sciences.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Non-profit, ad-free social media for social scientists. Join thousands of social scientists here and across the fediverse.

Administered by:

Server stats:

715
active users

@conradhackett @sociology the cows get the land but I am pretty sure they are not even happy with it.

@redcat @conradhackett @sociology
I also disagree with the way they vote.
Cows need to be better educated !

@conradhackett @sociology Well, yeah. Cows are what you do when you have a lot of land and only a little bit of water.

@alrs @conradhackett @sociology Or we could rewild the land and grow proper forests on them again? But please show me first that most of that land is not suitable for anything less environmentally harming.

@alrs @conradhackett @sociology or you actually check out the source and see how actually a lot of the pasture land is in fertile regions.

@DrCat @alrs @conradhackett @sociology

I'm pretty sure there are negative consequences to trying to convert grasslands to forests.

@DrCat @alrs @conradhackett @sociology The US has had a lot of grassland in the midwest US--buffalos roam. There are also areas where the trees were cut down, for example, in Indiana. My point is planting forests willy-nilly is not a magic solution and can make the situation worse. It is better if it's done thoughtfully by people who understand the history of the landscape and the trees best suited. Preserving existing forests is the highest priority. We are failing at that.

@Rainbird42true @alrs @conradhackett @sociology In general, if we want to rewilden these areas, the easiest would be just to leave them alone. If we got 1000s of animals on it, nothing is gonna regrow.

@DrCat @alrs @conradhackett @sociology Forests are not going to pop up on landscapes where the buffalo roamed. Species need to be able to move, which means fewer roads, and human hardscape. I don't know that cows are a big problem for wild species, but cows come with people. Rewilding a landscape and growing forests aren't necessarily the same thing. Dear can be a problem in boreal forests. Beef will become an elite item when we price water correctly.

@Rainbird42true @alrs @conradhackett @sociology I'm not saying we should plant trees and forests everywhere. I'm saying we should leave nature alone and use land efficiently and responsibly. Animal agriculture is none of that, aside of being unethical.

@DrCat @alrs @conradhackett @sociology I'm saying it is complicated. In Indiana, it isn't animals, it's farming that caused deforestation. And farming gets in the way of the natural use of the land in lots of places. Parking lots and roads and housing developments get in the way of the natural use of land. I'm not even sure natural use of the land is possible on a planet with 8 billion people headed to 11 billion. It's discouraging

@Rainbird42true @alrs @conradhackett @sociology That's what I meant with use land efficiently and responsibly. Denser urban areas, more public transport and biking infrastructure. But even excluding ethical questions, purely from space usage, most of the animal agriculture has to be abolished and replaced with more sustainable alternatives. The Problem is not 8b people, its how resources are distributed and used.

@DrCat @alrs @conradhackett @sociology
Proper forests? What about proper grasslands, savannas, prairies?

@ulidig @alrs @conradhackett @sociology none of them have 1000s of cows on them in a small space.

@alrs @conradhackett @sociology

Cows drink a lot of water, more than any other land animal per unit of body weight. 30 to 50 gals per day per head. Age & time of year matter. Loose average is 1.5 gals per pound, double for a dairy cows. Water shortages impact the cows directly and feed supplies. Flooding may impact water quality (bacteria, nitrate runoff etc).

@alrs @conradhackett @sociology

Which is pretty stupid, because the production of beef and dairy costs a lot of water. Plantbased food needs far less water and about 10% of the land.

@conradhackett This is also true based off location

@conradhackett well, no: RANGELAND takes up the most space. Which is a very different thing than "cows," but which makes a lot of sense if you consider the American West.

The really striking thing on this graphic is "Weyerhaeuser." That's enormous relative to the rest of the nation.

@sarae @conradhackett that's the one that got me. That's an enormous amount of land for a single company!

@conradhackett @sociology Then add in the space for "Livestock Feed" to get a real sense of the scope of the costs of animal agriculture.

@WJGunning @conradhackett @sociology Sure. as soon as you are able to digest grass and all sorts of funny weeds.

@vetdoc @WJGunning @conradhackett @sociology Why humans CAN digest grass, but why would you do that, rather than growing stuff we like to eat (of which many ARE from the grass family).

@jonashello @WJGunning @conradhackett @sociology Because the stuff, we would rather eat doesn't grow there. Vegans don't understand soil and farming, there is a lot of land, that is unfit for farming, like most of the West. And: Don't mix dairy and beef. They are fed differently.

@vetdoc @WJGunning @conradhackett @sociology 1. Every piece of land now used for farming was once "unfit for farming". 2. You don't need to use every bit of land, especially when everyone is vegan, as we use less land surface, and 3. there is ALWAYS something you can grow on land "unfit" for growing. E.g fuit trees or bushes if one doesn't want to plow.

@jonashello @WJGunning @conradhackett @sociology You see, you don't understand. How about water availability, soil errosion etc.? And: land that has been fit for farming once, has been turned into deserts due to growing the wrong crops and wasting water for irrigation.

@vetdoc @WJGunning @conradhackett @sociology So your saying if you grow the wrong way it doesn't work? That's really a good argument for animal agriculture! 🤪

@conradhackett @sociology Um ... I've read through it all twice carefully but I can't see the land allocated to cars - where's that please?

@PopeSimonX @conradhackett @sociology Ta. I now see "rural highways", but I don't see urban roads and I don't see car parks. Weird fact about the USA: about half its street lights are in car parks. Does that mean that half the tarmac given over to cars is in car parks?

@TimWardCam @conradhackett @sociology my guess is they consider that to be part of "urban commercial" given most of the parking lots are owned by commercial companies.

But I feel like there isn't enough diversification of the data on urban land usage in general.

Yes, I know most of the US actually doesn't fit in that classification, but there is a lot of it that does.

@conradhackett @sociology the 100 largest land owning families… 😵‍💫 but how the author illustrated them all taking up Florida…🥲

@conradhackett @sociology amazing, since the USA factory farms 99% of their livestock. Here is what the UK looks like

@MMGirlfriend @conradhackett @sociology I think I just found my life quote...or maybe my epitaph lol

@conradhackett @sociology Interesting...no wonder Florida and Texas are so screwed up! 😔

@conradhackett there is a logic to that I think - when Europeans first “colonised” North America apparently there were herds of bison so large they would take days to run past the observer, so presumably the land suits ruminants

@conradhackett @sociology Also shocking: the 100 richest families own far more land than the National and state park services.

@conradhackett @sociology

Glad to hear it,we need the food and dairy supply