Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Altruistic_Sample449 t1_ixcg2rg wrote

That whole site was awesome and fun to interact with.

149

JPAnalyst OP t1_ixcg5oi wrote

Agreed. Really interesting topic and charts. NY Times does some cool stuff like this once in a while too.

39

Altruistic_Sample449 t1_ixcgcjn wrote

I don’t know if you’re on mobile but when you scroll past each caption the map changes. Very pleasing. Thank you friend.

25

JPAnalyst OP t1_ixcgyqm wrote

Yeah. I’m on mobile. It works great. I like the more detailed breakdown of the “food we eat” category. You’re welcome. Have a great day!

11

thedancingwireless t1_ixch88r wrote

So total land for grazing cattle or growing livestock feed makes up 40% of all land in the lower 48%. That's insane.

58

RU_FKM t1_ixcyu47 wrote

The grazing area, perhaps misleadingly, includes arid areas such as most of Nevada. To imply that the density of grazing animals is consistent across those areas is a bit irresponsible.

26

Unit61365 t1_ixdj1l2 wrote

Indeed. These are also the driest areas and getting drier.

5

medievalmachine t1_ixdwt27 wrote

A little bit, but by weight our meat animals really are that dominant on the continent. Wildlife is vanishingly rare now and is mostly semi-domesticated like mice, raccoons, rats, fox, deer, etc.

1

jayrocksd t1_ixekdoq wrote

It seems as though they have classified BLM land as dedicated to livestock, even though they are actually multi-use, and open to the public for recreation along with other uses. Much of it isn't fit for grazing, and others are actual conservation areas. Usually in the areas where they issue grazing permits under the Taylor Grazing Act, the cattle are there three months out of the year with plenty of room to graze. Large herds of grazing animals are actually better for the land than not having them. They eat, trample, and fertilize the grass then move on rather than letting it grow and then die creating a thatch and taking several years to decompose. Grazing herds can actually be a valuable tool in stopping and even reversing desertification.

21

Ok-disaster2022 t1_ixf8gzc wrote

Much of the western prairie environment is adapted for large mammal grazes, though historically that was mostly bison, not cattle. Overgrazing is also a massive problem compared to what bison would have done. Cattle sequester on smaller pasture will contaminate water sources and cause erosion.

Fun fact, some Native American groups would have control burns of forest to expand the prairie and increase capacity for bison.

6

jayrocksd t1_ixfan2q wrote

Overgrazing can be a huge problem. That is why the Taylor Grazing Act was passed, to avoid the issues seen in the Dust Bowl. If grazing herds aren't allowed to move once they have mowed over an area it can have a severely negative affect. That's why the Federal Government hires scientists to monitor and plan these leases. There is plenty of area for herds to move as we're talking about a combined area (630,000 square km) larger than Ukraine.

4

sgigot t1_ixg0l4h wrote

The benefit/adverse effect of grazing livestock depends on the land. The prairies were well-adapted to handle and benefit from bison. Grazing in the desert takes a *long* time to recover from. I've been to Big Bend and Organ Pipe NM and both parks talk about trying to restore the land after overgrazing in the early 1900's. If they remove too much vegetation (or selectively eat certain species) it will have a negative effect - promote erosion, allow non-native invasives to move in, or shift the water.

2

jayrocksd t1_ixga1ou wrote

NPS generally doesn't allow grazing other than probably Capitol Reef which was made from existing BLM land with existing leases. Organ Pipe isn't a good example as the Sonoran Desert probably isn't a good candidate to reverse desertification and that ecoregion is important in itself.

When trying to reverse desertification, herd animals aren't the most important thing, stopping soil erosion is. Grazing animals can also be a negative, but if managed properly they can be a great positive. Ruminant animals are an important part of the ecosystem, whether they be bovine (including bison), ovine, caprine or deer. I strongly suggest you watch this Ted talk. It's certainly not settled science, as some will argue that the benefit is offset by the methane created by ruminant animals. I would argue that the methane production from the great bison herds of North America, which were also ruminant, didn't seem to be a problem, or we wouldn't call climate change man-made.

2

2nra95 t1_ixfbbhc wrote

And to think farmers in Brazil are still burning down rainforest to make extra land for the same purpose

2

VaelinX t1_ixf12d2 wrote

We. Fucking. Love. Hamburgers.

Vox did a good breakdown on the Colorado River water usage in the western US. We could get every human in the west to bathe only twice a week and it wouldn't make a dent. The ONLY reasonable place to cut water usage is livestock. Notably alfalfa: a particularly water-hungry crop used exclusively to feed livestock... much of it exported overseas.

0

Ok-disaster2022 t1_ixf8qwn wrote

There are miniature breeds of cows that are more feed efficient, have lower meat wastage when processing, are easier to manage, the meat is more tender, and less destructive in their environments. We should be switching to those breeds for major production. Downside is technically your cuts if meat would be smaller.

