21 ms·

If you're pumping water to grow grass in the desert just for the beef, there are better uses for the water. However, cows have the unique ability to turn grass

If you're pumping water to grow grass in the desert just for the beef, there are better uses for the water. However, cows have the unique ability to turn grass into protein, so if all an area can grow is grass, cows are a great way to get calories out of it. Properly allowed to graze freely, cows can be a net improvement on a particular ecology as a carbon sink (manure is an improvement to the soil), but shipping the harvested grass to feedlots is indeed an ecological disaster.

Retric 4y ago
You get more protein per X acres eating corn than feeding that same corn to cows and eating the cows. If you prefer meat then chicken is worse than eating corn but still much better than cows. We eat beef because it’s delicious and that’s it’s only advantage at scale.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  The whole point of GP's post is that you can't grow corn everywhere. There is some soil that only supports grass, and the most efficient way to extract nutritional value from this land is through grazing animals.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. The availability of irrigation is largely a solvable problem. In the US for example the east coast, Alaska etc gets plenty of fresh water which just ends up in the ocean.
    - ledauphin 4y ago
      kind of ironic that this discussion seems to have come full circle w/r/t to unsustainable irrigation...
      - Retric 4y ago
        Unsustainable irrigation is just cheaper than sustainable irrigation. It doesn’t mean unsustainable irrigation is the only option.
    - b112 4y ago
      Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. No, it does not. In this context, 'grow' means 'in a usable fashion'. Rocky, hilly soil isn't tillable, is impossible to harvest en mass, and results in poor outcomes. It's almost like you've never farmed, and are making statements based upon theory, instead of real world usage cases. Whatever agenda you have, please stop trying to claim that all soil is good for corn. Even beyond that, there are places corn cannot grow. Period. Ever. For example, in many parts of Canada, the season is too short for corn to mature! Hay and other such things grow there, and such land is good for cattle too.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Not all crops involve tilling soil, some orchards are in extremely rocky hilly areas. It’s one of the reasons olive trees are so associated with Italy. Anyway, preparing an area for cultivation is a one time cost. People actually grow crops in areas you consider impossible because someone already put the effort possibly thousands of years ago even if it’s not currently economically viable. Terraces also work in hilly areas, though building them is expensive. Removing stones from fields is the origin of field stone houses and quite a few stone fences at property lines. The degree of effort required can be huge but at the extreme end people plant orchards in areas that are covered in boulders. For places where none of that effort is worth it, lumber is still a viable crop as long as it gets enough rain.
        b112 4y ago
        You're changing the context of the argument, from "growing stuff people eat" to "growing stuff for grazing, because it makes no sense to grow crops there". Yes, you can grow crops anywhere, on the moon, in shipping containers, in your basement, and yes on terraces and if you spare no expense to change the land. But all of that is silly and absurd, and not part of the context of this discussion. Some of it just is not possible in any sane fashion. Some of the land you think is just "move a few rocks and it's fine, like people used to do" is not even remotely accurate or true. We're talking about hilly, rocky land, with 1" of topsoil (Canadian Shield), with poor soil. This land is what you throw a goat or cattle at. It's not something you import billions of dollars of topsoil per 100 acres, to make usable. I honestly don't get your argument here.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  We also prefer beef because that much corn consumption would be incredibly unhealthy. People like to shit on animal farms and say that more calories could be grown with less resources with plants. That's true, but the calorie count isn't the only factor to consider. Humans need a diverse diet.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s not like corn is the only viable crop on this land, humans can also be vegetarians. That said, with wealth comes the desire to increase meat consumption in just about every culture. We have plenty of food and land to waste a large percentage of them on cattle, the only issue is the externalities of doing so.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  No, ruminants use bacteria we don't have to get protein out of plants. Humans can not extract that protein, so we use animals to do it then eat them. Theres about 30 grams protein in 1000 calories of corn. There's about 90 grams in 1000 calories beef. This is because cows are very good at extracting protein. Also, I can just let cows graze on Texas praire. I can't necessarily do that with corn.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > to get protein out of plants. Humans can not extract that protein ... Doesn't that mean "choose different plants" would be the more efficient / better approach there?
