Home / H. Environment, ecology and agriculture / Part IND

"Cattle graze where crops can't grow."

Before answering: an indirect argument

This argument is about the environment and agriculture, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If veganism were defended on environmental grounds, low-impact exploitation would be acceptable, even if it killed more sentient beings. And it is already being promoted: insect farming, "sustainable" hunting, "sustainable" leather. It is possible to reduce environmental impact and increase exploitation at the same time.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

The answer in one sentence

part of it is true: about two thirds of the world's pastures aren't suitable for crops. But that land produces very little food: livestock farming uses about 80% of farmland and provides only 17% of the world's calories. And land that can't be cropped could be rewilded, storing carbon and sheltering biodiversity. The question isn't whether the land suits crops, but whether we need it for food.

Short answer

It's true that about two thirds of pastures aren't suitable for crops. But that land produces very little food: livestock farming uses about 80% of the world's farmland and provides only 17% of calories. A global vegan diet would reduce farmland by about 75%, freeing up that land. It doesn't need to produce food: it can go back to being forests, savannas and native grasslands, which store carbon and shelter biodiversity.

For children

In some places, like mountains and dry lands, you can't grow rice or beans. So some people raise cattle there. But those places can also become forests and grasslands with wild animals, which help the planet. And we can grow enough food on the land that's good for planting.

Ask a question back

"If we don't need that land to feed ourselves, why does it have to produce meat?"

Como pode aparecer

"Cattle turn grass into food."

Everyday conversation

"That land is only good for cattle."

Everyday conversation

"Most of what cattle eat is grass, which we can't eat."

Everyday conversation

"Without cattle, drylands produce nothing."

Social media

"Most ruminant feed doesn't compete with human food."

Technical version

"Regenerative grazing sequesters carbon." (which is H3)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"Cattle turn grass into food. That land is only good for cattle."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1Much of the world's pasture isn't suitable for crops, because of terrain, climate or soil.
P2Ruminants can turn grass, which we don't eat, into food.
P3Without cattle, that land wouldn't produce food.
CSo raising cattle on that land is an efficient way to produce food.

P1 and P2 are true. So is P3, in the strict sense. The problem lies in the conclusion: the land doesn't need to produce food, and the amount of food it produces is small for the area it occupies.

The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because it assumes all land must produce food, and ignores the alternative of rewilding.

Full answer

a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument assumes the land must produce food:
Use of non-arable land Benefit
Cattle pasture Little food per hectare; methane emissions; the animals' deaths
Rewilding Carbon stored in vegetation and soil; biodiversity; water resources
b
Where the argument breaks
1. The land doesn't need to produce food.
With a plant diet, the world would need far less farmland. Non-arable land could be freed up.
2. Food production is small for the area.
According to Our World in Data, livestock farming occupies about 80% of farmland and provides 17% of the world's calories and 38% of its protein.
3. Rewilding is a valuable alternative.
Forests and native vegetation store far more carbon than pastures and shelter biodiversity. In Brazil and elsewhere, many pastures occupy land that was once forest or savanna.
4. Many cattle don't eat only grass.
Much of livestock farming uses grain and soy feed, which competes with human food (H1).
5. Efficiency is low.
Cattle convert about 2% of the energy they consume into meat. Even using grass, production per hectare is very low.

Use of non-arable land	Benefit
Cattle pasture	Little food per hectare; methane emissions; the animals' deaths
Rewilding	Carbon stored in vegetation and soil; biodiversity; water resources

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
Our World in Data, land use and diets	About two thirds of pastures aren't suitable for crops; a global vegan diet would reduce farmland by about 75%; cattle have an energy efficiency of about 2%	Based on Poore and Nemecek, 2018
Our World in Data, land for agriculture	Livestock uses 80% of farmland and provides 17% of calories and 38% of protein	Global data

d
The strongest counter-reply: communities depend on herding
The most serious version points out that some communities, such as herders in arid regions, depend on livestock to live, and have no economic alternative.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
That justifies exceptions.
Communities without alternatives are in a different situation from someone buying meat at the supermarket (D3).
Those who use the argument don't live on that land.
Supermarket meat doesn't come from dryland herders.
Transitions can be planned.
Public policy can support communities through change, as in other sectors.
f
Back to the moral question
Even if cattle make use of land with no other agricultural use, they are still raised to die. The argument talks about efficiency, but doesn't answer the moral question: if we don't need this meat to live, what justifies the animals' deaths?

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

False dichotomy

Either the land produces meat or it's good for nothing

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Omitting data

Ignores how little livestock produces per area

Ignoring rewilding

Doesn't consider the ecological value of freed land

Biases

Status quo bias

The current use of land seems the only possible one

Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988

System justification

Livestock farming seems the natural order of the countryside

Linked to J4

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if land isn't suitable for crops, it should be used for cattle".

If it applied to…Protected areasTap to see

They should become pasture

No one openly defends this

If it applied to…Mountains and native forestsTap to see

They should be converted

That's what causes deforestation

If it applied to…All non-arable landTap to see

It should produce meat

Ignores the value of nature

Contradictions

Eats meat from feed-fed animals.

Which doesn't come from grass alone.

Values forests and savannas.

Which could occupy that land.

Doesn't live in regions that depend on herding.

The meat they buy comes from elsewhere.

What the argument gets right

What is true

The argument has a true part: many pastures aren't suitable for crops, and ruminants can make use of grass. In some regions and communities, herding plays a real economic and cultural role, and that should be respected in a transition.

But

But the land doesn't need to produce meat. With plant diets, the world would need far less land, and those areas could return to nature, benefiting the climate, biodiversity and the animals themselves.