Meatless Monday's
Replies
-
http://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resourcesSurprise and disbelief. That’s what often follows when people learn about the large water footprint of many meat products.
Common responses include: “Really?” “That can’t be right.” “That’s ridiculous.”
Shock is reasonable after discovering that the global average water footprint – or the total amount of water needed – to produce one pound of beef is 1,799 gallons of water; one pound of pork takes 576 gallons of water. As a comparison, the water footprint of soybeans is 216 gallons; corn is 108 gallons.The first has to do with an animal's efficiency to turn its food into body mass known as feed conversion ratios (FCR) (i.e., identical units of feed to meat, so feed: meat). The range of FCRs is based on the type of animal, and according to Dr. Robert Lawrence of Johns Hopkins University, the ratios are approximately 7:1 for beef, 5:1 for pork and 2.5:1 for poultry. The larger the animal, the larger the percentage of that animal’s body mass is inedible material like bone, skin and tissue. This is why beef conversion ratios are the highest and it takes exponentially less water and energy inputs to produce grains, beans and vegetables than meat. To be clear, raising a beef cow takes more resources because a typical beef cow in the US eats thousands of pounds of the above-listed corn and soybeans during its lifetime.
Hmm, so by eating wild game are we actually saving water?0 -
I'm not trying to have a big fight over it. I'm just honestly curious.janejellyroll wrote: »I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan.
I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals.
The water savings isn't referring to the water used during food preparation, but the water that is consumed by the animal prior to slaughter (and the water used to grow the grains fed to the animals).
I have never seen anything to back this up, but I find it hard to imagine that most people doing meatless Monday are eating double-portions of meat on Tuesdays to make up for it. Lots of my co-workers seem to use it as a chance to learn new vegetarian recipes. Overall, it does seem like it would lead to a reduction in meat consumption over time.
I guess if you eat meat every day and cut Monday out, you've done your bit. Personally, I don't eat meat every day, so I'd just be making one of those days Monday, lol. No big contribution on my part. The doubling-up on meat...that's not at all what I meant, lol.
If people are using MM to work in more veggies, it's a very positive thing. Most people don't get enough veggies and get more protein than they need, so yay all of that!
The water thing - veggies need water, too. They need water wile growing, some need mist and cooling systems during transport and storage, then people wash them at home. People who boil or steam them use water for that.
Are we really sure that cows use more water than veggies?
I'm really on board with MM (even if it means no change for me, lol). I'm just wondering if it's really saving what those logos suggest.
I haven't done the math, but to me it makes sense, as cows have to eat something plant-based (whether grass or corn or whatever), so cows are then eating a huge amount of vegetables which required water to grow. Know what I mean? I think the idea is that those vegetables could go a lot further feeding people if we ate them directly rather than feeding them to a cow first.
I have read a couple articles on this which seem to support this (that meat requires a lot more resources to produce because each cow requires so much feed from birth to slaughter), but I'm no expert and I'm very much aware that data can be manipulated, so I'm not prepared to argue this or anything...just wanted to explain what the reasoning is.
I kind of doubt that skipping one burger saves as much water as 2.5 months of showing, you know? But then I really don't know. Seems wrong, but could be right! Hence, the questions. Not an "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm smart and you're dumb!" thing. I really don't know!
The average US shower apparently takes 17 gallons. If that is correct, a pound of beef has consumed as much water as about 105 showers.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »http://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resourcesSurprise and disbelief. That’s what often follows when people learn about the large water footprint of many meat products.
Common responses include: “Really?” “That can’t be right.” “That’s ridiculous.”
