18 ms·

How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to mak

How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Animal farming creates vast damage because of how inefficient it is and seaweed won't address how much feed cows need or that the world is eating more and more meat as countries get richer: > The energy efficiency of meat and dairy production is defined as the percentage of energy (caloric) inputs as feed effectively converted to animal product. An efficiency of 25% would mean 25% of calories in animal feed inputs were effectively converted to animal product; the remaining 75% would be lost during conversion. > Whole milk: 24% > Beef: 1.9% https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat-and-dairy-production https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat... All improvements are good, but I'd like to know if this is more than a distraction to make people feel better about continuing to demand products they know are damaging the environment (e.g. Amazon deforestation). Industrial farmed animals aren't eating grass, they're eating crops like soy. If you find soy milk and soy-based meat alternatives decent for example, consider eating those directly instead of products from soy-fed cows - it'll be vastly better for the environment with seaweed or not.

svrtknst 6y ago
Thats an interesting question for sure. Would need to be calculated against the current energy needs, hopefully an increase in seaweed feed leads to a decrease in soy bean farming. I'd rather eat the seaweed or soy directly, but this could be an improvement.
scns 6y ago
Without excrement from animals you need synthetic fertilizer, whose production causes massive production causes massive environmental damage eg emissions and algae bloom.
- cesnja 6y ago
  There's also the "classic" option, discovered some 200 years before synthetic fertilizers - crop rotation that includes some form of legumes. IMO with the current state of agriculture and food production we went into a local maximum that is very unsustainable and bad for the environment.
  - 1234fdsazxcv 6y ago
    There's a reason we had to switch away from that. The crop rotation cycle isn't an efficient use of land. Synthetic fertilizers exist for a reason -- the human race wants and needs an excess of food. No one wants to switch to a model of food scarcity.
    - tarsinge 6y ago
      The point is that if the food is not meat we need like up to 75% less crops, which is completely attainable without synthetic fertilizer.
      - ekianjo 6y ago
        Claiming it does not make it so.
        tovej 6y ago
        Every addition of a new consumer in a food chain brings with it a high rate of energy loss. The cow will need to use its energy to live, only a small portion of the energy is left in the steak you eat. 75% is a good approximation. In general, the shorter the food chain, the more efficient it is. This is a universally known fact. I will drop some helpful links for you if you doubt this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology) https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2m39j6/revision/6 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2m39j6/revision/6 https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/food.html#ecological_pyramids https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/food.html#ecological_...
      - tarsinge 6y ago
        Source: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use The figure given is 77% of agricultural land is used for livestock
        tremon 6y ago
- totetsu 6y ago
  Last time I checked everybody I know is an fertilizer excreting animal..
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    it's because they're all made from meat.
    - totetsu 6y ago
      http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.sh... ?
      - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        yes, seemed to apply.
- rozab 6y ago
  But without animals you don't need nearly as much crops... Cattle do not come close to breaking even in this sense
- estreeper 6y ago
  Manure and synthetic fertilizer both have similarly severe, but somewhat different, environmental impacts. Synthetic fertilizer requires large amounts of energy to produce, but manure generally needs to be applied much more inefficiently to achieve the same effect because of its relatively low nitrogen content and the inability to control its release. It also has transportation issues [1]. However, these types of impacts are trivial in comparison to the 1.9% energy efficiency for beef. Regardless of the fertilizer used, we would use just under 1/50th of it if we consumed the plants directly, along with the same savings in land and water. [1] https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/to-cut-nitrogen-pollution-move-past-the-synthetic-organic-debate https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/to-cut-nitrogen-polluti...
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  Only a small amount of fertilizer usage in the US is waste based. In 2015 13M tons of nitrogen based synthetic fertilizer was used, on top of that 4M tons each of phosphate and potash fertilizer. For waste based fertilizer compost, dried manure and sewage total 600K tons. That doesn't even take into account that the raw weights aren't directly comparable. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-pr...
- dondoron 6y ago
  There is more than enough liquid manure, forcing farmers to pay for its removal (at least in Europe, that is). Also, it can be used only at certain points in time to avoid food poisoning.
cik 6y ago
At the end of the day this is signalling. We all know that the best thing we can do is eat a local, veg-friendly (vegetarian/vegan) diet. That also doesn't mean that people are going to do it, or can. But at least it's one form of a step in the right direction. War doesn't have to be waged and won in a single battle. Every little step helps if it truly reduces emissions.
- sbelskie 6y ago
