6 ms·

77% of agricultural land is devoted to livestock. We could return a lot of that land to wilderness if we adopted a whole food plant based diet. https://www.on

77% of agricultural land is devoted to livestock. We could return a lot of that land to wilderness if we adopted a whole food plant based diet. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/chart-shows-worlds-land-used/ https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/chart-shows-worlds-land-...

blablabla123 5y ago
"Chickens actually evolved as a jungle species" https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tree-range-chickens-1.5989923 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tree-range-c... I think I once saw something similar about cattle but I cannot find any reference.
- suyula 5y ago
  'Silvopasture' might be the term you want.
  - blablabla123 5y ago
    Yes exactly, thanks!
- danans 5y ago
  > "Chickens actually evolved as a jungle species" Though that might be true, and despite it working for a small community - the scale of meat production required to satisfy the world's demands today can't be achieved through forest-raised chickens or cattle. The price of meat would have to skyrocket and/or the consumption of it would have to dramatically decrease. Both of those would be progress from a climate change and environmental perspective, but from the perspective of global meat consumer expectations, it would be a serious regression. Few people want to go back to pre-industrial diet (mostly grains, greens, and a very small amount of meat). That's why plant based meat substitutes are such a big deal - they might be one of the few ways we can thread this needle.
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    Backyard chickens for both meat and eggs are pretty feasible in many places. I don't like meat but raising chickens for eggs was very easy for me and I live close to the center of a small city. Friends of mine in a major city worked with their friends and neighbors to collectively raise and slaughter backyard chickens for meat. Factory farming is not the only option, although I agree that this involves eating less meat for sure.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Cows in the Texas Piney Woods love the woods. They like fields too. But more of often than not I'd find them under the cool shade of pines if not in the tanks (ponds).
blizdiddy 5y ago
77% if you count land for grazing, otherwise useless to agriculture. If you go back 500 years you know what your find on that land? Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today. Feeding the world means using ruminants to turn grass into protein.
- crakenzak 5y ago
  > Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today. I’m very skeptical of this. Citation needed please.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Apparently as many as 100 million on the American plains once upon a time, according to Google
    - lovemenot 5y ago
      I wonder how many bison there were before the last Ice Age. Before the land-bridge and before humans from Asia arrived with their slash-and-burn.
  - alex_young 5y ago
    Wikipedia cites ~60M bison pre-1800 [1] USDA ~93M cattle currently [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting [2] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      Is the 60M figure for what is now the US or for all North America ? If that's the latter, you'd need to add Canadian cattle as well, around 11M[1]. [1] https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/canadas-agriculture-sectors/animal-industry/red-meat-and-livestock-market-information/inventories https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/canadas-agriculture-sectors...
- 5y ago
syshum 5y ago
>>whole food plant based diet. No.. That is all Edit: Below I am accused of Rules violation, likely due to the short response. However I do not believe it is, the OP is wanting everyone to either voluntarily give up meat in favor or not just a plant based diet but an extreme version of that diet a "whole food plant based" diet While my comment is (was) short, it is all words I needed to make my point, that diet is a non-starter, and should not be entertained as a feasible solution. No Is all I needed, and wanted say, No is all that needed to be conveyed so I say again to the idea of a whole food plant based diet No
- colordrops 5y ago
  I think comments like this are against HN rules.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    This is true. Though HN is very big about tone and very little about content. GP would benefit from running their thought through http://www.textinflator.com/ http://www.textinflator.com/ and then posting.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      If we voted on content, it would be a memetic popularity contest. Voting on tone also has issues[0], but it also keeps the quality of communication high enough that people can (sometimes) completely disagree, but still learn from each other. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I think the tone of the comment is okay, but comment itself is lacking actual substance. The original comment didn't even state what exactly was being objected to, let alone make an argument or attempt to start a discussion. I would say that commenting "I think this is against the rules" is also a very low value comment that doesn't link to the guidelines, explain which one was violated, or offer any suggestions for improvement.
throwaway55421 5y ago
Nah. The obvious endgame there is that you reduce the amount of land required per person and then increase the persons, ending up with the same land requirement. Then we look for the next thing to cut. I'll just keep my current quality of life and outcompete others for resources, thanks. Carbon tax pls.
- colordrops 5y ago
  This makes no sense, and is a typical non-sequitur thrown out by those who are unwilling to give up meat. There is absolutely no evidence that meat eating is the limiting factor in population growth.
  - throwaway55421 5y ago
    Evidence? It's mathematical, not scientific. Derivable from first principles. I can eat meat as much as I want provided another 7 billion people don't also do the same. The issue is with the number of people, not the activity. Literally any use of land is a bad idea at that scale, we end up in rabbit hutches.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      Another non-sensical response. You made the claim, not me. It's your responsibility to provide evidence.
      - throwaway55421 5y ago
        For more information, please re-read.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        What you've said makes sense, but not as a reply. Unless you can explain how it justifies the claim that the other person claimed you made?
        deleted 5y ago
redconfetti 5y ago
Maybe we should start raising giraffes instead of cows for meat. Then we'd have a need for lots of trees.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
How much different is that livestock land compared to its wild state? I mean, the big county-sized pastures aren't cultivated at all, they just have a fence put around them and a drinking through, yet they contribute to these statistics that people pushing vegetarianism/veganism like to cite a lot.
- Balero 5y ago
  In some places not a lot. Some parts of the great plains have basically swapped Bison for cattle, and keep a vaguely similar ecosystem. However much more of this area is degraded due to have far too much cattle there too often. Bison used to graze and migrate, churning up the ground and adding fertilizer, and then letting things re-grow. Other livestock land is completely different from its 'wild state'. Cattle ranching in what used to be the Amazon. Sheep herding in European uplands, also takes place on land that used to be forest and temperate rain forest. Another feed in to the large percentage of land that goes towards livestock, is growing animal feed. The majority of cattle in the US is not just eating grass. It is eating crops that are grown specifically for feeding to cattle. So those fields of corn, that are then fed to cattle could also go back to their 'wild state'.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>77% of agricultural land is devoted to livestock. We could return a lot of that land to wilderness if we adopted a whole food plant based diet. You have to be careful here. Livestock is generally carbon sinks. Those cow patties are taking co2 into grass and then depositing it into the ground. Flipside, plant based diet has a deadline. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/verso2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/verso2/ We are already 70% degraded and only slowly the process by spraying oil byproducts on the land. If we kill the oil industry, that erosion increases in speed. A more recent publication was looking at the moulds vs fungus balance and it's even worse than the above proposes. We have to get into regenerative farming to reverse this problem and that includes keeping livestock for those cow patties.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I don't want to though.