2

LetMeUseMyEmailFfs t1_ixghun8 wrote

More feed efficient, but by how much? If you’re driving a Hummer, an F150 is probably more fuel efficient, but it’s still an unreasonable fuel guzzler.

The only way is to eat less meat. There’s no need for people to eat meat with every meal or even every day.

1

VaelinX t1_ixfdm5g wrote

Great! Lets do it all. I'm sure there'd be up-front costs with switching, but the western water crisis isn't getting any better.

I know there are management plans - but I don't know that they're being implemented. There are always challenges with trying to direct industry at the Federal level. You hear about Republicans (incorrectly) claiming that the left wants to "ban cows" in regards to methane production as a greenhouse gas. So you can bet that if this can be used as a political wedge issue, then it will be.

The suggestion I've seen is similar to farms subsidized for leaving fields fallow to keep from overproducing some goods - do that with alfalfa - but then seed producers will be out and cow feed prices will increase as they need to come form farther... basically, there will be those who lose out one way or another - so until it becomes a *financial* crisis, it's not seen as a crisis. Meaning it won't happen until water rationing to farmers gets bad enough (and it's starting to get there).

0

[deleted] t1_ixf21v3 wrote

Makes you wonder how much land would be conserved if people adopted a healthier, plant-based diet.....

−1

Kragkin t1_ixcfkbl wrote

Keep in mind, a lot of pasture land is either multi-use and/or unable to grow human food.

31

vtTownie t1_ixcmp98 wrote

Yup, below ground resource extraction, wind and solar generation etc all take place on grazing land.

7

cyberentomology t1_ixcrm7k wrote

Lot of that in Kansas. Grass is one of the best solar farms there is, using solar energy to convert CO2 into oxygen, H-C bonds (sugars and starches) and biomass (cellulose) and storing much of it underground.

The Kansas tallgrass prairie was probably one of the best carbon sinks on the planet (along with the Russian Steppes and the Argentine Pampas) and about 150 years ago, right about the time we really needed to not do so, 98% of it was plowed under, and the 60 million grazing animals that lived there were almost completely exterminated.

4

cyberentomology t1_ixcqxak wrote

Pasture land is unable to be used for any other crops and so livestock becomes the best way to grow food from that land. Cattle are quite good at turning captured atmospheric carbon in the form of plant biomass and then turning it into protein, rendering that land quite productive while keeping the ecosystem going (they are a vital component of that grassland ecosystem) without having to mechanically work the land.

3

BaldingMonk t1_ixdnwbg wrote

Yes, but the key here is to look at how much of the usable land goes to growing crops specifically meant to go to livestock (127.4 million acres vs for livestock feed vs 77.3 million acres for what we consume). When you combine this with the water use, waste and emissions from livestock, it's a huge waste.

1

R_V_Z t1_ixdvmqw wrote

Or in the case of Nevada, irradiated.

−1

Attjack t1_ixd95e4 wrote

As a Pacific NW resident there's far more forest on the eastern part of the nation than I expected.

11

King_XDDD t1_ixebu4i wrote

I'm from New England and I knew that Maine, NH, and Vermont are basically entire states of forest, but the rest of the east had more forest than I expected as well.

1

planning_throwaway1 t1_ixfv1xx wrote

We have big cities but not as much suburban sprawl compared to the rest of the country. Once you get to upstate NY or new england, it's all woods and rivers and mountains. Pretty nice

People really sleep on how beautiful the NE is just because they get their first impression from NYC or Philly or whatever

1

So_spoke_the_wizard t1_ixfylnr wrote

And as a New Englander, there's a lot less forest in the Rockys, Cascades, and west coast than I expected.

1

sgigot t1_ixg11zb wrote

The Appalachians are covered in trees, as are large swathes of the subtropical southeast.

Land tends to become forest if it has enough moisture, isn't suppressed by critters, and doesn't burn. Human forest fire suppression has tended to increase forest cover, although some of that is self-interest. Lots of tree farms out there, but the biodiversity of a quarter of identical-aged pine trees destined for the sawmill is nothing compared to an old-growth forest (or something disrupted by a tornado/fire/etc.)

1

FrancoPls t1_ixd7pte wrote

4/5 of americans life in those "small" hotspots yet your election system... counts otherwise :D

10

EViLTeW t1_ixel89j wrote

It's curious that they don't really mention surface water anywhere. Almost 170m acres of the US are water. Maybe just too hard to try and subtract it from the other categories.

5

darkvoid1001 t1_ixdkuto wrote

This the real dataisbeautiful. Very well presented, fun read.

4

Unit61365 t1_ixdiubf wrote

"Special use" is an interesting, and large, category. Love to see how that breaks down between military and other.

