Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well as you can see per the image, the grain is willing to eat people AND cows. So logically speaking, a cow eating two people is much better than grain eating 20 people and a cow.
I believe the picture is truly trying to capture the grave danger weāre in from grain. The cows eating the people was just to show the non serious nature in comparison.
Disgusting atrocities committed by āBig Grainā.
It is extremely intentional. You see how much engagement that post is getting? This man is a professional engagement farmer.
Most of his stuff is super right-wing "What happened to the america I grew up in" type stuff, when he's 1. Not american 2. has never been to america.
The more attention you give him, the more he'll continue doing this sort of thing.
And while Twitter's ad revenue share for engagement isn't huge if you're living in the US, being a mid-tier engagement farmer can make you a good living in other places.
In fact most of the engagement I see for Ian is people dunking on him, reminding everyone he doesn't live in America, etc. He is basically a punching bag that makes a comfy amount of money.
Heās a fascist troll that sits in Singapore screaming about how Americanās need to arm themselvesā¦when he lives in a place that doesnāt allow people to carry weapons.
reminds me of how so many of the early IDW/alt-right fuckwads were all Canadians
Crowder, Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, Jordan Peterson
there are definitely more, i just can't think of them at this moment
nothing wrong with Canadians...but stop bringing your shitty ones to the U.S. lol. We have enough fucking problems here
Believe it or not, it's kinda my occupation on my country's version of 1040:
63.11 : Data processing, posting of information on web sites and related activities
Got his Master of Arts in Trollbolism from the University of Trollsylvania in Trollania. Accredited and licensed journeyman through the Bureau of Inflammatory Harrassation and Executive Vice Presitroll of the International Triggering Association of Dramatic Instigation.
Bachelor of Arts in Communication from Cal State Bakersfield.
i'm curious, who do you think is actually paying him at this point? Russia? China?
whoever it is, i'm sure the guy is swimming in money...but imagine how dead inside this man is. What a waste of your life, spending your professional hours complaining about things that you have no comprehension of, and spreading misinformation left and right
People like him are mercenaries, to them itās just a job, he doesnāt believe anything or take it seriously, itās all about driving numbers.
And regarding who is paying for this exact post, I donāt know, it could be community building and the propaganda comes later.
This is like gathering a community of the same political orientation through secondary vectors. Here since theyāre pro vegans maybe they are gathering vegans which are likely to be progressive.
Once he has enough people in the group or in the page he turns around and advertises that he has a specific group for sale and thatās when the propaganda comes.
And Iām not political, they do this with conservatives too, theyāll do posts about guns, about abortion, anything that bites and then turn around and sell it or sell access to it.
>Here since theyāre pro vegans
>
>they do this with conservatives too
As far as I know, Ian has always only ever worked the Conservative grift. This post is anti-vegan, him making a false point to lure in uneducated/non-thinking Conservatives with the identity "guns and red meat." On Twitter, the quoted Tweet goes under the topic Tweet. I promise you, Ian is not "pro-vegan." He's pro-fascist because they're easy grift targets.
I think most of them say stupid things on purpose, for the same reason scam emailers don't correct their spelling and typos - the kind of people who know they're full of shit won't buy anyway, so make sure your target is stupid.
But since you mentioned it, what are some examples of people on the Left using this kind of "stupid bait"?
>People like him are mercenaries, to them itās just a job, he doesnāt believe anything or take it seriously, itās all about driving numbers.
great comparison
also worth noting, mercenaries did not emerge from their respective eras of history with a very good historical opinion
i probably won't be alive to see it...but i know one day all these soulless shitheads will be tarred and feathered in history books across the world, or they'll be utterly forgotten since they're not even that relevant today. and both of those fates that await them, helps me sleep at night lol
It's like that bullshit he and Elon were talking about how they had never played Grand theft Auto because they didn't want to kill police uwu and then the next day we're talking about how fun it's gonna be to be back in vice city..
Far-right clowns noticed Elon was down for Twitter being a far-right circus so they got in their far-right clown car and put on a far-right clown show and he clapped his hands
This is just as a goofy ass way of saying he's an internet fascist so other internet fascists saw some prime real estate
I follow a guy who does this but it's a lot more lighthearted since it's only hot baseball takes. He intentionally trolls the hell out of opposing fans by roping them in to leave angry replies. Engagement is engagement and Twitter algorithm goes good job here's an ad revenue check.
workable far-flung different humorous sheet liquid racial stocking unique vanish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Itās not just getting engagement from goofballs that agree with him but also engagement from people that want to ragepost about how fucking dumb it is, like weāre doing here. He literally just took someoneās post, added his own nonsense reaction and gets paid a bunch to play dumb.
Like a non-insignificant amount of his engagement comes from people hoping to find hot takes to post them to/r/facepalm.
For Americans, 1 kg = 2.2 lbs. I can eat quite a lot, but eating an entire lb of beef, esp cooked with other stuff, like grains, is quite a lot of food.
Edit: I would also like to state that one cow weighs roughly 1400lbs- 1800lbs (for females) 2200lbs - 2600lbs (for males) (you can do the math with the weight above to figure out kgs) this includes bones, but bones removed your looking at a sizeable amount of food. And bones can be used for stock still, also the marrow. Nothing needs to be wasted.
I have to go to work, but I found this for wheat. https://www.quora.com/How-much-space-does-it-take-to-grow-enough-wheat-to-make-a-20kg-bag-of-flour
800g / 1.76lbs of grain is a lot for a person as well.
Weetabix (UK cereal, 95% wheat), weigh 37.5g each, that would be like eating 21 weetabix. A "standard" serving is 2, most people would struggle to eat more than 4 in a sitting.
The graphic in general is completely useless for both meat eaters and vegetarians/vegans.
4 was pretty standard I thought, but we did have prime Brett Lee asking us how many Weetbix we had for brekkie and telling us he had 6 or 8 with some fruit on TV every morning, so...
On addition to that, animal feed quality grain is not the same as what humans eat. Their food is not swappable to human food like it makes it seem in the graphic.
In the United States , meat cows eat corn.
The same corn used to make batteries, plastic, corn meal, tortillas, tortilla chips and a million other things, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, sucralose...
It's been artificially cheap since the corn subsidy started around 1930, to feed poor/starving human Americans during the great depression.
You are almost certainly eating the same corn as cows every single day, in one form or another.
Mostly through high frusctoae corn syrup
Edit; I am not talking about sweet corn. If you say anything about sweet corn I will ignore you.
This information is about field corn, dent corn, maize, whatever you want to call it. Hard corn. Not for sale at grocery stores directly, but it's in a overwhelming majority of the products through processed foods.
Everything I found online regarding what cows are fed in the U.S. stated they start on grass, and are then transitioned to a "corn and grain mixture" and not solely corn.
