40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal

Beef efficiency, feed, and “lost calories”

• Many note beef’s low caloric efficiency vs crops, but argue most cattle can eat things humans can’t: grass, crop residues, by‑products, marginal pasture.
• Others counter that in practice a large share of cropland (corn, soy) is devoted to feed; much of this could produce human food, so losses are real.
• Disagreement on how many cattle are mostly grass‑fed vs grain‑finished, and how much pasture is genuinely “marginal land” vs land that could support crops. Data cited in the thread are read in conflicting ways.
• Some argue calories are the wrong metric: protein quality, creatine, iron, and amino‑acid completeness make beef nutritionally valuable beyond its energy.

Alternatives: soy, chicken, insects

• Soy and legumes are repeatedly cited as far more land‑ and energy‑efficient protein sources, though legume allergies and phytoestrogens are raised as concerns.
• Chickens are highlighted as dramatically more efficient than beef in feed‑to‑calorie and feed‑to‑protein terms; shifting excess beef consumption to chicken in rich countries is seen as a big win.
• Insects are noted as even more efficient, but cultural resistance is strong.

Feeding the world: production vs politics

• Several commenters argue global agriculture already produces enough calories; hunger is mostly due to logistics, conflict, corruption, and market economics.
• Others respond that even if politics is the main bottleneck, improving conversion efficiency (less feed/luxury use, less waste) still lowers prices and increases access.

Environmental and land‑use impacts

• Beef is linked by many to deforestation (e.g., Amazon/Pantanal), high land use, methane, and water demand; critics stress externalities are unpriced and meat is often subsidized.
• Defenders emphasize grazing on semi‑arid or rocky land where crops are impractical, and claim well‑managed ruminants can help soil health and combat desertification; others call the evidence for large‑scale “regenerative” claims weak or unreplicated.
• Biofuels are also criticized as a poor use of cropland, sometimes competing with food or forests.

Policy, markets, and behavior

• Debates over whether “the market” will or should decide meat consumption, given subsidies, unpriced climate and ecosystem damages, and supply‑management rules (e.g., tart cherries).
• Skepticism that people will substantially reduce beef voluntarily; some focus on health and cost as more persuasive levers than environmental arguments.
• Multiple comments argue problems like energy, agriculture, and climate must be tackled in parallel, not “solved in order.”