3 ms·

"USDA" isn't a source. A URL to a document (or a document citation with titles and authors) is a source. I'd like to read that document; do you happen to know

by beambot 12y ago

"USDA" isn't a source. A URL to a document (or a document citation with titles and authors) is a source. I'd like to read that document; do you happen to know the real source?

griffinmahon 12y ago
Well, hold on. I don't think the condescension is warranted given that the idea of a "source" refers to attributing where some piece of information comes from. Consider Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, that requires all pages' material to be verifiable, but not necessarily cited. If you are interested enough, just try to find those USDA numbers online!
- xasos 12y ago
  Very true. I just like when sources are linked by URL so it is verifiable by another user.
anigbrowl 12y ago
USDA is US Department of Agriculture, which I hope we can accept as a neutral commentator on such matters. This is indeed a source, though not a citation.
hammock 12y ago
Calories for all food taken from here: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list? Water consumption for everything but beef taken from here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-farmer-20150326-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-fa...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jessriedel 12y ago
  > for everything but beef But it's the number for beef that is contentious. That's the whole point of your comment. And, unlike the others, it wasn't included when you made this comment last time.
  - hammock 12y ago
    The number for beef is in the OP article...
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Yes, but depending on the beef cut you work from, the kcal/gal number varies from yours to over 1.0. FWIW: the same exercise comes up with a comparably terrible efficiency rating for rice.
      - hammock 12y ago
        Leanest cut of beef (eye of round) is 526cal/lb http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/7398?man=&lfacet=&count=&max=35&qlookup=eye+round+beef+raw&offset=&sort=&format=Abridged&reportfmt=other&rptfrm=&ndbno=&nutrient1=&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=&totCount=&measureby=&_action_show=Apply+Changes&Qv=1&Q13676=16&Q13677=1 http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/7398?man=&lfacet=&cou... Fattiest beef I could find (70/30 ground) is 1501cal/lb http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3960?man=&lfacet=&count=&max=35&qlookup=70++ground+beef&offset=&sort=&format=Abridged&reportfmt=other&rptfrm=&ndbno=&nutrient1=&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=&totCount=&measureby=&_action_show=Apply+Changes&Qv=1&Q7477=16&Q7478=1 http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3960?man=&lfacet=&cou... Using 4000gal/lb, this gives us a range for beef of 0.13-0.38cal/gal. To get to 1.0 you'd have to be using pure tallow

by beambot 12y ago

"USDA" isn't a source. A URL to a document (or a document citation with titles and authors) is a source. I'd like to read that document; do you happen to know the real source?

griffinmahon 12y ago

Well, hold on. I don't think the condescension is warranted given that the idea of a "source" refers to attributing where some piece of information comes from. Consider Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, that requires all pages' material to be verifiable, but not necessarily cited. If you are interested enough, just try to find those USDA numbers online!

xasos 12y ago
Very true. I just like when sources are linked by URL so it is verifiable by another user.

anigbrowl 12y ago

USDA is US Department of Agriculture, which I hope we can accept as a neutral commentator on such matters. This is indeed a source, though not a citation.

hammock 12y ago

Calories for all food taken from here: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list? Water consumption for everything but beef taken from here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-farmer-20150326-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-fa...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jessriedel 12y ago
> for everything but beef But it's the number for beef that is contentious. That's the whole point of your comment. And, unlike the others, it wasn't included when you made this comment last time.
- hammock 12y ago
  The number for beef is in the OP article...
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Yes, but depending on the beef cut you work from, the kcal/gal number varies from yours to over 1.0. FWIW: the same exercise comes up with a comparably terrible efficiency rating for rice.
    - hammock 12y ago
      Leanest cut of beef (eye of round) is 526cal/lb http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/7398?man=&lfacet=&count=&max=35&qlookup=eye+round+beef+raw&offset=&sort=&format=Abridged&reportfmt=other&rptfrm=&ndbno=&nutrient1=&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=&totCount=&measureby=&_action_show=Apply+Changes&Qv=1&Q13676=16&Q13677=1 http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/7398?man=&lfacet=&cou... Fattiest beef I could find (70/30 ground) is 1501cal/lb http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3960?man=&lfacet=&count=&max=35&qlookup=70++ground+beef&offset=&sort=&format=Abridged&reportfmt=other&rptfrm=&ndbno=&nutrient1=&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=&totCount=&measureby=&_action_show=Apply+Changes&Qv=1&Q7477=16&Q7478=1 http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3960?man=&lfacet=&cou... Using 4000gal/lb, this gives us a range for beef of 0.13-0.38cal/gal. To get to 1.0 you'd have to be using pure tallow