4 ms·

Comparing almond water consumption to cattle water consumption is irresponsible, raising cattle takes orders of magnitude more resources. And California also ha

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.
        aidenn0 5y ago
        That's only because the EU had finished a lot of its deforestation by the advent of the industrial revolution. [edit] One source: https://news.mongabay.com/2018/01/more-than-half-of-europes-forests-lost-over-6000-years/ https://news.mongabay.com/2018/01/more-than-half-of-europes-...
    - gdubs 5y ago
      The land needs to be converted to natural forest if we want a shot at significant reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Agroforestry and silvopasture are the next best things, but a huge problem with animal agriculture is the land use change. We simply need a LOT of land to go back to natural forest.
      - falcolas 5y ago
        Not all land is naturally suited to be forest land. See, for example, the badlands (grasslands) in the Dakotas and Montana. Those badlands are actually pretty good ranchland, since the wrinkled terrain is ill suited to farming.
himinlomax 5y ago
What resources are used by cattle in Northern Europe? Just go visit Normandy, oh and btw don't forget to bring an umbrella, to witness all the missing water that happens to be falling from the sky.
- teh_klev 5y ago
  See also: Scotland
- wyre 5y ago
  Do they grow almonds in Northern Europe? Also, Cattle in Northern Europe are not cattle in California. These two places are not comparable.
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  Cattle production in the U.S. is not comparable to other countries.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Why not?
    - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
      The United States and China are the dominant producers and consumers of meat. And even between these two countries, apples to apples comparisons are not helpful as production practices are not the same.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >apples to apples comparisons are not helpful as production practices are not the same. How are the production practices different? How do the differences relate to resource usage?
        femiagbabiaka 5y ago
linuxftw 5y ago
Raising cattle in most parts of the country relies on renewable resources. Raising almonds in CA requires heavy use of fertilizers and depletes the regional water supplies.
- wyre 5y ago
  Don’t mention the fact cattle and cattle feed is the largest cause of deforestation in the Amazon.
  - xvedejas 5y ago
    So, better for California to compete with cattle raising in Brazil, and then Iowan soybean would be marginally more preferable for cattle feed over Amazonian soybean? I realize it's a more complex system than that, but I would indeed guess that a bigger US cattle industry could result in less total export of Brazilian beef to central American nations, for instance.
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  Even with those resources, cattle production still takes 10x the water that almond production does and is very destructive to the environment the cattle graze in.
  - goda90 5y ago
    Cattle grazing can be done in harmony with natural grasslands. After all, cattle evolved on grasslands. And back to my initial point, 10 gallons of water in Wisconsin has nowhere near the impact of 1 gallon of water in California, and the chances of that water going back into the Wisconsin water cycle are higher.
    - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
      I beg of you to investigate real-world cattle raising practices in 2021, this idea of sustainable grazing is not a thing that's happening in the real world. Much of water consumption in order to sustain meat production is not happening locally, other states are farming excess crops expressly for the purpose of contributing to feed. And the Wisconsin parallel doesn't work -- it is barely a blip when it comes to U.S. beef production. California and Florida both produce more, for example. EDIT: The Wisconsin factoid is incorrect, it only holds true for cattle raised for beef production, not dairy. Here's the USDA data: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/h702q636h/n009ww19g/9880wj45t/catl0121.pdf https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nickff 5y ago
>"Comparing almond water consumption to cattle water consumption is irresponsible, raising cattle takes orders of magnitude more resources." You say it's irresponsible to compare the two, then immediately proceed to do it! Perhaps you meant to say that it was irresponsible to imply they were similar? In any case, rational decision-making requires comparing options, and reactions of disgust are generally unproductive, both for thinking and for debating.
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  is saying a comparison is irresponsible the same as disgust? is every comparison valid? what's more unproductive, pure pedantry, or disagreeing and then sharing information? who is really showing disgust? "comparison of almond water consumption vs. cattle water consumption for the purposes of justifying the elimination of one or the other is irresponsible, because their impact on the environment (and in fact, the California water supply) is incomparable, and seriously comparing the two after realising this fact would mean that you are misunderstanding the statistics or purposefully telling half-truths. The only responsible version of this argument, one that seeks to limit the impact of agriculture on the water supplies of states like California, would be one that proposes that we need to reduce or eliminate or severely reduce both." hope this more pedantically phrased version helps :)

