[tuatoru]

There are a few little details elided.

Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping. There is either too little rainfall, or the wrong kind/timing of rainfall, or the soils are wrong. For rainfall reasons forests are out too.

Articles that go on about how ${large_number} percent of the world's non-desert, non-mountain, non-arctic land is used for grazing animals, all omit these inconvenient facts.

The "Sand Hills" region in Nebraska is typical. Dry, could in theory support arable farming, for a while, by drawing down the Ogallala aquifer. But for the fact that that the soil is just sand, and it doesn't give good crop yields. Pouring on the amounts of fertilizer that would be required for cropping would poison the aquifer for everyone else. (In the Sand Hills, the aquifer is highly connected to the surface because of the porosity of the, er, sand.)

Leaving these pastoral lands fallow (without herds of wild ruminants, with their global warming emissions) would just result in continual grass fires.

That said, feeding ruminant animals grains (soy, maize/corn, wheat) is a Bad Idea environmentally as far as I can tell. So is bulldozing the Amazon rainforest to grow soy and cattle. And it might be a Good Idea to re-wild quite a bit of pastoral land. I don't know. Persuading people to leave money on the table is difficult.[1]

1. Major Major's father notwithstanding. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/771699-his-specialty-was-al...

[Beltalowda]

> Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping.

There is plenty of livestock raised on arable land though. The exact number of "arable land used to raise livestock" will probably differ widely per region; pretty much all of the Netherlands is arable as one extreme example. Many of the hills in, say, Ireland or Britain where sheep are grazing are not.

More importantly however, as you mentioned you need a multitude of arable land for any pastoral land since your livestock has to eat. You don't need this, but no way we can raise enough livestock to meet demand on self-sustainable pastoral lands, and it's more expensive too so there's that.

I don't think it's not mentioned because it's "inconvenient", but because it's a red herring and not really very important.

[myshpa]

> There is either too little rainfall, or the wrong kind/timing of rainfall, or the soils are wrong. For rainfall reasons forests are out too.

No. Forests create rain. Missing forests (thanks to animal husbandry) are partly responsible for droughts and irregular/extreme weather events. Please don't pretend that grazing is the only thing these lands are good for. Almost any land can be reforested easily (if it has some dirt, and it's not just sand/rock desert, then it's harder, but not at all impossible).

> Leaving these pastoral lands fallow (without herds of wild ruminants, with their global warming emissions) would just result in continual grass fires.

We've taken away the ability of those lands to reforest itself with continual grazing / fire burning. We have to supply some seeds (see fukuoka method) and let the land be. Nature will do the rest.

> Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping. > Persuading people to leave money on the table is difficult.

Your premise is that all land must have a commercial value. It's a fallacy. We should rewild those areas and return that land to forests & wild animals (we've stolen it from them).

We need to stop subsidizing bad/harmful things (e.g., oil industry, meat/dairy production, sea exploitation, plastic production) and start subsidizing the right things (e.g., alternative energy sources/savings, plant based foods, reforestation efforts).

[herbst]

30% or more of Switzerland is not useable for any kind of farming other than cattle. Fertilizers in the Alps are heavily discouraged. Less than 5% of the food for cows is imported. The far majority is produced trough the same grass the herds spent their time on.

And to round this up there is a relatively okish label jungle so you can know exactly which kind of farming you support.

Just because beef isn't the solution for the world hunger doesn't mean it's not the best possible and probably even most ecological solution in some areas.

[myshpa]

We would not need cca 75% of our agricultural lands if stopped overindulging in meat/dairy.

Those 30% you're talking about is not the only land your cattle herds need ... there is also corn/seeds/alfaalfa etc. produced somewhere.

Beef needs 120x more land than plant-based foods for the same amount of calories.

Western countries are a model for developing countries. If we base our diets on meat/dairy, they will want the same. We're developed, we have to set a positive/meaningful example.

We would need several Earths to feed the world same diet as westerners eat. It's simply short-sided and selfish to insist upon current practices to the detriment of everybody else (& Earth & wild animals & biodiversity etc.).

[herbst]

There is no point in not using the land tho. Especially as cows even play a role in keeping the Alps tourist friendly. The meat I personally buy doesn't contain any crops grown elsewhere. It's 100% from the land around here, there is no need for power crops in cow food if the grass has actual biodiversity.

I totally agree that this isn't sustainable on a bigger scale. I also realize that some people can't afford this kind of meat and the 'dirty' market is always way bigger.

But it's not about a global solution. It's about finding a sustainable way of living where you are.

[myshpa]

> There is no point in not using the land tho.

Reforest it. The tourists will come, and maybe your glaciers will stop melting. Then even skiers may keep coming.

> Especially as cows even play a role in keeping the Alps tourist friendly.

Yes, violet milka cows. We've all seen them. They are the ones which give milk in perpetuity without being forcibly raped every year with their young taken away the first day they're born, milked to their death in five short years (instead of 20+ it would be otherwise), and then sent to the slaughtehouse, because they can't even walk. Serene.

> I also realize that some people can't afford this kind of meat

Sure ... but I don't want to subsidize your food preferences. Without subsidies only the top 0.1% would be able to purchase grass-fed beef. Strangely enough, I'm all for that :)

[herbst]

> Strangely enough, I'm all for that :)

At least this is where we can agree on. In a money based society like ours letting people pay the real price for the minimal quality that could be considered animal friendly would solve a lot of our diet problems

[myshpa]

I think that "animal friendly meat" is an oxymoron, but thank you for your opinion. Have a nice day.