blablabla123 5y ago

"Chickens actually evolved as a jungle species" https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tree-range-chickens-1.5989923 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tree-range-c... I think I once saw something similar about cattle but I cannot find any reference.

suyula 5y ago
'Silvopasture' might be the term you want.
- blablabla123 5y ago
  Yes exactly, thanks!
danans 5y ago
> "Chickens actually evolved as a jungle species" Though that might be true, and despite it working for a small community - the scale of meat production required to satisfy the world's demands today can't be achieved through forest-raised chickens or cattle. The price of meat would have to skyrocket and/or the consumption of it would have to dramatically decrease. Both of those would be progress from a climate change and environmental perspective, but from the perspective of global meat consumer expectations, it would be a serious regression. Few people want to go back to pre-industrial diet (mostly grains, greens, and a very small amount of meat). That's why plant based meat substitutes are such a big deal - they might be one of the few ways we can thread this needle.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  Backyard chickens for both meat and eggs are pretty feasible in many places. I don't like meat but raising chickens for eggs was very easy for me and I live close to the center of a small city. Friends of mine in a major city worked with their friends and neighbors to collectively raise and slaughter backyard chickens for meat. Factory farming is not the only option, although I agree that this involves eating less meat for sure.
tomrod 5y ago
Cows in the Texas Piney Woods love the woods. They like fields too. But more of often than not I'd find them under the cool shade of pines if not in the tanks (ponds).

blizdiddy 5y ago

77% if you count land for grazing, otherwise useless to agriculture. If you go back 500 years you know what your find on that land? Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today. Feeding the world means using ruminants to turn grass into protein.

