Ran across this article that breaks down land use in the lower 48 per the USDA. Thought it was interesting enough to share.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...mpId=flipboard
Printable View
Ran across this article that breaks down land use in the lower 48 per the USDA. Thought it was interesting enough to share.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...mpId=flipboard
That is pretty interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Awesome share. Interesting facts and a really cool presentation.
Someone doesn't like cows.
Here's one that's shocking, "More than a third of the entire corn crop is devoted to ethanol production."
A fleecing of America.
Interesting but detect an agenda I don't agree with and question the accuracy.
Yeah, screw the starving people in the world. Let's pretend ethanol is a better fuel source and will save the polar bears.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
What's the agenda? I could see many directions to go. Might not be any agenda at all, if there a lot of cows, there are a lot of cows. They should include chickens though, of which there are more.
I heard a guy on NPR the other day saying how Nebraska alone grows more food than the country can eat, so exports are important (he was against the trade war). That Nebraska grows more than we can eat sounds unbelievable and I wonder if it is true.
Corn subsidies keep prices artificially high and raise the costs of many corn based food products. It costs nearly DOUBLE to produce a gallon of ethanol fuel vs. Gasoline. Ethanol is a negative BTU energy source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I think depending on who reads the article, will depend on what they think the agenda is.
"Gathered together, cropland would take up more than a fifth of the 48 contiguous states. Pasture and rangeland would cover most of the Western U.S., and all of the country’s cities and towns would fit neatly in the Northeast."
So what? The cropland is necessary to support everything else going on.
"Even though urban areas make up just 3.6 percent of the total size of the 48 contiguous states, four in five Americans live, work and play there. With so much of the U.S. population in urban areas, it’s little surprise that these areas contribute an outsize amount to the economy. The 10 most productive metropolitan areas alone contributed to about 40 percent of U.S. GDP in 2016."
I guess that depends on your definition of productivity. High fashion design, making movies, etc. certainly is more profitable and is a larger part of the economy when you only look at total dollars but that's basically because farmers have generally gotten screwed for millennia. None of the so-called urban economic activity occurs if they don't have anything to eat. HUGE urban bias in these slides. Fact of the matter is that the 10 largest urban areas in the country could just disappear and the rest of the country would find a way to get along. Get rid of the 10 largest food-producing areas in the country and the rest goes to hell.
The point of the map is to show how all of the land in the US is used - for all purposes. I don't know how you inferred that the statements were negative towards famring but I certainly didn't read it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
It's the comments later in the article that skew toward how urban areas are "more productive economically" (air quotes here, not literal quote) and expanding more rapidly. The quote I cited seemed like a whine that so much of US land is devoted to crops and pasture/range but not as "productive".Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiooo
Yeah. I still don't see it that way. The more densely populated areas will naturally contribute more to the GDP, but that doesn't inherently make the other areas worthless or less important. But we will all interpret the same information differently. We all have different experiences and beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
So what percentage of US land is devoted to mining the bauxite that is used to make the aluminum foil for AR-15.co member's hats? :D
I feel like if I posted an article that talked about the ranking of states in Alphabetical order, someone would come in to complain about it.
Some socialist will think it would be a great idea to design a farming scheme that will be another "great leap forward", consolidate cities, and have everything grown in one area.
So you think Alabama is better than Alaska, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Commie. [Rant1]
All I'm saying is that there is a reason that Wyoming is ranked dead last, alphabetically.
Is that something you confirmed with Google Drive spreadsheets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I see what you did there.....Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
I went straight to Google's parent company for confirmation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
That's my point. The article OTOH seems (to me) to be written from an urbanite POV. It's the way they write things like calling urban areas "more productive" instead of they are higher concentrations of economic activity ...Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiooo
Yes, but when an area contributes more economically, that by definition IS more productive. It's not an insult, it's a fact. It doesn't mean that a less productive area is not important or necessary, just one area produces more than another. I think you're ascribing a menaing to something other than what it says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Look at all the room we have to bring in third world refugees...
They can go to Fort Irwin and 29 Palms, and the Soldiers and Marines will be issued live rounds instead of blanks for training.
[Mod note: Not funny, and comments like this are not allowed]
Nothing like an article about USDA collected statistics to generate conversation about murdering people.
This is why the Coasties refer to pretty much everything in the middle as "flyover country". To them, we do not matter.
If we could make this happen it would be friggin awesome.Quote:
Gathered together, cropland would take up more than a fifth of the 48 contiguous states. Pasture and rangeland would cover most of the Western U.S., and all of the country’s cities and towns would fit neatly in the Northeast.
Except for the disease outbreaks like crazy, the resultant crop problems when diseases spread in those once they are all meshed together, and the travel burden for workers (which would have a sort of... Soviet flavor). When the .gov decides to kill a bunch of people off (for the planet, ya know), they could lie and say there was a massive problem in the crops or cattle, or whatever and no one would be the wiser since 99% of citizens would be removed from the reality of being able to call their cousin in Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
It would be dystopian in its scope and a recipe for perfect control.
Wasn't population relocation tried before in the U.S.?
Attachment 75565
I was being sarcastic. I'm just not a fan of cities or big ass towns.
I was being sarcastic also.
I think your location shows that you took action on your attitudes about cities and I commend you for living the life!
[Beer]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
Of course I know GilpinGuy was being sarcastic but I'll add the disease outbreaks CavSct1983 is talking about would be happening in the overcrowded Northeast. I'm kinda liking the idea of cramming Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Austin, Denver, San Francisco, etc. all in and around NYC then calling in Hurricane Sandy. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
J/K of course ...
In college football, most certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinjmpr
Dude...don't tease me with such wonderful ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter