MovieChat Forums > Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret (2015) Discussion > There are less large herbivores in North...

There are less large herbivores in North America than pre-colonization


Allan Savory makes a pretty good case for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI


But let me take a stab myself: Cattle numbers float around 80 million or so in NA. Even a large beef cow is about 28% to 40% the size of a bison (american buffalo). Even excluding all other forms of herbivore and focusing only on bison, in the 1500's there were up to around 60 million in North America. This means there would have to be 150-200 million cattle in the US (canada and mexico are negligible populations compared to US)to make up for the drop in bison population so it seems to me our paltry 80 million to feed us and a large part of the rest of the world wouldn't be that bad if we were to move to mostly grass fed.

Additionally, such herbivores are necessary for grasslands to function correctly (rich deep soils) as carbon sinks so if we did all become vegan we'd need to either allow them to lie fallow and deteriorate -in many cases desertification- or re-introduce herbivores that I guess we'd decide for unrelated moral reasons not to eat -meaning we'd introduce large predators to eat them for us...

Thoughts?

reply

I'm not sure where you derived the 80 million estimate from, but a quick glance shows CAN - US - MEX currently over 105 million in beef alone.

Also, you should keep in mind domestic stocks do not necessarily reflect domestic consumption. Brazil currently boasts a beef population of over 210 million (!), much of which arrives on plates right here in the USA.
"In 2014, Brazil exported about 37,000 tonnes of processed beef to the United States valued at $217 million, USDA data showed.

Brazil's total beef exports were 1.56 million tonnes worth $7.2 billion. Its top buyers were Hong Kong, Russia and the European Union, according to beef export association Abiec.

In five years, Brazil could export 100,000 tonnes of fresh beef to the United States annually, the country's agriculture ministry estimated in a statement.
"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-usda-meat-imports-idUSKCN0P92EL20150629


Other Sources:
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mkt/bull12c.htm

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=mx&commodity=cattle&graph=dairy-cows-beginning-stocks

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/prim50a-eng.htm

http://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-ranking-countries-0-106905

reply

Brazil currently boasts a beef population of over 210 million (!), much of which arrives on plates right here in the USA.


100% flat earth BULL (excuse the pun) The data show Brazil produced 74 million tons of beef the past five years. Exported to the US were 62,000 tons. Do you realize that amount going to the US is well under one one thousandth of Brazils production?

Brazil beef export association saying potential USA market is "100,000 tons over 5 years," ie 20,000 tons a year (2015 was 14,000 tons).


And you do realize brazil is NOT in north America?

North America has less tonnage of large ruminant than it did before Europeans came. Moreover that large ruminant is not running around all day and is consuming about half the calories (and producing about half the methane) that their wild cousins produced.

Australians, New Zealanders Brazilians are the environmental PIGS producing MASSIVE higher amounts of tons of animals per capita. And unlike the US those places have massivley higher amounts of those animals now, whereas the US does not have a higher amount than existed here before westerners ever came.

It is time to start penalizing per capita PRODUCERS of methane and carbon. That is New Zealand Australia, Brazil in in carbon, places like Canada Norway etc.

reply

My sources are clearly cited at the end of my post. The part you seem to disagree with is a direct quote. Feel free to offer counter-evidence for it directly, or for any of the others.

Note: Counter-evidence would be a contrarian source of equal or greater legitimacy, not just personal opinion or random blogs.

P.S. If you think I stated Brazil is in North America, it may be a better idea to focus on reading comprehension.

reply

Read 1491 by Charles C. Mann.

Indians managed game populations pretty well, it wasn't until smallpox killed off the majority of them that buffalo populations exploded.

reply

Mann's is repeating claims long debunked by the science. Indigenous Americans ("Indians") drove to extinction virtually all megafuana except bison. by killing off other megafuana and predators they caused bison to increase massively which was incredibly destructive.

And smallpox had almost no real net effect on plains "Indians" populations. those tribal groups had been killing each other long before Europeans arrived. Smallpox had its main affect on settled populations.

reply

Also, those weights and percentages don't hold up.

