Probably because food and agriculture (in the region that produces a quarter of America’s domestic food supply) are required for life, while data centers aren’t?

▲ scarmig 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Although delicious, alfalfa is not required for life. A lot of it goes to Saudi Arabia, who use it for horses and cattle, as the Saudis banned it domestically for being wasteful for water usage.

▲ culi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's also grown for the same reason soy is grown. It's a highly effective nitrogen fertilizer for the soil. It's also one of the most digestible and high-protein forages

▲ throwaway2037 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

    > alfalfa is not required for life

This quote doesn't do much for me. It is like saying that the insane amounts of corn and soy that US (and Brazil and Canada) farmers produce "is not required for life". If you think a little deeper, it is used to feed livestock, that are used for meat, that are "required for life". (Please don't respond with something dumb like "you can stay alive without meat". Yes, we know that.) For the record, Japan also imports lots of alfalfa from the US. Japan has far more fresh water than it can use, but it doesn't have enough arable land to grow the alfalfa that it needs to feed its livestock.

	▲	kuerbel an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>Please don't respond with something dumb like "you can stay alive without meat". Yes, we know that. That part is actually the weakest part of your argument. You are dismissing a valid counterargument before addressing it. Something being part of a current food production system does not make it a biological necessity. People can live without meat, therefore alfalfa is not "required for life" in the literal sense. You are also shifting the meaning of "required": from "necessary for humans to survive" to "necessary for maintaining our current livestock industry." Those are very different claims. Preemptively calling an obvious counterargument "dumb" is not a way to win the argument; it is a way to avoid having it. Is it rational to dedicate enormous amounts of land, water, and energy to producing animal feed when those same resources could feed more people directly? Using crops as feed and then eating the animals is an inherently inefficient way of converting resources into food. That may be acceptable when resources are abundant, but it becomes increasingly difficult to justify as we face limits in freshwater, arable land, and ecological capacity. That is the true argument, and what the discussion should be about, not if we can (very obviously) survive without meat.
	▲	culi 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Japan imports alfalfa because of an expansion of the USJTA in where Japan committed to purchasing $8 billion in US agricultural goods. South Korea imports alfalfa because of the KORUS FTA removes all duties on forage goods. China buys alfalfa because of yet another trade deal that was brokered to prevent a trade war from spiraling. Alfalfa hay was explicitly highlighted in the Phase One agreement.