4 ms·

Haven't ethanol fuels been introduced to have a buffer for this situation? If we don't turn grain and corn into petrol then there should be some reserves. Addi

Haven't ethanol fuels been introduced to have a buffer for this situation? If we don't turn grain and corn into petrol then there should be some reserves. Additionally, if we stop rising live-stock, where roughly 10 units of plant create one unit of meat, there should be even more calories available.

codefreeordie 4y ago
Energy is having an even greater supply crunch than food (indeed part of the food shortage is that agricultural inputs can't get delivered in adequate quantities because the energy to transport them doesn't exist). The energy market is willing to outbid the food market, so I wouldn't expect the conversion of agricultural inputs into fuel outputs to decelerate.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  When people run out of money, they prioritize eating over electricity for the TV. Eventually, that effect should bring down the amount that energy companies want to pay for corn. But lots of people might starve first...
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    Yes, but rich westerners will keep paying higher prices for gasoline while people in poor places get outbid for basic survival ration.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    OP is speaking to the market level effective demand. Someone who's poor and starving will direct their own very limited economic purchasing power toward food. But the marketas a whole includes those who are wealthy (far fewer in number, but individually having vastly greater purchasing power), who might prioritise energy purchases generally. It's not the poor's own food-vs-energy deceisions, but poor-food vs. rich-energy, which are in play.
wyager 4y ago
> where roughly 10 units of plant create one unit of meat Those units are not remotely fungible. Protein quality of plant protein (as measured by PER or other metrics not explicitly designed to favor soy) is horrendous compared to beef. Much of the plant material fed to cows is also not even slightly edible to humans, like soy meal. I would rather have 1lb beef than 10lb nominally edible soy extractives (or wheat, or grass, or inedible soy meal, or other inputs to cattle production).
- roflyear 4y ago
  They are comparable in many ways. The fact is it takes more land to make meat than it does to make plants we can eat.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Much of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.
    - countvonbalzac 4y ago
      We're not talking about land that cattle graze on, we're talking about land that is used to grow grains that are then fed to cattle.
  - wyager 4y ago
    Once again, you are trying to compare units which are not fungible. There is more land on which you can make meat than land on which you can make plants. Animals can graze on non-arable scrubland, grassland, etc. Growing staple crops is harder on the land than raising animals. Staple crops deplete soil nitrogen and other nutrients. Raising crops typically requires massive importation of fertilizer from petrochemical plants, whereas cattle grazing (for example) does not require significant additional petrochemical input. A classic tale of how animals unfairly take the heat for plants: we often hear about how the amazon is being cut down "for cattle". If you actually look into it, what's happening is that farmers are cutting down the amazon to grow soy for around 3 years, until the soil is totally depleted, at which point they will put some cattle on the land because the cattle can extract value from land destroyed by soy and helps the farmers maintain land claims.
elzbardico 4y ago
If you are not able to digest cellulose, it doesn't matter if it takes 100, 1000 units of plant calories to create one of meat. This criticism against meat only works for grain-fed beef, for grass-fed animals it makes no sense at all.
- throwaway821909 4y ago
  I suppose it gets more complicated though because in at least some cases, we could plant human-edible food where the grass is and still come out ahead (after taking into account that it's harder to grow pretty much anything than grass)
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    Iunno, I really don’t do anything to the apple tree other than trim branches (which I sell or give away to bbqers depending on my mood). Every couple years it yields a huge crop (and some years gets completely defoliated by disease, but I’m lazy and just let nature take its course). People love non-commercial applewood.
    - hanoz 4y ago
      What!? Who's buying apple tree branches off you? I've chucked loads out in recent years.
      - Scoundreller 4y ago
        The 1-2year shoots/sticks I usually give away for free. $5/bucket for the thicker pieces. I’ll get a handful of interested people nearly instantly. Not easy in the city to get cheap fruitwood that’s never been sprayed with anything.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Corn for ethanol production isn't preferred for eating.
- cardamomo 4y ago
  Indeed, there is probably no existing supply chain for whatever is necessary to make this corn fit for human consumption
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  The idea would be to reapportion the acreage, not the crop itself. Doing that mid-season is of course something of a challenge.

