Slashdot Mirror
Meat Makes Our Planet Thirsty
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Mames McWilliams writes in the NYT that with California experiencing one of its worst droughts on record, attention has naturally focused on the water required to grow popular foods such as walnuts, broccoli, lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, almonds and grapes. 'Who knew, for example, that it took 5.4 gallons to produce a head of broccoli, or 3.3 gallons to grow a single tomato? This information about the water footprint of food products — that is, the amount of water required to produce them — is important to understand, especially for a state that dedicates about 80 percent of its water to agriculture.' But for those truly interested in lowering their water footprint, those numbers pale next to the water required to fatten livestock. Beef turns out to have an overall water footprint of roughly four million gallons per ton produced (PDF). By contrast, the water footprint for "sugar crops" like sugar beets is about 52,000 gallons per ton; for vegetables it's 85,000 gallons per ton; and for starchy roots it's about 102,200 gallons per ton.
There's also one single plant that's leading California's water consumption and it's one that's not generally cultivated for humans: alfalfa. Grown on over a million acres in California, alfalfa sucks up more water than any other crop in the state. And it has one primary destination: cattle. 'If Californians were eating all the beef they produced, one might write off alfalfa's water footprint as the cost of nurturing local food systems. But that's not what's happening. Californians are sending their alfalfa, and thus their water, to Asia.' Alfalfa growers are now exporting some 100 billion gallons of water a year from this drought-ridden region to the other side of the world in the form of alfalfa.
Beef eaters are already paying more. Water-starved ranches are devoid of natural grasses that cattle need to fatten up so ranchers have been buying supplemental feed at escalating prices or thinning their herds to stretch their feed dollars. But McWilliams says that in the case of agriculture and drought, there's a clear and accessible actions most citizens can take: Changing one's diet to replace 50 percent of animal products with edible plants like legumes, nuts and tubers results in a 30 percent reduction in an individual's food-related water footprint. Going vegetarian reduces that water footprint by almost 60 percent. 'It's seductive to think that we can continue along our carnivorous route, even in this era of climate instability. The environmental impact of cattle in California, however, reminds us how mistaken this idea is coming to seem.'"
There's also one single plant that's leading California's water consumption and it's one that's not generally cultivated for humans: alfalfa. Grown on over a million acres in California, alfalfa sucks up more water than any other crop in the state. And it has one primary destination: cattle. 'If Californians were eating all the beef they produced, one might write off alfalfa's water footprint as the cost of nurturing local food systems. But that's not what's happening. Californians are sending their alfalfa, and thus their water, to Asia.' Alfalfa growers are now exporting some 100 billion gallons of water a year from this drought-ridden region to the other side of the world in the form of alfalfa.
Beef eaters are already paying more. Water-starved ranches are devoid of natural grasses that cattle need to fatten up so ranchers have been buying supplemental feed at escalating prices or thinning their herds to stretch their feed dollars. But McWilliams says that in the case of agriculture and drought, there's a clear and accessible actions most citizens can take: Changing one's diet to replace 50 percent of animal products with edible plants like legumes, nuts and tubers results in a 30 percent reduction in an individual's food-related water footprint. Going vegetarian reduces that water footprint by almost 60 percent. 'It's seductive to think that we can continue along our carnivorous route, even in this era of climate instability. The environmental impact of cattle in California, however, reminds us how mistaken this idea is coming to seem.'"
That's all very interesting, except that all animals only borrow water - they give it back in the form of water vapor when they breathe, sweat (for some) and pee.
In the case of livestock production, the pee is usually used as fertilizer for the surrounding fields, as it holds nutrients that plants need. So there's a bit of efficiency to it.
Oh, and let's not forget how many small animals are run through farm machinery in the support of the vegan diet.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The only issue we appear to have is that either water is being sold too cheaply or the most profitable use of water is growing animal feed. If water is too cheap then put a small charge on it and spend the money on measures to improve water retention and reduce usage. If Alfalfa is the most profitable thing then you're pretty much stuffed because cutting it back will hurt farmers and the wider economy.
A vegetarian who likes baths, or god forbid has a swimming pool, almost certainly consumes more water than an occasional meat eater with a water efficient home. So rather than blaming meat-eaters, or trying to judge lifestyles as good or bad, let's just stop discounting inefficient water usage and let people decide what use they want to cut back.
I have a very difficult time believing this. This sounds like junk, alarmist science. The problems are more than just meat. We cannot even begin to understand what impact human beings have on the environment. We can really only speculate and postulate. We do not really understand the weather, which is only a part of the climate system. Anyone that claims to be an expert on climate, I raise an eyebrow. This does not mean that we should not be better stewards of our home. Conservation is wise and prudent.
I'm sure the overuse of water has more to do with people insisting on living in areas where there isn't enough water to sustain the population or land use than growing crops explicitly for feed.
Farms do not shut down voluntarily. If they aren't using the water to grow alfalfa then they would just use it to grow a different cash crop.
I think the report is a creative way to further the vegan agenda.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
(I've got karma, and I know how to burn it. So here goes some.)
The same idiots that trot out this junk science and "suggest" that we all go vegan, are the same damn fools that would have us all "save the environment" by putting corn into our gas tanks; and turn California's most fertile farming area turn into a desert in order to "save" some freaking minnows that actually need MORE water, not less.
The thing that really needs to be studied is what the hell happens to areas where the so-called "intelligencia" are allowed to run amok with their foolish ideas.
Near where I live, we have just such a place. It's called Detroit.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
There's a simpler solution... less people. Actually, that's the only real solution. Won't happen for decades though because everyone wants their easy solution rather than real solution.
# people * resource usage = total available resources