Submitted by JPAnalyst t3_z1rm34 in dataisbeautiful
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.
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.
Unit61365 t1_ixdj1l2 wrote
Indeed. These are also the driest areas and getting drier.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2nra95 t1_ixfbbhc wrote
And to think farmers in Brazil are still burning down rainforest to make extra land for the same purpose
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.
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.
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.
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).
[deleted] t1_ixf21v3 wrote
Makes you wonder how much land would be conserved if people adopted a healthier, plant-based diet.....
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments