8 ms·

Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actu

Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? The paper opens with "to feed a growing population" without asking is that what we need? want? where we are actually heading to? Is feeding the world a real problem? I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first.

cameldrv 5mo ago
Exactly. The current world population is 8.3 billion and is expected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2080 and then begin declining. Now, there are a number of other reasons we might have food shortages, but population per se I don't think is a significant factor.
- capitainenemo 5mo ago
  Even if food shortages aren't an issue, reducing the amount of land dedicated to food production is a win for ecosystems. Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place. And, really, with the whole neu5gc thing, it might be that humans would be better off focusing on chickens and seafood anyway (clams being a pretty good option for seafood that is relatively environmentally friendly).
  - tracker1 5mo ago
    Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit for vegetation farming... because of excess rocks, etc. Ruminants that are being naturally (grass) fed are also regenerative in terms of soil health. They don't tend to "bulk up" as much as conventional (grain fed and/or finished) options though, so are more expensive to produce... the gas emissions are another issue that is largely different for grass fed, where the off gases are roughly the same as the grass's natural breakdown would release anyway. In terms of water use, naturally grass fed cattle are mostly using water that fell on the land as rain in terms of how much water they use. It's not much from municipal sources, unlike vegetation farming. Of course there are other ruminant options that are more efficient than cattle, such as goats and sheep, with similar benefits to the soil. It just bugs me that cattle gets such a bad repuation... especially in that it's one of the few things I can eat without issue.
    - capitainenemo 5mo ago
      So, I was saying ecosystems. Filling the world with cows is not the same as natural ecosystems. Also, kurzgesagt did a pretty good episode on meat production (edit - they did several, but one was on the production demands in terms of energy and environment), and if I'm to trust their figures, the "cattle grazing exclusively on the pampas" is far from the majority of world cattle. If it was, that probably would be an improvement, esp if it was done in a way that allowed other species to exist too (maybe bring some buffalo back?). The percentage would be dramatically improved if finishing lots were eliminated though (still a minority though). So maybe that's a simple option. Plus, that's the cruelest part of the cow's existence. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture (crazy amount of habitable surface of planet is livestock) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01398-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01398-4 (study on what percent of production is actually "low-intensity grazing on marginal land") Again, not saying eliminate, just... reduce...
      - tracker1 5mo ago
        I don't think the answer is reduce though... I think it's increase... humans wiped out so many of the ruminant animals (buffalo mainly) that kept the grasslands healthy... we've largely over-farmed in the interim since. We need more ruminants, not less. This means raising much more than we currently do, and probably a reduction in slaughter numbers for the next 50+ years to increase the domestic supply. Can't speak for other nations... but it's literally expanding grasslands as opposed to desert.
        capitainenemo 5mo ago
        Yes. I saw that TED talk about desertification being reversed by ruminants, and while it got a lot of critics, it had some pretty good points. But, those ruminants would be better off not being beef cattle in terms of biodiversity. Also, if they were beef cattle due to the lack of anything better, hopefully it would be short term, and if you're making a case for use of marginal land, they really shouldn't be finished in a feed lot, since that is using a lot of cropland to support that. ... and only some places would (possibly) benefit from that.
  - krater23 5mo ago
    Yes, we could concreting this land and build housings and streets.
    - jamespo 5mo ago
      or could eat something less likely to give you bowel cancer
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
    >Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place. I've seen articles and threads like this for decades at this point. And the only thing any of you have convinced me of is that I must start securing my own production of meat. This is, I think, the exact opposite of "more efficiently" at least from your point of view. I will be unlikely to reach the feed-to-gain ratios that professionals regularly achieve. Swine and poultry already in progress, beef and more exotic stuff within the next 2 years.
    - capitainenemo 5mo ago
      shrug poultry is already several times more efficient than beef in regular production (to say nothing of if your coop just has chickens wandering around finding their own food), and healthier for you. And hopefully your swine and poultry are having overall decent lives. And, if your beef is entirely grass fed (I doubt you can afford a finishing lot) you're still overall not using cropland to fatten up cows (but maybe that's your goal, who knows) Anyway, you do you. Just offering my opinion on this 'cause it seemed like a good place to do it.
  - neuralRiot 5mo ago
    >Not saying people have to go vegetarian I’ve vegan for 20+ years and find weird the obsession people have with meat that without even talking about milk. Literally there are hundreds of alternatives better for health, for the environment and for the animals yet we keep looking for justifications to consume them.
    - mcv 5mo ago
      Yeah. I used to be vegetarian (I eat some meat again), and I love cheese, but I'm well aware that it's almost as bad as beef. Quitting cheese feels like a bigger sacrifice to me than quitting meat. But I've been reducing my cheese consumption lately. That's something at least.
      - aziaziazi 5mo ago
        If that helps, some non-cheese that might trigger your taste buds: - Brewer/nutritional/super yeast (with a bit of oil and/or smashed cashew): in place of Parmesan - Tahini: less cheesy but equally bold taste as yeast - Lactic acid fermented Tofu: whey cheese. - Tempeh: my favorite, just oiled-panned with salt and pepper. Between chicken and soft-Camembert
        ndsipa_pomu 5mo ago
        I'm not convinced by some of those. I'm a pescetarian, so I still eat cheese, but I enjoy unusual foods. I don't find tahini to taste anything like yeast/cheese, though to be fair I mainly use tahini in hummus. I'm not familiar with lactic acid fermented Tofu - does that go by a different name? Tempeh seems more nutty than cheese-like to me, though I rarely eat it as my wife doesn't like the flavour or texture of it. Personally, I'd recommend Japanese Natto if you're after a cheesy flavour - it's soy beans fermented in straw/hay and ends up becoming somewhat slimy/stringy, so it's a bit of an acquired taste.
        aziaziazi 5mo ago
