Cowspiracy documentary: factually accurate?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yeah, I'm not a vegan, but most responses so far haven't challenged facts presented in the documentary.

You're assuming any facts were presented.

 

[mumblethrax]

I like meat. I know where it came from and butchered farm animals and animals I hunted. I dislike the killing and removing of guts and butchering, it is messy (and killing is still heart rendering), but it is something I accept as a fact of life that to get the meat you need to pay the price.

And what a terrible price you paid.

Anyway, Cowspiracy is a dumb name. They should have called it Cowschwitz.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The impact on the environment of industrial scale farming is one very good reason (among many) to oppose anything which contributes to global population growth and/or bringing the third world up to first world standards.

The more people there are, and the more of them wanting to live like first worlders (with all that that entails in terms of meat consumption, fossil fuel use, products needing to be produced for them) the worse off the planet will be.

This is one of the many reasons I oppose letting high fertility third worlders into first world nations.

All this effort was put into convincing first world populations to dramatically reduce their reproduction, and first worlders listened and heeded that. They were never told they'd subsequently be backstabbed by the powers that be negating this completely by flooding their nations with people from other societies who breed like plankton.

Humans tend to be more miserable and view other people as less significant as there are more and more of them. Being packed like sardines into massive cities isn't a very good way to live, IMO. Even if some people like living in high density ways, many of us can only feel peace and happiness in sparsely populated situations. The kind of places where certain times of day you can go for a walk or a drive and see almost nobody else. The kind of places where on rare lucky occasion you can go to a section of a public park and find that you have the place to yourself.

The more we permit high-breeders access to first world meat production and calorie surpluses, the more the entire planet will turn into a picked clean husk where everyone lives in miserable squalor packed in like sardines.

I'd really like to see the global population falling, not rising. I think ideally we would get the global population down to maybe about 2 billion again.

Or perhaps instead of trying to change the energy using First world to be more efficient with high priced Eco-Friendly products that do what our currently ones do, but we don't have the Infrastructure for, maybe we should look at the Developing world as a grow area and use them as the early adopters of new eco-technologies so they can have the First world life styles without the need to repeat the First World's mistakes. get them invested in Solar and wind and other forms of renewable energy, learn from putting into their systems, get the kinks out, mass produce it, and drop the costs, and then bring it to the First World. If a country doesn't have a lot of gas stations and cars, then instead of introducing gas guzzlers, introduce Methanol and Hydrogen Cell technologies, set up station with those fuels instead of petroleum ones.

In the developing world we have a huge opportunity to start moving them to an Ecologically sustainable and also high standard of living that we can then then model how to change our own energy depend societies to the same standards of eco-friendliness.

As far as food sources, it gives a change to try out new ideas, like the greenhouse skyscrapers and more. We shouldn't be looking at developing nations and saying, we need to keep them down to protect the planet, we need to be saying, We need to get them to be willing to help lead the way to a sustainable future.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The impact on the environment of industrial scale farming is one very good reason (among many) to oppose anything which contributes to global population growth and/or bringing the third world up to first world standards.

The more people there are, and the more of them wanting to live like first worlders (with all that that entails in terms of meat consumption, fossil fuel use, products needing to be produced for them) the worse off the planet will be.

This is one of the many reasons I oppose letting high fertility third worlders into first world nations.

All this effort was put into convincing first world populations to dramatically reduce their reproduction, and first worlders listened and heeded that. They were never told they'd subsequently be backstabbed by the powers that be negating this completely by flooding their nations with people from other societies who breed like plankton.

Humans tend to be more miserable and view other people as less significant as there are more and more of them. Being packed like sardines into massive cities isn't a very good way to live, IMO. Even if some people like living in high density ways, many of us can only feel peace and happiness in sparsely populated situations. The kind of places where certain times of day you can go for a walk or a drive and see almost nobody else. The kind of places where on rare lucky occasion you can go to a section of a public park and find that you have the place to yourself.

