4 ms·

We don't really deforest in the U.S. for animals from what I understand. This takes place in places like South America. We could control imports/exports and I

We don't really deforest in the U.S. for animals from what I understand. This takes place in places like South America. We could control imports/exports and I'd be all for that. As far as feed though, not all feed is grown exclusively for cattle. I've worked with sugar companies in the past and the by-products of sugar production (molasses, raffinate, etc..) are sold as cattle feed. This is a billion dollar industry. These by-products are being produced regardless of whether we feed cattle or not.

elil17 4y ago
I mean the forestry aspect is only part of it, the methane/CO2 ratio is still a big deal. Import control is an interesting idea, I haven't heard that before.
tedivm 4y ago
We don't anymore, because we already managed a lot of deforesting in our past. > The 2005 (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment ranked the United States as seventh highest country losing its old growth forests, a vast majority of which were removed prior to the 20th century.[3] >For the 300 years following the arrival of Europeans, land was cleared, mostly for agriculture, at a rate that matched that of population growth.[7] During the 19th century, while the U.S. population tripled, the total area of cropland increased by over four times, from seventy-six million to three hundred nineteen million acres. For every person added to the U.S. population during this period, farmers put another three to four acres under the plow.[8] This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased reaching a peak in 1963 of 753,000,000 acres (3,050,000 km2).[4] It was estimated that there were 1,023,000,000 acres of forest in 1630, compared to 766,000,000 acres in 2012.

4 ms·

We don't really deforest in the U.S. for animals from what I understand. This takes place in places like South America. We could control imports/exports and I

by nightski 4y ago

elil17 4y ago
I mean the forestry aspect is only part of it, the methane/CO2 ratio is still a big deal. Import control is an interesting idea, I haven't heard that before.
tedivm 4y ago
We don't anymore, because we already managed a lot of deforesting in our past. > The 2005 (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment ranked the United States as seventh highest country losing its old growth forests, a vast majority of which were removed prior to the 20th century.[3] >For the 300 years following the arrival of Europeans, land was cleared, mostly for agriculture, at a rate that matched that of population growth.[7] During the 19th century, while the U.S. population tripled, the total area of cropland increased by over four times, from seventy-six million to three hundred nineteen million acres. For every person added to the U.S. population during this period, farmers put another three to four acres under the plow.[8] This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased reaching a peak in 1963 of 753,000,000 acres (3,050,000 km2).[4] It was estimated that there were 1,023,000,000 acres of forest in 1630, compared to 766,000,000 acres in 2012.