2lbs of Beef Produce the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a 3hr d

tybird

llove wrote:

Eat venison...a better, healthier alternative to beef.

Good stuff, eh

haffajappa

We had a meat discussion in our lecture yesterday.
Also I've been reading some books on water lately, which is another issue but, I was surprised to read this:

"It takes 3000 gallons [of water] to grow the feed for enough cow to make a quarter pounder, and between 500 and 1000 gallons for that cow to fill its udders with a quart of milk"

over 11000 litres of water for a hamburger :shock:

Kel Varnsen

haffajappa wrote:

We had a meat discussion in our lecture yesterday.
Also I've been reading some books on water lately, which is another issue but, I was surprised to read this:

"It takes 3000 gallons [of water] to grow the feed for enough cow to make a quarter pounder, and between 500 and 1000 gallons for that cow to fill its udders with a quart of milk"

over 11000 litres of water for a hamburger :shock:

But if you don't kill the cow to make the burger isn't he just going to keep drinking more and more water, until he dies a natural death?

haffajappa

Kel Varnsen wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

We had a meat discussion in our lecture yesterday.
Also I've been reading some books on water lately, which is another issue but, I was surprised to read this:

"It takes 3000 gallons [of water] to grow the feed for enough cow to make a quarter pounder, and between 500 and 1000 gallons for that cow to fill its udders with a quart of milk"

over 11000 litres of water for a hamburger :shock:

But if you don't kill the cow to make the burger isn't he just going to keep drinking more and more water, until he dies a natural death?

40% of the grain humans harvest goes to livestock specifically for feeding humans.
you are essentially growing the cows to eat, and in doing so you are using so much water to harvest so much grain for livestock. if the humans don't eat the livestock, there is no business in growing the cow.

Pepe Silvia

soulsinging wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

what exactly is the point of this article? what's it calling for? should we hunt cows to extinction like we did the buffalo, so that they stop fucking up the atmosphere? what's the solution here?

this is one dumb study. who gives a shit? what can we do about cows farting?

well, according to the article in New Scientist you would see it's not just from 'a cow farting' but also the transport of it's feed and waste removal is calculated, energy used on the farming methods (although doesn't facotr in transportation to the slaughterhouse and to where you buy it)....it's not saying it's all on the cow

Possible interventions, the authors suggest, include better waste management and shortening the interval between calving by one month. This latter measure could reduce the total environmental load by nearly 6 per cent. A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef, raised on grass rather than concentrated feed, emits 40 per cent less greenhouse gases and consumes 85 per cent less energy.

"Methane emissions from beef cattle are declining, thanks to innovations in feeding practices," says Karen Batra of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in Centennial, Colorado.

fair enough. i buy organic every chance i get anyway. you can definitely taste the difference. things taste better when they die happy and free

damn this thread... my coworkers are planning mexican for lunch and now i am craving a burger so bad it's not even funny!

yeah, grass fed is definitely better for you because it will have omega-3's in it, seeds and things like soy-and corn-based feed are loaded with omega-6's which can actually be bad for you by promoting blood clotting, inflammation and other things.

he still stands

haffajappa wrote:

We had a meat discussion in our lecture yesterday.
Also I've been reading some books on water lately, which is another issue but, I was surprised to read this:

"It takes 3000 gallons [of water] to grow the feed for enough cow to make a quarter pounder, and between 500 and 1000 gallons for that cow to fill its udders with a quart of milk"

over 11000 litres of water for a hamburger :shock:

Cattle for slaughter will produce ~800 lbs of meat. That would be 3,200 1/4 pounders. If it takes 3,000 gallons for each quarter pounder, that is 9.6 MILLION gallons of water per head!!!

The average steer/heifer that goes to slaughter lives for 3 years (1,095 days). So if we divide 9.6MM by that, we come up with 8,767 GALLONS PER DAY!!!

The first 20 years of my life I spent working on my dad's farm and during the winter we sometimes had to haul water to a herd of 50-60. It was a 10,000 gallon tank and it would last about 10-14 days for all 50-60 cows. So, that means about 15 gallons per day per head.... NOT 8,767 gallons per day.

