Hacker News Reader

Comment by flenserboy | Hacker News Reader

Pastures are the future. There's a reason the US Midwest had such great soil — it's not simply a confluence of rivers & luck. The buffalo did their thing, and the grasses they fed on were fed in turn by them. Replacing corn and soy with ruminants will replenish the soil, provide excellent protein for people, and get rid of the cheap, food-like things made from corn, soy, and their chemically-coaxed out byproducts. It's not too late. (A nice effect of this would be the likely (it'll take a while) replenishment of the Ogallala Aquifer.)

View on HN

"Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories."

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

"So if this system is so ideal, why is it that my cow hasn’t tasted a blade of grass since October? Speed, in a word. Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and the modern meat industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef calf’s allotted time on earth."

https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/

So in summary, there is no way around higher food prices. Either through higher fertilizer prizes or a more sustainable, albeit slower, food production.

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.

Do also keep in mind that there are wide swaths of land which can usefully be occupied by ruminants that cannot be farmed without piping in almost all the water and dumping fertilizer on it. Such marginal land is counted as arable so as to further attack animal husbandry.

> 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-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 -- 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-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...)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes, extremely tragic.

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.

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.

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.'

My apologies, I think you are correct! At least per Atlantic.

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.

The truth is probably lost in time, or in dead tree diaries, but economics and apathy with regards to conservation do seem the more probable causes, at least for near species-wide extermination. People will do for $1 more quickly than they will for an ideal.

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

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.

"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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Substitute grass for vegetables and I think this applies to humans as well.

No, we evolved to consume prepared food, including meat. Our mouths, jaws, and digestive system have been coevolving for past few tens-to-hundreds of thousands of years with our diets and food preparation methods. Certainly, vegetables have not been a major source of calories for humans in many tens of thousands of years now (because they don’t have a lot of calories in them in the first place, but also because they are only available in narrow window of the growing season.

Grains, legumes and root vegetables would disagree.

The word “vegetables” is typically understood to not include grains, and to not include all legumes.

You are essentially right that prepared meat played a big role in our evolution, but we're at a point now where growing seasons are less of an issue due to the global economy, and things like incomplete proteins from eating a single type of locally growing bean can be handled through more diverse sourcing.

If we were really trying to optimize, we might look at tradeoffs WRT locally raised meats vs grains and beans that have to be shipped around due to growing season type issues. But really what we're doing now is shipping meat all over the world, which is like the worse of both worlds.

Anyway, we can get by with a little meat. I'm under the impression that our current diets are pretty weird historically. You don't need meat with every dinner.

>but we're at a point now where growing seasons are less of an issue due to the global economy,

We should go back to a point where growing seasons are more of an issue, due to environment and sustainability.

> No, we evolved to consume prepared food, including meat.

You're not wrong, but IMHO it should be noted that humans don't need a lot of meat to meet their dietary needs. There has probably been excess cultural focusing on it in recent decades.

The necessary daily portions one needs—unless doing body building—isn't a lot to get the required protein and amino acids.

> So if this system is so ideal, why is it that my cow hasn’t tasted a blade of grass since October?

Keep in mind this is absolutely not true in even the rest of the Western world. American-style cattle factory farms are almost unheard of in the UK, and practically all beef here would count as grass-fed, because that's just how we raise cattle. There is some supplementation over winter when grass doesn't grow (and even that depends on location), but otherwise pasture is the standard.

I can’t remember the last time I’ve had a great steak in the UK. The beef is just very low quality compared to what is sourced in the USA. Far too lean in the UK. I and I generally find them a bit tougher too possibly due to more roaming by the cattle.

Now, UK pork on the other hand is tremendous.

For whatever reason, unless you go super high end, beef in the UK tends not to be great. Given that it's much better in Ireland, which has the same climate, I don't really understand it.

Are you comparing at similar price points? I wonder if there's just more (too much) interest at the cheap (plumped up with water, for one thing) end here.

Likely due to the conditions I described, I think meat here tends to be more "gamey", a bit leaner and all that. Like, steak is popular here but we don't have steak culture like I've seen described in the Midwest, or Texas. A lot of our beef ends up in pies, or sauces, or stuff like that.

There is more to food than calories. I would love to replace livestock with bioreactors but I don’t think people understand the interaction with food and health well enough yet for me to ‘trust the science’. Plus costs have to come way way down. I eat a decent amount of yeast derivatives so it’s getting part of the way there. I also eat free range meat whenever possible because I hope that it is healthier for me; the fact that it is less cruel is definitely a bonus. I get that not everyone can afford it. So instead of pushing everyone into eating cheap to grow grains I would rather have the science improve so even the poor can eat healthier bioreactor food.