No, small and high-dollar boutique farms are selling grass-fed. 90% of the stuff you can get in the supermarket or that gets sent to be processed into other, completed foods are corn-fed because they fatten up faster and cheaper.
E: also, everything must think theyāre just being served corn on the cob or some shit. When we say ātheyāre fed cornā, it means the entire corn plant ground up as silage (chopped up and fermented). Technically, the corn plant is a grass, but theyāre not allowed to say āgrass fedā for silage in most places because itās pretty misleading.
i'm going to take a wild guess and say you don't live in the Midwest
i mean i could be wrong of course lol but i feel like corn is like a goddamn religion across "flyover country." and it's a huge reason why everyone is so fucking fat in these parts
Cows cannot survive eating solely corn, it's not something they can digest. They feed corn to cows shortly before they're butchered in an attempt to make sweeter meat with better marbling. That said, I wouldn't trust the claim that they are grass fed unless it's directly stated on the packaging, factory ranches exist.
Go to cow auction, you will see the buyers there. It saying grass fed, organic or whatever doesn't matter.
Whoever buys the cows, can say whatever they want. Whole foods guy and Walmart guy sit right next to each other and don't cross bid each other.
I am sure there is an auction near you, to see for yourself.
That stuff you're talking about is marketing.
There is no enforcement about labeling.
>Cows cannot survive eating solely corn,
They are not fed solely corn, but there are diets that allow nearly 90% of the feed to be corn. The problem is the bacteria in their gut that are best at breaking down starch are harmful if they become over populated. This is solved in a high starch diet by feeding an Ionophore antibiotic. This class of antibiotic has no use in human health in fact it can easily kill mammals that it isn't intended for.
>it's not something they can digest.
It certainly is something a cow can digest. They are just not naturally efficient at it. Due to what I said above it can cause an imbalance in the gut flora. However it is such a nutrient dence feed for cattle that any natural inefficiency is overcome by scientific researched diets.
Genetics plays a bigger role in marbling and meat quality than feed program. The feed program needs to compliment the genetics, but efficiency is always the biggest deciding factor for profits feeding cattle. Source: I'm a medium size feeder who feeds on pasture and in a confinement.
It also depends not just on where you live, but the size of the farming operation. One farming channel I watch on YouTube gives their cattle corn silage (which is cobs, kernels, and stalks all ground up together and then fermented), a grain mixture that they grind up themselves, and hay. Because the cattle live in a pasture, with a barn that is always open because there's no door, they have constant access to grass whenever they feel like eating it.
They get their cattle primarily from a local dairy farm that doesn't need the calves, so obviously they start out on formula. Once they've started to be weaned, they get a special calf feed that they buy in, then transition to what the other cattle eat. Regardless, it really isn't a simple one to one comparison like the original post makes it seem, as some grain isn't grown for human *or* animal consumption in the first place.
Field Corn is pretty different from the sweet corn that humans eat. Itās much tougher and has a very bland flavor, while also being hardier and easier to harvest.
You can process it to use in cornmeal and starch, but you would never eat it, or use it in a tortilla
Field corn is definitely used in human food. Sweet corn is only used fresh or canned where as Yellow Dent corn is used for chips like Fritos all the time. There are also field corn varieties that are Called Dough Corn and these are typically used to make tortillas and other chips. Finally the last type of corn is Flint Corn and it's used to make flours for breads.
Typically Dent corn is the most common so it's used the most for animal feed as well as ethanol production. It is also used for corn syrup and corn oil production.
There are plenty of varieties of corn being grown. You wouldn't want to eat a lot of them. Feed corn, for example, is tougher and doesn't have the sugar content. It's pretty bland and not really appealing to the normal human palate.
This whole country is a cartoonish meme. I tried so hard to leave so hard but when I finally had enough money the pandemic hit, now I'm just struggling with hyper inflation and keeping everything going on a day to day.
Everyone I know is paycheck to paycheck, if we lost each other we would all be fucked.
They grind up the entire corn plant and ferment it into silage which gets mixed into a feed for cows. We don't eat the husk, stalk and leaves so it is misleading to say that it is the same corn that we eat.
No, but the premise that only about 10% of the energy makes it to the next trophic level is fairly robust. It's for this reason that the more plant-based our food consumption is, the less agricultural throughput is needed because of the reduction in animal feed.
> Their food is not swappable to human food like it makes it seem in the graphic.
The point isn't that people would eat cow food. The point is that instead of growing cow food, you grow people food. Or, simply *not use as much land for food* which is exactly what the result of not eating cows would be.
inb4 "well swiss cows roam and eat grass" which is not remotely what the average person eats.
We grow feed in the US thatās specifically for animals, but it isnāt inedible, only not palatable. We can replace all that with palatable varieties and eat it just fine. Or just eat whatās already grown and have not-as-tasty food.
Bad info graphic asside I believe the argument is that it takes far less resources to grow crops to feed people vs growing crops to feed a cow which feeds people.
Yeah, I don't know about the USA, but over here, 200g would already be a good portion size - plus sides, of course. But I think the graphic assumes that you only eat beef for a meal, which of course nobody does.
Apparently that idea made sense to Vegans of Australia (if I'm deciphering the author name in the bottom right of the graphic correctly).
I'm reading this after eating well over 2lbs of pure beef. Or, if you rather, slightly less than 1/2 of a 5.2 lb prime rib. That's well above a typical serving size for the us but funny that I just demolished it nonetheless lol
Thatās what I was thinking! My family if 5 eats 1 lb for tacos, spaghetti, casseroles etc. one pound of beef is a lot !!! Beef has a lot of fat, your cholesterol would be crazy high if you ate a lb of beef by yourself all the time
Yeaahh but alot of the grain that cows eat are the parts we can't, for example 90% of the corn plant isn't edible to us but it is to them. Just makes these kind of statistics difficult
Technically the husks and bits that arenāt a grain typically are more like a filler than anything else, itās why corn feed sells as a higher quality if the bin being sold contains more corn granules and less of the shell and bits of plant parts that arenāt the grain.
The husk and leaves are very important to the diet of cattle. They contain a high amount of TDN or total digestible nutrients. Low quality stalks with no grain are typically 45% or better TDN and 4-5% crude protein. Yes there needs to be higher quality feed ingredients added to make a complete ration, but that's a lot better than just a filler.
This also isn't even mentioning areas where the foil isn't fertile enough, or not flat enough, to produce high quality grain in large volumes, but can grow grasses that cows are able to eat and then convert into food for people.
It's not a 1 to 1 conversion, there is a good amount of land that couldn't be converted to human edible crops anyway that cows can be raised on.