Shock is reasonable after discovering that the global average water footprint – or the total amount of water needed – to produce one pound of beef is 1,799 gallons of water; one pound of pork takes 576 gallons of water. As a comparison, the water footprint of soybeans is 216 gallons; corn is 108 gallons.The first has to do with an animal's efficiency to turn its food into body mass known as feed conversion ratios (FCR) (i.e., identical units of feed to meat, so feed: meat). The range of FCRs is based on the type of animal, and according to Dr. Robert Lawrence of Johns Hopkins University, the ratios are approximately 7:1 for beef, 5:1 for pork and 2.5:1 for poultry. The larger the animal, the larger the percentage of that animal’s body mass is inedible material like bone, skin and tissue. This is why beef conversion ratios are the highest and it takes exponentially less water and energy inputs to produce grains, beans and vegetables than meat. To be clear, raising a beef cow takes more resources because a typical beef cow in the US eats thousands of pounds of the above-listed corn and soybeans during its lifetime.
Hmm, so by eating wild game are we actually saving water?
I think you could take it to that conclusion if you wished.
I'm an omnivore and I have no horse in this race, but I do think it's an interesting idea and worth considering when I think of it from a global/resource scarcity perspective.0 -
My Mom was doing Meatless Mondays for our family in the 1970s.0
-
so if you batch cook 2-3 pounds of meat on one day and eat that all week- I mean is that the same thing
LOL
also. I eat a fair amount of veggies- and I have no issue with eating non meat meals (not a big deal) ... but- I like meat- so i eat it a lot.
period.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm not trying to have a big fight over it. I'm just honestly curious.janejellyroll wrote: »I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan.
I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals.
The water savings isn't referring to the water used during food preparation, but the water that is consumed by the animal prior to slaughter (and the water used to grow the grains fed to the animals).
I have never seen anything to back this up, but I find it hard to imagine that most people doing meatless Monday are eating double-portions of meat on Tuesdays to make up for it. Lots of my co-workers seem to use it as a chance to learn new vegetarian recipes. Overall, it does seem like it would lead to a reduction in meat consumption over time.
I guess if you eat meat every day and cut Monday out, you've done your bit. Personally, I don't eat meat every day, so I'd just be making one of those days Monday, lol. No big contribution on my part. The doubling-up on meat...that's not at all what I meant, lol.
If people are using MM to work in more veggies, it's a very positive thing. Most people don't get enough veggies and get more protein than they need, so yay all of that!
The water thing - veggies need water, too. They need water wile growing, some need mist and cooling systems during transport and storage, then people wash them at home. People who boil or steam them use water for that.
Are we really sure that cows use more water than veggies?
I'm really on board with MM (even if it means no change for me, lol). I'm just wondering if it's really saving what those logos suggest.
I haven't done the math, but to me it makes sense, as cows have to eat something plant-based (whether grass or corn or whatever), so cows are then eating a huge amount of vegetables which required water to grow. Know what I mean? I think the idea is that those vegetables could go a lot further feeding people if we ate them directly rather than feeding them to a cow first.
I have read a couple articles on this which seem to support this (that meat requires a lot more resources to produce because each cow requires so much feed from birth to slaughter), but I'm no expert and I'm very much aware that data can be manipulated, so I'm not prepared to argue this or anything...just wanted to explain what the reasoning is.
I kind of doubt that skipping one burger saves as much water as 2.5 months of showing, you know? But then I really don't know. Seems wrong, but could be right! Hence, the questions. Not an "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm smart and you're dumb!" thing. I really don't know!
The average US shower apparently takes 17 gallons. If that is correct, a pound of beef has consumed as much water as about 105 showers.
So, the water used by animals is just destroyed in the process and can never again be a part of the water cycle?0 -
So, the water used by animals is just destroyed in the process and can never again be a part of the water cycle?
Interesting discussion because just like all energy and matter, it cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. All water that's on this planet now and that always was, has been here and will remain here until the atmosphere goes poof. Our planet is 70% water. We just need a more efficient and cheaper way to create fresh water.
Some guy in Chile created a nifty little device that can clean 35 liters of water in 5 minutes using the same amount of power that it takes to run a light bulb. So clean, in fact, the finished clean water is 100% pure. It's being used in villages all over South America. We need lots of that on a very large scale.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm not trying to have a big fight over it. I'm just honestly curious.janejellyroll wrote: »I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan.
