Here in California, we have sewage-treatment plants that really help deal with the whole water problem. So during the summer there isn’t any shortage of drinkable water anymore, becuase the water used for irrigation and other industrial uses is actually recycled/reclaimed from sewage. My Environmental Science class was actually going to go on a field trip to a Sewage Treatment plant :eek: but post 9/11 security meant that the trip was cancelled.
By recycling water, it greatly increases the supply of useable water during times when it would normally be scarce. I would imagine that this would have a positive impact on California’s agriculture, which would be good for the not-so-rainy southern-ly part (you know the bottom half )
Beans, rice, nuts, whole grains, and lentils all contain protein - other than some extremely cold regions, you’d be hard pressed to find a place where at least one of these couldn’t be grown. Plus you’re assuming veganism, which forbids eggs and dairy. Vegetarianism has not only a religious but also an economic background - in some regions, meat was or is too hard to come by, and animals often too valuable as labor or milk producers to slaughter frequently. Thus many people are “semi-vegetarian” in poorer regions, out of necessity. If you look at older recipes from some countries, even places like Italy, meat is often used sparingly in them. (FYI, peanut or “groundnut” stew is a fairly well-known recipe in at least one type of African cuisine, and vegetarian dishes using lentils and vegetables are common in Ethiopian food.)
It’s been a while since I’ve read PETA’s stance on things, but I think that was an accurate description of their view on farm animals in a book released by them in the 80s. (It was either that or Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation.) The breeding of pets isn’t encouraged either, and if you want one, you’re supposed to adopt a (spayed or neutered) stray at a shelter. The main idea seems to be that humans are improperly using animals for their own ends, and domestic farm animals are an unnatural byproduct of that, as are pets.
You should not focus on water consumed directly by the cattle.
The water is used (by this I mean taken from the ground and transpired/evaporated by pasture) in growing the pasture to feed the cattle. OK?
This same water could have been used to produce a whole lot more protein in the form of cereals, rather than meat.
Use of water to produce meat protein is much more inefficient than cereals.
It depends on the population you wish to sustain, the standard of living you wish to sustain and the water available. In most cases, it is water that makes the land arable.
Some countries, such as Israel use water very efficiently in greenhouses, in the desert. Other countries, such as Australia, waste water when they (we) hardly have any in the first place.
Err. No. The use of land to produce meat protein is much more inefficient than cereals. (Actually, this depends to an extent on the land/climate/etc, but for most agricultural land it’s probably true.)
Water that’s transpired and evaporated forms clouds, which once again rain down into the ground. It isn’t used up. Where do you think the ground moisture comes from? Okay, some of it comes from rivers/lakes in the form of irrigation, but for the most part, it’s from rain.
You’re not removing any water from the system by raising animals. Ergo, it doesn’t “take” any water. What you mean is that there is an agricultural opportunity cost to raising beef. The land used to grow the feed for the cows, be it pasture or fields of hay or feed grains, could have instead been used to grow cereal grains or legumes for human consumption. And if you’re trying to grow the maximum amount of human food on the available land, you’ll do far better with the cereals and legumes. I don’t dispute any of that, except in the case of extremely marginal land where nothing besides sparse grass will grow unless vast expenditures are made to set up irrigation and/or hydroponics, in which case you’ll probably do better with livestock.
This whole thing about water usage is a canard, though.
One last thought. The efficient use of water by means of greenhouses or what have you is basically upgrading the arability of your land by means of technology. I wouldn’t expect it to make a huge impact on the relative efficiencies of cereal vs. meat production. I expect that if you used the greenhouses to grow livestock feed, you’d end up with about the same relatively inefficient level of conversion of agricultural resources to meat as you do anywhere else. This wouldn’t make economic sense, of course, since the capital investments require you get more product. Livestock operations are generally only economically viable where you use largish tracts of unimproved land (pasture), or large quantities of cheap feed grains (feedlots).
Err. Yes. Both land and water are both less efficiently utilised to produce protein in beef than in cereal. I did not write land because the OP is about water.
**
It is not a matter of water being removed - it is how much is moved around, from one state (of matter) to another, in the production of a unit of protein.
You are not removing land area from the system either.
p.s. okay, think of energy now instead of water. The energy it takes to put 1 lb of meat on the table is, at a minumum, 10x that required to put 1 lb of beans on the table.
guiness’s link explains things nicely. The point isn’t that more water isn’t being “moved around” in meat production, it’s that the inefficiencies of meat production are no greater with regards to water than with regards to any other agricultural resource - the prime one being land. That is to say, water is not a limiting factor in meat production.
The OP is asking whether there is enough water for everyone to be vegetarian. It was quickly pointed out that if anything, the opposite question is more appropriate.
For the record, the past couple years here have been extreme drought. The cattlemen are hurting, but staying alive. They’re cutting cereal crops for green feed, because those crops haven’t been producing enough grain to make it worth harvesting the grain for human consumption, though they are producing enough leafy green stuff to feed cattle. Straight grain farmers, on the other hand, would almost all have gone under if it weren’t for off-farm income and crop insurance. In short, the relative efficiency of raising beef has gone up with the decrease of available water. It’s still less efficient, I’m sure, but not by nearly as much as it is in a good year.
I stand by my claim that the water usage of beef production is a canard.
The point made in this link is that cattle can be raised using more efficient practices such as marginal grasslands that crops could not grow on.
However, the OP questions the water efficiency of meat production versus non-meat.
Pasture uses more water than other crops such as wheat and corn. Pasture evapotranspiration is greater than that of grains.
Animals that feed on grain are consuming a food source that can be consumed by humans. 12.6 Kg corn --> 1 kg beef, 17.2Kg corn --> 1 kg lamb (USDA 1990)
A very large number of cattle are grazed on pasture and grain, rather than ‘organically’.
Sure, and wasn’t it also said that there is no running out of Atlantic fish stocks. the great forests will always renew, the buffalo will roam forever. There are many examples in recent history were a resource was perceived to be limitless and exploted to exaustion.
There is a price for clean drinking water right now. When shall we start paying for breathable air?
Want I want to be understood here is that the world supply of water no matter how great is seems now is NOT without limit.
)