4 ms·

If even some of the land that was freed up by a fall-off in livestock production was instead used to grow plants, we'd actually have a food surplus, and a signi

• SwellJoe 13y ago
  Not to mention we'd reduce water usage dramatically in a lot of places where water use is one of the most pressing issues people face.
  • bobbydavid 13y ago
    And don't forget air quality! Cow farts are a leading cause of greenhouse gases. Seriously.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• colechristensen 13y ago
  Many places which are unsuitable to crop production can be used for livestock production with very wide grazing. Most livestock production is done in hyper-concentrated confinement operations which take up negligible land space. For the wellbeing of the animals, the quality of the environment surrounding these sites, and the quality of the meat -- these confinement operations should be done away with. The space, though, is irrelevant. Eliminating livestock production increases food availability because the feed-conversion-ratio is between 4 and 40 (how many pounds of feed turn into 1 pound of cow,pig,chicken, etc). It is certainly not about space.
  • geoka9 13y ago
    What about the space required to grow food for livestock?
    • seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Livestock can utilize food sources that we can't (pigs are the greatest food recyclers ever created), and they can graze in wastelands that we otherwise find difficult to make productive. India is primarily vegetarian ONLY because they have lots of land in which to grow things. Most other regions do not have so much grow-worthy land, and require a mix of farming and livestock to sustain their populations.
      • maxerickson 13y ago
        The U.S. devotes 80 million acres to corn production, corn that is mostly used as animal feed: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx (ethanol has shifted that mostly some, yay!)
        • randomdata 13y ago
          That doesn't mean those 80 million acres are able to grow food humans can eat though. Not every year. For instance, on my farm, while our soil and climate is quite good for growing beans of many varieties, which are great for human consumption, you still need to maintain a rotation to maintain a viable farm. We've had to push cereals out of some of our land because it simply won't grow on their soils. That basically leaves corn as our only real rotation option. To add to that, corn is essentially worthless right now. Its market price is below what it costs to grow. I'd rather grow something I can make money from, but I don't know what that is. You just have to roll the dice and hope the price improves before you have to sell it. As an interesting aside, a neighbour of mine actually did try growing beans year after year, but he soon found himself out of business completely when disease started running rampant and his yields dropped to nothing. It was kind of sad to watch, and frightening to think what could be if we lose the animal markets.
          • maxerickson 13y ago
            We can eat corn! I certainly don't want to shift my diet over to consume so much of it (I do realize that the quality of the harvest varies and different varieties, etc., but we can eat it). Mostly, this thread seems a bit wishy-washy on how we feed livestock in the U.S...
  • konstruktor 13y ago
    To add to that, the grazing animals don't need the antibiotics just to survive their conditions, only the ones in concentrated confinement need them.
    • colechristensen 13y ago
      The confined animals don't need them to survive either, it is just cheaper and easier to treat every animal than it is to only treat the sick ones.
• DanBC 13y ago
  We already have a food surplus.