jandrewrogers
2 months ago
The necessity of vast herds of large ungulates have long been recognized as a critical part of the North American ecosystem. Either bison or cattle will demonstrably work. Regions that have largely been abandoned by cattle ranchers, whether due to economics, environmental destruction, or regulation, have been ecologically devastated in the absence of wild bison to fill the ecosystem gap. Bootstrapping new herds of bison in these areas will transform them in a positive way. In the Mountain West, the introduction of free range cattle in areas that were previously off-limits has had a similar effect.
This is related to why eliminating beef agriculture in large parts of North America would have limited impact on ungulate methane emissions. Without replacing them with vast herds of bison, which similarly emit methane, the ecosystems die.
gamblor956
2 months ago
Either bison or cattle will demonstrably work
No, this is demonstrably not true. Cattle graze differently than bison do. (See, e.g., https://westernwatersheds.org/gw-cattle-v-bison/)
Cattle graze in dense herds. Bison herds are more spread out.
Cattle move less frequently while grazing, and consume a significantly greater portion of the available foodmass in an area before moving on. Cattle also generally avoid native grasslands when possible; bison prefer native grasses.
Cattle consume significantly more water than bison.
Cattle hoves are duller than bison hooves, and impact the ground without cutting it up; bison hooves are sharp and essentially actual like natural tills.
Cattle can only graze during limited portions of the year and in limited terrains; bison can graze year-round and on a much wider variety of terrains.
Bison are able to generate more useful...plop...than cattle are due to the significant differences in their digestion. This plop is more suited for fertilizing natural grasses (for example, the "green wave" https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913783116).
sudoshred
2 months ago
Thank you for sharing specific details. I find this fascinating. How does one acquire this knowledge?
btreecat
2 months ago
> Thank you for sharing specific details. I find this fascinating. How does one acquire this knowledge?
I think that lost of information is available on most subjects.
The differences in attainment (assuming equal access) is generally one of effort and interest.
Be curious about the world, attempt to answer your questions. You are likely to discover something along the way!
gamblor956
2 months ago
In my case, I grew up in cow country and now I eat a lot of bison.
But generally speaking, there are a number of environmental restoration groups across the country that conduct research and publish their findings. Some are more prolific than others. Bison are the most heavily studied in this regard, but there is similar research related to seals, salmon, condor, and other keystone species.
If you're interested in researching this...do as much research as you can in the next few days as it's very likely that the current administration will try to censor it by the end of the month.
Aromasin
2 months ago
I don't disagree with the sentiment of returning ecosystems to their balanced ideal, however it should be pointed out alongside your statement that overgrazing is by far and away more common as it stands than undergrazing, and there is a concerted effort by the cattle industry to change the narrative to one where they become "land custodians" rather than exploiters. Large ungulates are a keystone species, however they are more often than not grazed in herds far larger than the land they are on can sustain. Illness, famine, water shortages and predatation (by many species long extinct now) kept these herds in check - they don't so much now. This article summarises it better than I ever could:
https://westernwatersheds.org/the-history-of-public-lands-gr...
staticautomatic
2 months ago
You call 50,000,000 buffalo “in check”?
Aromasin
2 months ago
Over a range of the entire United States? Yes, absolutely. The grazing land is now a fraction of what it was pre-colonialization, and much more highly concentrated. Instead of giant herds moving from one pasture to another, they're kept in conparitively tiny cattle reservations where they overgraze leading, to these barren dustbowls.
The cycles of graze, move, graze, move, with seasons where plantlife had time to recuperate, are long gone. It's graze, graze, graze, until there's nothing left and the herd die out or are moved elsewhere to do the same.
The problem with this issue is it's complex in a bell curve nature. With humans in the mix, we take it to an extreme - it's either cattle land or its not, and there's no room for a compromise because cattle can't graze on cropland, or through urban/industrial areas, so they get put on lots too small for them and cause immeasurable ecological damage in the process.
pentel-0_5
2 months ago
Correct identification but invalid conclusion using grossly faulty, deceptive logic because beef agriculture isn't some bucolic, pastoral phenomonon but a corporate CAFO machine. Corporate meat ag leads to the unnecessary risks of pandemics, antibiotic resistance, climate change, and overplanting and subsidy of field corn. Nice try with that greenwashing.
singingfish
2 months ago
All that fertiliser that gets put into Cattle grazing lands increases the methane and other emissions, so your read on this is to a significant extent incorrect.
Steven420
2 months ago
All the ranchers I know don't fertilize grazing land. At most they use manure spreaders
singingfish
2 months ago
What about extra feed - grain or silage or whatever? Or do they keep stocking density low?
upghost
2 months ago
I wish the article dove into this a little. Very interested in why the large herds are so important. Seems counter-intuitive, you know? Like they would consume lots of resources? Would be very interested in understanding the ecology better. Do you (or anyone) happen to have some resources on this?
sethammons
2 months ago
you can regenerate soil with these large herds. It is the trampling of soil under hoof. Millions of tilling animals. This builds up soil. Topsoil in the plains used to be 16+ inches. Now it is under 4. Gone on some places. We removed the way it was re-built when eroded (or in our case, farmed away)
throwup238
2 months ago
In addition buffalo form wallows that collect rain water and support many amphibians and plant species: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_wallow
floatrock
2 months ago
huh, neat. Kinda how beavers made beaver dams all over the place, slowing down water flows and keeping water in the ecosystem instead of washing it downhill. But this is same principle in the plains.
Also reminds me of Zai holes or crescent-dikes for rainwater harvesting and planting. Apparently it's a technique being used to limit and reforest the encroachment of the Sahara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Za%C3%AF
tastyfreeze
2 months ago
Topsoil in the plains was many feet prior to the dustbowl. Probably not everywhere but many prairie plants have roots down to 15-20 feet.
Topsoil is what we call the upper "living" aerobic portion of soil. It is the portion of soil that participates in nutrient cycling. Roots into subsoil turn it into top soil over time. Tilling kills topsoil. So, its not that all the dirt flew away. Some did, but mostly it just died and turned back into subsoil.
sn9
2 months ago
pkphilip
2 months ago
It is actually quite simple. Unless you artificially restrict the ability for a herd to migrate, herds will migrate from a spot where they have eaten the greenery to an area where there is more greenery.
This rotation allows the soil to regain its fertility without the grasslands becoming completely denuded.
That is to say: Rotational grazing is very beneficial. Grazing only becomes problematic when rotation is severely restricted.