5 ms·

> In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. My own experience confirm

by jamil7 6y ago

> In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. My own experience confirms this. 72% of all deforestation in Queensland and 94% in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas is a direct result of land clearing for beef production. Edit: One source was missing. https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforestation-Scorecard-Report.pdf https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforest... https://www.wilderness.org.au//images/resources/The_Drivers_of_Deforestation_Land-clearing_Qld_Report.pdf https://www.wilderness.org.au//images/resources/The_Drivers_...

wartijn_ 6y ago
Can you point out from where in that report you've got those numbers? I couldn't find them.
- doytch 6y ago
  Page 7: Beef production is the leading cause of deforestation and land clearing in Australia. A recent GIS analysis undertaken by the Wilderness Society found that 73% of all deforestation and land clearing in Queensland is linked to beef production.16 This figure is likely to be an underestimate of the beef industry’s contribution due to the conservative methods used throughout the study. That result is consistent with the Queensland Government’s official tree‐cover reports which regularly attribute over 90% of the state’s forest and bushland destruction to replacement by ‘pasture.’17 Similarly, Australian government data ascribed 72% of national deforestation in 2016 to grazing.18 There are numerous scientific articles that identify cattle grazing as a key driver of deforestation, particularly in Queensland which has the largest cattle numbers in Australia.19 --- I will note, I've noticed people sometimes saying "well, you can't grow anything else on that land!" as a defense for animal agriculture. Maybe /we/ can't grow any /crops/, but nature can thrive in such spaces. I think given what we know about Climate Change, it should go without saying that we shouldn't bulldoze every forest and bushland and farm on it in any way we can.
- jamil7 6y ago
  Sorry I typed that out and left to run some chores. I had a second report open from the same organisation and I quoted 73% not 72%, fixed in the parent comment. Both reports: https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforestation-Scorecard-Report.pdf https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforest... https://www.wilderness.org.au//images/resources/The_Drivers_of_Deforestation_Land-clearing_Qld_Report.pdf https://www.wilderness.org.au//images/resources/The_Drivers_...
s1artibartfast 6y ago
That doesn't negate the point that deforestation is not necessary, and may not be typical. 100% of deforestation could be for beef production, but 99% of beef production could be without deforestation.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  If the beef you're eating was raised on a deforested area (anything from a big fast-food chain almost certainly was) then that's still pretty unethical though. I agree it doesn't mean that beef is inherently unethical. But people will need to be willing to accept higher prices in order to make it ethical.
  - tassl 6y ago
    As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area. Or eating mostly anything with sugar, canola oil or palm oil. But people don't ask those to be in non deforested areas, and they don't ask to increase the price to make sure soil is not destroyed by monocrop cultivation.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      That's not entirely true. There is a whole movement around boycotting palm oil for example, just as there is with beef. It certainly could be more widely supported. It's worth noting that a lot of the soy from deforested areas also goes towards feeding livestock. The soy that humans eat (or drink) tends to be more more ethical on average.
      - tassl 6y ago
        Not because of deforestation, but because threats to orangutans. Most of the food animals eat is not human-grade, and a big part of it are by products of food for human consumption it would not be used anyways.
        nicoburns 6y ago

by jamil7 6y ago

wartijn_ 6y ago

Can you point out from where in that report you've got those numbers? I couldn't find them.

doytch 6y ago
Page 7: Beef production is the leading cause of deforestation and land clearing in Australia. A recent GIS analysis undertaken by the Wilderness Society found that 73% of all deforestation and land clearing in Queensland is linked to beef production.16 This figure is likely to be an underestimate of the beef industry’s contribution due to the conservative methods used throughout the study. That result is consistent with the Queensland Government’s official tree‐cover reports which regularly attribute over 90% of the state’s forest and bushland destruction to replacement by ‘pasture.’17 Similarly, Australian government data ascribed 72% of national deforestation in 2016 to grazing.18 There are numerous scientific articles that identify cattle grazing as a key driver of deforestation, particularly in Queensland which has the largest cattle numbers in Australia.19 --- I will note, I've noticed people sometimes saying "well, you can't grow anything else on that land!" as a defense for animal agriculture. Maybe /we/ can't grow any /crops/, but nature can thrive in such spaces. I think given what we know about Climate Change, it should go without saying that we shouldn't bulldoze every forest and bushland and farm on it in any way we can.
jamil7 6y ago
Sorry I typed that out and left to run some chores. I had a second report open from the same organisation and I quoted 73% not 72%, fixed in the parent comment. Both reports: https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforestation-Scorecard-Report.pdf https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforest... https://www.wilderness.org.au//images/resources/The_Drivers_of_Deforestation_Land-clearing_Qld_Report.pdf https://www.wilderness.org.au//images/resources/The_Drivers_...

s1artibartfast 6y ago

That doesn't negate the point that deforestation is not necessary, and may not be typical. 100% of deforestation could be for beef production, but 99% of beef production could be without deforestation.

nicoburns 6y ago
If the beef you're eating was raised on a deforested area (anything from a big fast-food chain almost certainly was) then that's still pretty unethical though. I agree it doesn't mean that beef is inherently unethical. But people will need to be willing to accept higher prices in order to make it ethical.
- tassl 6y ago
  As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area. Or eating mostly anything with sugar, canola oil or palm oil. But people don't ask those to be in non deforested areas, and they don't ask to increase the price to make sure soil is not destroyed by monocrop cultivation.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    That's not entirely true. There is a whole movement around boycotting palm oil for example, just as there is with beef. It certainly could be more widely supported. It's worth noting that a lot of the soy from deforested areas also goes towards feeding livestock. The soy that humans eat (or drink) tends to be more more ethical on average.
    - tassl 6y ago
      Not because of deforestation, but because threats to orangutans. Most of the food animals eat is not human-grade, and a big part of it are by products of food for human consumption it would not be used anyways.
      - nicoburns 6y ago