302
submitted 2 months ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/frugal@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Mountain_Mike_420@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 months ago
[-] tar@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago

this is such a great resource to understand why footprints are ridiculous metrics and how interconnected our industrial agriculture systems are.

[-] Aux@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

This is not a great resource, because cows and sheep get 95% of their water intake from eating grass and drinking rain water. But when you grow vegetables, you actually have to water them a lot.

[-] freebee@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

Excepr they barely eat grass anymore, but imported soy from deprecated tropical forests.

[-] tar@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

that's not true. cattle hardly get any of the global soy crop, and most of what is fed to animals is the byproduct from making soybean oil. cattle are fed about 2% of global soy iirc and only 7% of all the soy that is fed to any animal is whole soybeans. the rest is basically industrial waste.

[-] tar@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago

if you follow the citations they call that green water and break it down

[-] Aux@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

That's irrelevant when the first graph shows utter bullshit and people fall for it. Cows don't need water, veggies go.

[-] tar@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

i think we are in agreement that the methodology for quantifying agricultural impacts is flawed

[-] tar@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago

why does cottonseed, which would otherwise go to waste, get counted against cattle, when that is a conservative of resources?

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

according to this, cattle mostly graze or are fed things that otherwise would be wasted.

this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
302 points (93.6% liked)

Frugal

4991 readers
1 users here now

Discuss how to save money.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS