5 ms·

I'm amazed someone can be so hilariously wrong. ~90% of the calories a species takes in get lost going up the food chain. You need to grow ~1000 calories of pl

I'm amazed someone can be so hilariously wrong. ~90% of the calories a species takes in get lost going up the food chain. You need to grow ~1000 calories of plants to make 100 calories of beef. >Not to mention plants are nutrient deficient and as a result people have to eat far more of it Source? Also, what specific nutrients are you referring to? Where do you think the energy and minerals an animal has come from? >The most environmentally friendly method for humans would be the "hunter gatherer" diet ( wild vegetation and wild animals ). But we might be too populous for that to work. Modern agriculture is hands down more efficient. You know this, because you know that it can support more people. By extension, modern agriculture with a small population is more environmentally friendly than "hunter gatherer" with a small population. >You essentially have to farm one plant to feed livestock for your burger. How many different types of plants have to be planted to produce a single burger? More variety but far far far less total quantity. And monoculture farming is much more destructive than farming a variety of plants. There's a reason that farmers rotate corn and soy, even when growing animal feed.

dilap 8y ago
Cows eat grass, which is just out there, growing naturally. Those aren't calories humans could be consuming; we don't have the right kind of stomaches. You can view a cow as machine for extracting the nutrients in grass into a dense, human-digestible form. Pretty cool. I'm also not sure your "modern agriculture" point stands -- are industrial farming methods sustainable over the long scale? Think about America pre-colonization: a continent filled with ruminants happily munching away, being hunted at sustainable levels. To my mind that is peak sustainability and environmental friendliness. Whereas a huge environmental problem we have right now is soil depletion, which is largely driven by agriculture. Cows could actually help solve this problem, because their manure contributes to the health of the soil. https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl... It's far from obvious that a veggie burger would be healthier for the environment than eating cows. (Disclaimer: haven't watched the ted talk, but familiar with the ideas and seemed like a good summary to link to.)
- blacksmith_tb 8y ago
  Maybe it would be better to say "cows would eat grass" but unfortunately >90% of beef comes from cows who don't, and are raised on feed[1]. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2016/01/29/the-grass-fed-beef-supply-chain/#7942a30048e5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2016/01/29/the-gras...
  - dilap 8y ago
    I think it'd probably be good to stop feeding grain to cows, but even "grain-fed" cows eat grass (or hay) most of their lives -- it's at the end when they're sent to the feed lots to fatten them up that they eat grain.
    - hexane360 8y ago
      "you don't need to grow vast quantities of grain to raise cows, just to increase their biomass enough to feed large quantities of people"
- cageface 8y ago
  Think about America pre-colonization: a continent filled with ruminants happily munching away, being hunted at sustainable levels. To my mind that is peak sustainability and environmental friendliness. That's with a population of on the order of 10 million for the entire continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigeno... Naturally grazing cows wouldn't even come close to sustaining the current demand for meat. Industrialized animal agriculture exists for a reason.
  - dilap 8y ago
    That's fair, but still, my point is raising beef is not intrinsically unsustainable and destructive. Though I agree, it's probably not a reasonable primary food for most people at current population levels.

dilap 8y ago

Cows eat grass, which is just out there, growing naturally. Those aren't calories humans could be consuming; we don't have the right kind of stomaches. You can view a cow as machine for extracting the nutrients in grass into a dense, human-digestible form. Pretty cool. I'm also not sure your "modern agriculture" point stands -- are industrial farming methods sustainable over the long scale? Think about America pre-colonization: a continent filled with ruminants happily munching away, being hunted at sustainable levels. To my mind that is peak sustainability and environmental friendliness. Whereas a huge environmental problem we have right now is soil depletion, which is largely driven by agriculture. Cows could actually help solve this problem, because their manure contributes to the health of the soil. https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl... It's far from obvious that a veggie burger would be healthier for the environment than eating cows. (Disclaimer: haven't watched the ted talk, but familiar with the ideas and seemed like a good summary to link to.)

blacksmith_tb 8y ago
Maybe it would be better to say "cows would eat grass" but unfortunately >90% of beef comes from cows who don't, and are raised on feed[1]. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2016/01/29/the-grass-fed-beef-supply-chain/#7942a30048e5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2016/01/29/the-gras...
- dilap 8y ago
  I think it'd probably be good to stop feeding grain to cows, but even "grain-fed" cows eat grass (or hay) most of their lives -- it's at the end when they're sent to the feed lots to fatten them up that they eat grain.
  - hexane360 8y ago
    "you don't need to grow vast quantities of grain to raise cows, just to increase their biomass enough to feed large quantities of people"
cageface 8y ago
Think about America pre-colonization: a continent filled with ruminants happily munching away, being hunted at sustainable levels. To my mind that is peak sustainability and environmental friendliness. That's with a population of on the order of 10 million for the entire continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigeno... Naturally grazing cows wouldn't even come close to sustaining the current demand for meat. Industrialized animal agriculture exists for a reason.
- dilap 8y ago
  That's fair, but still, my point is raising beef is not intrinsically unsustainable and destructive. Though I agree, it's probably not a reasonable primary food for most people at current population levels.