5 ms·

It is a pretty significant diversion of land from a natural state though. Cattle grazing, thought it isn’t an ecological disaster like dam building, is quite di

It is a pretty significant diversion of land from a natural state though. Cattle grazing, thought it isn’t an ecological disaster like dam building, is quite different than leaving the land untouched. Plus, a good portion of the country’s good farmland is diverted to growing feed for those animals. Think of it like: how many acres have been changed from a natural ecosystem to an artificial one for meat eating.

pathseeker 8y ago
>Cattle grazing, thought it isn’t an ecological disaster like dam building, is quite different than leaving the land untouched. Leaving the land untouched is even more 'ecologically privileged' than using it to make expensive food. >Plus, a good portion of the country’s good farmland is diverted to growing feed for those animals. Growing feed (hay/grass) is much easier than growing things like almonds. If a farmer could grow something humans would pay for directly rather than hay, they would.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Given the colossal and uneven levels of subsidies in US agriculture, I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions about what the market is willing to bear.
  - Fjolsvith 8y ago
    The farmers here in Kansas are crying because the subsidies are being cut right and left. It's going to shake up the agricultural market big time. Plus, all the grain storage facilities are still mostly full from last year and we're looking towards another bumper crop from all the rainfall this year.
  - adventured 8y ago
    US agriculture subsidies are not colossal in fact. They're about $20-$25 billion per year. They shouldn't exist at all ideally, however given the immense size of the US agriculture market, and how critical it is to keeping hundreds of millions of people alive, it's hardly a concerning sum. By contrast, EU farm subsidies in a smaller economy are three times that size. If the US farm subsidies are colossal, I'm not sure what you'd call 3x colossal.
- AngryData 8y ago
  Growing alfalfa has the added benefit of fertilizing the soil. Many farmers are willing to accept a small loss on hay production because it means less fossil-fuel derived fertilizer they need to buy for next year's cash crops and higher yields on those cash crops.
skybrian 8y ago
If they're grazing, are they using feed? Seems like the feed is for "finishing" in feedlots. I wonder what the economics would be of doing without the feed and feedlots? There would be somewhat less cattle I presume.
CPLX 8y ago
Why do you think its natural state wasn't grazing before? It's not like we invented grazing animals in a lab. The Great Plains were teeming with millions of buffalo before, and we have cattle on them now. Sure that's different but it's reasonable to note that a lot of this land looks and basically is pretty much the same as it was before modern ranching.
- DennisP 8y ago
  In a natural state, there are predators, and herds stay closely packed for protection. This is great for the land; the grass is only intermittently grazed, and has time to recover and grow deep roots. Natural pasture like this sequesters vast amounts of carbon. But mostly we kill off the predators. The livestock spreads all over and grazes continuously. The result is topsoil destruction and erosion. There are large areas where overgrazing is a serious problem. Allan Savory has been the leading advocate for "holistic grazing" that keeps the herds packed. It's been controversial, because he advocates doing more grazing. The evidence of that helping is mixed at best. However, just leaving overgrazed land alone is another matter, and experiments have been very successful.
  - soared 8y ago
    You think livestock is currently grazing on a significant percentage of america's landmass? The poster's point is that most of that land is /never/ touched by cattle.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Aloha 8y ago
The lands natural state was grazing lands - before we killed off the millions of buffalo that lived there to try to starve native Americans into reservations. The most unnatural use of the great plains is farming, arguably, and farming was the singular cause of the dust bowl.
- wincy 8y ago
  Hey but on the bright side all the unnatural farming did kill the largest locust brood of all time. http://www.historynet.com/1874-the-year-of-the-locust.htm http://www.historynet.com/1874-the-year-of-the-locust.htm
DareRight 8y ago
I could take you on a 100 mile ride through my neck of the woods right through dozens of ranchers' grazing grounds and I bet you'd see less than a dozen cows. There's nothing artificial about it. The land is still very natural. Oh. Except for the car we'd be driving in and the road and the four towns we'd pass through. But the BLM land is very much in it's natural state.
miguelrochefort 8y ago
Livestock can actually reverse desertification: https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-livestock https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-l...

