this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
480 points (96.3% liked)

Today I Learned

26458 readers
339 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Of the total area that is used by humans (Agriculture, Urban and Built-up Land),

  • urban and built-up land is 1m km²,
  • agriculture is 48m km²,

so agriculture is 48 of 49 millions km² used, that's 98%. The remaining 2% are all streets and housing and other infrastructure together.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 80 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Most pasture land isn't suitable as farmland - there's examples of overlap of course, but you really can't draw that conclusion from the chart, it leaves out far too much information.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 76 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

Okay, but can we stop using suitable farmland to grow corn cattle feed?

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 31 points 5 days ago

I'm wholly in support of this plan.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 days ago

The US could feed its own population multiple times over if we used something like 30% of our current agricultural farmland subject to growing animal feed instead for growing things like corn, soybean, and wheat, as well as vegetables and fruit.

We'd still need to import some stuff, but we could cover the vast majority of Americans' nutrition doing this WHILE at the same time re-wilding the country and helping restore biodiversity.

Hope to see this shift in my lifetime

[–] infectoid@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Yep for sure. The food grown to feed livestock (6M2 km) seems like it’s just feeding humans with extra steps. If you cut that out and feed humans directly. You’d still have livestock on grazing pad (32M2 km), just not the whole feedlot situation.

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 days ago

Or go a step further and stop doing animal farming.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, and those extra steps require more land and more water and more transportation and more harvesting and more processing etc etc. Every extra step makes the whole system less efficient. We're essentially sacrificing farmland.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

We're not sacrificing it, exactly the opposite; without the demand for plant products generated by animal ag, we wouldn't be able to exploit all that farmland. You know, for money.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

At that point we don't need to farm animals.

Best thing to do at that point would be to outlaw breeding of new farm animals, send the remaining ones to sanctuaries, and let them live the rest of their lives out on their own terms. Might need to sterilize as well.

All of this would aim to restore natural populations of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, sheep, etc. in the world to native levels. And if those animals aren't native, then imo there is no reason to help sustain them. Release to the wild at some point and let nature take it's course. Of course, this also means restoring natural predators to ecosystems like wolves, which would help keep populations in check.

Those species that are native, however, but are declining and on the brink of extinction: those we should focus on for conservation and regeneration.

It's a tough balance, but it can be done ethically

[–] GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago (3 children)

During peacetime, all the corn fields kept operational with subsidy that just create corn which is fed to livestock seem like a waste.

But if China (or anybody else) pulls a fucky-wucky and makes it difficult to get food imported from outside the US, we slaughter the livestock and then have enough corn to feed the whole nation (and a lot of our allies). Without missing a beat.

[–] deHaga@feddit.uk 10 points 4 days ago
[–] MBech@feddit.dk 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Y'all are threatening to kill your "allies" while trying to overthrow their democracies. You have no allies, and you sure as shit wouldn't try to help them in a food shortage.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You really still see yourself as belonging to the nation that protects the world, don't you? Despite everything.

[–] GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

Yeah. Trump told you not to rely on Russian gas and did you listen? No, you didnt and now you buy Russian gas (through India), thus funding Russia, while telling us to shoulder the majority of the burden of funding Ukraine. Just for one example.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Most of the corn cattle are eating is the stalk and husks. The stuff we're going to grow regardless and would otherwise throw away.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Near slaughter when they get fattened up on feed lots (called finishing) it's mostly cracked corn grain, it's more towards the beggining of life that they're fed roughage with only a small amount of supporting grain.

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 4 days ago

It's not only pastures. Growing animal feed is vastly less efficient than growing food for humans directly. We could stop farming animals, use some of that land for growing human food, rewild the excess, and rewild the pastures.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (54 children)

This is true. But at the same time, the tradeoff I think more about isn't pasture versus crop land, but pasture and crop land versus wild land. Personally, I really enjoy eating meat, and have no problem with its production in general. But I also think that we should reserve far more land for nature.

Imo, a good way to strike the balance is via pigouvian taxes. First, of course, a carbon tax. Animal agriculture creates a lot of carbon, so higher prices would drive consumers to lower-carbon alternatives. Then a land value tax - the trick would be deciding how much the intrinsic beauty of nature and access to it by the public is worth - but once we figure out a decent number, the scheme should work quite well. If you want to farm/ranch, you aren't allowed to use up everyone else's nature for free. Either generate enough money to pay the public back for using their nature, or bounce. And of course, better rules and oversight for animal welfare - I wanna eat meat, not meat produced with unnecessary suffering.

This combination of approaches would reduce meat consumption and land use in a fair and ethical way, while still not being overbearing or playing favorites by doing things like banning x or y. Unfortunately, this is very much a pipe dream - at least in the US right now, as we have, umm... more pressing issues.

load more comments (54 replies)