6 ms·

You're absolutely right. A quarter-pound hamburger costs 1,300 gallons of water, according to the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 http://w

by raldi 12y ago

You're absolutely right. A quarter-pound hamburger costs 1,300 gallons of water, according to the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 The organization that represents California cattle ranchers begged to differ, contesting that it's only 110 gallons: http://blog.calbeef.org/how-eco-friendly-is-beef-infographic/ http://blog.calbeef.org/how-eco-friendly-is-beef-infographic... Even using the latter number, just think about that. Eating one hamburger is like dumping 110 one-gallon jugs of water down the drain -- or leaving your kitchen faucet running full blast for over an hour with the current 1.8gpm flow restrictor mandated by code. Or flushing your code-mandated low-flow toilet 89 times. And if you're talking about a 1-pound steak, multiply all those numbers by 4. Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! But California's beef producers should have to pay market rate for their water. If that means the price shoots up and I have to start eating hamburgers made from Texas cattle, so be it.

WalterSear 12y ago
>Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! IMVHO, there are much better reasons to drop meat + dairy from your diet than water. Human taste is a malleable thing - after a while, other things start to taste much more delicious.
- raldi 12y ago
  Fair point! But the last time I mentioned these stats, I was accused of pushing a militant vegan agenda, so this time I wanted to be sure to establish my meat cred.
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    And while totally respecting your POV please understand that some of us think things like Beef, Pork/Bacon, and Fisha re absolutely delicious. We can agree to disagree and still be friends, or at least civil adults :)
    - mod 12y ago
      He literally said "it's delicious" in the post they're referencing. You can agree to agree, I guess.
    - CalRobert 12y ago
      You're not even disagreeing, though. The point is that things can be delicious but still merit restraint in their consumption.
      - raldi 12y ago
        I'm not even arguing for restrained consumption! I just think we should charge California producers of these foods market rate for the water they require, even if that means they can't be profitably produced in California anymore, and we have to import them from places that aren't going through a drought.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        What does 'the market rate' mean for all the infrastructure (I guess most of the agriculturally interesting surface water has been diverted under existing regulation)? I don't mean that in a snide way, I just wonder what exactly you mean. Like, would it be okay under this market system for someone to purchase a large amount of the land where the water originates and construct a huge dam+reservoir? Would adjacent property owners have to go to court to redo the resolution of their competing interest in water that happens to flow across the properties?
- hurin 12y ago
  A lot of land which is suited for cattle herding is not as a matter of fact suited for vegetable or grain production - the idea that vegetarianism is more ecologically sound is somewhat mythical.
  - CalRobert 12y ago
    Surely you know a claim like that should include some citation.
    - hurin 12y ago
      There was a good article I read awhile back (which was more global rather than limited to a specific nation) but I can't seem to find it now - nevertheless for example (random google search, an article about Mongolia (source: USDA; ref: http://bit.ly/1MD20ZN http://bit.ly/1MD20ZN): About 80 percent of agricultural production is animal-based while the remaining 20 percent mostly comes from field crops, mostly wheat. Only about 1 percent (1.35 million hectares) of total land is suitable for crops
  - ssmoot 12y ago
    I'm not at all in favor of dropping meat. But unless I'm mistaken I think you're implying that by removing beef production, you'd have to substitute it with additional vegetable or grain production. Where I think the pro-vegetarian argument would actually be that by decreasing meat production, you actually recover more vegetable/grain farm capacity since it's much more efficient for people to eat their veggies directly. Just like it would be much more efficient to eat the 10lbs of sardines it takes to grow 1lb of salmon. (NB. I didn't look that up, but I think it's in the ball-park.)
    - hurin 12y ago