pathseeker 8y ago

>Cattle grazing, thought it isn’t an ecological disaster like dam building, is quite different than leaving the land untouched. Leaving the land untouched is even more 'ecologically privileged' than using it to make expensive food. >Plus, a good portion of the country’s good farmland is diverted to growing feed for those animals. Growing feed (hay/grass) is much easier than growing things like almonds. If a farmer could grow something humans would pay for directly rather than hay, they would.

jdietrich 8y ago
Given the colossal and uneven levels of subsidies in US agriculture, I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions about what the market is willing to bear.
- Fjolsvith 8y ago
  The farmers here in Kansas are crying because the subsidies are being cut right and left. It's going to shake up the agricultural market big time. Plus, all the grain storage facilities are still mostly full from last year and we're looking towards another bumper crop from all the rainfall this year.
- adventured 8y ago
  US agriculture subsidies are not colossal in fact. They're about $20-$25 billion per year. They shouldn't exist at all ideally, however given the immense size of the US agriculture market, and how critical it is to keeping hundreds of millions of people alive, it's hardly a concerning sum. By contrast, EU farm subsidies in a smaller economy are three times that size. If the US farm subsidies are colossal, I'm not sure what you'd call 3x colossal.
AngryData 8y ago
Growing alfalfa has the added benefit of fertilizing the soil. Many farmers are willing to accept a small loss on hay production because it means less fossil-fuel derived fertilizer they need to buy for next year's cash crops and higher yields on those cash crops.

skybrian 8y ago

If they're grazing, are they using feed? Seems like the feed is for "finishing" in feedlots. I wonder what the economics would be of doing without the feed and feedlots? There would be somewhat less cattle I presume.

CPLX 8y ago

Why do you think its natural state wasn't grazing before? It's not like we invented grazing animals in a lab. The Great Plains were teeming with millions of buffalo before, and we have cattle on them now. Sure that's different but it's reasonable to note that a lot of this land looks and basically is pretty much the same as it was before modern ranching.

DennisP 8y ago
In a natural state, there are predators, and herds stay closely packed for protection. This is great for the land; the grass is only intermittently grazed, and has time to recover and grow deep roots. Natural pasture like this sequesters vast amounts of carbon. But mostly we kill off the predators. The livestock spreads all over and grazes continuously. The result is topsoil destruction and erosion. There are large areas where overgrazing is a serious problem. Allan Savory has been the leading advocate for "holistic grazing" that keeps the herds packed. It's been controversial, because he advocates doing more grazing. The evidence of that helping is mixed at best. However, just leaving overgrazed land alone is another matter, and experiments have been very successful.
- soared 8y ago
  You think livestock is currently grazing on a significant percentage of america's landmass? The poster's point is that most of that land is /never/ touched by cattle.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Aloha 8y ago

The lands natural state was grazing lands - before we killed off the millions of buffalo that lived there to try to starve native Americans into reservations. The most unnatural use of the great plains is farming, arguably, and farming was the singular cause of the dust bowl.

wincy 8y ago
Hey but on the bright side all the unnatural farming did kill the largest locust brood of all time. http://www.historynet.com/1874-the-year-of-the-locust.htm http://www.historynet.com/1874-the-year-of-the-locust.htm

DareRight 8y ago

I could take you on a 100 mile ride through my neck of the woods right through dozens of ranchers' grazing grounds and I bet you'd see less than a dozen cows. There's nothing artificial about it. The land is still very natural. Oh. Except for the car we'd be driving in and the road and the four towns we'd pass through. But the BLM land is very much in it's natural state.

miguelrochefort 8y ago

Livestock can actually reverse desertification: https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-livestock https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-l...