Land Usage for Livestock Production
Fun Fact: Only 40% of the world’s agricultural land is suitable in crop production.
This means that farm animals have the ability to use land that, for whatever reason (can’t be irrigated, sand is too soft, climate is too harsh), won’t sustain a crop harvest, and produce usable protein out of it. Sources for that statistic: |
Elsheikh, Ranya, Abdul Rashid, B.Mohamed Shariff, Fazel Amiri, Noordin B Ahmad, Siva Kumar, Balasundram Mohd, and Amin
MohdSoom. "Agriculture Land Suitability Evaluator (ALSE): A Decision and Planning Support Tool for Tropical and
Subtropical Crops."Agriculture Land Suitability Evaluator (ALSE): A Decision and Planning Support Tool for Tropical and
Subtropical Crops - ScienceDirect. Elsevier B.V., Apr. 2013. Web. 30 June 2017.
"Natural Resources Conservation Service." Grazing Lands | NRCS. USDA, Nov. 1995. Web. 30 June 2017.
Wahlquist, Asa. "Cattle and Methane: More Complicated than First Meets the (rib) Eye."Shaping Tomorrow's World. Shaping
Tomorrow's World, 17 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 June 2017.
Many people have criticized the livestock industry for how much land it’s using, but the actual amount of land devoted to livestock is highly disputed over. Cowspiracy claims that livestock covers 45% of all of Earth’s land, but this systematic review from Royal Society reveals that only 30% of Earth’s ice free land is devoted to livestock, which seems quaint when you consider the 40% of agricultural land not suitable for crop production I discussed previously.
Vegan activists say that, with the population expanding, land should be conserved, and I don’t disagree. However, for the reasons listed above and below, cutting out an entire branch of agriculture would not put us ahead. The argument is not logical.
The statistic I’ve seen again and again is that it takes three acres of land to feed an omnivore for a day, and only 1/6 of an acre to feed a vegan, but there is only one acre of arable land per person in the world. However, the problem with that statistic (besides being published alongside many other faulty calculations making us highly skeptical of its accuracy) is the word, “feed.”
Most people know that going entirely plant based is not just a diet, it’s a lifestyle. True vegans avoid leather, wool, cosmetics tested on animals, etc. The reality is that we get so much more from livestock than just food.
One steer at slaughter weight (1,250 lbs) produces a 700 lb carcass that’s enough beef to feed a family of four for a whole year. However, we also get all of these by-products:
MohdSoom. "Agriculture Land Suitability Evaluator (ALSE): A Decision and Planning Support Tool for Tropical and
Subtropical Crops."Agriculture Land Suitability Evaluator (ALSE): A Decision and Planning Support Tool for Tropical and
Subtropical Crops - ScienceDirect. Elsevier B.V., Apr. 2013. Web. 30 June 2017.
"Natural Resources Conservation Service." Grazing Lands | NRCS. USDA, Nov. 1995. Web. 30 June 2017.
Wahlquist, Asa. "Cattle and Methane: More Complicated than First Meets the (rib) Eye."Shaping Tomorrow's World. Shaping
Tomorrow's World, 17 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 June 2017.
Many people have criticized the livestock industry for how much land it’s using, but the actual amount of land devoted to livestock is highly disputed over. Cowspiracy claims that livestock covers 45% of all of Earth’s land, but this systematic review from Royal Society reveals that only 30% of Earth’s ice free land is devoted to livestock, which seems quaint when you consider the 40% of agricultural land not suitable for crop production I discussed previously.
Vegan activists say that, with the population expanding, land should be conserved, and I don’t disagree. However, for the reasons listed above and below, cutting out an entire branch of agriculture would not put us ahead. The argument is not logical.
The statistic I’ve seen again and again is that it takes three acres of land to feed an omnivore for a day, and only 1/6 of an acre to feed a vegan, but there is only one acre of arable land per person in the world. However, the problem with that statistic (besides being published alongside many other faulty calculations making us highly skeptical of its accuracy) is the word, “feed.”
Most people know that going entirely plant based is not just a diet, it’s a lifestyle. True vegans avoid leather, wool, cosmetics tested on animals, etc. The reality is that we get so much more from livestock than just food.
One steer at slaughter weight (1,250 lbs) produces a 700 lb carcass that’s enough beef to feed a family of four for a whole year. However, we also get all of these by-products:
But most crops are only one bite. One stitch. One drop of oil. If you look just beyond the food, it would take many, many more crops (on the same 40% of arable land) to replace all of the clothes, plastics, medical supplies, building materials, hygienic products, fabrics, pet foods, etc. that we can get from just one livestock species. That’s not even counting swine, sheep, chickens, or any other animals.
Furthermore, there is the issue of time. For the most part, only one type of crop is grown on a field, and that field sits dormant for the rest of the year. Producers that use the system of “polycropping,” or growing multiple crops on the same plot of land, will more than likely strip the nutrients out of the soil and use more energy-intensive methods than if they just use three different fields. But it is an option in extreme situations.
However, in livestock production, animals can use the land, and produce food from it, every single day, no matter the season. Swine, in particular, are usable all year long because they can have large litters twice a year.
When covering the issue of land, it’s also important to consider what would happen to the land that’s not usable in crop production if livestock was just removed from it. In America, almost 40% of the population lives along coastlines, and this number is drastically rising. Currently, over 14% of the world’s population lives within 20 meters of the sea shore.
Considering that prairies are further inland by definition, we see that people don’t inhabit this land not because it’s occupied by agriculture, but because they simply don’t want to. Most citizens of large nations (i.e. America, Canada, and China) consider land far away from oceans rural.
For this reason, without livestock, grasslands across the world would sit mostly dormant. If the grasslands were no longer grazed, they would go “rank,” meaning they would stop “fixing” carbon, or no longer convert it to oxygen and energy via photosynthesis.
Also, the plant fibers of the native grasses would go dry and brittle without livestock to “upkeep” them, and would be highly susceptible to wildfires. This would release billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, and be a horrible threat to any small towns that stood in the path.
In conclusion, livestock do a service to the land, and to us by making use of land not suitable for crop production. In this context, removing farm animals from agriculture would not be better for the environment.
Furthermore, there is the issue of time. For the most part, only one type of crop is grown on a field, and that field sits dormant for the rest of the year. Producers that use the system of “polycropping,” or growing multiple crops on the same plot of land, will more than likely strip the nutrients out of the soil and use more energy-intensive methods than if they just use three different fields. But it is an option in extreme situations.
However, in livestock production, animals can use the land, and produce food from it, every single day, no matter the season. Swine, in particular, are usable all year long because they can have large litters twice a year.
When covering the issue of land, it’s also important to consider what would happen to the land that’s not usable in crop production if livestock was just removed from it. In America, almost 40% of the population lives along coastlines, and this number is drastically rising. Currently, over 14% of the world’s population lives within 20 meters of the sea shore.
Considering that prairies are further inland by definition, we see that people don’t inhabit this land not because it’s occupied by agriculture, but because they simply don’t want to. Most citizens of large nations (i.e. America, Canada, and China) consider land far away from oceans rural.
For this reason, without livestock, grasslands across the world would sit mostly dormant. If the grasslands were no longer grazed, they would go “rank,” meaning they would stop “fixing” carbon, or no longer convert it to oxygen and energy via photosynthesis.
Also, the plant fibers of the native grasses would go dry and brittle without livestock to “upkeep” them, and would be highly susceptible to wildfires. This would release billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, and be a horrible threat to any small towns that stood in the path.
In conclusion, livestock do a service to the land, and to us by making use of land not suitable for crop production. In this context, removing farm animals from agriculture would not be better for the environment.