Yes, we know there is rain, but to produce so much beef requires more than rain. Do some reading about the Ogallala Aquifer, think about it a while, then come back here and admit that everyone who eats meat needs to cut back a lot, at least, or deal with the guilt of trading our children’s food security for your meat addiction.

Since my wife and I haul our water to our rural cabin (with composting toilet), I can tell you that our direct use of water is FAR lower than one would expect from this chart. We work at home, and spend most of our time here, and its still FAR lower. Like our dishes take less than a gallon a day and showers only take about 3 gallons each, this is sometimes rainwater or melted snow too.

Likewise, we prefer free range or free grazing meat or better yet wild game when we can get some. Grass fed pastured cattle would take a lot less water than the corn fed ones.

You’ve got the wrong century. Cow dung is not used on a wide scale in this country.

>Also, isn’t that the water footprint for the WHOLE COW

No. It is for a pound of beef just like it says though that estimate is, in fact, arguably low. It is well established that meat takes far, far more water to produce per pound than do vegetables. The beef industries estimates of what it takes are predictable lower than an environmentalist but even those put the figure at least 500 gallons per pound. At least the beef industry admits it takes more water, it is funny that beef eaters appear to be upset about it.

One of the reasons beef takes so much water is because most of the cattle are grain fed in this country so they get fat quick. That means that most of the farm acreage in the country is used to produce feed for cows. Something around 3-5 pounds per pound of meat. So by the time you’ve grown that the water consumption is already close to that of many vegetables, including, let’s say, lettuce. This is before the cow has even been slaughtered. (Let alone that 5 pounds of grain can create a lot less resource intensive food than beef.)

Also, isn’t that the water footprint for the WHOLE COW? Are they assuming that our hamburger contains an entire side of beef? Using the same logic shouldn’t our salad water footprint be the entirety of the irrigation of the lettuce field?

in my many years of being a vegetarian (out of ethical reasons, that is) i have encountered a huge number of people that “defend” their meat-eating in no way different to how smokers defend their smoking, alcoholics their booze.
hold your horses, i am by now way claiming that human carnivores are addicts, but it strikes me odd to see how important meat is to many people, as if every incentive or motivation to reduce their consumption were a direct threat to their personality or freedom.

and to still claim that all statistics which prove that meat-consumption with all its consequences (energy/resources/pesticide impact/habitat loss, like you said, neil) cause many problems on this planet, social to environmental, are crap, is like claiming the world is flat and in the center of the universe. go to the amazon, see the endless monocultures of soy (being shipped to europe to feed cattle) and the cattleranches as large as small countries, and all this where lush green tropical rainforest used to live. zoom to “rondonia” on google earth, and you can see the impact from the comfort of your own home.
(http://maps.google.de/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=-10.930405,-61.891479&spn=3.985 065,7.141113&t=h&z=8)

nobody is asking anybody to stop eating meat. but be conscious about it, please.

Water resources aren’t finite, but reliable clean water sources are a problem for a large segment of the global population. To ask those who are well-off in America to comsume or waste a bit less shouldn’t be interpreted as an insult.

And like others have said, water is used over and over and over again; it doesn’t go away easily. I read once that the water flowing through the Thames has been drank many times over. Ewww.

Also, aren’t we gaining a bunch of fresh water with the melting ice caps and glaciers? Global Warming Bonus!

And this chart is most definitely crap. Water isn’t like oil; it’s not as though there’s a gigantic reservoir of water somewhere, and when it runs out, will mean everyone’s gonig to die of thirst. Water runs in a cycle, and there’s no more or less of it now than there was a thousand years ago. Some is clean and some isn’t, is all.

Low flow toilet (bad ones) = flushing twice occasionally (also because of crappy water.)

First thing I do when I get a new shower head is remove the removable flow restrict piece of plastic and throw it away. That’s right I’m a horrible, evil, no good, very bad bad person.

I wonder how much water you waste if you eat delicious delicious bacon with your environmentally damaging eggs.

Although, anything that advocates the drinking of beer I wholeheartedly agree with.

I wonder what a Neilburger tastes like.

If someone comes up with a vegetable equivalent to beef (nutrition, ease of digestion, flavor, etc) then I might consider going vegetarian… then again, such a product would likely cost just as much to produce as beef and initial releases would cost way too much for me to bother with.

So, by use of defeatist logic I’ve now refuted your suggestion into oblivion. I’m gonna go buy me some smokes ($4.99 for a bag of Kite now) and maybe a big bag of Doritos ($3.99) so I can be sicker, slower, weaker.

Nothing sends the public into frothing, red-faced hysteria so much as the slightest criticism of the wisdom of factory flesh farming.

The energy/resources/pesticide impact/habitat loss, etc. per lb. of protein from flesh vs. lb. protein from vegetable sources is so colossal as to end the argument. That is, except for one and only one irrefutable carno-argument: meat tastes better, dangit!

Whether you believe in global warming or not, the environment your kids live in matters, and the single greatest thing you can do to help it is to go vegetarian. If you must have meat, hunt it yourself! I’ll buy the beer.