> this idea of sustainable grazing is not a thing that's happening in the real world
It is, in many places. I live in Montana (alongside some 2.6M head of cattle), and we have vast ranches with sustainable numbers of cattle. The land they live on isn't (and wouldn't be) forest, nor is it farmable (typically too rocky or too much grade).
As for the "blip" argument, Wisconson is ranked 9th, while California is ranked 5th. Hardly a "blip". Also Florida? It's ranked 18th, with 1.6M head.
Actually, most of the top 10 states are naturally grassland states, with California being the outlier.
on sustainable grazing: there's not enough land to produce the amount of cattle we would need to sustain even the U.S. meat consumption sustainably.. we need something else
It is, in many places. I live in Montana (alongside some 2.6M head of cattle), and we have vast ranches with sustainable numbers of cattle. The land they live on isn't (and wouldn't be) forest, nor is it farmable (typically too rocky or too much grade).
As for the "blip" argument, Wisconson is ranked 9th, while California is ranked 5th. Hardly a "blip". Also Florida? It's ranked 18th, with 1.6M head.
Actually, most of the top 10 states are naturally grassland states, with California being the outlier.
https://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-state-rankings-...