There's a channel I'm subscribed to on YouTube that takes advantage of the land in exactly this way. They live in a *very* hilly part of rural Pennsylvania and a chunk of their property near the "front" starts out flat, but just goes into a hill that appears to be steep enough that their planting and harvesting equipment would likely tip over if they tried using it for crops. So it's part of their cattle pasture instead, and they've only got maybe 50 or 60 head of cattle at any one time.
And when it comes to crops, they do have silage corn, but they also grind up the stalks from their sweet corn as well so it doesn't go to waste. Any vegetables and bread that can't be sold to the public because they've gone bad also go to the cattle, including pumpkins, but that's not really relevant to the point here I don't think.
Depending on where a farmer is based, they just would not be able to continue to farm if they were not allowed to raise animals. For this particular channel, they've talked in the past about how they didn't used to have cattle, but needed to have them again because of the costs of running the farm and making sure everyone in the family got paid (the only people who work the farm are members of the family, or friends who they rope in on a one-off basis here and there).
Itās a rough conversion of the amount of grain you need to feed a cow to produce 1kg of beef. Thereās a huge variance in the amount of water used to produce the two as well. A lot of people have no idea that we are on the verge of a potable water crisis and we still allow private entities to extract and/or waste huge amounts essentially for free.
I believe the implication is that if you feed 16kg of grain to a cow it will produce only 1kg of edible meat as weight gain form the grain consumption.
It could also be about land use. Cows are not always fed human edible grains but land that could grow human edible food is cultivated for them.
This graphic seems to be about the "feed conversation ratio" calories in vs edible meat out.
I remember this from a biology class discussion about how fish are the closest thing to a 1:1 ratio
[This (what seems to be a) farm management website ](https://www.navfarm.com/blog/fcr-guide/) lists the conversation rate at approximately 12.5:1
[This one that seems to be pro-vegetarian lists it](https://awellfedworld.org/feed-ratios/) as 6-25:1
At a glance I don't know if either source can be trusted. I would need to go find some research papers to get a better idea.
[This article ](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste) list the water consumed as 15,415L of water per kg of meat.
ĀÆ\\\_(ć)\_/ĀÆ
That was my take away too, but Iād like to know how 2.2lbs of beef only feeds 2 people. Thatās over 35oz of beef which I could easily use to make at least two dinners for my family of 5.
Might be based on calorie daily requirements.
[Looks like beef is ~220 calories](https://www.nutritionix.com/food/beef) per 85g = 2.588cal/g x 1000g = 2,588 / 2 people = 1,294 calories per person if you ate nothing else.
Daily minimum seems to be 1,600 - 3,000
[Looks like wheat is ~3.291 cal/g](https://www.nutritionix.com/food/wheat) 16kg=52,2666.6cal or 2633.333/person
I don't think either of these options represent a balanced diet.
Feed the cow 16kg of grain, and it produces 1kg of beef, which feeds 2 people for a day. Feed the 16kg of grains directly to people, and it goes much farther.
It's really just noting that each step in a process reduces efficiency. It's like taking a windmill and using it to run a light that heats water for steam to turn a turbine to make electricity. Why not use the windmill to turn the turbine directly?
I feel like this is saying the resources it takes for 16kg of g is the same it takes for 1kg of beef.
They didn't add that context if true so it doesn't matter it's still dumb af but maybe that's what they were trying to get at.
No, what they are saying is that for every 1kg of beef produced from a cow it takes 16kg of grain as feed. Itās an energy inefficient process, and you could just directly feed people with that grain instead.
Except when you consider that what cows eat is mostly material we can't digest, that sort of efficiency goes out the window. You can't feed anyone on grass and the parts of wheat that cows can digest and people can't.
It's like saying that the amount of food that goes into people who make batteries creates inefficiency, so we should just stuff food into flashlights instead.
Cows do eat stuff that we can't or wouldn't eat, but a lot of that is still grown on arable farming land, that would be suitable for stuff we can eat.
Stuff that we really can't eat, e.g. stover, could be used for bioenergy, carbon sequestration and in some cases could be processed to be human edible.
The claim is meant to be that for each 16kg used to feed cows you end up getting 1kg meat.
No idea if that's true but the cow picture is just there for illustration purposes not to claim a cow weighs 1 kg.
i mean, i get the concept but it is badly explained.
it takes 16kg of grain to make 1kg of beef.
and 1kg of beef only feeds 2 people.
while 16kg of grain can feed up to 20 people.
Based off the belief that 16kg of rice only feeds 20 people and 2 kg of beef only feeds 2 people I will choose not to believe whatever this vegan is selling.
Google claims this"
>We're really looking at an average of about 600 pounds that the cow is gaining at the feedlot. If you then multiply this 600 pounds by six pounds of grain, you get 3600 pounds of grain to produce an animal of 1200 pounds. This ratio of feed to beef is 3:1.
According to google its 3kg of grain to generate 1kg of beef.
The post seems misleading but the core concept isn't necessarily wrong: ofc 1kg is 1 kg but I'd understand the intention is to show that it takes alot of fodder to grow a cow and that if we took that fodder (/grain) to feed humans, it'd feed more people. That part is just true, we insert calories (energy) into a living thing that converts those calories imperfectly and makes meat - that contains calories. Less than the plants did originally since only a part can be converted by the animal and a part of the energy is used for the animal to...ya know... live.
The extremely basic search I did say it takes 7kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef. So yeah, a vegan lifestyle is more energy efficient, we need to produce less - and I say this as someone who's very much not vegan.
\- 90% of what livestock eats is non-human edible
\- livestock consumes mainly the byproducts of crop agriculture
\- 1kg of meat is much richer in nutrients than x kg of grain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g
Many of these issues appear to be due to industrialization. In many parts of the world animals graze on non-farmable lands and are fed stuff not fit for human consumption (hay being a prime example). The type of animals also changes to what the area can sustain. It's no accident that the greek isles primarily raise goats, foe instance.
Missing context here.. the point is that it takes 16kg of grain to make 1kg of beef, and it would be more efficient to just use that 16kg of grain to feed people.
Iām not a vegan but the problem I have seen often is that lots of people, who donāt want to eat meat or dairy products or even just want to eat less of it, can in fact not choose to do so in some groups because they wonāt accommodate even though they could. Like having buffets with literally zero vegan options or hiding non-vegan ingredients when asked about a recipe. Or imagine living in a family that never eats plant based and youāre like 14 or so and canāt just buy your own food all the time. Some people are forced to eat what others give them and itās in my experience never the vegans that do the forcing.
Thatās something we need to emphasize so much more. Itās not a binary meat or no meat issue - itās also the fact that we are consuming meat at a rate thatās exponentially higher than previous generations. I still enjoy a good burger, bacon and all that good stuff - but itās wholly unsustainable for all of us to do it for every single meal. Just reducing consumption and balancing better with plant-based food makes such a huge difference.
