Hacker News Reader

Comment by blizdiddy | Hacker News Reader

77% if you count land for grazing, otherwise useless to agriculture. If you go back 500 years you know what your find on that land? Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today. Feeding the world means using ruminants to turn grass into protein.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure there were no buffalo in the Amazon or Pantanal 500 years ago.

It's actually pretty clear from new imagery the Amazon was significantly deforested and farmed before European diseases wiped out the natives.

And before that, the extinctions mammoths and mastadons (by humans) led to a lot of tree cover that was grassland when the grazers kept the forests in check.

area check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest

the amazing, Amazon Basin, is far, far larger than any previous human terraculture eh?

There was an interesting discussion on HN not too long ago (1-3 months?), that we have been wrong about human stress on mammoths etc. We should find it. As usual we learn neat things on HN.

Giant sloths were a thing

Correct, yet these were not "a thing" 500 years ago, not even 5000,try double that and then then "maybe"

The point in the parent comment was not about the literal number 500 but rather about a point in time before humans altered the megafauna

That's a very US-centric viewpoint. I mean, New Zealand didn't have any land-dwelling mammals except for the rat 500 years ago.

Same in the UK (barring the mammals point). The country was 60-80% temperate rainforest before human habitation, depending on what research you go by. I grew up in the countryside. I cannot tell you how impossible it is to convince someone, who is dead set on consuming animal products, that we could regenerate that land if only we got rid of the cattle/fodder though. It's always "that land can't be used for anything else" or "having animals grazing there is good for the land", and that is just demonstrably false in every way. It's baffling that there can literally be old growth forest just on the other side of the hill, and the farmers will be adamant that the land they're on would be useless and barren if it weren't for them - as they continue to staunchly cut back the hedgerows and mow their fields every few months.

Having been part of forest regeneration efforts across the UK - from southern heathlands to rocky Welsh and Scottish outcrops, good for "nothing but sheep" - I can say with all certainty that every part of the country except the most extreme alpine regions is suitable for reforestation or some form of plantation dense rewilding. People are completely ignorant to how the country looked before we levelled it for grazing, viewing the 70% ecologically barren agricultural land (of which 80% of that is used for grazing or feeding cattle) as the norm and the 2.5% old growth forest as a more novelty, and something strangely "unique to that area".

If you're from New Zealand, this video is especially poignant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc

> Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today.

I’m very skeptical of this. Citation needed please.

Apparently as many as 100 million on the American plains once upon a time, according to Google

I wonder how many bison there were before the last Ice Age. Before the land-bridge and before humans from Asia arrived with their slash-and-burn.

Wikipedia cites ~60M bison pre-1800 [1] USDA ~93M cattle currently [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting [2] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php

Is the 60M figure for what is now the US or for all North America ? If that's the latter, you'd need to add Canadian cattle as well, around 11M[1].

[1] https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/canadas-agriculture-sectors...

Unfortunately there is no enough grassland to maintain the current levels of beef consumption. Most beef we consume is not grass-fed. So if you want to feed the world by converting grass into protein, that would mean just the same - radical reduction in meat consumption.

> Feeding the world means using ruminants to turn grass into protein.

Beef is not an essential staple. It's probably the worst kind of meat in terms of environmental impact.

Why do you need protein from ruminants? Why not pulses?

Bioavailability. Plants are awful as protein sources for humans. Ruminants are awesome as plant processors for the providing of protein to humans.

You're gonna have to provide a source for that. Just because less meat is needed for the same amount of protein doesn't make it better or more healthy.

There's a difference between crude protein and quality protein. Here's a place to start — https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-018-1009-y/....

Compare the DIAAS scores (see a short overview of DIAAS here — https://www.arlafoodsingredients.com/the-whey-and-protein-bl...). Plant-based sources of indispensable amino acids are lacking; that, combined with the sheer amount of water and energy necessary to produce & process them make them a very bad choice indeed, especially set against pastured ruminants, as (primary) protein sources. The suggestions for protein intake in the Mayo article cited by blacksmith_tb are minimal levels; more (and quality) protein is needed for better health, not merely for getting enough.

Pastured ruminants? In the US, cows are fed corn at feedlots to double production. You're comparing to the wrong thing.

Nope. Everyone sees feedlot production as the only way to raise cows, but it's entirely dependent on using the land which could be used for roaming to raise vast quantities of unhealthy grains. Get rid of the corn and bring back pastures. Not only will there be plenty of room to raise excellent & tasty protein from happy cows, the damage done to humans from corn will be significantly lessened. Then we can turn to the problem of wheat...

Sorry wrote a post but accidently erased and hate typing on phone so here's a useful link.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44879/does-anim...

Doesn't rice & beans have all the complementary proteins ?

It does. It's an easily debunked myth that plants don't provide all needed amino acids.

If you mean "essential amino acids" when you say "indispensable amino avids", you are wrong as it is not difficult at all to get all essential amino acids from a varied plant-based diet. In fact you only need to eat soy, or mix other legumes with whole grains to get enough of all essential amino acids.

Regarding water and energy needed for plants vs animals, I'm flabbergasted that you are even making this argument, considering that the vast majority of crops goes into feeding animals for meat and dairy. It's far more inefficient to eat meat and dairy than it is to eat plants when it comes to water and energy usage.

And what do mean mean "more protein is needed for better health, not merely for getting enough". Are you saying that "getting enough" protein is not enough to maintain health? Sounds like a contradiction.

"Indispensable" is the language used in the link I sent, so I was shooting for consistency. While it is possible to get what is needed through plants, obtaining protein from animal sources is far more direct, easy to digest, requires less material for the body to work with, and does not carry along the antinutrients (lectins, oxalates, etc.) plant foods so often deliver and which can be quite damaging to humans.

The argument is also not for feedlots, but for pastures — in a post below I argue for getting rid of the grains which we use to feed these animals (which isn't great for them to eat, either). There is good evidence (see Peter Ballerstedt's work for details on this) that pastured ruminants end up generating excellent soil that holds in water and is actually on the good end of things, methane emission-wise (though the problem of emissions from feedlots are greatly overblown as the pollution which comes from planting, harvesting, processing, and distributing plants rarely gets folded into the equation). Funny that.

And, finally, as for "getting enough" — getting enough to get by is not optimal for health. More & better protein is needed for that, and that comes from renewable animal sources which don't require vast expenditures of energy, processing, and which prevent the loss of topsoil while adding to the vitality of the soil. I want everyone to be healthy, and there's a path for that to happen, one which won't be taken if we go down the "plant based" path instead.

'Awful' is quite hyperbolic - pulses (aka beans and lentils), nuts, and seeds all contain protein[1]. In the US, it's not like we're struggling to get enough protein[2]. So demanding to eat meat is a little like insisting that you don't just need to drive, but that you absolutely have to have a V8 diesel pickup for your commute to the office.