8 ms·

I think an important thing to look at when considering water usage of a particular food, is the nature of where the food is being produced. Almonds are largely

by goda90 5y ago

I think an important thing to look at when considering water usage of a particular food, is the nature of where the food is being produced. Almonds are largely grown in California, where the aquifers are shrinking, and evaporation can take the water much further away. Meanwhile, dairy cows and their food can be raised in lots of climates, including in water-rich places like Wisconsin. Used water makes it back into the global water cycle someplace. The concern is when we deplete a local water cycle or destroy habitats in our use of it.

Ambolia 5y ago
Similarly goats can be grown feeding them almost anything in climates where nothing of value can be farmed otherwise.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  I see this argument made about other ruminants and even pigs, but is that the reality? Maybe a pet goat eats the vegetable peels out of the family compost bin, but industrially farmed ones will be eating corn-based feed that was specifically grown for the purpose, on land that could grow anything.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    Go look at satellite imagery of the Israel-Egypt border. The Egyptians herd goats in the area, the Israelis do not. You can clearly see the lighter shade of the Egyptian land, because the goats strip it clean. That is mountainous land that has no value for farming, but the goats can roam it and eat anything that happens to grow.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >but industrially farmed ones will be eating corn-based feed that was specifically grown for the purpose, on land that could grow anything. Not sure how goat farming works, but AFAIK for cows they spend the first half of their lives on pasture (ie. eating grass) and the rest on feetlots (ie. eating corn).
    - mikepurvis 5y ago
      Yes, the NPR piece [1] mentions that as well, that all cows eat lots of grass, and so-called grass fed beef really means grass-finished beef. [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  As someone who does not know anything about herding farm animals... are goats easier to shepherd than cows? My first thought is "yea, they are smaller!", but is that true? Better question...given the nutritional information on goat's milk painting it as more nutrient rich - why aren't we all drinking it?
  - twobitshifter 5y ago
    Goats don’t produce much milk in comparison to a cow
vlovich123 5y ago
Where does Not Milk fit in here?
femiagbabiaka 5y ago
Comparing almond water consumption to cattle water consumption is irresponsible, raising cattle takes orders of magnitude more resources. And California also has a huge cattle industry…
- Ambolia 5y ago
  Cattle can still be the responsible choice at a local level even if it's bad at a global level as industrial farming is currently implemented.
  - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
    What? How can the immensely more “expensive” choice in terms of resource use be better?
    - dnissley 5y ago
      If those resources are not needed for other things, then the cost "in terms of resource use" doesn't matter. E.g. cattle producing areas could be used to produce a lot of crop x instead, but if there's already plenty of x on the market then it doesn't matter if those areas raise cattle.
      - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
        Natural resource use is not quite like playing Civ V.. cattle production depletes resources, decreases natural carbon recapture through deforestation and ranching destroying environments, produces more emissions, etc. Also meat production is not all being consumed locally, exports are a thing. 1:1 production at a country level of any staple has not been a thing for a while now.
        oldsecondhand 5y ago
        > decreases natural carbon recapture through deforestation That's a problem in Brazil but not in the EU.
ljhsiung 5y ago
Also, w.r.t water consumption, cows still put back in some water to the cycle via peeing and pooping, something that several studies I've seen don't account for. Trees don't really give back water, they just consume. My takeaway is that, for water consumption/concerns, alternative milks aren't really beneficial, especially as you mention in California. I still do believe they have other benefits though (land use, CO2, nutrition, etc.) which is why I keep buying them.
- Ambolia 5y ago
  Regarding CO2, seems like cows would only produce as much as they consume from feed that first captured that CO2 from the atmosphere, so if you are sourcing local and not shipping feed / cows around seems like it should be close to zero?
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    Cows produce huge quantities of Methane, which has a GWP of 40. They are a huge contributor to climate change.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      If you are growing the same quantity of cattle then their methane in the atmosphere would be at steady state, not growing and therefore not contributing to change. If you grow more cattle then more methane would be produced. On the other hand, isn’t cattle production displacing wild ruminants? If we stop producing cattle, will nature fill in with bison, deer, moose, etc? It's possible that methane from cattle isn't any higher than methane from the wild ruminants they replaced. Had this been studied?
      - vineyardmike 5y ago
        >their methane in the atmosphere would be at steady state, not growing and therefore not contributing to change. Assuming that methane is removed from the atmosphere by something? AFAIK methane doesnt get consumed by anything natural, so it should just be growing in an absolute sense as long as total cows (and other producers) are above 0
twoslide 5y ago
Doesn't do much to help with climate change though, which is a much more serious issue. Sounds more like a rationalization for continuing to drink dairy milk.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  Grass-fed cattle can have a negative carbon impact. This was linked here previously.
  - twoslide 5y ago
    Would be great to see a link on this. When I search, most results suggest the impact of grass-fed cattle is no different, e.g: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/grass-fed-cows-won-t-save-climate-report-finds https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/grass-fed-cows-won-t...
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    I don't think it's really that clear-cut, particularly when the animal-welfare and planet-welfare arguments get intertwined: "A number of past studies have found lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with the feedlot system. One reason is that grass-fed cows gain weight more slowly, so they produce more methane (mostly in the form of belches) over their longer lifespans... To many grass-fed advocates, this is one of the main reasons for switching to grass-fed beef. After all, cows evolved to live this way." https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...
nbadg 5y ago
Another lens: if I remember right, almond crops are actually one of the most lucrative crops in California per unit of water. So if you looked at it from the perspective of "what crop could I grow to make the most money with the least water", then the math changes substantially once again.