crakenzak 5y ago
> Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today. I’m very skeptical of this. Citation needed please.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Apparently as many as 100 million on the American plains once upon a time, according to Google
  - lovemenot 5y ago
    I wonder how many bison there were before the last Ice Age. Before the land-bridge and before humans from Asia arrived with their slash-and-burn.
- alex_young 5y ago
  Wikipedia cites ~60M bison pre-1800 [1] USDA ~93M cattle currently [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting [2] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    Is the 60M figure for what is now the US or for all North America ? If that's the latter, you'd need to add Canadian cattle as well, around 11M[1]. [1] https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/canadas-agriculture-sectors/animal-industry/red-meat-and-livestock-market-information/inventories https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/canadas-agriculture-sectors...
5y ago

syshum 5y ago

>>whole food plant based diet. No.. That is all Edit: Below I am accused of Rules violation, likely due to the short response. However I do not believe it is, the OP is wanting everyone to either voluntarily give up meat in favor or not just a plant based diet but an extreme version of that diet a "whole food plant based" diet While my comment is (was) short, it is all words I needed to make my point, that diet is a non-starter, and should not be entertained as a feasible solution. No Is all I needed, and wanted say, No is all that needed to be conveyed so I say again to the idea of a whole food plant based diet No

colordrops 5y ago
I think comments like this are against HN rules.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  This is true. Though HN is very big about tone and very little about content. GP would benefit from running their thought through http://www.textinflator.com/ http://www.textinflator.com/ and then posting.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    If we voted on content, it would be a memetic popularity contest. Voting on tone also has issues[0], but it also keeps the quality of communication high enough that people can (sometimes) completely disagree, but still learn from each other. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I think the tone of the comment is okay, but comment itself is lacking actual substance. The original comment didn't even state what exactly was being objected to, let alone make an argument or attempt to start a discussion. I would say that commenting "I think this is against the rules" is also a very low value comment that doesn't link to the guidelines, explain which one was violated, or offer any suggestions for improvement.

throwaway55421 5y ago

Nah. The obvious endgame there is that you reduce the amount of land required per person and then increase the persons, ending up with the same land requirement. Then we look for the next thing to cut. I'll just keep my current quality of life and outcompete others for resources, thanks. Carbon tax pls.

colordrops 5y ago
This makes no sense, and is a typical non-sequitur thrown out by those who are unwilling to give up meat. There is absolutely no evidence that meat eating is the limiting factor in population growth.
- throwaway55421 5y ago
  Evidence? It's mathematical, not scientific. Derivable from first principles. I can eat meat as much as I want provided another 7 billion people don't also do the same. The issue is with the number of people, not the activity. Literally any use of land is a bad idea at that scale, we end up in rabbit hutches.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Another non-sensical response. You made the claim, not me. It's your responsibility to provide evidence.
    - throwaway55421 5y ago
      For more information, please re-read.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        What you've said makes sense, but not as a reply. Unless you can explain how it justifies the claim that the other person claimed you made?
      - deleted 5y ago

redconfetti 5y ago

Maybe we should start raising giraffes instead of cows for meat. Then we'd have a need for lots of trees.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

How much different is that livestock land compared to its wild state? I mean, the big county-sized pastures aren't cultivated at all, they just have a fence put around them and a drinking through, yet they contribute to these statistics that people pushing vegetarianism/veganism like to cite a lot.

Balero 5y ago
In some places not a lot. Some parts of the great plains have basically swapped Bison for cattle, and keep a vaguely similar ecosystem. However much more of this area is degraded due to have far too much cattle there too often. Bison used to graze and migrate, churning up the ground and adding fertilizer, and then letting things re-grow. Other livestock land is completely different from its 'wild state'. Cattle ranching in what used to be the Amazon. Sheep herding in European uplands, also takes place on land that used to be forest and temperate rain forest. Another feed in to the large percentage of land that goes towards livestock, is growing animal feed. The majority of cattle in the US is not just eating grass. It is eating crops that are grown specifically for feeding to cattle. So those fields of corn, that are then fed to cattle could also go back to their 'wild state'.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>77% of agricultural land is devoted to livestock. We could return a lot of that land to wilderness if we adopted a whole food plant based diet. You have to be careful here. Livestock is generally carbon sinks. Those cow patties are taking co2 into grass and then depositing it into the ground. Flipside, plant based diet has a deadline. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/verso2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/verso2/ We are already 70% degraded and only slowly the process by spraying oil byproducts on the land. If we kill the oil industry, that erosion increases in speed. A more recent publication was looking at the moulds vs fungus balance and it's even worse than the above proposes. We have to get into regenerative farming to reverse this problem and that includes keeping livestock for those cow patties.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

I don't want to though.