Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @09:47AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @09:47AM (#615492)

    Yeah but cotton is crap in cold wet. Dying of hypothermia sucks.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 29 2017, @08:15PM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 29 2017, @08:15PM (#615639) Journal

    Alright - so, can you name those synthetics which are good in cold and wet conditions?

    Let me talk about wool for a moment. When wool is saturated with water - that is, it is dripping wet, it still retains about 30% of it's insulation value. As you have already observed, cotton retains just about zero insulation value under those conditions. Goose down ranks right up there with wool - dripping wet, it still has insulation value.

    Back to synthetics - DuPont holofil is equal to wool. That is because the holofil fibers are hollow, and it is difficult to fill those fibers with water. Holofil is an excellent insulator for cold weather, but it is bulky. A jacket with holofil is about four times thicker than a wool jacket, for the same insulation value. Which is about the same as goose down.

    Now, I'll be honest - I haven't searched for any newer synthetic fibers that equal or exceed holofil, wool, or down. Maybe there are some good synthetics out there that can be soaked with water, and still keep you warm. Do you know of any? I guess if you like foamed neoprene, you could use that. Scuba divers like it when the water gets cold.

    Of course, I'm not being entirely fair in this post, so far. People who live in cold wet conditions usually learn about layering.
    Next to body, a layer of cotton.
    Then a layer of wool
    Then a layer of wool, down, holofil
    And, finally, a good water repellant such as ripstop nylon.

    There is gortex, which in effect combines an insulating layer with a water repellant layer. I've been impressed with gortex - both good and bad. I don't like it in boots - felt packs do the job equally well, without any risk of tearing the boots up when your feet/legs are cold and wet.

    https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/layering-basics.html [rei.com]

    https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/january-2005/the-right-stuff-for-cold-weather/ [lhsfna.org]

    I disagree with both of those links. I beieve that T-shirts and boxers provide good wicking, to move moisture away from the body. I really don't want polypro fabric against my skin . . .

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Saturday December 30 2017, @02:47AM

      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 30 2017, @02:47AM (#615714) Homepage Journal

      Unrefined wool, which still contains all its lanolin, is quite water-repellant. It's the basis of authentic Aran knitting, traditionally done by fishermen to keep themselves warm at sea.