by goda90 5y ago

Ambolia 5y ago

Similarly goats can be grown feeding them almost anything in climates where nothing of value can be farmed otherwise.

mikepurvis 5y ago
I see this argument made about other ruminants and even pigs, but is that the reality? Maybe a pet goat eats the vegetable peels out of the family compost bin, but industrially farmed ones will be eating corn-based feed that was specifically grown for the purpose, on land that could grow anything.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Go look at satellite imagery of the Israel-Egypt border. The Egyptians herd goats in the area, the Israelis do not. You can clearly see the lighter shade of the Egyptian land, because the goats strip it clean. That is mountainous land that has no value for farming, but the goats can roam it and eat anything that happens to grow.
- gruez 5y ago
  >but industrially farmed ones will be eating corn-based feed that was specifically grown for the purpose, on land that could grow anything. Not sure how goat farming works, but AFAIK for cows they spend the first half of their lives on pasture (ie. eating grass) and the rest on feetlots (ie. eating corn).
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    Yes, the NPR piece [1] mentions that as well, that all cows eat lots of grass, and so-called grass fed beef really means grass-finished beef. [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...
clipradiowallet 5y ago
As someone who does not know anything about herding farm animals... are goats easier to shepherd than cows? My first thought is "yea, they are smaller!", but is that true? Better question...given the nutritional information on goat's milk painting it as more nutrient rich - why aren't we all drinking it?
- twobitshifter 5y ago
  Goats don’t produce much milk in comparison to a cow

vlovich123 5y ago

Where does Not Milk fit in here?

femiagbabiaka 5y ago

Comparing almond water consumption to cattle water consumption is irresponsible, raising cattle takes orders of magnitude more resources. And California also has a huge cattle industry…

Ambolia 5y ago
Cattle can still be the responsible choice at a local level even if it's bad at a global level as industrial farming is currently implemented.
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  What? How can the immensely more “expensive” choice in terms of resource use be better?
  - dnissley 5y ago
    If those resources are not needed for other things, then the cost "in terms of resource use" doesn't matter. E.g. cattle producing areas could be used to produce a lot of crop x instead, but if there's already plenty of x on the market then it doesn't matter if those areas raise cattle.
    - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
      Natural resource use is not quite like playing Civ V.. cattle production depletes resources, decreases natural carbon recapture through deforestation and ranching destroying environments, produces more emissions, etc. Also meat production is not all being consumed locally, exports are a thing. 1:1 production at a country level of any staple has not been a thing for a while now.
      - oldsecondhand 5y ago
        > decreases natural carbon recapture through deforestation That's a problem in Brazil but not in the EU.

ljhsiung 5y ago

Also, w.r.t water consumption, cows still put back in some water to the cycle via peeing and pooping, something that several studies I've seen don't account for. Trees don't really give back water, they just consume. My takeaway is that, for water consumption/concerns, alternative milks aren't really beneficial, especially as you mention in California. I still do believe they have other benefits though (land use, CO2, nutrition, etc.) which is why I keep buying them.

Ambolia 5y ago
Regarding CO2, seems like cows would only produce as much as they consume from feed that first captured that CO2 from the atmosphere, so if you are sourcing local and not shipping feed / cows around seems like it should be close to zero?
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  Cows produce huge quantities of Methane, which has a GWP of 40. They are a huge contributor to climate change.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    If you are growing the same quantity of cattle then their methane in the atmosphere would be at steady state, not growing and therefore not contributing to change. If you grow more cattle then more methane would be produced. On the other hand, isn’t cattle production displacing wild ruminants? If we stop producing cattle, will nature fill in with bison, deer, moose, etc? It's possible that methane from cattle isn't any higher than methane from the wild ruminants they replaced. Had this been studied?
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      >their methane in the atmosphere would be at steady state, not growing and therefore not contributing to change. Assuming that methane is removed from the atmosphere by something? AFAIK methane doesnt get consumed by anything natural, so it should just be growing in an absolute sense as long as total cows (and other producers) are above 0

twoslide 5y ago

Doesn't do much to help with climate change though, which is a much more serious issue. Sounds more like a rationalization for continuing to drink dairy milk.

himinlomax 5y ago
Grass-fed cattle can have a negative carbon impact. This was linked here previously.
- twoslide 5y ago
  Would be great to see a link on this. When I search, most results suggest the impact of grass-fed cattle is no different, e.g: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/grass-fed-cows-won-t-save-climate-report-finds https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/grass-fed-cows-won-t...
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  I don't think it's really that clear-cut, particularly when the animal-welfare and planet-welfare arguments get intertwined: "A number of past studies have found lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with the feedlot system. One reason is that grass-fed cows gain weight more slowly, so they produce more methane (mostly in the form of belches) over their longer lifespans... To many grass-fed advocates, this is one of the main reasons for switching to grass-fed beef. After all, cows evolved to live this way." https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...

nbadg 5y ago

Another lens: if I remember right, almond crops are actually one of the most lucrative crops in California per unit of water. So if you looked at it from the perspective of "what crop could I grow to make the most money with the least water", then the math changes substantially once again.