Where did you get those numbers?

As far as the greenhouse gas problem, the only thing I would suggest is buying locally grown beef/milk. Also, there is big money in development of grass/pasture mixes that don't produce so much methane when digested. Remember that if you switch from eating one thing to another (we all still have to eat) you are merely switching your carbon footprint from cows to vegetables. True, eating meat equals a larger footprint, but a good portion of that footprint is going to exist unless you stop eating completely.

haffajappa

he still stands wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

We had a meat discussion in our lecture yesterday.
Also I've been reading some books on water lately, which is another issue but, I was surprised to read this:

"It takes 3000 gallons [of water] to grow the feed for enough cow to make a quarter pounder, and between 500 and 1000 gallons for that cow to fill its udders with a quart of milk"

over 11000 litres of water for a hamburger :shock:

Cattle for slaughter will produce ~800 lbs of meat. That would be 3,200 1/4 pounders. If it takes 3,000 gallons for each quarter pounder, that is 9.6 MILLION gallons of water per head!!!

The average steer/heifer that goes to slaughter lives for 3 years (1,095 days). So if we divide 9.6MM by that, we come up with 8,767 GALLONS PER DAY!!!

The first 20 years of my life I spent working on my dad's farm and during the winter we sometimes had to haul water to a herd of 50-60. It was a 10,000 gallon tank and it would last about 10-14 days for all 50-60 cows. So, that means about 15 gallons per day per head.... NOT 8,767 gallons per day.

Where did you get those numbers?

As far as the greenhouse gas problem, the only thing I would suggest is buying locally grown beef/milk. Also, there is big money in development of grass/pasture mixes that don't produce so much methane when digested. Remember that if you switch from eating one thing to another (we all still have to eat) you are merely switching your carbon footprint from cows to vegetables. True, eating meat equals a larger footprint, but a good portion of that footprint is going to exist unless you stop eating completely.

not the water they drink directly, the water it takes to produce the feed for them to produce that amount of meat.

he still stands

haffajappa wrote:

not the water they drink directly, the water it takes to produce the feed for them to produce that amount of meat.

ummm... yeah... like the water that falls from the freakin' sky on to the corn and grass/pasture that feeds them? should we tell god to turn off the spicket ???

WTF

gabers

Yeah, I don't think the PETA folks really thought this one through very well. I mean in time, the populations of cattle would be reduced if everyone decided to not eat beef, but how does not eating beef help the problem right now? Also, other ruminants produce copious amounts of methane also, what do we do about those?

gabers

he still stands wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

We had a meat discussion in our lecture yesterday.
Also I've been reading some books on water lately, which is another issue but, I was surprised to read this:

"It takes 3000 gallons [of water] to grow the feed for enough cow to make a quarter pounder, and between 500 and 1000 gallons for that cow to fill its udders with a quart of milk"

over 11000 litres of water for a hamburger :shock:

Cattle for slaughter will produce ~800 lbs of meat. That would be 3,200 1/4 pounders. If it takes 3,000 gallons for each quarter pounder, that is 9.6 MILLION gallons of water per head!!!

The average steer/heifer that goes to slaughter lives for 3 years (1,095 days). So if we divide 9.6MM by that, we come up with 8,767 GALLONS PER DAY!!!

The first 20 years of my life I spent working on my dad's farm and during the winter we sometimes had to haul water to a herd of 50-60. It was a 10,000 gallon tank and it would last about 10-14 days for all 50-60 cows. So, that means about 15 gallons per day per head.... NOT 8,767 gallons per day.

Where did you get those numbers?

As far as the greenhouse gas problem, the only thing I would suggest is buying locally grown beef/milk. Also, there is big money in development of grass/pasture mixes that don't produce so much methane when digested. Remember that if you switch from eating one thing to another (we all still have to eat) you are merely switching your carbon footprint from cows to vegetables. True, eating meat equals a larger footprint, but a good portion of that footprint is going to exist unless you stop eating completely.

It's always nice to see a post from someone that is genuinely educated about the question. No offense meant to other posters.

