Peak Water - Downsizing Our Water Footprint

Latest Articles

Peak Water - Downsizing Our Water Footprint
Page Previous 1, 2, 3

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

If it's brown ...

Pull the flush

66%

[ 12 ]

Chuck a bit of old bathwater down

16%

[ 3 ]

Run to Mum screaming "what's Dad / brother done in there?

[ 0 ]

No worries, I've a compost toilet

16%

[ 3 ]

Total Votes : 18

Author

Message

Mrs R

Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 7202

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 10:29 am Post subject:

bladerunner wrote:

It is not the water cows are drinking but what they eat !

Cow-feed is a water-intensive culture
A 200 kg is suppose to virtually eat 3 000 000 liters in his short Life.
A kg of beef has an average water footprint of 15000 liters.

The water footprint network has nice ppt on this.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½Free water footprint calculator for iPhone with Water Aflamed application

Not all cows eat grain/maize though - ours only eat the grass that grows under their feet on this farm, and that's grown only with the sun and what water falls from the sky or comes back out the cows..... but also, the figures popularly given about grainfeeding assume that all the water that goes into the grain stays there, goes into the cow, and vanishes!

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 10:33 am Post subject:
The issue is that the feed is often grown in water stressed areas, not the actual amount of water.

Nicky cigreen

Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 9891
Location: Devon, uk

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 10:56 am Post subject:
the beef i buy is grass/silage fed only, so the whole feed argument does not apply

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 11:02 am Post subject:

I voted for pull the flush, but that's not strictly true as we have a dual flush push button one, however the dual mechanism is broken so it flushes for as long as you press the button (too much emphasis on this thread about colour - no one has mentioned quantity!). I've never managed to empty the tank. It makes you realise how much water is wasted though when I use mum's old, inefficient toilet. The water then goes through the reedbed and seeps away in the soakaway. Ultimately it probably ends up in the pond.

Living in a very wet country it is easy to forget the water problems and irrigation systems they invent in other countries to produce our imported foods. But even in this country we are degrading our topsoils (or at least not building on them) so that they don't retain water.

Cutting out beef? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Dumnonian

Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Location: North Devon

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 11:58 am Post subject:

Behemoth wrote:

The issue is that the feed is often grown in water stressed areas, not the actual amount of water.

Yes, this is what the crypto-vegans deliberately ignore with all their guilt-tripping about eating animal products, whether over water, or methane, or whatever.

It very much depends on the agro-ecosystem context that the animals are raised in.

This is a similar issue to the bacon one over on the Libya thread. Modern agribusiness is strip-mining water, soils, minerals and fossils fuels to produce huge quantities of food for the ever growing global demand, and to make huge profits for themselves. trouble is, by definition most people are not fortunate enough to be able to grow their own or to buy artisan produced food, and are forced to rely on agribusiness, whether they want to, or not.

It's a captive market.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 12:05 pm Post subject:
It's not captive, they just don't know enough to care about it. It's more about ignorance than anything, of course there will always be some who become knowledgeable and still don't care, but you can't win 'em all.

Dumnonian

Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Location: North Devon

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 12:20 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

It's not captive, they just don't know enough to care about it. It's more about ignorance than anything, of course there will always be some who become knowledgeable and still don't care, but you can't win 'em all.

Maybe you're right Rob

All these issues are very complex though, so what chance have the 60 million odd people in the uk - even though we all have free school education available - of understanding it all?

The big boys are putting all their huge resources into convincing everybody that labour-intensive and sustainable agriculture is not capable of feeding over 9 billion people.

And they are very convincing to most ears.

Add to that most people say that they haven't time for all this environment stuff

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 12:31 pm Post subject:

I actually don't think it will be consumer-led; as the price of oil goes up and all the associated costs go with it, I think that the more sustainable options will gain an economic advantage (or should I say, more of one) and it will be producer led.

In the meantime supporting organisations and communities who do help spread the word is all important, and of course supporting the producers who do produce the 'right' way and helping them grow and show their neighbour's the way to go. Leading by example is the easiest thing you can do, and probably carries more weight than preaching.

I am actually quite suprised by the breadth of support there is out there - it's not just a select group that care these days and if there is support across all range of members of society then that can do more good and many more members of a more insular group.

