Comment by porpoisely | Hacker News Reader

Comment by porpoisely | Hacker News Reader

It's terrible news for the environment. In terms of environmental harm, vegetable farming is easily the most environmentally damaging human endeavor. The distant second is raising livestock. The most environmentally friendly method for humans would be the "hunter gatherer" diet ( wild vegetation and wild animals ). But we might be too populous for that to work.

If you care about the environment, this is the worst news. You essentially have to farm one plant ( either grain or corn or soy ) to feed livestock for your burger. How many different types of plants have to be planted to produce a single burger? And of course, most of those plants can't be raised in frigid canada so they'll have to destroy the environment elsewhere.

Not to mention plants are nutrient deficient and as a result people have to eat far more of it which means more farms and more environmental destruction. Ever wonder why grazing animals have to eat constantly?

It's amazing how PR has convinced people that industrial farming is actually good for the environment and animals. I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

I want a source for that outrageous claim that the most environmentally damaging human endeavor is growing vegetables. I suspect you being right would turn the world on its head.

Not the GP, and I don't have any conclusions in this matter - but I don't think we can outright dismiss the role of livestock in maintaining a healthy environment. For example:

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-l...

And many vegetables are fertilized with blood meal, which comes from animals...

Perhaps a more nuanced view is needed...

> https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-l...

That link talks about Allan Savory's work. Savory has a reeeally well-done, convincing-sounding TED talk about this. But unfortunately it looks like many people who know a lot more about this than I do disagree with pretty much everything he says: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-t...

Also, even if keeping livestock is a good idea in some environments, that doesn't mean that farming livestock elsewhere is a similarly good idea.

How many extra plants would you have to grow and use as fertilizer on plants if you didn't have animal fertilizer? Or do you want to rely on non organic farming methods for your plant only ethics based utopia?

I think you missed that plant-based fertilization exists. How do you think the nitrogen, sulfur and phosphor got into the animals in the first place?

Manure is used because it is readily available due to current livestock production, not because it's the only way to fertilize soil.

I see you didn't actually read the comment.

Fertilization > fertilizer. What I meant were practices like e.g. planting mustard and plowing it under between seasons.

Yes, that's going to feed 9 billion people!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_f...

How many extra plants would you have to grow and use as fertilizer on plants if you didn't have animal fertilizer? Or do you want to rely on non organic farming methods for your plant only ethics based utopia?

- subtext that you missed is yu can't achieve the crop density with organic farming methods

You didn't break any of HN rules, and yet people downvoted you. It goes to show HN's vegan-bias!

I'm amazed someone can be so hilariously wrong.

~90% of the calories a species takes in get lost going up the food chain. You need to grow ~1000 calories of plants to make 100 calories of beef.

>Not to mention plants are nutrient deficient and as a result people have to eat far more of it

Source? Also, what specific nutrients are you referring to? Where do you think the energy and minerals an animal has come from?

>The most environmentally friendly method for humans would be the "hunter gatherer" diet ( wild vegetation and wild animals ). But we might be too populous for that to work.

Modern agriculture is hands down more efficient. You know this, because you know that it can support more people. By extension, modern agriculture with a small population is more environmentally friendly than "hunter gatherer" with a small population.

>You essentially have to farm one plant to feed livestock for your burger. How many different types of plants have to be planted to produce a single burger?

More variety but far far far less total quantity. And monoculture farming is much more destructive than farming a variety of plants. There's a reason that farmers rotate corn and soy, even when growing animal feed.

Cows eat grass, which is just out there, growing naturally. Those aren't calories humans could be consuming; we don't have the right kind of stomaches. You can view a cow as machine for extracting the nutrients in grass into a dense, human-digestible form. Pretty cool.

I'm also not sure your "modern agriculture" point stands -- are industrial farming methods sustainable over the long scale?

Think about America pre-colonization: a continent filled with ruminants happily munching away, being hunted at sustainable levels. To my mind that is peak sustainability and environmental friendliness.

Whereas a huge environmental problem we have right now is soil depletion, which is largely driven by agriculture.

Cows could actually help solve this problem, because their manure contributes to the health of the soil.

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...

It's far from obvious that a veggie burger would be healthier for the environment than eating cows.

(Disclaimer: haven't watched the ted talk, but familiar with the ideas and seemed like a good summary to link to.)

Maybe it would be better to say "cows would eat grass" but unfortunately >90% of beef comes from cows who don't, and are raised on feed[1].

1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2016/01/29/the-gras...

I think it'd probably be good to stop feeding grain to cows, but even "grain-fed" cows eat grass (or hay) most of their lives -- it's at the end when they're sent to the feed lots to fatten them up that they eat grain.

"you don't need to grow vast quantities of grain to raise cows, just to increase their biomass enough to feed large quantities of people"

Think about America pre-colonization: a continent filled with ruminants happily munching away, being hunted at sustainable levels. To my mind that is peak sustainability and environmental friendliness.

That's with a population of on the order of 10 million for the entire continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigeno...

Naturally grazing cows wouldn't even come close to sustaining the current demand for meat. Industrialized animal agriculture exists for a reason.

That's fair, but still, my point is raising beef is not intrinsically unsustainable and destructive.

Though I agree, it's probably not a reasonable primary food for most people at current population levels.

Yeah it might make sense to do on a controlled scale in the right climates, but it wouldn’t even come close to meeting current demands. People would have to get used to eating meat a few times a week.

Not to mention that that 10 million count includes many tribes/societies based around fishing, and an entire civilization based around farming sustainably:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)

Cows eat grass which grows on land which used to have rainforest on it but which has been cleared, wiping out thousands of species, to make more cows. (Okay not all cows, but rainforest clearance for pastureland is a big problem where there are or used to be rainforests).

Cows also produce a massive amount of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, and they're not very efficient converters of plants into grass.

It is therefore well established that beef production is the least efficient and environmentally friendly form of meat production.

Yes, it's bad to cut down rainforests to raise beef, just like it's bad to cut down rainforests to make palm oil. That's not really a knock against raising cows in natural grassland, though.

Re GHGs, you have to weigh the methane against the carbon sequestration the cows promote.

These guys are working with local (to me) farms to study and enhance that:

https://www.marincarbonproject.org/about

It also just doesn't seem to me, on a gut level, that having 90 million cows in the US is our main problem (especially compared to historical levels of 20 million bison). I think we should be much more focussed on the 20 million barrels of oil a day we're burning through (compared to historical levels of basically 0).

Shoot. Wait wait wait. That's a really excellent point. What?

We've killed most of the sizable animals on the planet. We really absolutely have. No question. Passenger pigeon flocks, billions of fish, vast populations of whales and bison and all the major megafauna we wiped out.

That's a holocaust of farting biomass. Complete slaughter. There's no way that our beef herds offset the megafauna that were here before the landbridge migration to North America when it comes to methane.

I haven't heard something genuinely new in this debate for a long time. Thank you.

I just posted this in a cousin comment, but a whole lot of experts disagree with Savory's claims: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-t...

The TED talk is really good and sounds convincing, but in the end it's a bunch of pretty pictures going against what appears to be scientific consensus.

It doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but the tone of the piece and the fact that it's funded by Kellog's is certainly at least eye-brow raising:

There’s no such thing as a beef-eating environmentalist.

Slate’s coverage of food systems is made possible in part by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Anyway, I think it's fair to at least say the topic is debated.

(Also, I wouldn't recommend being too overly swayed by "scientific consensus": scientists are just people, who are mostly sheep; lots of scientific consensuses turn out to be wrong. I'm reminded of the Feynman quote:

–Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?")

Reply on news.ycombinator.com