Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday December 29 2017, @03:29AM   Printer-friendly
from the what's-your-beef? dept.

Rethinking how the US grows beef

As of now, cattle eat not only local pasture, but also grains, hay, and grass that is grown elsewhere and stored. A recent analysis by an international team of researchers looked into what would change if the US switched to sustainable ranching, in which cattle eat only from local grasslands and agricultural byproducts.

It turns out that the current amount of pastureland in the US could only support 45 percent of our current beef production and consumption. This admittedly narrow definition of sustainability relies on feeding cows more agricultural byproducts, which, as of now, account for only about 10 percent of their diet; the scientists note that, "despite the recent doubling of distillers' grain utilization," these byproducts are still plentiful.

If we were to cut the pastureland that ranchers currently use in half, that would diminish beef availability to... 43 percent of current values, rather than 45. So freeing up about 135 hectares—almost a quarter of our national surface area, and twice the size of France—would decrease beef availability by only two percentage points.

Most of this is not especially productive grassland, and it could be rewilded or conserved. But some of it is high-quality cropland that could be used to grow other food sources, like pork, poultry, grains, legumes, vegetables, and even dairy. All of these utilize less water and fertilizer than beef while emitting fewer greenhouse gases. In addition, they provide us with more calories, fiber, micronutrients, and even protein than the beef they'd supplant. The only thing we'd be missing is vitamin B12, for which the authors of this analysis offer a quick fix: take a pill.

A model for 'sustainable' US beef production (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0390-5) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @03:55AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @03:55AM (#615411)

    So they propose to cut pastureland and increase agriculture to feed animals more and keep people drunk. They must live in a place where fertilizers are free. And make the animals move less, by keeping them local, or so I understand. Oh, yeah, and also depend on pills (bacteria produced... it would had been the final nail if the source was pasture animals).

    I tought sustainable proposals were about less crap, not more. About more resistant methods with less dependencies, not less by stressing other systems more.

    USA has a problem with eating a lot, and a lot of that being crap... but please...

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 29 2017, @04:29AM (5 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 29 2017, @04:29AM (#615427) Journal

    And make the animals move less, by keeping them local

    You misunderstood that. Animals that eat only local forage have to move around to get to that forage. Animals that eat imported forage actually move a lot less. An 18-wheeler comes in the pasture gate in Mississippi, loaded with hay from Texas. All that hay is unloaded, either onto the ground, or into those big round feeders. The cattle no longer need to wander the length and width of the pasture for forage. They can stand right there, in front of that feeder, until the hay runs out. So, we've traded away healthy movement (for the cattle) in exchange for burning hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel to move the hay to the cattle.

    In practice, the cattle do still move around, but there is less purpose to that movement.

    Another germane issue, is the importation of parasites, diseases, and invasive crops with that imported hay. Odd that none of that was addressed in the article.

    All of that said - I like my beef. Yeah, I could do with less beef in my diet. I'd probably be healthier if I ate more veggies. But, don't screw with the availability of beef!! I may be willing to cut down to 4 or 5 beef based meals per week, instead of 7 or 8. I am NOT willing to cut beef from my diet!!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @04:44AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @04:44AM (#615434)

      It says eat more from local grasslands. Doesn't that mean they eat from far away grassland now? IE, they move a lot, migrating western movie style, at least that is how I see pastureland. Maybe I mixed it, and they don't walk much, and as you say, they cut and move the grass. But for me that is farmed cows, with very small pastureland already, if at all.

      Family were farmers generations ago, and from what I remember, part of the trick with animals was to spread the things they needed (water, grass, salt), so they had to move. But that was from a time trucks were yet to be invented or very new (XIX and early XX). And the country as a whole moved lots of animals in a winter-summer cycle too, sometimes hundreds of km.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 29 2017, @05:14AM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 29 2017, @05:14AM (#615452) Journal

        Negative. The sort of migratory patterns you talk of still exist in a few states, but it's not used much at all. Even in Texas, cattle typically are fenced in, and they live within that same fenced area almost all of their lives. In west Texas, that pasture may be thousands or even tens of thousands of acres. Elsewhere, most pastures are a thousand acres or less - usually much less. The cattle are only moved to feed lots for fattening shortly before they are to be slaughtered.

        Places like Wyoming, that still have open range pretty much follow the same pattern. The calf is turned out to pasture with it's mother, and they wander wherever the hell they want in search of forage. Hay may or may not be brought to the cattle to supplement the scarce forage. But, some weeks prior to slaughter, they are moved to a feed lot, and fattened up.

        Today, the feed comes to the cattle, rather than the cattle going to the feed.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 29 2017, @03:23PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 29 2017, @03:23PM (#615530)

          What little I know of cattle comes from central Florida where they run a lot of cow-calf operations.

          The calves are raised in Florida until they're ready to handle a winter "up north" then sold and shipped up there to be grown large and slaughtered. Apparently this is somehow more efficient than worrying about summer-winter cycles and just birthing the calves where they are going to grow up.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:31PM (#615619)

          Did I read this right, you're claiming the feed is brought to the cattle in all cases even after specifying that it was only for the final fattening?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:28PM (#615618)

      As demonstrated, no single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 29 2017, @02:21PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 29 2017, @02:21PM (#615520)

    Fertilizers are free, they come from a hole in Florida:

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lakeland,+FL/@27.7131291,-82.0575304,35307m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88dd38b2df0f0007:0x29d1320fb8a2d508!8m2!3d28.0394654!4d-81.9498042 [google.com]

    And, as for the B12 bacteria - how do you think the cows make it in the first place?

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Friday December 29 2017, @05:11PM (1 child)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 29 2017, @05:11PM (#615567) Journal

    This proposal's sustainability is based on the idea of using distiller's grains, the waste from alcohol production, to feed cattle instead of throwing it away. This is a good, tested, and proven idea. Distillers Grains are a good food for cattle. They are far better for feeding cattle than straight grain.

    Building a business off of DG is problematic though. Breweries are primarily located in industrial areas. Cattle are raised in rural areas. The grain comes out of the still hot and wet* with a neutral pH, ideal conditions for bacteria and mold growth. This makes them spoil very quickly. Transporting them is a problem, and they don't store. The farmer has to pick them up every day and if the brewery shuts down for a day it's a huge problem for the farm. Cattle do not appreciate rapid changes to their diets.

    * insert inappropriate joke here.

    If a clever boffin were to invent a small, fast, and cheap device for drying these that allows DGs to be stored for a week or so that would be a game changer.

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday December 30 2017, @02:24AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Saturday December 30 2017, @02:24AM (#615706) Homepage

      Distillers DRIED grains are a common feed ingredient. Even found in some dry pet food. And Coors has a big malting operation here in the middle of nowhere, Montana, but handy to the adjacent railroad.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.