Hacker News Reader

Comment by lucidguppy | Hacker News Reader

77% of agricultural land is devoted to livestock. We could return a lot of that land to wilderness if we adopted a whole food plant based diet.

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/chart-shows-worlds-land-...

View on HN

77% if you count land for grazing, otherwise useless to agriculture. If you go back 500 years you know what your find on that land? Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today. Feeding the world means using ruminants to turn grass into protein.

> Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today.

I’m very skeptical of this. Citation needed please.

Apparently as many as 100 million on the American plains once upon a time, according to Google

I wonder how many bison there were before the last Ice Age. Before the land-bridge and before humans from Asia arrived with their slash-and-burn.

Wikipedia cites ~60M bison pre-1800 [1] USDA ~93M cattle currently [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting [2] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php

Is the 60M figure for what is now the US or for all North America ? If that's the latter, you'd need to add Canadian cattle as well, around 11M[1].

[1] https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/canadas-agriculture-sectors...

I'm pretty sure there were no buffalo in the Amazon or Pantanal 500 years ago.

It's actually pretty clear from new imagery the Amazon was significantly deforested and farmed before European diseases wiped out the natives.

And before that, the extinctions mammoths and mastadons (by humans) led to a lot of tree cover that was grassland when the grazers kept the forests in check.

area check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest

the amazing, Amazon Basin, is far, far larger than any previous human terraculture eh?

There was an interesting discussion on HN not too long ago (1-3 months?), that we have been wrong about human stress on mammoths etc. We should find it. As usual we learn neat things on HN.

Giant sloths were a thing

Correct, yet these were not "a thing" 500 years ago, not even 5000,try double that and then then "maybe"

The point in the parent comment was not about the literal number 500 but rather about a point in time before humans altered the megafauna

Why do you need protein from ruminants? Why not pulses?

Bioavailability. Plants are awful as protein sources for humans. Ruminants are awesome as plant processors for the providing of protein to humans.

You're gonna have to provide a source for that. Just because less meat is needed for the same amount of protein doesn't make it better or more healthy.

There's a difference between crude protein and quality protein. Here's a place to start — https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-018-1009-y/....

Compare the DIAAS scores (see a short overview of DIAAS here — https://www.arlafoodsingredients.com/the-whey-and-protein-bl...). Plant-based sources of indispensable amino acids are lacking; that, combined with the sheer amount of water and energy necessary to produce & process them make them a very bad choice indeed, especially set against pastured ruminants, as (primary) protein sources. The suggestions for protein intake in the Mayo article cited by blacksmith_tb are minimal levels; more (and quality) protein is needed for better health, not merely for getting enough.

Pastured ruminants? In the US, cows are fed corn at feedlots to double production. You're comparing to the wrong thing.

Nope. Everyone sees feedlot production as the only way to raise cows, but it's entirely dependent on using the land which could be used for roaming to raise vast quantities of unhealthy grains. Get rid of the corn and bring back pastures. Not only will there be plenty of room to raise excellent & tasty protein from happy cows, the damage done to humans from corn will be significantly lessened. Then we can turn to the problem of wheat...

Sorry wrote a post but accidently erased and hate typing on phone so here's a useful link.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44879/does-anim...

Doesn't rice & beans have all the complementary proteins ?

It does. It's an easily debunked myth that plants don't provide all needed amino acids.

If you mean "essential amino acids" when you say "indispensable amino avids", you are wrong as it is not difficult at all to get all essential amino acids from a varied plant-based diet. In fact you only need to eat soy, or mix other legumes with whole grains to get enough of all essential amino acids.

Regarding water and energy needed for plants vs animals, I'm flabbergasted that you are even making this argument, considering that the vast majority of crops goes into feeding animals for meat and dairy. It's far more inefficient to eat meat and dairy than it is to eat plants when it comes to water and energy usage.

And what do mean mean "more protein is needed for better health, not merely for getting enough". Are you saying that "getting enough" protein is not enough to maintain health? Sounds like a contradiction.

