2 ms·

That's a good point, something I am curious about now is the water costs of desert farming versus cattle ranching. Just wondering how close the gap actually is,

That's a good point, something I am curious about now is the water costs of desert farming versus cattle ranching. Just wondering how close the gap actually is, I honestly want to say desert farming uses less resources than raising cattle for slaughter but I'm unsure and just guessing from the hip here.

rurp 4y ago
I'm not sure how they compare in terms of water, but cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well. One unique problem to cattle ranching in the southwest is that many of them are allowed to free range on public lands. Those cattle eat a lot of native vegetation which leads to worse wildfires and greatly harm native wildlife. They also trample cryptobiotic soil, resulting in much worse dust storms. I wish we could move agriculture entirely out of areas that get less than 5" of rain per year, especially since so much of the country is better suited for it. Subsidies are sticky though, not many farmers will willingly give up their handouts and few politicians want to fight that battle.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  > Cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well. I doubt that would solve the problem. It would just transplant it. Cattle, pork, and chicken demand has dramatically compounded corresponding production in Brazil and deforestation. We don't need to move the rice, alfalfa, and intensive production of ruminating animals moved around like checkers pieces. The Ogalalla aquifer of the Midwest supporting multiple states' peoples and farms is also drying out. We need to rethink our water use, not move the problem around.
formerkrogemp 4y ago
I think part of the problem, alfalfa and rice and almond trees, among other thirsty plants, are allegedly being ripped up as they're unprofitable and unsustainable. I think @azemetre is correct in holding up growing crops as a virtue, but we should be careful as to which, where, and how we grow.

rurp 4y ago

I'm not sure how they compare in terms of water, but cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well. One unique problem to cattle ranching in the southwest is that many of them are allowed to free range on public lands. Those cattle eat a lot of native vegetation which leads to worse wildfires and greatly harm native wildlife. They also trample cryptobiotic soil, resulting in much worse dust storms. I wish we could move agriculture entirely out of areas that get less than 5" of rain per year, especially since so much of the country is better suited for it. Subsidies are sticky though, not many farmers will willingly give up their handouts and few politicians want to fight that battle.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
> Cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well. I doubt that would solve the problem. It would just transplant it. Cattle, pork, and chicken demand has dramatically compounded corresponding production in Brazil and deforestation. We don't need to move the rice, alfalfa, and intensive production of ruminating animals moved around like checkers pieces. The Ogalalla aquifer of the Midwest supporting multiple states' peoples and farms is also drying out. We need to rethink our water use, not move the problem around.

formerkrogemp 4y ago

I think part of the problem, alfalfa and rice and almond trees, among other thirsty plants, are allegedly being ripped up as they're unprofitable and unsustainable. I think @azemetre is correct in holding up growing crops as a virtue, but we should be careful as to which, where, and how we grow.