Land Use
Full explanation
Critics argue that a large portion of global agricultural land is not fertile cropland but is only usable as pasture. In mountainous regions, steppes, arid areas, or on poor soils, grain or vegetable production is often not feasible. Livestock such as cattle, sheep, or goats are capable of converting grass and other plants indigestible to humans into edible protein.
1. Grasslands and marginal land
Worldwide, vast areas consist of so-called permanent grassland. These regions are climatically or geologically unsuitable for intensive crop production. Animal farming, it is argued, allows these lands to contribute to human nutrition when they otherwise could not.
2. The efficiency argument
Since humans cannot digest grass, it may appear efficient to use ruminants that can process cellulose. Animals would thus unlock food resources that would otherwise remain unused.
3. Cultural and regional perspective
In many regions — for example in alpine areas or in parts of Africa and Central Asia — pastoralism has historically developed and adapted to local conditions. A complete abandonment of animal husbandry could have social and economic consequences there.
From this, it is concluded that animal farming is necessary in order to make certain areas agriculturally usable at all.
Full reply
The argument refers to real geographical differences. It is correct that not every area is suitable for crop cultivation. The decisive question, however, concerns the systemic perspective: The majority of animal production does not rely on extensive grazing in remote regions, but on industrial systems with substantial feed cultivation.
1. The largest land use is driven by feed crops
A significant share of agricultural land is used to grow feed crops — not for natural grazing. Soy, maize, and grain are cultivated on a large scale to feed animals in intensive farming systems. These areas are generally suitable for crop production.
The inefficient conversion of plant calories into animal products (feed-conversion ratio) means that more total land is required compared to direct plant-based consumption.
2. Pasture land and alternative uses
Even if certain areas are not suitable for crop cultivation, this does not necessarily mean they must be used exclusively for animal production. Possible alternatives include:
- Rewilding and biodiversity conservation,
- Carbon sequestration through reforestation or natural vegetation,
- Extensive use with significantly reduced stocking densities.
Reducing global livestock numbers would not require turning every alpine meadow into vegetable fields.
3. Quantitative perspective
Globally, animal production is largely dependent on intensive feed cultivation. Extensive grazing in marginal regions accounts for only a portion of total meat production. Therefore, the argument does not address the core of the industrial food system.
4. Regional differentiation
In certain regions, extensive animal husbandry may represent a reasonable land-use strategy. However, this does not imply that the current global production level is necessary or without alternatives. The relevant question is not “abolish all animals,” but rather how much and in what form animal farming can be ecologically and efficiently justified.
Conclusion
Not every area is suitable for crops. Nevertheless, the majority of today’s animal production is based on arable feed crops and inefficient conversion processes. The land-use argument therefore does not justify large-scale industrial animal farming, but at most points to differentiated regional exceptions.