        > Natto Any advice to try it? I haven’t had the courage yet but I guess it's time to face my fears. > lactic acid fermented Tofu The english name of the one I buy is "Lactofermented Tofu" [0], although their ingredients [1] lacks a coagulant but have ferment instead: I guess the tonyu+ferment produce lactic acid, which then coagulate the fermented tonyu into tofu. I wonder if that make a big difference with classic recipes that ferment the tofu directly [2]. > Tempeh It's a fresh product and the taste really differ depending on: - Ripeness. It can be ripped a few days to build an intense flavor when homemade or bought fresh. - Ingredients. Same fungus (Rhizopus oligosporus) can be used to ferment others legumes/grains. I once made black-lentil-tempeh which had a very strong gorgonzola flavor with a firm and non-fat texture. 0 https://lesojami.com/en/our-ranges/ https://lesojami.com/en/our-ranges/ 1 (french) https://lesojami.com/produit/tofu-lactofermente-ail-des-ours/ https://lesojami.com/produit/tofu-lactofermente-ail-des-ours... 2 https://revolutionfermentation.com/en/blogs/tempeh-soy-grains/lacto-fermented-tofu-recipe/ https://revolutionfermentation.com/en/blogs/tempeh-soy-grain...
all2 5mo ago
> Is feeding the world a real problem? Yes, but it is not a production capacity problem. The constraints on food are mostly in the logistics chain, often having to do with corruption or distribution targets (food goes where the money is), or regulation (did you know that cherry growers in the Upper Midwest are required --_by Federal law_-- to destroy unsold crops?). A huge amount of food goes to waste simply because of regulation or subsidies, at least within the United States.
- ls612 5mo ago
  This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big negative shock you will still be able to produce enough to feed everyone merely by not destroying the excess anymore.
  - voxl 5mo ago
    There is no reason to obliterate food, you should give it away to those in need.
    - Alupis 5mo ago
      People do not eat tart cherries directly. They are processed into other goods, like pie filling, juice concentrate, etc. Sweet cherries have no such regulation, and are the ones you consume directly as a fruit - without any additional processing.
      - Dylan16807 5mo ago
        That's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook (by making a pie).
        Alupis 5mo ago
        If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock. It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about... > It's still food, full of flavor and calories Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as a fruit in grocery stores.
choilive 5mo ago
Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is viable. Ultimately energy is the basis all food production. Cheap and plentiful energy solves the food production and distribution problem, then its just matter of preferences.
- Hikikomori 5mo ago
  Market also decided that the Irish could only eat potatoes.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ux266478 5mo ago
    It was actually a disgusting set of edicts and regulations called the Penal Laws, enacted by the English crown, which formalized and wrote into law the informal restrictions imposed on Irish Catholics after the Tudor conquest, as part of a broader genocidal colonialization scheme. Very cool attempt to try and sweep that little fact under the rug. Fun fact, Adam Smith cites the penal laws as an example of the dangers wrought by mercantilism.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Hikikomori 5mo ago
      Can be a bit of both? Free market advocates were certainly involved saying it should work itself out. It kinda did by letting millions die.
- _aavaa_ 5mo ago
  It’s hard for the market to decide on its own when the environmental damage of meat production is left as an unpriced externality and when government subsidies are handed out like candy.
sergiotapia 5mo ago
[flagged]
- mikestew 5mo ago
  You're using commonly-used chars to indicate quotes, but you're not quoting anything anyone has typed. What are you on about?
  - CoastalCoder 5mo ago
    Sometimes this happens when the original comment being replied to is subsequently edited.
eykanal 5mo ago
This is being downvoted, but is raising a serious point. - Nearly 90% of Americans eat red meat [1]. - Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red meat. This issue does not poll well [1]. - Despite the above, Americans are eating less red meat than we used to [2]. - The vast majority of people who choose to reduce their meat intake do so for cost or health reasons, not environmental [3]. Putting all that together... studies like this do not help the environmental cause. Sure, they find something that's vaguely interesting, and can possibly be a bullet point on an environmentalist slide. However, a far better research study would be one focusing on human health impacts of red meat, or demonstrating economic benefits to red meat alternatives. tl;ld - This study is not useful, and is probably damaging to it's own cause. [1]: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-americans-consume-meat-part-their-diet https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-ameri... [2]: https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-survey-reveals-response-high-beef-prices-60-shoppers-are-buying-less-beef-or https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-survey-reveals-r... [3]: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/two-thirds-of-americans-want-to-eat-less-meat-so-why-dont-they/#:~:text=Most%20Americans%20still%20eat%20red,The%205%20p.m.%20problem https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/two-thirds-of-a...
- tracker1 5mo ago
  There are absolutely a number of people that would love to ban meat consumption. I eat mostly meat and eggs, because there isn't much else I can eat that doesn't cause a number of digestive or inflammation issues for me.
- rainsford 5mo ago
  I think it's probably a mistake on any topic to conduct or not conduct research based on what's most useful to a particular side of an argument. Especially in this case, where the party split in the poll results suggest reasonable debate on this issue is yet another casualty of partisan culture war nonsense. It's not like people aren't aware of the environmental arguments around red meat production. Deliberately ignoring research on that front to avoid triggering people concerned about a red meat ban and to make a better argument for people who want to reduce red meat consumption seems just as likely to backfire, leading people into believing they're being manipulated into supporting what's really an environmental argument with the Trojan horse of health and economic reasons. Laying out all the facts but focusing the actual argument on the most relevant ones seems like a much better strategy. I personally have been cutting back on red meat for health reasons and because, while I can afford it, paying that much for beef is annoying when pork or chicken fits my cooking needs just fine for much cheaper. But I still find it useful to know that choice also has a positive environmental impact, even though that wouldn't otherwise be a deciding factor for me and certainly wouldn't be justification enough for me to support banning red meat. In fact it seems like a strong argument for caring about environmental things is pointing out to folks how there can be plenty of other reasons to do things that also have environmental benefits. I think we have a serious problem with people being and acting stupid. One way we can improve that state of affairs is stop treating them as if they are stupid and that's what we expect of them.
jshen 5mo ago
