7 ms·

It seems that we have the choice of either: 1. Destroying the farming industry 2. Destroying the land entirely, and then destroying the farming industry. The

It seems that we have the choice of either: 1. Destroying the farming industry 2. Destroying the land entirely, and then destroying the farming industry. The current situation is proof that the current level of agriculture is unsubstainable. As a reference, a few quick searches[1] show that it takes: 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli 4.9 gallons of water to grow a single walnut 1.1 gallons of water to grow a single almond [1] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...

wes-k 12y ago
I'm a biased vegan but... 802.7 gallons of water for one pound of beef 187.969 gallons of water for one pound of vegetables Agriculture consumes 2/3rds of California's water, most of which goes to growing and feeding farmed animals. Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalcul... (Used United States for country)
- azinman2 12y ago
  Not sure I believe the animals are getting most of it in California but either way that's something that can be easily moved out of state. Almonds can't.
  - jqm 12y ago
    Correct. There are only a few areas in the world almonds can be commercially grown. California is one. Cattle can be grown lots of places.
- woud420 12y ago
  As a biased omnivore, it would probably be a bit more useful to compare the calorie content of 1 lb of beef vs 1 lb of vegetables. I understand the point you're getting at but the bias might be a little bit too strong there.
  - plorkyeran 12y ago
    Some completely arbitrary choices for comparison that may or may not be representative: 90% Lean Beef: 798 calories per pound 80% Lean Beef: 1152 calories per pound Carrots: 186 calories per pound Potatoes: 354 calories per pound Using GP's numbers for gallons/pound: 90% Lean Beef: .994 calories per gallon 80% Lean Beef: 1.435 calories per gallon Carrots: .990 calories per gallon Potatoes: 1.883 calories per gallon Much closer than I was expecting. I was also not expecting numbers on the order of magnitude of one calorie per gallon...
    - saalweachter 12y ago
      "Vegetables" are the wrong thing too look at. Soybeans have about 2000 calories / lb, based on the number Google gives me of 446 calories / 100g. A random website claims soybeans take 200 gallons of water to produce 1 lb, which comes out to about 10 calories / gallon. That said, you can make huge gains just by switching from beef to pork or chicken. Pork uses about half the resources of beef, per pound, and chicken about a third. Eat your beefs for special occasions, eat chicken and pork if you want every-day meats.
  - wes-k 12y ago
    Definitely a fair point. http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products shows 10.19 litres/calorie beef vs 1.34 liters/calorie vegetables. Which is an even greater distance than the gallons per pound I mentioned. This obvioulsy can't be right. I will argue that theory wise it makes sense that a plant based diet would use less than a diet consisting of eating animals that ate the plant based diet. The animals are expending energy! You could argue that we can feed animals lower water usage plants than we can feed humans, but does that really make a healthy animal for human consumption? That said, there are other negatives associated with beef production and consumption :). Also - not all calories are created equal.
    - malkia 12y ago
      As a meat-loving animal, this made me feeling a bit worse... What if meat is imported from areas/states/countries where there is no water problem. And with that, maybe California should open itself to import vegetables/fruits from other states, countries too?

wes-k 12y ago

I'm a biased vegan but... 802.7 gallons of water for one pound of beef 187.969 gallons of water for one pound of vegetables Agriculture consumes 2/3rds of California's water, most of which goes to growing and feeding farmed animals. Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalcul... (Used United States for country)

azinman2 12y ago
Not sure I believe the animals are getting most of it in California but either way that's something that can be easily moved out of state. Almonds can't.
- jqm 12y ago
  Correct. There are only a few areas in the world almonds can be commercially grown. California is one. Cattle can be grown lots of places.
woud420 12y ago
As a biased omnivore, it would probably be a bit more useful to compare the calorie content of 1 lb of beef vs 1 lb of vegetables. I understand the point you're getting at but the bias might be a little bit too strong there.
- plorkyeran 12y ago
  Some completely arbitrary choices for comparison that may or may not be representative: 90% Lean Beef: 798 calories per pound 80% Lean Beef: 1152 calories per pound Carrots: 186 calories per pound Potatoes: 354 calories per pound Using GP's numbers for gallons/pound: 90% Lean Beef: .994 calories per gallon 80% Lean Beef: 1.435 calories per gallon Carrots: .990 calories per gallon Potatoes: 1.883 calories per gallon Much closer than I was expecting. I was also not expecting numbers on the order of magnitude of one calorie per gallon...
  - saalweachter 12y ago
    "Vegetables" are the wrong thing too look at. Soybeans have about 2000 calories / lb, based on the number Google gives me of 446 calories / 100g. A random website claims soybeans take 200 gallons of water to produce 1 lb, which comes out to about 10 calories / gallon. That said, you can make huge gains just by switching from beef to pork or chicken. Pork uses about half the resources of beef, per pound, and chicken about a third. Eat your beefs for special occasions, eat chicken and pork if you want every-day meats.
- wes-k 12y ago
  Definitely a fair point. http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products shows 10.19 litres/calorie beef vs 1.34 liters/calorie vegetables. Which is an even greater distance than the gallons per pound I mentioned. This obvioulsy can't be right. I will argue that theory wise it makes sense that a plant based diet would use less than a diet consisting of eating animals that ate the plant based diet. The animals are expending energy! You could argue that we can feed animals lower water usage plants than we can feed humans, but does that really make a healthy animal for human consumption? That said, there are other negatives associated with beef production and consumption :). Also - not all calories are created equal.
  - malkia 12y ago
    As a meat-loving animal, this made me feeling a bit worse... What if meat is imported from areas/states/countries where there is no water problem. And with that, maybe California should open itself to import vegetables/fruits from other states, countries too?