner wrote:
| We have A/B comparisons in India and Bangladesh keeping
| the underlying culture constant. Pakistan's problem seems
| to be a Pakistan thing.
| danaris wrote:
| So..."Pakistan's problem is a Pakistan thing", unrelated
| to markets....
|
| ...but Bangladesh's success is purely attributable to
| markets? It's not "a Bangladesh thing"?
|
| You might want to check your prejudices there.
| mhurron wrote:
| You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of
| life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where
| the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into
| the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease
| and conditions that can be treated?
|
| The market is not moral, it is amoral and it serves those
| with the money to direct it.
| rayiner wrote:
| > You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of
| life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where
| the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into
| the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease
| and conditions that can be treated?
|
| Scandinavian countries have highly market oriented
| economies. Denmark and Norway are in the top 10 in
| Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index and Sweden
| is #11. Capitalism is what generates the surplus to feed
| the socialists in Scandinavia.
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| Amazing that advancements in Bangladeshi quality of life
| is due to only market forces! What an incredibly unique
| geopolitical phenomenon.
| rayiner wrote:
| It's not unique at all! When my dad was a kid in the
| 1950s, Singapore, China, South Korea, and Taiwan were
| poor--all under $1,000 GDP per capita. They were a little
| ahead of Bangladesh but less than a factor of 2. The U.S.
| at the time was around $10,000.
|
| Today, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea are rich, and
| China is getting there. Multiple dirt poor Asian
| countries getting rich within a few generations thanks to
| One Simple Trick!
| worik wrote:
| Bangladesh has done well, in difficult circumstances
|
| Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have
| happened unless the state did sensible things
|
| Those same market reforms impoverished the entire middle
| class in New Zealand, where the state did not do sensible
| things (the reverse)
|
| Markets are good at fully allocating resources, which
| feudalism and central planning is not. But they also
| concentrate wealth into the hands of very few (that is
| what wrecked New Zealand's middle class) and it takes
| deliberate government policy to avert that.
| rayiner wrote:
| > Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have
| happened unless the state did sensible things
|
| The state did almost nothing sensible! Bangladesh's
| government, and the culture of the people more generally,
| is one of the most dysfunctional in the whole world. We
| just overthrew our government again! The free market is
| just a hardy plant growing in inhospitable ground as long
| as you don't completely strangle it.
| bjustin wrote:
| I agree that we must stop subsidies for cattle farming.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is
| viable._
|
| Until The Market(tm), especially in the US, starts dealing
| with externalities (like climate change), it should not.
| Something like carbon pricing (per Greenspan and Volcker):
|
| * https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Ca
| r...
|
| Even Mr. Free Market himself, Milton Friedman, thought a
| price on pollution was a good idea:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YGfwSvLkC0
| eykanal wrote:
| This is being downvoted, but is raising a serious point.
|
| - Nearly 90% of Americans eat red meat [1].
|
| - Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people
| (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red
| meat. This issue does not poll well [1].
|
| - Despite the above, Americans are eating less red meat than we
| used to [2].
|
| - The vast majority of people who choose to reduce their meat
| intake do so for cost or health reasons, not environmental [3].
|
| Putting all that together... studies like this do not help the
| environmental cause. Sure, they find something that's vaguely
| interesting, and can possibly be a bullet point on an
| environmentalist slide. However, a far better research study
| would be one focusing on human health impacts of red meat, or
| demonstrating economic benefits to red meat alternatives.
|
| tl;ld - This study is not useful, and is probably damaging to
| it's own cause.
|
| [1]: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-
| ameri...
|
| [2]: https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-survey-
| reveals-r...
|
| [3]: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/two-thirds-
| of-a...
| tracker1 wrote:
| There are absolutely a number of people that would love to
| ban meat consumption.
|
| I eat mostly meat and eggs, because there isn't much else I
| can eat that doesn't cause a number of digestive or
| inflammation issues for me.
| jshen wrote:
| It's the leading cause of deforestation which is a major factor
| in climate change. It also is a major contributor to climate
| change for other reasons. Since you mentioned energy, it's also
| much less energy efficient.
|
| Isn't this something to care about?
| tootie wrote:
| I know you warned us, but this overly flippant.
|
| There's plenty of obvious reasons we shouldn't be wasting land,
| energy, water and labor on producing things that don't get
| utilized. Even in the most selfish capitalist sensibility, we
| are wasting money. Yes the energy issue is much bigger than
| this but wasted energy utilization is part of that problem. I
| know this is politically fraught, but that should not have any
| bearing on scholarship. This is just data to add to our
| understanding.
|
| And also that this study is global, not purely applicable to
| America. Republicans can exploit outrage with lies to their
| base, but that isn't such a slam dunk everywhere in the world
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > Is feeding the world a real problem?
|
| Yes.
|
| > I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except
| as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war.
|
| I don't know how to respond to this. It's like saying you don't
| think breathing underwater is difficult, except for the
| secondary effects of water. War is a problem. Energy supply is
| a problem. Logistics is a problem. All these problems lead to
| starvation. People starving is a real problem.
|
| 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.