  I was under the impression that the local part is hit or miss due to the efficiency differences between large national/global supply chains and small local ones.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  > At the end of the day this is signalling. We all know that the best thing we can do is eat a local, veg-friendly (vegetarian/vegan) diet. Local doesn’t belong in there. As a reductio ad absurdum would it be better to eat a diet of nothing but imported NZ lamb or to grow all food locally at McMurdo Base in Antarctica? Grass is next to free. Ocean shipping is the most efficient means of transport for bulk freight there is. To grow food at McMurdo you’d need to heat the environment, insulate it and light it half the year. Eat local is class signaling, not environmentalism.
  - dkdbejwi383 6y ago
    "What about Antarctica" is the most straw man argument possible when talking about food sourcing.
    - p1mrx 6y ago
      What about the space station? Shipping is expensive, but the real estate for farming is even more expensive.
      - pvaldes 6y ago
        (Growing some CO2 removers in the space station would be a interesting idea. The 'Space nab' project. Sounds great ;-))
glangdale 6y ago
Cow burps and farts are methane, which is a enormously potent greenhouse gas. The energy- (and water-) intensiveness of eating beef is significant too, no argument there.
wodenokoto 6y ago
> Whole milk: 24% That is a crazy high efficiency, when you think about it. A quarter of all food this animal receives through its entire life ends up as milk. The rest is used for growing cells, keeping it alive and warm, moving around. Back of the napkin says that I've eaten my bodyweight in food in less than 2 months.
- spodek 6y ago
  Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for the green revolution and understood the misguidance of efficiency as a strategy better than anyone. As a tactic it works under the strategy of managing population, as he said in his acceptance speech: > "The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only. . . Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster”. . . Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth." We haven't curbed population growth. It's slowing, but we're in overshoot, which leads to collapse, and most projections still show us growing through 2100. Luckily, have examples like Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, who helped lower their population growth from around 7 children per couple to below 2 through voluntary means -- think the opposite of China's One Child Policy -- leading to greater stability and abundance. His TEDx talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaidya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_place_for_life_and_love#t-811495 https://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaidya_how_mr_condom_ma....
  - adventured 6y ago
    > Luckily, have examples like Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, who helped lower their population growth from around 7 children per couple to below 2 through voluntary means -- think the opposite of China's One Child Policy -- leading to greater stability and abundance. South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines follow the same general population decline curve from the 1960s to now, that Thailand has followed. They all began at close to the same change rate circa 1960, all between 2.9% and 3.3%. Thailand's drop has been more pronounced since 2000 than Vietnam, however that can properly be attributed to the huge difference in standard of living between the two (the decline in Thailand matches the decline also seen in South Korea). Did most countries in Asia have their own Mechai Viravaidya? They all simultaneously drop from 1960 onward. Or is this person getting credit for something that was happening regardless and has a lot more to do with increased economic prosperity? Which is something we already know is the primary natural change agent for lowering population expansion. Thailand's GDP per capita skyrocketed after 2001, whereas eg Vietnam and the Philippines followed slower trajectories (until recently). Thailand actually saw an increase in its population growth change rate in the 1990s (1993-2001), before the economic boom that began in 2001 pushed it back down again. The population change rate in Vietnam and Thailand were nearly identical until Thailand's economic boom began in 2001 (also, Thailand's rate wasn't much lower than Indonesia circa 1998-2000, they've split both economically and on that pop change rate from 2001 forward).
pkphilip 6y ago
For sustainable farming, livestock plays a very crucial role. This is particularly true for organic and natural farming. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/organic-livestock-farming-a-revolution-in-the-making-71530 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/organic-live... So looking at a single metric (methane emissions) doesn't do this topic justice. Also, live stock grazing (if done properly) can also be a method of regreening environments. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/though-forests-burn-agroforestry-advances-as-trees-retake-farmland-globally/ https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/though-forests-burn-agrofo...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cbernini 6y ago
  You're talking about manure usage here, not meat consumption. You don't need cattle for regenerative agriculture. Compost can do just fine in this case. Also if you want to boost nitrogen on the soil you can do by using FAA (a KNF entry) based on fish, instead. Anyways, the second link you sent says that they have controlled grazing to prevent the cattle from destroying new growth. As the text says: plants can do it all. Plantation can't. And never will.
  - pkphilip 6y ago
    Overgrazing can and does cause problems but controlled grazing can actually fight desertification and has been used: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-livestock-grazing-stop-desertification/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-livestock-gra... The organic and natural farming methods used in parts of Asia - especially India, utilizes livestock for much more than just manure. You should look up Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) by Subhash Palekar. Quoting from this site: https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/zero-budget-natural-farming-zbnf/ https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/zero-budget-natural-farming... The “four wheels” of ZBNF are ‘Jiwamrita’, ‘Bijamrita’, ‘Mulching’ and ‘Waaphasa’. - Jiwamrita is a fermented mixture of cow dung and urine (of desi (Indian) breeds), jaggery, pulses flour, water and soil from the farm bund. - This isn’t a fertiliser, but just a source of some 500 crore micro-organisms that can convert all the necessary “non-available” nutrients into “available” form. - Bijamrita is a mix of desi cow dung and urine, water, bund soil and lime that is used as a seed treatment solution prior to sowing. - Mulching, or covering the plants with a layer of dried straw or fallen leaves, is meant to conserve soil moisture and keep the temperature around the roots at 25-32 degrees Celsius, which allows the microorganisms to do their job. - Waaphasa, or providing water to maintain the required moisture-air balance, also achieves the same objective.