codefreeordie 4y ago

Energy is having an even greater supply crunch than food (indeed part of the food shortage is that agricultural inputs can't get delivered in adequate quantities because the energy to transport them doesn't exist). The energy market is willing to outbid the food market, so I wouldn't expect the conversion of agricultural inputs into fuel outputs to decelerate.

londons_explore 4y ago
When people run out of money, they prioritize eating over electricity for the TV. Eventually, that effect should bring down the amount that energy companies want to pay for corn. But lots of people might starve first...
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  Yes, but rich westerners will keep paying higher prices for gasoline while people in poor places get outbid for basic survival ration.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  OP is speaking to the market level effective demand. Someone who's poor and starving will direct their own very limited economic purchasing power toward food. But the marketas a whole includes those who are wealthy (far fewer in number, but individually having vastly greater purchasing power), who might prioritise energy purchases generally. It's not the poor's own food-vs-energy deceisions, but poor-food vs. rich-energy, which are in play.

wyager 4y ago

> where roughly 10 units of plant create one unit of meat Those units are not remotely fungible. Protein quality of plant protein (as measured by PER or other metrics not explicitly designed to favor soy) is horrendous compared to beef. Much of the plant material fed to cows is also not even slightly edible to humans, like soy meal. I would rather have 1lb beef than 10lb nominally edible soy extractives (or wheat, or grass, or inedible soy meal, or other inputs to cattle production).

roflyear 4y ago
They are comparable in many ways. The fact is it takes more land to make meat than it does to make plants we can eat.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Much of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.
  - countvonbalzac 4y ago
    We're not talking about land that cattle graze on, we're talking about land that is used to grow grains that are then fed to cattle.
- wyager 4y ago
  Once again, you are trying to compare units which are not fungible. There is more land on which you can make meat than land on which you can make plants. Animals can graze on non-arable scrubland, grassland, etc. Growing staple crops is harder on the land than raising animals. Staple crops deplete soil nitrogen and other nutrients. Raising crops typically requires massive importation of fertilizer from petrochemical plants, whereas cattle grazing (for example) does not require significant additional petrochemical input. A classic tale of how animals unfairly take the heat for plants: we often hear about how the amazon is being cut down "for cattle". If you actually look into it, what's happening is that farmers are cutting down the amazon to grow soy for around 3 years, until the soil is totally depleted, at which point they will put some cattle on the land because the cattle can extract value from land destroyed by soy and helps the farmers maintain land claims.

elzbardico 4y ago

If you are not able to digest cellulose, it doesn't matter if it takes 100, 1000 units of plant calories to create one of meat. This criticism against meat only works for grain-fed beef, for grass-fed animals it makes no sense at all.

throwaway821909 4y ago
I suppose it gets more complicated though because in at least some cases, we could plant human-edible food where the grass is and still come out ahead (after taking into account that it's harder to grow pretty much anything than grass)
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Iunno, I really don’t do anything to the apple tree other than trim branches (which I sell or give away to bbqers depending on my mood). Every couple years it yields a huge crop (and some years gets completely defoliated by disease, but I’m lazy and just let nature take its course). People love non-commercial applewood.
  - hanoz 4y ago
    What!? Who's buying apple tree branches off you? I've chucked loads out in recent years.
    - Scoundreller 4y ago
      The 1-2year shoots/sticks I usually give away for free. $5/bucket for the thicker pieces. I’ll get a handful of interested people nearly instantly. Not easy in the city to get cheap fruitwood that’s never been sprayed with anything.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

Corn for ethanol production isn't preferred for eating.

cardamomo 4y ago
Indeed, there is probably no existing supply chain for whatever is necessary to make this corn fit for human consumption
dredmorbius 4y ago
The idea would be to reapportion the acreage, not the crop itself. Doing that mid-season is of course something of a challenge.