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s not that they are more efficient at extracting protein it’s they preferentially use carbohydrates for energy. Human vegetarians can have that same ratio of protein to calories in their flesh as cows or non vegetarian humans. Though the actual ratios do depend on body composition for both cattle and humans.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      Yes it is. Cows can eat only grass and still get enough protein. Vegetarians can not do that and still get enough protein. They have to eat other plants as well. Those plants do not grow everywhere.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Humans can extract enough protein in terms of grams from grasses like wheat as long as their daily activity level is high enough to burn sufficient carbohydrates. We have more complex dietary needs, but daily protein requirements aren’t actually that high. https://www.nutritionix.com/food/wheat/100g https://www.nutritionix.com/food/wheat/100g Wheat 15g of protein per 100g or 329 calories. That’s 114g on a 2,500 calorie diet.
- novok 4y ago
  Only about %25 of agricultural land is arable and viable for growing crops, the other %75 can only be grazed by ruminants like cattle. Just on that fact alone, ruminant animals are never going away from the food supply until you could synthesize everything in a lab from some basic raw materials, and have that food actually be healthy to humans. That is long, long long away. Without cows, the prices of vegetables will go up a lot and put even more pressure on the remaining %25 of land. There is something to be said about growing animal feed on arable land to feed to animals directly although that could be used to make food that humans can digest directly instead. But you still need bio-available protein, and plants do really badly on that. If you actual compare meat to plant matter on what is actually digested and absorbed by humans to get the equivalent nutrition, you'll find that plants actually do not perform that well beyond carbs and some micro-nutrients on an efficiency basis. You still need fat, protein and the other micro-nutrients. Animals also convert indigestible agricultural waste products from plant growing into something humans can use, meat.
  - Retric 4y ago
    First most cattle in the US get the majority of calories over their lifetime from crops not directly grazing land. The actual percentage breakdown is for land completely dependent on irrigation and land preparation. It’s not cost effective to use huge tracts of land for crops because we have such excess farmland, but maximum production would involve zero animals whatsoever. Further, actual productivity on marginal or untended land is by definition very low. Cattle grazing on scrub that gets minimal rainfall is very expensive both in terms of effort and the energy expended by cattle to extract what little food is available while generally leading to desertification. In terms of converting waste products, such organic material has a wide range of uses including feeding livestock. You could for example burn it for energy so calling it a waste product is very misleading.
- idlehand 4y ago
  Corn is not a complete protein, though. So it's not a valid substitute for chicken or beef, which do provide all the necessary amino acids.
  - tpush 4y ago
    Every plant protein source is a 'complete protein'; the issue is not whether they have all essential amino acids (they do), but in what amount. And as it turns out, isocaloric (compared to meat) plant based protein sources offer enough protein for basically everybody.
tedk-42 4y ago
Surely the methane they produce far outweighs any carbon sink benefits
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  I'm not an expert, but my sense of the carbon sink is that the more soil there is the better, and grazing cows eating grass and leaving manure behind is building soil and encouraging plant growth. The carbon released by the cows "emissions" is part of a carbon cycle, first captured by the grass and then released by bacteria in the cow's gut. The more grass, the more cows, the more carbon is hanging out somewhere other than the atmosphere.
- guerby 4y ago
  Before this: https://theconversation.com/historical-photo-of-mountain-of-bison-skulls-documents-animals-on-the-brink-of-extinction-148780 https://theconversation.com/historical-photo-of-mountain-of-... There were a lot of bisons in the americas, estimated 60 millions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison "With a population in excess of 60 million in the late 18th century, the species was down to just 541 animals by 1889." https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-31-2022.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-31-2022.php "There were 91.9 million head of cattle and calves on U.S. farms as of Jan. 1, 2022"
stjohnswarts 4y ago
soy can turn those same resources into protein as well, as can other beans. It's a poor use in arid climes like was stated before.
defrost 4y ago
Unique in the sense of ignoring sheep, kangaroos, and other herbivores . . . Speaking of which: Hop Over to Kangaroo Meat: The More Sustainable Choice https://biodiversityconservationblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/hop-over-to-kangaroo-meat-the-more-sustainable-choice/ https://biodiversityconservationblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/1...
chiefalchemist 4y ago
Or you can grow beans, hemp, etc. Some animal protein is good. But in many places the level of animal protein creation and consumption does not harm than good. I know you mentioned cows, but do some research on factory farmed pigs. They're legal toxic waste sights. We need to rethink our (Western) approach to diet.