chii 6y ago
> continuing to demand products the demand will always be there. Humans like to eat meat. I doubt very many will give up the privilege, esp. when others are not. So any solution that improves the production of meat should be a good outcome. Ideally, lab grown meat (of the same quality and taste as from a cow) with low emissions is the best, but we aren't anywhere near that level of tech yet.
- dannyw 6y ago
  I’ve been cooking with and eating plant based meat every once in a while for a year now. I don’t even think about it. It’s meat to me now.
  - chii 6y ago
    My recent observations of HN is that many here take their own experience, and extrapolate that they are common and therefore anybody else could've also done it, and would be willing to. But there's empirical evidence that not many people want to stop eating meat. Look at how few vegetarians there are, compared to non-vegetarians. Do you really think those people don't know it's possible to live healthily as vegetarians?
    - sethammons 6y ago
      > heathly as vegetarians Worth noting that being vegetarian does not necessarily equal healthy. There are plenty of vegetarians who are just eating mac and cheese. My sister, when in high school, became iron anemic due to poor food choices while being vegetarian.
      - piva00 6y ago
        That is quite obvious, you can be unhealthy with any kind of diet if you are nutrient poor...
      - badwolf 6y ago
        If you're consisting of a diet of mac & cheese, or other poor food choices... Being a vegetarian isn't the problem. Poor food choices are the problem.
tlarkworthy 6y ago
Massive I believe. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150401084157.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150401084157.h... Cattle responsible for 15 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions that humans cause." It's the methane, chickens are much less damaging. The outsided damage cattle does is because if the biochemistry in the stomache, which this feed addresses (Lamb is terrible too, but less popular)
jazzabeanie 6y ago
In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. My own experience confirms this. I've seen many cattle farms around Queensland - some with low stocking density and no deforestation, others very poorly managed with no trees at all or full of invasive species. It's not as simple as eating meat = bad, but that's the message most people are getting. If they respond by stopping eating meat, then great - not the best choice, but a step in the right direction. If they respond by stopping to care where their food comes from then not so great.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  > In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. I'm not sure how that makes anything better. It will still require more carbon emissions than growing elsewhere. In fact raising cattle in a spot like you describe still well require growing the feed elsewhere. Wouldn't it be much better to just eat the soup or other crop directly, save the carbon emissions and give the land the cattle are on back to mother nature and turn it into a wildlife refuge?
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > In fact raising cattle in a spot like you describe still well require growing the feed elsewhere. No. Feeding bovine meat cattle with commercial crops is uneconomical. It only happens as a small complement to the main diet or in emergencies. Nearly all of the cattle food grows on the terrain where they are created.
    - joncrane 6y ago
      For sure almost all cattle are 'fattened up' at so-called "feed lots" immediately before butchering. In fact "grass fed" is one of those misleading labels that imply one thing but the true way to get what "grass fed" is implying is "grass fed and grass finished."
    - rbg246 6y ago
ryndbfsrw 6y ago
> All improvements are good, but I'd like to know if this is more than a distraction to make people feel better about continuing to demand products they know are damaging the environment (e.g. Amazon deforestation). I think you're on the money. This is the equivalent of us wanting to keep driving around in 2.5ton SUVs by justifying to ourselves that it’s a hybrid
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
> eating those directly instead I would but: all the meat alternatives here in Tasmania are more expensive than beef! The only thing that gets a pass is tofu at $8.00 a kg, which is competitive with chicken and imported Basa.
em3rgent0rdr 6y ago
Including carbon emissions due to transporting the feed.
chrisweekly 6y ago
Good questions. As someone who's enjoyed eating beef for most of my life, I feel compelled to recommend Impossible Burger "meat" as a legitimate alternative. No, it's not exactly the same, but it is delicious (unlike, say, Beyond Burgers, which taste to me like a failed experiment).
lucioperca 6y ago
Relevant article: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034...
bad_user 6y ago