The more we permit high-breeders access to first world meat production and calorie surpluses, the more the entire planet will turn into a picked clean husk where everyone lives in miserable squalor packed in like sardines.

I'd really like to see the global population falling, not rising. I think ideally we would get the global population down to maybe about 2 billion again.

"High-fertility third worlders", "high-breeders".

Lol

 

[Ikarus]

Resuscitated

You're assuming any facts were presented.

Let's see if we can fix a bit of that. Seen the film previous month. The synopsis is that there exist some pretty startling facts about meat production and its effect on the global climate, hence "cow". The "spiracy" is that no major institute or organization, including the major environmental agencies, wants to do anything with those numbers. However, the data made my scepticism organ tingle ever since. Let me lay them out here, perhaps it helps. I found an infograph for the film online, with sources even. Here's a link: http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...24283943008/Cowspiracy-Infographic-Metric.png

But that wouldn't be easily quotable, so let me transcribe real quick... It's neatly organized into sections, and there's lots of data and urls. I've taken the liberty to number the sources and sections. I also tried to place reference markers at the relevant passages which the sources are supposed to back up, according to cowspiracy.com/facts . I hope this helps.

TITLE: COWSPIRACY.
Subtitle: The sustainability secret.
Subtitle: The facts.
Animal agriculture is the most destructive industry facing the planet today. Here's why:

----

I. Climate change.
a. Global greenhouse gas emissions: 51% due to livestock and their byproducts [1]. 13% due to transport (road, rail, air & marine) [2].
b. A plant based diet cuts your carbon footprint by 50%. [4] [11] [24]
c. Livestock is responsible for 65% nitrous oxide emissions (A GHG [Green House Gas] 296x more destructive than CO2) [3].

II. Water use.
a. One hamburger = 3000 Liters water[13] = Equivalent to showering for 2 months.
b. The meat & dairy industry use 1/3 of earth's fresh water. [7]
c. USA water use: 5% Domestic. 55% Animal agriculture. [6]

III. Waste.
a. Waste from a farm of 2500 dairy cows = Waste from a city of 411000 people. [10]
b. Every minute 3.2 million kilograms of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the us. [8]

IV. Land use.
a. 1/3 Land is desertified due to livestock. [13] [14]
b. Livestock covers 45% of the earth's total land. [12]
c. 1.5 acres land (6070 m²) = 16783 kg plant based food or 170 kg meat. [13]
d. Land needed to feed 1 person for 1 year: Vegan = 674 m²; Meat eater = 18x vegan. [11]

V. Fisheries.
a. 80.4 million metric tons of fish are pulled from the oceans each year. [15]
b. 3/4 of the world's fisheries are exploited. [16] [17]
c. For every 1 kilogram of fish caught, 5 kilograms of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill. [18]

VI. Species extinction.
a. 110 [currently 137 on cowspiracy.com] Animal and insect species are lost every day from rainforest destruction. [19]
b. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction. [3] [8] [10] [13]

VII. Deforestation.
a. 1-2 Acres rainforest are cleared every second (4047 - 8094 m²). [21]
b. Animal agriculture is responsible for 91% of amazon destruction [including land needed to grow feed.] [13] [20]
c. Area of rainforest cleared: Palm oil: 105 billion m² [22]; Animal agriculture: 550 billion m² [23].

----

What can we do about it?
A person who follows a vegan diet produces 50% less CO2, and uses 1/11th oil, 1/13th water and 1/18th land compared to a meat eater. [4] [11] [24]
We can make a difference simply by eating less animal products and replacing them with plants.

Infographic by Luke Jones.

----

Sources
All sources derived from www.cowspiracy.com/facts.

1. Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?” WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
2. Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Emissions.” https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
3. “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
4. “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.” Climactic change, 2014. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1/fulltext.html
5. Catanese, Christina. "Virtual Water, Real Impacts." Greenversations: Official Blog of the U.S. EPA. 2012. https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2012/03/virtual-water-real-impacts-world-water-day-2012/
6. Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006. http://www.cspinet.org/EatingGreen/pdf/arguments4.pdf
7. Oppenlander, Richard A. 2013. "Freshwater Abuse and Loss: Where Is It All Going?" Forks over knives. http://www.forksoverknives.com/freshwater-abuse-and-loss-where-is-it-all-going/
8. “What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html
9. "How to manage manure." Healthy Landscapes. http://www.uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/livestock/how_manure_overall.htm [link inactive]
10. “Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=901V0100.txt
11. “Our food our future.” Earthsave. http://www.earthsave.org/pdf/ofof2006.pdf
12. Thornton, Phillip, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen. “Livestock and Climate Change.” Livestock Exchange, no. 3 (2011). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf
13. Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print. https://comfortablyunaware.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/biodiversity-and-food-choice-a-clarification/
14. “UN launches international year of deserts and desertification.” UN news centre, 2006. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17076#.VAodM17E8ds
15. “World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012. (pg 6, 20) http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf
16. “Overfishing: A Threat to Marine Biodiversity.” UN News Center. http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyid=800
17. “General Situation of World Fish Stocks.” United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdf
18. “Discards and Bycatch in Shrimp Trawl Fisheries.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). http://www.fao.org/docrep/W6602E/w6602E09.htm
19. “Rainforest statistics and facts.” Save the amazon. http://www.savetheamazon.org/rainforeststats.htm
20. Margulis, Sergio. Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Rainforest. Washington: World Bank Publications, 2003. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/15060
21. “Avoiding Unsustainable Rainforest Wood.” Rainforest Relief. http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Rainforest_Wood.html
22. “Indonesia: palm oil expansion unaffected by forest moratorium.” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2013. http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2013/06/indonesia/
23. “AMAZON DESTRUCTION.” MONGA BAY. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html
24. Oil, water: “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I. Climate change.
a. Global greenhouse gas emissions: 51% due to livestock

No, it isn't.

b. A plant based diet cuts your carbon footprint by 50%.

No, it doesn't.

Vegetarian and 'healthy' diets could be more harmful to the environment, researchers say. Eating lettuce is 'over three times worse' in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon

c. Livestock is responsible for 65% nitrous oxide emissions (A GHG [Green House Gas] 296x more destructive than CO2) [3].

Nitrous Oxide Emissions

Nitrous oxide is emitted when people add nitrogen to the soil through the use of synthetic fertilizers.

Synthetic Nitrogen fertilizers are used to grow crops, which are still needed if everyone goes vegetarian.

II. Water use.
a. One hamburger = 3000 Liters water[13] = Equivalent to showering for 2 months.

Most hamburgers are highly processed and have very little actual meat content. Contents of a Big Mac:-

Carbohydrates 46g
Fat 29g
Protein 25g

III. Waste.
a. Waste from a farm of 2500 dairy cows = Waste from a city of 411000 people.

So 1 cow = 164 people? I doubt that. The average American weighs 166lb, the average dairy cow 1,300 lbs. That's a ratio of less than 8:1. And humans produce a lot of extra waste that cows don't, much of it non-biodegradable and not able to be recycled.

b. Every minute 3.2 million kilograms of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the us. [8][10]

Oooh, scary number!

IV. Land use.
a. 1/3 Land is desertified due to livestock. [13] [14]

Funny, I live in an intensive meat farming area and there's no desert to be seen.

b. Livestock covers 45% of the earth's total land. [12]

Nonsense. If that was the case you wouldn't be able to see anything but cows, cows, and more cows!

c. 1.5 acres land (6070 m²) = 16783 kg plant based food or 170 kg meat. [13]
d. Land needed to feed 1 person for 1 year: Vegan = 674 m²; Meat eater = 18x vegan. [11]

People can't eat grass. Much of the land that animals graze on is not suitable for crops.