It's the leading cause of deforestation which is a major factor in climate change. It also is a major contributor to climate change for other reasons. Since you mentioned energy, it's also much less energy efficient. Isn't this something to care about?
tootie 5mo ago
I know you warned us, but this overly flippant. There's plenty of obvious reasons we shouldn't be wasting land, energy, water and labor on producing things that don't get utilized. Even in the most selfish capitalist sensibility, we are wasting money. Yes the energy issue is much bigger than this but wasted energy utilization is part of that problem. I know this is politically fraught, but that should not have any bearing on scholarship. This is just data to add to our understanding. And also that this study is global, not purely applicable to America. Republicans can exploit outrage with lies to their base, but that isn't such a slam dunk everywhere in the world
0xbadcafebee 5mo ago
> Is feeding the world a real problem? Yes. > I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. I don't know how to respond to this. It's like saying you don't think breathing underwater is difficult, except for the secondary effects of water. War is a problem. Energy supply is a problem. Logistics is a problem. All these problems lead to starvation. People starving is a real problem. Another reason people starve is economics and market forces. The market decides it wants to use up more water and grain to feed cows. That grain and water is now not available for purchase as human food. That means it is more scarce on the human-feeding market. Scarcity drives up prices. So livestock feed makes grain more expensive, making it harder to purchase, for people to eat. (I'm using "starve" as a euphemism for "malnutrition that not only severely impacts bodily health, reduces quality of life, and increases mortality, but also decreases economic productivity") Now, if the point you're trying to make is "we could solve world hunger", then absolutely the answer is yes, humans produce more than enough grain to feed everyone in the world, and we have the money to transport it everywhere, even assist with cooking fuel. But because of all the categories you think don't apply, and markets, and economics, we are not fixing it. We are choosing to let people starve.
- worik 5mo ago
  Feeding the world is a problem of economics and politics, not the ecological problems of growing food. There is huge capacity for food production in the world, and no reason anyone should go hungry Keeping people hungry is deliberate economic policy. In New Zealand where I live we make enough food for millions more than live here, yet many face food insecurity. As I say, it is deliberate, calculated, government policy to keep people on the edge of hunger. It keeps wages low - our idiot business people think every dollar paid in wages is a dollar of profit lost Idiotic and cruel, and widespread
  - 0xbadcafebee 5mo ago
    Of course it's a political problem. So what are we going to do? Sit around and pray for a miracle that solves all of politics? Meanwhile people are suffering. Increasing efficiency of food production will actually create more food, which makes it cheaper, which makes it easier for people to get. That we can probably actually accomplish, unlike solving politics.
usrusr 5mo ago
> Is feeding the world a real problem? In light of recent, uhm, "challenges" to fertilizer supply chains?
heathrow83829 5mo ago
meat uses up enormous quantities of water. potatoes for instance use about 75 gallons to produce 2000 calories compared to say 1500 to 2500 gallons for 2000 calories of beef.
- tracker1 5mo ago
  For grass fed cattle, the vast majority of said water is from rain that would have fallen on the land with or without the cattle. It's not generally municipal supplies of water in use for naturally raised cattle.
  - mcv 5mo ago
    Absolutely. But not all beef is grass fed. The situation would be very different if it was.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - tracker1 5mo ago
      Would it really be though? From my experience, most of the anti-meat crowd is against all meat, for any reason. As to alternatives for real meat not grown as animals... we don't even get micro-nutrients for baby formula right... I won't trust alternatively grown meat for a very long time. I and my brother wouldn't have survived on conventional baby formula... I have issues with just about everything outside eggs and red meat. As for all beef being grass fed/finished... I'd be way more than happy to see it become the norm, exceptions for snowy parts of the year only. I'd like to see regenerative farming, which pretty much requires ruminant cycles, be the norm everywhere... we need more ruminants, not less imo.
      - mcv 5mo ago
        The most vocal anti-mean crowd, perhaps. I eat only free-range, sustainable meat from animals that had a happy life outside, instead of being locked up into tiny boxes. A lot of meat comes from factory farms where animals are force fed in boxes and never see the light of day. I don't have a problem with hunting, as long as it's done sustainably. I have no problem with fishing, as long as it's done sustainably. The problem is that there are too many people and we cannot possibly feed them all meat every day in a sustainable manner.
datsci_est_2015 5mo ago
> I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first. You don’t think the two are related at all? When you say “solve” energy problems, do you mean from supply-side solutions or demand-side solutions?
- XorNot 5mo ago
  No amount of efficiency improvements matters if all the energy is still coming from burning fossil fuels at the end of the day.
- kshahkshah 5mo ago
  Just getting back here, didn't expect all these replies. I meant supply-side.
krater23 5mo ago
The question is, whats the bigger environmental impact, more people using smart phones, computers, cars, planes, buying the newest fashion to show their style,... or feeding them with beef? You are completely right, who the fuck cares?
plufz 5mo ago
Solve our energy problems first? How would decreasing cattle stop work on improving our energy system? I think a lot points to that we need to do both (and yesterday). It’s not like agriculture is a small part of our greenhouse gas emissions (25-35% globally).
- karmakurtisaani 5mo ago
  We should solve X first is a common talking point when you recognize something is a problem, but don't want to address it for whatever reason.
Barrin92 5mo ago
>I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first. is there a rational argument in here or is this just a cheap psychological reflex to keep eating beef? Because it's not clear to me how solving our energy problems and the consumption of beef even intersect so that we couldn't do both at the same time. You might as well have said "man I really should stop drinking and smoking, but we gotta solve the energy problems first"
- irishcoffee 5mo ago
  Isn’t that entirely their point? Stop bitching about cows (not a real problem at all) and fix an actual problem. Seems like you nailed it. People aren’t going to stop eating beef, full stop. Won’t happen, full stop. It’s akin to suggesting we need to stop eating eggs, also will never happen. These threads pop up on here every so often and it amuses me in a morose way. Nothing will ever change in the beef industry, not even in places like California, who are actively causing a water shortage in order to grow crops. That is a much bigger problem than farting cows, the whole region is aware of the problem, and no movement has been made to create a fix. Give it up on the cows, there are bigger fish to fry.