Re "Amazon deforestation" — those lands haven't been deforested because of the western country's consumption of meat, they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway. If western countries want the deforestation of the Amazon to stop, the cold, harsh reality is that they should subsidize the price for it. --- As for making personal changes, if eating soy makes you feel any better, sure, do that, but stop shaming people for eating meat. Because in the large scheme of things, switching from meat to soy does mostly nothing for the environment. The reason is that, going vegan, as an individual, only saves you a couple of $ in CO2 emissions per year. That's right. All of your efforts are only worth a couple of $ per year in CO2 emissions. And even if you think that's worth it, those emissions would be re-allocated to industry anyway. Also, ironically, the behavior of people going green changes. If you have an electric car, for example, you might feel the need to ride it more, to make more trips. Because it's cheaper, and you've been a good citizen, you've earned it. And when that happens, and it does, your net emissions might not go as low as you'd think. Never mind that the subsidies for electric cars are yet again subsidies for the rich. Go carless first, then we can talk about not eating meat ;-) --- Real change will come from technological progress. It always came from technological progress. Remember whales? Whales were not saved by political activism, by individuals refusing to use whale oil. Whales were saved because cheap replacements for whale oil became available. Ironically, renewable energy might not be very green at all. Maybe we should address the fact that solar panels are super inefficient, taking up massive land use, and their recycling is super expensive. Instead of investing more in nuclear energy, money is being diverted on solutions that may in fact be worse for the environment than cleaner fossil fuels (e.g. gas). We are currently unable to replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives, because "renewable" energy isn't up to snuff, and because of nuclear-phobia, which prevents investments in nuclear power. But sure, let's all eat soy, that will save the planet.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway. Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative. I am certain there are people starving in Brazil, but this is much more of a distribution problem than a "didn't cut down enough trees in the Amazon" problem. > solar panels are super inefficient No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive and nuclear is looking less and less good by comparison every day. I say that as a big believer in nuclear power.
slothtrop 6y ago
I don't think it's fair to call this a mere distraction when you account for the sheer impact of methane on climate change. Quibbling about energy efficiency is besides the point. Play around with this - https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=45&p7=7&p10=-0.1&p16=-0.02&p30=-0.03&p39=90&p47=3.4&p50=1.3&p53=1.2&p55=2.4&p57=-2.9&p59=-100&p65=32&p67=100&v=2.7.29 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=45&...
tassl 6y ago
> How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Quite a bit. Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers. That's usually hidden in data by using total weight, but the reality is that 86% of the dry matter consumed by livestock are not edible by humans [1]. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22119... >All improvements are good, but I'd like to know if this is more than a distraction to make people feel better about continuing to demand products they know are damaging the environment (e.g. Amazon deforestation). Both are compatible. You can be against the Amazon deforestation and pro-reduction of emissions of current cattle. Most of the beef consumed in the US (~90%) is raised in the US. > Industrial farmed animals aren't eating grass, they're eating crops like soy. If you find soy milk and soy-based meat alternatives decent for example, consider eating those directly instead of products from soy-fed cows - it'll be vastly better for the environment with seaweed or not. Ahhh... No, thanks. It will also be vastly worse for my health.
- rewq4321 6y ago
  > Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers. This is incorrect. Humans can and do eat soybean meal. About 98% of soybean meal is used for animal feed and only 1% is used to produce food for people.[0] For soybeans as a whole, only about 6% grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption.[1] > Ahhh... No, thanks. It will also be vastly worse for my health. The peer-reviewed science we have suggests that higher soy consumption correlates with increased lifespan and positive health outcomes. Can I hazard a guess that you think MSG is bad for your health too? These are antiquated views. > "So far, the evidence does not point to any dangers from eating soy in people, and the health benefits appear to outweigh any potential risk. In fact, there is growing evidence that eating traditional soy foods such as tofu, tempeh, edamame, miso, and soymilk may lower the risk of breast cancer, especially among Asian women. Soy foods are excellent sources of protein, especially when they replace other, less healthy foods such as animal fats and red or processed meats. Soy foods have been linked to lower rates of heart disease and may even help lower cholesterol." https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/soy-and-cancer-risk-our-experts-advice.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/soy-and-cancer-risk-our-e... [0] https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans
crazycanuck 6y ago
> How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? Poore and Nemecek did a pretty comprehensive survey of the climate impact of different foods https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 in 2018. Their underlying data suggests that methane accounts for about 38% of the total CO2 equivalent impact of beef herds. So if this is true, beef would still be highly damaging, but materially improved over where it sits now.
gamblor956 6y ago
deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Most deforestation is to grow crops. Cows generally eat grass unless they have no other options.
gridlockd 6y ago
I consider soy unfit for human consumption unless specifically prepared, and even then it should not be a staple. A cow can turn soy into highly nutritious and palatable food, so the resource usage is justified. Having said that, if you want to eat like an antique slave, be my guest. Have a pint of Soylent(tm), it’s on me.
- newtwilly 6y ago
  Do you have any arguments to back that up?
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    I do not need arguments to support my opinion that most soy products are garbage. I have tasted most of them and that is my verdict. Exceptions include soy sauce and miso. There is also some research that suggests soy is unhealthy, but since I am not interested in a debate on the validity of such research, I will not link to any of it.