A modern beef cow is roughly 1350 lbs at slaughter:
http://beefmagazine.com/genetics/0201-increased-beef-cows

Average wild Bison cow are only about 1000 lbs:
http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/bisonfaq.htm


The numbers everyone is quoting is including bulls for the bison, but not for the beef cattle.

reply

A quick Google search reveals that the average American Buffalo weighs roughly 1500lbs while the average modern cattle cow weighs in at 1300lbs.

That puts them at a roughly similar size, but the difference is that the cow population keeps on growing and polluting sources of water because these cattle are concentrated in very large numbers when in captivity. They're not free to just roam and spread out over the world, they are bundled up and their excrement ends up in very large chunks in specific areas rather than spread out as nature would have it, which ends up causing some serious damage to those areas (water sources mainly). We then feed them so much that they produce much more CO2 than normal cows did just a few decades ago, so that's affecting our atmosphere.

Also, we weren't taking down whole forests when bisons were roaming the earth.

You overlooked some very important details my friend.

reply

They don't, Google is rounding up, only reporting fully grown adults, and including both cows and bulls in their number.

They cite EOL, who report a fully-grown adult average of 624.58 kg (1374 lbs).

At weening, they are about 385 lbs.



Plus, that is taking the average of Bison cows and bulls combined.

Beef cattle bulls weight about 2000 lbs, the 1350 lbs quote is just for their cows (females) alone.

reply

Hm, interesting. Thanks for the info!


Some info I found.


Wikipedia (for American Bison) states that "Weight can range from 318 to 1,000 kg (701 to 2,205 lb"

And regarding the figures for cows (from beefmagazine):
"A 1,321-lb. cow at slaughter is a big cow, but that's not her mature weight. The mature weight for cows is established at a constant BCS of 5.0. Because the BCS was estimated at 4.5, the average slaughter weight must be adjusted to a BCS of 5.0 to determine her mature weight. According to National Research Council guidelines, the factor we use to make that calculation is .965. Therefore, the cows slaughtered in 2005 with a BCS 5, on average, would have a mature weight of 1,369 lbs. (1,321 lbs. / .965 = 1,369). Assuming the BCS and dressing percent averages were the same for the 1975 cows, that's a mature weight of 1,047 lbs."

reply

I do not agree. A fully grown Holstein Fresian milking cow weighs around 400 - 500 kg, a female bison the same. Even if your numbers were right, they'd make no sense, because double weight does not equal double food and water intake, nor double methane production.
Also you do not include the amounts of pigs, turkeys and chicken in domestic holdings. Furthermore, the US is not self sufficient when it comes to meat production but imports meat from other countries. Climate change is a global phenomenon and not just happening within US borders.
Something most people do not know, though, is that organic beef and milk is even worse for the climate than conventional produce, because animals are less efficient (produce less meat and milk per day/animal) and use even more land, because land productivity in organic farming is lower. Also a more grass based diet, like common in organic farming, leads to an increase in methane production compared to a more grain based diet, as common in conventional farming.

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

reply

One obvious difference I haven't noticed elsewhere is that any given population of cattle, say X million, is not equivalent to a wild population of X million bison in one very important respect. Over the life-time of one bison, many new cattle would have been grown from scratch because they are slaughtered so young. Growing big animals from birth takes more feed than to keep adult animals happy.
Also bison roamed in fields that did not displace humans at the time. Now all cattle need grazing and feed-land specially set aside. Certainly, if you do the numbers, North America (the whole surface area) is just not big enough for grass-fed cattle roaming around like the bison once did to feed the demand of North America. Not even close. The X million cattle are slaughtered intensively and new ones grown constantly to keep up. A static population of bison would not last long before it ran out considering the number of people today. But everything has changed.
The bison of yesteryear existed in an almost empty land. Grass fed beef is unfortunately not a solution to anything or a good analogy to the huge bison populations that used to exist.
I thought the movie did a good job of explaining all that.
If we all became vegan then much land could go back to being natural forest or functioning grassland with the proper balance of wild-life on it. Like a nature reserve. We don't eat animals in a nature reserve so just think about it as the nature reserves becoming bigger. I don't see the problem with that. It would be awesome, I think.

reply