6 ms·

I'm not sure I buy this oft-repeated non-arable land claim. First, aren't GMOs and other technological advances redefining "non-arable". Secondly, doesn't land

by latch 10y ago

I'm not sure I buy this oft-repeated non-arable land claim. First, aren't GMOs and other technological advances redefining "non-arable". Secondly, doesn't land used for pasture generate more methane and waste and take more energy and water, than if it was just left unused?

bryanlarsen 10y ago
Left unused it would be populated by other grass eaters like Bison which have very similar environmental impacts.
- latch 10y ago
  Ok, I'll admit that's a good answer. Just pushing things further, since I appreciate your insight, in terms of nature (as opposed to feeding humans), wouldn't a more natural ecosystem be preferred? Might it better help protect against extinctions and such?
Arnt 10y ago
https://www.nve.no/media/3576/209_1-navitelva-foto-gunnar-kristiansen.jpg https://www.nve.no/media/3576/209_1-navitelva-foto-gunnar-kr... You can have sheep spend the summer there. GMO wheat fields, not. Methane and waste, well, maybe. It's not clear to me that there can be enough sheep there that the waste is a problem. I've never even tried to quantify the methane. Energy and water aren't issues. The energy to gather the sheep in the autumn is a rounding error, and how would you water such an area anyway?
- cies 10y ago
  Transport and storage of meat is more expensive. Besides that, I think you are right (says a vegan) :)
dTal 10y ago
Exhibit A: Iceland https://prestoninstitute.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/p1010146.jpg https://prestoninstitute.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/p101014... You can't grow crops on that. No one's watering it. The only energy use is rounding all the sheep back up. As for methane... well it's not the land that makes that, but the sheep. You're going to have that problem as long as you're rearing ruminants to eat. There's a lot of research being done on that - it's possible we'll be able to engineer low-methane sheep...

by latch 10y ago

bryanlarsen 10y ago

Left unused it would be populated by other grass eaters like Bison which have very similar environmental impacts.

latch 10y ago
Ok, I'll admit that's a good answer. Just pushing things further, since I appreciate your insight, in terms of nature (as opposed to feeding humans), wouldn't a more natural ecosystem be preferred? Might it better help protect against extinctions and such?

Arnt 10y ago

https://www.nve.no/media/3576/209_1-navitelva-foto-gunnar-kristiansen.jpg https://www.nve.no/media/3576/209_1-navitelva-foto-gunnar-kr... You can have sheep spend the summer there. GMO wheat fields, not. Methane and waste, well, maybe. It's not clear to me that there can be enough sheep there that the waste is a problem. I've never even tried to quantify the methane. Energy and water aren't issues. The energy to gather the sheep in the autumn is a rounding error, and how would you water such an area anyway?

cies 10y ago
Transport and storage of meat is more expensive. Besides that, I think you are right (says a vegan) :)

dTal 10y ago

Exhibit A: Iceland https://prestoninstitute.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/p1010146.jpg https://prestoninstitute.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/p101014... You can't grow crops on that. No one's watering it. The only energy use is rounding all the sheep back up. As for methane... well it's not the land that makes that, but the sheep. You're going to have that problem as long as you're rearing ruminants to eat. There's a lot of research being done on that - it's possible we'll be able to engineer low-methane sheep...