Edit: the poor and I. I also want healthier bioreactor food. Food fraud is a problem that’s getting worse with inflation and avoiding it is getting expensive.

>pushing everyone into eating cheap to grow grains

There is more to plant-based food than grains. Seeds and legumes are full of nutrients. People can and do survive on way less meat.

Like there is more to food than calories, there is more to life than survival.

I can only guess what you mean by this. If it's that people can't get enjoyment out of eating plant-based food, you're wrong. And if it's that people will have less enjoyable lives because they can't eat meat every day, you're also wrong.

No, and clearly that doesn’t mesh with bioreactor food which typically isn’t enjoyable to eat. I’m saying the science on the health relationship with food isn’t great and I don’t trust it. Especially in the ‘healthy at any size’ era we now live in. I eat meat to help cover gaps in understanding, and by careful measurement I can tell that I’m healthier when I eat it, or specifically less healthy when I don’t. If the science can be improved then maybe we could then shift away from meat.

>Especially in the ‘healthy at any size’ era we now live in

I'm not sure this has anything to do with science. It's turned into a religion, but is there evidence to suggest it is affecting the science of health?

>I eat meat to help cover gaps in understanding, and by careful measurement I can tell that I’m healthier when I eat it, or specifically less healthy when I don’t.

What measurements are those? Anecdotally, eating no animal products for the last year, my blood pressure has gone down, I've lost weight but maintained strength, and I don't have this weird gut pain I used to have. Certainly the qualitative aspects aren't reliably measurable, but I feel that the decrease in blood pressure and weight are directly relatable to these changes.

>If the science can be improved then maybe we could then shift away from meat.

What about the science now do you find untrustworthy? Is it the fact that it's usually funded by companies who have an agenda, or what?

>bioreactor food which typically isn’t enjoyable to eat

This is fermentation right? Like kimchi? Honestly, kimchi smells pretty bad but I like the way it tastes a lot.

I’ve always been distrustful of food science, ever since the food pyramid (grain suppliers) was introduced to me as a child, and the quadrant of tastes (funded by umami suppliers in the condiment wars). More recently the CSIRO prostrated themselves you the lamb lobby. I picked the healthy at any size example as it’s the most obviously wrong and early death has to be the clearest indication of poor health. I’m not a fan of corn, I don’t even like the cows that I eat eating it.

I have a genetic disorder (one of the genetic anxiety disorders) that requires careful monitoring. I monitor strength, endurance, and a panel of blood work every 3 months. Everyday day I play a competitive ranked FPS game to see how my cognitive functions are going. Drops in ranks clearly correspond to changes in diet and behavior.

Yeah, yeast is a good bioreactor also Cyanobacteria. Promite is pretty good. Cyanobacteria taste like fish food. I’d like to see more options here.

What changes in blood work did you notice after not eating meat? And how long did you go without it?

I went through elimination diets that included periods of no meat. About 2 weeks into it I’ll start seeing lower reaction speeds, the games are very sensitive to changes so it shows up there first, much later I’d see lower T3 and Free Test. I immediately feel much more vital after I break the no meat periods with a big stake.

Seeds and legumes are also filled with anti-nutrients. One has to be careful how much of these are consumed.

>One has to be careful how much of these are consumed.

You have to be careful about how much are consumed raw [0]. But most people are going to cook beans and grains as they aren't very good uncooked.

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7600777/ In their whole and cooked form, there is currently no strong evidence from human trials to support the claim that lectin-rich foods consistently cause inflammation, intestinal permeability, or nutrient absorption issues in the general population.

Eating in general does a lot of mechanical and chemical damage to the body that has to be repaired. Most foods seem to contain some portion of proteins that can be harmful (red meat is a WHO Group I carcinogen to gut tissue). Even fructose is damaging to the liver and triggers an immune reaction. Cooking pre-digests many problematics but some portion will remain. It's the role of the immune system to deactivate the damaging proteins so that the damage doesn't accumulate. Eating and digestion are a constant balance between sustenance and wear, and problems begin when the rate of wear outpaces the rate of repair.

Humans cannot survive on calories alone, though, and certainly aren't going to be healthy living on them. Protein has always been one of the most expensive parts of a healthy diet.

