Ruminants and land use


(Bob M) #1

Was listening to a podcast and the guy being interviewed ended on a note (having nothing to do with the topic being discussed) about being a vegetarian and wanting us to have fake meats, because the jungle is being burnt to raise cattle and ruminants take up all the arable land.

If the jungle is being burnt to raise cattle, that is a bad thing. But I’m not sure that’s true.

But the other part I’ve heard was not true. So, here’s one website about cattle and land use:

They argue that cattle can be raised on land not suitable for plants.

Here’s another one:

https://www.ketogenicforums.com/c/science

This one argues that ruminants help soil. They end with regenerative farming, which I do think is beneficial, but I’m not even sure you have to go that far. There’s a symbiosis between ruminants and grassland, as long as the ruminants move around.

Anyway, if anyone has more – or more concise – locations that argue ruminants are good, I’d like to see them.


(Peter - Don't Fear the Fat ) #2

I haven’t looked at this yet. My 1st thought is meat consmption is going down and plant demand is up.

‘The UK has seen a decline of over 15% in meat consumption from 2008 to 2019, with smaller portions accounting for 52% of the overall reduction’.

While I don’t doubt land is being cleared I’d guess its for more plant production. It’s a tragedy.
Along with toxic rivers, soil and air caused by chemical weedkiller, pesticides and fertilizer.


#3

Isn’t it for growing plants? Last time I have heard about it, it was that… Whatever, there are too many people IMO.
We don’t have jungles but I like seeing cattles grazing on pretty green hills I don’t want to get converted into crop land…

But we barely eat any beef here and my brain isn’t even fully awake yet so I stop.
(By the way, Hungary’s meat consumption steadily grew in the last ~12-13 years, there is a campaign for it. It’s about fatty pork but still.)


(Joey) #4

I’m not sure about that either. But if the jungles are being burnt, that remains a bad thing. Full stop.

Whatever reason offered does not change that fact. There’s ample land on the planet for whatever purpose is being offered for destroying jungle habitat.


(Doug) #5

It’s true that cows, etc., can be raised on ground that’s marginal or unsuitable for growing crops.

If the world had 700 or 800 million people, we could eventually come up with a system that’s nearly infinitely sustainable and good. But with over ten times that many people, the numbers are depressing all around.


(Joey) #6

I’d like to be educated on this point and would be interested in seeing some math in support of this notion. Any references/sources?


(Doug) #7

it has come up before right here on Ketogenic forums. Lemme see if I can find it…

It came down to what land would be required for the animals, and how much there is, period - arable land, all suitable-for-grazing-land, all rural land, period.

To save the planet - make more meat! = one thread where it was discussed.

My conclusion was:

We’ve got 38.5% of habitable land going for livestock already. By itself, that can support:

2.5 billion people, on the basis of protein.
1.3 billion people, on the basis of calories.

Hypothetically, let’s do away with all cropland, as far as growing human plant-based food. Now we can support:

3.2 billion people, for protein.
1.7 billion people, for calories.

Now let’s cut down all the forests, get rid of all the trees and shrubs:

6.4 billion people, for protein.
3.3 billion people, for calories.


(Central Florida Bob ) #8

Years ago, I ran across one of those studies that just sticks in your mind. If you were going to put the entire human population of the world into one place, how much room would they take? If you think about the question, the obvious issue is “how much room does each person get?” Some group called Resilient Communities actually did the study where they calculated the room per person in six places across the globe and figured out how much room it would take based on the population density of those six places. This is the plot, and since it depends on the total population, the fact that this was 2013 means it would take more room now.

This shows, for example, if we housed every single person on earth with the population density of Paris, they would fit into the area of three states: Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. If we used the population density of New York City, the entire population of Earth could fit into the area of Texas. If we used the more generous suburban lot sizes surrounding Houston, the whole population of the planet would fit in the middle states of America.

The surface area of the Earth, including oceans and everything, is 197 million square miles, so take away 70% of that for being uninhabitable (oceans, big lakes, and so on) to end up with 59 million square miles. The total population of the world is 8.22 billion people, resulting in 200,000 square feet per person.

This picture is based on roughly 2010 numbers which were somewhat smaller that today’s (7/8 of today’s), so use that to estimate 229,000 square feet per person back then.


(KM) #9

I’ve always said global population on the day of my birth (3,102,552,213) was about maximum carrying capacity. Too bad nobody listened, we’re currently a bit over 8.2 billion.

Just for fun, what was global population on the day of your birth?


(Doug) #10

2,886,034,721 (1959)

I’d looked it up before, for similar conversations. Amazing that from under 3 billion it’s already over 8…

Talk about unsustainable… Looks like another 2 billion will be thrown on in fairly short order, but most predictions are for a levelling-off or at least a much lesser rate of increase, if not actual declines.

