6 ms·

And? They probably feed as many people

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cratermoon 3y ago
> They probably feed as many people "only a few families used a majority of the water they got to grow food that people eat." "most use the bulk of their water growing hay to feed livestock" It's well established that it takes more acres to feed a cow that's going to be turned into hamburgers and steaks than if they just grew food for people.
- nicup12345689 3y ago
  It's ok, people like hamburgers. What else would you use the land for?
  - jerrysievert 3y ago
    if you read the article, it notes that a large portion of that hay is shipped out of country. so, not only does that water not feed Americans, it doesn't feed American cows. it is much less water-intensive to grow feed-hay where there are not water shortages, let alone to ship that outside of the country that is already dealing with lack of water for major regions. so what?
  - SrslyJosh 3y ago
    It's a desert, so potentially nothing. Do you like having water to drink? Cities are getting squeezed so that these desert farmers (who get the water for free) can feed their cattle or export hay/alfalfa to other countries.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Maybe people should just not expect to settle in a place where senior water rights held by others mean there is no supply of water for them?
      - cratermoon 3y ago
        You mean the water rights of the Utes, Paiutes, Hope, Diné, Havasu, Mojave, Kumeyaay? I agree.
      - photonthug 3y ago
        So it is right and proper for a few extended families to determine the fate of an entire region? It's not even one city of millions, it is several we're talking about.
  - tablarasa 3y ago
    This is about water use, as opposed to land use. Land use matters, but let's try to stay focused for a second, esp. b/c some of the livestock are not local to the feed grows. The Colorado River has barely touched the Gulf of California for years. There is inherent value as well as economic value in the ecosystem services that result from allowing natural systems to thrive... or even just function at all. Here is a nice summary of the state and characters in Colorado River ecology: https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/cbb78858-d078-4a7c-ba80-2040569abbdd.pdf https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/cbb78858-d078-4a7c-... I hope we are not so cynical as to suggest that the over-extraction of the river and the destruction of the reliant ecosystems is an acceptable consequence of human success. Even if you like hamburgers, is it worth the cost to continue to over-extract for their production from locations that cannot support it just because people have been doing it for a while and have a strong sense of private property rights? Why shouldn't we tell these farmers to pay up for the water or go somewhere to produce that food where it is more abundant?
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    There are many crops that can be grown in dry area. Historically corn was an important crop in the desert southwest, as were beans and squash. More recently, amaranth. Also agave and other cactus fruit. If you've never had nopalitos, you're missing out. In short, lots of food crops that require substantially less water. It's a different form of agriculture. As for hamburgers: we can quibble over the exact figures, but globally, livestock production is responsible for anywhere from 11% to 19% of annual greenhouse gas production. Given that humanity is not going to go all plant-based suddenly, reducing the footprint of cattle production is imperative. Growing hay and shipping it around the world to feed cow is the opposite of sustainable.
    - nicup12345689 3y ago
      It's going to be ok. Pursue beauty, enjoy life, it is too short. There is no guarantee a meteorite does not crash tomorrow and kills 95% of live beings on Earth. Not sure what you mean by sustainable. Better worry about pollution, which you know, actually hurts currently living people.
dporter 3y ago
They mostly grow hay. A large portion of the hay is exported to other countries.
zazazache 3y ago
No, they don’t they feed hay to cows.
- jojobas 3y ago
  And cows are somehow not eaten by people/don't produce milk?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    They do, but the water:food conversion ratio is terrible.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      Well that's first world for you. Would you rather live in a world of 100 billion on efficient food only or 1 billion that can actually eat meat and other tasty things?
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        100 billion on efficient food only. Or, you know, spread to space while we're at a local resource maximum.
        jojobas 3y ago
        So your ideal future is that of as many as possible miserable people? In other words, you'd rather live in Bangladesh than the US you're apparently in? Why haven't you moved yet?
        ethbr1 3y ago
        There's a difference between misery and limiting ones intake of climate-unsustainable calories. Not eating meat a few days of the week seems a small price to pay for allowing more people to live. And walk me through how we limit population to allow resource excess, without artificial population controls and managing the economic impacts of a shrinking population, and I'll consider it.
dmbche 3y ago
"The district and its farmers emphasize that they keep a steady stream of broccoli, lettuce, onions and other produce on American dinner tables, including in the dead of winter. But only a few families used a majority of the water they got to grow food that people eat." It's mostly used to make hay to feed livestock
- randomdata 3y ago
  In other words, it is used to grow food that people eat?
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    > it is used to grow food that people eat Yes, but in a hideously inefficient way. "Of the calories that cattle eat in feed, humans get a measly 3 percent in the beef we eat." "livestock-centric U.S. agriculture—viewed by many as the pinnacle of efficiency—actually feeds fewer people per hectare, 5.4, than the less meat-focused Chinese, 8.4, or Indian, 5.9." https://www.smallplanet.org/single-post/2016/11/10/meat-madness https://www.smallplanet.org/single-post/2016/11/10/meat-madn...
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Feeding people hay is much less efficient than that.
      - cratermoon 3y ago
        Have you considered the possibility that there are other food crops that can be grown, and using much less water?
        randomdata 3y ago
        I have no reason to consider something off-topic, no.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

