Click here to view the entire version of VRG’s new lesson plan for kids grades 5-8 about water usage.

by Jeanne Yacoubou, MS © The Vegetarian Resource Group

Purposes:

• To calculate total daily water consumption and average daily water consumption including both direct and indirect uses.
• To compare and contrast students’ water use.
• To graphically represent data in tables and histograms.
• To correlate water use and dietary choices.

Objectives: As a result of this lesson’s activities, students will be able to:

• Identify direct and indirect ways that people consume water on a daily basis.
• Calculate daily averages of personal water use based on established reference values.
• Display data in tabular and histographic form.
• Make cross-comparisons concerning water usage in terms of dietary choices.
• Propose ways to mitigate water consumption on personal, national, and global levels.

Lesson Background:

Teachers may look at the United Nations’ 2006 report titled
Livestock’s Long Shadow available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm. Chapter IV deals with water pollution due to animal agriculture. Both national and global issues are discussed. The major conclusion of this Report is that livestock production is a leading source of environmental damage including climate change; water and air pollution; land degradation; and loss of biodiversity. The Report suggests that a human diet that is plant-based would prevent much of the environmental damage caused by animal agriculture, including the feedcrop production associated with it.

Please see the section titled Water Facts (below) for tabular information and other relevant statistics involving direct and indirect personal water use.

Procedure:

NOTE: The students need to keep a daily log of their
water usage for approximately seven days. Calculating the daily water use of friends or family members with different dietary preferences (e.g., vegetarian or vegan) for comparison purposes may contribute added insight.

Lesson Step #1: Introduction and Topic Setting

The teacher introduces the subject by role playing a "water waster" by letting the water run in the classroom, cafeteria, and/or bathroom. Teacher leads a general
discussion to determine how much students know about the quantity of water needed to perform common daily activities (e.g., flush a toilet). Showing the EPA table (Table 1 below) of common values may be instructive. Teacher may ask how someone can conserve water in daily living. To lead into the activity, teacher proposes that food choices also can be responsible for water wastage in an indirect way. Showing Tables 2 and 3 (below) will be helpful at this point. Students may conclude that purchasers of these foods are indirectly responsible for the water use and/or pollution.

Lesson Step #2: Activity: Daily Log of Personal Water
Usage and Sample Determination

1. Students discuss daily log sheets with teacher and among
   themselves. All obvious water uses need to be calculated (toilet flushing, brushing teeth, taking showers, etc.) as well as the not so obvious uses: water used for growing food, preparing food, etc.
2. Students discuss ways to determine flow rates of showers, toilets, etc. This may be accomplished by looking through
   manufacturer materials or websites, contacting manufacturers, or
   doing a calculation. Calculations may be done using a watch and
   large empty containers. The amount of water collected per minute
   may be determined. Students should be advised to standardize the
   flow rates used over all the days of data collection or told about
   the necessity of recalculating them each time. For cooking, personal quantities may be calculated by dividing the total amount of water used to cook a food item by the number of people eating the meals consumed. Similar calculations would be done for clothes and dish washing. Alternatively, one can estimate the quantity eaten/consumed.
3. Students determine amount of water collected in a given time
   frame from a classroom, bathroom, or kitchen sink as an example
   using empty containers and a stopwatch.
4. At the end of the predetermined data collection time period,
   students assemble all data into a class histogram. See sample below.

Lesson Step #3: Culminating activity: Students present to everyone what their average daily use of water was. Students display their histograms. Students summarize conclusions drawn based on questions from the lab sheet

Water Facts:

Table 1. Water Consumed during Daily Activities (data taken from http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/p2pages/water.pdf)

U.S. and Global Daily Water Intakes

Chapter Four of Livestock’s Long Shadow cites sources that on average, people consume 30-300 L of water per day for household uses while 3,000 L of water are used to grow their daily food.

David and Marcia Pimentel, authors of Food, Energy, and Society, 3rd ed. (2008), cite sources that Americans average 400 L water/person/day. They point out that in eighty-three other countries, the average daily water use per person is below 100 L. In the U.S., daily freshwater withdrawals of surface and groundwater used mainly for irrigation of crops for humans and livestock are 5,700 L per person. Worldwide, the average daily value of water for food production is 1, 970 L/person.

Table 2.Water Used to Produce Some Common Items

(Note: One liter is approximately the same as one quart. One kilogram is approximately the same as 2.2 lbs.)