The real reason for the food problem in the US is that people overeat. We could cut meat production in half if people would just cut their portion sizes in half - and anyone who's diet consists of Big Macs, pizzas and other 'junk' food is killing themselves.

 

[bruto]

I will not bother to pick apart that last post from Ikarus, except that I took one little piece of obvious nonsense out, and checked the footnoted reference, and therein lies a part of the problem

It is maintained that livestock covers 45 percent of the earth's land. This is obviously and patently ridiculous, so I checked the reference. I did not have to go beyond the first paragraph to see that it states, and this might be true, that "livestock systems" occupy 45 percent of the land. Well, yes, if you count, say, a 300 acre farm as a livestock system, it occupies 300 acres, even though the livestock can fit comfortably into a barn.

So, is this a bad thing? Livestock systems are wonderfully inefficient occupiers of land, and often thereby contribute to a rural lifestyle that people like, keep land out of commercial use, provide biomass whose benefits go far beyond the feeding of the livestock, and so on and so forth. Lifestock systems occupy a large part of the world's land mass in part because livestock's use of land has such low density. It is indeed true that some parts of the world - rainforests, for example - are harmed by the trend toward more farming. But let us not be crazy. Livestock do not cover 45 percent of the surface of the earth - you'd have to be blind to believe they do. When one sees carelessness of such a degree, one might be forgiven for not bothering to read the rest of the diatribe.

 

[Ikarus]

To scrutinize your scrutiny a little, if I may.

No, it isn't.

This is one of the main sources quoted in the film. It appears to stem from a rather lazy calculation that includes animals exhaling, without correcting for the co2 storage in the food they synthesize. There's a list of small corrections in favour of a higher number. Summary here: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...tes-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html

No, it doesn't.

1-1 in the light-weight science match. Or has this research been vetted? I can never tell.

Most hamburgers are highly processed and have very little actual meat content. Contents of a Big Mac:-

Carbohydrates 46g
Fat 29g
Protein 25g

To be fair, the source didn't say it was a McD's hamburger...

So 1 cow = 164 people? I doubt that. The average American weighs 166lb, the average dairy cow 1,300 lbs. That's a ratio of less than 8:1. And humans produce a lot of extra waste that cows don't, much of it non-biodegradable and not able to be recycled.

Oooh, scary number!

These claims appear to be manure based. har har.

Funny, I live in an intensive meat farming area and there's no desert to be seen.

I don't like this line of reasoning whether it's by a skeptic or a congressman holding up a snowball in winter to disprove global warming. This claim actually might be (nearly) true.

Overgrazing by livestock is the principal land problem related to desertification as indicated in the article: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-186/002-186.html And, according to the UNDDD: “Nearly 20% of the degrading land (globally) is cropland, and 20-25%, rangeland.” Understanding that over 70% of the global arable land used for agriculture is planted for crops grown for livestock [citation lacking], there is be ample support for the statement that “animal agriculture is the leading driver for approximately 1/3 of the land lost on earth due to desertification.” http://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml

An important step in the revitalization of the Löss-plateau in China (which was truly a remarkable transformation from desert to vegetated), for example, was to limit grazing. However, this first and foremost suggests that land management is an issue in causing and reversing desertification.

Nonsense. If that was the case you wouldn't be able to see anything but cows, cows, and more cows!

I assume that the figure includes land used to grow livestock feed. I wonder if it's accurate.

 

[3point14]

I assume that the figure includes land used to grow livestock feed. I wonder if it's accurate.

That's what I thought. I realise this may already be answered in the thread or the film, but how many fields of feed are required to feed one field of cows?

 

[Pup]

Every minute 3.2 million kilograms of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the us. [8][10]

Isn't the problem that it's not enough? If an animal produced manure containing exactly as much fertilizing chemicals as the animal consumed, the pasture and hay/grain fields it lived on could last forever, if the manure was spread back on the fields. But there's some loss due to inefficiency, but also loss because the chemicals are turned into cows, which are hauled away. The fields get less fertile each year. Eat a hamburger and then poop in a pasture. It's the only solution.

 

[pgwenthold]

It is maintained that livestock covers 45 percent of the earth's land. This is obviously and patently ridiculous, so I checked the reference. I did not have to go beyond the first paragraph to see that it states, and this might be true, that "livestock systems" occupy 45 percent of the land. Well, yes, if you count, say, a 300 acre farm as a livestock system, it occupies 300 acres, even though the livestock can fit comfortably into a barn.

Do you count Cliven Bundy's grazing his cattle on 140 000 acres in Nevada?

 

[marplots]

Isn't the problem that it's not enough? If an animal produced manure containing exactly as much fertilizing chemicals as the animal consumed, the pasture and hay/grain fields it lived on could last forever, if the manure was spread back on the fields. But there's some loss due to inefficiency, but also loss because the chemicals are turned into cows, which are hauled away. The fields get less fertile each year. Eat a hamburger and then poop in a pasture. It's the only solution.

Or, a more rational approach - grow more fertilizer.

 

[TomB]

I assume that the figure includes land used to grow livestock feed. I wonder if it's accurate.

So, the problem with land used to grow livestock food is...what?

Take livestock out of the equation. Land that is used to grow livestock food would be repurposed for what? Well, first, growing different plants for human consumption (replacing all the meat). Second, left to go back to nature. (Presumably plants. Just not useful ones. Not useful to humans = good.) Third (most likely) parking lots for the Disneyland Midwest mega shopping mall.

Point is that the equation is not as simple as these stories make it sound. The earth is a dynamic system and we do not have control over all the variables and inputs. Every species alters its environment in some way, even trees.

 

[Ikarus]

So, the problem with land used to grow livestock food is...what?

It cuts into the land we have available for rainforests for example.

Take livestock out of the equation. Land that is used to grow livestock food would be repurposed for what? Well, first, growing different plants for human consumption (replacing all the meat). Second, left to go back to nature. (Presumably plants. Just not useful ones. Not useful to humans = good.) Third (most likely) parking lots for the Disneyland Midwest mega shopping mall.

Part of the (exaggerated) 51% co2 figure was based on plants growing back on the area currently used for livestock feed.

Point is that the equation is not as simple as these stories make it sound. The earth is a dynamic system and we do not have control over all the variables and inputs. Every species alters its environment in some way, even trees.

We don't control everything. But we do control the effects of humans on the systems, since we are said humans.

---

how many fields of feed are required to feed one field of cows?

If they're in the field, they presumably don't need that much feed. In winter, on small fields, or on scarce fields, everything varies. Also, the type of feed matters, and the distance it needs to travel factors in somewhere...

---

Vegetarian and 'healthy' diets could be more harmful to the environment, researchers say. Eating lettuce is 'over three times worse' in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon

I have to come back to this quote. It occurred to me that - of course - lettuce is going to have higher greenhouse gas emissions measured by calories of food per co2 of input (as it was, in the study). Lettuce has almost no calories. But nobody eats only lettuce. It would probably look rather different for beans, peanuts, bananas and maize. Sensationalist headlines are just that, aren't they...

 

[dudalb]

Do you count Cliven Bundy's grazing his cattle on 140 000 acres in Nevada?

If his herd is 140 cows,he is overgrazing,given what Nevada is like....

 

[bruto]

Farmland cuts into the land available for rainforests only where rainforests exist.

It is undoubtedly true that in parts of the world the increase in agricultural land is harming the rainforests and that is very bad, but let us stay real. There never were rainforests in the short grass prairie, and land taken out of agricultural use is only good for the rainforests if that is what it becomes.

