Vegetarianism for the Environment

[strongvoicesforward]

There are 3 reasons for choosing to become a vegetarian. Those are:

1. Moral/ethical (may be based on religious beliefs or not)
2. Health
3. Environmental

This thread will focus on the environmental aspect of the argument for choosing a non-flesh diet.


-----------------------
*New thread opened to clearly separate the issues of health and morals which were being discussed on other threads. Having separate discussions clearly delineated will allow for a smoother flowing discussion staying more focused.

[strongvoicesforward]

Choosing a vegetarian life style is one that would benefit the environment.

The intensive raising of animals for meat is an inefficient way to obtain calories and taxes recourses and the environment needlessly. Up to 80% of all meat produced is factory farmed and that trend continues to rise as more and more family farms cannot compete with the large agri-corporations that are gaining more and more of the market due to high demand for cheap meat.

As the world population increases and as more people seek to buy the cheapest products, it is unrealistic to expect that people will voluntarily choose more expensive raised animals. As long as people eat meat, for the most part, the general mass of the people will choose the cheaper products on a more regular basis.

However, if environmental costs are factored into the argument, we may see that even the cheap meat is not really cheap at all.

The danger to the environment is echoed by professors at universities as well. Peter Cheeke, agricultural professor at Oregon St. University calls factory farming:

“a frontal assault on the environment, with massive groundwater and air pollution problems.”

[RockLee]

Do you honestly believe that if we all become vegetarians the world will become a better place, and the environment would be better?

Look, if you want to eat plants...be my guest!! But some people like a nice tasty steak once in a while. There has to be balance, else you'll get more of one thing and a shortage of the other. (Too many animals or too many vegetation)

You can debate your whole life about this, but I doubt it would make a difference.

[strongvoicesforward]

Do you honestly believe that if we all become vegetarians the world will become a better place, and the environment would be better?

Yes, I do. And so do many others. In fact, just look at the quote by Albert Einstein in my signature.

There has to be balance, else you'll get more of one thing and a shortage of the other. (Too many animals or too many vegetation)

So, you think that if we don`t eat animals we will be over run by cows, pigs, and chickens? Please go into a little more detail as to how not producing these animals because there is no demand for them, would cause us to be overrun by them.

You can debate your whole life about this, but I doubt it would make a difference.

You doubt wrong. Becoming socialy concientious of our choices does make a difference. Discussion and disseminating of information does cause people to consider the pros and cons of the argument being put forth. Listening in on these kinds of debates did help to change my opinion and move me on the issue.

However, the biggest battle is against the mindset of futility, which you seem to be putting forth. Many are stubbornly resistant to change.

[Revenant]

Do you honestly believe that if we all become vegetarians the world will become a better place, and the environment would be better?

In one asian country, a study was done on children, and those brought up in Buddhist households recovered more quickly from traumatic experiences than those raised in households of other belief systems. In this country, as it has quite a high Buddhist population, one will very rarely see a young child killing or tormenting even the flies or ants. They've been taught to have compassion for all animals, including those that most would consider pests, and perhaps the compassion they are taught makes them more resilient. Modern science and especially the advent of the fMRI has made a strong case for compassion as being a very healthy and positive emotion (who would have imagined that trying to feel another's suffering would be a positive emotion).

You can debate your whole life about this, but I doubt it would make a difference.

I don't know, in part SVF's threads have caused me to more seriously consider going vegetarian (still fiercely opposed to your debate style in the religion and philosophy forum SVF!).

[nice gaijin]

I'm afraid I'm too tired to address the topic at hand as much as I'd like, but I'll say that I still haven't and will not read your sig so long as it continually bounces like that. It's actually more cause for me to scroll past your posts than anything else. Sorry but it's just been bugging me.

Ok I really must go to bed, but I will say that I agree that a vegetarian population takes up less resources than a carnivorous one. That's not to say that they aren't still having a minus effect on the available resources (with few exceptions), but the differences between the two are quite staggering.

