View Single Post
Old 09-29-2013, 10:11 AM   #78
Saccopoo Saccopoo is online now
In ur base killing ur dudes.
 
Saccopoo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Zion
Casino cash: $49896
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoman69 View Post
I really have to question the veracity of your data. The average cow yields 568 lbs of beef. That is 1,420,000 gallons of water for each cow. That is $2130 spent on each cow. It wouldn't be economically feasible.
Exactly. It's why the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't consume beef. But your thought process comes about from your societal immersion in the land of milk and honey, where four door dualie pickup trucks and aircraft carriers are the accepted norm. Who gives a flying **** if we are sucking up all the worlds fresh water? We got mother ****ing hamburgers, yo!

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html
Quote:
Meat production requires so much water it's hard to comprehend. As the chart shows, a pound of potatoes takes 99.6% less water to produce than a pound of beef, and 97% less than a pound of chicken.

Earlier we said that going meatless makes a bigger impact than any other action you can take. Here's an example: If you gave up showering, you'd save less water than what's required to make a single pound of beef. Not beef for a whole year, just one miserable pound. A whole year's worth of showers takes about 5,200 gallons, but it takes 5,214 gallons to produce a single pound of beef.

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=...y&product=beef
Quote:
The global water footprint of beef production in the period 1996-2005 was about 800 billion m3/yr, which was one third of the total water footprint of animal production in the world (all farm animals) (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010, 2012).

http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/1143/...ter-footprints
Quote:
When a Prince talks farming, you listen. This is nothing new for the GRACE food program folks, but as the "water guy," that’s all I could think about shortly after reading Chris Hunt’s roundup (or "knowledge dump") of the speakers and themes from May’s Future of Food conference. The "Prince" in question is sadly not his Purple Majesty but rather, Charles, the Prince of Wales, who issued a stern warning –and in the process stirred up a long simmering debate among Americans – that resonated with me because of its virtual water conservation message: Beef production and consumption are water intensive and a drain on our world water supplies.

According to His Royal Highness:

In a country like the United States, a fifth of all your grain production is dependent upon irrigation. For every pound of beef produced in the industrial system, it takes two thousand gallons of water. That is a lot of water and there is plenty of evidence that the Earth cannot keep up with the demand.

Quite resounding, old chap! While it’s a well-established fact that meat production requires more water than fruits, vegetables or grains, an average water footprint of 2,000 gallons per pound of beef is enormous indeed. You might be wondering how the water footprint of meat – using Prince Charles’s statistic – compares to the water footprints of other agricultural products

Water required to produce one pound (1 lb.) of:
•Pork = 576 gallons of water
•Chicken = 468 gallons of water
•Soybeans = 206 gallons of water
•Wheat = 138 gallons of water
•Corn = 108 gallons of water
__________________
Dammit. I just stepped in the Chief's 2014 Draft.

Posts: 9,890
Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Saccopoo 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote