3 ms·

"released back into the environment", yes, along with all of the contaminants introduced by the industrial agricultural system, and in a different place from wh

"released back into the environment", yes, along with all of the contaminants introduced by the industrial agricultural system, and in a different place from where it started. The "water" runoff from feed lots is considered toxic waste to be managed, not a natural resource to be celebrated or conserved. It's not a zero-sum game. There's a reason there's a (political, at leas in the US) war being waged over water in every region where water is scarce and cows are plentiful (likewise for many kinds of plant agriculture, admittedly, but the water used for the same nutritional value of plant-based foods is vastly lower). Anyway, these are complex systems, sure. And, as with climate change science, in general, there are all sorts of variables one can debate the precision of. But, the general trend is in a dangerous direction. It's pretty widely accepted now, by folks who study the subject, that meat consumption is a large part of the equation. How much is debatable, but no one who studies the field that I'm aware of is saying it isn't a big part of the picture.

tptacek 10y ago
The runoff is sealed off from the environment, but water vapor isn't. This appears to be pretty well studied; for instance, just the non-waste biological activity of an indoor lot of live cows can saturate the air, which then needs to be vented. I think 'tzs is just pointing out that the water consumption numbers here are oversimplified. They probably are, right?
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Yes, they probably are oversimplified, as is almost every number we talk about when discussing climate change. It's a big topic, and very few people (maybe actually nobody) understand all of the facets of it in enough detail to speak with authority on how they all interact.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Sure. But sometimes the numbers are oversimplified but valid to a first approximation, and others (like, perhaps, the water numbers for California almonds) are so oversimplified as to be not helpful for discussion. So then you're left wondering, which kind of number is this one? Does most of the water used to produce beef return to the environment in the course of raising the animals to their slaughter weight, or does most of it get retained in concrete and plastic lined manure pits?

tptacek 10y ago

The runoff is sealed off from the environment, but water vapor isn't. This appears to be pretty well studied; for instance, just the non-waste biological activity of an indoor lot of live cows can saturate the air, which then needs to be vented. I think 'tzs is just pointing out that the water consumption numbers here are oversimplified. They probably are, right?

SwellJoe 10y ago
Yes, they probably are oversimplified, as is almost every number we talk about when discussing climate change. It's a big topic, and very few people (maybe actually nobody) understand all of the facets of it in enough detail to speak with authority on how they all interact.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Sure. But sometimes the numbers are oversimplified but valid to a first approximation, and others (like, perhaps, the water numbers for California almonds) are so oversimplified as to be not helpful for discussion. So then you're left wondering, which kind of number is this one? Does most of the water used to produce beef return to the environment in the course of raising the animals to their slaughter weight, or does most of it get retained in concrete and plastic lined manure pits?