No. No. That’s completely wrong. That’s not what I think, because it doesn’t make any sense. There are no crops that can be effectively and cheaply grown in rocky, arid wasteland. If we weren’t using it to let cattle graze, it would be wild land being grazed by buffalo instead. Now, maybe you could argue that would still be better, but it wouldn’t be growing food for humans any more efficiently. Buffalo aren’t actually any more efficient than cattle at producing meat, and nobody’s hauling water up to into the high Rockies to irrigate rocks. That’s not a real thing that people would be doing if cattle weren’t grazing there.
There is a dedicated section for “pasture/range” which is the grazing space you’re talking about. I am not talking about that. I’m talking about the section for “livestock feed” which is crop growth.
it’s not actually clear how much of that land is exclusively for growing animal feed, and how much of that land is being attributed to animal feed, which is also used for human food. for instance, a soybean is only about 20% oil. about that much is used by humans. The other 80% of the soybean is a byproduct of pressing for oil called soy cake. that soy cake is fed to livestock, but if it weren’t fed to livestock, it would be industrial waste. is 80% of soybean land use to grow food for livestock? no. 100% of it is used to grow food for people, and food for livestock. and we feed cottonseed to cattle, but cotton isn’t grown for cottonseed: it’s grown for textiles. is that land being attributed? I’ve read the article is carefully as I can, and it doesn’t seem to make this nuance at all.
That’s fair. I guess I misunderstood. Sorry. Yeah, it would be nice if that part were smaller. It’s still not a perfect one to one comparison. Feed crops do actually tend to use less other resources. Sometimes a lot less, depending on the crop you’re comparing them to, but yeah, it’s a lot of land that could be growing things for humans, and there’s more of it than there needs to be. Sorry. You are right about that.
No. No. That’s completely wrong. That’s not what I think, because it doesn’t make any sense. There are no crops that can be effectively and cheaply grown in rocky, arid wasteland. If we weren’t using it to let cattle graze, it would be wild land being grazed by buffalo instead. Now, maybe you could argue that would still be better, but it wouldn’t be growing food for humans any more efficiently. Buffalo aren’t actually any more efficient than cattle at producing meat, and nobody’s hauling water up to into the high Rockies to irrigate rocks. That’s not a real thing that people would be doing if cattle weren’t grazing there.
There is a dedicated section for “pasture/range” which is the grazing space you’re talking about. I am not talking about that. I’m talking about the section for “livestock feed” which is crop growth.
it’s not actually clear how much of that land is exclusively for growing animal feed, and how much of that land is being attributed to animal feed, which is also used for human food. for instance, a soybean is only about 20% oil. about that much is used by humans. The other 80% of the soybean is a byproduct of pressing for oil called soy cake. that soy cake is fed to livestock, but if it weren’t fed to livestock, it would be industrial waste. is 80% of soybean land use to grow food for livestock? no. 100% of it is used to grow food for people, and food for livestock. and we feed cottonseed to cattle, but cotton isn’t grown for cottonseed: it’s grown for textiles. is that land being attributed? I’ve read the article is carefully as I can, and it doesn’t seem to make this nuance at all.
That’s fair. I guess I misunderstood. Sorry. Yeah, it would be nice if that part were smaller. It’s still not a perfect one to one comparison. Feed crops do actually tend to use less other resources. Sometimes a lot less, depending on the crop you’re comparing them to, but yeah, it’s a lot of land that could be growing things for humans, and there’s more of it than there needs to be. Sorry. You are right about that.
All good, glad we smoothed that over :)