[Thunderthief]

You seem determined to shove vegetarianism down everyones throat, but honestly I don't care about the environment, my own health, or if its ethical or not. All I care about that is meat tastes good and for that reason alone I will continue to eat it.

[bossel]

Ok I really must go to bed, but I will say that I agree that a vegetarian population takes up less resources than a carnivorous one.

Good that the human population isn't carnivorous, but omnivorous.
Not necessarily does meat production take up more resources than vegetable production. We could build large underground bunkers (IE saving a large amount of surface) to keep animals & tanks in which their food is grown (algae or something), with attached automatic slaughterhouses. The waste products could be used as fertiliser & for energy production.
All this would also have the positive side effect that all those modern city-dwelling softies who are afraid to meet their future meals alive, would only encounter the end-product.
Well, positive... I'd prefer people would be able to face the realities of life: if something wants to live, another something has to die (except in case of parasites or pure fruit eating species).

[strongvoicesforward]

Good that the human population isn't carnivorous, but omnivorous.

Yep. Being omnivorous means we can choose.

Not necessarily does meat production take up more resources than vegetable production.

Wrong.

It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons.-- Robbins, The Food Revolution, p. 236.

We could build large underground bunkers (IE saving a large amount of surface) to keep animals & tanks in which their food is grown (algae or something), with attached automatic slaughterhouses. The waste products could be used as fertiliser & for energy production.

Yep. But won`t happen. It would be too much value added making it cost prohibitive. I guess we could terraform Mars, too, and it would be suitable for habitation in 20 or 30 thousand years after we cause a green house affect to warm it up, and then turn it into a huge farm, keeping all the environmental problems there and then ship the end product back to us here.

What "could" be done is just often too cost prohibitive. But sometimes the far out ideas are amusing since they are so farsical.

I'd prefer people would be able to face the realities of life: if something wants to live, another something has to die (except in case of parasites or pure fruit eating species).

Yep. Plants do have to die. No need to cause something to purposefully die for humans to survive.

[bossel]

Wrong.

It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons.

-- Robbins, The Food Revolution, p. 236.

Actually, that's not quite right, that's only for the current system (if that number of 2500 is right,anyway).

Yep. But won`t happen.

Of course. I forgot to mention that the above is pure SF. Much too expensive & unnecessary, anyway.

Yep. Plants do have to die.

Just like animals, agreed.

No need to cause something to purposefully die for humans to survive.

Oh, well. The meat's taste would suffer a bit, if we wait until the animals die by themselves. Then again, we could GM them in a way that they automatically die by the age of say 15 months.

BTW, does the above mean that you don't eat anything that is killed for consumption, like eg. cauliflower or broccoli?

[strongvoicesforward]

Actually, that's not quite right, that's only for the current system (if that number of 2500 is right,anyway).

Well, just declaring it "not quite right," does not make it so. Do you have an aversion to details?

Of course. I forgot to mention that the above is pure SF. Much too expensive & unnecessary, anyway.

Yep. Agreed. Then why even bring it up? Just to cloud the issue? I don`t remember anywhere in the OP that this was a thread for SF musings. It clearly puts forth the topic of the thread as vegetarianism for the environment. If you think vegetarianism is not good for the environment or take issue with what I have put forth, then please exercise discipline and address those points.

BTW, does the above mean that you don't eat anything that is killed for consumption, like eg. cauliflower or broccoli?

I am not the issue of the thread. Are you wanting to turn it into an ad hominem discussion? Stay on topic.

[strongvoicesforward]

You seem determined to shove vegetarianism down everyones throat, but honestly I don't care about the environment, my own health, or if its ethical or not. All I care about that is meat tastes good and for that reason alone I will continue to eat it.

I understand how you feel. When people are young the focus is usually on themselves. When people grow in many ways, they become more apt to change. You are not there yet. Maybe you never will be. Lots of people die with the same attitude as they always have without experiencing any change.

