4 ms·

> And this speed is making both them and the land sick — cows are meant to eat grass, not the grains used to fatten them quickly. I don't disagree with this pa

> And this speed is making both them and the land sick — cows are meant to eat grass, not the grains used to fatten them quickly. I don't disagree with this part. My point is just that a) livestock are an enormously inefficient way of raising calories and b) that's taking into consideration the horrendous industrial meat system. The US raised 33 million cows to slaughter in 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/194357/total-cattle-slaughter-in-the-us-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/194357/total-cattle-slau...). Converting those to be pasture raised would use a vast amount of land (1), a huge reduction of calories already being produced (unsustainably) from corn and soy, and require a lot of additional labor. (1) https://www.omnicalculator.com/biology/cattle-per-acre https://www.omnicalculator.com/biology/cattle-per-acre -- I don't know if the defaults are generally applicable for the US, but let's say 0.33 cows per acre (which may be optimistic - see e.g. https://www.outdoorhappens.com/how-many-cows-per-acre-in-your-state/ https://www.outdoorhappens.com/how-many-cows-per-acre-in-you...). A cow raised fully on grass requires around 24 months. So, if the US wants to keep slaughtering 33 million cows per year, 66 million cows need to be alive at any one time. (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...) So, minimum land use would be 3 x 66 million = 198,000,000. That's equivalent to the total land used right now for soy, corn AND cotton combined (https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/06-30-2021.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/06-30-2021.php).

dilap 5y ago
Funnily enough, there used to be about 60 million wild buffalo roaming north america. We killed them off & have devoted vast tracts of land to monocrop agriculture fueled by petrochemical fertilizers.
- Retric 5y ago
  Those 60 million Bison lived ~15 years on average. Cattle on the other hand rarely make it past adulthood, so those 33 million cattle slaughtered every year requires significantly more food. That’s the core reason we are feeding cattle with farmed corn, you simply get more beef from the same land.
  - dilap 5y ago
    Sure, I'm shooting from the hip. But I think the broader point is true -- there's nothing wrong/unsustainable/unnatural about having a bunch of ruminants running around. That's how it used to be! What's unnatural, and, I think, unsustainable, is vast fields of intensively-grown monocrops, propped up by petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Having ruminants running around is very stable, but if we are then harvesting them for meat you start depriving that ecosystem of various nutrients. It’s significantly more stable, but still not “sustainable” indefinitely. On the other hand if we aren’t harvesting them it’s arguably kind of pointless.
  - pas 5y ago
    Why do slaughtered cattle require more food? Naively I'd guess that the big adult bison eat at least as much as the young cows in the same timeframe.
    - Retric 5y ago
      It’s the same reason eating to much makes you gain weight. Roughly speaking a 1300 pound adult cow needs ~9,700 calories per day to maintain it’s weight. Where a 770 lb calf only needs 6,230 calories per day to maintain body weight, but growing 2.2 lb per day, requires an additional 4,130 calories per day. So, 6,230 + 4,130 = 10,360. Thus between around 700 lb and full body weight they need more calories than an adult. With feedlot cattle being both close to adult body weight and adding more pounds per day. A newborn 80lb calf doesn’t its self need that many calories directly, but it both grows very rapidly gets its calories from it’s mother which turns grass calories to turn into milk calories at about 3:1 efficiency.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  You (the U.S. government back then) killed them off just to stick it to the indigenous people, since buffalos played a central role in their lives. That is so messed up. From over 60 million to 541 in less than a century according to Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
  - dilap 5y ago
    Yes, extremely tragic.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    It's difficult to organize, fund, & perpetrate evil at scale, to the exclusion of a financial motive, so it rarely happens. I'm sure the anti-indigenous Army leaders at the time were pleased with the side effect, but the reality is that firearms + slow moving bison + horses + railroad shipping = profit. And so people kept doing it until bison were almost eradicated.
    - dilap 5y ago
      Definitely multifactorial, but the US army really did have a policy of killing buffalo w/ the aim of depriving the indians they were fighting of their primary food source.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        Do you have a citation? Because Wikipedia explicitly mentioned 'This was said, but it's not clear if implementation went beyond someone dreaming out loud.'
        dilap 5y ago
        My apologies, I think you are correct! At least per Atlantic. https://archive.is/WeFj2 https://archive.is/WeFj2 They hype up the Army aspect a lot in the first part of the article, but readering further it becomes clear that commerical hunting really was the main driver.
omginternets 5y ago
It’s only inefficient if you continue to ignore the points being raised by the parent post.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  The only point I see that wasn't addressed was that we can use land unsuitable for agriculture for grazing, but in that case all the supposed top-soil benefits are going to the wrong place anyway.
  - t-3 5y ago
    "The wrong place" can become "the right place" in a relatively short period of time if we change the way we think about agriculture, is the point. For what it's worth, I think the main problem here is agricultural subsidies - they completely distort the market. Calories are cheap due to this, true, but the result is completely unsustainable agricultural practices, poorer health, a more fragile economy, and less variety and higher prices for unsubsidized goods.
    - hn_version_0023 5y ago
      Agreed. There’s another thing that must change as well: our (the US specifically) focus on profits above all else. We act as if our actions and decisions have no consequences and continually mortgage the future for profits today. If we don’t change this, we’re dooming ourselves.
    - lanfeust6 5y ago
      > For what it's worth, I think the main problem here is agricultural subsidies - they completely distort the market. Yep. In the discourse surrounding this there's a call to reduce or eliminate meat consumption, but simultaneously we have market incentives for meat consumption through legislation. This is untenable.

