3 ms·

I know in Australia much of the grazing land will not support growing crops. And it is also worth considering popular crops too that use significant amounts of

• pyre 14y ago
  > I know in Australia much of the grazing land will > not support growing crops. I realize that some of the land used for livestock won't switch to farmland, but I'm not talking about reclaiming land, I'm talking about freshwater shortage. > And it is also worth considering popular crops too that > use significant amounts of water like rice and cotton. I don't know about cotton, but I don't know of anyone growing rice in the midwestern United States. So far as I know, the only rice grown in the United States is in California, where they pump the water out of mountains (the Sierras). I don't believe that they are experiencing issues right now. > So while livestock do account for much water use, it's not a > simple switch to grains and the world will be rainbows. It's more about freshwater usage. If farmers are having issues keeping their crops watered, would it make sense to pour more water into livestock (and the grains that go to feed them) with a lower rate of return on that water, or to pour it into the grains, where the yield is higher? Also, comments like "and the world will be rainbows" are a little condescending.