However, when I look at a stagnant pool of water with its unchanging surface, I see very little that is attractive in its unchanging nature ...

Just keep visiting the thread. Perhaps the information could cause deeper thought with you on the issue. Perhaps not. I have no idea.

But in no way am I able to cram anything down your throat. You are free to do as you will.

[Reiku]

Well, just declaring it "not quite right," does not make it so.

Well, that about sums up my thoughts on the vegitarian issue:

In spite of massive contradictory evidence, some vegitarians insist that everyone should adopt their lifestyle and beliefs because eating certain foods is "not quite right."

Personally, I think PETA's "Got Beer" Anti-milk campaign was "not quite right"--considering that alchohol is literaly poisonus and cows milk is--well--not...

...not to mention all the other falsehoods and deceptive statements made on that page. There's a differance between promoting your point of view, and encouraging college students to drink poison.

[strongvoicesforward]

To the above post: This thread is about vegetarianism as it relates to the environment -- not health or the morals and ethics of eating flesh. There are separate threads for those.

[strongvoicesforward]

Up to 1/3 of all fossil fuels in the U.S. goes toward producing flesh for consumption. Looking at the stages of value added to flesh, it is easy to imagine all the fossil fuels going into this product.

1. Grow large quantities of grain, soy beans, and corn to feed the animals. Do this by intensive tilling of the land, crop dusting, and harvesting, and irrigation pumping systems.

2. Transport the oil and fossil fuels that are demanded by the flesh industry from the oil fields to the points of processing.

3. Transport this refined fuel to the gas stations or companies that fuel their ships and trucks.

4. Ship the grain in gas guzzling semi trailers to companies that will turn it into feed.

5. Power the companies that turn it into feed.

6. Add in the costs of workers of the companies that use their gas fueled vehicles to arrive to work and return from work each day.

7. After the feed is produced, ship this feed back in gas guzzling trucks to those who will feed it to their animals.

8. The workers at the factory farms need to come to their jobs by gas vehicles.

9. Transport the animals to slaughter on trucks, again consuming more fossil fuels.

10. If the slaugherhouse does not package the meat, transport the carcases to a meat packing plant using trucks.

11. Add the costs of government officials which must drive across their large regional territories to check on sanitation, disease control, animal cruelty etc, at the farms and slaughterhouses.

12. Use large trucks and more fossil fuels getting the flesh from the meat packing plants to the supermarkets.

13. Keep the electric running strong in the stores to keep the meat refrigerated or frozen.

At every step in the processing of flesh one can see the value added and the massive use of fossil fuels that goes into the production.

And what do most scientists and position papers say about the use of fossil fuels? -- They believe they are one of the leading causes, if not the number one contributer to the Greenhouse Effect.

Being a vegetarian means caring about the environment.

[Mycernius]

Er, can't most of the above points be said for the same for mass production of vegetarian food. After all gas guzzling trucks are used to transport veg and fruit from A to B. Refrigderation is used to store veg and fruit. In fact I can't see a single one of the above list that cannot be said for the same for the production and fruit or veg. Becoming a vegetarian does not mean you care about the environment because the list still uses fossil fuels, pesticides, non-biodegradable packaging etc. You might want to revise your last comment

[strongvoicesforward]

Er, can't most of the above points be said for the same for mass production of vegetarian food. After all gas guzzling trucks are used to transport veg and fruit from A to B. Refrigderation is used to store veg and fruit. In fact I can't see a single one of the above list that cannot be said for the same for the production and fruit or veg.

Er, first of all, not as much grain would need to be produced if the calories went directly from plant to final use. That cuts out stages in transportation. That cuts out more demand for fossil fuels.

Er, 2nd of all, factory farms require electricity to run at a high capacity as they provide lighting and in some cases heating for animals.

Er, slaughtering, butchering, and meat packing facilities have more employees using more machinery and using more vehicles every day to drive to and from work than grain silo operations.