svrtknst 6y ago

Thats an interesting question for sure. Would need to be calculated against the current energy needs, hopefully an increase in seaweed feed leads to a decrease in soy bean farming. I'd rather eat the seaweed or soy directly, but this could be an improvement.

scns 6y ago

Without excrement from animals you need synthetic fertilizer, whose production causes massive production causes massive environmental damage eg emissions and algae bloom.

cesnja 6y ago
There's also the "classic" option, discovered some 200 years before synthetic fertilizers - crop rotation that includes some form of legumes. IMO with the current state of agriculture and food production we went into a local maximum that is very unsustainable and bad for the environment.
- 1234fdsazxcv 6y ago
  There's a reason we had to switch away from that. The crop rotation cycle isn't an efficient use of land. Synthetic fertilizers exist for a reason -- the human race wants and needs an excess of food. No one wants to switch to a model of food scarcity.
  - tarsinge 6y ago
    The point is that if the food is not meat we need like up to 75% less crops, which is completely attainable without synthetic fertilizer.
    - ekianjo 6y ago
      Claiming it does not make it so.
      - tovej 6y ago
        Every addition of a new consumer in a food chain brings with it a high rate of energy loss. The cow will need to use its energy to live, only a small portion of the energy is left in the steak you eat. 75% is a good approximation. In general, the shorter the food chain, the more efficient it is. This is a universally known fact. I will drop some helpful links for you if you doubt this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology) https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2m39j6/revision/6 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2m39j6/revision/6 https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/food.html#ecological_pyramids https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/food.html#ecological_...
    - tarsinge 6y ago
      Source: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use The figure given is 77% of agricultural land is used for livestock
      - tremon 6y ago
totetsu 6y ago
Last time I checked everybody I know is an fertilizer excreting animal..
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  it's because they're all made from meat.
  - totetsu 6y ago
    http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.sh... ?
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      yes, seemed to apply.
rozab 6y ago
But without animals you don't need nearly as much crops... Cattle do not come close to breaking even in this sense
estreeper 6y ago
Manure and synthetic fertilizer both have similarly severe, but somewhat different, environmental impacts. Synthetic fertilizer requires large amounts of energy to produce, but manure generally needs to be applied much more inefficiently to achieve the same effect because of its relatively low nitrogen content and the inability to control its release. It also has transportation issues [1]. However, these types of impacts are trivial in comparison to the 1.9% energy efficiency for beef. Regardless of the fertilizer used, we would use just under 1/50th of it if we consumed the plants directly, along with the same savings in land and water. [1] https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/to-cut-nitrogen-pollution-move-past-the-synthetic-organic-debate https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/to-cut-nitrogen-polluti...
thinkcontext 6y ago
Only a small amount of fertilizer usage in the US is waste based. In 2015 13M tons of nitrogen based synthetic fertilizer was used, on top of that 4M tons each of phosphate and potash fertilizer. For waste based fertilizer compost, dried manure and sewage total 600K tons. That doesn't even take into account that the raw weights aren't directly comparable. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-pr...
dondoron 6y ago
There is more than enough liquid manure, forcing farmers to pay for its removal (at least in Europe, that is). Also, it can be used only at certain points in time to avoid food poisoning.

cik 6y ago

At the end of the day this is signalling. We all know that the best thing we can do is eat a local, veg-friendly (vegetarian/vegan) diet. That also doesn't mean that people are going to do it, or can. But at least it's one form of a step in the right direction. War doesn't have to be waged and won in a single battle. Every little step helps if it truly reduces emissions.

sbelskie 6y ago
I was under the impression that the local part is hit or miss due to the efficiency differences between large national/global supply chains and small local ones.
barry-cotter 6y ago
> At the end of the day this is signalling. We all know that the best thing we can do is eat a local, veg-friendly (vegetarian/vegan) diet. Local doesn’t belong in there. As a reductio ad absurdum would it be better to eat a diet of nothing but imported NZ lamb or to grow all food locally at McMurdo Base in Antarctica? Grass is next to free. Ocean shipping is the most efficient means of transport for bulk freight there is. To grow food at McMurdo you’d need to heat the environment, insulate it and light it half the year. Eat local is class signaling, not environmentalism.
- dkdbejwi383 6y ago
  "What about Antarctica" is the most straw man argument possible when talking about food sourcing.
  - p1mrx 6y ago
    What about the space station? Shipping is expensive, but the real estate for farming is even more expensive.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      (Growing some CO2 removers in the space station would be a interesting idea. The 'Space nab' project. Sounds great ;-))

glangdale 6y ago

Cow burps and farts are methane, which is a enormously potent greenhouse gas. The energy- (and water-) intensiveness of eating beef is significant too, no argument there.

