5 ms·

Totally possible to raise animals without this though. There is a massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much other than grasses and shrubs. Animals ca

by pard68 3y ago

Totally possible to raise animals without this though. There is a massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much other than grasses and shrubs. Animals can convert that to calories we can consume, leaving more biologically diverse land available for other species. The issue is that animals raised on pasture need more land and more time, which equals more money. It's cheaper to raise animals on what amounts to junk food (soy, corn, legumes). We raise and sell pork, chicken, eggs, and dairy products that never eat anything that our own land doesn't produce (grass/nuts/native fruit). But my hogs grow over a year not six months, my chickens don't lay in the winter, and my cows don't produce 10+ gallons per day. My business is only sustainable because of people who care for quality of cheaper quantity.

hgomersall 3y ago
Without meaning to suggest that there's no much better ways to raise animals for meat, it's still a fundamental truth that the land area needed to support animals is much higher than crops. If we were to only eat meat from animals that were raised in a biodiversity sustainable fashion, we'd all have to eat far less meat (which I totally support as a flexitarian).
- pard68 3y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. There is no possible way to raise animals the way we do at a scale that can sustain the current demand for meat. But at my small scale, I can make a profit while matching the sales price of mass-produced animal products, and I do that with no government subsidies. My point was merely, there is a middle way, that makes better products, cheaply, and more ethically.
myshpa 3y ago
> massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much other than grasses and shrubs. Animals can convert that to calories we can consume 80% of all agricultural land for 18% of calories. It's an area the size of both Americas. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land-Use-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Given that we're in the sixth mass extinction, and animal species have seen 70% decline in last 50 years, we have to reverse the trend. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction That "marginal land" should be reforested instead and nature restored. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4 Humans are driving one million species to extinction - with agriculture https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption > My business is only sustainable because of people who care for quality of cheaper quantity Your business might be. Animal agriculture isn't. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.
- pard68 3y ago
  My point was simple that you can do that while still raising animals for food. They taste great, have a wealth of nutrients, and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > They taste great Sure, if you're ok with ignoring everything else. > have a wealth of nutrients But nothing that we couldn't get from plants. > and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time They can. But forest would do it too, and better. Climate-wise it's not a win. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climate https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-... "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > 80% of all agricultural land for 18% of calories. It's an area the size of both Americas. > https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... how did you get 80% and 18% numbers from that link?.. also, calories is not the only metric of nutrition load..
brnt 3y ago
> There is a massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much other than grasses and shrubs. Things may seem that way since those areas have been cultivated since prehistory, but this is not correct in general. Also, commercial fields (aka green concrete) and naturally grazed steppe/savannah are very different.
- pard68 3y ago
  Yes, I am in favor of doing our best to return America's savannahs back to their previous state, though that state was not quite "wild" as you rightly point out, as Native Americans tended to the land and practiced regular burning of both the forests, savannahs, and plains. Likewise, bison did a huge part and sadly they cannot do that huge part anymore. But we can still get the land back to something healthier for everyone. My cattle (Jerseys, I do not raise commercial beef cattle) prefer my savannah land. I have approx. 100 acres of oak savannah which I have worked hard to restore to its former glory. My savannah (I don't call it pasture, it's not) is far more productive and biodiverse. I do have to remove my herds from it because trees cannot handle the constraint weight and trampling of large animals, and so I do also have a small 20 acre pasture that I keep for the off-time. I also have a 5 acre lot I keep for the winter months (Jan-April) so my cattle don't destroy dormant plants and so the grasses have time to mature in the spring.

by pard68 3y ago

hgomersall 3y ago

Without meaning to suggest that there's no much better ways to raise animals for meat, it's still a fundamental truth that the land area needed to support animals is much higher than crops. If we were to only eat meat from animals that were raised in a biodiversity sustainable fashion, we'd all have to eat far less meat (which I totally support as a flexitarian).

pard68 3y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. There is no possible way to raise animals the way we do at a scale that can sustain the current demand for meat. But at my small scale, I can make a profit while matching the sales price of mass-produced animal products, and I do that with no government subsidies. My point was merely, there is a middle way, that makes better products, cheaply, and more ethically.

myshpa 3y ago

> massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much other than grasses and shrubs. Animals can convert that to calories we can consume 80% of all agricultural land for 18% of calories. It's an area the size of both Americas. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land-Use-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Given that we're in the sixth mass extinction, and animal species have seen 70% decline in last 50 years, we have to reverse the trend. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction That "marginal land" should be reforested instead and nature restored. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4 Humans are driving one million species to extinction - with agriculture https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption > My business is only sustainable because of people who care for quality of cheaper quantity Your business might be. Animal agriculture isn't. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.

pard68 3y ago
My point was simple that you can do that while still raising animals for food. They taste great, have a wealth of nutrients, and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > They taste great Sure, if you're ok with ignoring everything else. > have a wealth of nutrients But nothing that we couldn't get from plants. > and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time They can. But forest would do it too, and better. Climate-wise it's not a win. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climate https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-... "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"
riku_iki 3y ago
> 80% of all agricultural land for 18% of calories. It's an area the size of both Americas. > https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... how did you get 80% and 18% numbers from that link?.. also, calories is not the only metric of nutrition load..

brnt 3y ago

> There is a massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much other than grasses and shrubs. Things may seem that way since those areas have been cultivated since prehistory, but this is not correct in general. Also, commercial fields (aka green concrete) and naturally grazed steppe/savannah are very different.

pard68 3y ago
Yes, I am in favor of doing our best to return America's savannahs back to their previous state, though that state was not quite "wild" as you rightly point out, as Native Americans tended to the land and practiced regular burning of both the forests, savannahs, and plains. Likewise, bison did a huge part and sadly they cannot do that huge part anymore. But we can still get the land back to something healthier for everyone. My cattle (Jerseys, I do not raise commercial beef cattle) prefer my savannah land. I have approx. 100 acres of oak savannah which I have worked hard to restore to its former glory. My savannah (I don't call it pasture, it's not) is far more productive and biodiverse. I do have to remove my herds from it because trees cannot handle the constraint weight and trampling of large animals, and so I do also have a small 20 acre pasture that I keep for the off-time. I also have a 5 acre lot I keep for the winter months (Jan-April) so my cattle don't destroy dormant plants and so the grasses have time to mature in the spring.