Er, while some of those stages (definitely not all) are required for the production of crops, MUCH MORE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CROPS are needed to feed the animals -- more so than what would be needed for only human consumption.

Becoming a vegetarian does not mean you care about the environment because the list still uses fossil fuels, pesticides, non-biodegradable packaging etc. You might want to revise your last comment

I never said a vegetarian diet doesn`t result in the use of fossil fuels. Vegetarianism is not a perfect choice leading to Utopia as it concerns the environment. It is merely a better choice of the ones that exist -- and in the case of fossil fuels, it most clearly is the one choice in regards to diet that decreases the use of fossil fuels because of less transportation and less intensive farming due to lesser land area that would be used for the growth of plant food.

My last comment still stands as it is.

[moffeltoff]

Humans are Omnivors so erveryone should decide for himself ,if he wants to eat meat or not and saying eating meat is immoral is just without any substance there is a reason for us beeing omnivors.
And even if you think what you are doing is the "right" thing to do dont try to force people to believe in beeing vegetarian it might work for some but it probably will never work for all ;)

[bossel]

Well, just declaring it "not quite right," does not make it so. Do you have an aversion to details?

Which details? Eg. that you overlooked the fact that food production for animals in these underground bunkers would be an almost closed system? Hence the need for fresh water would be much lower than in the current system.

Then why even bring it up? Just to cloud the issue?

Don't you read your own thread?

a vegetarian population takes up less resources than a carnivorous one

That's what I answered to. & what nice_gaijin wrote is not a necessity, but depends on the agrarian system.

I don`t remember anywhere in the OP that this was a thread for SF musings.

It isn't? Oh my. Why then did you muse about Mars? Why not just ignore the point?

please exercise discipline and address those points.

I address what others write, whether it is directly related to the thread title, or not. If the discussion drifts too far away, we can always split the thread. If you want to dictate what others write on your threads, you could always open your own forum, where you make the rules.

I am not the issue of the thread. Are you wanting to turn it into an ad hominem discussion? Stay on topic.

You said

No need to cause something to purposefully die for humans to survive.

What makes it so personal if I address this statement? But, if you like, I rephrase my question:
Does the above mean that you think, nothing that needs to be killed for consumption should be eaten, like eg. cauliflower or broccoli?

Er, slaughtering, butchering, and meat packing facilities have more employees using more machinery and using more vehicles every day to drive to and from work than grain silo operations.

More employment, then. Good for the economy. Since Germany has such a massive unemployment problem, we should become a carnivorous society.

My last comment still stands as it is.

As wrong as it is: vegetarianism is not equal to caring about the environment.

[strongvoicesforward]

Which details? Eg. that you overlooked the fact that food production for animals in these underground bunkers would be an almost closed system? Hence the need for fresh water would be much lower than in the current system.

When you said my numbers were not quite right, you were referring to the numbers I stated for water usage. That is what I was replying to. Then you went off on your SF musing.

Don't you read your own thread?

Yep. Don`t you read the OP of threads you join? You began going off on the "something has to die" tangent. It was clearly stated this thread is about the environment as it pertained to vegetarianism.

If you want to talk about killing cauliflower or brocali in leiu of animals, or go off again on a reductionist argument, then make a thread for that or discuss it on the threads where that has been a focal point of discussion.

That's what I answered to. & what nice_gaijin wrote is not a necessity, but depends on the agrarian system.

Yes, I know. The plan with animals in the underground bunkers. <snicker>

It isn't? Oh my. Why then did you muse about Mars? Why not just ignore the point?

I guess I am not immuned to getting pulled off.

I address what others write, whether it is directly related to the thread title, or not. If the discussion drifts too far away, we can always split the thread. If you want to dictate what others write on your threads, you could always open your own forum, where you make the rules.

How do you know I don`t have my forum? I will leave you to guess.
But anyway, did you make this forum? Don`t think you did. But, FYI here is one of the rules for you to review:

STAY ON TOPIC:
Avoid posting messages that are out of context or irrelevant to a topic.

