3 ms·

Beef is grown using cellulose which contains calories that are unavailable to humans. Unless you've discovered a very neat chemistry trick that would also make

by swiley 5y ago

Beef is grown using cellulose which contains calories that are unavailable to humans. Unless you've discovered a very neat chemistry trick that would also make fuel much cheaper.

dahart 5y ago
I wasn't suggesting that people eat hay. We could use the same land to grow edible plants and vegetables instead, right?
- aparks517 5y ago
  I imagine some grazing land could be converted, but I do think most of it is used for grazing because that's about all it's good for. My family used to graze a small herd on land that could /almost/ be used to grow grain (with lots of chemical help), but definitely not vegetables.
  - dahart 5y ago
    That is a very good point. I poked the internet about it and got this interesting information back which backs up your thought: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature-how-is-land-used/#:~:text=Grazing%20lands%20generally%20are%20less,land%20may%20revert%20to%20forest https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature.... Maybe worth mentioning that poultry feed is grains and "mostly" edible in theory (though maybe not in today's practice), and poultry is the largest segment of meat in the US? Also relevant are that per-capita meat consumption in the US has gone up dramatically in the last 50 years, and so has the average caloric intake. Looking at history, it seems like we have room to downsize some, right?
    - aparks517 5y ago
      > poultry feed is grains and "mostly" edible in theory Yeah, some of them definitely. We fed our chickens a fair bit of wheat, which of course makes good bread. Plenty of field corn too, which... I guess if you like corn chips as much as I do... okay! Poultry and eggs might be better for you than loading up on grains though. > per-capita meat consumption in the US has gone up dramatically in the last 50 years, and so has the average caloric intake Perhaps as little as double those fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable that even the poorest among us could be troubled by obesity. We live in an age of riches and I guess we're still figuring out how that works. What a problem to have, though! > it seems like we have room to downsize some, right? This is perhaps the most amusingly uncontroversial thing I've read on the Internet lately. Thank you
- PeterisP 5y ago
  In a year, yes, with some work and re-tooling it would be possible. But not to cover for a short-term disruption in meat supply.
redprince 5y ago
If only that were still completely true. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy/ https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/susta... You could completely strike meat from everyone's diet and still feed everyone.
- swiley 5y ago
  Just because you can do something and still feed/house everyone doesn't mean it's optimal. Plants are mostly cellulose, not sugar.
  - redprince 5y ago
    Sugar will not be optimal either. Nutrition isn't that simple.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
The most effective step you can take to reduce your carbot footprint is to stop eating beef. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet To satisfy our consumption of beef using grass-fed grazing, we'd need surface area of like 2.5x of earth just dedicated to that. Most beef is not grazing, it's kept in intensive farms and being fed factory produced feed, made with lower quality crops, i.e. corn and some processing by-products. But most meat is not beet, it's chicken and pigs, and they can't digest cellulose - they eat same stuff we do. So for 95% of meet, the OP is correct, it's is a luxury and a strain on our food system, with a giant carbon footprint.

by swiley 5y ago

Beef is grown using cellulose which contains calories that are unavailable to humans. Unless you've discovered a very neat chemistry trick that would also make fuel much cheaper.

dahart 5y ago

I wasn't suggesting that people eat hay. We could use the same land to grow edible plants and vegetables instead, right?

aparks517 5y ago
I imagine some grazing land could be converted, but I do think most of it is used for grazing because that's about all it's good for. My family used to graze a small herd on land that could /almost/ be used to grow grain (with lots of chemical help), but definitely not vegetables.
- dahart 5y ago
  That is a very good point. I poked the internet about it and got this interesting information back which backs up your thought: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature-how-is-land-used/#:~:text=Grazing%20lands%20generally%20are%20less,land%20may%20revert%20to%20forest https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature.... Maybe worth mentioning that poultry feed is grains and "mostly" edible in theory (though maybe not in today's practice), and poultry is the largest segment of meat in the US? Also relevant are that per-capita meat consumption in the US has gone up dramatically in the last 50 years, and so has the average caloric intake. Looking at history, it seems like we have room to downsize some, right?
  - aparks517 5y ago
    > poultry feed is grains and "mostly" edible in theory Yeah, some of them definitely. We fed our chickens a fair bit of wheat, which of course makes good bread. Plenty of field corn too, which... I guess if you like corn chips as much as I do... okay! Poultry and eggs might be better for you than loading up on grains though. > per-capita meat consumption in the US has gone up dramatically in the last 50 years, and so has the average caloric intake Perhaps as little as double those fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable that even the poorest among us could be troubled by obesity. We live in an age of riches and I guess we're still figuring out how that works. What a problem to have, though! > it seems like we have room to downsize some, right? This is perhaps the most amusingly uncontroversial thing I've read on the Internet lately. Thank you
PeterisP 5y ago
In a year, yes, with some work and re-tooling it would be possible. But not to cover for a short-term disruption in meat supply.

redprince 5y ago

If only that were still completely true. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy/ https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/susta... You could completely strike meat from everyone's diet and still feed everyone.

swiley 5y ago
Just because you can do something and still feed/house everyone doesn't mean it's optimal. Plants are mostly cellulose, not sugar.
- redprince 5y ago
  Sugar will not be optimal either. Nutrition isn't that simple.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

The most effective step you can take to reduce your carbot footprint is to stop eating beef. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet To satisfy our consumption of beef using grass-fed grazing, we'd need surface area of like 2.5x of earth just dedicated to that. Most beef is not grazing, it's kept in intensive farms and being fed factory produced feed, made with lower quality crops, i.e. corn and some processing by-products. But most meat is not beet, it's chicken and pigs, and they can't digest cellulose - they eat same stuff we do. So for 95% of meet, the OP is correct, it's is a luxury and a strain on our food system, with a giant carbon footprint.