That's a great point. I can get a can of black beans for $0.50 (and dried black beans for even cheaper). I can get a chicken breast for ~$2. The black beans still net 98g of protein. But I also get an additional 500 calories more than the chicken beast. And that's with the subsidies for poultry. I'm also going to pre-empt the "not a complete protein source" argument with the fact that we're talking about a healthy diet and no one is eating only beans or only chicken in their diet.

Plant proteins are always going to win in terms of cost efficiency over meat. There is always going to be a cost for the increased protein density of meat.

Check the DIAAS numbers and you might change your mind.

I think it would have to be a lot more drastic to change my mind.

'Humans cannot survive on calories alone' - that made me smile...

To add diseases, Ustilago maydis [1]: likes warm, moderatly dry, seeds spore-forming from and over wind transport, ya'll know fast driving cars on motorhighways or even the mechanic tail-spinning of modern 200m wind turbines, now i am not someone who may collect (realy) every physical fact (or the political ones) in a modell (hobbyist), but it sounds -financially-rewarding-(crossed out) -interesting-looking- interesting for me...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustilago_maydis

Flavor too. Corn fed beef is preferred in many applications. You’d never smoke a grass fed brisket for example.

Even cattle raised on grass do best for steaks if they’ve been fed grain the last few months before slaughter.

Thats a simplification for a feel good narrative. Your source lists all land that grows anything but forest as agriculture land. Yet on large parts of those areas you cant do anything but pastures. Also, much of the cow feed isnt calories humans can process. Think byproducts of soy production. The youtube channel "What I've Learned" has a great video on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

What they dont mention is the large part livestock (especially cows an chicken) will have to play in producing soil from the dirt left behind after industrial agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is the term here, with rotating cows and chickens on degraded dirt patches to build top soil.

All of this of course doesnt take away from the madness that is industrial meat production. But nothing has ever been solved by oversimplified narratives and action-ism.

Is regenerative agriculture the new name for holistic planned grazing? (Pushed by Alan Savory) Or it's different and actually works?

Never heard of holistic planned grazing. Regenerative agriculture encompasses (among increased biodiversity) everything that combats and reverses soil erosion and the effects on ground water. So also stuff like creating silvopasture.

Not sure what you mean with actually works. There is soil erosion (it determines the value of any farmland you buy) and methods to create new topsoil. Same with different levels at which you deplete ground water. Which part do you think to be quackery? Searching a bit it seems Alan Savory made some outlandish claims about carbon dioxide?

Only about ~10% of corn is used to make food consumed by people. Of the remainder, roughly ~30% is used for animal feed, ~30% for export, and ~30% for fuel ethanol.

Replacing the cheap processed food production with grazing land will not do much to increase the amount of animal protein available to the population. If our goal is to have more pasture, it would make more sense to eliminate ethanol production, reduce the amount of corn we feed to animals, and reduce the amount of corn we send to the world.

Yes. Replace the corn with cows.

What is the export percent used for? I don't think it's true, but if that export 30% were all used for food for people then it'd be disingenuous to say only 10% is used for human food.

I don't know, but maybe it is being exported for use as cattle feed like the alfalfa in California:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989

I’d add “fuel ethanol” to the list of things worse than Bitcoin.

A little bit of it is good for various reasons. Trying to solve a substantive part of our liquid fuel problem with it is madness.

The midwest has great soil because billions of organisms died millions of years ago in a shallow sea that covered most of the central united states today.

Similar to "The Black Belt"?

https://vigorousnorth.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-belt-how-so...

https://web.archive.org/web/20100526092708/http://www.southe...

A theory I heard as a child was that glaciers pushed topsoil down from Canada during the ice ages? A superficial search did not turn up more info so maybe that has long been discredited and nobody told me.

I’m not sure that’s correct, or at least is not complete. There were many cycles of grasses and wildlife involved in building up the soil.

No, it's correct. The plains states are so fertile because of hundreds of millions of years of shallow ocean water led to huge amounts of plankton to die and settle. That's also why there's oil in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

I thought the soil was great because of the Yellowstone Caldera Supervolcano dropping huge amounts of volcanic ash every 650,000 years.

How long has it been? Oh, right around 650,000 years..........

You aren't wrong. All the life sustaining minerals/elements we have in the earths lithosphere are being renewed by volcanism. It is why the plant life was able to exist in the first place.

Before artificial fertilizer, world famines were commonplace and the base rate of starvation was very high compared to today. I hope that anyone truly advocating for a return to that world has studied history and understands the consequences.

What % of global population will have to expire for a fertilizer free future possible?

Population of US in 1780 was 3 million. Today it’s 300 million.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com