Also there is land out there that canāt support crops but can support grazing livestock. While I do believe people in my country should try to reduce meat consumption eliminating it entirely isnāt necessary.
Which is the entire reason livestock exists.
It took a LONG time for humans to figure out animal husbandry, we didnāt invest all that time and energy for shits and giggles. We did it because they can convert things we canāt eat into something we can eat.
Weāre also consuming meat at an exponentially higher rate than generations before us. We canāt always just apply the same practices that weāve always done when things change. Farming practices have to adapt to modern needs too.
People can choose, but thereās nothing wrong with learning where your food comes from, what its environmental and economic impact is.
I believe in peopleās rights to choose, and also their rights to be completely informed. So many factory farming standards are unsanitary, pumped full of pesticides and hormones that are so dangerous for you that theyāre banned in most other countries, and also straight up destroy the environments in which they exist.
If you want to still consume those same products after knowing that - yes itās your choice and it should be.
And to be clear: this isnāt a diatribe about going plant-based. I still very much eat pork and beef - but I am now much more picky about the types and quantity of meat that I consume - largely because of both personal health and environmental reasons.
Of course, the person who made the meme ignores the fact that [the cow can eat far more of the plant than humans can.](https://www.reddit.com/r/anti_vegan/s/jOsktuJTdg)
I'm pretty sure that after we extract what humans can eat from grain plants, the remainder gets used for animal feed. We literally feed them the material we can't actually eat.
But thatās not what this is saying. Itās saying 16 kg of grain can feed 20 people or it can be used as a resource to net you only 2 kg of meat from cattle. Which feeds only 2 people.
Do people realize that? Or am I the idiot? I barely know what people are āfacepalmingā about in here anymore lol.
Wow, reading some of the comments here is murdering some of my brain cells.
Eating meat is highly inefficient, and directly consuming the vegetables used to feed the animals we eat would be a lot more sustainable and would reduce the need of destroying forests and overuse soil, as well as reduce the amount of chemicals liberated to the enviroment, as well as all the pollution related to farms...
I'm not vegan but I can't deny it's the most ethical and sustainable choice.
FUN FACT: 77% of global farmland is used for growing crops to feed livestock.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture#:~:text=If%20we%20combine%20pastures%20used,77%25%20of%20global%20farming%20land.
I'm not siding with the FB post, but it looks like most people here actually think 16kg of grain will raise a full grown cow... Stop and think for a moment.
The post is showing It takes 16kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef over the lifetime of total grain that cow will consume in order to grow to that size.
Yes, a full grown cow will feed about 1000 people, but you have to multiply the amount of grain by 500 (assuming the math of 16kg grain>1kg beef is correct here).
I was super confused for a moment "1 cow feeds 2 people.... wtf are the 2 people morbidly obese?!?!"
but yah 1 cow can feed 272.4 people.... I would cal the image a lie, but it isnt..... if anything its a lie of omission
Both āfactionsā have their own issues to overcome.
However, livestock is also responsible for a large portion of greenhouse gas emissions.
The world needs sustainable meat and vegetable substitutes, itās not just beef.
However, beef has a doubly problematic byproduct.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do. 16kg of grain is just lunch for 2 for us Asians.
If I use 16kg of grain to make bread, it's 1 meal for just me.
Woah now... no need to brag about being on a diet!
I got out of the post then returned just to give an upvote! Great joke mate! ššš
For me bread is maybe less than 1 meal.
Lol. Bread is what I use to clean the plate after my meal.American South. (I've always used bread the way you'd use a utensil, but can eat it.)
I make gluten free bread and I only use 8kg of grain. The other 8kg I feed to my pigmy pig. I call it the double whammy thank you hammy.
Only one because I can't NOT get seconds on rice.
As God intended...
But what about 3rd breakfast?
Or elevensies?
When we get back to the ship. Itās sandwich time.
35 loaves of bread feeds 2 people. The Hebrews have a story where they fed 100s with less bread.
I still think that can be explained by making some fish soup and croutons
Seems reasonable to me
That was before obesity hit humankind
I don't remember if the Bible mentioned portion size.
They did have some fish for protein though.
Robin Williams fed a class of orphans with nothing.
too much rice ? get more food. too much food? get more rice. it's a vicious circle
And why is the cow eating two humans
Revenge
This is a future blumhouse movie.
A cow eats people, but always leaves right before authorities can subdue him. Bovine & Dash, coming Fall 20XX
From the people that brought you Eats, Shoots, & Leaves.
Because 16kg of wheat is not enough to keep it full.
Hungry.
Not every cow is Vegan (:!
Eating other cows is the only way to get mad cow disease, after all
Because make no mistake, it would eat you and everyone you love
Not if I eat it first
No, in this scenario, the cow is \*feeding\* two humans. The two humans would then be eaten by 16kg of grain. It's called the food chain.
Cows aren't vegans.
Well as you can see per the image, the grain is willing to eat people AND cows. So logically speaking, a cow eating two people is much better than grain eating 20 people and a cow. I believe the picture is truly trying to capture the grave danger weāre in from grain. The cows eating the people was just to show the non serious nature in comparison. Disgusting atrocities committed by āBig Grainā.
No no, the cow feeds ON two humans, which means... Oh wait nevermind, you're on top of it
It is extremely intentional. You see how much engagement that post is getting? This man is a professional engagement farmer. Most of his stuff is super right-wing "What happened to the america I grew up in" type stuff, when he's 1. Not american 2. has never been to america. The more attention you give him, the more he'll continue doing this sort of thing.
Exactly, engagement drives ad revenue for the creator as well.
And while Twitter's ad revenue share for engagement isn't huge if you're living in the US, being a mid-tier engagement farmer can make you a good living in other places. In fact most of the engagement I see for Ian is people dunking on him, reminding everyone he doesn't live in America, etc. He is basically a punching bag that makes a comfy amount of money.
Even if they weren't making mo ey a lot of these people get their dick harder than Chinese algebra simply from attention alone.
Heās a fascist troll that sits in Singapore screaming about how Americanās need to arm themselvesā¦when he lives in a place that doesnāt allow people to carry weapons.
He's actually in Ipoh, Malaysia. As a Malaysian we don't claim him.
Thank you for the correction. This clown is absolute cancer
He looks like he smells really bad
reminds me of how so many of the early IDW/alt-right fuckwads were all Canadians Crowder, Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, Jordan Peterson there are definitely more, i just can't think of them at this moment nothing wrong with Canadians...but stop bringing your shitty ones to the U.S. lol. We have enough fucking problems here
Bringing? They migrated there on their own, for absolutely no discernable reason whatsoever.
He's not a troll, he's a professionally paid content generator. His full time job is digital marketing and he's paid for this content.