 

[Ikarus]

As for the 45% of total land claim... I tried something, totally naive, and I'm not arriving at that number, yet... See below

|Cow|Chicken|Pig|Sheep|Goat
Weight in kg [1]|750|2|200|150|150
Food in % of weight/day [2]|4|4|4|4|4
Food in kg/day/head|30|0.08|8|6|6
Food in kg/year/head|10950|29.2|2920|2190|2190
Yield of feed in kg/sqm [3]|1|1|1|1|1
Total population [4]|1.5e9|50e9|1e9|1e9|450e6
Sqm required [5]|16.4e12|1.46e12|2.92e12|2.19e12|1e12
Total sqm required|24.0e12
Total agricultural land sqm [6]|48.8e12
Percentage of agri land|49.1% [7]
Total land|148.9e12
Percentage of land |16.1% [8]

[1] Note that these are extremely heavy versions of what I could google up, especially for newborns, which are included in the total population later on. I simply assume they always eat the same amount.
[2] Made up of 2.5-3% intake, .5% spoil and trample and .5-1% reserve, as in http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1097070.pdf
[3] Alfalfa, which I understand is a possible feed for cattle, yields about 5-6 tons per acre, which is 1.12 kg/sqm. Bermuda grass/rye as in above source yields 1.29 kg/sqm. I don't know anything about feed. But I assume 1kg/sqm is a safely low estimate.
[4] Numbers I fished from google like a total amateur. Which I am.
[5] Why not in sqkm at this point?? Yeah, would have made sense.
[6] Note: It says agricultural land, which includes orchards and vineyards and rice paddies.
[7] Yay, pretty close, assuming super heavy animals and low field yields. On the other hand, it assumes that the animals are all cooped up and just eating harvest. When you have 5 cows on a 200 acre plot, you are responsible for messing my calculations up (though their presence there causes the required feed to go down a little again).
[8] Not close at all...

 

[SteveL]

Quote:
how many fields of feed are required to feed one field of cows?

If they're in the field, they presumably don't need that much feed...

Why would a cow need less feed if it can walk to that feed, as opposed to me carrying the feed to the cow?

 

[Ambrosia]

Most hamburgers are highly processed and have very little actual meat content. Contents of a Big Mac:-

Carbohydrates 46g
Fat 29g
Protein 25g

You are conflating the whole sandwich with the actual burger. A McDonalds hamburger patty is 100% beef.

How they define "beef" exactly is open to interpretation. Technically if it comes from a cow you can call it "beef" and different countries have different standards.

Writing it as you have makes it sound that McDonalds put filler into their burgers (where else would the carbohydrates come from?) They don't. They can be very sketchy about the fat content of the burgers they use, or which exact parts of the cow get minced, but it is all cow.

From a nutritional standpoint it's the other crap that comes in the sandwich (white bread, very sugary sauces, high salt etc etc) that's bad for you. Then if you add on a sugary fizzy drink/fries on top it gets a lot worse, the actual burgers themselves are pretty good, nutritionally. A little less than 50% of a USA Big Mac by weight is meat.

It's takes roughly 760 litres of water and 12kg of feed to raise 450g (1lb) of beef. [wikipedia]

A McDonalds 'Big Mac' burger patty weighs ~70g uncooked, a 'quarterpounder' is 112g.

[seriously, when are you going to start using the freaking metric system, it's infuriating]

How they worked out the 1 burger = 3000litres of water claim is a mystery.

 

[Ikarus]

It's takes roughly 760 litres of water and 12kg of feed to raise 450g (1lb) of beef. [wikipedia]

A McDonalds 'Big Mac' burger patty weighs ~70g uncooked, a 'quarterpounder' is 112g.

[seriously, when are you going to start using the freaking metric system, it's infuriating]

How they worked out the 1 burger = 3000litres of water claim is a mystery.

The numbers you found on wiki appear to be consistent with my naive calculations for feed above. I am happy about that.