I would like to draw your attention to a recent letter to the editor on page 8 of the April 2011 issue of “The Canadian Cattlemen”. Ross Gould from Calgary, AB wrote the following letter:
2,400 litres of water to make a hamburger?
I am referring to the “Eat less water” heading in the Special Information Feature in the March 12, 2011 issue of THE GLOBE AND MAIL. That item used one of the often-quoted estimates that it takes from just over 10,000 to 15,000 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef.I totally agree that we, as humans need to look at our water footprint. At the same time the estimate of water use for beef production is vastly overstated.A very generous estimate of the water consumption of a mother cow and her calf until it reaches market is probably not more than 44,000 litres. Another thousand litres might be used in processing the carcass. The end product is a live animal weighing about 1,300 pounds and 442 pounds of meat that we can eat. Thus the amount used by the animal and processing a kilogram of edible meat will consume no more than 220 litres, probably less. A quarter-pound hamburger (125 grams) therefore represents a water consumption of 27.5 litres, just over one per cent of the 2,400 litre estimate quoted (by the GLOBE & MAIL). How can that be?The reason for this gross overestimate is because it includes all of the water needed to produce all of the grain and forage consumed by the cow and calf. This would be valid if that water had an alternate use. But that is not the case. Much of the life of a cow and calf is spent of dryland pasture, which would not produce any food but for these grazing animals. The rest is mainly from dryland crops. Even some of that is inedible crop residues. The rain which falls on this dry land is not available for any other use so it should not be included in the estimate of water required to produce a hamburger.
More information can be found at
I agree that the amount seems to be way overstated! Do you have any information on the actual amount I wonder if any of the provincial or state beef councils have done some research on this?
ReplyDeletewww.crystalcattle.com
It is so frustrating when people will exaggerate facts to try to push an agenda, because all it does is cloud the true story, and prevent any true and positive progress that could be made. Like you said everyone, agriculture included should try to get the most out of the water they use which will by default reduce the overall water footprint. But, if everyone becomes focused on dispelling inaccurate information then the whole focus becomes one of defensiveness and arguing about the validity of the numbers presented, instead of the real goal of developing water reducing technology and production practices.
ReplyDelete