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.
      - aidenn0 5y ago
        That's only because the EU had finished a lot of its deforestation by the advent of the industrial revolution. [edit] One source: https://news.mongabay.com/2018/01/more-than-half-of-europes-forests-lost-over-6000-years/ https://news.mongabay.com/2018/01/more-than-half-of-europes-...
  - gdubs 5y ago
    The land needs to be converted to natural forest if we want a shot at significant reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Agroforestry and silvopasture are the next best things, but a huge problem with animal agriculture is the land use change. We simply need a LOT of land to go back to natural forest.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      Not all land is naturally suited to be forest land. See, for example, the badlands (grasslands) in the Dakotas and Montana. Those badlands are actually pretty good ranchland, since the wrinkled terrain is ill suited to farming.

himinlomax 5y ago

What resources are used by cattle in Northern Europe? Just go visit Normandy, oh and btw don't forget to bring an umbrella, to witness all the missing water that happens to be falling from the sky.

teh_klev 5y ago
See also: Scotland
wyre 5y ago
Do they grow almonds in Northern Europe? Also, Cattle in Northern Europe are not cattle in California. These two places are not comparable.
femiagbabiaka 5y ago
Cattle production in the U.S. is not comparable to other countries.
- gruez 5y ago
  Why not?
  - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
    The United States and China are the dominant producers and consumers of meat. And even between these two countries, apples to apples comparisons are not helpful as production practices are not the same.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >apples to apples comparisons are not helpful as production practices are not the same. How are the production practices different? How do the differences relate to resource usage?
      - femiagbabiaka 5y ago

linuxftw 5y ago

Raising cattle in most parts of the country relies on renewable resources. Raising almonds in CA requires heavy use of fertilizers and depletes the regional water supplies.

wyre 5y ago
Don’t mention the fact cattle and cattle feed is the largest cause of deforestation in the Amazon.
- xvedejas 5y ago
  So, better for California to compete with cattle raising in Brazil, and then Iowan soybean would be marginally more preferable for cattle feed over Amazonian soybean? I realize it's a more complex system than that, but I would indeed guess that a bigger US cattle industry could result in less total export of Brazilian beef to central American nations, for instance.
femiagbabiaka 5y ago
Even with those resources, cattle production still takes 10x the water that almond production does and is very destructive to the environment the cattle graze in.
- goda90 5y ago
  Cattle grazing can be done in harmony with natural grasslands. After all, cattle evolved on grasslands. And back to my initial point, 10 gallons of water in Wisconsin has nowhere near the impact of 1 gallon of water in California, and the chances of that water going back into the Wisconsin water cycle are higher.
  - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
    I beg of you to investigate real-world cattle raising practices in 2021, this idea of sustainable grazing is not a thing that's happening in the real world. Much of water consumption in order to sustain meat production is not happening locally, other states are farming excess crops expressly for the purpose of contributing to feed. And the Wisconsin parallel doesn't work -- it is barely a blip when it comes to U.S. beef production. California and Florida both produce more, for example. EDIT: The Wisconsin factoid is incorrect, it only holds true for cattle raised for beef production, not dairy. Here's the USDA data: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/h702q636h/n009ww19g/9880wj45t/catl0121.pdf https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nickff 5y ago

>"Comparing almond water consumption to cattle water consumption is irresponsible, raising cattle takes orders of magnitude more resources." You say it's irresponsible to compare the two, then immediately proceed to do it! Perhaps you meant to say that it was irresponsible to imply they were similar? In any case, rational decision-making requires comparing options, and reactions of disgust are generally unproductive, both for thinking and for debating.

femiagbabiaka 5y ago
is saying a comparison is irresponsible the same as disgust? is every comparison valid? what's more unproductive, pure pedantry, or disagreeing and then sharing information? who is really showing disgust? "comparison of almond water consumption vs. cattle water consumption for the purposes of justifying the elimination of one or the other is irresponsible, because their impact on the environment (and in fact, the California water supply) is incomparable, and seriously comparing the two after realising this fact would mean that you are misunderstanding the statistics or purposefully telling half-truths. The only responsible version of this argument, one that seeks to limit the impact of agriculture on the water supplies of states like California, would be one that proposes that we need to reduce or eliminate or severely reduce both." hope this more pedantically phrased version helps :)