Liquid Lunch

Ask Umbra on livestock and water 5

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Why is it eating less beef can save water? In addition, if we skip meat to save water, will that affect our health? Besides beef, what other food or drinks use a lot of water to produce and process?

Thanks!
Jocey

A. Dearest Jocey,

Wow, you meat-eaters sure are hungry for information—check out my colleague Lou Bendrick’s recent exploration of beef and methane.

beef cattleDrink to me only with thine tasty thighs.USDA.govAs for your question: It takes a lot of water to grow and feed a large mammal, and yet more water to cut it up into small pieces and clean up the mess. Water use in beef production includes the water the cattle drink, the water used to clean their housing, the water used to grow their grain, water evapo-transpired from any grass they eat, and water used in the slaughter process. Water impacted by beef production is any water affected by the runoff from beef farms—runoff that can include pathogens, heavy metals, and nutrient contaminants such as nitrogen.

Agriculture worldwide uses 70 percent of the world’s fresh water. Obviously we have to eat, and beef is not the only agricultural product to use water. It’s just that beef, particularly industrial beef, represents a double hit: it’s fed grain that’s grown and watered just to produce the meat. That cropland could have feasibly produced a protein crop that wouldn’t have the total final water use (and water contamination) of beef.

How much water is needed to raise a certain piece of beef is a little hard to parse. Reports sponsored by the California Beef Council come in at 3,682 liters per kilogram; the President of the Pacific Institute estimates 15,000 to 70,000 liters per kilogram. Other than beef, other meats would be the main users of water. Many processed items use a surprising amount of water, including nuclear power, plastic bottles, and Coca-Cola.

Skipping conventionally raised beef will indeed affect your health—in a positive way.

Water availability is a growing issue worldwide, but water use is not yet as quantified for consumer items or daily activities—or beef production—as are climate change impacts. I think if you focus your eating preferences based on climate change impacts (eating lower on the food chain, not eating heavy things shipped from far away, eating fewer processed foods ...), you’ll be doing well by the world’s water supply.

Moistly,
Umbra

 

 

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. kimsikes Posted 6:03 am
    10 Aug 2009

    Umbra, thank you for not being overly critical on meat-eating this time. However when talking about food we must distinguish between industrial vs. real food.Everything we call "food" that is produced industrially (basically everything in your grocery store) uses an immense amount of resources and damages the environment whether it is livestock or veggies. When you say that the grain used to feed industrial cows could be used to feed people instead is not a reality at this point. Those crops are genetically modified, use deadly amounts of chemical inputs (which kill most wildlife in that area and make the soil devoid of nutrients) and use farming methods that destroy the integrity of the soil which wash into local watersheds with all those yummy chemicals. After all this, they're not actually fit for human consumption. All those genetically modified and subsidized corn and soy crops are grown for the sole purpose to turn in into something else: a cow burger or soy burger. Either way it's highly processed and is shipped all over the world.Livestock from your local bio-dynamic farms (ie: Polyface Farms) actually heal the land and people. Locally grown veggies use less resources and are more nutrient-dense than mass-produced crops. And I would dare say that a die-hard vegan whose diet is comprised of processed and packaged food products has a heavier footprint than an omnivore who sources all their meats and vegetables locally.

    Permalink

    1. stevendcal Posted 9:52 pm
      14 Aug 2009

      Kimsekes,Why do you tell Umbra, "Thanks for not being overly critical on meat eating?"  Why do you think she shouldn't CONDEMN meat-eating in the strongest possible terms?It's telling that you refer to other (nonhuman) animals as "meat," "livestock," "wildlife" and "food," but never as "nonhuman animals."  Nonuman animals have a consciousness that is much the same as human beings'.  (Buddhists call this consciousness Buddha Nature.)  Although they usually don't talk much, they do use symbolic communications -- if you have any doubts, watch your dog.As writers like Thomas Berry and Paul Waldau have suggested, life on Eath is a "Communion of Subjects," not humans plus a bunch of objects at their disposal.  Contrary to market economics, life on Earth and the Earth itself are not "resources" whose value is determined by how humans can use them.  

      Permalink

      1. kimsikes Posted 7:15 am
        17 Aug 2009

        Plants have consciousness as well, probably more so than humans or animals. Should we stop eating them too? Bio-dynamic farming does not see their livestock as mere resources. They consider themselves co-creators. Check out trailers for the movies Fresh and Food Inc. Or search for videos of Polyface Farms.

        Permalink

  2. Mary Gilbert Posted 8:36 am
    10 Aug 2009

    I've just read a book called "The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health" by T. Colin Campbell and (his son) Thomas M. Campbell.  The cover also calls it "The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever conducted.," which is probably correct. The book is based on decades of scrupulous scientifc research in both nutrition (a lot of rats bit the dust) and biological studies of proteins, etc., capped by an enormous analysis of dietary habits in various counties in China, "...the culmination of a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine."The biggest surprise was a strong positive correlation between consumption of animal protein and cancer.  Other "diseases of affluence" such as heart attacks, diabetes, etc. are also found to correlate with animal protein intake.  "Diseases of poverty" are no fun either, but very low consumption of animal protein among the poor seems practically to guarantee that cancer will not be what takes you out. Campbell writes very clearly about how the results of his and other studies are kept from the public to preserve the myth (and profits) of the meat and dairy industries.Don't take my word for it.   Read the book (for free! libraries have it) and consider whether you find it convincing.  No two ways bout it, animal protein is identified as a major carcinogen.    

    Permalink

  3. CyberBrook's avatar

    CyberBrook Posted 9:02 am
    14 Aug 2009

    An individual will save so much more water, and pollute a whole lot less to, by switching away from meat than anything else they can do, including turning off the water in their home. Yup, even by completely turning off the water. Something like 95% of the beef in the US is factory farmed, with a lot fo that being in California. A single pound of California beef consumes thousands of gallons of water. I've seen the figure 5000 gallons. A sign in a science museum in San Diego says 8000 gallons for one pound of beef! Eco-Eating at http://www.brook.com/veg

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement