3 ms·
Another nice comparison: Milk: ~1000 liters of water per liter Chocolate: ~17000 liters of water per kg Beef: ~15000 liters of water per kg Sheep Meat: ~100
by pitchka 10y ago
Another nice comparison:
Milk: ~1000 liters of water per liter
Chocolate: ~17000 liters of water per kg
Beef: ~15000 liters of water per kg
Sheep Meat: ~10000 liters of water per kg
Pork: ~6000 liters of water per kg
Butter: ~5500 liters of water per kg
Chicken meat: ~4500 liters of water per kg
Wine: ~400 liters of water per liter
Beer: ~300 liters of water per liter
source: http://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/global-food-waste-not-want-not http://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/global...
(pdf report on the right)
- neppo 10y agoas if I needed more reasons to stick with beer
- rplnt 10y agoWell this is highly misleading. Products that are measured VERY differently are grouped together.
- pitchka 10y agoJust like the statistic of sweet beverages. Of course that beers that include fish stuff require more or less water. Of course that wine produced in dry climate requires a lot of water. Producing a cow, chicken or pig will take a lot of water, probably not much of a difference if animal is located at northern/southern parts or in some shed at equatorial region. I don't understand what is misleading. Data of water pollution should be of more concern than how much water something needs to thrive. This data shouldn't influence your decision of what to consume. Data of pollution should. If you're worried some categories are incorrect then at least you have a lower bound there. Add the water footprint of food that cow or pig eats and then you'll get more accurate. It's no-brainer that raising 60 billion land animals yearly takes a lot of water but it's a silly statistic. The pollution of water that the process creates is more important and a much more relevant statistic.