....BAHAHAHAHA. As a farmer and rancher, I can't help but laugh.
Livestock farming takes up too much land? Bull. Did you know the entire population of the WORLD can fit into one county in Florida? There's plenty of land, we're just terrible at fully utilizing it. The Ukraine alone could feed all of Europe, and Ethiopia could feed all of Africa, but because those two countries governments are stupid as to agriculture (particularly Ethiopia), the ability of the land isn't realized. South America and the US are so fertile it's crazy. The argument that there is not enough land, or that livestock take up too much land, is ludicrous, and completely ignores what animals do for the land. Decomposing manure and animal matter release carbon dioxide, which plants need to thrive, and not only that, provide vital nutrients to the soil so plants can grow better and produce more food. Manure is the best fertilizer on the planet, and that only comes from animals. Continual grazing of land encourages the plants to produce more, so plants grow much faster the more they are grazed (as long as they are not overgrazed). Livestock clear the land so even more of it can be used. Horses, cows, and sheep eat the grasses, while goats and llamas eat the browse (trees, weeds, brush), effectively trimming everything.
The land need the animals to keep it clean. The land feeds the animals, and the animals feed the land. Remove one from the equation and you're bound for destruction.
Granted, US livestock farming in many parts of the country are silly enterprises. To save money, they put too many animals on too few property, but that is the people's fault, not the animals. Ranches that use correct pasture rotation practices don't have problems with land and animal ratios. The grass grows with the spring rains so the livestock are fed all season, and the cereal grains are planted in separate pastures (if the ranch also produces their own feed [otherwise, farms produce the grain and hay that the ranches buy, and the ranches produce meat and leather products that the farmers buy]). The grains are harvested in the fall for use as grain feed all year long and as hay in the winter when grass is often scarce. Calves, lambs, and whatnot are sold in the fall as meat animals, bad animals are culled, and the money brought from the sold animals keeps the ranch going the rest of the year and helps it to expand. The year's supply of manure is composted for use on the pastures, so the ground is constantly replenished each winter. Self-sufficient enterprises are the single best thing for the land you can do for it. Anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't know how Wal-Mart gets supplied with food, or doesn't really know about farming and ranching.
Basically, it's the idiots that pay more attention to their wallets then to the management of their livestock that ruin the land.
Now, I'm not undercutting bugs. John the Baptist survived on locusts perfectly well (and my garden certainly is crawling with the things, but my chickens eat those). Eat them if you want. They are very nutritious, though you need a decent amount of them and edible species aren't always available depending on where you live and the season. However, to exclude livestock in favor of bugs, or vice versa, is simply stupid. Do you know how long it would have taken, and how much money spent, if I didn't have goats to clear the land? I don't even want to consider. Livestock are here for a very good reason. Let's not dispose of them on a whim.
Really. I think North America and Europe are the only ones who would even think of it. South America, Africa, and Asia, (the people anyway-you know, the ones who survive on livestock and livestock are treasured and desired as helpers of the land and supplements to their diets), would look at us like crazies and wondered what we had been smoking.
Ridiculously long post ended.
Livestock farming takes up too much land? Bull. Did you know the entire population of the WORLD can fit into one county in Florida? There's plenty of land, we're just terrible at fully utilizing it. The Ukraine alone could feed all of Europe, and Ethiopia could feed all of Africa, but because those two countries governments are stupid as to agriculture (particularly Ethiopia), the ability of the land isn't realized. South America and the US are so fertile it's crazy. The argument that there is not enough land, or that livestock take up too much land, is ludicrous, and completely ignores what animals do for the land. Decomposing manure and animal matter release carbon dioxide, which plants need to thrive, and not only that, provide vital nutrients to the soil so plants can grow better and produce more food. Manure is the best fertilizer on the planet, and that only comes from animals. Continual grazing of land encourages the plants to produce more, so plants grow much faster the more they are grazed (as long as they are not overgrazed). Livestock clear the land so even more of it can be used. Horses, cows, and sheep eat the grasses, while goats and llamas eat the browse (trees, weeds, brush), effectively trimming everything.
The land need the animals to keep it clean. The land feeds the animals, and the animals feed the land. Remove one from the equation and you're bound for destruction.
Granted, US livestock farming in many parts of the country are silly enterprises. To save money, they put too many animals on too few property, but that is the people's fault, not the animals. Ranches that use correct pasture rotation practices don't have problems with land and animal ratios. The grass grows with the spring rains so the livestock are fed all season, and the cereal grains are planted in separate pastures (if the ranch also produces their own feed [otherwise, farms produce the grain and hay that the ranches buy, and the ranches produce meat and leather products that the farmers buy]). The grains are harvested in the fall for use as grain feed all year long and as hay in the winter when grass is often scarce. Calves, lambs, and whatnot are sold in the fall as meat animals, bad animals are culled, and the money brought from the sold animals keeps the ranch going the rest of the year and helps it to expand. The year's supply of manure is composted for use on the pastures, so the ground is constantly replenished each winter. Self-sufficient enterprises are the single best thing for the land you can do for it. Anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't know how Wal-Mart gets supplied with food, or doesn't really know about farming and ranching.
Basically, it's the idiots that pay more attention to their wallets then to the management of their livestock that ruin the land.
Now, I'm not undercutting bugs. John the Baptist survived on locusts perfectly well (and my garden certainly is crawling with the things, but my chickens eat those). Eat them if you want. They are very nutritious, though you need a decent amount of them and edible species aren't always available depending on where you live and the season. However, to exclude livestock in favor of bugs, or vice versa, is simply stupid. Do you know how long it would have taken, and how much money spent, if I didn't have goats to clear the land? I don't even want to consider. Livestock are here for a very good reason. Let's not dispose of them on a whim.
Really. I think North America and Europe are the only ones who would even think of it. South America, Africa, and Asia, (the people anyway-you know, the ones who survive on livestock and livestock are treasured and desired as helpers of the land and supplements to their diets), would look at us like crazies and wondered what we had been smoking.
Ridiculously long post ended.