I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals.
The water savings isn't referring to the water used during food preparation, but the water that is consumed by the animal prior to slaughter (and the water used to grow the grains fed to the animals).
I have never seen anything to back this up, but I find it hard to imagine that most people doing meatless Monday are eating double-portions of meat on Tuesdays to make up for it. Lots of my co-workers seem to use it as a chance to learn new vegetarian recipes. Overall, it does seem like it would lead to a reduction in meat consumption over time.
I guess if you eat meat every day and cut Monday out, you've done your bit. Personally, I don't eat meat every day, so I'd just be making one of those days Monday, lol. No big contribution on my part. The doubling-up on meat...that's not at all what I meant, lol.
If people are using MM to work in more veggies, it's a very positive thing. Most people don't get enough veggies and get more protein than they need, so yay all of that!
The water thing - veggies need water, too. They need water wile growing, some need mist and cooling systems during transport and storage, then people wash them at home. People who boil or steam them use water for that.
Are we really sure that cows use more water than veggies?
I'm really on board with MM (even if it means no change for me, lol). I'm just wondering if it's really saving what those logos suggest.
I haven't done the math, but to me it makes sense, as cows have to eat something plant-based (whether grass or corn or whatever), so cows are then eating a huge amount of vegetables which required water to grow. Know what I mean? I think the idea is that those vegetables could go a lot further feeding people if we ate them directly rather than feeding them to a cow first.
I have read a couple articles on this which seem to support this (that meat requires a lot more resources to produce because each cow requires so much feed from birth to slaughter), but I'm no expert and I'm very much aware that data can be manipulated, so I'm not prepared to argue this or anything...just wanted to explain what the reasoning is.
I kind of doubt that skipping one burger saves as much water as 2.5 months of showing, you know? But then I really don't know. Seems wrong, but could be right! Hence, the questions. Not an "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm smart and you're dumb!" thing. I really don't know!
The average US shower apparently takes 17 gallons. If that is correct, a pound of beef has consumed as much water as about 105 showers.
So, the water used by animals is just destroyed in the process and can never again be a part of the water cycle?
I'm positive that I didn't say anything like that. How would you "destroy" water or prevent it from ever being part of the water cycle?
For areas experiencing potential or actual water shortages, how much water is used *today* is worth considering, especially for foods that require lots of it. This isn't the same thing as the bizarre claim that water can somehow be "destroyed," one that I don't think anyone has made in this thread.0 -
Using that number, it's about 475 gallons for a big burger. That would be less than 2.5 months of showering for me. Thanks!janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan.
I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals.
The water savings isn't referring to the water used during food preparation, but the water that is consumed by the animal prior to slaughter (and the water used to grow the grains fed to the animals).
I have never seen anything to back this up, but I find it hard to imagine that most people doing meatless Monday are eating double-portions of meat on Tuesdays to make up for it. Lots of my co-workers seem to use it as a chance to learn new vegetarian recipes. Overall, it does seem like it would lead to a reduction in meat consumption over time.
I guess if you eat meat every day and cut Monday out, you've done your bit. Personally, I don't eat meat every day, so I'd just be making one of those days Monday, lol. No big contribution on my part. The doubling-up on meat...that's not at all what I meant, lol.
If people are using MM to work in more veggies, it's a very positive thing. Most people don't get enough veggies and get more protein than they need, so yay all of that!
The water thing - veggies need water, too. They need water wile growing, some need mist and cooling systems during transport and storage, then people wash them at home. People who boil or steam them use water for that.
Are we really sure that cows use more water than veggies?
I'm really on board with MM (even if it means no change for me, lol). I'm just wondering if it's really saving what those logos suggest.
It takes almost 1,900 gallons of water to create a pound of beef.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions