I would like to thank my spouse preemptively, for not chiding me for reading these comments all day, my parents, for spawning me, and /u/LizardPoisonsSpock for providing that sweet, sweet gold.Īs part of his sweeping mass of new deal legistlation, FDR passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Obviously there is very little to no opportunity cost to farmers benefitting from rainwater, and it is not fair to say that by eating beef your are "consuming" the cited amount of water.Įdit2: Tears of joy are sliding down my gilded cheeks. In the case of the NYT article, the leading line is that the average American "consumes" this water. It seems clear that, in the context of the linked articles, these figures are misleading the authors are likely not expecting the reader to call to mind a slurry of rainwater, runoff and treated water. Obviously $3 ground beef is the least profitable beef obtained from a cow – they are getting what they can for that cut.
#12312331231233MOVEALONG MOVEALONG FREE#
corn).įarmers are free to raise their cattle in places where water is cheap In the US, there are indirect subsidies to the price of beef, as components of their feed are subsidized (e.g. rainwater and water pumped directly from aquifers by farmers. This number represents primarily untreated water e.g. I have synthesized what I thought were some of the best points made (thanks all!) This suggests that just the water cost of a pound of beef should be close to $5. My cheapest tier of water costs $3.49/'unit', which is $4.
A Stanford water conservation site claims 1800 gallons. The NYT has this interesting page, which claims a pound of beef requires 786 gallons of water to produce.
0 kommentar(er)