      It's an interesting topic. >But unless I'm mistaken I think you're implying that by removing beef production, you'd have to substitute it with additional vegetable or grain production. There are a lot of non-simple factors involved for example dairy and meat account for a majority of most people's protein intake, this would mean substitution for increased protein nutrition from plants (limited mostly to soybeans). >Where I think the pro-vegetarian argument would actually be that by decreasing meat production, you actually recover more vegetable/grain farm capacity since it's much more efficient for people to eat their veggies directly. This statement is mostly true for using vegetable/grain production land whose produce is used for cattle feed-lots right? What about cattle that get the larger % of their food from grazing? Also there is a significant difference between human quality/desired food and animal feed. For example a lot more corn is used in animal feed than in human consumption - this is especially effective because maize is a c4 plant and until genetics gets there will continue to completely dominate other cultivatable plants in terms of yield. p.s. I'm not saying that meat production in the US is ecologically friendly - it definitely is not - feedlot greenhouse gas production is almost entirely unregulated, they cause massive damage to local watersheds etc - but it's possible to do terrible damage to the environment with vegetable growth as well; I'm just arguing for a more or less objective view of the situation (and I don't think meat is evil is the correct answer).
bryanlarsen 12y ago
Those kind of statements imply that cattle destroy that water. The water is returned to the environment a few hours after it's ingested. It's usually just part of the natural cycle. I know you understand this: you talk about eating Texas cattle instead of California cattle, but I wanted to emphasize it for others. Vast numbers of cattle are raised in semi-desert conditions in Texas and Montana without the use of irrigated feedstock. Those cattle occupy the same ecological niche as the bison did 150 years ago, with a similar environmental impact. Tearing up the native prairie to grow any sort of grain or vegetable crop would destroy the land.
- raldi 12y ago
  > The water is returned to the environment a few hours after it's ingested. Just like the water that comes out of my showerhead or toilet, but the state still places big restrictions on each of those.
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    The difference is that animals drinking water is part of the natural cycle, showers are not. There's essentially no difference between the water usage of cattle on unirrigated native prairie and the water usage of the bison that preceded them. Of course, cattle in California isn't raised on unirrigated native prairie, like they are in Texas or Montana.
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      Lots of cattle are raised on grasslands in California, but not in the San Joaquin Valley, because that would be a waste of prime land. You can find grazing lands in Marin, Sonoma, San Benito, and other hilly counties.
  - thaumaturgy 12y ago
    I'd argue in your favor that the water coming out of your showerhead or toilet gets used a lot more efficiently than the water going into cattle. In the case of residential water, most of it pretty efficiently goes to treatment facilities which then reuse it again for municipal landscape watering or non-potable purposes. In the cattle case, most of it goes to the superficial surface of the ground, and since so much of the beef and cattle operations in California don't have the luxury of grass or anything green on the ground, it just evaporates away.
guelo 12y ago
Without knowing anything about this topic, calories produced per gallons of water used seems like the right metric. Some quick googling I got this math. 1 almond = 7 calories, 7 cals / 1 gallon = 7 cals/gal 1 lb beef = 213 calories, 213 cals / (110 to 1300) gallons = 2 to .16 cals/gal. So there you go.
- mod 12y ago
  Beef isn't all the same. You took the stock "1 lb beef calories" google result, which is reasonable, until you check say 70/30 instead of 85/15. It shoots up to 1500 calories. The almonds and any measure of beef probably results in a huge waste compared to some other methods of "growing" calories. I don't see them going away, though.
- natejenkins 12y ago
  I wish 1 pound of beef was only 213 calories. I think you took Google's first result (https://www.google.com/search?q=1+lb+beef+calories https://www.google.com/search?q=1+lb+beef+calories) which is actually for 3 ounces (85 grams). You need to multiply that by 16/3 (there are 16 ounces in a pound) which gives 1136 calories/lb.
  - guelo 12y ago
    Oh cool. So using 1136 calories and the lower end of 110 gallons it comes to about 10 cals/gal which beats almonds!
throwthrow1 12y ago
> You're absolutely right. A quarter-pound hamburger costs 1,300 gallons of water, according to the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 1,300 gallons is nothing! Think about how much water it takes for one fish.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- raldi 12y ago
  I already addressed this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9301118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9301118

by raldi 12y ago

WalterSear 12y ago

>Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! IMVHO, there are much better reasons to drop meat + dairy from your diet than water. Human taste is a malleable thing - after a while, other things start to taste much more delicious.

raldi 12y ago
Fair point! But the last time I mentioned these stats, I was accused of pushing a militant vegan agenda, so this time I wanted to be sure to establish my meat cred.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  And while totally respecting your POV please understand that some of us think things like Beef, Pork/Bacon, and Fisha re absolutely delicious. We can agree to disagree and still be friends, or at least civil adults :)
  - mod 12y ago
    He literally said "it's delicious" in the post they're referencing. You can agree to agree, I guess.
  - CalRobert 12y ago
    You're not even disagreeing, though. The point is that things can be delicious but still merit restraint in their consumption.
    - raldi 12y ago
      I'm not even arguing for restrained consumption! I just think we should charge California producers of these foods market rate for the water they require, even if that means they can't be profitably produced in California anymore, and we have to import them from places that aren't going through a drought.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        What does 'the market rate' mean for all the infrastructure (I guess most of the agriculturally interesting surface water has been diverted under existing regulation)? I don't mean that in a snide way, I just wonder what exactly you mean. Like, would it be okay under this market system for someone to purchase a large amount of the land where the water originates and construct a huge dam+reservoir? Would adjacent property owners have to go to court to redo the resolution of their competing interest in water that happens to flow across the properties?
hurin 12y ago
A lot of land which is suited for cattle herding is not as a matter of fact suited for vegetable or grain production - the idea that vegetarianism is more ecologically sound is somewhat mythical.
- CalRobert 12y ago
  Surely you know a claim like that should include some citation.
  - hurin 12y ago
    There was a good article I read awhile back (which was more global rather than limited to a specific nation) but I can't seem to find it now - nevertheless for example (random google search, an article about Mongolia (source: USDA; ref: http://bit.ly/1MD20ZN http://bit.ly/1MD20ZN): About 80 percent of agricultural production is animal-based while the remaining 20 percent mostly comes from field crops, mostly wheat. Only about 1 percent (1.35 million hectares) of total land is suitable for crops
- ssmoot 12y ago
  I'm not at all in favor of dropping meat. But unless I'm mistaken I think you're implying that by removing beef production, you'd have to substitute it with additional vegetable or grain production. Where I think the pro-vegetarian argument would actually be that by decreasing meat production, you actually recover more vegetable/grain farm capacity since it's much more efficient for people to eat their veggies directly. Just like it would be much more efficient to eat the 10lbs of sardines it takes to grow 1lb of salmon. (NB. I didn't look that up, but I think it's in the ball-park.)
  - hurin 12y ago
    It's an interesting topic. >But unless I'm mistaken I think you're implying that by removing beef production, you'd have to substitute it with additional vegetable or grain production. There are a lot of non-simple factors involved for example dairy and meat account for a majority of most people's protein intake, this would mean substitution for increased protein nutrition from plants (limited mostly to soybeans). >Where I think the pro-vegetarian argument would actually be that by decreasing meat production, you actually recover more vegetable/grain farm capacity since it's much more efficient for people to eat their veggies directly. This statement is mostly true for using vegetable/grain production land whose produce is used for cattle feed-lots right? What about cattle that get the larger % of their food from grazing? Also there is a significant difference between human quality/desired food and animal feed. For example a lot more corn is used in animal feed than in human consumption - this is especially effective because maize is a c4 plant and until genetics gets there will continue to completely dominate other cultivatable plants in terms of yield. p.s. I'm not saying that meat production in the US is ecologically friendly - it definitely is not - feedlot greenhouse gas production is almost entirely unregulated, they cause massive damage to local watersheds etc - but it's possible to do terrible damage to the environment with vegetable growth as well; I'm just arguing for a more or less objective view of the situation (and I don't think meat is evil is the correct answer).

bryanlarsen 12y ago

Those kind of statements imply that cattle destroy that water. The water is returned to the environment a few hours after it's ingested. It's usually just part of the natural cycle. I know you understand this: you talk about eating Texas cattle instead of California cattle, but I wanted to emphasize it for others. Vast numbers of cattle are raised in semi-desert conditions in Texas and Montana without the use of irrigated feedstock. Those cattle occupy the same ecological niche as the bison did 150 years ago, with a similar environmental impact. Tearing up the native prairie to grow any sort of grain or vegetable crop would destroy the land.

raldi 12y ago
> The water is returned to the environment a few hours after it's ingested. Just like the water that comes out of my showerhead or toilet, but the state still places big restrictions on each of those.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  The difference is that animals drinking water is part of the natural cycle, showers are not. There's essentially no difference between the water usage of cattle on unirrigated native prairie and the water usage of the bison that preceded them. Of course, cattle in California isn't raised on unirrigated native prairie, like they are in Texas or Montana.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Lots of cattle are raised on grasslands in California, but not in the San Joaquin Valley, because that would be a waste of prime land. You can find grazing lands in Marin, Sonoma, San Benito, and other hilly counties.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  I'd argue in your favor that the water coming out of your showerhead or toilet gets used a lot more efficiently than the water going into cattle. In the case of residential water, most of it pretty efficiently goes to treatment facilities which then reuse it again for municipal landscape watering or non-potable purposes. In the cattle case, most of it goes to the superficial surface of the ground, and since so much of the beef and cattle operations in California don't have the luxury of grass or anything green on the ground, it just evaporates away.

guelo 12y ago

Without knowing anything about this topic, calories produced per gallons of water used seems like the right metric. Some quick googling I got this math. 1 almond = 7 calories, 7 cals / 1 gallon = 7 cals/gal 1 lb beef = 213 calories, 213 cals / (110 to 1300) gallons = 2 to .16 cals/gal. So there you go.

mod 12y ago
Beef isn't all the same. You took the stock "1 lb beef calories" google result, which is reasonable, until you check say 70/30 instead of 85/15. It shoots up to 1500 calories. The almonds and any measure of beef probably results in a huge waste compared to some other methods of "growing" calories. I don't see them going away, though.
natejenkins 12y ago
I wish 1 pound of beef was only 213 calories. I think you took Google's first result (https://www.google.com/search?q=1+lb+beef+calories https://www.google.com/search?q=1+lb+beef+calories) which is actually for 3 ounces (85 grams). You need to multiply that by 16/3 (there are 16 ounces in a pound) which gives 1136 calories/lb.
- guelo 12y ago
  Oh cool. So using 1136 calories and the lower end of 110 gallons it comes to about 10 cals/gal which beats almonds!

throwthrow1 12y ago

> You're absolutely right. A quarter-pound hamburger costs 1,300 gallons of water, according to the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 1,300 gallons is nothing! Think about how much water it takes for one fish.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

raldi 12y ago
I already addressed this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9301118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9301118