On Apr 5, 4:09 pm, "oonbz" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Apr 5, 3:38 pm, Mr Right wrote:





On Apr 4, 9:11 pm, Fran wrote:

On Apr 4, 7:52 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...http://www.alternet.org/environment/...g_effects_of_g...

SNIP Fascinating stats. Have they been verified? If they're correct, then
it is certainly very sobering stuff.

I just have what I posted here but they seem plausible.

There are some other stats I've seen (google Philip Fradkin + pig
farms) which sound a lot more outlandish and may well have been
crafted to appeal to credulous vegetarians. Personally, I'd like to
see the modelling before I accepted them.

Yet the basic thesis -- that raising protein from animals is far more
water, pesticide and energy-intensive than raising it from plants is
incontestable. One estimate I saw suggested that about 25,000 litres
of water was ultimately needed to produce 8oz of prime beef. If this
is even close to being accurate, it is scandalous. It's also
apparently the case that the US government spends about $US10 million
each year culling animals that might be a threat to livestock
production and about 100,000 animals are killed each year as part of
these programs. We do know that culling programs either side of the
turn of the 19th century resulted in the wholesale extermination of
wolves and that that in turn had an unanticipated deleterious
secondary impact on the health of local waterways in Colorado.
Unintended consequences.

My partner and I have been vegetarians since 1982 -- long before we
took anthropogenic climate change seriously. We just did it on
humanitarian grounds. We had no idea then that there were other sound
reasons for adopting this lifestyle.

Fran

One estimate I saw suggested that about 25,000
litres of water was ultimately needed to produce
8oz of prime beef. If this is even close to being
accurate, it is scandalous.

Fran, could you please confirm whether this figure of 25,000 litres of
water, includes all of the water needed to raise the crops to feed the
cattle. Or is this figure the additional water needed to convert the
crops to beef

I'm assuming it is counting the all of the water needed for the entire
cycle from grain to beef. I haven't seen the modelling though.
************************************************** ************

ROTFLMAO

But you unswervingly believe such a wild figure anyway because it fits in with your
agenda!



According to David Pimental -- a longstanding friend of the fossil
fuel lobby through his campaign to oppose biofuels ...


-- THIRSTY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. U.S. agriculture accounts for 87
percent of all the fresh water consumed each year. Livestock directly
use only 1.3 percent of that water. But when the water required for
forage and grain production is included, livestock's water usage rises
dramatically. Every kilogram of beef produced takes 100,000 liters of
water. Some 900 liters of water go into producing a kilogram of wheat.
Potatoes are even less "thirsty," at 500 liters per kilogram.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

Fran