Retric 4y ago

You get more protein per X acres eating corn than feeding that same corn to cows and eating the cows. If you prefer meat then chicken is worse than eating corn but still much better than cows. We eat beef because it’s delicious and that’s it’s only advantage at scale.

AussieWog93 4y ago
The whole point of GP's post is that you can't grow corn everywhere. There is some soil that only supports grass, and the most efficient way to extract nutritional value from this land is through grazing animals.
- Retric 4y ago
  Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. The availability of irrigation is largely a solvable problem. In the US for example the east coast, Alaska etc gets plenty of fresh water which just ends up in the ocean.
  - ledauphin 4y ago
    kind of ironic that this discussion seems to have come full circle w/r/t to unsustainable irrigation...
    - Retric 4y ago
      Unsustainable irrigation is just cheaper than sustainable irrigation. It doesn’t mean unsustainable irrigation is the only option.
  - b112 4y ago
    Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. No, it does not. In this context, 'grow' means 'in a usable fashion'. Rocky, hilly soil isn't tillable, is impossible to harvest en mass, and results in poor outcomes. It's almost like you've never farmed, and are making statements based upon theory, instead of real world usage cases. Whatever agenda you have, please stop trying to claim that all soil is good for corn. Even beyond that, there are places corn cannot grow. Period. Ever. For example, in many parts of Canada, the season is too short for corn to mature! Hay and other such things grow there, and such land is good for cattle too.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Not all crops involve tilling soil, some orchards are in extremely rocky hilly areas. It’s one of the reasons olive trees are so associated with Italy. Anyway, preparing an area for cultivation is a one time cost. People actually grow crops in areas you consider impossible because someone already put the effort possibly thousands of years ago even if it’s not currently economically viable. Terraces also work in hilly areas, though building them is expensive. Removing stones from fields is the origin of field stone houses and quite a few stone fences at property lines. The degree of effort required can be huge but at the extreme end people plant orchards in areas that are covered in boulders. For places where none of that effort is worth it, lumber is still a viable crop as long as it gets enough rain.
      - b112 4y ago
        You're changing the context of the argument, from "growing stuff people eat" to "growing stuff for grazing, because it makes no sense to grow crops there". Yes, you can grow crops anywhere, on the moon, in shipping containers, in your basement, and yes on terraces and if you spare no expense to change the land. But all of that is silly and absurd, and not part of the context of this discussion. Some of it just is not possible in any sane fashion. Some of the land you think is just "move a few rocks and it's fine, like people used to do" is not even remotely accurate or true. We're talking about hilly, rocky land, with 1" of topsoil (Canadian Shield), with poor soil. This land is what you throw a goat or cattle at. It's not something you import billions of dollars of topsoil per 100 acres, to make usable. I honestly don't get your argument here.
CodeSgt 4y ago
We also prefer beef because that much corn consumption would be incredibly unhealthy. People like to shit on animal farms and say that more calories could be grown with less resources with plants. That's true, but the calorie count isn't the only factor to consider. Humans need a diverse diet.
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s not like corn is the only viable crop on this land, humans can also be vegetarians. That said, with wealth comes the desire to increase meat consumption in just about every culture. We have plenty of food and land to waste a large percentage of them on cattle, the only issue is the externalities of doing so.
collegeburner 4y ago
No, ruminants use bacteria we don't have to get protein out of plants. Humans can not extract that protein, so we use animals to do it then eat them. Theres about 30 grams protein in 1000 calories of corn. There's about 90 grams in 1000 calories beef. This is because cows are very good at extracting protein. Also, I can just let cows graze on Texas praire. I can't necessarily do that with corn.
- justinclift 4y ago
  > to get protein out of plants. Humans can not extract that protein ... Doesn't that mean "choose different plants" would be the more efficient / better approach there?
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s not that they are more efficient at extracting protein it’s they preferentially use carbohydrates for energy. Human vegetarians can have that same ratio of protein to calories in their flesh as cows or non vegetarian humans. Though the actual ratios do depend on body composition for both cattle and humans.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    Yes it is. Cows can eat only grass and still get enough protein. Vegetarians can not do that and still get enough protein. They have to eat other plants as well. Those plants do not grow everywhere.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Humans can extract enough protein in terms of grams from grasses like wheat as long as their daily activity level is high enough to burn sufficient carbohydrates. We have more complex dietary needs, but daily protein requirements aren’t actually that high. https://www.nutritionix.com/food/wheat/100g https://www.nutritionix.com/food/wheat/100g Wheat 15g of protein per 100g or 329 calories. That’s 114g on a 2,500 calorie diet.
novok 4y ago
Only about %25 of agricultural land is arable and viable for growing crops, the other %75 can only be grazed by ruminants like cattle. Just on that fact alone, ruminant animals are never going away from the food supply until you could synthesize everything in a lab from some basic raw materials, and have that food actually be healthy to humans. That is long, long long away. Without cows, the prices of vegetables will go up a lot and put even more pressure on the remaining %25 of land. There is something to be said about growing animal feed on arable land to feed to animals directly although that could be used to make food that humans can digest directly instead. But you still need bio-available protein, and plants do really badly on that. If you actual compare meat to plant matter on what is actually digested and absorbed by humans to get the equivalent nutrition, you'll find that plants actually do not perform that well beyond carbs and some micro-nutrients on an efficiency basis. You still need fat, protein and the other micro-nutrients. Animals also convert indigestible agricultural waste products from plant growing into something humans can use, meat.
- Retric 4y ago
  First most cattle in the US get the majority of calories over their lifetime from crops not directly grazing land. The actual percentage breakdown is for land completely dependent on irrigation and land preparation. It’s not cost effective to use huge tracts of land for crops because we have such excess farmland, but maximum production would involve zero animals whatsoever. Further, actual productivity on marginal or untended land is by definition very low. Cattle grazing on scrub that gets minimal rainfall is very expensive both in terms of effort and the energy expended by cattle to extract what little food is available while generally leading to desertification. In terms of converting waste products, such organic material has a wide range of uses including feeding livestock. You could for example burn it for energy so calling it a waste product is very misleading.
idlehand 4y ago
Corn is not a complete protein, though. So it's not a valid substitute for chicken or beef, which do provide all the necessary amino acids.
- tpush 4y ago
  Every plant protein source is a 'complete protein'; the issue is not whether they have all essential amino acids (they do), but in what amount. And as it turns out, isocaloric (compared to meat) plant based protein sources offer enough protein for basically everybody.