|
| (I'm using "starve" as a euphemism for "malnutrition that not
| only severely impacts bodily health, reduces quality of life,
| and increases mortality, but also decreases economic
| productivity")
|
| Now, if the point you're trying to make is "we _could_ solve
| world hunger ", then absolutely the answer is yes, humans
| produce more than enough grain to feed everyone in the world,
| and we have the money to transport it everywhere, even assist
| with cooking fuel. But because of all the categories you think
| don't apply, and markets, and economics, we are not fixing it.
| We are choosing to let people starve.
| worik wrote:
| Feeding the world is a problem of economics and politics, not
| the ecological problems of growing food.
|
| There is huge capacity for food production in the world, and
| no reason anyone should go hungry
|
| Keeping people hungry is deliberate economic policy.
|
| In New Zealand where I live we make enough food for millions
| more than live here, yet many face food insecurity.
|
| As I say, it is deliberate, calculated, government policy to
| keep people on the edge of hunger.
|
| It keeps wages low - our idiot business people think every
| dollar paid in wages is a dollar of profit lost
|
| Idiotic and cruel, and widespread
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| [delayed]
| some_random wrote:
| >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 supply, or war. The paper
| is specifically talking about increasing efficiency in food
| production, the originally commenter is saying that
| efficiency of production is not the main driver for
| undernourishment and your comment doesn't address that.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| [delayed]
| usrusr wrote:
| > Is feeding the world a real problem?
|
| In light of recent, uhm, "challenges" to fertilizer supply
| chains?
| heathrow83829 wrote:
| meat uses up enormous quantities of water. potatoes for
| instance use about 75 gallons to produce 2000 calories compared
| to say 1500 to 2500 gallons for 2000 calories of beef.
| tracker1 wrote:
| 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.
| mcv wrote:
| Absolutely. But not all beef is grass fed. The situation
| would be very different if it was.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| The majority of beef cattle in the US spend most of their
| lives eating grass or forage, and are only "finished"
| with grain feed in the last 4-6 months to improve flavor
| and marbling in the meat. That's the norm for beef that
| isn't specially labeled. All-grass or all-grain are the
| outliers.
| colechristensen wrote:
| A lot of the "meat uses too much water" arguments are stupid
| because they're based on food grown in places where it rains
| all of the water they ever use.
|
| We drain the land in Iowa otherwise the north half of it
| would be a swamp. Complaining about water usage for all but
| the western edge of Iowa is much the same as complaining
| about how solar panels use up the sunlight.
| some_random wrote:
| Water is not equally scarce everywhere, this is a simple
| matter of producing things only in places where the
| production thereof makes sense
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| > 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?
| XorNot wrote:
| No amount of efficiency improvements matters if all the
| energy is still coming from burning fossil fuels at the end
| of the day.
| krater23 wrote:
| The question is, whats the bigger environmental impact, more
| people using smart phones, computers, cars, planes, buying the
| newest fashion to show their style,... or feeding them with
| beef?
|
| You are completely right, who the fuck cares?
| plufz wrote:
| Solve our energy problems first? How would decreasing cattle
| stop work on improving our energy system? I think a lot points
| to that we need to do both (and yesterday). It's not like
| agriculture is a small part of our greenhouse gas emissions
| (25-35% globally).
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should
| solve our energy problems first.
|
| is there a rational argument in here or is this just a cheap
| psychological reflex to keep eating beef? Because it's not
| clear to me how solving our energy problems and the consumption
| of beef even intersect so that we couldn't do both at the same
| time.
|
| You might as well have said "man I really should stop drinking
| and smoking, but we gotta solve the energy problems first"
| irishcoffee wrote:
| Isn't that entirely their point? Stop bitching about cows
| (not a real problem at all) and fix an actual problem. Seems
| like you nailed it.
|
| People aren't going to stop eating beef, full stop. Won't
| happen, full stop. It's akin to suggesting we need to stop
| eating eggs, also will never happen.
|
| These threads pop up on here every so often and it amuses me
| in a morose way. Nothing will ever change in the beef
| industry, not even in places like California, who are
| actively causing a water shortage in order to grow crops.
| That is a much bigger problem than farting cows, the whole
| region is aware of the problem, and no movement has been made
| to create a fix.
|
| Give it up on the cows, there are bigger fish to fry.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >and fix an actual problem.
|
| but it is an actual problem. The beef industry has a large
| ecological impact. You yourself bring up the water
| shortages as a result of crop production... who do you
| think are the crops grown for?
|
| You're just yelling "lalala I'm not listening" basically.
| The world doesn't consist of "real" and "fake" problems
| depending on how much you're offended by the topic, the
| world has a million problems, the more we tackle of them
| the better.
|
| Sure you can say nothing will ever change, I don't care,
| but that's not an actual argument, that's just screaming
| like a kid who doesn't want his toys taken away, how is
| that an adult conversation. If you can't even tackle the
| cows how are you going to tackle bigger fish? Are the
| bigger fish being dealt with?
|
| The only people who ever pretend you can ignore an
| ostensibly small regional problem, to fix the world are
| people who literally fix neither because in reality they're
| nihilists who don't want to solve anything because they
| never want to take any personal responsibility.
| irishcoffee wrote:
| Clearly I struck a nerve, this isn't a genuine
| conversation. I gave up reading your reply at paragraph
| 2.
|
| Have a nice day!