"Indispensable" is the language used in the link I sent, so I was shooting for consistency. While it is possible to get what is needed through plants, obtaining protein from animal sources is far more direct, easy to digest, requires less material for the body to work with, and does not carry along the antinutrients (lectins, oxalates, etc.) plant foods so often deliver and which can be quite damaging to humans.

The argument is also not for feedlots, but for pastures — in a post below I argue for getting rid of the grains which we use to feed these animals (which isn't great for them to eat, either). There is good evidence (see Peter Ballerstedt's work for details on this) that pastured ruminants end up generating excellent soil that holds in water and is actually on the good end of things, methane emission-wise (though the problem of emissions from feedlots are greatly overblown as the pollution which comes from planting, harvesting, processing, and distributing plants rarely gets folded into the equation). Funny that.

And, finally, as for "getting enough" — getting enough to get by is not optimal for health. More & better protein is needed for that, and that comes from renewable animal sources which don't require vast expenditures of energy, processing, and which prevent the loss of topsoil while adding to the vitality of the soil. I want everyone to be healthy, and there's a path for that to happen, one which won't be taken if we go down the "plant based" path instead.

'Awful' is quite hyperbolic - pulses (aka beans and lentils), nuts, and seeds all contain protein[1]. In the US, it's not like we're struggling to get enough protein[2]. So demanding to eat meat is a little like insisting that you don't just need to drive, but that you absolutely have to have a V8 diesel pickup for your commute to the office.

1: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

2" https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speak...

> Just as many Buffalo as there are cows today.

is there a citation for that claim?

That's a very US-centric viewpoint. I mean, New Zealand didn't have any land-dwelling mammals except for the rat 500 years ago.

Same in the UK (barring the mammals point). The country was 60-80% temperate rainforest before human habitation, depending on what research you go by. I grew up in the countryside. I cannot tell you how impossible it is to convince someone, who is dead set on consuming animal products, that we could regenerate that land if only we got rid of the cattle/fodder though. It's always "that land can't be used for anything else" or "having animals grazing there is good for the land", and that is just demonstrably false in every way. It's baffling that there can literally be old growth forest just on the other side of the hill, and the farmers will be adamant that the land they're on would be useless and barren if it weren't for them - as they continue to staunchly cut back the hedgerows and mow their fields every few months.

Having been part of forest regeneration efforts across the UK - from southern heathlands to rocky Welsh and Scottish outcrops, good for "nothing but sheep" - I can say with all certainty that every part of the country except the most extreme alpine regions is suitable for reforestation or some form of plantation dense rewilding. People are completely ignorant to how the country looked before we levelled it for grazing, viewing the 70% ecologically barren agricultural land (of which 80% of that is used for grazing or feeding cattle) as the norm and the 2.5% old growth forest as a more novelty, and something strangely "unique to that area".

If you're from New Zealand, this video is especially poignant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc

Unfortunately there is no enough grassland to maintain the current levels of beef consumption. Most beef we consume is not grass-fed. So if you want to feed the world by converting grass into protein, that would mean just the same - radical reduction in meat consumption.

> Feeding the world means using ruminants to turn grass into protein.

Beef is not an essential staple. It's probably the worst kind of meat in terms of environmental impact.

"Chickens actually evolved as a jungle species"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tree-range-c...

I think I once saw something similar about cattle but I cannot find any reference.

'Silvopasture' might be the term you want.

Yes exactly, thanks!

> "Chickens actually evolved as a jungle species"

Though that might be true, and despite it working for a small community - the scale of meat production required to satisfy the world's demands today can't be achieved through forest-raised chickens or cattle.

The price of meat would have to skyrocket and/or the consumption of it would have to dramatically decrease. Both of those would be progress from a climate change and environmental perspective, but from the perspective of global meat consumer expectations, it would be a serious regression. Few people want to go back to pre-industrial diet (mostly grains, greens, and a very small amount of meat).

