4 ms·
Beef and dairy use more water, use more land, generate more GHG[0]. Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts. [0] - http
by npsimons 5y ago
Beef and dairy use more water, use more land, generate more GHG[0].
Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts.
[0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
- kansface 5y agoI'm highly skeptical of this source. What percentage of that water usage for animal agriculture is actually in the form of grass (or rainfall more properly)? What percentage of the land used could be productively farmed by humans for human edible foods? What percentage of the GHGs from animal husbandry are net new? IE, a cow eats some grass, makes some co2 or w/e, which then goes back into new grass.
- quixoticelixer- 5y agoAnimals drink a lot of water but grass does take even more. Cows produce net CO2e emissions because they produce methane.
- splitstud 5y agoCows do not produce methane. Decaying grass produces methane, whether in a cow or out.
- tuatoru 5y agoWhen I worked for a rural water provider in a relatively wet climate (so the cattle were grass fed), we allowed around 50 litres per day per beef animal and around 120 litres each for dairy cattle. Cows do drink a fair amount, especially if they're not shaded in the heat. In the case of dairy, there's also a lot of washing water for milking.
- devmunchies 5y ago> Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts I'm trying! I can only eat them so fast!
- tomcam 5y agoUsername checks out
- kemiller 5y agoThe water and land that they use isn't necessarily useful for other crops. Marginal pasture land can't be magically turned into cropland but almond orchards can.
- dqv 5y agoSure but the 77.3 million acres to grow the plants we eat pales in comparison to the 781 million acres we use for animal agriculture.[0] Why turn almond orchards into cropland when we can just use less of the land we use for animal production and turn that into cropland? I highly doubt all 781 million acres can only be used for animal grazing. [0]: https://extension.oregonstate.edu/bloomberg-illustrates-how-america-uses-its-land https://extension.oregonstate.edu/bloomberg-illustrates-how-...
- splitstud 5y agoMakes perfect sense until you consider the massive amounts of inputs, measured in land or energy, it takes to grow those crops on the smaller amount of land footprint you ARE measuring.
- dqv 5y agoWe still us 1.5x the land for for growing feed for animals (excluding feed exports). If you're suggesting that feed requires less inputs, provide the sources that back up that suggestion.
- npsimons 5y ago> If you're suggesting that feed requires less inputs This is the thing that really gets me. It's so bloody obvious from the second law of thermodynamics that animals are going to require more resources than plants. There's even a name for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level This, much like weight loss and treating mental illness, seems to be one of those communal Dunning-Kruger areas of HN. Probably because people don't want to admit that their diet is contributing to global warming, or they have some "hurr durr, vegans suck!" attitude. Then again, I've noticed an influx of people denying the fact of the January 6th insurrection, so I shouldn't really be surprised.