| XorNot wrote:
| Not just bigger, but actually tractable problems. The
| revolutionary fall in the price of solar power and
| batteries means we can _actually_ displace coal, and have,
| without really asking much of anyone to do it. That 's a
| massive advantage to have with a big problem!
|
| There's a world coming where automation means electrified
| heavy equipment stops using diesel entirely, already
| happening in mine sites in Australia.
| ahhhhnoooo wrote:
| We have 8 billion people. We have enough people to solve both
| the energy problem and the food efficiency problem.
|
| That said, it's very, very funny that you responded to an
| article about energy inefficiency (calorie -> calorie) and said
| we should solve our energy problems. Beef _is_ an energy
| problem! We 're putting 30x the energy into the product against
| the energy we get out! Thats wasted energy!
| colechristensen wrote:
| 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 don't want to replace large portions of
| their diet with cereal grains or corn syrup so much of those
| "lost calories" would also be lost to much less efficient
| crops.
| jamespo wrote:
| 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?
| colechristensen wrote:
| This is a pretty basic fact about agriculture but you'll
| find people are selective about sharing facts when they
| have a narrative in mind. There are VASTLY different
| environmental impacts which depend on HOW you raise an
| animal, not just if. (and places where arguments about
| water usage per animal are pointless because water is
| very plentiful)
|
| It is also a pretty fundamental driver of much of human
| history and caused a lot of conflicts when you'd have
| migrant/nomad peoples who either followed wild herds or
| managed their own herds and peoples who stayed put, owned
| land, and planted crops -- both of these strategies often
| driven heavily by geography not by choice. These people
| would meet at the margins and there'd be war.
|
| There are a million sources but here:
| https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-
| dif...
|
| There are plenty of places around the world where you
| have maybe a hundred acres per animal or more. Whereas
| the best farmland can support one animal on the order of
| an acre of land.
| Thrymr wrote:
| > Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares?
|
| Congratulations on being overly flippant without trying.
| Evidently a lot of people care, and environmental impacts and
| energy problems are closely related.
| piva00 wrote:
| I recommend you visiting the Brazilian region of Pantanal, if
| possible travel through Mato Grosso do Sul -> Mato Grosso ->
| southern Para 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 calories wasted on beef, this area could
| still have a lot more native vegetation. Of course, it's purely
| wishful thinking because this ship has sailed, beef consumption
| will take a long time to stop growing, these farms will fight
| for their lives to keep producing, and we've lost a huge area
| of incredible nature to eat some steaks and burgers.
| onraglanroad wrote:
| And none of that is for feeding starving people who have no
| food.
|
| It's all to grow profitable luxury food.
| ponector wrote:
| I don't know which one is worse: to grow soybeans to feed
| cattle or to use as biodiesel.
|
| What is really upsetting, the speed with which jundles are
| replaced with oil palm.
|
| Humans have mastered exploitation of everything: the
| nature, the livestock and other humans.
| cromka wrote:
| People starving come from parts for the world affected by
| global warming, which unsustainable farming is one of the
| reasons. Which, in turn, crates mass migration issues.
| Which, in turn, is a major reason behind massive shift of
| Overton window and the current world situation we're in.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we
| should solve our energy problems first.
|
| There's no "first." There's not a queue of problems that the
| people of the world work on one by one. It's not a matter of
| limited labor/money either, we're talking about policies to
| change allocation. If anything is limited here it's political
| will, but that doesn't really work like money or physical
| limitations, it's more abstract and nonlinear. It's quite
| possible that a platform containing more changes earns more
| will than one with fewer, so budgeting is the wrong impulse.
| mcv wrote:
| Feeding the world is mostly a political-economic problem.
| Political-economic decisions make it hard to feed everybody,
| when we technically have more than enough to feed everybody.
| But one of the decisions that make it hard to feed everybody is
| the decision to eat lots of beef in rich countries. Land that's
| used to grow food for cattle could (in many but not all cases)
| also be used to grow food for poor people, but there's no money
| in that.
|
| That's not the only one; there's lots of other ways in which
| food is wasted or used inefficiently. Although the situation
| has improved tremendously over the past half century, there are
| still a lot of people suffering from malnutrition.
| nradov wrote:
| In most places where there is chronic, widespread
| malnutrition the root cause problem is not lack of arable
| land but rather local violence and corruption. It doesn't
| matter how much food you grow if a rebel group with AK-47s
| shows up and steals it all.
| lkbm wrote:
| > If excess beef consumption were reduced to healthy quantities,
| as defined by the EAT-Lancet healthy reference diet, and
| substituted with chicken in forty-eight higher-income countries,
| the lost calories avoided would be enough to meet the caloric
| needs of 850 million people.
|
| It's really impressive how efficient chickens are compared to
| beef. Obviously thinks like legumes are way more efficient, but
| we've really bred chickens to be meat machines in a way we
| haven't with cows.
| LaurensBER wrote:
| It absolutely is and in some ways we've only just started!
| Although we definitely shouldn't move fast and break things
| with living animals and our food supply;)
| vharuck wrote:
| They aren't just amazingly efficient in converting calories to
| protein, they're great at eating things without much other
| (agricultural) value to us. They eat the invasive spotted
| lantern fly!