Note: Values taken from Chapagain A, Hoekstra A (2004) Water Footprints of Nations Volume One: Main Report. Value of Water Research Report Series No.16. Delft (The Netherlands): UNESCO – IHE Institute for Water Education. http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf

Table 3. Water Used to Produce some Common Items (Data taken from Hoekstra and Chapagain 2004; numbers are rounded off on table children use for activity.)

(Note: One liter (approximately one quart) equals 1,000
milliliters (ml). One pound equals 454 g.)

Note: Values taken from Chapagain A, Hoekstra A (2004) Water
Footprints of Nations Volume One: Main Report. Value of Water
Research Report Series No.16. Delft (The Netherlands): UNESCO –
IHE Institute for Water Education. http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf

Asterisked values taken from Aldaya M, Hoekstra A. (2009) The
Water Needed to Have Italians Eat Pasta and Pizza. Value of Water
Research Report Series No.36. Delft (The Netherlands): UNESCO –
IHE Institute for Water Education. http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report36-WaterFootprint-Pasta-Pizza.pdf

Click here to see the complete lesson plan.

Background: Dr. Frank Mitloehner's October 2009 scientific paper, co-authored with Dr. Maurice Pitesky and Dr. Kimberly Stackhouse, and his presentation at the March 2010 American Chemical Society meeting, titled Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change (Adv. in Ag. 103: 3-40), have raised questions about the validity and accuracy of the United Nations' (UN) Food and Agricultural Organization's (FAO) 2006 report titled Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (herein noted as Long Shadow). In response to many inquiries about the impact of this criticism on the claims made in Long Shadow, The VRG addresses some questions on this issue.

Q. How legitimate is Mitloehner's assertion that Long Shadow significantly overestimates the contributions of livestock to anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) greenhouse gases (GHGs) that in turn contribute to global climate change when Long Shadow states that globally, 18% of anthropogenic GHGs come from livestock? In other words, does Mitloehner's criticism that FAO conducted a "lopsided analysis" to derive the 18% figure, calling it a "classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue" mean that FAO cannot accurately claim that emissions from livestock are greater than those generated from transport? (Note: The GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CO2), and nitrous oxide ((N2O), which together are expressed in the calculations as carbon dioxide equivalents. This way of grouping the three major greenhouse gases accounts for the different global warming potential of the three gases (i.e., molecules of methane and nitrous oxide retain heat much better than molecules of carbon dioxide (respectively and approximately, 23 and 296 times better), meaning methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to climate change on a per molecule basis than carbon dioxide itself.)

A. Long Shadow's 18% figure is based on a comprehensive life cycle analysis (LCA) considering both direct and indirect sources of global GHG emissions due to all activities related to livestock production. Direct sources include nitrous-oxide producing animal manure and methane-producing enteric fermentation. Indirect sources include land use changes (e.g., deforestation) and animal feed production.

Mitloehner's major criticism of Long Shadow is that it did not conduct a comprehensive LCA of the transport sector. Instead, FAO used the value calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) value without modification. The IPCC value only considered direct sources of fossil fuel burning and not indirect ones such as GHGs emitted due to crude oil extraction, road construction, or the manufacturing of cars. Thus, asserts Mitloehner, FAO cannot claim that livestock produces more GHGs than transportation.

FAO's Pierre Gerber, an author of Long Shadow, has admitted to BBC News: "I must honestly say that he has a point" about the different LCAs used to calculate livestock's and transportation's contributions to climate change and accepts Mitloehner's criticism. However, Gerber contends, "But on the rest of the report, I don't think it was really challenged." In other words, the different methodologies do not invalidate the conclusions of Long Shadow, including the conclusion that livestock production contributes 18% to total global climate change in both direct and indirect ways. Gerber told the Columbia Journalism Review that "We stand entirely behind the 18 percent figure."

Gerber stated that the data needed to perform a LCA for the transport sector, such as detailed emissions numbers for every country, are not available. But the IPCC calculations were done as carefully as possible (with an uncertainty of less than five percent for carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use, which make up approximately 75% of all GHGs), despite the uncertainties in calculating values for all other GHGs in the atmosphere. What is most difficult to assess is the proportion of the subtotals (from each sector) coming from anthropogenic versus natural sources. What complicates matters even more is the overlap between sectors revealed most easily when comprehensive LCAs are done for every sector such that the sum of all emissions could be over 100%.

Gerber also stated that the total GHG determination won't change significantly by a comprehensive LCA of the transport sector. All that may occur is a rearrangement by sectors of the total. In other words, a LCA for the transport sector may change the relative amount of GHGs contributed by that sector. Later reports by FAO will include more "disaggregation" by sector (i.e., livestock, transport, industry, etc.) of the total value as more data are collected.

