4 ms·

I saw this story when, I believe, it hit the HN frontpage the last time; it buries the important part of this whole thing, because that doesn't make for good cl

I saw this story when, I believe, it hit the HN frontpage the last time; it buries the important part of this whole thing, because that doesn't make for good clickbait: not feeding cows diets mainly made from corn byproducts makes them fart less. The most destructive thing, farming wise, we do... is the corn industry. Ruining soil faster than any other crop? Corn. Using so much water in the midwest that it makes California's water shortage look competent? Corn. Polluting the waterways with commercial fertilizers, resulting in, but not limited to, the dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico? Corn. Does corn have any nutritional value to humans or our livestock? Nope! Does it produce anything valuable for industrial purposes? Nope! Would it continue to exist without the trillions in subsidies we've paid over the past decade? Nope! Is it one of the primary drivers behind the obesity crisis? Yup! Can't print that headline though, rich people get angry when the truth collides with their Scrooge McDuck-esque money vaults. So, "feeding them seaweed" as a "think positive" headline workaround continues to get the word out, albeit in a strange way.

reissbaker 5y ago
I'm generally against corn subsidies, but grass-fed vs grain-fed beef is actually fairly complicated when it comes to greenhouse gases. Depending on the region, finishing on grain may be better from a greenhouse gas perspective: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is... The issue is generally that grass-finishing is slower, so cows (may) end up producing more methane overall. However, grass-fed is definitely better from an animal welfare perspective. Some of your other claims seem difficult to support; for example, I'm not sure it's well-understood what is driving obesity, and so claiming that it's corn seems like a bit of a stretch. Similarly, corn does actually have nutritional value, which is why people have grown it for a very long time, even before subsidies.
- tsjq 5y ago
  >what is driving obesity High Fructose Corn Syrup, no ?
  - raducu 5y ago
    Because regular sugar won't make you obse?
    - brailsafe 5y ago
      My hunch is that HFCS is more versatile and cheaper than other sugar products, and it can compensate for garbage food in the same way. Therefore passably good tasting food is cheaper and more readily available than anything else.
    - belorn 5y ago
      High Fructose Corn Syrup is about half the price of regular sugar. It would be an interesting thought experiment about what would happen to obesity levels if prices were taxed to the point where the price difference would be eliminated.
      - ThePadawan 5y ago
        Isn't that thought experiment just Europe?
  - JetSetWilly 5y ago
    In the UK we are fairly obese and we don't grow corn, we don't have HFCS subsidies, and we don't have have HFCS in everything either - eg coca cola is just plain old sugar here. So I doubt that the US getting rid of corn subsidies will make any difference to obesity - some other sugar would be used instead, sugar cane or sugar beet.
- avnigo 5y ago
  When you look at air pollutants like NOx, NH3, NMVOC, etc. excreta deposited by grazing livestock has a lower emission factor than those deposited in yards/housing, where corn-fed cattle are usually kept. [0] > The more time grazing livestock are housed, the smaller the proportion of their excreta deposited on grazed pastures will be, and hence the smaller the emissions from those pastures. [0]: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/8e90ca718fd34d5786c12c331aa7a262 https://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/8e90ca718fd34d5786c1...
- loceng 5y ago
  I'm guessing the cows are healthier with grass fed since they're getting more nutrients and therefore a better end product as well, to balance into the equation?
bawolff 5y ago
> Does corn have any nutritional value to humans or our livestock? Nope! This seems obviously false.
- bombela 5y ago
  99% of the corn grown in the USA is not edible directly. It is called "field corn".
  - jimnotgym 5y ago
    could you explain that term please? When you say corn, is it maize, wheat, barley or something else?
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      When USians say corn they almost invariably mean maize also known as sweetcorn.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Names > The word "corn" outside the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand refers to any cereal crop, its meaning understood to vary geographically to refer to the local staple. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, corn primarily means maize; this usage started as a shortening of "Indian corn". I (from the US) learned about this when a botanist pointed out that the movie "Fellowship of the Rings" incorrectly depicted maize for what Tolkein described as 'corn' in the Shire. http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Corn http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Corn
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I feel like that's shifting goal posts. Regardless, according to google, you can still eat field corn if you want to and it still has nutritional value.

reissbaker 5y ago

I'm generally against corn subsidies, but grass-fed vs grain-fed beef is actually fairly complicated when it comes to greenhouse gases. Depending on the region, finishing on grain may be better from a greenhouse gas perspective: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is... The issue is generally that grass-finishing is slower, so cows (may) end up producing more methane overall. However, grass-fed is definitely better from an animal welfare perspective. Some of your other claims seem difficult to support; for example, I'm not sure it's well-understood what is driving obesity, and so claiming that it's corn seems like a bit of a stretch. Similarly, corn does actually have nutritional value, which is why people have grown it for a very long time, even before subsidies.

tsjq 5y ago
>what is driving obesity High Fructose Corn Syrup, no ?
- raducu 5y ago
  Because regular sugar won't make you obse?
  - brailsafe 5y ago
    My hunch is that HFCS is more versatile and cheaper than other sugar products, and it can compensate for garbage food in the same way. Therefore passably good tasting food is cheaper and more readily available than anything else.
  - belorn 5y ago
    High Fructose Corn Syrup is about half the price of regular sugar. It would be an interesting thought experiment about what would happen to obesity levels if prices were taxed to the point where the price difference would be eliminated.
    - ThePadawan 5y ago
      Isn't that thought experiment just Europe?
- JetSetWilly 5y ago
  In the UK we are fairly obese and we don't grow corn, we don't have HFCS subsidies, and we don't have have HFCS in everything either - eg coca cola is just plain old sugar here. So I doubt that the US getting rid of corn subsidies will make any difference to obesity - some other sugar would be used instead, sugar cane or sugar beet.
avnigo 5y ago
When you look at air pollutants like NOx, NH3, NMVOC, etc. excreta deposited by grazing livestock has a lower emission factor than those deposited in yards/housing, where corn-fed cattle are usually kept. [0] > The more time grazing livestock are housed, the smaller the proportion of their excreta deposited on grazed pastures will be, and hence the smaller the emissions from those pastures. [0]: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/8e90ca718fd34d5786c12c331aa7a262 https://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/8e90ca718fd34d5786c1...
loceng 5y ago
I'm guessing the cows are healthier with grass fed since they're getting more nutrients and therefore a better end product as well, to balance into the equation?

bawolff 5y ago

> Does corn have any nutritional value to humans or our livestock? Nope! This seems obviously false.

bombela 5y ago
99% of the corn grown in the USA is not edible directly. It is called "field corn".
- jimnotgym 5y ago
  could you explain that term please? When you say corn, is it maize, wheat, barley or something else?
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    When USians say corn they almost invariably mean maize also known as sweetcorn.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Names > The word "corn" outside the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand refers to any cereal crop, its meaning understood to vary geographically to refer to the local staple. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, corn primarily means maize; this usage started as a shortening of "Indian corn". I (from the US) learned about this when a botanist pointed out that the movie "Fellowship of the Rings" incorrectly depicted maize for what Tolkein described as 'corn' in the Shire. http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Corn http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Corn
- bawolff 5y ago
  I feel like that's shifting goal posts. Regardless, according to google, you can still eat field corn if you want to and it still has nutritional value.