> They probably feed as many people "only a few families used a majority of the water they got to grow food that people eat." "most use the bulk of their water growing hay to feed livestock" It's well established that it takes more acres to feed a cow that's going to be turned into hamburgers and steaks than if they just grew food for people.

nicup12345689 3y ago
It's ok, people like hamburgers. What else would you use the land for?
- jerrysievert 3y ago
  if you read the article, it notes that a large portion of that hay is shipped out of country. so, not only does that water not feed Americans, it doesn't feed American cows. it is much less water-intensive to grow feed-hay where there are not water shortages, let alone to ship that outside of the country that is already dealing with lack of water for major regions. so what?
- SrslyJosh 3y ago
  It's a desert, so potentially nothing. Do you like having water to drink? Cities are getting squeezed so that these desert farmers (who get the water for free) can feed their cattle or export hay/alfalfa to other countries.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Maybe people should just not expect to settle in a place where senior water rights held by others mean there is no supply of water for them?
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      You mean the water rights of the Utes, Paiutes, Hope, Diné, Havasu, Mojave, Kumeyaay? I agree.
    - photonthug 3y ago
      So it is right and proper for a few extended families to determine the fate of an entire region? It's not even one city of millions, it is several we're talking about.
- tablarasa 3y ago
  This is about water use, as opposed to land use. Land use matters, but let's try to stay focused for a second, esp. b/c some of the livestock are not local to the feed grows. The Colorado River has barely touched the Gulf of California for years. There is inherent value as well as economic value in the ecosystem services that result from allowing natural systems to thrive... or even just function at all. Here is a nice summary of the state and characters in Colorado River ecology: https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/cbb78858-d078-4a7c-ba80-2040569abbdd.pdf https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/cbb78858-d078-4a7c-... I hope we are not so cynical as to suggest that the over-extraction of the river and the destruction of the reliant ecosystems is an acceptable consequence of human success. Even if you like hamburgers, is it worth the cost to continue to over-extract for their production from locations that cannot support it just because people have been doing it for a while and have a strong sense of private property rights? Why shouldn't we tell these farmers to pay up for the water or go somewhere to produce that food where it is more abundant?
- cratermoon 3y ago
  There are many crops that can be grown in dry area. Historically corn was an important crop in the desert southwest, as were beans and squash. More recently, amaranth. Also agave and other cactus fruit. If you've never had nopalitos, you're missing out. In short, lots of food crops that require substantially less water. It's a different form of agriculture. As for hamburgers: we can quibble over the exact figures, but globally, livestock production is responsible for anywhere from 11% to 19% of annual greenhouse gas production. Given that humanity is not going to go all plant-based suddenly, reducing the footprint of cattle production is imperative. Growing hay and shipping it around the world to feed cow is the opposite of sustainable.
  - nicup12345689 3y ago
    It's going to be ok. Pursue beauty, enjoy life, it is too short. There is no guarantee a meteorite does not crash tomorrow and kills 95% of live beings on Earth. Not sure what you mean by sustainable. Better worry about pollution, which you know, actually hurts currently living people.

dporter 3y ago

They mostly grow hay. A large portion of the hay is exported to other countries.

zazazache 3y ago

No, they don’t they feed hay to cows.

jojobas 3y ago
And cows are somehow not eaten by people/don't produce milk?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  They do, but the water:food conversion ratio is terrible.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Well that's first world for you. Would you rather live in a world of 100 billion on efficient food only or 1 billion that can actually eat meat and other tasty things?
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      100 billion on efficient food only. Or, you know, spread to space while we're at a local resource maximum.
      - jojobas 3y ago
        So your ideal future is that of as many as possible miserable people? In other words, you'd rather live in Bangladesh than the US you're apparently in? Why haven't you moved yet?
        ethbr1 3y ago
        There's a difference between misery and limiting ones intake of climate-unsustainable calories. Not eating meat a few days of the week seems a small price to pay for allowing more people to live. And walk me through how we limit population to allow resource excess, without artificial population controls and managing the economic impacts of a shrinking population, and I'll consider it.

dmbche 3y ago

"The district and its farmers emphasize that they keep a steady stream of broccoli, lettuce, onions and other produce on American dinner tables, including in the dead of winter. But only a few families used a majority of the water they got to grow food that people eat." It's mostly used to make hay to feed livestock

randomdata 3y ago
In other words, it is used to grow food that people eat?
- cratermoon 3y ago
  > it is used to grow food that people eat Yes, but in a hideously inefficient way. "Of the calories that cattle eat in feed, humans get a measly 3 percent in the beef we eat." "livestock-centric U.S. agriculture—viewed by many as the pinnacle of efficiency—actually feeds fewer people per hectare, 5.4, than the less meat-focused Chinese, 8.4, or Indian, 5.9." https://www.smallplanet.org/single-post/2016/11/10/meat-madness https://www.smallplanet.org/single-post/2016/11/10/meat-madn...
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Feeding people hay is much less efficient than that.
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      Have you considered the possibility that there are other food crops that can be grown, and using much less water?
      - randomdata 3y ago
        I have no reason to consider something off-topic, no.