| Brendinooo wrote:
| True for chickens in general! But the Cornish Crosses in the
| factory farms probably never see a lanternfly, and wouldn't
| want to get away from the feeder long enough to go after one.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| This is the kind of proposal that might fly well when it comes
| to the discourse over meat. People say "but we could be growing
| other crops instead of feed for cows". Well yes, but you need
| protein in the diet. You can't grow potatoes and veggies and
| expect people to survive only on that. Then there's the
| question of land utilization. Historically cattle was raised
| for meat and dairy where agriculture was more difficult as
| compared to grazing cows, sheep, goats etc. The modern corn,
| soybean and alpha alpha farms may be able to grow other crops,
| but would they be able to support the crops that are needed in
| nutrition? Chicken and other more efficient substitutions may
| be the answer here.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > You can't grow potatoes and veggies and expect people to
| survive only on that.
|
| I'm sure most medieval people survived (without food _types_
| being a detriment to their health /lifespan) on vastly less
| meat than most of us eat nowadays.
|
| I don't want to live a "medieval peasant" lifestyle,
| obviously, but I don't think the food part of it would be
| unhealthy (assuming _enough_ food).
| californical wrote:
| Yes, I believe we could cut beef consumption in half in the
| US and probably be healthier for it, without even
| compromising people's standard of living (beef more as a
| "treat" than everyday ingredient).
|
| We'd be healthier, and the reduction of water use from all
| of the crops grown for feed would eliminate all water
| shortages in the west
| dh2022 wrote:
| Medieval people were a lot shorter too. When I was in Saint
| Basil Cathedral in Moscow I was amazed how narrow and low
| were the corridors inside those side towers. I hit my head
| multiple in that church.
|
| Btw- the average male and female height adjusted for
| location keeps increasing which points to protein deficit:
| https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
|
| (In the world graph towards the end the height seems to
| decrease since 1990s-this is because countries with shorter
| people have a higher birth rate. Within the same population
| the height is still increasing)
| alamortsubite wrote:
| At 6' I'm unlikely to ever dunk on my 6'4" brother, which
| is a bummer, but ego aside I'm not really impacted much
| by my height since I can secure food and shelter by
| pressing buttons and pushing a mouse. From an
| evolutionary perspective I understand the preference to
| be bigger, but I wonder if it's still a logical
| aspiration for modern humans. More cells means a higher
| risk of cancer, after all.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| Starving people in North Korea are surviving (since per
| definition they are surviving if they are not dead).
| Doesn't mean North Korean diet is something we should
| strive for.
| jshen wrote:
| You can absolutely survive and thrive on a vegetarian diet,
| and there is decent evidence suggesting you're health will be
| better.
| cbolton wrote:
| On the other hand I read chicken is much worse than beef in
| terms of animal suffering. But that's much more dependent on
| the producer than the energy calculation and climate impact I
| guess.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Yeah, the kurzgesagt episode on meat production did note that
| overall cows have a pretty good life right up until the final
| fattening feed lots which is pretty bad.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sVfTPaxRwk
|
| They did note though, that it wouldn't cost that much,
| relatively, to give chickens pretty good lives. That really
| we're doing this just to drive the price down by pretty small
| amounts.
| margalabargala wrote:
| It depends I suppose as well whether one counts suffering the
| same in a cow vs a chicken vs a fish vs an insect.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Actually, the last time I looked into it, if you grow 2 acres
| of corn and 1 acre of soy, and feed it to chickens, you get out
| a similar number of calories (and more protein?) as 3 acres of
| soy.
|
| Soy is pretty good, but corn is _insane_.
| jshen wrote:
| what?!?!
| saalweachter wrote:
| Corn produces something like 15M calories per acre,
| soybeans like 6-8.
|
| When you feed those 36M calories to chickens, you get back
| 12M calories of chicken, which is actually less than 6 x 3
| = 18M calories for the soybeans, so I'm misremembering
| something (maybe it's just an equivalent amount of protein?
| maybe chicken feed is a 3:1 corn:soy ratio?) or was just
| wrong.
| tracker1 wrote:
| 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 cows that are producing more muscle
| mass than most, they've gotten quite a bit larger through
| breeding as well, though the difference in time to maturation
| doesn't come close to what we've done with chickens... I'm not
| sure it's for the better though.
| wolpoli wrote:
| > EAT-Lancet healthy reference diet
|
| I am unable to find this diet. It's likely referring to
| something called Planetary Health Diet [0]
|
| [0] https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet/the-planetary-health-diet/
| WorkerBee28474 wrote:
| > To feed a growing population, it is essential that the global
| agri-food system be managed to efficiently convert crop
| production into calories for human consumption.
|
| It's really not. Efficiency is the enemy of redundancy. Countries
| want food security, so they must therefore produce excess
| calories.
| analyte123 wrote:
| It's really, really not. Crop land per capita has been going
| down for decades despite richer diets, and all the biofuels and
| livestock feed [1]. Let's not forget that advanced drugs to
| stop people from overeating the abundant food are a $60 billion
| and rapidly growing market.
|
| [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cropland-per-person-
| over-...
| ux266478 wrote:
| I think it's important to a point, to be pedantic. But yes,
| global food production is well over the hurdle of production
| volume to "feed everyone", even for highly redundant crop
| yields. The remaining challenge is purely logistical and of
| course combating unchecked profit motive that's become
| malignant.
