Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.

Tags: , ,

9 Responses:

  1. Nia Psaka says:

    Seems like more of it would be desert.

    • margaret says:

      "Desert" would also fall under other categories. To pick one area of California: defense (29 Palms Marine Base), state parks (Anza-Borrego SP), national parks (Joshua Tree NP), federal wilderness (Sheephole Valley Wilderness), pasture/range, rural highways, rural housing, and farmsteads. Plus a few date farms that may fall under "Food we eat." Probably also desert that we taxpayers are paying "farmers" not to farm on that may be considered "Idle/fallow."

      My conclusion from this is that I need to update my (chicken+pig)/cow consumption ratio lest the 100 largest landowning families get squeezed. Also, fuck ethanol.

  2. tobias says:

    I was shocked to learn that their are only on average 88 million cows in the US. Less than the number of voters!

    • BHN says:

      Is that an average quantity at any given time? Because we are cycling through cows much faster than we are ... voters.

      I suppose there is 'inventory turns' data on that somewhere out there on the interwebs.

  3. J. Peterson says:

    Pleasing to see more land devoted to flowers than tobacco.

  4. Phil. E. Stein says:

    Looking at this graphic inspires all sorts of thoughts about optimizing land use that are no doubt completely divorced from reality: i.e. look at all that land devoted to grazing animals that we are going to eat, which is way more than the land used to actually grow food that we actually feed to animals (that we are going to eat), which in turn is larger than land devoted to growing food that we just eat directly. Would we get more animals to eat if we converted all that grazing land to animal feed land? Wouldn't we be able to feed way more people if we got rid of most of those animals and converted grazing land AND animal feed land into human food land? It's a simple matter of converting huge amounts of low quality shrub and grassland into high quality farmland AND convincing almost everyone in the world to stop eating meat, but those things are not represented in this piece of abstract Portable Network Graphics art, which appearance before me is surely the product of enormous amounts of technological wizardry, not to mention a copious helping of Big Dick Data, and must therefore convey everything of any real importance. I'm sure all those other concerns are trivial to deal with for any civilization capable of producing such marvelous feats of scientific engineering. We must all rally to implement this Great Leap Forward into the New American Dream immediately.

    Either that, or staring into the internet has once again made me even stupider than I already was. Which is always the safe bet.

    • Nia Psaka says:

      This doesn't show the different rainfall amounts. Some places are usable as pasture-land, barely, but not as farmland.

  5. Rich says:

    * Wheat and feed exports, but no other crop exports? Really?

    * Exports should be overlain with imports for comparison.

    * You don't get to illustrate fishing with a percentage land-use map.

    * Industry has all emigrated then?

  6. Chris Sheppard says:

    If you don't follow Sarah Taber, you should. Informative, and funny.

    She had a little explainer about the cows bit, and how that really draws attention away from the fact that 100 families in the US own basically the area of Florida.

  • Previously