What's new
By:

Eating meat is worse for the environment than oil

moevillini said:
to some degree though, I think it's a false dichotomy since most of that water is used to support production of plant crops to feed the livestock - and if we weren't eating meat, our own consumption of plant products would increase - so we'd still use the water to grow the crops


Plus really, isn't water pretty much a renewable resource? Maybe that's part of the reason the alarm bells aren't going off.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to be a crazy alarmist, but the amount of water used to support crops is far less than the water to used to support meat. A gallon of milk requires 1000 gallons of water to produce. A single hamburger requires 6,600 gallons of water to produce. A single cow eats 150 pounds of plants a day. Basically, meat needs a ****load more resources to make.

Freshwater to a degree is renewable but not in the way most think. Much of the water we get today comes from underground aquifers. while shallower ones can recharge, we are generally depleting them faster than they are able to. This could be a real issue in the future and already is in parts of California.

In the end, cows are worse for the environment than oil. Who knew?! I could care less really. I'll probably continue to eat meat but I just wonder why this isn't talked about more? Seems like we tar and feather the oil industry but never target agriculture or fishing which is out of whack.
 
Carbon13 said:
Don't mean to be a crazy alarmist, but the amount of water used to support crops is far less than the water to used to support meat. A gallon of milk requires 1000 gallons of water to produce. A single hamburger requires 6,600 gallons of water to produce. A single cow eats 150 pounds of plants a day. Basically, meat needs a ****load more resources to make.

Freshwater to a degree is renewable but not in the way most think. Much of the water we get today comes from underground aquifers. while shallower ones can recharge, we are generally depleting them faster than they are able to. This could be a real issue in the future and already is in parts of California.

In the end, cows are worse for the environment than oil. Who knew?! I could care less really. I'll probably continue to eat meat but I just wonder why this isn't talked about more? Seems like we tar and feather the oil industry but never target agriculture or fishing which is out of whack.
Click to expand...
A single hamburger requires 6,600 gallons of water to produce.
u sure?

so a cow depending on weight age and sex drinks 3-30 gallons a day.
i dont know how many hamburgers a cow make.
but lets say a single cow makes 100 hamburger! i am pretty sure it is more than that!

so 660000 GALLONS of water makes 100 hamburgers. so the cow drinks 30 gallosn per day for 22000 days.

that is a 61 year old cow bro! that is some nasty burger.

PLEASE take ur bunk statistic and shove it where the sun dont shine
 
Carbon13 said:
Don't mean to be a crazy alarmist, but the amount of water used to support crops is far less than the water to used to support meat. A gallon of milk requires 1000 gallons of water to produce. A single hamburger requires 6,600 gallons of water to produce. A single cow eats 150 pounds of plants a day. Basically, meat needs a ****load more resources ...
Click to expand...

my point is that the water that is used to produce that gallon of milk is water that primarily goes to grow alfalfa to feed the cows - so when you get right down to it, it's supporting plant crop production first and those plant crops then go to support livestock

To me, it's a rather different issue to discuss the difference in resources used to produce a balanced 2500 calorie per day (human) diet that's completely plant based vs. a balanced 2500 calorie per day diet that includes meat.

Looking at it as a one-sided issue leads to a greater potential for an alarmist viewpoint, which is what these documentary producers appear to have done.
 
moevillini said:
my point is that the water that is used to produce that gallon of milk is water that primarily goes to grow alfalfa to feed the cows - so when you get right down to it, it's supporting plant crop production first and those plant crops then go to support livestock

To me, it's a rather different issue to discuss the difference in resources used to produce a balanced 2500 calorie per day (human) diet that's completely plant based vs. a balanced 2500 calorie per day diet that includes meat.

Looking at it as a one-sided issue leads to a greater potential for an alarmist viewpoint, which is what these documentary producers appear to have done.
Click to expand...

What im trying to say is, it requires several thousands of calories of alfalfa to produce a pound of meat. Which is itself worth only a few hundred calories. But i catch your drift mo. Im no meat hater, i just think its interesting that agriculture is so overlooked when we discuss environmental issues.
 
This is one reason I support the development of vat-grown meat.
 
♪alt13 said:
It isn't bad for the environment if you get your meat from planned parenthood like I do.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

alt13 R.I.P.
 
Carbon13 said:
It's remarkable isn't it? Cutting beef out of your diet alone is equal to switching to a fully electric vehicle. That blew my mind. Yet, no one talks about it.
Click to expand...

....cost of a Big Mac on sale? $2.00!

....cost of a fully electric vehicle? $40,000 dollars!
 
Although this thread is addressing an "environmental" issue, I ran across this a while back and thought I'd throw it into this discussion since it does relate to "health!"

In a recent best-selling book, Dr.*Lewis Thomas, observed:
“As a people, we have become obsessed with Health. There is something fundamentally, radically unhealthy about all this. We do not seem to be seeking more exuberance in living as much as staving off failure, putting off dying. We have lost all confidence in the human body. The new consensus is that we are badly designed, intrinsically fallible, vulnerable to a host of hostile influences inside and around us, and only precariously alive. We live in danger of falling apart at any moment*.*.*.
“The trouble is, we are being taken in by the propaganda .*.*. We are, in real life, a reasonably healthy people. Far from being ineptly put together, we are amazingly tough, durable organisms, full of health, ready for most contingencies. The new danger to our well-being, if we continue to listen to all the talk, is in becoming a nation of healthy hypochondriacs, living gingerly, worrying ourselves half to death.
“And we do not have time for this sort of thing anymore, nor can we afford such a distraction from our other, considerably more urgent problems. Indeed, we should be worrying that our preoccupation with personal health may be a symptom of copping out, .*.*. while just outside, the whole of society is coming undone.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top