Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-27-2024, 06:30 PM
 
3,934 posts, read 2,186,172 times
Reputation: 9996

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutdoorLover View Post
Yes, it's a lot easier to save a gallon of water than it is to make a gallon of water. Native plants, by definition, can grow without help!
Lawn at least contributes to the environment.

Maybe we should look why are we conditioned to be washing our towels and clothing if we used it once?

We need to figure out better sanitation systems instead of using gallons of water to remove our waste from sight and contaminate the environment

We may need to put on a product label - how much water was used in production of your clothing, your “athleisure”, your trinkets, etc -we may decide that it is too wasteful and produce something more reasonable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2024, 10:31 AM
 
8,856 posts, read 6,848,510 times
Reputation: 8651
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Arrrggh!...???

One acre of corn evaporates (,transpires) 600,000 gallons of water per year but it will fed more than one beef steer per year. One steer drinks 30,000 gal per year.

We won,t mention that ranchers don,t irrigate with water from the Colorado river like farmers do. We are very innefficient at deriving nutrition from plants, so we,d have to put even more acres into plants if we ate less meat.

Please learn some agronomy before repeating silly propaganda.
This is hilarious. Do you think Iowa irrigates its corn fields? That's a Western thing.

We could reduce grain consumption dramatically if we didn't use a large percentage for cows and non-food uses. We wouldn't have to irrigate anywhere near as much overall (all types of crops).

Last edited by mhays25; 02-28-2024 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2024, 10:38 AM
 
8,856 posts, read 6,848,510 times
Reputation: 8651
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward View Post
Yeah, good luck with your health and the health of the soil without animals.
You won’t be able to grow your grains, not for long…without them

You think for thousands of years people were stupid? Until you came along with the slogans?

A sustainable agriculture is impossible without animals husbandry.

The health of soil depends on it: unless of course you make your poop to fertilize the fields - which wouldn’t be a bad idea if properly composted and applied if not for the pharmaceuticals, cancer therapy, etc

Animals are extremely important for the health of agriculture, the healthy soil and our health

Chemical fertilizers just won’t do it alone: they lack biological and physical properties to preserve and improve the soil, which the only things which feeds animals and humans

You can’t survive on soilless grown lettuce and such and other modern “improvements”, not for long
You seem to be confusing some ideas here.

I eat some meat, just not much of the red kind. I'm not a vegetarian and don't plan to be. I'm also in better shape that most.

Fertilization is important for productivity. But fertilization doesn't require that we eat huge amounts of meat. We can eat less and still get the by-products. Same with any other by-product use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2024, 05:41 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,246 posts, read 5,117,125 times
Reputation: 17737
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
This is hilarious. Do you think Iowa irrigates its corn fields? That's a Western thing.

We could reduce grain consumption dramatically if we didn't use a large percentage for cows and non-food uses. We wouldn't have to irrigate anywhere near as much overall (all types of crops).
I admit I was being a bit disingenuous for quoting the water requirements for corn- a heavy user of water, but crops intended for human consumption are not far behind. My point was that relying on cattle as a central component of our diet actually usus less water than in production than diets with less meat. We are terribly inefficient at digesting plant material, so we would have to grow even more acres than we are now for corn- as livestock feed.

I said nothing about irrigation in IA. Any irrigation done there has little effect on depleting ground water.

Something like 90% of our human food produce comes from CAs central valley-- an area with low annual rainfall, high evap/transpiration rates. They irrigate with water brought in from distant mountains and with high mineral content. As tat water evaporates from the fields, it leaves behind it's minerals, alkalinizes the soil, effectively "salting the fields." That is not sustanab!e.,..OTOH- raising cattle on grassland (including corn- a grass) is essentially what MothrNature did for 10,000 years here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2024, 11:00 AM
 
8,856 posts, read 6,848,510 times
Reputation: 8651
Beef is an ASTRONOMICAL user of water. Everything I've read says this.

Here's the first link in a quick search. "The average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots."
https://foodprint.org/issues/the-wat...print-of-food/

PS, beef cattle mostly live in feedlots before slaughter. And much of their lives regardless is typically eating farmed products (hay, corn, etc.), omitting a percentage that live on rangeland before the feed lots. A huge percentage of grain farming is actually to feed the beef. Another quick link: https://kansasfarmfoodconnection.org...-do-cattle-eat
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2024, 01:44 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,127 posts, read 39,349,217 times
Reputation: 21212
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
I admit I was being a bit disingenuous for quoting the water requirements for corn- a heavy user of water, but crops intended for human consumption are not far behind. My point was that relying on cattle as a central component of our diet actually usus less water than in production than diets with less meat. We are terribly inefficient at digesting plant material, so we would have to grow even more acres than we are now for corn- as livestock feed.

