4 ms·

86%[0] of livestock feed is inedible by humans. They consume forage, food-waste and crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden. 13% of an

by z33k 4y ago

86%[0] of livestock feed is inedible by humans. They consume forage, food-waste and crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden. 13% of animal feed consists of potentially edible low-quality grains, which make up a third of global cereal (not total crop) production. All US beef cattle spend the majority of their life on pasture and upcycle protein even when grain-finished (0.6 to 1). [0]http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More...

mmiyer 4y ago
A lot of inedible feed is going to be stuff like alfalfa, which is specifically grown as feed and whose farming has massive negative effects like starving the Colorado river of water [0]. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado...
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  Then we need to reassess water-use and water rights and let the market sort itself out. Make alfalfa farmers pay for water and send the cost down the value chain. Consumers will signal how much they are willing to pay, and producers will respond by reducing their supply.
  - mmiyer 4y ago
    I agree - currently a lot of farmers have essentially unlimited water rights, and they should pay the true price of water.
  - somehnacct3757 4y ago
    Along the lines of letting the market sort it out, we could vote for the government to end meat subsidies, or generalize them into protein subsidies available to alternative proteins.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  It's very easy to say "we should stop growing this and feeding it to animals, and grow that instead and feed it to humans", but it's a lot harder to make that work in reality. Not everything grows particularly well in a given location.
dqv 4y ago
>crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden Could is doing a lot of work here, especially because someone might quickly read this as would. This statistic makes it seem like 36% of non-forage inedibles can only be processed by livestock, but there isn't evidence for that.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  If you work out how to eat straw and bean stalks, and tough heathery grasses, then you've got a real moneyspinner on your hands.
  - dqv 4y ago
    >eat This is exactly what I mean - the statistic has convinced you of some unwritten law that says that only livestock or humans can eat this stuff. Since humans can't, it has to go to livestock. But you're completely ignoring that processing these inedibles doesn't have to come in the form of eating them - we can make compost, building materials, packaging. Just because something is doesn't mean it ought to.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      You can't really make packaging materials from tough cellulose-y things like bean stalks because mice eat it, you can't really make building materials from it because it goes on fire, and because it's tough and made of cellulose it doesn't really break down well in a compost heap. Do you know what composts that stuff like crazy, though? Feeding it to cows. And even better, it reduces methane and carbon dioxide emissions, because you're turning all that carbon into cows instead of just letting bacteria emit it as gas.
      - dqv 4y ago
        >And even better, it reduces methane and carbon dioxide emissions, because you're turning all that carbon into cows instead of just letting bacteria emit it as gas. Cows don't work as carbon sinks if you're killing them every 2 years to eat them. You're just reintroducing that carbon in the form of sewage, transportation, and food waste. They need to be allowed to live all 20 years of their lives for the carbon efficiency argument to work. This necessitates (1) massively reducing the population of livestock by ceasing breeding (otherwise it's hurting any gains with carbon storage in the soil) and (2) finding alternative uses for the inedible byproducts of plant agriculture.

by z33k 4y ago

mmiyer 4y ago

A lot of inedible feed is going to be stuff like alfalfa, which is specifically grown as feed and whose farming has massive negative effects like starving the Colorado river of water [0]. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado...

algoatecorn 4y ago
Then we need to reassess water-use and water rights and let the market sort itself out. Make alfalfa farmers pay for water and send the cost down the value chain. Consumers will signal how much they are willing to pay, and producers will respond by reducing their supply.
- mmiyer 4y ago
  I agree - currently a lot of farmers have essentially unlimited water rights, and they should pay the true price of water.
- somehnacct3757 4y ago
  Along the lines of letting the market sort it out, we could vote for the government to end meat subsidies, or generalize them into protein subsidies available to alternative proteins.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
It's very easy to say "we should stop growing this and feeding it to animals, and grow that instead and feed it to humans", but it's a lot harder to make that work in reality. Not everything grows particularly well in a given location.

dqv 4y ago

>crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden Could is doing a lot of work here, especially because someone might quickly read this as would. This statistic makes it seem like 36% of non-forage inedibles can only be processed by livestock, but there isn't evidence for that.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
If you work out how to eat straw and bean stalks, and tough heathery grasses, then you've got a real moneyspinner on your hands.
- dqv 4y ago
  >eat This is exactly what I mean - the statistic has convinced you of some unwritten law that says that only livestock or humans can eat this stuff. Since humans can't, it has to go to livestock. But you're completely ignoring that processing these inedibles doesn't have to come in the form of eating them - we can make compost, building materials, packaging. Just because something is doesn't mean it ought to.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    You can't really make packaging materials from tough cellulose-y things like bean stalks because mice eat it, you can't really make building materials from it because it goes on fire, and because it's tough and made of cellulose it doesn't really break down well in a compost heap. Do you know what composts that stuff like crazy, though? Feeding it to cows. And even better, it reduces methane and carbon dioxide emissions, because you're turning all that carbon into cows instead of just letting bacteria emit it as gas.
    - dqv 4y ago
      >And even better, it reduces methane and carbon dioxide emissions, because you're turning all that carbon into cows instead of just letting bacteria emit it as gas. Cows don't work as carbon sinks if you're killing them every 2 years to eat them. You're just reintroducing that carbon in the form of sewage, transportation, and food waste. They need to be allowed to live all 20 years of their lives for the carbon efficiency argument to work. This necessitates (1) massively reducing the population of livestock by ceasing breeding (otherwise it's hurting any gains with carbon storage in the soil) and (2) finding alternative uses for the inedible byproducts of plant agriculture.