How much water makes one pound of beef?

WASHINGTON, 11 June — People are astonished to learn it takes 12,000 gallons of water to make one pound of beef... especially when they find out it takes only 60 gallons to produce a pound of potatoes.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In the recently published book, Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation and Health, edited by Dr. David Pimentel, the authors list startling facts regarding the water waste required in beef production.

Pimentel lists figures that outline the “liters of water required to produce 1 kilogram of food.” Translating liters/kilogram to gallons/pound, here are some figures to mull over:

Potatoes: 60 gallons/pound

Wheat: 108 gallons/pound

Corn: 168 gallons/ pound

Rice: 229 gallons/pound

Soybeans: 240 gallons/pound

Beef: 12,009 gallons/pound*

As is clearly illustrated by these figures, it takes roughly 200 times as much water to grow a pound of beef than to grow a pound of potatoes.

“...The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef,” writes Pimentel.

According to the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), one pound of ground lean beef has 1,197.5 calories and one pound of potatoes contains 288 calories. To get roughly the same number of calories from potatoes as you do from a pound of beef, you would need 4.5 pounds of potatoes. This means that 249 gallons of water are needed to produce 4.15 pounds of potatoes versus 12,009 gallons for a pound of beef — in order to produce the same number of calories. In other words: It takes nearly 50 times more water to produce a calorie from beef than it does from potatoes.

The question many people are now asking about the environment and water supplies is if it sensible, and sustainable — in view of the cash subsidies, super-low water prices, free or low-cost grazing on public lands, and the other enormous welfare handouts the meat industry receives from the US government, in order to keep the price of meat artificially low, Pimentel says.

Vegetarians like to congratulate themselves that they are environmentally responsible by avoiding meat, but some complain that they are forced to pay astronomical water bills merely to subsidize their neighbors’ meat habit.

If excessive water use and the depletion of aquifers in the United States wasn’t disturbing enough, the worldwide implications of meat productions are also quite alarming.

According to Pimentel (with the assistance of Dr. Robert Goodland, Ph.D., and Environmental Adviser to the World Bank), food and fiber crops are grown on 12 percent o the Earth’s total land area. Another 24 percent of the land is used as pasture to graze livestock that provide meat and meat products, while forests cover an additional 31 percent. 

A total of 3,265 pounds of agricultural products including feed and grains are produced annually to feed each American, whereas China’s food supply averages 1,029 pounds per person per year. The world average value is 1,353 pounds per person per year. The low number for China correlates with their diet, which is largely plant-based rather than animal-centered.

Drs. Goodland and Pimentel believe that the present and future available of adequate supplies of fresh water must no longer be taken for granted.

Natural collectors of water, such as rivers and lakes, vary in distribution throughout the world and are frequently shared within and among countries. All surface water supplies, especially those in arid regions, are diminished by evaporation. For instance, reservoir water experiences an average yearly loss of about 24 percent.

Pimentel says that the greatest threat to maintaining fresh water supplies is overdraft of surface and groundwater resources used to supply the needs of the rapidly growing human population and the agriculture that provides its food.

Most people require a minimum of 24 gallons a day for cooking, washing and other domestic needs. The average American actually uses about 106 gallons of water daily for domestic needs. Add to that a quarter-pounder with cheese, and you’ve added more than 3,000 additional gallons of water!

Clearly, what you put on your dinner plate really does have a global impact.

About 80 nations in the world, are already experiencing significant water shortages, Pimentel notes. In China, for instance, more than three hundred cities are short of water and the problem is intensifying. Surface water in rivers and lakes and groundwater produce the fresh water supply for the world. Groundwater resources are renewed at various rates, but usually at the extremely slow rate of 0.1 to 0.3 percent per year. Because of their slow recharge rate, groundwater resources must be carefully managed to prevent depletion.

Groundwater depletion is now a serious problem in many parts of the world. For example, an aquifer in the central US has an annual overdraft of 130 to 160 percent above the replacement level. If this continues, Pimentel explains that the vital aquifer is expected to become nonproductive in about 40years. 

Throughout the book, Pimentel and his colleagues focus on the concept of environmental sustainability. A big part of that equation, they note, is to reduce demand for food overall, which can be achieved if more humans eat more efficiently on the food chain.

Diet does matter: Environmental sustainability can most easily be achieved by reducing feeding inefficiencies, such as those involved in producing grain-fed livestock, and encouraging more efficient diets, which shift the focus from flesh-centered to plant-centered eating.

The question remains, however, as to how such a shift can be promoted in a world in which huge subsidies are routinely paid to make meat production affordable and “desirable?”

Pimentel and Goodland say that incentives are needed to promote grain-based diets by applying good economics and good environmental management practices to food and agriculture. In particular, conversion efficiency and “polluter pays” principals should be used in setting full-price policies, which internalize environmental and social costs. Cattle feedlots and slaughterhouses, along with feed and forage production, would therefore carry the largest financial burden, as they consume a great deal of water and general much highly polluting waste, which is not efficiently reused but is instead disposed of in the nearest watercourse.

In the researchers’ view, the highest taxes would fall on the least efficient converters, namely the producers of feedlot cattle.  Slightly lower taxes would be assessed on producers of sheep and cattle grazing natural grassland. No taxes would be paid on grains (rice, maize, wheat, buckwheat), starches (potatoes, cassava), and legumes (soy, pulses, beans, peas, peanuts). Modest subsidies on coarse grains (millet, pearl millet, sorghum) would alleviate hunger and are unlikely to be abused.

Encouragement of domestic or village-scale beneficiation, such as of peanuts to peanut butter and cashews to roasted nuts, which often doubles or triples the profit to the grower, would also be important. Peanut butter and cornflakes were specifically invented to increase the consumption of those low-impact foods at the bottom of the food chain.

Dr. Pimentel’s work underscores the need for continued education in these matters. He makes it clear that a large number of people making even small changes could have a meaningful effect on this serious issue. Water, he reminds us, is the foundation of all life on Earth. It needs to be treated like the treasure it is, not as if it is an unlimited resource.

Editor David Pimentel is a professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, New York, and has published more than 500 scientific articles and 20 books.

*Note that the figures for producing a pound of beef represent water used over a 2+ year period, as food cattle are generally slaughtered before they are 2-years-old. Dairy cattle may live 4 years before being turned into burgers, and range cattle live for 5 or 6 years.

Aside from being Arab News’ Washington Correspondent, Barbara Ferguson serves on the board of the National Health Association.