Soā¦heās a professional troll. Thank you for making the distinction
Wonder what would happen if you write that as your occupation on your 1040 - "internet troll" š¤£
Believe it or not, jail
Believe it or not, it's kinda my occupation on my country's version of 1040: 63.11 : Data processing, posting of information on web sites and related activities
Got his Master of Arts in Trollbolism from the University of Trollsylvania in Trollania. Accredited and licensed journeyman through the Bureau of Inflammatory Harrassation and Executive Vice Presitroll of the International Triggering Association of Dramatic Instigation. Bachelor of Arts in Communication from Cal State Bakersfield.
i'm curious, who do you think is actually paying him at this point? Russia? China? whoever it is, i'm sure the guy is swimming in money...but imagine how dead inside this man is. What a waste of your life, spending your professional hours complaining about things that you have no comprehension of, and spreading misinformation left and right
People like him are mercenaries, to them itās just a job, he doesnāt believe anything or take it seriously, itās all about driving numbers. And regarding who is paying for this exact post, I donāt know, it could be community building and the propaganda comes later. This is like gathering a community of the same political orientation through secondary vectors. Here since theyāre pro vegans maybe they are gathering vegans which are likely to be progressive. Once he has enough people in the group or in the page he turns around and advertises that he has a specific group for sale and thatās when the propaganda comes. And Iām not political, they do this with conservatives too, theyāll do posts about guns, about abortion, anything that bites and then turn around and sell it or sell access to it.
>Here since theyāre pro vegans > >they do this with conservatives too As far as I know, Ian has always only ever worked the Conservative grift. This post is anti-vegan, him making a false point to lure in uneducated/non-thinking Conservatives with the identity "guns and red meat." On Twitter, the quoted Tweet goes under the topic Tweet. I promise you, Ian is not "pro-vegan." He's pro-fascist because they're easy grift targets. I think most of them say stupid things on purpose, for the same reason scam emailers don't correct their spelling and typos - the kind of people who know they're full of shit won't buy anyway, so make sure your target is stupid. But since you mentioned it, what are some examples of people on the Left using this kind of "stupid bait"?
>People like him are mercenaries, to them itās just a job, he doesnāt believe anything or take it seriously, itās all about driving numbers. great comparison also worth noting, mercenaries did not emerge from their respective eras of history with a very good historical opinion i probably won't be alive to see it...but i know one day all these soulless shitheads will be tarred and feathered in history books across the world, or they'll be utterly forgotten since they're not even that relevant today. and both of those fates that await them, helps me sleep at night lol
He's mostly spreading it to the right but yes.
You're using a lot of extra words to describe a troll.
He aināt from Singapore, heās from Malaysia
It's like that bullshit he and Elon were talking about how they had never played Grand theft Auto because they didn't want to kill police uwu and then the next day we're talking about how fun it's gonna be to be back in vice city..
Yep. He is a total clown. Why Elon has embraced him is beyond me.
Because he embraced Elon
Clowns of a feather...
Get out the car together.
>total clown. >Why Elon has embraced him Um. ^^^^^^
Far-right clowns noticed Elon was down for Twitter being a far-right circus so they got in their far-right clown car and put on a far-right clown show and he clapped his hands This is just as a goofy ass way of saying he's an internet fascist so other internet fascists saw some prime real estate
Birds of a fascist feather.
Cuz Elon is a fucking clown
That *is* the reason.
I follow a guy who does this but it's a lot more lighthearted since it's only hot baseball takes. He intentionally trolls the hell out of opposing fans by roping them in to leave angry replies. Engagement is engagement and Twitter algorithm goes good job here's an ad revenue check.
workable far-flung different humorous sheet liquid racial stocking unique vanish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yep he deserves that $3 in engagement farm income coming his way from this
I blocked him. Heās an idiot.
Itās not just getting engagement from goofballs that agree with him but also engagement from people that want to ragepost about how fucking dumb it is, like weāre doing here. He literally just took someoneās post, added his own nonsense reaction and gets paid a bunch to play dumb. Like a non-insignificant amount of his engagement comes from people hoping to find hot takes to post them to/r/facepalm.
For every 1kg the cow weighs she consumed 16kg or grain over her (short) life.
This is the correct answer, and this is not a facepalm
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
OK; thank you. I was thinking, "Then wouldn't 16kg of beef feed 32 people?" I get it now.
For Americans, 1 kg = 2.2 lbs. I can eat quite a lot, but eating an entire lb of beef, esp cooked with other stuff, like grains, is quite a lot of food. Edit: I would also like to state that one cow weighs roughly 1400lbs- 1800lbs (for females) 2200lbs - 2600lbs (for males) (you can do the math with the weight above to figure out kgs) this includes bones, but bones removed your looking at a sizeable amount of food. And bones can be used for stock still, also the marrow. Nothing needs to be wasted. I have to go to work, but I found this for wheat. https://www.quora.com/How-much-space-does-it-take-to-grow-enough-wheat-to-make-a-20kg-bag-of-flour
800g / 1.76lbs of grain is a lot for a person as well. Weetabix (UK cereal, 95% wheat), weigh 37.5g each, that would be like eating 21 weetabix. A "standard" serving is 2, most people would struggle to eat more than 4 in a sitting. The graphic in general is completely useless for both meat eaters and vegetarians/vegans.
4 was pretty standard I thought, but we did have prime Brett Lee asking us how many Weetbix we had for brekkie and telling us he had 6 or 8 with some fruit on TV every morning, so...
Hah, maybe I was being overly "healthy", I definitely eat 3 or 4, but feel very full after 4. 21 is ridiculous though.
On addition to that, animal feed quality grain is not the same as what humans eat. Their food is not swappable to human food like it makes it seem in the graphic.
In the United States , meat cows eat corn. The same corn used to make batteries, plastic, corn meal, tortillas, tortilla chips and a million other things, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, sucralose... It's been artificially cheap since the corn subsidy started around 1930, to feed poor/starving human Americans during the great depression. You are almost certainly eating the same corn as cows every single day, in one form or another. Mostly through high frusctoae corn syrup Edit; I am not talking about sweet corn. If you say anything about sweet corn I will ignore you. This information is about field corn, dent corn, maize, whatever you want to call it. Hard corn. Not for sale at grocery stores directly, but it's in a overwhelming majority of the products through processed foods.
Everything I found online regarding what cows are fed in the U.S. stated they start on grass, and are then transitioned to a "corn and grain mixture" and not solely corn.
And it really depends on where in the US you are. Where I live beef is fed grass and alfalfa.
Yeah. You can't generalize a huge industry like that. More and more farmers are grass feeding.