3

Mulkitis t1_ixcu11u wrote

...admittedly since I just visited Washington DC and the National Museum of the American Indian, I could not help but think about how great swaths of land belonged to Indians. My grandfather in Michigan had river fishing rights with nets. Much hunting ground was taken over since Jackson from breaking treaties. Incredibly unjust and tragic.

2

rojm t1_ixfsqux wrote

It’s weird to see that all that crop and pasture land is used to serve mainly the few pink squares.

2

JPAnalyst OP t1_ixfsvhc wrote

Yeah. That’s an interesting point. And I guess for export also, but then we are importing other things from other places for the pink squares.

2

dingus_domingus t1_ixewjzg wrote

Here’s what the government does with the land average Americans get blamed for stealing

1

poopynips1 t1_ixf4za1 wrote

This is so interesting, but also the relative amount of forest and wilderness being so low made me oddly and immediately furious. Had a full-on ecoterrorist moment for a second

1

Headrex t1_ixfwly8 wrote

Is there a unique owner count per X ? Example, of land type X there is n owners. Hypothesis the non urban poor's are absolutely fucked but feel free. I'm okay to be wrong, just curious.

1

So_spoke_the_wizard t1_ixfyrdt wrote

From the last, composite graphic, "since 2008 the amount of land owned by the 100 largest private landowners has grown from 28 million acres to 40 million, an area larger than the state of Florida."

1

Bsp2012wpqw t1_ixgftyu wrote

The timber clear-cut portion maybe misleading and significantly inflated. The description cites the Forest Service as say 11 million acres are harvested every year. The term harvest likely does not translate to clear-cut. This could be including thinnings or other partial cuts. The fact that such a large portion of clear-cut is shown on federal lands, in relation to private timber lands, further points to them misinterpreting the data. I didn't see an actual source for the data beyond just saying it is from the Forest Service. They may also be double counting several categories on here as there are lots of areas with multiple uses, especially on the federal and state lands.

1

thajcakla t1_ixgh8cl wrote

At least in America, I would much rather have a bunch of pasture land than houses or any other urban development.

1

Congenital0ptimist t1_ixgu5uc wrote

Forests, wild grasslands, & wetlands please.

1

thajcakla t1_ixiabow wrote

Read it again. I said I'd prefer them over urban development, not wilderness.

0

JPAnalyst OP t1_ixh48nt wrote

But you would want to live in a house though right? And so do the other 331 million Americans.

1

rulen613 t1_ixh1cvg wrote

100 rich families own almost as much land as Florida. I'll use that factoid when discussing electoral maps. That big blob might be owned by one family...

1

furyoshonen t1_iybpv7h wrote

This website and infographic has been posted many times, but it is worth reposting, as it is good to be reminded of how land is used in the US.

1

vtTownie t1_ixcmh38 wrote

They separate out corporate and private timber land, I wonder how much of that private family timber land is contracted out to wayerhauser and the like

0

cyberentomology t1_ixcqfkk wrote

That’s basically cropland, just on a longer cycle. Engineered wood products and pulp usage allow that cycle to be shortened, though.

It’s all one of the better carbon capture mechanisms we have right now.

5

Hiiawatha t1_ixg1otn wrote

Would like to have seen what area is estimated to be used for parking.

0

SparrowBirch t1_ixcst9q wrote

Do suburbs fall under urban or rural housing? I assumed it would be a huge portion.

−1

ritalara t1_ixd5jgl wrote

Urban. Probably anything within X miles of metropolitan area as designated by US census or such.

3

3mem t1_ixd63bt wrote

I would assume it's mostly under urban. The actual dense urban areas of most US cities are relatively small and I don't think they'd take up that much land without suburbs included.

3

Emscho44 t1_ixes8ij wrote

People target golf for how much land it takes up but look at it compared to 100 largest landowning families!

−1

Ok-disaster2022 t1_ixfc66l wrote

For golf there's large issues with it taking up land area in urban areas for essentially private rich person green space. If golf in congested areas were converted to public parks or even public golf it would be less of an issue

1

Emscho44 t1_ixfp45s wrote

Damn I wish public golf was a thing. But unless the state pays for maintenance that’d be impossible

1

calguy1955 t1_ixczqyw wrote

It’s a petty comment but I find it arrogant to assume Americans “use” all land in some way. There are vast areas of forests, deserts, etc that just exist without being exploited somehow by humans.

−5

JPAnalyst OP t1_ixd02hz wrote

People always looking to find something wrong.

6

calguy1955 t1_ixd1sj7 wrote

Sorry, it’s just the terminology I don’t like. It’s not as bad as the realtors’ mantra of “highest and best use”.

1

JPAnalyst OP t1_ixd38te wrote

Pleasing all the pedants in the world aren’t worth the lack of clicks. Editors need to balance pure objective vanilla titles against creating a need for the reader to click. I think they know what they’re doing. If they aren’t getting clicks they won’t exist.

1