| 9rx wrote:
| Global food production now produces more than enough calories
| to feed everyone, but still hasn't figured out how to produce
| enough nutrients to feed everyone.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| Hmm, I wonder if beef is more expensive than chicken to reflect
| the inefficiency in its production? Oh it is. So it must then be
| that people just prefer the flavor and taste of it as compared to
| cheaper meats then.
| throwpoaster wrote:
| We have more than enough calories globally, although Africa has
| more starvation now than it did a decade ago.
|
| What we need is nutrient density. 0% of those feed calories have,
| eg, creatine. 100% of the beef calories do.
| throwaway7644 wrote:
| This is the metabolic version of inflation: subsidized, hollow
| calories used to mask a decline in actual nutritional value. Fiat
| Food
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| This is already covered in the Soylent Green protocol isn't it?
|
| An alternate take: if calorie efficiency is so important we
| should focus on consumption more than production.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Another alternative take : calories don't exist, food don't
| contain "calories", we can't isolate a system to count calories
| in and out. It's mostly believing something because society
| claims others supposedly serious people think think they exist.
| gradus_ad wrote:
| "lost calories" as if having people consume animal feed to reduce
| total caloric loss is a good idea.
| zetanor wrote:
| What's the matter, honey? You've barely touched your corn in
| canola oil.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Exactly. A major problem with the usefulness of these studies
| (many of which make it into major journals) is that they seldom
| account for the fact that a lot of animal feed and human food
| sources do not compete with each other. For example, cattle are
| fed processed corn stocks and leaves after the cobs are
| removed. Corn stalks and leaves would otherwise rot if not
| consumed by livestock. Cows do not compete with humans for this
| calorie source.
| motohagiography wrote:
| it seems disingenuous to problematize beef. it turns grass into
| human energy and also requires civilizational practices that
| create and preserve human dignity and animal welfare. mainly, the
| so called problem serves to centralize the problematizer
| themselves. their arguments from a position of centrally planning
| and managing food economies are intellectual tarpits. however,
| that our food supply and rural ways of life have the attention of
| the perpetually concerned is worthy of note. when they start with
| their opinions, mind your wallets and assets. in short, avoid.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Radware Bot manager:
|
| >> We apologize for the inconvenience...
|
| To ensure we keep this website safe, please can you confirm you
| are a human by ticking the box below.
|
| If you are unable to complete the above request please contact us
| using the below link, providing a screenshot of your experience.
|
| https://ioppublishing.org/contacts/
| hellojimbo wrote:
| > we need the calories to feed a growing population
|
| > population doubles
|
| > we need the calories to feed a growing population
| khelavastr wrote:
| Also them: more adults globally eat too many calories
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > "needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal"
|
| The calories cows eat are ... useless to humans. We cannot digest
| cullulose (grass) and most of the rest of the things we feed to
| cows. Anyone throwing this number around has an agenda, and is
| not objective
| joaohaas wrote:
| The grass most cows eat also need to be planted. The point of
| this post is that we could be planting stuff we can eat so you
| don't have to 'pay' the conversion cost.
| trollbridge wrote:
| The grass cattle can eat (which doesn't need to be planted;
| most people around me don't regularly plant their pasture) is
| not stuff people can eat, and can often grow in conditions
| that can't grow people-food.
|
| Specifically, they can eat stuff that doesn't require
| constant fertiliser inputs, where as people-food generally
| does need a lot of fertiliser inputs and needs more intensive
| herbicide/pesticide application.
|
| A balanced approach is to go, "Hmm, it's probably a good idea
| to raise cattle, chickens, and other animals, and also to
| grow all kinds of produce and staple crops as well."
| Aloisius wrote:
| That depends entirely on where you are.
|
| In India, for instance, dairy cattle are fed almost
| exclusively on crop residues and by-products. Crop residues
| being what's left over in the field _after_ you harvest and
| by-products being what would otherwise be waste left over
| after you process for human use.
|
| Elsewhere, in addition to crop residues/by-products, you also
| have natural grasslands that aren't planted or irrigated,
| legume feed grown _between_ major crop seasons when you can
| 't grow anything else that also replenishes the soil and feed
| grown on otherwise marginal land or barely managed land.
|
| Certainly some crops grown for cows would be edible by humans
| or the land repurposed for growing crops edible for people,
| but there's often a cost involved like heavier fertilizer
| requirements, pesticide use, water requirements, added
| infrastructure and/or labor.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| No, not all land isn't the same. It is far more profitable to
| grow a high value crop vs plain grass. But some land just
| isn't great for other things than grass. You have large
| cattle farms in Australia where you can't grow anything other
| than grass and other wild plants.
| rjrjrjrj wrote:
| Cows are sometimes fed human-consumable calories (eg corn).
|
| Other crops that humans can digest can be produced on land
| currently used for grass.
|
| Other animal species that eat grass require fewer feed cal per
| calorie produced.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Most pasture is land that cannot support human-edible crops.
| Cows eat low quality grass that needs no fertilizer or
| pesticides. Stuff that lives in very alkaline soils, etc.