tedk-42 4y ago

Surely the methane they produce far outweighs any carbon sink benefits

jazzyjackson 4y ago
I'm not an expert, but my sense of the carbon sink is that the more soil there is the better, and grazing cows eating grass and leaving manure behind is building soil and encouraging plant growth. The carbon released by the cows "emissions" is part of a carbon cycle, first captured by the grass and then released by bacteria in the cow's gut. The more grass, the more cows, the more carbon is hanging out somewhere other than the atmosphere.
guerby 4y ago
Before this: https://theconversation.com/historical-photo-of-mountain-of-bison-skulls-documents-animals-on-the-brink-of-extinction-148780 https://theconversation.com/historical-photo-of-mountain-of-... There were a lot of bisons in the americas, estimated 60 millions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison "With a population in excess of 60 million in the late 18th century, the species was down to just 541 animals by 1889." https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-31-2022.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-31-2022.php "There were 91.9 million head of cattle and calves on U.S. farms as of Jan. 1, 2022"

stjohnswarts 4y ago

soy can turn those same resources into protein as well, as can other beans. It's a poor use in arid climes like was stated before.

defrost 4y ago

Unique in the sense of ignoring sheep, kangaroos, and other herbivores . . . Speaking of which: Hop Over to Kangaroo Meat: The More Sustainable Choice https://biodiversityconservationblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/hop-over-to-kangaroo-meat-the-more-sustainable-choice/ https://biodiversityconservationblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/1...

chiefalchemist 4y ago

Or you can grow beans, hemp, etc. Some animal protein is good. But in many places the level of animal protein creation and consumption does not harm than good. I know you mentioned cows, but do some research on factory farmed pigs. They're legal toxic waste sights. We need to rethink our (Western) approach to diet.