Mrs R

Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 7202

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 2:10 pm Post subject:

Behemoth wrote:

The issue is that the feed is often grown in water stressed areas, not the actual amount of water.

The figures there that are supposed to shock into getting people to give up beef, rely on the actual amount though, nothing said about location of feed? 3million litres of water per 200kg (of beef? of cow?). I would reckon that apart from soya, most feed for cattle is grown in this country. Unless they're eating industrial food manufacturing waste like syrup, cocoa powder and waste bread...gawd knows where that comes from.

In any case, no way am I going to advocate grainfed beef - but there is more to it than 'beef' is the point and nobody can argue that grassfed beef isn't available - Rob's got at least 3steers ready to go as we speak, and cheaper than most supermarkets!

Mrs R

Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 7202

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 11 2:11 pm Post subject:

Dumnonian wrote:

The big boys are putting all their huge resources into convincing everybody that labour-intensive and sustainable agriculture is not capable of feeding over 9 billion people.

That's why I'm here, with my little hammer on people's skulls going "Helloooo? Hellooooo? Helloooooo?"

bladerunner

Joined: 09 Mar 2011
Posts: 3

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 11 10:48 am Post subject:

Dances With Cows wrote:

bladerunner wrote:

yes, water does not vanish.
It just evaporates from the plant and return to the air.

However, this water is not availbale for other uses which may be critical in areas with water scarcity.

In the 15000 litres / kg of beef, scientist have taken into account
- green water corresponding to the moisture present in the soil (rain water)
- blue water correspondign to irrigation
- grey water reflecting the pollution delivered by fertilizers when water return to the river bassin

Of course, rain-fed lands are using a beter renewable water source compared to industrial farming which use a lot of blue water.
In stressed areas however, reducing beef consumption may still make sense: a land may allow to breed more chicken than beef with rain water for instance.

Nicky cigreen

Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 9891
Location: Devon, uk

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 11 11:05 am Post subject:

cassy wrote:

colour it green wrote:

cant see me wanting to give up on indoor proper loo altogether though.

It's not as bad as you might think it is. Honest.

And it doesn't have to be outdoors.

it would have to be outdoors, unless i took out my 'regular' loo - which would seem to be a really good way of devaluing my house.

we could do with a composting loo arrangement further away from the house.. convenient for using when working out there, rather than trudging back to the house

Shan

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 9075
Location: South Wales

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 11 12:27 pm Post subject:
I do flush and I do shower daily, sometimes twice daily if it has been warm or I feel sweaty. On the plus side, the water for our animals comes from the stream.

Lorrainelovesplants

Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 6521
Location: Dordogne

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 11 4:00 pm Post subject:

Ive been to see a man at kernowrat....who are an ethical company selling lots of renewable and recycling thingies. very interesting - I have been put in touch with a customer who has had a composting loo for 6 months - he wouldnt change back now he says.

So, Im keen to go for this...the privy 500
https://kernowrat.co.uk/page48a.html#Privy

the chap Ii spoke to on the phone said to house the urine collection receptacle seperate, (as it can smell) ideally outside...so we are looking at this.....and also to raise the toilet slightly, as gravity helps the urine thing work better. all this for less than ï¿½50.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 11 4:00 pm Post subject:

bladerunner wrote:

In the 15000 litres / kg of beef, scientist have taken into account
- green water corresponding to the moisture present in the soil (rain water)
- blue water correspondign to irrigation
- grey water reflecting the pollution delivered by fertilizers when water return to the river bassin

Of course, rain-fed lands are using a beter renewable water source compared to industrial farming which use a lot of blue water.
In stressed areas however, reducing beef consumption may still make sense: a land may allow to breed more chicken than beef with rain water for instance.

OK, we can take of the quotient relating to green water then, as both crops require that. We can knock off irrigation unless you're in an area where they irrigate the grass and we can knock off pollution from fertilisers, cause there ain't any of that either. Chicken uses a lot more grain than any of our beef, plus the lack of sustainability involved in most chicken being bred by one of a couple of companies and it don't look that good.

I didn't realise you were in a water stressed area though - where in the world does your experience stem from?

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

View Latest Posts