| Cows and us, we do not compete for farmland.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| 90% of the feed they get is not for human consumption. But the
| rest that feed _is_ for human consumption. And that human-
| edible feed makes up 75% of all US cropland. Most of our crops
| are grown just to feed cows. Meaning the majority of the grain
| we produce is going to grow a steak, when it could be used to
| feed many more humans than a steak will.
| shrubble wrote:
| There are people who for various ideological reasons hate beef.
|
| If the market demands more chicken over beef, producers are
| perfectly capable of making a switch.
|
| Cows are able to make delicious beef from grass and thistles;
| that they are often fed other things is not a proof that eating
| cows is bad.
| trollbridge wrote:
| Indeed my cattle mostly eat weeds, and eat things my chickens
| can't really eat. I don't feed either of them mass-produced
| crops, which actually also have ecological consequences in
| terms of huge amounts of petrochemicals needed both to fuel
| tractors and combines and to keep fertilising, topsoil losses,
| the amount of herbicides and pesticides sprayed, and so on.
| foxyv wrote:
| Don't forget that cattle agriculture can make rainforests into
| wastelands.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802...
| 9rx wrote:
| _> If the market demands more chicken over beef, producers are
| perfectly capable of making a switch._
|
| Depends on local laws. In Canada, you cannot simply switch to
| chicken. It is supply managed.
| romuloalves wrote:
| But the beef delivers way more nutrition and calories than the
| crop they eat.
| kaleinator wrote:
| Surprised how many people in the replies actually think their
| beef is grass fed.
| tracker1 wrote:
| A large amount of beef is mostly grass fed and finished on a
| grain feed lot the last month of life.
| yesfitz wrote:
| Got a source for "last month of life"?
|
| Penn State University Extension says "...approximately 95% of
| the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or
| fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25
| to 30% of their life), on average."[1]
|
| Oklahoma State University Extension also cites a study that
| compares "growth and carcass attributes of calves _finished
| for 98 to 105 days_ in a grass system or a legume system "[2]
|
| That puts us between 3 to 6 times longer than you stated, and
| gives us the context for how much of the average cattle's
| life that is. (USDA Prime, Choice, and Standard are all 30 to
| 42 months. Select is under 30 months.[3])
|
| 1: https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production 2:
| https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/finishing-beef-
| cat... 3: https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-
| standards/slaughter-cattle-g...
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| The world is bigger than US. A minority of the world is US.
| mcv wrote:
| Yeah, but outside the US there are also a lot of grain
| fed cows.
| raincole wrote:
| And they are very likely right.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| <looks out of the window>
|
| Yup, that's grass they're eating.
| cat_plus_plus wrote:
| I don't eat grass.
| xvxvx wrote:
| Stop filtering your nutrition through animals. It's inefficient.
| foxyv wrote:
| To add to that, it is environmentally destructive and cruel.
| Argonaut998 wrote:
| Yes let me eat 5.7kg of broccoli per day instead of 500g of
| beef to meet my protein macros
| Boxxed wrote:
| It works both ways: "Yeah, let me eat 100kg of beef per day
| instead of 500g of broccoli to get my Vitamin C."
|
| But anyway, legumes are much more efficient source of protein
| than beef. I don't understand why you decided to compare
| against broccoli.
| recursive wrote:
| Maybe we should eat both then.
| r_p4rk wrote:
| Okay but what are you eating after your weekly allowance of
| 500g red meat to avoid needlessly increasing your bowel
| cancer risk?
| krater23 wrote:
| Yes, it'S more efficient to eat vegans, it tastes nearly the
| same but silences the people that want to tell you what you do
| have to eat.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Cows eat grass. Humans use more calories digesting grass than
| they gain from eating grass, so cows are infinitely more
| efficient than humans at gaining calories from grass.
|
| And there are places in the world where growing human food would
| destroy the land. Semi-deserts like Texas and Montana. Grazing
| cattle there is a good idea. Bison would be even better because
| the native prairie there is adapted to bison, but cattle are a
| close substitute.
|
| But we eat a lot more cattle than Texas & Montana can support.
| sixhobbits wrote:
| I think a vast majority of the beef we eat is grainfed unless
| you're buying the super hip, small-scale, expensive stuff
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| In my neck of the woods, the vast majority of the beef we eat
| is grass fed for most of their lives, but then grain
| finished. They only eat grain for the last month (out of 8 or
| so), but they put on most of their weight in that last month.
| 9rx wrote:
| The vast majority is beef is _finished_ on grain, but start
| on grass.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| Here in the UK, pretty much 100% of cattle are grass fed. In
| the winter, when there isn't enough grass, they're fed on
| silage (which is basically just grass cut and baled while
| still green, which turns it into kind of grass sauerkraut,
| which smells exactly like you'd expect) and "draff" or "spent
| grains" (depending on where you are) which is the stuff left
| over from brewing beer or the pot ale that goes to make
| whisky.
|
| It's all a pretty delicate balance, but ultimately what
| happens is you end up growing a bunch of things humans can't
| eat so that cows can shit solid gold all over the fields and
| chop it into the soil with their hooves.
|
| We eat because there's six inches of earth on the ground, it
| rains, clover grows, and cows (and pigs) shit solid gold.
| fredgrott wrote:
| commercial beef cows eat grain not grass...
|
| its in the paper....and some of us on this site grew up working
| for commercial beef ranchers.....for instance me!