  - Barrin92 5mo ago
    >and fix an actual problem. but it is an actual problem. The beef industry has a large ecological impact. You yourself bring up the water shortages as a result of crop production... who do you think are the crops grown for? You're just yelling "lalala I'm not listening" basically. The world doesn't consist of "real" and "fake" problems depending on how much you're offended by the topic, the world has a million problems, the more we tackle of them the better. Sure you can say nothing will ever change, I don't care, but that's not an actual argument, that's just screaming like a kid who doesn't want his toys taken away, how is that an adult conversation. If you can't even tackle the cows how are you going to tackle bigger fish? Are the bigger fish being dealt with? The only people who ever pretend you can ignore an ostensibly small regional problem, to fix the world are people who literally fix neither because in reality they're nihilists who don't want to solve anything because they never want to take any personal responsibility.
ahhhhnoooo 5mo ago
We have 8 billion people. We have enough people to solve both the energy problem and the food efficiency problem. That said, it's very, very funny that you responded to an article about energy inefficiency (calorie -> calorie) and said we should solve our energy problems. Beef is an energy problem! We're putting 30x the energy into the product against the energy we get out! Thats wasted energy!
- colechristensen 5mo ago
  Eh. Grow beef mostly grazed on marginal land that can't support other agriculture. This is how a LOT of beef is produced and how most of it SHOULD BE. They're not "lost calories" if they're produced on large swaths of semi-arid land that don't support any other kind of agriculture. And on the opposite side... a LOT of those "lost calories" are corn. Corn is substantially more productive than other crops and people don't want to replace large portions of their diet with cereal grains or corn syrup so much of those "lost calories" would also be lost to much less efficient crops.
  - jamespo 5mo ago
    This is the first I've heard of a lot of beef produced on semi-arid land incapable of supporting anything else, any source on that?
    - colechristensen 5mo ago
      This is a pretty basic fact about agriculture but you'll find people are selective about sharing facts when they have a narrative in mind. There are VASTLY different environmental impacts which depend on HOW you raise an animal, not just if. (and places where arguments about water usage per animal are pointless because water is very plentiful) It is also a pretty fundamental driver of much of human history and caused a lot of conflicts when you'd have migrant/nomad peoples who either followed wild herds or managed their own herds and peoples who stayed put, owned land, and planted crops -- both of these strategies often driven heavily by geography not by choice. These people would meet at the margins and there'd be war. There are a million sources but here: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-differences-between-arable-land-and-marginal-land-and-how-cattle-use https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-dif... There are plenty of places around the world where you have maybe a hundred acres per animal or more. Whereas the best farmland can support one animal on the order of an acre of land.
Thrymr 5mo ago
> Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? Congratulations on being overly flippant without trying. Evidently a lot of people care, and environmental impacts and energy problems are closely related.
piva00 5mo ago
I recommend you visiting the Brazilian region of Pantanal, if possible travel through Mato Grosso do Sul -> Mato Grosso -> southern Pará where it transitions into the Amazon. You will see vast areas of cattle ranching, soybeans plantation used for cattle feed, and other crops that can be used as cattle feed. All that area used to be the Pantanal and Amazon, now transformed to grow beef. If we would reduce the calories wasted on beef, this area could still have a lot more native vegetation. Of course, it's purely wishful thinking because this ship has sailed, beef consumption will take a long time to stop growing, these farms will fight for their lives to keep producing, and we've lost a huge area of incredible nature to eat some steaks and burgers.
- onraglanroad 5mo ago
  And none of that is for feeding starving people who have no food. It's all to grow profitable luxury food.
  - ponector 5mo ago
    I don't know which one is worse: to grow soybeans to feed cattle or to use as biodiesel. What is really upsetting, the speed with which jundles are replaced with oil palm. Humans have mastered exploitation of everything: the nature, the livestock and other humans.
  - cromka 5mo ago
    People starving come from parts for the world affected by global warming, which unsustainable farming is one of the reasons. Which, in turn, crates mass migration issues. Which, in turn, is a major reason behind massive shift of Overton window and the current world situation we're in.
    - DrProtic 5mo ago
      Every country that has a problem with starvation has huge population growth. They have at least 2.5% population growth yearly which translates to doubling population in 28 years, while some have as high as 4.5% which means they double every 15-16 years. If a population has a food problem, why does it double every 15 years?
idle_zealot 5mo ago
> edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first. There's no "first." There's not a queue of problems that the people of the world work on one by one. It's not a matter of limited labor/money either, we're talking about policies to change allocation. If anything is limited here it's political will, but that doesn't really work like money or physical limitations, it's more abstract and nonlinear. It's quite possible that a platform containing more changes earns more will than one with fewer, so budgeting is the wrong impulse.
mcv 5mo ago
Feeding the world is mostly a political-economic problem. Political-economic decisions make it hard to feed everybody, when we technically have more than enough to feed everybody. But one of the decisions that make it hard to feed everybody is the decision to eat lots of beef in rich countries. Land that's used to grow food for cattle could (in many but not all cases) also be used to grow food for poor people, but there's no money in that. That's not the only one; there's lots of other ways in which food is wasted or used inefficiently. Although the situation has improved tremendously over the past half century, there are still a lot of people suffering from malnutrition.
- nradov 5mo ago
  In most places where there is chronic, widespread malnutrition the root cause problem is not lack of arable land but rather local violence and corruption. It doesn't matter how much food you grow if a rebel group with AK-47s shows up and steals it all.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 5mo ago
When they complain about these lost calories is anyone asking them if they have a better way to turn grass into food we can eat? Eating beef lets us eat grass we couldn't otherwise, indirectly. It also has a whole bunch of minerals and nutrients that are particularly beneficial. We don't need a steak every day, but two servings of beef a week can be a truly great infusion of protein and nutrients in someone's diet. These are found calories, not lost.