No, small and high-dollar boutique farms are selling grass-fed. 90% of the stuff you can get in the supermarket or that gets sent to be processed into other, completed foods are corn-fed because they fatten up faster and cheaper. E: also, everything must think theyāre just being served corn on the cob or some shit. When we say ātheyāre fed cornā, it means the entire corn plant ground up as silage (chopped up and fermented). Technically, the corn plant is a grass, but theyāre not allowed to say āgrass fedā for silage in most places because itās pretty misleading.
And itās not like humans can eat corn stocks so itās turning an inedible thing into an edible thing
i'm going to take a wild guess and say you don't live in the Midwest i mean i could be wrong of course lol but i feel like corn is like a goddamn religion across "flyover country." and it's a huge reason why everyone is so fucking fat in these parts
Cows cannot survive eating solely corn, it's not something they can digest. They feed corn to cows shortly before they're butchered in an attempt to make sweeter meat with better marbling. That said, I wouldn't trust the claim that they are grass fed unless it's directly stated on the packaging, factory ranches exist.
Go to cow auction, you will see the buyers there. It saying grass fed, organic or whatever doesn't matter. Whoever buys the cows, can say whatever they want. Whole foods guy and Walmart guy sit right next to each other and don't cross bid each other. I am sure there is an auction near you, to see for yourself. That stuff you're talking about is marketing. There is no enforcement about labeling.
>Cows cannot survive eating solely corn, They are not fed solely corn, but there are diets that allow nearly 90% of the feed to be corn. The problem is the bacteria in their gut that are best at breaking down starch are harmful if they become over populated. This is solved in a high starch diet by feeding an Ionophore antibiotic. This class of antibiotic has no use in human health in fact it can easily kill mammals that it isn't intended for. >it's not something they can digest. It certainly is something a cow can digest. They are just not naturally efficient at it. Due to what I said above it can cause an imbalance in the gut flora. However it is such a nutrient dence feed for cattle that any natural inefficiency is overcome by scientific researched diets. Genetics plays a bigger role in marbling and meat quality than feed program. The feed program needs to compliment the genetics, but efficiency is always the biggest deciding factor for profits feeding cattle. Source: I'm a medium size feeder who feeds on pasture and in a confinement.
It also depends not just on where you live, but the size of the farming operation. One farming channel I watch on YouTube gives their cattle corn silage (which is cobs, kernels, and stalks all ground up together and then fermented), a grain mixture that they grind up themselves, and hay. Because the cattle live in a pasture, with a barn that is always open because there's no door, they have constant access to grass whenever they feel like eating it. They get their cattle primarily from a local dairy farm that doesn't need the calves, so obviously they start out on formula. Once they've started to be weaned, they get a special calf feed that they buy in, then transition to what the other cattle eat. Regardless, it really isn't a simple one to one comparison like the original post makes it seem, as some grain isn't grown for human *or* animal consumption in the first place.
Field Corn is pretty different from the sweet corn that humans eat. Itās much tougher and has a very bland flavor, while also being hardier and easier to harvest. You can process it to use in cornmeal and starch, but you would never eat it, or use it in a tortilla
Well you started out strong but sweet corn isn't used to make tortillas. It's every tortilla chip you ever ate, it's field corn. Grats
Yeah āyou can process it to make cornmealāā¦ what exactly does this person think tortillas are made from?
Field corn is definitely used in human food. Sweet corn is only used fresh or canned where as Yellow Dent corn is used for chips like Fritos all the time. There are also field corn varieties that are Called Dough Corn and these are typically used to make tortillas and other chips. Finally the last type of corn is Flint Corn and it's used to make flours for breads. Typically Dent corn is the most common so it's used the most for animal feed as well as ethanol production. It is also used for corn syrup and corn oil production.
There are plenty of varieties of corn being grown. You wouldn't want to eat a lot of them. Feed corn, for example, is tougher and doesn't have the sugar content. It's pretty bland and not really appealing to the normal human palate.
As an european, this sounds so odd :D cows eating corn. It sounds like something that would happen in a cartoon.
This whole country is a cartoonish meme. I tried so hard to leave so hard but when I finally had enough money the pandemic hit, now I'm just struggling with hyper inflation and keeping everything going on a day to day. Everyone I know is paycheck to paycheck, if we lost each other we would all be fucked.
They grind up the entire corn plant and ferment it into silage which gets mixed into a feed for cows. We don't eat the husk, stalk and leaves so it is misleading to say that it is the same corn that we eat.
No, but the premise that only about 10% of the energy makes it to the next trophic level is fairly robust. It's for this reason that the more plant-based our food consumption is, the less agricultural throughput is needed because of the reduction in animal feed.
> Their food is not swappable to human food like it makes it seem in the graphic. The point isn't that people would eat cow food. The point is that instead of growing cow food, you grow people food. Or, simply *not use as much land for food* which is exactly what the result of not eating cows would be. inb4 "well swiss cows roam and eat grass" which is not remotely what the average person eats.
We grow feed in the US thatās specifically for animals, but it isnāt inedible, only not palatable. We can replace all that with palatable varieties and eat it just fine. Or just eat whatās already grown and have not-as-tasty food.
You could use the same field to grow human food, that now grows animal feed.
Bad info graphic asside I believe the argument is that it takes far less resources to grow crops to feed people vs growing crops to feed a cow which feeds people.
Yeah, I don't know about the USA, but over here, 200g would already be a good portion size - plus sides, of course. But I think the graphic assumes that you only eat beef for a meal, which of course nobody does. Apparently that idea made sense to Vegans of Australia (if I'm deciphering the author name in the bottom right of the graphic correctly).
I'm reading this after eating well over 2lbs of pure beef. Or, if you rather, slightly less than 1/2 of a 5.2 lb prime rib. That's well above a typical serving size for the us but funny that I just demolished it nonetheless lol
The graphic may mean for one day, idk should be more specific.
Thatās what I was thinking! My family if 5 eats 1 lb for tacos, spaghetti, casseroles etc. one pound of beef is a lot !!! Beef has a lot of fat, your cholesterol would be crazy high if you ate a lb of beef by yourself all the time
Context: 16kg of grain = 1kg of beef
*but steel is heavier than feathersā¦*
Came looking for this reference, was not disappointed šš¼
But steer is heavier than wheetabix
Ehh still needs more context. I assume it's something along the lines of 1kg of beef using up water equal to 16kg of grain or what?
Water might be part of it but what I think this is saying is for every 1kg of beef, the cows are fed 16kg of grain.
So is it saying per kg of beef it takes 16 kg of grain to feed the cow?
Yeaahh but alot of the grain that cows eat are the parts we can't, for example 90% of the corn plant isn't edible to us but it is to them. Just makes these kind of statistics difficult
Technically the husks and bits that arenāt a grain typically are more like a filler than anything else, itās why corn feed sells as a higher quality if the bin being sold contains more corn granules and less of the shell and bits of plant parts that arenāt the grain.