dilap 5y ago

Funnily enough, there used to be about 60 million wild buffalo roaming north america. We killed them off & have devoted vast tracts of land to monocrop agriculture fueled by petrochemical fertilizers.

Retric 5y ago
Those 60 million Bison lived ~15 years on average. Cattle on the other hand rarely make it past adulthood, so those 33 million cattle slaughtered every year requires significantly more food. That’s the core reason we are feeding cattle with farmed corn, you simply get more beef from the same land.
- dilap 5y ago
  Sure, I'm shooting from the hip. But I think the broader point is true -- there's nothing wrong/unsustainable/unnatural about having a bunch of ruminants running around. That's how it used to be! What's unnatural, and, I think, unsustainable, is vast fields of intensively-grown monocrops, propped up by petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Having ruminants running around is very stable, but if we are then harvesting them for meat you start depriving that ecosystem of various nutrients. It’s significantly more stable, but still not “sustainable” indefinitely. On the other hand if we aren’t harvesting them it’s arguably kind of pointless.
- pas 5y ago
  Why do slaughtered cattle require more food? Naively I'd guess that the big adult bison eat at least as much as the young cows in the same timeframe.
  - Retric 5y ago
    It’s the same reason eating to much makes you gain weight. Roughly speaking a 1300 pound adult cow needs ~9,700 calories per day to maintain it’s weight. Where a 770 lb calf only needs 6,230 calories per day to maintain body weight, but growing 2.2 lb per day, requires an additional 4,130 calories per day. So, 6,230 + 4,130 = 10,360. Thus between around 700 lb and full body weight they need more calories than an adult. With feedlot cattle being both close to adult body weight and adding more pounds per day. A newborn 80lb calf doesn’t its self need that many calories directly, but it both grows very rapidly gets its calories from it’s mother which turns grass calories to turn into milk calories at about 3:1 efficiency.
cinntaile 5y ago
You (the U.S. government back then) killed them off just to stick it to the indigenous people, since buffalos played a central role in their lives. That is so messed up. From over 60 million to 541 in less than a century according to Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
- dilap 5y ago
  Yes, extremely tragic.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  It's difficult to organize, fund, & perpetrate evil at scale, to the exclusion of a financial motive, so it rarely happens. I'm sure the anti-indigenous Army leaders at the time were pleased with the side effect, but the reality is that firearms + slow moving bison + horses + railroad shipping = profit. And so people kept doing it until bison were almost eradicated.
  - dilap 5y ago
    Definitely multifactorial, but the US army really did have a policy of killing buffalo w/ the aim of depriving the indians they were fighting of their primary food source.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Do you have a citation? Because Wikipedia explicitly mentioned 'This was said, but it's not clear if implementation went beyond someone dreaming out loud.'
      - dilap 5y ago
        My apologies, I think you are correct! At least per Atlantic. https://archive.is/WeFj2 https://archive.is/WeFj2 They hype up the Army aspect a lot in the first part of the article, but readering further it becomes clear that commerical hunting really was the main driver.

omginternets 5y ago

It’s only inefficient if you continue to ignore the points being raised by the parent post.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
The only point I see that wasn't addressed was that we can use land unsuitable for agriculture for grazing, but in that case all the supposed top-soil benefits are going to the wrong place anyway.
- t-3 5y ago
  "The wrong place" can become "the right place" in a relatively short period of time if we change the way we think about agriculture, is the point. For what it's worth, I think the main problem here is agricultural subsidies - they completely distort the market. Calories are cheap due to this, true, but the result is completely unsustainable agricultural practices, poorer health, a more fragile economy, and less variety and higher prices for unsubsidized goods.
  - hn_version_0023 5y ago
    Agreed. There’s another thing that must change as well: our (the US specifically) focus on profits above all else. We act as if our actions and decisions have no consequences and continually mortgage the future for profits today. If we don’t change this, we’re dooming ourselves.
  - lanfeust6 5y ago
    > For what it's worth, I think the main problem here is agricultural subsidies - they completely distort the market. Yep. In the discourse surrounding this there's a call to reduce or eliminate meat consumption, but simultaneously we have market incentives for meat consumption through legislation. This is untenable.