How fast can things change?
The previous section described some of the major changes that could take place as conventional agronomic crops shift to more sustainable and regenerative practices. But this conversion is only one part of the picture. Other rural land uses that could convert towards sustainable methods include: pasture and dairy; forestry – silviculture; orchards, and fruit; natural areas; desert and barren lands. And development, of course, will play a big role, as farm acreage converts to urban, residential, etc.
This Chapter will only attempt to give a rough sense of the scale of the changes in agriculture that could have an immense impact on climate change and biodiversity. It is not possible to provide much accuracy here, due to problems with definitions, data limitations, and overall consistency. It is, in short, a work in progress. But a sense of the overall scale involved should be informative.
A report published by Bloomberg gives an excellent summary (and visualization) of agricultural land use in the ‘lower 48’ (see https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/ ) . Bloomberg and other sources are quoted by Ronnie Cummins in the book Grass Roots Rising, as he attempts to quantify the statistics in question here. Here are some of the rough results:
- In the Lower 48, there are: 654 million (M) acres of pasture or rangeland, 539 M acres of forest, and 392 M acres of cropland. (-Cummins quoting EPA data)
- US pasture and rangeland covers more than 1/3 of the total land area in the Lower 48. Of that, 158 M acres is administered by the US government, mostly out West. Much of the total pasture and rangeland in particular is degraded and poorly suited to grazing as currently practiced.
- Another 127 M acres that the EPA classifies as croplands are used by farmers to grow animal feed for livestock, mostly GMO corn and soy. This means that the livestock grazing and feed production portions of our agricultural lands together add up to 654 plus 127 – a total of 781 M acres, which constitutes 41 percent of all the land in the Lower 48 states.
- Of the croplands (392 M acres), approximately –
- 38 M acres used for corn ethanol or soy biodiesel – energy crops
- 77 M acres for food products consumed by humans in the U.S (not meat, dairy, etc)
- 127 M acres for livestock feed, as stated above
- 22 M acres for wheat exports
- 69 M acres for other grains and food exports
- 14 M acres for cotton
- 52 M acres idled or lying fallow in a given year
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? In short, there are about 400 M acres of croplands that could be used for regenerative agriculture. I do not have a breakdown, but if 100 M acres are already in some degree of regenerative use, then about 300 M acres of croplands may be available for conversion and upgrade. That conversion will require grazing or other animal presence, by definition (see Chapter 6). As grazing on formerly ungrazed croplands increases, it will reduce demand for feed from the 127 M acres used to produce animal feed (mostly GMO corn and soy). And it will also reduce demand for much of the existing pasture, range, feedlots/CAFO’s and factory farms. One reason that these reductions will be significant is because the croplands tend to be much more fertile and productive (due to water, soils, slopes…) than current pastures and rangelands, especially if prescribed or rotational grazing methods are used.
What happens when millions of grazing animals are relocated from rangelands and feedlots into formerly conventional farm operations? Currently, much of the grazing is happening on ‘rangeland’, areas which are otherwise ‘open’ or ‘natural’ land, and not well suited to crops (due to slopes, soils, moisture…). How much of that grazing capacity could be shifted over to regenerative croplands, and what would that mean for climate, biodiversity, water quality, etc? How many million acres are involved?
WHAT ABOUT FOREST LANDS? There are about 540 M acres of forest in the Lower 48 states. As existing croplands convert to incorporate grazing as part of regenerative methods, much of the current rangelands and pasturelands could be converted to forest or agroforestry (the combination of forest and grazing is termed ‘silvapasture’). At the same time, there is another 250 M acres that has degraded or treeless landscapes (not urban or cropland) that could be reforested, especially in the South , Southeast , and Northeast (Crowther and others). This would be mostly in addition to the existing range and pasture land, which is largely in the Western U.S. In total, therefore, the US could develop an additional 400 to 500 M acres of forest in the Lower 48. If that sounds far-fetched, please note that Japan, a densely populated and industrial country, is 85% forested.
In summary of the above, to see the scale of possible changes:
- Much of the 654 M acres of rangeland and pasture lands could convert to sustainable levels or other land uses, if not already doing so. Much of that land could convert to forest or natural areas, with huge benefits to climate and biodiversity.
- About 400 M acres of croplands could shift into regenerative status, if not already doing so.
- About 250 M acres of degraded or treeless landscapes could also be reforested, bringing total added forests to 400 – 500 M acres.
As inferred above, the current management style and environmental status of farmland is not well documented in existing GIS layers. Any given farm operation could be very beneficial or very destructive to the surrounding ecosystem. Therefore, I would be speculating to even estimate how much of the above acreage is actually suitable for conversion to regenerative methods, and how fast. But these numbers do help to illustrate the scale of the issue. There is a potential to convert 500 M to over a billion acres of land in the U.S. in the direction of regenerative agriculture or additional forest.
What effect could this have on climate, biodiversity, etc.? Immense. Here is one last set of numbers to consider in that regard — To give a sense of the overall relevance of the ‘food’ sector, Ronnie Cummins states the following in Grassroots Rising:
“Our strongest arguments are that global industrial food, farming , and land use practices (chemical – and energy – intensive farm inputs and production , processing , packaging , refrigeration , transportation , deforestation , and waste ) are generating a full 43 to 57 percent of all current greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions……”.
Changing the production methods in agriculture can lower emissions drastically. But perhaps more significantly, these regenerative methods can also sequester a massive amount of carbon and other greenhouse gases such as NO2 and methane. Rather than a massive source of emissions, the industry can become a massive sink for carbon sequestration.
In the next section, we will consider how fast these changes could be implemented.
Ch7—TheNumbers.docx
Panicaea 