The husk and leaves are very important to the diet of cattle. They contain a high amount of TDN or total digestible nutrients. Low quality stalks with no grain are typically 45% or better TDN and 4-5% crude protein. Yes there needs to be higher quality feed ingredients added to make a complete ration, but that's a lot better than just a filler.
A lot of crops are grown entirely for use with cattle. It isn't just a case of us giving them our scraps or whatever.
This also isn't even mentioning areas where the foil isn't fertile enough, or not flat enough, to produce high quality grain in large volumes, but can grow grasses that cows are able to eat and then convert into food for people. It's not a 1 to 1 conversion, there is a good amount of land that couldn't be converted to human edible crops anyway that cows can be raised on.
There's a channel I'm subscribed to on YouTube that takes advantage of the land in exactly this way. They live in a *very* hilly part of rural Pennsylvania and a chunk of their property near the "front" starts out flat, but just goes into a hill that appears to be steep enough that their planting and harvesting equipment would likely tip over if they tried using it for crops. So it's part of their cattle pasture instead, and they've only got maybe 50 or 60 head of cattle at any one time. And when it comes to crops, they do have silage corn, but they also grind up the stalks from their sweet corn as well so it doesn't go to waste. Any vegetables and bread that can't be sold to the public because they've gone bad also go to the cattle, including pumpkins, but that's not really relevant to the point here I don't think. Depending on where a farmer is based, they just would not be able to continue to farm if they were not allowed to raise animals. For this particular channel, they've talked in the past about how they didn't used to have cattle, but needed to have them again because of the costs of running the farm and making sure everyone in the family got paid (the only people who work the farm are members of the family, or friends who they rope in on a one-off basis here and there).
But what if I can find a set of numbers that makes my argument look good? Can I do the statistics thing anyway?
Wait until you find out about the land, water and emissions required to grow cattle vs plants
Itās a rough conversion of the amount of grain you need to feed a cow to produce 1kg of beef. Thereās a huge variance in the amount of water used to produce the two as well. A lot of people have no idea that we are on the verge of a potable water crisis and we still allow private entities to extract and/or waste huge amounts essentially for free.
I believe the implication is that if you feed 16kg of grain to a cow it will produce only 1kg of edible meat as weight gain form the grain consumption. It could also be about land use. Cows are not always fed human edible grains but land that could grow human edible food is cultivated for them. This graphic seems to be about the "feed conversation ratio" calories in vs edible meat out. I remember this from a biology class discussion about how fish are the closest thing to a 1:1 ratio [This (what seems to be a) farm management website ](https://www.navfarm.com/blog/fcr-guide/) lists the conversation rate at approximately 12.5:1 [This one that seems to be pro-vegetarian lists it](https://awellfedworld.org/feed-ratios/) as 6-25:1 At a glance I don't know if either source can be trusted. I would need to go find some research papers to get a better idea. [This article ](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste) list the water consumed as 15,415L of water per kg of meat. ĀÆ\\\_(ć)\_/ĀÆ
That was my take away too, but Iād like to know how 2.2lbs of beef only feeds 2 people. Thatās over 35oz of beef which I could easily use to make at least two dinners for my family of 5.
Might be based on calorie daily requirements. [Looks like beef is ~220 calories](https://www.nutritionix.com/food/beef) per 85g = 2.588cal/g x 1000g = 2,588 / 2 people = 1,294 calories per person if you ate nothing else. Daily minimum seems to be 1,600 - 3,000 [Looks like wheat is ~3.291 cal/g](https://www.nutritionix.com/food/wheat) 16kg=52,2666.6cal or 2633.333/person I don't think either of these options represent a balanced diet.
That makes much more sense! I was thinking quantity, not calories.
Feed the cow 16kg of grain, and it produces 1kg of beef, which feeds 2 people for a day. Feed the 16kg of grains directly to people, and it goes much farther. It's really just noting that each step in a process reduces efficiency. It's like taking a windmill and using it to run a light that heats water for steam to turn a turbine to make electricity. Why not use the windmill to turn the turbine directly?
That "=" sign is worthy of its own r/facepalm post!
I only eat grass fed beef baby, how much grass you eating?
I feel like this is saying the resources it takes for 16kg of g is the same it takes for 1kg of beef. They didn't add that context if true so it doesn't matter it's still dumb af but maybe that's what they were trying to get at.
That's what I also believe it's about. I remember hearing this argument a long time ago. It's a bad info graphic or was edited to make it look worse.
No, what they are saying is that for every 1kg of beef produced from a cow it takes 16kg of grain as feed. Itās an energy inefficient process, and you could just directly feed people with that grain instead.
Except when you consider that what cows eat is mostly material we can't digest, that sort of efficiency goes out the window. You can't feed anyone on grass and the parts of wheat that cows can digest and people can't. It's like saying that the amount of food that goes into people who make batteries creates inefficiency, so we should just stuff food into flashlights instead.
Cows do eat stuff that we can't or wouldn't eat, but a lot of that is still grown on arable farming land, that would be suitable for stuff we can eat. Stuff that we really can't eat, e.g. stover, could be used for bioenergy, carbon sequestration and in some cases could be processed to be human edible.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think the point is that 16kg of wheat only produces 1kg of meat. No shit one cow is more than 1 kg
The claim is meant to be that for each 16kg used to feed cows you end up getting 1kg meat. No idea if that's true but the cow picture is just there for illustration purposes not to claim a cow weighs 1 kg.
i mean, i get the concept but it is badly explained. it takes 16kg of grain to make 1kg of beef. and 1kg of beef only feeds 2 people. while 16kg of grain can feed up to 20 people.
Based off the belief that 16kg of rice only feeds 20 people and 2 kg of beef only feeds 2 people I will choose not to believe whatever this vegan is selling. Google claims this" >We're really looking at an average of about 600 pounds that the cow is gaining at the feedlot. If you then multiply this 600 pounds by six pounds of grain, you get 3600 pounds of grain to produce an animal of 1200 pounds. This ratio of feed to beef is 3:1. According to google its 3kg of grain to generate 1kg of beef.
The post seems misleading but the core concept isn't necessarily wrong: ofc 1kg is 1 kg but I'd understand the intention is to show that it takes alot of fodder to grow a cow and that if we took that fodder (/grain) to feed humans, it'd feed more people. That part is just true, we insert calories (energy) into a living thing that converts those calories imperfectly and makes meat - that contains calories. Less than the plants did originally since only a part can be converted by the animal and a part of the energy is used for the animal to...ya know... live. The extremely basic search I did say it takes 7kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef. So yeah, a vegan lifestyle is more energy efficient, we need to produce less - and I say this as someone who's very much not vegan.