PJPOWER

he still stands wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

not the water they drink directly, the water it takes to produce the feed for them to produce that amount of meat.

ummm... yeah... like the water that falls from the freakin' sky on to the corn and grass/pasture that feeds them? should we tell god to turn off the spicket ???

WTF

You're dead on. I come from a family of ranchers as well, and our cattle were "dry land" cattle. We never irrigated specifically so that the cattle could eat. The rain falls, the grass grows, and the cattle eat. The only time irrigation came into the mix was when we put our cattle on someone's land so that they could graze on the left over corn stalks, which in turn helped fertilize his land for the next year.
The ones abusing and overusing land are actually the "organic" farmers. Because of the lack of pesticides, half of their crops usually die, and they have to use twice the land to produce the same yield...which if I were going by some of the arguments in here would also mean twice the water ...but again...it's fking rain.

he still stands

PJPOWER wrote:

he still stands wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

not the water they drink directly, the water it takes to produce the feed for them to produce that amount of meat.

ummm... yeah... like the water that falls from the freakin' sky on to the corn and grass/pasture that feeds them? should we tell god to turn off the spicket ???

WTF

You're dead on. I come from a family of ranchers as well, and our cattle were "dry land" cattle. We never irrigated specifically so that the cattle could eat. The rain falls, the grass grows, and the cattle eat. The only time irrigation came into the mix was when we put our cattle on someone's land so that they could graze on the left over corn stalks, which in turn helped fertilize his land for the next year.
The ones abusing and overusing land are actually the "organic" farmers. Because of the lack of pesticides, half of their crops usually die, and they have to use twice the land to produce the same yield...which if I were going by some of the arguments in here would also mean twice the water ...but again...it's fking rain.

that is an excellent point about organic farming. People really have no idea... do they?

I was sitting in on a grain meeting the other day for work and the world will have a 60 day carrover this year of corn, wheat and other coarse grains. It was 150 day carryover on average just 10 years ago. One small event, on either the supply or demand side, is going to trigger a worldwide food shortage. And people wonder why food is so expensive!!!... just imagine if everyone went organic?

PJPOWER

that is an excellent point about organic farming. People really have no idea... do they?

I was sitting in on a grain meeting the other day for work and the world will have a 60 day carrover this year of corn, wheat and other coarse grains. It was 150 day carryover on average just 10 years ago. One small event, on either the supply or demand side, is going to trigger a worldwide food shortage. And people wonder why food is so expensive!!!... just imagine if everyone went organic?

Yeah, it's really scary stuff. The best portreyal that I've seen recently of this organic hype was on Penn and Teller's Bullshit this last season. The funniest part was when they sampled organic vs. non organic fruits and veggies at a farmer's market and asked people which one was organic. Almost ALL of them picked the non-organic because they tasted better, lol. Not to mention, they probably had fewer worms crawling around inside of them

haffajappa

he still stands wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

not the water they drink directly, the water it takes to produce the feed for them to produce that amount of meat.

ummm... yeah... like the water that falls from the freakin' sky on to the corn and grass/pasture that feeds them? should we tell god to turn off the spicket ???

WTF

well first of all i don't believe in god...
but regardless, crops don't just grow from water from the sky... especially in areas where it rains for only a marginal part of the year.

actually, it takes a lot of water to do a lot of things both for industrial and agricultural use... you should look into it instead of being so cynical.

haffajappa

PJPOWER wrote:

You're dead on. I come from a family of ranchers as well, and our cattle were "dry land" cattle. We never irrigated specifically so that the cattle could eat. The rain falls, the grass grows, and the cattle eat. The only time irrigation came into the mix was when we put our cattle on someone's land so that they could graze on the left over corn stalks, which in turn helped fertilize his land for the next year.
The ones abusing and overusing land are actually the "organic" farmers. Because of the lack of pesticides, half of their crops usually die, and they have to use twice the land to produce the same yield...which if I were going by some of the arguments in here would also mean twice the water ...but again...it's fking rain.

i think its awesome that you work your farm in such a smart way, and more sustainably.

but remember, not everyone does it.

he still stands

haffajappa wrote:

well first of all i don't believe in god...
but regardless, crops don't just grow from water from the sky... especially in areas where it rains for only a marginal part of the year. .

