[yesplease]

Around here a lot of that ends up as pig feed. Its a hassel for the farmer to unpackage some of it but as long as its free all he has is trucking and time in it. To a pig stale bread and sour milk with some wilted cabbage is a devine repast.

That's what we get with subsidized food production and an inefficient system...

And your better system would be????

Increase efficiency and change the subsidies.

[yesplease]

produce cheaper pig food instead of feeding it high quality, high price human food, that's been irradiated and kept with more care - and expense. It would be cheaper for society as whole.

Or better yet, reduce the amount of livestock based food. IIRC the U.S. could feed the entire country three times over by reducing the amount of grain fed livestock and instead grew stuff meant for human consumption. It's not like we don't have a choice as to what we eat.

Edit- Wrote world instead of country

[vtsnowedin]

produce cheaper pig food instead of feeding it high quality, high price human food, that's been irradiated and kept with more care - and expense. It would be cheaper for society as whole.

Or better yet, reduce the amount of livestock based food. IIRC the U.S. could feed the entire world by reducing the amount of grain fed livestock and instead grew stuff meant for human consumption. It's not like we don't have a choice as to what we eat.

Oh sure just raise efficiency, why didn't I think of that? Lets kill all the grazing animals in the arid west and plant that sagebrush ground to oats.It ought to yield six or seven bushels to the acre. I don't mind eating oatmeal three meals a day , Do you?

[yesplease]

Yeah, cuz mono-cultures work out great.
Anyway, I don't whine about eating grains or meat since I'd rather not pay for the externalized cost of excessive livestock. What you whine about is entirely your choice.

[CarlosFerreira]

produce cheaper pig food instead of feeding it high quality, high price human food, that's been irradiated and kept with more care - and expense. It would be cheaper for society as whole.

Or better yet, reduce the amount of livestock based food. IIRC the U.S. could feed the entire world by reducing the amount of grain fed livestock and instead grew stuff meant for human consumption. It's not like we don't have a choice as to what we eat.

Oh sure just raise efficiency, why didn't I think of that? Lets kill all the grazing animals in the arid west and plant that sagebrush ground to oats.It ought to yield six or seven bushels to the acre. I don't mind eating oatmeal three meals a day , Do you?

You're right. What yesplease is saying is we can feed more people with raised efficiency. And I risk speculating that, if the entire cost of agricultural production was internalised, we'd all eat more cereal and less meat.

Alas, telling people what to eat is tough, they won't take it. For the regular person, the idea of having to reduce consumption sounds of catastrophe, and is probably approached on a "not unless everyone else does it" basis. You choose whether to do it - is an ethical decision. Only price mechanisms (internalizing that cost) can make everyone do it.

[vtsnowedin]

produce cheaper pig food instead of feeding it high quality, high price human food, that's been irradiated and kept with more care - and expense. It would be cheaper for society as whole.

Or better yet, reduce the amount of livestock based food. IIRC the U.S. could feed the entire world by reducing the amount of grain fed livestock and instead grew stuff meant for human consumption. It's not like we don't have a choice as to what we eat.

Oh sure just raise efficiency, why didn't I think of that? Lets kill all the grazing animals in the arid west and plant that sagebrush ground to oats.It ought to yield six or seven bushels to the acre. I don't mind eating oatmeal three meals a day , Do you?

You're right. What yesplease is saying is we can feed more people with raised efficiency. And I risk speculating that, if the entire cost of agricultural production was internalised, we'd all eat more cereal and less meat.

Alas, telling people what to eat is tough, they won't take it. For the regular person, the idea of having to reduce consumption sounds of catastrophe, and is probably approached on a "not unless everyone else does it" basis. You choose whether to do it - is an ethical decision. Only price mechanisms (internalizing that cost) can make everyone do it.

You both miss the point entirely. You can raise cattle and sheep on land that is too steep or broken in topography to run farm equipment on and on ground too arid to get a crop of grain. To assume that you can switch from what experience has shown to produce a profit to your text book analysis of the better world is to make a starved ass of yourself.

[CarlosFerreira]

You both miss the point entirely. You can raise cattle and sheep on land that is too steep or broken in topography to run farm equipment on and on ground too arid to get a crop of grain. To assume that you can switch from what experience has shown to produce a profit to your text book analysis of the better world is to make a starved ass of yourself.

Possibly. You sure can use rangelands, But the discussion here was should we

a) reduce agricultural output production - for instance, cutting on subsidies or
b) maintain an excessive production, have excess external cost imposed on the environment, have prices so low that incentive inefficiencies, and dump a percentage of costly food out or on feedstocks, increasing the cost to society.

Again, the "less meat" discussion is merely ethical.

[vtsnowedin]

[quote="CarlosFerreiraPossibly. You sure can use rangelands, But the discussion here was should we

a) reduce agricultural output production - for instance, cutting on subsidies or
b) maintain an excessive production, have excess external cost imposed on the environment, have prices so low that incentive inefficiencies, and dump a percentage of costly food out or on feedstocks, increasing the cost to society.

Again, the "less meat" discussion is merely ethical.[/quote]

It is not excessive to produce enough to meet demand plus predictable losses in production and distribution. to plan on just enough without any losses will ensure someone goes hungry.
There is what appears to be waste in the system but on closer inspection much of this is unavoidable and recycled to the largest practicable extent. If you want to find villains and demons look to the bankers not the farmers.

[CarlosFerreira]

Uh, there are no villains, vtsnwedin. That's not my point.

In a world with finite limits and ever-increasing population, it may not be possible to feed everyone the way we Westerners do feed ourselves today. I say it may not; I believe today's farming practices are unsustainable and inflict a high damage in the ecosystem. Some of that damage might be permanent, or close; at least very expensive to repair. Farm subsidies increase the incentives for overproduction and give food away to consumers too cheaply, giving incentives to reduced efficiency in usage.

