3 ms·

> most livestock is grazed on marginal crop land There's a lot to unpack there. What is "marginal crop land"? It conjures images of scrubland in the North Ame

> most livestock is grazed on marginal crop land There's a lot to unpack there. What is "marginal crop land"? It conjures images of scrubland in the North American west or the African savanna. But more than half the cattle in the world live in Brazil and India. My understanding is that rainforests take up so many nutrients that the soil is actually very poor and unsuitable for most kinds of agriculture. So one could easily say that recently burned Amazon rainforest is "marginal crop land", and that would make this statement technically true while still being no consolation at all. The next biggest chunk of the earth's cattle live in China, where my understanding is that they're effectively creating their own "marginal crop land" - they graze, they take up the nutrients in the soil, then they're slaughtered and their meat is shipped overseas, taking those nutrients along with them. So the soil keeps getting less fertile. Grazing is supposedly a major factor in the expansion of the Gobi desert. The USA? I don't know. Perhaps all the biggest CAFOs are located in marginal crop land, but the grain they're feeding to the cattle is all grown on prime crop land. Perhaps some specialty farms are creating eddies in the current, but it's hard to see much evidence that they're changing the overall flow unless we're very careful about how we frame the conversation.

cgh 7y ago
In North America, cattle are grazed on grasslands which have a long-term symbiotic relationship with grazing ungulates (the buffalo, now mostly gone, an immense tragedy). Cattle are only grain-fed for the last few weeks of their lives. There's this standing myth that cattle spend their lives in feedlots and that's simply false, as a visit to any ranch will tell you. And even that feed is largely inedible by humans[0]. The analogy between modern cattle and the wild grazing of buffalo isn't perfect. There are problems with modern grazing that need to be addressed. The North American grasslands are prone to desertification if over- or under-grazed. The work of the Savory Institute is largely about promoting "regenerative grazing", not just in North America but also eg Africa[1]. Anyway, if you live in North America and eat/utilise relatively local beef, then you aren't a participant in some kind of misuse of "prime crop land". [0]: https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-sets-the-record-straight-86-of-livestock-feed-is-inedible-by-humans/ https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-sets-the-record-s... [1]: https://savory.global https://savory.global
samatman 7y ago
It's even more complicated than that, because large parts of Brazil are pampas or other dry lands, where grazing cattle is the most suitable form of food production. I suspect at this point that former rainforest land accounts for most of the grazing heads, but it's difficult to find numbers.
bluGill 7y ago
Brazil, India and China are big countries by land area. Different parts of each country have different soils and even climates.
marcosdumay 7y ago
No idea what the GP means by marginal crop land, but yes, people tend to grow cattle on land that isn't very good for crop, for one reason or another (the most common reasons being a rocky terrain or a non-plane surface, poor soil is usually not such a reason as soil is always fixed anyway). > My understanding is that rainforests take up so many nutrients that the soil is actually very poor and unsuitable for most kinds of agriculture. That's a characteristic of the Amazon forest specifically (and not even all of it). The soil is poor because it's an old land with a lot of raining, that carries the nutrients away, it's not a fault of the forest. Other rain forests have different characteristics.
dntbnmpls 7y ago
> But more than half the cattle in the world live in Brazil and India. Not true. https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-countries-0-106885 https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-co... > So one could easily say that recently burned Amazon rainforest is "marginal crop land", and that would make this statement technically true while still being no consolation at all. The point is that cattle can be raised in marginal crop land. Palm trees cannot. Yes, we should stop cutting down rainforest for cattle and palm oil. The difference is that we can raise cattle in the tons of marginal crop land we have around the world. > The next biggest chunk of the earth's cattle live in China Not true. https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-countries-0-106885 https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-co... > Grazing is supposedly a major factor in the expansion of the Gobi desert. Supposedly? Care to provide a source for that? > Perhaps all the biggest CAFOs are located in marginal crop land, but the grain they're feeding to the cattle is all grown on prime crop land. Care to provide source for that? If you really are concerned about the rain forests, then you should be against palm oil and raising cattle in the amazon rainforest. But it seems like you are just against raising cattle.

cgh 7y ago

In North America, cattle are grazed on grasslands which have a long-term symbiotic relationship with grazing ungulates (the buffalo, now mostly gone, an immense tragedy). Cattle are only grain-fed for the last few weeks of their lives. There's this standing myth that cattle spend their lives in feedlots and that's simply false, as a visit to any ranch will tell you. And even that feed is largely inedible by humans[0]. The analogy between modern cattle and the wild grazing of buffalo isn't perfect. There are problems with modern grazing that need to be addressed. The North American grasslands are prone to desertification if over- or under-grazed. The work of the Savory Institute is largely about promoting "regenerative grazing", not just in North America but also eg Africa[1]. Anyway, if you live in North America and eat/utilise relatively local beef, then you aren't a participant in some kind of misuse of "prime crop land". [0]: https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-sets-the-record-straight-86-of-livestock-feed-is-inedible-by-humans/ https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-sets-the-record-s... [1]: https://savory.global https://savory.global

samatman 7y ago

It's even more complicated than that, because large parts of Brazil are pampas or other dry lands, where grazing cattle is the most suitable form of food production. I suspect at this point that former rainforest land accounts for most of the grazing heads, but it's difficult to find numbers.

bluGill 7y ago

Brazil, India and China are big countries by land area. Different parts of each country have different soils and even climates.

marcosdumay 7y ago

No idea what the GP means by marginal crop land, but yes, people tend to grow cattle on land that isn't very good for crop, for one reason or another (the most common reasons being a rocky terrain or a non-plane surface, poor soil is usually not such a reason as soil is always fixed anyway). > My understanding is that rainforests take up so many nutrients that the soil is actually very poor and unsuitable for most kinds of agriculture. That's a characteristic of the Amazon forest specifically (and not even all of it). The soil is poor because it's an old land with a lot of raining, that carries the nutrients away, it's not a fault of the forest. Other rain forests have different characteristics.

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> But more than half the cattle in the world live in Brazil and India. Not true. https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-countries-0-106885 https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-co... > So one could easily say that recently burned Amazon rainforest is "marginal crop land", and that would make this statement technically true while still being no consolation at all. The point is that cattle can be raised in marginal crop land. Palm trees cannot. Yes, we should stop cutting down rainforest for cattle and palm oil. The difference is that we can raise cattle in the tons of marginal crop land we have around the world. > The next biggest chunk of the earth's cattle live in China Not true. https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-countries-0-106885 https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-co... > Grazing is supposedly a major factor in the expansion of the Gobi desert. Supposedly? Care to provide a source for that? > Perhaps all the biggest CAFOs are located in marginal crop land, but the grain they're feeding to the cattle is all grown on prime crop land. Care to provide source for that? If you really are concerned about the rain forests, then you should be against palm oil and raising cattle in the amazon rainforest. But it seems like you are just against raising cattle.