5 ms·

Most grazing land was not cleared by people. It's just land that people graze their cattle on. Most of it is plains, and was never heavily forested. Also, when

by pitaj 8y ago

Most grazing land was not cleared by people. It's just land that people graze their cattle on. Most of it is plains, and was never heavily forested. Also, when grass is eaten it absorbs much more carbon dioxide, so the grazing of the cattle is beneficial. Are you suggesting a better use of the land is for humans to plant a bunch of trees on it?

GW150914 8y ago
Unfortunately the methanogens in a cow’s gut mean that they’re an environmental disaster. I’ve read about seaweed being used to curb their, um, “output” yet unless thst comes into widespread use the state of affairs is grim. Grazing isn’t beneficial, it’s just a way to turn sequestered carbon into methane-belching cattle. Either we need to rapidly enact means to reduce those emissions with dietary additives, or we need to reduce the number of cattle. Here’s a look at carbon sequestration in ecosystems in the Western US: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1797/pdf/pp1797_Chapter1.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1797/pdf/pp1797_Chapter1.pdf You can see that sagebrush and other hardy species, while not trees fit for lumber, can do the job better than cows belching away. This paper focuses on the UK, but is still full of relevant info. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/1438141 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/1438141
- Turing_Machine 8y ago
  > Unfortunately the methanogens in a cow’s gut mean that they’re an environmental disaster. The bison that lived there before had identical gut bacteria, and it doesn't seem to have caused an "environmental disaster". Why not?
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    Because for most of their history, they weren’t accompanied by the massive carbon and methane emissions of their human counterparts’ industrialization? Seems self-evident.
  - rebuilder 8y ago
    Because there were much fewer bison than there now are cows, and because the atmosphere wasn't already being pumped full of CO2, methane etc. by humans.
    - Turing_Machine 8y ago
      That is incorrect. The plains bison herds expanded to match the carrying capacity of the grazing. Now, there are a lot of other cattle that aren't being grazed on the historical prairie. You might have a point with those, but it's not relevant to the point under discussion.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Because the bison were between 3x to 4x less numerous than cattle, lived far longer lives than the average 2.5 years to slaughter of a cow (not counting veal calves which are killed far sooner and never graze). It’s not just the number of cows or bison alive at any moment, but when you consider a 10 year period and count total individuals it’s even more stark due to rapid turnover of cattle. Buffalo were part of an ecosystem, so you had a loop of carbon in soil, carbon in plants, carbon in buffallo, and then a lot of that carbon returning to the soil as bison or wolf corpses. Modern cattle spend some time grazing in the Great Plains, but start their lives on farms, and finish their lives on feed lots. Then they’re slaughtered, and more CO2 is emitted transporting them all around the country and indeed, world. Then of course, the bison existed in a world before heavy industry, a world of millions rather than billions of people, a world before automobiles, airplanes, coal fired plants, oil exploration, strip mining, rainforest clearing, ocean acidification and overfishing, etc... etc...
    - Turing_Machine 8y ago
      > Because the bison were between 3x to 4x less numerous than cattle No, they weren't. You need to count only the cattle that are on the land under discussion. > lived far longer lives than the average 2.5 years to slaughter of a cow Irrelevant. One bovine is the same as another as far as the impact on the prairie is concerned. That's sort of how an ecosystem works, dude. I'm skeptical that they lived "far longer lives", by the way. If they were anything like the wild grazing/browsing animals with which I am familiar (moose, caribou, musk ox) a WHOLE LOT of them died in their first year, either through being taken by predators or simply not surviving a harsh winter. I strongly suspect you're using a lifespan figure for modern bison herds that are protected by human beings.
bscphil 8y ago
I think the usual claim is that almost any other use at all would be better for the environment than cattle grazing.
- komali2 8y ago
  I don't understand why - better being "more natural," right? Those plains have been feeding grazing animals for millennia, what should we do differently?
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    They were feeding grazing animals, but without all the massive externalities associated with industrial agriculture, from antibiotic resistance to its impact on climate change. If you’re also of an ethical mindset similar to someone like Peter Singer, the “cultivation” of animals for slaughter is not something one should favor.
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      > impact on climate change do cows produce significantly more methane than non-domesticated grazing animals, or are there simply many more cows than there were buffalo?
      - knuththetruth 8y ago
        There are cows now within an industrialized agricultural context that we know to be a significant contribution to climate change. Would bison in this context produce the same outcome? It’s hard to say, but the two circumstances of their existence on this land is largely incomparable.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    It’s a religious argument that cannot be won or lost.
- Turing_Machine 8y ago

by pitaj 8y ago

GW150914 8y ago

Unfortunately the methanogens in a cow’s gut mean that they’re an environmental disaster. I’ve read about seaweed being used to curb their, um, “output” yet unless thst comes into widespread use the state of affairs is grim. Grazing isn’t beneficial, it’s just a way to turn sequestered carbon into methane-belching cattle. Either we need to rapidly enact means to reduce those emissions with dietary additives, or we need to reduce the number of cattle. Here’s a look at carbon sequestration in ecosystems in the Western US: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1797/pdf/pp1797_Chapter1.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1797/pdf/pp1797_Chapter1.pdf You can see that sagebrush and other hardy species, while not trees fit for lumber, can do the job better than cows belching away. This paper focuses on the UK, but is still full of relevant info. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/1438141 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/1438141

Turing_Machine 8y ago
> Unfortunately the methanogens in a cow’s gut mean that they’re an environmental disaster. The bison that lived there before had identical gut bacteria, and it doesn't seem to have caused an "environmental disaster". Why not?
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  Because for most of their history, they weren’t accompanied by the massive carbon and methane emissions of their human counterparts’ industrialization? Seems self-evident.
- rebuilder 8y ago
  Because there were much fewer bison than there now are cows, and because the atmosphere wasn't already being pumped full of CO2, methane etc. by humans.
  - Turing_Machine 8y ago
    That is incorrect. The plains bison herds expanded to match the carrying capacity of the grazing. Now, there are a lot of other cattle that aren't being grazed on the historical prairie. You might have a point with those, but it's not relevant to the point under discussion.
- GW150914 8y ago
  Because the bison were between 3x to 4x less numerous than cattle, lived far longer lives than the average 2.5 years to slaughter of a cow (not counting veal calves which are killed far sooner and never graze). It’s not just the number of cows or bison alive at any moment, but when you consider a 10 year period and count total individuals it’s even more stark due to rapid turnover of cattle. Buffalo were part of an ecosystem, so you had a loop of carbon in soil, carbon in plants, carbon in buffallo, and then a lot of that carbon returning to the soil as bison or wolf corpses. Modern cattle spend some time grazing in the Great Plains, but start their lives on farms, and finish their lives on feed lots. Then they’re slaughtered, and more CO2 is emitted transporting them all around the country and indeed, world. Then of course, the bison existed in a world before heavy industry, a world of millions rather than billions of people, a world before automobiles, airplanes, coal fired plants, oil exploration, strip mining, rainforest clearing, ocean acidification and overfishing, etc... etc...
  - Turing_Machine 8y ago
    > Because the bison were between 3x to 4x less numerous than cattle No, they weren't. You need to count only the cattle that are on the land under discussion. > lived far longer lives than the average 2.5 years to slaughter of a cow Irrelevant. One bovine is the same as another as far as the impact on the prairie is concerned. That's sort of how an ecosystem works, dude. I'm skeptical that they lived "far longer lives", by the way. If they were anything like the wild grazing/browsing animals with which I am familiar (moose, caribou, musk ox) a WHOLE LOT of them died in their first year, either through being taken by predators or simply not surviving a harsh winter. I strongly suspect you're using a lifespan figure for modern bison herds that are protected by human beings.

bscphil 8y ago

I think the usual claim is that almost any other use at all would be better for the environment than cattle grazing.

komali2 8y ago
I don't understand why - better being "more natural," right? Those plains have been feeding grazing animals for millennia, what should we do differently?
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  They were feeding grazing animals, but without all the massive externalities associated with industrial agriculture, from antibiotic resistance to its impact on climate change. If you’re also of an ethical mindset similar to someone like Peter Singer, the “cultivation” of animals for slaughter is not something one should favor.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    > impact on climate change do cows produce significantly more methane than non-domesticated grazing animals, or are there simply many more cows than there were buffalo?
    - knuththetruth 8y ago
      There are cows now within an industrialized agricultural context that we know to be a significant contribution to climate change. Would bison in this context produce the same outcome? It’s hard to say, but the two circumstances of their existence on this land is largely incomparable.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  It’s a religious argument that cannot be won or lost.
Turing_Machine 8y ago