4 ms·

A calorie of beef requires more total input water than a calorie of grain, sure, but that input water is mostly embodied in their feed, not their drinking water

A calorie of beef requires more total input water than a calorie of grain, sure, but that input water is mostly embodied in their feed, not their drinking water. The question for California a what to grow with the water we have, where it is (or where it can be moved). An acre of cows is a much, much less water intensive than an acre of grains. More acres in pasture might produce more water intensive calories, but that input water does not necessarily have to be provided in CA where it’s rivalrous with 50m humans. Feed can be imported/exported with orders of magnitude more ease than the underlying embodied input water. Agricultural water is not a fungible resource at the national/global scale, crops and animal products are. Also as a matter of policy “turn the world vegan so global ag is less water intensive so CA farms don’t compete with CA people for water as much” is a bit harder to implement than restricting specific water intensive land uses in the Central Valley.

thinkingtoilet 2y ago
>but that input water is mostly embodied in their feed, not their drinking water. So? The feed doesn't magically appear. It requires water. That's the entire point.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  The point is that the feed crops can be grown in areas with abundant water and shipped elsewhere, so cattle don't have to be a significant contributor to local water shortages.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    Crops don’t move themselves, they require trucks and ships. Importing 1 plant to feed a human is less water and energy intensive than importing 10 plants to feed a cow to feed a human.
    - kristjansson 2y ago
      Irrefutably. The problem is people prefer to eat the cow. And while it's nice to imagine a different world, "everyone should just want different things" is not really a valid policy prescription to solve specific land- and water-use questions.
      - lizknope 2y ago
        If the price of water was the same for human and agricultural use then the cost of the beef would increase and more people would stop eating it and eat the cheaper plants instead. This would also decrease energy usage helping with climate change. When we subsidize the price of water for agriculture then people will do wasteful and stupid things to make more money like growing water rich alfalfa and shipping it to China and Japan to feed their livestock. See the link I posted in the thread.
        kristjansson 2y ago
        Yes. "the price of ag water in CA should be higher to discourage uneconomic uses" is a valid policy prescription; its impact on the price of beef, and consumption thereof is less foreseeable.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  At a base level, the claim that water intensity of livestock is more to blame for CA water issues does not seem to be supported. Water use for livestock, feed, and silage is about ~27% of total applied agricultural water in the state, wheres an outright majority thereof goes to orchards and vineyards[0]. Moreover, water is the least mobile aspect of agriculture. Land can be put to different use, products can be shipped, but water is pretty much where it is; moving it ranges from generationally difficult (e.g. CVP, SWP, ...) to physically impractical (e.g. lifting the Colorado to irrigate upstream). Water supply systems are effectively closed and separate. Any analysis of competing uses has to take place within the context of that closed system. The average water intensity of livestock does not matter; only the fraction of that intensity demanded from CA population-rivalrous sources. As it stands that's "some" (and much more from feed _importers_ than is reasonable, as the other comment notes[1]). Converting more central valley to unirrigated rangeland, and topping up nutritional deficits with imported feed would be hugely beneficial for CA water issues, even though it's a 'water intense' product. [0]: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-californias-agriculture/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-californias-ag... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40915369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40915369

thinkingtoilet 2y ago

>but that input water is mostly embodied in their feed, not their drinking water. So? The feed doesn't magically appear. It requires water. That's the entire point.

atmavatar 2y ago
The point is that the feed crops can be grown in areas with abundant water and shipped elsewhere, so cattle don't have to be a significant contributor to local water shortages.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  Crops don’t move themselves, they require trucks and ships. Importing 1 plant to feed a human is less water and energy intensive than importing 10 plants to feed a cow to feed a human.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    Irrefutably. The problem is people prefer to eat the cow. And while it's nice to imagine a different world, "everyone should just want different things" is not really a valid policy prescription to solve specific land- and water-use questions.
    - lizknope 2y ago
      If the price of water was the same for human and agricultural use then the cost of the beef would increase and more people would stop eating it and eat the cheaper plants instead. This would also decrease energy usage helping with climate change. When we subsidize the price of water for agriculture then people will do wasteful and stupid things to make more money like growing water rich alfalfa and shipping it to China and Japan to feed their livestock. See the link I posted in the thread.
      - kristjansson 2y ago
        Yes. "the price of ag water in CA should be higher to discourage uneconomic uses" is a valid policy prescription; its impact on the price of beef, and consumption thereof is less foreseeable.
kristjansson 2y ago
At a base level, the claim that water intensity of livestock is more to blame for CA water issues does not seem to be supported. Water use for livestock, feed, and silage is about ~27% of total applied agricultural water in the state, wheres an outright majority thereof goes to orchards and vineyards[0]. Moreover, water is the least mobile aspect of agriculture. Land can be put to different use, products can be shipped, but water is pretty much where it is; moving it ranges from generationally difficult (e.g. CVP, SWP, ...) to physically impractical (e.g. lifting the Colorado to irrigate upstream). Water supply systems are effectively closed and separate. Any analysis of competing uses has to take place within the context of that closed system. The average water intensity of livestock does not matter; only the fraction of that intensity demanded from CA population-rivalrous sources. As it stands that's "some" (and much more from feed _importers_ than is reasonable, as the other comment notes[1]). Converting more central valley to unirrigated rangeland, and topping up nutritional deficits with imported feed would be hugely beneficial for CA water issues, even though it's a 'water intense' product. [0]: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-californias-agriculture/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-californias-ag... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40915369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40915369