3 ms·

Raising cattle in most parts of the country relies on renewable resources. Raising almonds in CA requires heavy use of fertilizers and depletes the regional wa

Raising cattle in most parts of the country relies on renewable resources. Raising almonds in CA requires heavy use of fertilizers and depletes the regional water supplies.

wyre 5y ago
Don’t mention the fact cattle and cattle feed is the largest cause of deforestation in the Amazon.
- xvedejas 5y ago
  So, better for California to compete with cattle raising in Brazil, and then Iowan soybean would be marginally more preferable for cattle feed over Amazonian soybean? I realize it's a more complex system than that, but I would indeed guess that a bigger US cattle industry could result in less total export of Brazilian beef to central American nations, for instance.
femiagbabiaka 5y ago
Even with those resources, cattle production still takes 10x the water that almond production does and is very destructive to the environment the cattle graze in.
- goda90 5y ago
  Cattle grazing can be done in harmony with natural grasslands. After all, cattle evolved on grasslands. And back to my initial point, 10 gallons of water in Wisconsin has nowhere near the impact of 1 gallon of water in California, and the chances of that water going back into the Wisconsin water cycle are higher.
  - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
    I beg of you to investigate real-world cattle raising practices in 2021, this idea of sustainable grazing is not a thing that's happening in the real world. Much of water consumption in order to sustain meat production is not happening locally, other states are farming excess crops expressly for the purpose of contributing to feed. And the Wisconsin parallel doesn't work -- it is barely a blip when it comes to U.S. beef production. California and Florida both produce more, for example. EDIT: The Wisconsin factoid is incorrect, it only holds true for cattle raised for beef production, not dairy. Here's the USDA data: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/h702q636h/n009ww19g/9880wj45t/catl0121.pdf https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/...
    - goda90 5y ago
      Sustainable grazing is happening in the real world, just not at scale to really matter. But we can change that. And the political will to change it is likely far higher than political will to get everyone to stop consuming these products entirely.
      - sebastianz 5y ago
        The problem is you cannot do "sustainable grazing" at the scale we are at now - 7.6 billion humans.
        linuxftw 5y ago
        On a well managed farm, you can get 1 cow per 1.25 acres of land, hanging weight about 750lbs. That yields about 750k kcal, which is enough for 2100 calories per day for an entire year. Nutritionally, you can get all of your fat or protein from 1lb of beef per day. One cow is enough to feed 2 adult humans for an entire year. This production would require almost zero external inputs. No fertilizer or water, just graze land and water from rainfall. Just in corn alone, we produce over 10k kcal per person annually in the US. We have a surplus of grains and legumes. We produce an order of magnitude more calories than we need every year. If you want to solve sustainability, you need to solve waste. To solve waste, you need to fix the incentives. As long as city dwellers demand their cheap industrialized food, taxes will subsidize the cheap industrialized food.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      > this idea of sustainable grazing is not a thing that's happening in the real world It is, in many places. I live in Montana (alongside some 2.6M head of cattle), and we have vast ranches with sustainable numbers of cattle. The land they live on isn't (and wouldn't be) forest, nor is it farmable (typically too rocky or too much grade). As for the "blip" argument, Wisconson is ranked 9th, while California is ranked 5th. Hardly a "blip". Also Florida? It's ranked 18th, with 1.6M head. Actually, most of the top 10 states are naturally grassland states, with California being the outlier. https://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-state-rankings-89-108182 https://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-state-rankings-...
  - wittycardio 5y ago
    Yeah but those 10 gallons of water in Wisconsin could be put to more efficient use than cattle
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    > Cattle grazing can be done in harmony with natural grasslands. "can be" is trying to do a lot of work there. in reality very little cattle grazing is done in any kind of natural harmony.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  > cattle production still takes 10x the water Yes, but in many parts of the USA, water is practically unlimited and free. Most of it flows into the Mississippi or the the Atlantic. In fact, in many areas, there's too much water, you have to put in drainage or it might flood during heavy rains and kill your crops in the spring. > very destructive to the environment the cattle graze in. This is only true for feed-lot cattle raised in arid, marginal land. Pretty much anywhere east of the great plains, cattle have almost no impact on the land. Almonds in the USA are pretty much only grown in arid and desert environments. Almonds grown in CA are destructive to waterways and natural aquifers. So, it's a question of renewable vs non renewable. In most of California, water usage is non renewable. It is being used at a rate far faster than nature can replenish it.