Keep the discussion on the environment, please, -- like the OP sets up the discussion for.

What makes it so personal if I address this statement? But, if you like, I rephrase my question:
Does the above mean that you think, nothing that needs to be killed for consumption should be eaten, like eg. cauliflower or broccoli?

"Should" is implying or insinuating morals or right/wrong as it goes to taking life for consumption. This thread is not about the morals of killing animals or plant life for that matter. If you want to talk about the morals of killing plant life create a thread for it. If you want to talk about the morals of killing animals for consumption, visit one of the threads that already has an active discussion on that.

The topic here is the environment and the thread was created to focus specifically on that.

[bossel]

When you said my numbers were not quite right, you were referring to the numbers I stated for water usage.

Exactly. As I said: not quite right.

Yep. Don`t you read the OP of threads you join?

Oh, I do, but what matters more is what people post, & that's what I react to. Discussion, you know...

You began going off on the "something has to die" tangent.

That was in regard to a "positive" side effect of those bunkers.

It was clearly stated this thread is about the environment as it pertained to vegetarianism.

Just like my 1st post here was, which you reacted to, then my reaction to your reaction, a.s.o. That's a discussion for you.

If you want to talk about killing cauliflower or brocali in leiu of animals, or go off again on a reductionist argument, then make a thread for that or discuss it on the threads where that has been a focal point of discussion.

"brocali in leiu of animals"? Hmm...
I rarely open threads, I'm just an old reactionary: reacting, reacting...

How do you know I don`t have my forum?

I don't know, & don't even care. As I said, you could open one. Whether you already have one (or actually will open one) is irrelevant to me. I'm sure I wouldn't go there, anyway.

Keep the discussion on the environment, please, -- like the OP sets up the discussion for.

As I said, I'm just a reactionary. If you don't want me to go off-topic, don't post about the stuff that is.

"Should" is implying or insinuating morals or right/wrong as it goes to taking life for consumption. This thread is not about the morals of killing animals or plant life for that matter.

Well, if you don't like "should", maybe I should (oops) rephrase my question again? Okay: Does your above remark (hopefully you remember it) mean that you think its alright for eg. cauliflower or broccoli to be killed for [insert vegetarian's name of your choice here]'s consumption?

The topic here is the environment and the thread was created to focus specifically on that.

Why then do you focus on my posts so much? Just ignore me, & that's it. Nothing to react for me, no reaction by me (well, usually).

[strongvoicesforward]

Why then do you focus on my posts so much? Just ignore me, & that's it. Nothing to react for me, no reaction by me (well, usually).

lol. Good suggestion, since until now, nothing of substance has been offered by you on this topic. Do so, and you will have your discussion.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

There are 3 reasons for choosing to become a vegetarian. Those are:

1. Moral/ethical (may be based on religious beliefs or not)
2. Health
3. Environmental

This thread will focus on the environmental aspect of the argument for choosing a non-flesh diet.
-----------------------
*New thread opened to clearly separate the issues of health and morals which were being discussed on other threads. Having separate discussions clearly delineated will allow for a smoother flowing discussion staying more focused.

Hello….
So an environmentally oriented debate thread then SVF?

Hmm…Morality and health aside then, lets discuss the Environmental aspects of animal agriculture and plant agriculture.
You seem to believe that if everyone were vegetarians (by this, I assume you mean true vegetarians that don’t eat or use any animal products rather than say lacto-ovo vegetarians or semi-vegetarians etc, yes?).
Here are some interesting links on water consumption and meat and wheat and things;

Wasteful farming;

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32601

Water crisis;

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/water/

Fertiliser definitions;

http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7...9341--,00.html

(More importantly) Fertiliser and crop type usage in the US;