cameldrv 5mo ago

Exactly. The current world population is 8.3 billion and is expected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2080 and then begin declining. Now, there are a number of other reasons we might have food shortages, but population per se I don't think is a significant factor.

capitainenemo 5mo ago
Even if food shortages aren't an issue, reducing the amount of land dedicated to food production is a win for ecosystems. Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place. And, really, with the whole neu5gc thing, it might be that humans would be better off focusing on chickens and seafood anyway (clams being a pretty good option for seafood that is relatively environmentally friendly).
- tracker1 5mo ago
  Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit for vegetation farming... because of excess rocks, etc. Ruminants that are being naturally (grass) fed are also regenerative in terms of soil health. They don't tend to "bulk up" as much as conventional (grain fed and/or finished) options though, so are more expensive to produce... the gas emissions are another issue that is largely different for grass fed, where the off gases are roughly the same as the grass's natural breakdown would release anyway. In terms of water use, naturally grass fed cattle are mostly using water that fell on the land as rain in terms of how much water they use. It's not much from municipal sources, unlike vegetation farming. Of course there are other ruminant options that are more efficient than cattle, such as goats and sheep, with similar benefits to the soil. It just bugs me that cattle gets such a bad repuation... especially in that it's one of the few things I can eat without issue.
  - capitainenemo 5mo ago
    So, I was saying ecosystems. Filling the world with cows is not the same as natural ecosystems. Also, kurzgesagt did a pretty good episode on meat production (edit - they did several, but one was on the production demands in terms of energy and environment), and if I'm to trust their figures, the "cattle grazing exclusively on the pampas" is far from the majority of world cattle. If it was, that probably would be an improvement, esp if it was done in a way that allowed other species to exist too (maybe bring some buffalo back?). The percentage would be dramatically improved if finishing lots were eliminated though (still a minority though). So maybe that's a simple option. Plus, that's the cruelest part of the cow's existence. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture (crazy amount of habitable surface of planet is livestock) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01398-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01398-4 (study on what percent of production is actually "low-intensity grazing on marginal land") Again, not saying eliminate, just... reduce...
    - tracker1 5mo ago
      I don't think the answer is reduce though... I think it's increase... humans wiped out so many of the ruminant animals (buffalo mainly) that kept the grasslands healthy... we've largely over-farmed in the interim since. We need more ruminants, not less. This means raising much more than we currently do, and probably a reduction in slaughter numbers for the next 50+ years to increase the domestic supply. Can't speak for other nations... but it's literally expanding grasslands as opposed to desert.
      - capitainenemo 5mo ago
        Yes. I saw that TED talk about desertification being reversed by ruminants, and while it got a lot of critics, it had some pretty good points. But, those ruminants would be better off not being beef cattle in terms of biodiversity. Also, if they were beef cattle due to the lack of anything better, hopefully it would be short term, and if you're making a case for use of marginal land, they really shouldn't be finished in a feed lot, since that is using a lot of cropland to support that. ... and only some places would (possibly) benefit from that.
- krater23 5mo ago
  Yes, we could concreting this land and build housings and streets.
  - jamespo 5mo ago
    or could eat something less likely to give you bowel cancer
- NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
  >Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place. I've seen articles and threads like this for decades at this point. And the only thing any of you have convinced me of is that I must start securing my own production of meat. This is, I think, the exact opposite of "more efficiently" at least from your point of view. I will be unlikely to reach the feed-to-gain ratios that professionals regularly achieve. Swine and poultry already in progress, beef and more exotic stuff within the next 2 years.
  - capitainenemo 5mo ago
    shrug poultry is already several times more efficient than beef in regular production (to say nothing of if your coop just has chickens wandering around finding their own food), and healthier for you. And hopefully your swine and poultry are having overall decent lives. And, if your beef is entirely grass fed (I doubt you can afford a finishing lot) you're still overall not using cropland to fatten up cows (but maybe that's your goal, who knows) Anyway, you do you. Just offering my opinion on this 'cause it seemed like a good place to do it.
- neuralRiot 5mo ago
  >Not saying people have to go vegetarian I’ve vegan for 20+ years and find weird the obsession people have with meat that without even talking about milk. Literally there are hundreds of alternatives better for health, for the environment and for the animals yet we keep looking for justifications to consume them.
  - mcv 5mo ago
    Yeah. I used to be vegetarian (I eat some meat again), and I love cheese, but I'm well aware that it's almost as bad as beef. Quitting cheese feels like a bigger sacrifice to me than quitting meat. But I've been reducing my cheese consumption lately. That's something at least.
    - aziaziazi 5mo ago
      If that helps, some non-cheese that might trigger your taste buds: - Brewer/nutritional/super yeast (with a bit of oil and/or smashed cashew): in place of Parmesan - Tahini: less cheesy but equally bold taste as yeast - Lactic acid fermented Tofu: whey cheese. - Tempeh: my favorite, just oiled-panned with salt and pepper. Between chicken and soft-Camembert
      - ndsipa_pomu 5mo ago
        I'm not convinced by some of those. I'm a pescetarian, so I still eat cheese, but I enjoy unusual foods. I don't find tahini to taste anything like yeast/cheese, though to be fair I mainly use tahini in hummus. I'm not familiar with lactic acid fermented Tofu - does that go by a different name? Tempeh seems more nutty than cheese-like to me, though I rarely eat it as my wife doesn't like the flavour or texture of it. Personally, I'd recommend Japanese Natto if you're after a cheesy flavour - it's soy beans fermented in straw/hay and ends up becoming somewhat slimy/stringy, so it's a bit of an acquired taste.
        aziaziazi 5mo ago
        > Natto Any advice to try it? I haven’t had the courage yet but I guess it's time to face my fears. > lactic acid fermented Tofu The english name of the one I buy is "Lactofermented Tofu" [0], although their ingredients [1] lacks a coagulant but have ferment instead: I guess the tonyu+ferment produce lactic acid, which then coagulate the fermented tonyu into tofu. I wonder if that make a big difference with classic recipes that ferment the tofu directly [2]. > Tempeh It's a fresh product and the taste really differ depending on: - Ripeness. It can be ripped a few days to build an intense flavor when homemade or bought fresh. - Ingredients. Same fungus (Rhizopus oligosporus) can be used to ferment others legumes/grains. I once made black-lentil-tempeh which had a very strong gorgonzola flavor with a firm and non-fat texture. 0 https://lesojami.com/en/our-ranges/ https://lesojami.com/en/our-ranges/ 1 (french) https://lesojami.com/produit/tofu-lactofermente-ail-des-ours/ https://lesojami.com/produit/tofu-lactofermente-ail-des-ours... 2 https://revolutionfermentation.com/en/blogs/tempeh-soy-grains/lacto-fermented-tofu-recipe/ https://revolutionfermentation.com/en/blogs/tempeh-soy-grain...