How much grassland/corn production in the U.S and world is irrigated?

What is the consequence of not using irrigation in areas that need it for fruit/vegetable production? (what would that do to food availability and price and world hunger?)

haffajappa wrote:

actually, it takes a lot of water to do a lot of things both for industrial and agricultural use... you should look into it instead of being so cynical.

In regards to beef/milk production, could you give me some examples?

PJPOWER

haffajappa wrote:

PJPOWER wrote:

You're dead on. I come from a family of ranchers as well, and our cattle were "dry land" cattle. We never irrigated specifically so that the cattle could eat. The rain falls, the grass grows, and the cattle eat. The only time irrigation came into the mix was when we put our cattle on someone's land so that they could graze on the left over corn stalks, which in turn helped fertilize his land for the next year.
The ones abusing and overusing land are actually the "organic" farmers. Because of the lack of pesticides, half of their crops usually die, and they have to use twice the land to produce the same yield...which if I were going by some of the arguments in here would also mean twice the water ...but again...it's fking rain.

i think its awesome that you work your farm in such a smart way, and more sustainably.

but remember, not everyone does it.

Again, a good reason to buy from local meat markets

polaris_x

PJPOWER wrote:

You're dead on. I come from a family of ranchers as well, and our cattle were "dry land" cattle. We never irrigated specifically so that the cattle could eat. The rain falls, the grass grows, and the cattle eat. The only time irrigation came into the mix was when we put our cattle on someone's land so that they could graze on the left over corn stalks, which in turn helped fertilize his land for the next year.
The ones abusing and overusing land are actually the "organic" farmers. Because of the lack of pesticides, half of their crops usually die, and they have to use twice the land to produce the same yield...which if I were going by some of the arguments in here would also mean twice the water ...but again...it's fking rain.

Nothing i've ever read or heard (in talking to the farmers at my local farmers market) corroborates your assertation ... first - if we are talking about cattle - i don't see how you can compare your ranch with a vegetable farm in terms of water usage ... of course a vegetable farm will use more water than your cattle farm ...

organic farms typically plant according to seasons and mix their crops - where as factory farms are only interested in mass yields which leads to a depletion of soil quality thus requiring a crap load of fertilizers and pesticides ... which in turns pollutes the water sources ...

as far as your taste test ... it is not a shock to see people pick the regular tomato simply because they are manufactured for looks ... the reality is tho that the nutrient level in a organic tomoato is higher than your regular tomato ... just because people look for the perfect colour and shape doesn't mean it's better ...

he still stands

it seems odd to me that people decry "mass yields" like it is a bad thing... there are 6 billion people on this planet and the amount of farmland on the earth is fixed (if you agree that deforestation is a bad idea). Increased production seems to be a good thing to me...

PJPOWER

Nothing i've ever read or heard (in talking to the farmers at my local farmers market) corroborates your assertation ... first - if we are talking about cattle - i don't see how you can compare your ranch with a vegetable farm in terms of water usage ... of course a vegetable farm will use more water than your cattle farm ...

organic farms typically plant according to seasons and mix their crops - where as factory farms are only interested in mass yields which leads to a depletion of soil quality thus requiring a crap load of fertilizers and pesticides ... which in turns pollutes the water sources ...

as far as your taste test ... it is not a shock to see people pick the regular tomato simply because they are manufactured for looks ... the reality is tho that the nutrient level in a organic tomoato is higher than your regular tomato ... just because people look for the perfect colour and shape doesn't mean it's better ...

Stop drinking the kookaid. Every farmer I talk to talks about how hard it is to yeild even 50% of what they could otherwise because of the "organic restrictions". It's just flat out impractical. Weeds take over the crops, insects eat the crops, and the produce doesn't last as long at market! I have seen no conclusive studies stating that an organic tomato is more nutricious, in fact, most studies say that they have the same nutrients...the only difference is how they are grown!
"Most experts agree, however, that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables poses a very small health risk."-MayoClinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organi ... IONGROUP=2