I said nothing about irrigation in IA. Any irrigation done there has little effect on depleting ground water.

Something like 90% of our human food produce comes from CAs central valley-- an area with low annual rainfall, high evap/transpiration rates. They irrigate with water brought in from distant mountains and with high mineral content. As tat water evaporates from the fields, it leaves behind it's minerals, alkalinizes the soil, effectively "salting the fields." That is not sustanab!e.,..OTOH- raising cattle on grassland (including corn- a grass) is essentially what MothrNature did for 10,000 years here.
Back these statements. They are absolutely ludicrous and poorly thought out from the water usage to the magnitude of digestibility of plant versus meat and how that compares to water usage to the misstatement on percent of national produce production in the Central Valley unless you game the numbers to include just produce the Central Valley leads in to a complete loss of understanding of the quantity of bovine were raised and eaten and the method they were raised compared to now. It's unclear if you're just trying to be awful and misinforming people or if you are truly this misinformed. It this supposed to be parody?

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-29-2024 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2024, 04:06 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,246 posts, read 5,117,125 times
Reputation: 17737
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
Beef is an ASTRONOMICAL user of water. Everything I've read says this.

Here's the first link in a quick search. "The average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots."
https://foodprint.org/issues/the-wat...print-of-food/

PS, beef cattle mostly live in feedlots before slaughter. And much of their lives regardless is typically eating farmed products (hay, corn, etc.), omitting a percentage that live on rangeland before the feed lots. A huge percentage of grain farming is actually to feed the beef. Another quick link: https://kansasfarmfoodconnection.org...-do-cattle-eat
I,jve raised cattle. One head drinks about about 10 gal/d- and puts most of that right back on the ground. Crops transpire many times that each day, and it goes into the air to fall back as rain 100s of miles away.

I suggest you look up the nutritional content of plant based foods vs meat before you form an opinion on how we should feed ourselves. It only takes 6oz of meat (500cal) to provide our RDA of protein, but almost 3000 cal of plants to do the same.

This thread is supposed to be about ag and it's effect on ground water, but that,s really only a problem west of the Miss R for the most part. Conserving water east of the Miss.does nothing to help the situation out west...and among the lame arguments by the Treehuggers about GW, the anti-meat/animal ag argument is the most unscientific and lamest.

I don,t know how they figured in your ref about water usage, but I calculate 0.4 gal/ cal for corn-, and 0.08 gallon/cal for beef, but that does,t count the water used to grow the feed....More importantly, because beef (meat in general) is so much more nutrient dense than crops, there,s really no comparison. Veggie based diets are simply too inefficient...and we won,t even get into the detrimental health effects of hi carb (ie- plant based) diets vs meat centered diets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2024, 04:09 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,246 posts, read 5,117,125 times
Reputation: 17737
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Back these statements. They are absolutely ludicrous and poorly thought out from the water usage to the magnitude of digestibility of plant versus meat and how that compares to water usage to the misstatement on percent of national produce production in the Central Valley unless you game the numbers to include just produce the Central Valley leads in to a complete loss of understanding of the quantity of bovine were raised and eaten and the method they were raised compared to now. It's unclear if you're just trying to be awful and misinforming people or if you are truly this misinformed. It this supposed to be parody?
Please provide reference data showing my statents are wrong. It would appear your objections are based on wishful thinking, not facts.https://naturalresources.house.gov/n...umentID=368934

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 02-29-2024 at 04:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2024, 04:35 PM
 
8,856 posts, read 6,848,510 times
Reputation: 8651
I'll believe the actual data sources, not some random guy protecting his interests.

A large percentage of the population eats little or no meat (I eat a little). Caloric density clearly isn't an issue.

And obviously red meat isn't necessary for protein, or even meat of any kind. Chicken (with lower production inputs) and white fish (sometimes plucked from the wild) have as much or more per this link per ounce. Beans are another great source.

You've acknowledged that the food that goes into cows is a factor. But you haven't acknowledged that only a fraction of that turns into usable beef.

Frankly you seem to have read some industry talking points that only work among the gullible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2024, 04:44 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,246 posts, read 5,117,125 times
Reputation: 17737
I just read the references above about "water footprint"- illogical to the point of being silly....When water is used, it isn,t destroyed, merely borrowed temporarily....

....The problem comes when we try to carry out ag operations in areas with low water availability. As noted above, bringing in water from distant sources alkalinizes he soil- a problem with no good solution, ie- unsustainable....or, water is drawn up from the deep water table, and that can,t be recharged in a timely manner.

It should be noted that livestock can be raised on terrain not suitable for crops. Today the American Great Plaines have a total population of ruminants and ungulants just about the same as their totals in pre-Columbian times. We ve just artificially changed the species being counted. We only started having water concerns when we started growing crops on land that used to be short grass prairie or no grass desert.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top