3 ms·

It's peculiar to me that I've heard so much attention on almonds as a water-intensive crop, and so little about beef, given that they're comparable in terms of

by ipsin 11y ago

It's peculiar to me that I've heard so much attention on almonds as a water-intensive crop, and so little about beef, given that they're comparable in terms of water cost per pound or per calorie, and both are major Californian products. I'm not a vegetarian or an animal rights activist, but my urge to add this disclaimer might have something to do with why that's so.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 11y ago
Cattle can be moved to water, if necessary, or herd culled. They're restored fairly quickly. Beef cattle are butchered at about one year of age, dairy cattle live about 6 years. Milk is typically produced somewhat locally, in that it's a heavy bulk liquid which is expensive to transport. Trees are far more difficult to herd than either cattle or cats, and orchards have lifespans in the decades, with some historic California orange groves up to 300 years old. Most nut and stone-fruit trees have a 30-50 year ife. Moreover, there's a period of 4-7 years depending on tree crop during which an orchard is nonbearing, so if you remove an orchard, there's a significant hit. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/32b6yl/drought_water_use_and_ag/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/32b6yl/drought... http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/depreci8study_fruitnuttrees.pdf http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents... The upshot is that it's much more difficult to rapidly adjust tree-crop water use than cattle, whether dairy or beef. Though on a gallons per unit protein basis, almonds do rate as more efficient as I understand.
- WalterGR 11y ago
  What practical effect has this had on groves and herds in California, and on the California drought in general?
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    I cover what little I know of that in the links above, see them for reference. On herds: not clear, though I believe they're somewhat reduced. Though alfalfa, not almonds, in support of cattle, are the largest single use (ag or otherwise) of water within California. As with herds, alfalfa cultivation can be switched on or off rapidly. My understanding is that the actual amount of supplemental water for cattle varies greatly throughout the state. For northern coastal California, irrigation (or "virtual water" in the form of supplied alfalfa) is less necessary.
- steveax 11y ago
  It's not just the water that cattle consume directly, it's the water that is used in the grain that fattens them up in that year before they are butchered. The latter dwarfs the former.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    That's directly addressed.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > Milk is typically produced somewhat locally, in that it's a heavy bulk liquid which is expensive to transport. UHT milk is transported all over the world, across great distances. I thought the difficulty of transporting milk was that it would rot.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    In what quantities? 1 gallon of milk weighs about 8.3 lb. For that you get 1632 calories, 38.4g fat, 195.2 g carbohydrate, and 131.2 g protein. It's about 16 standard servings, and half to 80% of a day's total calories. If not UHT-treated (not practiced much in America), it keeps for about a week. Cross-country truck transit would be 4-5 days. Rail about 2 weeks. The same weight of beef is far more concentrated: it would deliver nearly 7,000 calories, 235g fat, a staggering 1142 g of protein, and is 40 servings of food. The beef doesn't require pasteurisation (heating is expensive), can be frozen, doesn't slosh (though hanging sides can be hazardous truck cargo), and frozen it will keep for months. Shipping routes into California generally require crossing high mountain ranges, which further increases shipping costs. It's something on the order of a 1 mile elevation gain being equivalent to 400 miles of level travel, if I'm recalling earlier research properly. Outside California, your available dairy land would be Oregon and Washington (both affected by drought), or points east of the Mississippi. That's a long way to haul a heavy, awkward, perishable, liquid cargo. Wisconsin has few deepwater ports within 7 days shipping time to the West Coast. Your alternatives: ● Powdered milk. Stores indefinitely, much more portable (no water weight), but taste and consistency issues. Much surplus milk has traditionally been powdered. ● Condensed milk. A compromise, but expensive as I recall. ● UHT. Though as noted, it's proven unpopular to date in the US. It's possible that might change, but it would be a significant change.
    - dragonne 11y ago
      Also other, more concentrated dairy products: cheese, yogurt, sour cream, etc. Making cheese requires lots of cow's milk, removes much of its moisture (hence its weight) and also has preservative effects.
toufka 11y ago
Much of the 'water per pound' likely comes from food and growing food for the cattle to eat. Most of that corn comes from the midwest, where at the moment there is flooding from too much water. So growing corn to feed cows surely makes cows use more water per pound of grocery, however California water is of a very different kind than Illinois or Iowan water.
bsder 11y ago
> It's peculiar to me that I've heard so much attention on almonds as a water-intensive crop, and so little about beef, Because beef is a red herring. Beef uses next to no water. Alfalfa used to feed that beef, on the other hand, is a huge water consumer and completely silly given that it could be grown elsewhere quite easily. California exports something like a billion dollars worth of alfalfa to China. It's nuts.