| alamortsubite wrote:
| You're not from Argentina. Though I read even there they're
| switching to the grass/grain model.
| luqtas wrote:
| you type like using land from semi-deserts isn't destroyed for
| meat production...
|
| you need to plant, fertilize and apply pesticides to maintain
| grass! or do you think grass with sometimes 60% of protein per
| gram grows out of nowhere? or that the global grain production,
| which more than 85% goes into feeding livestock that it's
| sometimes 20 times less efficient to produce the same quantity
| of protein, can't be distributed to the population?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Ranches in Montana and Texas definitely do none of those
| things. It's native grass, running about 1 cow per acre.
| Fertilizer and pesticide for an acre would be way more
| expensive than the profit on 1 cow per acre.
| jshen wrote:
| I honestly can't tell what conclusion you want us to draw? The
| vast majority of cows raise for agriculture are not raised in
| the ways you describe. Beef is the leading cause of
| deforestation in the rainforest!
| mcv wrote:
| 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.
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| Totally wrong. A large fraction of commercially-grown cows are
| fed eponymous cow (field) corn, and require antibiotics so they
| are kept alive just long enough to grow and be slaughtered.
| Field corn is what takes up 5% of all land area in America.
| tracker1 wrote:
| 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.
| luqtas wrote:
| 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?
| asdff wrote:
| 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.
| stevenally wrote:
| Depends how the farming is done....
|
| https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertif...
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Small anecdote
|
| Since about 2019 I have been anemic. My iron levels were just a
| hair above being low enough to require an immediate infusion, and
| my doctor kept pushing me to eat more iron. She would often ask
| if I was a vegetarian or vegan, presumably she was assuming I was
| bad at it. I would always tell her the same thing. "I don't eat
| much beef but I do eat it"
|
| Last summer I was diagnosed with celiac. Suddenly it all makes
| sense. I'm low on iron because my gut cannot absorb it.
|
| So I start eating gluten free, and I start eating _way_ more red
| meat than I used to, because building your iron levels takes a
| lot more iron intake than maintaining it. Now, about 8-9 months
| later I 'm finally starting to feel better and my blood tests are
| showing my iron slowly creeping out of the danger zone
|
| My nutritionist tells me that recovering this quickly would have
| probably been just about impossible for a vegetarian or vegan,
| without having an iron infusion done.
|
| Anyways. Beef is kind of an important thing in our diets, that's
| all. Now that I'm back to a more normal level I'll go back to
| eating less of it, but I am now very conscious how important red
| meat is in a rounded diet
|
| Edit: I guess my point is that calories are only part of the
| picture when it comes to food and there are a lot of other
| concerns as well, which are arguably more important to being
| healthy. You get calories from basically anything food you eat
| (assuming it's not some kind of engineered zero calorie diet
| food) but other minerals and vitamins are harder to source.
| AlBugdy wrote:
| > My nutritionist tells me that recovering this quickly would
| have probably been just about impossible for a vegetarian or
| vegan, without having an iron infusion done.
|
| "probably been just about impossible" doesn't mean
| "impossible", it more likely means changing your eating habits
| to a point where you'd have to be really conscious and careful
| of what you eat iron-wise unlike someone without Celiacs (vegan
| or not) or someone who likes and can afford beef and can eat as
| much of it as they want.
|
| There are lentils, beans, tofu, dark leafy greens and other
| sources of iron. There are iron-fortified foods. IIRC there are
| other considerations that might prevent careless or food-
| addicted people from getting enough iron like vitamin C to help
| with the iron absorption or not eating foods that decrease it.
|
| There are plenty of vegans with Celiacs who manage their iron
| adequately. But even if you're one of those cases where iron
| needs to be supplemented, even IV - why not? If you disregard
| all the arguments against beef or animal products in general
| it's easy to make the argument that beef would be the best
| solution.
|
| This reads like appeal to authority (the nutritionist) but a
| lot of nutritionists take the easy road ("just eat beef") or
| aren't good at all (haven't kept up with research). That's true
| of the majority of doctors and the majority of programmers
| (something people here will be able to relate to in case they
| haven't realized how useless most doctors are). I've been in
| and out of hospitals for several relatives for years and have
| heard doctors tell me outright falsehoods that show they have a
| only basic understanding of something. That makes sense since
| those doctors must know about so much more than the patient
| (thousands of diseases, lots of scientific knowledge about
| biology) but with a depth-first search into a topic you can
| spot how most of them have either stopped reading new studies
| or have lost their motivation to explore all option or have
| just stopped caring for providing the best kind of care. I hope
| people here don't have to go through what I have. That was a
| bit of a tangent, but I already wrote it so I'll keep it as a
| mini-rant.
|
| > Beef is kind of an important thing in our diets, that's all.
| Now that I'm back to a more normal level I'll go back to eating
| less of it, but I am now very conscious how important red meat
| is in a rounded diet.
|
| That's not really true. I'm sure you could ask vegans or
| vegetarians or Hindus or anyone who doesn't eat beef but has
| Celiacs and you'd get a whole bunch of options for managing it.
| Sure, you'll find ignorant people who think eating fruits all
| the time is enough but that's the same kind of carelessness
| that leads to non-vegans eating the standard Western diet all
| the time or doing other basic mistakes.