Raising cattle in most parts of the country relies on renewable resources. Raising almonds in CA requires heavy use of fertilizers and depletes the regional water supplies.

wyre 5y ago

Don’t mention the fact cattle and cattle feed is the largest cause of deforestation in the Amazon.

xvedejas 5y ago
So, better for California to compete with cattle raising in Brazil, and then Iowan soybean would be marginally more preferable for cattle feed over Amazonian soybean? I realize it's a more complex system than that, but I would indeed guess that a bigger US cattle industry could result in less total export of Brazilian beef to central American nations, for instance.

femiagbabiaka 5y ago

Even with those resources, cattle production still takes 10x the water that almond production does and is very destructive to the environment the cattle graze in.

goda90 5y ago
Cattle grazing can be done in harmony with natural grasslands. After all, cattle evolved on grasslands. And back to my initial point, 10 gallons of water in Wisconsin has nowhere near the impact of 1 gallon of water in California, and the chances of that water going back into the Wisconsin water cycle are higher.
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  I beg of you to investigate real-world cattle raising practices in 2021, this idea of sustainable grazing is not a thing that's happening in the real world. Much of water consumption in order to sustain meat production is not happening locally, other states are farming excess crops expressly for the purpose of contributing to feed. And the Wisconsin parallel doesn't work -- it is barely a blip when it comes to U.S. beef production. California and Florida both produce more, for example. EDIT: The Wisconsin factoid is incorrect, it only holds true for cattle raised for beef production, not dairy. Here's the USDA data: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/h702q636h/n009ww19g/9880wj45t/catl0121.pdf https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/...
  - goda90 5y ago
    Sustainable grazing is happening in the real world, just not at scale to really matter. But we can change that. And the political will to change it is likely far higher than political will to get everyone to stop consuming these products entirely.
    - sebastianz 5y ago
      The problem is you cannot do "sustainable grazing" at the scale we are at now - 7.6 billion humans.
      - linuxftw 5y ago
        On a well managed farm, you can get 1 cow per 1.25 acres of land, hanging weight about 750lbs. That yields about 750k kcal, which is enough for 2100 calories per day for an entire year. Nutritionally, you can get all of your fat or protein from 1lb of beef per day. One cow is enough to feed 2 adult humans for an entire year. This production would require almost zero external inputs. No fertilizer or water, just graze land and water from rainfall. Just in corn alone, we produce over 10k kcal per person annually in the US. We have a surplus of grains and legumes. We produce an order of magnitude more calories than we need every year. If you want to solve sustainability, you need to solve waste. To solve waste, you need to fix the incentives. As long as city dwellers demand their cheap industrialized food, taxes will subsidize the cheap industrialized food.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    > this idea of sustainable grazing is not a thing that's happening in the real world It is, in many places. I live in Montana (alongside some 2.6M head of cattle), and we have vast ranches with sustainable numbers of cattle. The land they live on isn't (and wouldn't be) forest, nor is it farmable (typically too rocky or too much grade). As for the "blip" argument, Wisconson is ranked 9th, while California is ranked 5th. Hardly a "blip". Also Florida? It's ranked 18th, with 1.6M head. Actually, most of the top 10 states are naturally grassland states, with California being the outlier. https://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-state-rankings-89-108182 https://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-state-rankings-...
- wittycardio 5y ago
  Yeah but those 10 gallons of water in Wisconsin could be put to more efficient use than cattle
- lamontcg 5y ago
  > Cattle grazing can be done in harmony with natural grasslands. "can be" is trying to do a lot of work there. in reality very little cattle grazing is done in any kind of natural harmony.
linuxftw 5y ago
> cattle production still takes 10x the water Yes, but in many parts of the USA, water is practically unlimited and free. Most of it flows into the Mississippi or the the Atlantic. In fact, in many areas, there's too much water, you have to put in drainage or it might flood during heavy rains and kill your crops in the spring. > very destructive to the environment the cattle graze in. This is only true for feed-lot cattle raised in arid, marginal land. Pretty much anywhere east of the great plains, cattle have almost no impact on the land. Almonds in the USA are pretty much only grown in arid and desert environments. Almonds grown in CA are destructive to waterways and natural aquifers. So, it's a question of renewable vs non renewable. In most of California, water usage is non renewable. It is being used at a rate far faster than nature can replenish it.