WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

(post is archived)

[–] 9 pts

If you eat a 17-ounce steak, you’re also consuming about 2,034 gallons of water.

False but (((they're))) also ignoring the thousands of other ounces of meat from the same cow.

[–] 6 pts

It’s a common fallacy. Those 2,034 gallons of water consumed by the cow and possibly the plants the cow ate are not gone forever. They are merely moved through a part of their natural cycle and will be consumed again and again by other cows and plants.

[–] 1 pt

Yes, and at least in my country the water that goes to beef production is rain falling on fields. It will fall there regardless of what is grown on the field.

[–] 3 pts

Yeah, i stopped reading there. What a ridiculous assertion, and retarded inference. As you say, it's patently false, but not only that, the implications that it's "inefficient" is stupid. (((They))) suggest that we should completely ignore the food chain and evolution.

[–] 1 pt

Also, where does the water go after the plant consumes it? People and animals take a lot of water in, but it goes right out as piss and sweat. It's mostly just the Western USA that's lacking in water. It starts somewhere in Texas and goes west from there. Louisiana for example has too much damn water.

[–] 0 pt

Almost lines up with a population density map.

[–] 0 pt

I watched a video about how there's a mostly north to south line across the USA where the population drops off. This is because of a lack of water. I have met a lot of internet people, but I have only met 2 in this region west of the line and east of the west coast big city areas.

[–] 0 pt

In the article it says for each 17lbs. So more like 200,000 gal/cow (just simple math 1700 lb cow sounds reasonable)