|
| The same is true for almost everything. Almost nothing is "an
| important thing in our diets". People live without nuts or
| fruits or vegetables or legumes or meat or eggs or dairy (not
| all at once, of course, although I wouldn't be surprised if
| someone managed to avoid all these) and are able to manage
| pretty much any disease other groups of people can manage.
|
| > calories are only part of the picture when it comes to food
|
| True, people should care about the macros and micros. But with
| the internet it's trivial to do so both wrt learning what does
| what and how much is needed, and to track how much one eats
| from each.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Taylor swift is using her private jet to take out the trash to
| the curb, but hey, the "normal people" should eat less meat.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Beef gets a lot of bad rep in environment terms because developed
| countries grain fed it in intensive settings. But not all cattle
| in the world is raised like that.
| nprateem wrote:
| I recommend the book The Proof is in the Plants for a seemingly
| unbiased review of the literature.
|
| Dude cites study after study pretty much all with the same
| conclusion: Eating animal products is bad for your health.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| The really good thing about this is that if we somehow do manage
| to "ruin earth" and lose a significant portion of agricultural
| production, we will just have less tasty food rather than
| starving to death.
|
| Food waste is another kind of "slack" in the food supply chain
| that would help. Imagine how the world would look if food supply
| was as optimized as e.g. microchips and then we got any kind of
| disruption... except now you starve rather than not being able to
| upgrade your car.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Are the calories used by biofuels and cattle even directly
| consumable by humans?
| balderdash wrote:
| isn't the obvious answer not to eat less beef but rather not
| produce beef super fast with grain feed. if the beef we ate came
| from grass lands + hay in the the winter it would cost more, but
| would dramatically reduce the crop consumption...
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > hay in the the winter
|
| Here in the UK, we use silage because the weather is a bit too
| variable to trust with letting hay dry out. It feels like it's
| probably more energy-dense and has more nutrition in it, you
| certainly don't need to feed as much.
|
| Other things that work well are sugar beet (grows well as part
| of a cycle of crop rotation, clears weeds pretty well) and all
| that barley left over from brewing beer and making whisky.
|
| Even soya-based cattle feed is made from the tough cellulosey
| bits that humans can't eat. If you want to try, I'm sure I can
| get you some - but maybe have something on hand for the
| inevitable constipation because it is _all_ fibre.
| djgleebs wrote:
| don't care, not gonna eat bugs.
| djgleebs wrote:
| Don't care, I refuse to eat bugs and slop.
| broken-kebab wrote:
| Exchanging e.g. grains for beef is not 'lost' anything, even if
| theoretically the former gives more calories. Nutritionally beef
| is just more valuable. Calories isn't the only thing we need
| apparently.
| metalman wrote:
| false comparison, as most calories cattle consume are from things
| people dont eat, even if there are simmilar variets of plants
| that both people and animals eat, they are not interchangable.
| Animals also eat huge quantities of human food, that has been
| rejected through some technical consideration, just size, as many
| crops produce many fruits or vegetables that are iether too large
| or small to be processed, or are misshapen or damaged, cow dont
| care nom nom nom, gone by the ton, and the trucks are still
| comming. The true unforgivable waste is by people over eating,
| wasting, throwing away, and destroying good foog for countless
| beurocratic reasons.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| Ok but don't cattle often browse on land that is too marginal for
| farming? And don't they eat grass? I don't know if this argument
| holds up.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| Aha. All the grass humans could eat instead of the cows. Not all
| land is great for growing crops at. Other land is just good for
| growing grass for cattle to graze on.
| ysleepy wrote:
| Ah yes, beef is produced predominantly using grad fed cows? The
| feed is an agricultural product produced on farmland that could
| be used to produce food.
|
| I'm not a vegan or whatever, but get real with the impact of
| meat production.
| asdff wrote:
| Another factor that these studies seem to miss from the beef
| question is the fact there is more pasture land than viable
| agriculture land. Beef are often grazing on marginal land that
| would not be fit for much else. Clearcutting the amazon to meet
| beef demand is one thing but that isn't the case for I'd guess
| most places they have been farming beef for the past 100 years.
| maxglute wrote:
| Conversion efficiency is slippery slope to vegetarianism.
| jruz wrote:
| And is not even taking water consumption into account.
|
| Or the annoying cowbells :)
| rolph wrote:
| trophism is very much like manufacture.
|
| you always have to pay to continue the process, and sometimes to
| put it on hold.
|
| Transfer of Energy between Trophic Levels:
|
| https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_Gene...
|
| Ecological efficiency:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| One of the weakest and least persuasive arguments, like animal
| cruelty, against animal ag. Data will also never convince anyone
| that they're doing something dangerous or selfish especially when
| their salary or lifestyle can be justified and rationalized
| through denial and cognitive dissonance.
|
| The stronger arguments are:
|
| - Local air, water, and soil pollution.
|
| - Climate change 16+-2% contribution.
|
| - Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution because the antibiotics
| over used in livestock are typically used in humans through the
| mostly different veterinary supply chain but they're the same
| fundamental molecules.
|
| - Pandemic virus evolution due to both wildlife and (human, for
| now) workers getting very, very close to animals and animal waste
| crowded together creating a Petri dish. It's already happened
| several times throughout history.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-14 23:02 UTC)