Hacker News Reader

Comment by toper-centage | Hacker News Reader

To add to that, even grass fed, free range animals are often fed more grain at the end of their lives so the grow quicker in the last couple months.

View on HN

While not as efficient as if we'd eat that grain directly, it doesn't seem terribly inefficient, and it may reduce the number of individuals that need to be born & die. (Of course under a stark analysis of whether to have cattle at all, the conclusion could be different, so the question is what analysis you're using this info for). Anyway, if on top of that you subscribe to the hypothesis that grain is not good for human health, grain-finishing may do net good.

From what I understand grain used for animal feed is of a poorer quality and can't be used to make bread. And so it's essentially a waste product (usually because of rain just before a harvest).

I won't claim to be an expert, this information was given to me by an arable farmer friend of mine.

Meanwhile “More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans.”

Your anecdote makes it sound like animal feed is just a fixed waste cost of growing food for humans.

Correct but at the same time, the grain production wouldn’t be there if humans were the only market for grain and that grain being produced is not for human consumption. No one should think that people are going hungry because grain is being fed to livestock. Our food needs are met by agriculture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com