3 ms·

This is a scary situation. Personally, I would like to see allocation of agricultural water for maximum human nutrition value per gallon: chicken (much, much, m

This is a scary situation. Personally, I would like to see allocation of agricultural water for maximum human nutrition value per gallon: chicken (much, much, much less water per ounce than beef, and much less than pork), soybeans and peas (less than chickpeas), kale, Brussels sprouts, carrots, etc. that take relatively little water. There are good web sites that break down nutrients vs. water used. It seems like we are approaching two problems: economic collapse for middle class and poor people, and problems with food production. I wish that news media would cover these topics. The problem is that the only things on the table for discussion by our governments and news media is the promotion of things that maximize corporate profits or otherwise cater to special interests.

jeffbee 5y ago
OK, now we know what your strategy would be in Sim California, but please bring it around to our actual legal system.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Does it necessarily make sense to grow any of these foods in California though, as opposed to in a part of the country which isn't a natural desert?
- mark_l_watson 5y ago
  Thanks for mentioning that. Of course food should be grown both near end consumers, and as efficiently as possible. It is crazy shipping food very long distances. Eat local and fresh.
- beej71 5y ago
  And a natural sopping wetland. The Central Valley is a big and varied place.
ghoward 5y ago
The media won't talk about it because what politicians are doing is exactly what's causing or exacerbating the economic collapse of the poor and middle class. And I'm not talking politicians from one party. Both parties are responsible.
- mark_l_watson 5y ago
  +1 And of course both parties are responsible. In real (non-digital) life, I know many Democrats and Republicans who have almost a religious zeal that their party is the one true way. Laughable, but I also feel that everyone gets to have their own opinions.
spicybright 5y ago
I know things will keep breaking down. I just wonder at what point will things actually change?
pepperonipizza 5y ago
The liters per kg of beef number we often see around is not accurate. It doesn't take into account that most of the water cows need, they urinate it and it goes back into the water cycle. But it could be, even taking account that they urinate most of what they need, they still need a lot more water per calories than other foods. I don't eat beef because of the environmental impact, but I recently discovered that the impact of beef has been exaggerated. It still has a big impact and I will keep not eating red meat, but I am more prudent with the numbers around beef I read in the news.
- degrews 5y ago
  The vast majority of the water usage that's attributed to beef is from growing the crops that feed the cows. The amount of water that the cows drink directly is probably negligible in comparison.
- llampx 5y ago
  Well, technically all of the water used goes back into the water cycle somehow. That's why it is a cycle. However it doesn't help if California is using millions of gallons of freshwater to irrigate some crops and it is evaporating and ending up on the other side of the Rockies, or in the Pacific.
novok 5y ago
A lot of the numbers that people cite were inaccurate and revoked by the original authors, but people keep on citing the old bad numbers. The vast majority of water used by cows is 'green water' that comes from rainfall that will fall there cows or not, on top of land that you cannot use for plant crops, only for raising cattle. Ruminant animal meat is here to stay, for the plain old reason that with a lot of land and natural rainfall water, the only way you can get food from that land is from ruminant animals such as cows and sheep. To not use it would make the price of plant food skyrocket as food demand gets redirected onto plant crops from beef and plant food supply cannot redirect nearly as fast in that hypothetical situation. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g
swiley 5y ago
California was giving property owners unlimited water access. Foreign investors were growing crops that needed tons if water in the desert and exporting them to feed livestock. This will probably be a good thing for actual good faith farmers and everyone else in the state.

jeffbee 5y ago

OK, now we know what your strategy would be in Sim California, but please bring it around to our actual legal system.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

Does it necessarily make sense to grow any of these foods in California though, as opposed to in a part of the country which isn't a natural desert?

mark_l_watson 5y ago
Thanks for mentioning that. Of course food should be grown both near end consumers, and as efficiently as possible. It is crazy shipping food very long distances. Eat local and fresh.
beej71 5y ago
And a natural sopping wetland. The Central Valley is a big and varied place.

ghoward 5y ago

The media won't talk about it because what politicians are doing is exactly what's causing or exacerbating the economic collapse of the poor and middle class. And I'm not talking politicians from one party. Both parties are responsible.

mark_l_watson 5y ago
+1 And of course both parties are responsible. In real (non-digital) life, I know many Democrats and Republicans who have almost a religious zeal that their party is the one true way. Laughable, but I also feel that everyone gets to have their own opinions.

spicybright 5y ago

I know things will keep breaking down. I just wonder at what point will things actually change?

pepperonipizza 5y ago

The liters per kg of beef number we often see around is not accurate. It doesn't take into account that most of the water cows need, they urinate it and it goes back into the water cycle. But it could be, even taking account that they urinate most of what they need, they still need a lot more water per calories than other foods. I don't eat beef because of the environmental impact, but I recently discovered that the impact of beef has been exaggerated. It still has a big impact and I will keep not eating red meat, but I am more prudent with the numbers around beef I read in the news.

degrews 5y ago
The vast majority of the water usage that's attributed to beef is from growing the crops that feed the cows. The amount of water that the cows drink directly is probably negligible in comparison.
llampx 5y ago
Well, technically all of the water used goes back into the water cycle somehow. That's why it is a cycle. However it doesn't help if California is using millions of gallons of freshwater to irrigate some crops and it is evaporating and ending up on the other side of the Rockies, or in the Pacific.

novok 5y ago

A lot of the numbers that people cite were inaccurate and revoked by the original authors, but people keep on citing the old bad numbers. The vast majority of water used by cows is 'green water' that comes from rainfall that will fall there cows or not, on top of land that you cannot use for plant crops, only for raising cattle. Ruminant animal meat is here to stay, for the plain old reason that with a lot of land and natural rainfall water, the only way you can get food from that land is from ruminant animals such as cows and sheep. To not use it would make the price of plant food skyrocket as food demand gets redirected onto plant crops from beef and plant food supply cannot redirect nearly as fast in that hypothetical situation. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

swiley 5y ago

California was giving property owners unlimited water access. Foreign investors were growing crops that needed tons if water in the desert and exporting them to feed livestock. This will probably be a good thing for actual good faith farmers and everyone else in the state.