all2 5mo ago

> Is feeding the world a real problem? Yes, but it is not a production capacity problem. The constraints on food are mostly in the logistics chain, often having to do with corruption or distribution targets (food goes where the money is), or regulation (did you know that cherry growers in the Upper Midwest are required --_by Federal law_-- to destroy unsold crops?). A huge amount of food goes to waste simply because of regulation or subsidies, at least within the United States.

ls612 5mo ago
This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big negative shock you will still be able to produce enough to feed everyone merely by not destroying the excess anymore.
- voxl 5mo ago
  There is no reason to obliterate food, you should give it away to those in need.
  - Alupis 5mo ago
    People do not eat tart cherries directly. They are processed into other goods, like pie filling, juice concentrate, etc. Sweet cherries have no such regulation, and are the ones you consume directly as a fruit - without any additional processing.
    - Dylan16807 5mo ago
      That's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook (by making a pie).
      - Alupis 5mo ago
        If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock. It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about... > It's still food, full of flavor and calories Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as a fruit in grocery stores.

choilive 5mo ago

Agreed. The market should decide if beef consumption is viable. Ultimately energy is the basis all food production. Cheap and plentiful energy solves the food production and distribution problem, then its just matter of preferences.

Hikikomori 5mo ago
Market also decided that the Irish could only eat potatoes.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- ux266478 5mo ago
  It was actually a disgusting set of edicts and regulations called the Penal Laws, enacted by the English crown, which formalized and wrote into law the informal restrictions imposed on Irish Catholics after the Tudor conquest, as part of a broader genocidal colonialization scheme. Very cool attempt to try and sweep that little fact under the rug. Fun fact, Adam Smith cites the penal laws as an example of the dangers wrought by mercantilism.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Hikikomori 5mo ago
    Can be a bit of both? Free market advocates were certainly involved saying it should work itself out. It kinda did by letting millions die.
_aavaa_ 5mo ago
It’s hard for the market to decide on its own when the environmental damage of meat production is left as an unpriced externality and when government subsidies are handed out like candy.

sergiotapia 5mo ago

[flagged]

mikestew 5mo ago
You're using commonly-used chars to indicate quotes, but you're not quoting anything anyone has typed. What are you on about?
- CoastalCoder 5mo ago
  Sometimes this happens when the original comment being replied to is subsequently edited.

eykanal 5mo ago

This is being downvoted, but is raising a serious point. - Nearly 90% of Americans eat red meat [1]. - Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red meat. This issue does not poll well [1]. - Despite the above, Americans are eating less red meat than we used to [2]. - The vast majority of people who choose to reduce their meat intake do so for cost or health reasons, not environmental [3]. Putting all that together... studies like this do not help the environmental cause. Sure, they find something that's vaguely interesting, and can possibly be a bullet point on an environmentalist slide. However, a far better research study would be one focusing on human health impacts of red meat, or demonstrating economic benefits to red meat alternatives. tl;ld - This study is not useful, and is probably damaging to it's own cause. [1]: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-americans-consume-meat-part-their-diet https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-ameri... [2]: https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-survey-reveals-response-high-beef-prices-60-shoppers-are-buying-less-beef-or https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-survey-reveals-r... [3]: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/two-thirds-of-americans-want-to-eat-less-meat-so-why-dont-they/#:~:text=Most%20Americans%20still%20eat%20red,The%205%20p.m.%20problem https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/two-thirds-of-a...

tracker1 5mo ago
There are absolutely a number of people that would love to ban meat consumption. I eat mostly meat and eggs, because there isn't much else I can eat that doesn't cause a number of digestive or inflammation issues for me.
rainsford 5mo ago
I think it's probably a mistake on any topic to conduct or not conduct research based on what's most useful to a particular side of an argument. Especially in this case, where the party split in the poll results suggest reasonable debate on this issue is yet another casualty of partisan culture war nonsense. It's not like people aren't aware of the environmental arguments around red meat production. Deliberately ignoring research on that front to avoid triggering people concerned about a red meat ban and to make a better argument for people who want to reduce red meat consumption seems just as likely to backfire, leading people into believing they're being manipulated into supporting what's really an environmental argument with the Trojan horse of health and economic reasons. Laying out all the facts but focusing the actual argument on the most relevant ones seems like a much better strategy. I personally have been cutting back on red meat for health reasons and because, while I can afford it, paying that much for beef is annoying when pork or chicken fits my cooking needs just fine for much cheaper. But I still find it useful to know that choice also has a positive environmental impact, even though that wouldn't otherwise be a deciding factor for me and certainly wouldn't be justification enough for me to support banning red meat. In fact it seems like a strong argument for caring about environmental things is pointing out to folks how there can be plenty of other reasons to do things that also have environmental benefits. I think we have a serious problem with people being and acting stupid. One way we can improve that state of affairs is stop treating them as if they are stupid and that's what we expect of them.

jshen 5mo ago

It's the leading cause of deforestation which is a major factor in climate change. It also is a major contributor to climate change for other reasons. Since you mentioned energy, it's also much less energy efficient. Isn't this something to care about?