wodenokoto 6y ago

> Whole milk: 24% That is a crazy high efficiency, when you think about it. A quarter of all food this animal receives through its entire life ends up as milk. The rest is used for growing cells, keeping it alive and warm, moving around. Back of the napkin says that I've eaten my bodyweight in food in less than 2 months.

spodek 6y ago
Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for the green revolution and understood the misguidance of efficiency as a strategy better than anyone. As a tactic it works under the strategy of managing population, as he said in his acceptance speech: > "The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only. . . Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster”. . . Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth." We haven't curbed population growth. It's slowing, but we're in overshoot, which leads to collapse, and most projections still show us growing through 2100. Luckily, have examples like Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, who helped lower their population growth from around 7 children per couple to below 2 through voluntary means -- think the opposite of China's One Child Policy -- leading to greater stability and abundance. His TEDx talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaidya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_place_for_life_and_love#t-811495 https://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaidya_how_mr_condom_ma....
- adventured 6y ago
  > Luckily, have examples like Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, who helped lower their population growth from around 7 children per couple to below 2 through voluntary means -- think the opposite of China's One Child Policy -- leading to greater stability and abundance. South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines follow the same general population decline curve from the 1960s to now, that Thailand has followed. They all began at close to the same change rate circa 1960, all between 2.9% and 3.3%. Thailand's drop has been more pronounced since 2000 than Vietnam, however that can properly be attributed to the huge difference in standard of living between the two (the decline in Thailand matches the decline also seen in South Korea). Did most countries in Asia have their own Mechai Viravaidya? They all simultaneously drop from 1960 onward. Or is this person getting credit for something that was happening regardless and has a lot more to do with increased economic prosperity? Which is something we already know is the primary natural change agent for lowering population expansion. Thailand's GDP per capita skyrocketed after 2001, whereas eg Vietnam and the Philippines followed slower trajectories (until recently). Thailand actually saw an increase in its population growth change rate in the 1990s (1993-2001), before the economic boom that began in 2001 pushed it back down again. The population change rate in Vietnam and Thailand were nearly identical until Thailand's economic boom began in 2001 (also, Thailand's rate wasn't much lower than Indonesia circa 1998-2000, they've split both economically and on that pop change rate from 2001 forward).

pkphilip 6y ago

For sustainable farming, livestock plays a very crucial role. This is particularly true for organic and natural farming. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/organic-livestock-farming-a-revolution-in-the-making-71530 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/organic-live... So looking at a single metric (methane emissions) doesn't do this topic justice. Also, live stock grazing (if done properly) can also be a method of regreening environments. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/though-forests-burn-agroforestry-advances-as-trees-retake-farmland-globally/ https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/though-forests-burn-agrofo...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cbernini 6y ago
You're talking about manure usage here, not meat consumption. You don't need cattle for regenerative agriculture. Compost can do just fine in this case. Also if you want to boost nitrogen on the soil you can do by using FAA (a KNF entry) based on fish, instead. Anyways, the second link you sent says that they have controlled grazing to prevent the cattle from destroying new growth. As the text says: plants can do it all. Plantation can't. And never will.
- pkphilip 6y ago
  Overgrazing can and does cause problems but controlled grazing can actually fight desertification and has been used: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-livestock-grazing-stop-desertification/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-livestock-gra... The organic and natural farming methods used in parts of Asia - especially India, utilizes livestock for much more than just manure. You should look up Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) by Subhash Palekar. Quoting from this site: https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/zero-budget-natural-farming-zbnf/ https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/zero-budget-natural-farming... The “four wheels” of ZBNF are ‘Jiwamrita’, ‘Bijamrita’, ‘Mulching’ and ‘Waaphasa’. - Jiwamrita is a fermented mixture of cow dung and urine (of desi (Indian) breeds), jaggery, pulses flour, water and soil from the farm bund. - This isn’t a fertiliser, but just a source of some 500 crore micro-organisms that can convert all the necessary “non-available” nutrients into “available” form. - Bijamrita is a mix of desi cow dung and urine, water, bund soil and lime that is used as a seed treatment solution prior to sowing. - Mulching, or covering the plants with a layer of dried straw or fallen leaves, is meant to conserve soil moisture and keep the temperature around the roots at 25-32 degrees Celsius, which allows the microorganisms to do their job. - Waaphasa, or providing water to maintain the required moisture-air balance, also achieves the same objective.