That's why plant based meat substitutes are such a big deal - they might be one of the few ways we can thread this needle.

Backyard chickens for both meat and eggs are pretty feasible in many places. I don't like meat but raising chickens for eggs was very easy for me and I live close to the center of a small city. Friends of mine in a major city worked with their friends and neighbors to collectively raise and slaughter backyard chickens for meat. Factory farming is not the only option, although I agree that this involves eating less meat for sure.

Cows in the Texas Piney Woods love the woods. They like fields too. But more of often than not I'd find them under the cool shade of pines if not in the tanks (ponds).

How much different is that livestock land compared to its wild state? I mean, the big county-sized pastures aren't cultivated at all, they just have a fence put around them and a drinking through, yet they contribute to these statistics that people pushing vegetarianism/veganism like to cite a lot.

In some places not a lot. Some parts of the great plains have basically swapped Bison for cattle, and keep a vaguely similar ecosystem. However much more of this area is degraded due to have far too much cattle there too often. Bison used to graze and migrate, churning up the ground and adding fertilizer, and then letting things re-grow.

Other livestock land is completely different from its 'wild state'. Cattle ranching in what used to be the Amazon. Sheep herding in European uplands, also takes place on land that used to be forest and temperate rain forest.

Another feed in to the large percentage of land that goes towards livestock, is growing animal feed. The majority of cattle in the US is not just eating grass. It is eating crops that are grown specifically for feeding to cattle. So those fields of corn, that are then fed to cattle could also go back to their 'wild state'.

Maybe we should start raising giraffes instead of cows for meat. Then we'd have a need for lots of trees.

I don't want to though.

Nah.

The obvious endgame there is that you reduce the amount of land required per person and then increase the persons, ending up with the same land requirement.

Then we look for the next thing to cut.

I'll just keep my current quality of life and outcompete others for resources, thanks. Carbon tax pls.

This makes no sense, and is a typical non-sequitur thrown out by those who are unwilling to give up meat. There is absolutely no evidence that meat eating is the limiting factor in population growth.

Evidence? It's mathematical, not scientific. Derivable from first principles.

I can eat meat as much as I want provided another 7 billion people don't also do the same.

The issue is with the number of people, not the activity. Literally any use of land is a bad idea at that scale, we end up in rabbit hutches.

Another non-sensical response. You made the claim, not me. It's your responsibility to provide evidence.

For more information, please re-read.

What you've said makes sense, but not as a reply. Unless you can explain how it justifies the claim that the other person claimed you made?

Malthus didn't count on people just not wanting to have kids.

> There is absolutely no evidence that meat eating is the limiting factor in population growth.

So you're saying eating meat is fine then?

If this comment isn't a joke then you are acting in bad faith.

Not a joke, just not following your chain of logic regarding meat eating.

No you aren't, you are replying with a snarky non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with any claims or logic in my post.

I think the response you are replying to meant this sentiment: Ranch land can and occasionally does turn back into wild land, once its a subdivision its gone forever. Over the long run he is certainly right that less requirements for ranch land doesn't do anything to ensure that we get more land without fences.

My argument is that eating vegetarian does not reduce land use for agriculture.

It does to first order. Then we just end up with more mouths - like what happened after the Haber-Bosch process.

>77% of agricultural land is devoted to livestock. We could return a lot of that land to wilderness if we adopted a whole food plant based diet.

You have to be careful here. Livestock is generally carbon sinks. Those cow patties are taking co2 into grass and then depositing it into the ground.

Flipside, plant based diet has a deadline.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/verso2/

We are already 70% degraded and only slowly the process by spraying oil byproducts on the land. If we kill the oil industry, that erosion increases in speed.

A more recent publication was looking at the moulds vs fungus balance and it's even worse than the above proposes.

We have to get into regenerative farming to reverse this problem and that includes keeping livestock for those cow patties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com