tootie 5mo ago

I know you warned us, but this overly flippant. There's plenty of obvious reasons we shouldn't be wasting land, energy, water and labor on producing things that don't get utilized. Even in the most selfish capitalist sensibility, we are wasting money. Yes the energy issue is much bigger than this but wasted energy utilization is part of that problem. I know this is politically fraught, but that should not have any bearing on scholarship. This is just data to add to our understanding. And also that this study is global, not purely applicable to America. Republicans can exploit outrage with lies to their base, but that isn't such a slam dunk everywhere in the world

0xbadcafebee 5mo ago

> Is feeding the world a real problem? Yes. > I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war. I don't know how to respond to this. It's like saying you don't think breathing underwater is difficult, except for the secondary effects of water. War is a problem. Energy supply is a problem. Logistics is a problem. All these problems lead to starvation. People starving is a real problem. Another reason people starve is economics and market forces. The market decides it wants to use up more water and grain to feed cows. That grain and water is now not available for purchase as human food. That means it is more scarce on the human-feeding market. Scarcity drives up prices. So livestock feed makes grain more expensive, making it harder to purchase, for people to eat. (I'm using "starve" as a euphemism for "malnutrition that not only severely impacts bodily health, reduces quality of life, and increases mortality, but also decreases economic productivity") Now, if the point you're trying to make is "we could solve world hunger", then absolutely the answer is yes, humans produce more than enough grain to feed everyone in the world, and we have the money to transport it everywhere, even assist with cooking fuel. But because of all the categories you think don't apply, and markets, and economics, we are not fixing it. We are choosing to let people starve.

worik 5mo ago
Feeding the world is a problem of economics and politics, not the ecological problems of growing food. There is huge capacity for food production in the world, and no reason anyone should go hungry Keeping people hungry is deliberate economic policy. In New Zealand where I live we make enough food for millions more than live here, yet many face food insecurity. As I say, it is deliberate, calculated, government policy to keep people on the edge of hunger. It keeps wages low - our idiot business people think every dollar paid in wages is a dollar of profit lost Idiotic and cruel, and widespread
- 0xbadcafebee 5mo ago
  Of course it's a political problem. So what are we going to do? Sit around and pray for a miracle that solves all of politics? Meanwhile people are suffering. Increasing efficiency of food production will actually create more food, which makes it cheaper, which makes it easier for people to get. That we can probably actually accomplish, unlike solving politics.

usrusr 5mo ago

> Is feeding the world a real problem? In light of recent, uhm, "challenges" to fertilizer supply chains?

heathrow83829 5mo ago

meat uses up enormous quantities of water. potatoes for instance use about 75 gallons to produce 2000 calories compared to say 1500 to 2500 gallons for 2000 calories of beef.

tracker1 5mo ago
For grass fed cattle, the vast majority of said water is from rain that would have fallen on the land with or without the cattle. It's not generally municipal supplies of water in use for naturally raised cattle.
- mcv 5mo ago
  Absolutely. But not all beef is grass fed. The situation would be very different if it was.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - tracker1 5mo ago
    Would it really be though? From my experience, most of the anti-meat crowd is against all meat, for any reason. As to alternatives for real meat not grown as animals... we don't even get micro-nutrients for baby formula right... I won't trust alternatively grown meat for a very long time. I and my brother wouldn't have survived on conventional baby formula... I have issues with just about everything outside eggs and red meat. As for all beef being grass fed/finished... I'd be way more than happy to see it become the norm, exceptions for snowy parts of the year only. I'd like to see regenerative farming, which pretty much requires ruminant cycles, be the norm everywhere... we need more ruminants, not less imo.
    - mcv 5mo ago
      The most vocal anti-mean crowd, perhaps. I eat only free-range, sustainable meat from animals that had a happy life outside, instead of being locked up into tiny boxes. A lot of meat comes from factory farms where animals are force fed in boxes and never see the light of day. I don't have a problem with hunting, as long as it's done sustainably. I have no problem with fishing, as long as it's done sustainably. The problem is that there are too many people and we cannot possibly feed them all meat every day in a sustainable manner.

datsci_est_2015 5mo ago

> I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first. You don’t think the two are related at all? When you say “solve” energy problems, do you mean from supply-side solutions or demand-side solutions?

XorNot 5mo ago
No amount of efficiency improvements matters if all the energy is still coming from burning fossil fuels at the end of the day.
kshahkshah 5mo ago
Just getting back here, didn't expect all these replies. I meant supply-side.

krater23 5mo ago

The question is, whats the bigger environmental impact, more people using smart phones, computers, cars, planes, buying the newest fashion to show their style,... or feeding them with beef? You are completely right, who the fuck cares?

plufz 5mo ago

Solve our energy problems first? How would decreasing cattle stop work on improving our energy system? I think a lot points to that we need to do both (and yesterday). It’s not like agriculture is a small part of our greenhouse gas emissions (25-35% globally).

karmakurtisaani 5mo ago
We should solve X first is a common talking point when you recognize something is a problem, but don't want to address it for whatever reason.