chii 6y ago

> continuing to demand products the demand will always be there. Humans like to eat meat. I doubt very many will give up the privilege, esp. when others are not. So any solution that improves the production of meat should be a good outcome. Ideally, lab grown meat (of the same quality and taste as from a cow) with low emissions is the best, but we aren't anywhere near that level of tech yet.

dannyw 6y ago
I’ve been cooking with and eating plant based meat every once in a while for a year now. I don’t even think about it. It’s meat to me now.
- chii 6y ago
  My recent observations of HN is that many here take their own experience, and extrapolate that they are common and therefore anybody else could've also done it, and would be willing to. But there's empirical evidence that not many people want to stop eating meat. Look at how few vegetarians there are, compared to non-vegetarians. Do you really think those people don't know it's possible to live healthily as vegetarians?
  - sethammons 6y ago
    > heathly as vegetarians Worth noting that being vegetarian does not necessarily equal healthy. There are plenty of vegetarians who are just eating mac and cheese. My sister, when in high school, became iron anemic due to poor food choices while being vegetarian.
    - piva00 6y ago
      That is quite obvious, you can be unhealthy with any kind of diet if you are nutrient poor...
    - badwolf 6y ago
      If you're consisting of a diet of mac & cheese, or other poor food choices... Being a vegetarian isn't the problem. Poor food choices are the problem.

tlarkworthy 6y ago

Massive I believe. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150401084157.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150401084157.h... Cattle responsible for 15 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions that humans cause." It's the methane, chickens are much less damaging. The outsided damage cattle does is because if the biochemistry in the stomache, which this feed addresses (Lamb is terrible too, but less popular)

jazzabeanie 6y ago

In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. My own experience confirms this. I've seen many cattle farms around Queensland - some with low stocking density and no deforestation, others very poorly managed with no trees at all or full of invasive species. It's not as simple as eating meat = bad, but that's the message most people are getting. If they respond by stopping eating meat, then great - not the best choice, but a step in the right direction. If they respond by stopping to care where their food comes from then not so great.

ajmurmann 6y ago
> In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. I'm not sure how that makes anything better. It will still require more carbon emissions than growing elsewhere. In fact raising cattle in a spot like you describe still well require growing the feed elsewhere. Wouldn't it be much better to just eat the soup or other crop directly, save the carbon emissions and give the land the cattle are on back to mother nature and turn it into a wildlife refuge?
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > In fact raising cattle in a spot like you describe still well require growing the feed elsewhere. No. Feeding bovine meat cattle with commercial crops is uneconomical. It only happens as a small complement to the main diet or in emergencies. Nearly all of the cattle food grows on the terrain where they are created.
  - joncrane 6y ago
    For sure almost all cattle are 'fattened up' at so-called "feed lots" immediately before butchering. In fact "grass fed" is one of those misleading labels that imply one thing but the true way to get what "grass fed" is implying is "grass fed and grass finished."
  - rbg246 6y ago

ryndbfsrw 6y ago

> All improvements are good, but I'd like to know if this is more than a distraction to make people feel better about continuing to demand products they know are damaging the environment (e.g. Amazon deforestation). I think you're on the money. This is the equivalent of us wanting to keep driving around in 2.5ton SUVs by justifying to ourselves that it’s a hybrid

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

> eating those directly instead I would but: all the meat alternatives here in Tasmania are more expensive than beef! The only thing that gets a pass is tofu at $8.00 a kg, which is competitive with chicken and imported Basa.

em3rgent0rdr 6y ago

Including carbon emissions due to transporting the feed.

chrisweekly 6y ago

Good questions. As someone who's enjoyed eating beef for most of my life, I feel compelled to recommend Impossible Burger "meat" as a legitimate alternative. No, it's not exactly the same, but it is delicious (unlike, say, Beyond Burgers, which taste to me like a failed experiment).

lucioperca 6y ago

Relevant article: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034...

