>How are they going to grow all of those vegetables without the fertilizer that the cattle give them?

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.)

How is this different from truemirror GeneAriani pointed out? I saw on these in their old nyc show years ago and it was strange. Their site claims the method was patented in 1887.

At this moment in time or the end of the day, hell, 24/7, I personally, with all due respect, can absolutely come up with a fairly unique sentence that contains all these phrases because, as you said, it's not rocket science however, the truth is, you shouldn't have asked because, as you can see, it's a nightmare.

I can't stand "it is what it is".

Bizarre when they are looking so very white themselves.