Concerning the meat/no meat: you have heard, it's frequently referred here, that animals are relatively inefficient in converting calories in grain into calories in animals. The difference in cost in, say, poultry and beef, could be attributed to this: chickens are more energy-efficient (transform calories from grains in protein more efficiently) than cows. Same when you compare, say, carp with salmon.

[yesplease]

You both miss the point entirely. You can raise cattle and sheep on land that is too steep or broken in topography to run farm equipment on and on ground too arid to get a crop of grain. To assume that you can switch from what experience has shown to produce a profit to your text book analysis of the better world is to make a starved ass of yourself.

Free range is fine, but most livestock in the U.S. is grain fed IIRC. Even if we cut all the grain fed livestock out we would still have enough meat according to the USDA recommended daily allowance, and we could feed an extra ~billion people a year.

[tmulk]

I don't doubt that 25% is wasted. We used to do this too. We have been trying to do better.

[dunewalker]

...Anyway, I don't whine about eating grains or meat since I'd rather not pay for the externalized cost of excessive livestock. What you whine about is entirely your choice.

+1

[Blacksmith]

You both miss the point entirely. You can raise cattle and sheep on land that is too steep or broken in topography to run farm equipment on and on ground too arid to get a crop of grain. To assume that you can switch from what experience has shown to produce a profit to your text book analysis of the better world is to make a starved ass of yourself.

Free range is fine, but most livestock in the U.S. is grain fed IIRC. Even if we cut all the grain fed livestock out we would still have enough meat according to the USDA recommended daily allowance, and we could feed an extra ~billion people a year.

All very good, but the meat in many instances is full of grissel and fat and will be thrown out.

[vtsnowedin]

You both miss the point entirely. You can raise cattle and sheep on land that is too steep or broken in topography to run farm equipment on and on ground too arid to get a crop of grain. To assume that you can switch from what experience has shown to produce a profit to your text book analysis of the better world is to make a starved ass of yourself.

Free range is fine, but most livestock in the U.S. is grain fed IIRC. Even if we cut all the grain fed livestock out we would still have enough meat according to the USDA recommended daily allowance, and we could feed an extra ~billion people a year.

If you include chickens and hogs in your calculations that is true as most of them never see a blade of grass. Most cattle are started on grass beside their mothers and finished on grain in a feed lot. You could not convert that grazing land into grain fields but you could divert the grain going into your chicken Mcnuggets into oatmeal and ramin noodles if you insist but there would still be a twentyfive percent or better waste factor. I don't care for meat with too much grissel in it, thats what hamburger grinders are for. I don't ever recall seeing any beef with too much fat on it. That would be real tender and great grilling.

[yesplease]

Even w/ grass fed calves the vast majority of calories in U.S. beef production comes from grain. They have to be started on grass like you mentioned, but since they gain weight so much faster on grain, even if it requires anti-biotics, that's what producers will go with. That said, a 25% grain loss via spoilage is a fair sight better than a 93% loss via running everything trough an extra trophic level on top of spoilage, at least in terms of efficiency, which is what the discussion was about. 7% of the initial energy available as food seems quite a bit worse than 75% of it available.

In terms of a demand people could require Bald Eagle that's only fed squirrel, that lives offa ground up hog, that lives offa cow, that lives offa grain instead of just using the source directly. The efficiency would be horrible, but if that's what people want...

[josephmoore]

Thanks mos. I sent it to a few non- po.com friends. I think the use of the garbage disposal is responsible for a good portion of the waste. It's rather sickening to think of all those resources going down the drain.

I agree with eastbay. Practicing the garbage disposal is responsible for the good portion of the waste. It is hard to drain it all.

[VMarcHart]

This is why I think a die off, while perhaps inevitable, is not likely to happen for a while.

Good finding, Mos.

Indeed, waste is America's real #1 pass-time. It sure shows we have tons of fat to cut before we really start hurting. A few years ago, the measurement of daily trash per American was 4 pounds. Then it jumped to ~4.8. Now I see people already rounding it 5 pounds per person per day. That doesn't include recyclables.

The die-off, IMHO, will come from more upstream. We won't be able to produce and/or import sufficient quantities to feed 300M, much less to waste.

[dooberheim]

Another issue is health codes that require food to be thrown out after it has been sitting for a certain period.

We have college football home games in Columbia at which an incredible amount of food is consumed, and much of it winds up in the trash. I can stock my freezer with weeks worth of food from one of these games, and I don't even scratch the surface of all that is there. I have suggested to the health board that they get a refrigerated truck that fans can bring their leftovers to, and distribute them through the local food pantries. They won't do it - it's better for the local grocers to have the extra business I guess.

DK

[Cloud9]

Fear of food born illness drives a lot of decisions.

[bromius]

Topic's drifting. I was talking about wasting the food before it's sold, not table scraps. I find it sad that we can't inject a little more computerized efficiency in matching food supply with food demand to minimize the waste, and we can't find better things to do with the waste than let it rot and relase methane directly into the atmosphere. No biogas reactors, no ethanol, no large-scale composting, nothing. There is so much that can be done if we gave a crap.

I read the OCRRA newsletter one day while eating a piece of pizza (I have to read when I eat, I don't care what it is!) and noticed that the county I live in is has started a pilot program to start composting food waste from large sources such as grocery stores and restaurants. I'll be hitting up the same agencies public all you can shovel compost heap to help amend the somewhat crappy soil where I'll have my modest garden this year. The ten dollar tag I pay for to have access is well worth it, more so now since they're expanding efforts to reduce waste.