bad_user 6y ago

Re "Amazon deforestation" — those lands haven't been deforested because of the western country's consumption of meat, they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway. If western countries want the deforestation of the Amazon to stop, the cold, harsh reality is that they should subsidize the price for it. --- As for making personal changes, if eating soy makes you feel any better, sure, do that, but stop shaming people for eating meat. Because in the large scheme of things, switching from meat to soy does mostly nothing for the environment. The reason is that, going vegan, as an individual, only saves you a couple of $ in CO2 emissions per year. That's right. All of your efforts are only worth a couple of $ per year in CO2 emissions. And even if you think that's worth it, those emissions would be re-allocated to industry anyway. Also, ironically, the behavior of people going green changes. If you have an electric car, for example, you might feel the need to ride it more, to make more trips. Because it's cheaper, and you've been a good citizen, you've earned it. And when that happens, and it does, your net emissions might not go as low as you'd think. Never mind that the subsidies for electric cars are yet again subsidies for the rich. Go carless first, then we can talk about not eating meat ;-) --- Real change will come from technological progress. It always came from technological progress. Remember whales? Whales were not saved by political activism, by individuals refusing to use whale oil. Whales were saved because cheap replacements for whale oil became available. Ironically, renewable energy might not be very green at all. Maybe we should address the fact that solar panels are super inefficient, taking up massive land use, and their recycling is super expensive. Instead of investing more in nuclear energy, money is being diverted on solutions that may in fact be worse for the environment than cleaner fossil fuels (e.g. gas). We are currently unable to replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives, because "renewable" energy isn't up to snuff, and because of nuclear-phobia, which prevents investments in nuclear power. But sure, let's all eat soy, that will save the planet.

MiroF 6y ago
> they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway. Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative. I am certain there are people starving in Brazil, but this is much more of a distribution problem than a "didn't cut down enough trees in the Amazon" problem. > solar panels are super inefficient No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive and nuclear is looking less and less good by comparison every day. I say that as a big believer in nuclear power.

slothtrop 6y ago

I don't think it's fair to call this a mere distraction when you account for the sheer impact of methane on climate change. Quibbling about energy efficiency is besides the point. Play around with this - https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=45&p7=7&p10=-0.1&p16=-0.02&p30=-0.03&p39=90&p47=3.4&p50=1.3&p53=1.2&p55=2.4&p57=-2.9&p59=-100&p65=32&p67=100&v=2.7.29 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=45&...

tassl 6y ago

> How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Quite a bit. Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers. That's usually hidden in data by using total weight, but the reality is that 86% of the dry matter consumed by livestock are not edible by humans [1]. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22119... >All improvements are good, but I'd like to know if this is more than a distraction to make people feel better about continuing to demand products they know are damaging the environment (e.g. Amazon deforestation). Both are compatible. You can be against the Amazon deforestation and pro-reduction of emissions of current cattle. Most of the beef consumed in the US (~90%) is raised in the US. > Industrial farmed animals aren't eating grass, they're eating crops like soy. If you find soy milk and soy-based meat alternatives decent for example, consider eating those directly instead of products from soy-fed cows - it'll be vastly better for the environment with seaweed or not. Ahhh... No, thanks. It will also be vastly worse for my health.

rewq4321 6y ago
> Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers. This is incorrect. Humans can and do eat soybean meal. About 98% of soybean meal is used for animal feed and only 1% is used to produce food for people.[0] For soybeans as a whole, only about 6% grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption.[1] > Ahhh... No, thanks. It will also be vastly worse for my health. The peer-reviewed science we have suggests that higher soy consumption correlates with increased lifespan and positive health outcomes. Can I hazard a guess that you think MSG is bad for your health too? These are antiquated views. > "So far, the evidence does not point to any dangers from eating soy in people, and the health benefits appear to outweigh any potential risk. In fact, there is growing evidence that eating traditional soy foods such as tofu, tempeh, edamame, miso, and soymilk may lower the risk of breast cancer, especially among Asian women. Soy foods are excellent sources of protein, especially when they replace other, less healthy foods such as animal fats and red or processed meats. Soy foods have been linked to lower rates of heart disease and may even help lower cholesterol." https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/soy-and-cancer-risk-our-experts-advice.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/soy-and-cancer-risk-our-e... [0] https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans

crazycanuck 6y ago

> How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? Poore and Nemecek did a pretty comprehensive survey of the climate impact of different foods https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 in 2018. Their underlying data suggests that methane accounts for about 38% of the total CO2 equivalent impact of beef herds. So if this is true, beef would still be highly damaging, but materially improved over where it sits now.

gamblor956 6y ago

deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Most deforestation is to grow crops. Cows generally eat grass unless they have no other options.

gridlockd 6y ago

I consider soy unfit for human consumption unless specifically prepared, and even then it should not be a staple. A cow can turn soy into highly nutritious and palatable food, so the resource usage is justified. Having said that, if you want to eat like an antique slave, be my guest. Have a pint of Soylent(tm), it’s on me.

newtwilly 6y ago
Do you have any arguments to back that up?
- gridlockd 6y ago
  I do not need arguments to support my opinion that most soy products are garbage. I have tasted most of them and that is my verdict. Exceptions include soy sauce and miso. There is also some research that suggests soy is unhealthy, but since I am not interested in a debate on the validity of such research, I will not link to any of it.