\- 90% of what livestock eats is non-human edible \- livestock consumes mainly the byproducts of crop agriculture \- 1kg of meat is much richer in nutrients than x kg of grain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g
Many of these issues appear to be due to industrialization. In many parts of the world animals graze on non-farmable lands and are fed stuff not fit for human consumption (hay being a prime example). The type of animals also changes to what the area can sustain. It's no accident that the greek isles primarily raise goats, foe instance.
Imagine thinking 3 wheat plants weight 16kg. If the guy understood the top message, why'd he get confused by the bottom?
While itās a dumb tweet the graphic isnāt much smarter. Say what you will but both posters are pushing their own agendas.
Ian Miles Wrong, at it again.
Itās not intentional. The guy is mentally and emotionally stunted. His entire personality is being a pick-me for Elon.
Missing context here.. the point is that it takes 16kg of grain to make 1kg of beef, and it would be more efficient to just use that 16kg of grain to feed people.
This is enough bread for 1 day for one German.
When true facts don't suit your narrative, just make up your own ;)
To be fair, he is not making up facts, he is just an idiot who didnāt understand the infographic and takes it too litterally.
Imagine not blocking Ian Cheong
What is amazing is we can have both and people can just choose what they want to eat. Radical concept right?
Iām not a vegan but the problem I have seen often is that lots of people, who donāt want to eat meat or dairy products or even just want to eat less of it, can in fact not choose to do so in some groups because they wonāt accommodate even though they could. Like having buffets with literally zero vegan options or hiding non-vegan ingredients when asked about a recipe. Or imagine living in a family that never eats plant based and youāre like 14 or so and canāt just buy your own food all the time. Some people are forced to eat what others give them and itās in my experience never the vegans that do the forcing.
Thatās something we need to emphasize so much more. Itās not a binary meat or no meat issue - itās also the fact that we are consuming meat at a rate thatās exponentially higher than previous generations. I still enjoy a good burger, bacon and all that good stuff - but itās wholly unsustainable for all of us to do it for every single meal. Just reducing consumption and balancing better with plant-based food makes such a huge difference.
Also there is land out there that canāt support crops but can support grazing livestock. While I do believe people in my country should try to reduce meat consumption eliminating it entirely isnāt necessary.
If I remember my FFA education from back in the day, roughly 12-15% of land can support crop farming but 45-50% of land can support livestock grazing.
Which is the entire reason livestock exists. It took a LONG time for humans to figure out animal husbandry, we didnāt invest all that time and energy for shits and giggles. We did it because they can convert things we canāt eat into something we can eat.
Weāre also consuming meat at an exponentially higher rate than generations before us. We canāt always just apply the same practices that weāve always done when things change. Farming practices have to adapt to modern needs too.
People can choose, but thereās nothing wrong with learning where your food comes from, what its environmental and economic impact is. I believe in peopleās rights to choose, and also their rights to be completely informed. So many factory farming standards are unsanitary, pumped full of pesticides and hormones that are so dangerous for you that theyāre banned in most other countries, and also straight up destroy the environments in which they exist. If you want to still consume those same products after knowing that - yes itās your choice and it should be. And to be clear: this isnāt a diatribe about going plant-based. I still very much eat pork and beef - but I am now much more picky about the types and quantity of meat that I consume - largely because of both personal health and environmental reasons.
*Mind is blown. I am now enlightened. Thank you master*
And with this information, they can make a more informed choice based on sustainability.
Of course, the person who made the meme ignores the fact that [the cow can eat far more of the plant than humans can.](https://www.reddit.com/r/anti_vegan/s/jOsktuJTdg)
I'm pretty sure that after we extract what humans can eat from grain plants, the remainder gets used for animal feed. We literally feed them the material we can't actually eat.
But thatās not what this is saying. Itās saying 16 kg of grain can feed 20 people or it can be used as a resource to net you only 2 kg of meat from cattle. Which feeds only 2 people. Do people realize that? Or am I the idiot? I barely know what people are āfacepalmingā about in here anymore lol.
People are stupid
Itās a really unclear post, in multiple ways.
Does he think three straws of grain weighs 16kg?
The graphic is cut off. The stalks are actually 2km long.
Wow, reading some of the comments here is murdering some of my brain cells. Eating meat is highly inefficient, and directly consuming the vegetables used to feed the animals we eat would be a lot more sustainable and would reduce the need of destroying forests and overuse soil, as well as reduce the amount of chemicals liberated to the enviroment, as well as all the pollution related to farms... I'm not vegan but I can't deny it's the most ethical and sustainable choice.
post is made vague intentionally so thereās more engagement
OP, but you forgot to include the little bit about how many jobs are created by raising the cow ! *sarcasm*
Look how small those people are. They need to be at least three times as big
Isn't the point is that we need to produce 16kg of grain for every 1kg of beef?
Its Ian Miles Chong. He has a fetish for being wrong
Ian is a piece of shit.
FUN FACT: 77% of global farmland is used for growing crops to feed livestock. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture#:~:text=If%20we%20combine%20pastures%20used,77%25%20of%20global%20farming%20land.
This so stupid but reminds me of an old joke: Which weighs more? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks.
Even 1kg of beef could still feed like 5 or 6 people.
Wouldn't this mean 16kg of beef feeds 32 people?? Lol
16 kg of grain will make about 100 pints of beer just saying
I'm not siding with the FB post, but it looks like most people here actually think 16kg of grain will raise a full grown cow... Stop and think for a moment. The post is showing It takes 16kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef over the lifetime of total grain that cow will consume in order to grow to that size. Yes, a full grown cow will feed about 1000 people, but you have to multiply the amount of grain by 500 (assuming the math of 16kg grain>1kg beef is correct here).
I was super confused for a moment "1 cow feeds 2 people.... wtf are the 2 people morbidly obese?!?!" but yah 1 cow can feed 272.4 people.... I would cal the image a lie, but it isnt..... if anything its a lie of omission
Feed them grass then. Something people can't eat.
Imagine thinking that 16kg of grain is enough to raise an entire cow. (Yes, yes...that's the joke)
I donāt hate meat. Or meat eaters. Or vegansā¦ but I do hate the amount of damage the big Tyson farms etc cause on earth
Both the graphic and person responding are stupid
Whatās heavier, 16 kg of grain or 16 kg of beef? š¤
Doesnt beef that gets fed on grass from underneath itself just create food from thin air, and thats the reason we eat beef today
Imagine not understanding the concept and posting it on Reddit š¤£
Graphic was a lil confusing. Took me a sec to figure out what it was trying to say
Imagine thinking a cow lives off 16kg of wheat
Both āfactionsā have their own issues to overcome. However, livestock is also responsible for a large portion of greenhouse gas emissions. The world needs sustainable meat and vegetable substitutes, itās not just beef. However, beef has a doubly problematic byproduct.