Despite record snowpack, the Colorado River basin faces an existential water problem if trends continue. Will water rations or new projects be the solution?
The dirty little secret in California is that cattle production accounts for up to half of the states water use, directly and indirectly. While residents are routinely punished for watering lawns and washing cars, commercial and residential use, including golf courses, use only about 20 percent of CA water. Meanwhile vast acreage of alfalfa is sucking up precious water in the blistering summer sun in the Imperial, Colorado River, and San Joaquin Valleys due to antiquated water rights (I drive occasionally from Fort Worth, Texas to San Diego, CA and really the entire SW US is one big cattle pasture--either grazing on fragile desert lands directly or land under plow for alfalfa and hay. Not only that but a good chunk of this production is sent Saudi Arabia and China). Cattle also contribute as much greenhouse gases as the transportation sector! Looks to me like we have a two-fer: eat less beef and we get both birds, as opposed to desal, for example, which is expensive AND produces CO2.. If a massive government subsidy would help get lab grown beef to the market that could at least supplant ground beef in fast food establishments which is a huge amount.
You bring up some great points, especially that there seem to be some weird uses of water going on considering the circumstances!
While I can see your point about beef, I personally remain skeptical on that front (with some more research on the topic being required admittingly). My intuition tells me that cows are much more sustainable than they are often made out to be, with certain agricultural practices clearly better than others. From my understanding there are sustainable cattle farms that respect the carbon life cycle whereas the large industry tends not to and draws some just criticism for its practices. Beef in general is probably the most nutrient dense food by weight on the planet, with people thriving on the carnivore diet for example (with studies in the early stages of corroborating the anecdotes). Artificial meat not comparable in terms of quality ingredients by using soy protein having an overall inferior amino acid profile, while containing things like seed oils which are starting to be understood better to have some less than desirable impacts on health. Your suggestion if implemented may have the desired outcome, however I'm skeptical if its the right move based on societal nutrition, especially in conjunction with other strategies like more sustainable agricultural practices.
As always thanks for the comment, I enjoy taking in varying perspectives which can help me more nuance my thoughts going forward and give me more to research!
Just to clarify, I'm referring to actual lab grown bovine muscle tissue (which is successful so far technically but not economically on par with live animals), not the soy protein products like Impossible burgers.
Resource wise it takes about 25 to 1 energy input to output for cattle. Pork is somewhere around 6 to 1 while poultry is amazingly efficient at around 3 to 1, so while cattle may be more nutrient dense it takes lots more resource to get to that density.
Oh I see, thanks for clarifying. That is very interesting, I've heard of that but haven't looked into it. I'll have to keep an eye on that tech as it develops.
The dirty little secret in California is that cattle production accounts for up to half of the states water use, directly and indirectly. While residents are routinely punished for watering lawns and washing cars, commercial and residential use, including golf courses, use only about 20 percent of CA water. Meanwhile vast acreage of alfalfa is sucking up precious water in the blistering summer sun in the Imperial, Colorado River, and San Joaquin Valleys due to antiquated water rights (I drive occasionally from Fort Worth, Texas to San Diego, CA and really the entire SW US is one big cattle pasture--either grazing on fragile desert lands directly or land under plow for alfalfa and hay. Not only that but a good chunk of this production is sent Saudi Arabia and China). Cattle also contribute as much greenhouse gases as the transportation sector! Looks to me like we have a two-fer: eat less beef and we get both birds, as opposed to desal, for example, which is expensive AND produces CO2.. If a massive government subsidy would help get lab grown beef to the market that could at least supplant ground beef in fast food establishments which is a huge amount.
You bring up some great points, especially that there seem to be some weird uses of water going on considering the circumstances!
While I can see your point about beef, I personally remain skeptical on that front (with some more research on the topic being required admittingly). My intuition tells me that cows are much more sustainable than they are often made out to be, with certain agricultural practices clearly better than others. From my understanding there are sustainable cattle farms that respect the carbon life cycle whereas the large industry tends not to and draws some just criticism for its practices. Beef in general is probably the most nutrient dense food by weight on the planet, with people thriving on the carnivore diet for example (with studies in the early stages of corroborating the anecdotes). Artificial meat not comparable in terms of quality ingredients by using soy protein having an overall inferior amino acid profile, while containing things like seed oils which are starting to be understood better to have some less than desirable impacts on health. Your suggestion if implemented may have the desired outcome, however I'm skeptical if its the right move based on societal nutrition, especially in conjunction with other strategies like more sustainable agricultural practices.
As always thanks for the comment, I enjoy taking in varying perspectives which can help me more nuance my thoughts going forward and give me more to research!
Just to clarify, I'm referring to actual lab grown bovine muscle tissue (which is successful so far technically but not economically on par with live animals), not the soy protein products like Impossible burgers.
Resource wise it takes about 25 to 1 energy input to output for cattle. Pork is somewhere around 6 to 1 while poultry is amazingly efficient at around 3 to 1, so while cattle may be more nutrient dense it takes lots more resource to get to that density.
Oh I see, thanks for clarifying. That is very interesting, I've heard of that but haven't looked into it. I'll have to keep an eye on that tech as it develops.