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs155-99/fs155-99.html



The vast bulk of crops farmed for animals go into poultry. Cows can survive very happily on grass, water to drink and hay (dried grass) alone, they do not need cereal products. Most of the cereal products that go into animal feed are there to feed factory farmed animals because they cannot survive any other way, so the solution is to decrease factory farming and to increase the efficiency of crop farming.
Very little fertilisers go into crops intended for animal feed as they are not fussy about how big their wheat grains are or if their potatoes aren’t the right shape and stuff, most fertilisers go into food used for human consumption or in countries where they suffer weather problems like water shortages (Potassium found in fertilisers helps facilitate sugar movement through plants, and boosts resistance to stresses such as drought and disease, so potassium rich fertilisers are essential for countries with low water fall, but this inevitably leads to more harmful nutrients running off into the water systems).

Less factory farming= big decrease in crops used for animals
No animal farming at all= big increase in crop farming= more artificial fertilisers= bad for the environment.
More fertilisers=more mining, more fossil fuels, more industrial activity= even worse for the environment.

Fertilisers obtained from animals make up a large percentage of fertilisers(I think something like 37% in the US), these animal fertilisers are often a by-product of animal farming. Without animal farming to supply these fertiliser needs, the need for artificial fertilisers rockets, and thus bad for the environment because that means more mining and more fossil fuels and poisoned rivers and stuff. It would also probably spell some of the Doom of organic farming as that relies heavily on natural fertilisers.
So more GM farming, which is even worse for the environment.

Also, on the subject of wheat versus beef water requirements, I found those statistics very misleading. All those statistics show is the water present in the plant/animal product at its finished state/final product. It does not take into account the serious problems with evaporation on fields or the polluted water run-off from them.
The other thing you need to take into consideration, is do you eat wheat dry? No, you have to mix it with water and other products to make it edible. While a piece of beef can happily fry or roast or whatever in its own water-rich juices, cereal products need to be cooked in some liquid product like water to make them edible- otherwise you’d just be eating flour, literally. And unless you make that into a soup or something, the water you boil it in goes down the drain unlike the juices from the beef which you consume.

Aside from the problems of crop farming poisoning the environment, you also have to consider what and increased demand for crops would do on the wildlife. Crop farming is NOT good for wildlife. Arable/crop farming as well as the use of pesticides and weed killers result in a loss of biodiversity, and with fields getting larger and larger now days this is becoming a major problem.
Crop farming upsets the ecosystems- for example, where there was once a flourishing meadow with thousands of varieties of grasses, plants and insects- now stands hundreds of acres of one plant, wheat. The natural food chain collapses. The farmer tries to combat the influx of insects that now have no natural food chain to keep them in check by using pesticides…Biodiversity is lost. The soils and waters are polluted, the hedges cut down because they are no longer needed to act as wind shields for animals. All is left is green deserts…
Take the plight of the English hare. This beautiful native animal is going extinct because its natural habitats are being destroyed by crop farming- where once it lived by the peaceful traditional life-rich cattle meadows, now it is stranded in a wilderness of endless one-plant crops. The hare needs a variety of types of plants, most found in meadows, to survive. With modern arable/crop farming, this way of life no longer is and it is going extinct.
If everyone ate plants, demand for crops farmed in poor countries would go through the roof, most poor countries in this world are dry and thus artificial fertiliser demand would also shoot through the roof, thus more fossil fuels, industrial activity, mining etc- unbalanced ecosystems would mean more pesticide use, which would be even worse for the environment.
Thousands of species of farm animals would go extinct with no need for them anymore as well- take the plight of the Essex Saddleback pig. Once, it used to be farmed for hundreds of years- until modern pig breeds came along and out-competed it. With no need for it anymore, its practically extinct now days with less than a hundred of them in the world or so. If you think its morally correct to cause animal species to go extinct, then I think you need to re-think your morals.
Think of the financial losses of animal products as well- no wool, no feathers, no leather, no gelatine etc. Seriously bad news for the economies across the world…


SVF, to say that if everyone ate plants, the environment would benefit, is very delusional IMO.