by ipsin 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 11y ago

Cattle can be moved to water, if necessary, or herd culled. They're restored fairly quickly. Beef cattle are butchered at about one year of age, dairy cattle live about 6 years. Milk is typically produced somewhat locally, in that it's a heavy bulk liquid which is expensive to transport. Trees are far more difficult to herd than either cattle or cats, and orchards have lifespans in the decades, with some historic California orange groves up to 300 years old. Most nut and stone-fruit trees have a 30-50 year ife. Moreover, there's a period of 4-7 years depending on tree crop during which an orchard is nonbearing, so if you remove an orchard, there's a significant hit. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/32b6yl/drought_water_use_and_ag/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/32b6yl/drought... http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/depreci8study_fruitnuttrees.pdf http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents... The upshot is that it's much more difficult to rapidly adjust tree-crop water use than cattle, whether dairy or beef. Though on a gallons per unit protein basis, almonds do rate as more efficient as I understand.

WalterGR 11y ago
What practical effect has this had on groves and herds in California, and on the California drought in general?
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  I cover what little I know of that in the links above, see them for reference. On herds: not clear, though I believe they're somewhat reduced. Though alfalfa, not almonds, in support of cattle, are the largest single use (ag or otherwise) of water within California. As with herds, alfalfa cultivation can be switched on or off rapidly. My understanding is that the actual amount of supplemental water for cattle varies greatly throughout the state. For northern coastal California, irrigation (or "virtual water" in the form of supplied alfalfa) is less necessary.
steveax 11y ago
It's not just the water that cattle consume directly, it's the water that is used in the grain that fattens them up in that year before they are butchered. The latter dwarfs the former.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  That's directly addressed.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Milk is typically produced somewhat locally, in that it's a heavy bulk liquid which is expensive to transport. UHT milk is transported all over the world, across great distances. I thought the difficulty of transporting milk was that it would rot.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  In what quantities? 1 gallon of milk weighs about 8.3 lb. For that you get 1632 calories, 38.4g fat, 195.2 g carbohydrate, and 131.2 g protein. It's about 16 standard servings, and half to 80% of a day's total calories. If not UHT-treated (not practiced much in America), it keeps for about a week. Cross-country truck transit would be 4-5 days. Rail about 2 weeks. The same weight of beef is far more concentrated: it would deliver nearly 7,000 calories, 235g fat, a staggering 1142 g of protein, and is 40 servings of food. The beef doesn't require pasteurisation (heating is expensive), can be frozen, doesn't slosh (though hanging sides can be hazardous truck cargo), and frozen it will keep for months. Shipping routes into California generally require crossing high mountain ranges, which further increases shipping costs. It's something on the order of a 1 mile elevation gain being equivalent to 400 miles of level travel, if I'm recalling earlier research properly. Outside California, your available dairy land would be Oregon and Washington (both affected by drought), or points east of the Mississippi. That's a long way to haul a heavy, awkward, perishable, liquid cargo. Wisconsin has few deepwater ports within 7 days shipping time to the West Coast. Your alternatives: ● Powdered milk. Stores indefinitely, much more portable (no water weight), but taste and consistency issues. Much surplus milk has traditionally been powdered. ● Condensed milk. A compromise, but expensive as I recall. ● UHT. Though as noted, it's proven unpopular to date in the US. It's possible that might change, but it would be a significant change.
  - dragonne 11y ago
    Also other, more concentrated dairy products: cheese, yogurt, sour cream, etc. Making cheese requires lots of cow's milk, removes much of its moisture (hence its weight) and also has preservative effects.

toufka 11y ago

Much of the 'water per pound' likely comes from food and growing food for the cattle to eat. Most of that corn comes from the midwest, where at the moment there is flooding from too much water. So growing corn to feed cows surely makes cows use more water per pound of grocery, however California water is of a very different kind than Illinois or Iowan water.

bsder 11y ago

> It's peculiar to me that I've heard so much attention on almonds as a water-intensive crop, and so little about beef, Because beef is a red herring. Beef uses next to no water. Alfalfa used to feed that beef, on the other hand, is a huge water consumer and completely silly given that it could be grown elsewhere quite easily. California exports something like a billion dollars worth of alfalfa to China. It's nuts.