I’ve got a great-nephew born not long after midnight on this past New Year’s Day. So, he’s one of the first “generation Beta” people. Wild to think that he’s got a good chance of seeing the year 2100, and - by that time - who knows what will be possible with human lifespans? 2150? 2200? :stuck_out_tongue:

I also think there’s a decent chance that we’ll see major disruption in our lifetimes (ballparking - next 20, 30, 40 years). War, famine, disease…


(Peter Ballerstedt) #11


A representation of global land area, agricultural land, arable land, and Class I land equivalent. Ruminant animals are managed across all of this land. Reject the either/or arguments (plant agric or animal agric). There can be no sustainable food systems without livestock in general and ruminant livestock in particular. Look for Integrated Cropping Livestock Systems.


(Christian Voigt) #12

It’s basically all very biased reporting. It starts with “the jungle” and “rainforests”. They are not ancient. Humans have used and changed them for tens of thousands of years. For all sorts of things. Cattle, crops. It’s not relevant, really.

If any of that is done right, it would be fine. The problem isn’t land use or clearing it. The problem is uncontrolled capitalism. Maximum profit for minimum effort and lowest acceptable quality.

We really don’t have to fight the principles of food production. That’s the one thing we should never compromise over. Hell, in the past, we would move just for food, over thousands of miles on foot.

If anything, that’s the one acceptable thing to change one’s environment for. Regenerative farming is a blessing for biology. Monocrops are a scourge. Switching between them is a good compromise. That’s not as profitable, of course. So we don’t do it.

The whole climate debate is a scam. Not because climate stuff isn’t important. But because they somehow distort that ■■■■ so much, it looks like a bagel. What it is, is a strawman.

If people would stop consuming junk food, we’d cut the global industry in half. Production of junk food and items plus medications to make up for them uses up more than 70% of energy and resources. We’ve become a hedonistic people dead set on gluttony with no regard for others. And we don’t want to change that. Well. Capitalists don’t want to change that. Only depressed, sick, and slightly stupid people are good customers. The easiest way to get those people is bad food, inhumane working conditions, and depression.

The issue is, healthy and sensible people aren’t capitalistically viable. Healthy bodies, healthy minds. We would not accept this crap at all. But we are distracted and basically poisoned to an early death. To me, that’s undeniable. It’s obvious. Look around at what people crave.

Cheap plastic stuff that breaks after a month. Cheap plastic food that breaks you after a decade. Cheap plastic people that break on a comment.

Just my morning coffee musings. Farming cattle will not harm the planet. Or us. Or the climate. It might be the last drop in that narrative. But you don’t avert a flooding by handling drops. The industrial floodgates that produce trillionaires, that’s another issue. Those need to close.

Imagine if we were all healthy. Almost no chronic diseases, no supplements, tons of hospitals, clinics, and doctors: obsolete, less mental issues and attached medications. All that industry, all that cost, all that energy, and all those resources.

And here they are telling us that it’s the healthiest food on the planet that has to go…
Makes total sense. Not. That’s the one thing where it is worth it.


(KM) #13

Everything I spend my life ranting about, in one post! :love_you_gesture:


#14

This is an old one and there is controversy surrounding these ideas but basically according to this, if ruminants are managed well they prevent desertification not the other way around. Trigger warning if you like elephants

Here is a challenge to his ideas


(Doug) #15

Savory looks like a smoke-and-mirrors guy to me.

While in principle some of the things he says are possible, he wasn’t transparent about how his claimed results were achieved, and he may have misrepresented some data - the ‘Rangelands’ challenge to it mentions such.

Specifically, I remember one area where Savory’s argument was essentially that “having cows here fixed the land.” In reality, large amounts of organic matter had been transported in and placed, both as feed for the cows, and as a mulching/water retention/ground enrichment layer.


(Doug) #16

The argument (at least here on this forum, I think :wink::smile:) is not “get rid of all livestock.”

Integrated systems - fine, if they work - but we’ve already exceeded the planet’s carrying capacity for people with some integrations of livestock/plant production.

The main problem is not specifically how we use land, rather, it’s that there are just too many of us using it/depending on it.

I think there are at least two discussions here. One is “how much of the rainforest/jungle should be cut down?” Different people will vary in opinions, and give different weight to assorted considerations.

Another (and more in the wheelhouse of this forum) is - assuming a sustainable system - what mix of ruminants/livestock/plant production do we have, including separate and integrated methods?


(Doug) #17

It would be a luxury to have it be that way now… :slightly_smiling_face: