3 ms·

So, a rancher says beef is good for the environment. I'm totally convinced. This article makes no mention of how grazing lands come to exist. http://www.thegua

So, a rancher says beef is good for the environment. I'm totally convinced. This article makes no mention of how grazing lands come to exist. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/31/cattle-trade-brazil-greenpeace-amazon-deforestation http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/31/cattle-tr... Nutrition production per acre is much lower for beef than plant-based foods, and as nations become more developed and populations increase their intake of meat-based foods, more land for grazing, and more land for raising grains to feed to the food animals, must be cleared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_o... In short: Most of the claims made for beef being "good for the environment" here are about grass lands on which they graze, but no one would reasonably argue that chopping down an old growth forest and replacing it with millions of acres of grass would be good for the environment, but that's effectively what this author is claiming. I'm frankly somewhat disappointed that an article with such clear industry bias has been given the patina of respectability that the WSJ provides.

ArkyBeagle 12y ago
I don't see any claim on the part of the author that cutting down forest and replacing it with grassland makes any sense. There is the claim that woody shrubs encroaching on grassland reduces the utility of the grassland - whether that's in a natural state or as part of a ranch. The buffalo grass prairie was pretty dern eco-rich and cattle grazing isn't that far off of that if you're careful. It depends on the base ecosystem before you add cattle. If you can graze beef critters in East Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas, I doubt it would have the same effect as doing same where old-growth forest stood in the Amazon basin. These areas generally have adequate rainfall and don't require aquifer depletion. Then again, there's 2011. The Niman Ranch is in California; I am not sure how that works. Agriculture in general in California requires much redirection of water to work. It could be that cattle ranching is better than Central Valley style crop farming. The critical figure of the piece is the disconnect between 2,500 gallons of water per pound of beef vs. the claim of 441 gallons - again, in California, water is key. The 2,500 figure is suspicious; the 441 gallon figure is at least defended by UC Davis scientists, where the provenance for the 2,500 gallon figure is much more shadowy.

ArkyBeagle 12y ago

I don't see any claim on the part of the author that cutting down forest and replacing it with grassland makes any sense. There is the claim that woody shrubs encroaching on grassland reduces the utility of the grassland - whether that's in a natural state or as part of a ranch. The buffalo grass prairie was pretty dern eco-rich and cattle grazing isn't that far off of that if you're careful. It depends on the base ecosystem before you add cattle. If you can graze beef critters in East Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas, I doubt it would have the same effect as doing same where old-growth forest stood in the Amazon basin. These areas generally have adequate rainfall and don't require aquifer depletion. Then again, there's 2011. The Niman Ranch is in California; I am not sure how that works. Agriculture in general in California requires much redirection of water to work. It could be that cattle ranching is better than Central Valley style crop farming. The critical figure of the piece is the disconnect between 2,500 gallons of water per pound of beef vs. the claim of 441 gallons - again, in California, water is key. The 2,500 figure is suspicious; the 441 gallon figure is at least defended by UC Davis scientists, where the provenance for the 2,500 gallon figure is much more shadowy.