My solution to all this- decrease factory farming, hopefully crushing its existence. Getting rid of factory farming would mean the high percentage of crops that go into animal feed would no longer be needed.
Secondly, increase efficiency of water and fertiliser management of agriculture across the world- a heck of a lot of water would be saved if this was done and gone about properly.
Thirdly- encourage traditional farming that co-exists with the environment/ecosystems and encourages biodiversity amongst wildlife.
As to the lakes & seas- encourage salt, brackish and freshwater farming instead of relying of the natural harvest of the seas. We are currently taking far more fish/water animals out of the worlds water systems that what nature can provide, what we really need to do is instead of relying on natures bounty, we need to create artificial systems like building lakes or sectioning bits off coastline for our needs instead of just taking life from everywhere- we know better than to act like hunter gatherers, so we shouldn’t act like them.
Our civilisation was built on farming. The environment and farming used to co-exist fine with each other well for thousands upon thousands of years until we became greedy. We need to stop our greedy ways and learn to live with the environment instead of abusing its ecosystems with the likes of modern farming methods.
I believe in a world where tamed and wild plants and animals can live together, as they once did long ago.

[strongvoicesforward]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32601

From the first link above:

That conflict can't be resolved without growing food using a lot less water, Gleick said in an interview. "And that won't be achieved if everyone wants to eat as much meat as North Americans," he added.

China's rising meat consumption is cause for concern, he says, and the problem is made worse by the fact that China has badly damaged its aquatic ecosystems and polluted its freshwater limiting how much food it can grow.

Do you actually read the links you provide? This article is clearly hinting at the ill affects to the environment due to meat consumption -- which is what causes the large amounts of land to be cultivated and then in need of irrigation.

[strongvoicesforward]

Water crisis;
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/water/

And from your second link above:

THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION

Worldwide, agriculture uses up 70% of fresh water resources. [10] This is largely because a lot of cropland has to be irrigated to make it agriculturally viable and to increase and improve crop yields.

As has been shown, much of this land is entirely wasted by being used to grow feed crops for livestock rather than food for people. The water used on this land - as well as that consumed directly by livestock - represents yet another wasted resource.

There has been much disagreement over precisely how much water is squandered in this way. Professor David Pimentel of Cornell University's Ecology Department has calculated that it takes 500 litres of water to produce 1kg of potatoes, 900 litres per kg of wheat, 3,500 litres per kg of digestible chicken flesh and a massive 100,000 litres for 1kg of beef.

A more conservative estimate comes from Beckett and Oltjen of the University of California's Department of Animal Science. [12] In a study partly financed by the California Beef Council, they concluded that wheat production requires 120 litres per kg and beef 3,700 litres per kg. It is interesting to look a little more closely at these figures as they show that, even by the most conservative of estimates, beef production still represents a scandalous misuse of one of our most precious natural resources.

1 kg of meat yields about 2800 kcal and 174 g of protein. 1 kg of wheat yields 3300 kcal and 110 g of protein (100g after adjustment for digestibility). According to Beckett and Oltjen, the kilogram of beef requires 3,700 litres of water and the kilogram of wheat requires 120 litres of water. If we put all of these figures together, we find that whilst wheat provides us with an average 27.5 kcal for each litre of water used, beef provides only 0.76 kcal per litre. This means that - based on the data presented to show that other figures were "overstated" - beef still requires 36 times as much water per calorie as wheat. When the same calculations are done for digestible protein, wheat comes out as 18 times more water efficient than beef.

By these figures, one kilogram of beef uses as much water as:

40 baths
300 toilet flushes
100 times the clean water needed by an individual according to UNESCO

Since a large percentage of the crops we feed to our farmed animals are grown on 'ghost acres' in developing countries, this wasted water is coming not just from our own reserves but from the very countries where drinking water is most scarce.

Again, your link supports the damage of meat production to the environment.