4 ms·
The bigger issue is that 1/3 of crops are used as animal feed. No matter how water efficient they are, you still need 10x as much of them for the same amount of
by j-pb 3y ago
The bigger issue is that 1/3 of crops are used as animal feed.
No matter how water efficient they are, you still need 10x as much of them for the same amount of calories.
It'd be much easier and have a bigger impact to just go plant-based.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago> It'd be much easier and have a bigger impact to just go plant-based. Ok but this is a non starter since myself and a huge chunk of the western population will say no thank you.
- cutemonster 3y agoI've read about that, related to farmers shopping down the rain forest in Brazil (to grow beans for hamburger cows). But I don't think it applies to poor development country farmers? It's not as if the farmers in India are feeding cows and everyone feasts on hamburgers. And in Yemen, they're growing that qat drug (not meat)
- LinXitoW 3y agoThey are, more and more. They richer a country becomes, the more they demand meat and animal products, the more they overconsume resources relative to provided calories/protein. And who cares about India, when we're already screwing ourselves over well enough: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23655640/colorado-river-water-alfalfa-dairy-beef-meat https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23655640/colorado-river-wa... 70% of the water used from the Colorado River (which is slowly losing water) is used for crops, and 80% of that is used for feed production. But let's stop taking so many showers, that'll fix the issue.
- cutemonster 3y agoThanks for the link, didn't know there's that much feed production in the US Who cares about India -- hmm, doesn't ground water depletion have quite different consequences: In the US, there'll be fewer hamburgers. While in India, people will starve, famines?