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 e

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.