Barrin92 5mo ago

>I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first. is there a rational argument in here or is this just a cheap psychological reflex to keep eating beef? Because it's not clear to me how solving our energy problems and the consumption of beef even intersect so that we couldn't do both at the same time. You might as well have said "man I really should stop drinking and smoking, but we gotta solve the energy problems first"

irishcoffee 5mo ago
Isn’t that entirely their point? Stop bitching about cows (not a real problem at all) and fix an actual problem. Seems like you nailed it. People aren’t going to stop eating beef, full stop. Won’t happen, full stop. It’s akin to suggesting we need to stop eating eggs, also will never happen. These threads pop up on here every so often and it amuses me in a morose way. Nothing will ever change in the beef industry, not even in places like California, who are actively causing a water shortage in order to grow crops. That is a much bigger problem than farting cows, the whole region is aware of the problem, and no movement has been made to create a fix. Give it up on the cows, there are bigger fish to fry.
- Barrin92 5mo ago
  >and fix an actual problem. but it is an actual problem. The beef industry has a large ecological impact. You yourself bring up the water shortages as a result of crop production... who do you think are the crops grown for? You're just yelling "lalala I'm not listening" basically. The world doesn't consist of "real" and "fake" problems depending on how much you're offended by the topic, the world has a million problems, the more we tackle of them the better. Sure you can say nothing will ever change, I don't care, but that's not an actual argument, that's just screaming like a kid who doesn't want his toys taken away, how is that an adult conversation. If you can't even tackle the cows how are you going to tackle bigger fish? Are the bigger fish being dealt with? The only people who ever pretend you can ignore an ostensibly small regional problem, to fix the world are people who literally fix neither because in reality they're nihilists who don't want to solve anything because they never want to take any personal responsibility.

ahhhhnoooo 5mo ago

We have 8 billion people. We have enough people to solve both the energy problem and the food efficiency problem. That said, it's very, very funny that you responded to an article about energy inefficiency (calorie -> calorie) and said we should solve our energy problems. Beef is an energy problem! We're putting 30x the energy into the product against the energy we get out! Thats wasted energy!

colechristensen 5mo ago
Eh. Grow beef mostly grazed on marginal land that can't support other agriculture. This is how a LOT of beef is produced and how most of it SHOULD BE. They're not "lost calories" if they're produced on large swaths of semi-arid land that don't support any other kind of agriculture. And on the opposite side... a LOT of those "lost calories" are corn. Corn is substantially more productive than other crops and people don't want to replace large portions of their diet with cereal grains or corn syrup so much of those "lost calories" would also be lost to much less efficient crops.
- jamespo 5mo ago
  This is the first I've heard of a lot of beef produced on semi-arid land incapable of supporting anything else, any source on that?
  - colechristensen 5mo ago
    This is a pretty basic fact about agriculture but you'll find people are selective about sharing facts when they have a narrative in mind. There are VASTLY different environmental impacts which depend on HOW you raise an animal, not just if. (and places where arguments about water usage per animal are pointless because water is very plentiful) It is also a pretty fundamental driver of much of human history and caused a lot of conflicts when you'd have migrant/nomad peoples who either followed wild herds or managed their own herds and peoples who stayed put, owned land, and planted crops -- both of these strategies often driven heavily by geography not by choice. These people would meet at the margins and there'd be war. There are a million sources but here: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-differences-between-arable-land-and-marginal-land-and-how-cattle-use https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-dif... There are plenty of places around the world where you have maybe a hundred acres per animal or more. Whereas the best farmland can support one animal on the order of an acre of land.

Thrymr 5mo ago

> Not trying to be overly flippant... who cares? Congratulations on being overly flippant without trying. Evidently a lot of people care, and environmental impacts and energy problems are closely related.

piva00 5mo ago

I recommend you visiting the Brazilian region of Pantanal, if possible travel through Mato Grosso do Sul -> Mato Grosso -> southern Pará where it transitions into the Amazon. You will see vast areas of cattle ranching, soybeans plantation used for cattle feed, and other crops that can be used as cattle feed. All that area used to be the Pantanal and Amazon, now transformed to grow beef. If we would reduce the calories wasted on beef, this area could still have a lot more native vegetation. Of course, it's purely wishful thinking because this ship has sailed, beef consumption will take a long time to stop growing, these farms will fight for their lives to keep producing, and we've lost a huge area of incredible nature to eat some steaks and burgers.

onraglanroad 5mo ago
And none of that is for feeding starving people who have no food. It's all to grow profitable luxury food.
- ponector 5mo ago
  I don't know which one is worse: to grow soybeans to feed cattle or to use as biodiesel. What is really upsetting, the speed with which jundles are replaced with oil palm. Humans have mastered exploitation of everything: the nature, the livestock and other humans.
- cromka 5mo ago
  People starving come from parts for the world affected by global warming, which unsustainable farming is one of the reasons. Which, in turn, crates mass migration issues. Which, in turn, is a major reason behind massive shift of Overton window and the current world situation we're in.
  - DrProtic 5mo ago
    Every country that has a problem with starvation has huge population growth. They have at least 2.5% population growth yearly which translates to doubling population in 28 years, while some have as high as 4.5% which means they double every 15-16 years. If a population has a food problem, why does it double every 15 years?

idle_zealot 5mo ago

> edit: I understand the environmental impacts. I think we should solve our energy problems first. There's no "first." There's not a queue of problems that the people of the world work on one by one. It's not a matter of limited labor/money either, we're talking about policies to change allocation. If anything is limited here it's political will, but that doesn't really work like money or physical limitations, it's more abstract and nonlinear. It's quite possible that a platform containing more changes earns more will than one with fewer, so budgeting is the wrong impulse.

mcv 5mo ago

Feeding the world is mostly a political-economic problem. Political-economic decisions make it hard to feed everybody, when we technically have more than enough to feed everybody. But one of the decisions that make it hard to feed everybody is the decision to eat lots of beef in rich countries. Land that's used to grow food for cattle could (in many but not all cases) also be used to grow food for poor people, but there's no money in that. That's not the only one; there's lots of other ways in which food is wasted or used inefficiently. Although the situation has improved tremendously over the past half century, there are still a lot of people suffering from malnutrition.

nradov 5mo ago
In most places where there is chronic, widespread malnutrition the root cause problem is not lack of arable land but rather local violence and corruption. It doesn't matter how much food you grow if a rebel group with AK-47s shows up and steals it all.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

slowmovintarget 5mo ago

When they complain about these lost calories is anyone asking them if they have a better way to turn grass into food we can eat? Eating beef lets us eat grass we couldn't otherwise, indirectly. It also has a whole bunch of minerals and nutrients that are particularly beneficial. We don't need a steak every day, but two servings of beef a week can be a truly great infusion of protein and nutrients in someone's diet. These are found calories, not lost.