Furthermore, Gerber said that FAO is currently working on much more comprehensive analyses of emissions from food production that should allow comparisons between diets, including meat-based and vegetarian diets. This report will partition the global 18% into different commodities such as eggs, milk, beef, etc., produced in different farming systems and in different world regions and climatic zones in order to pinpoint the sources of anthropogenic GHG emissions caused by livestock. Equipped with this information, the FAO can propose effective mitigation strategies that are very specific to different segments of the livestock industry in different parts of the world. An updated report should be completed by the end of 2010.

It may be said that both Mitloehner and Gerber agree that reducing emissions in both the livestock and the transport sectors is important for environmental protection. Knowing exactly where these emissions are generated can lead to more appropriate mitigation strategies that will most likely vary among world regions according to livestock subsector type (i.e., eggs, beef, etc.) and farming system (i.e., feedlot, grazing system, etc.).

Q. Dr. Mitloehner implies that Long Shadow is not relevant to local or national public policy discussions about food production and the environment as the popular press leads readers to believe, citing the EPA's calculation from its Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2007 published in 2009, which states that livestock's contribution in the United States to anthropogenic GHGs is approximately 3% of all human-created GHGs. Does Dr. Mitloehner's claim make Long Shadow irrelevant to such local or national policy discussions?

A. It is interesting to note that Dr. Mitloehner offers the EPA report and a California EPA report in direct comparison with the UN's although he points out the different scope and assumptions of the three. In some respects, his criticism of Long Shadow's comparative use of a comprehensive LCA to one that is not (i.e., the livestock sector's versus the transportation sector's), referring to it as "a classical apples-and-oranges" problem, may be applied to his analysis as well. For example, one major difference is that Long Shadow determines the indirect contribution to GHGs derived from animal feed production (a large indirect contribution by livestock production) while the EPA does not, but rather groups GHGs from animal feed and human crops together, so that GHGs generated from the production of animal feed crops alone cannot be determined (and, so, cannot be included in their 3% figure).

It should also be noted that the 3% value cited by Mitloehner includes only the GHGs due to enteric fermentation and manure management even though he grants that other aspects of livestock production, such as land use changes, feed production, and on-farm fossil fuel burning, do produce significant amounts of GHGs. These other aspects were considered in Long Shadow and included in its total GHGs produced by the livestock sector (18%).

Despite the different assumptions of the reports, it is noteworthy that they reach many of the same conclusions. For example, enteric fermentation and manure management generate approximately the same amounts of methane (~40% of total anthropogenic GHGs) and nitrous oxide (~65% of total anthropogenic GHGs). The EPA report also points out that methane emissions from manure management increased by 54% since 1990, due mainly to the trend among pig and dairy farmers to store manure as a liquid slurry which produces greater methane emissions that storage of manure as a solid. Both methane and nitrous oxide are gases which have much greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide. Mitloehner also points out that the increasing use on crops of synthetic fertilizers, which reduce methane emissions, tends to increase the production of the more potent nitrous oxide. These facts are not made clearly by Mitloehner but they are important when considering the overall effect of different sectors on total world GHG emissions.

Several of Mitloehner's other statements made at the ACS meeting go beyond his level of expertise as an animal scientist. For example, Mitloehner criticizes Long Shadow by implying that it misleads Americans into believing that dietary changes away from meat-based diets is a major way for climate change reduction in the United States. He states that "We certainly can reduce our greenhouse-gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk. Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries." Mitloehner uses the EPA report, which asserts that the US transport sector is responsible for 26% of GHG emissions while livestock rearing contributes only 3% of the total US GHG emissions, to defend his claims. However, based on these points, one cannot rightly claim that reducing milk and meat consumption in the US will not contribute to reducing global climate change. Nor can one make any statement about reducing world hunger.

Mitloehner goes on to say that to meet increasing demand for meat and milk, the focus in confronting climate change should be on smarter farming, not less farming. In saying this, Mitloehner implicitly depends in part on the scientific legitimacy of Long Shadow to support his view that developing nations should model their agricultural systems on the United States' intensive systems. Long Shadow, in fact, makes a similar claim, along with recommendations that "sustainable" intensive of livestock and feed crop production occur in conjunction with reduced deforestation and improved animal nutrition and manure management. In Mitloehner's use of and similarities to Long Shadow's conclusions, one cannot rightly assert that Long Shadow is irrelevant to public policy discussions about agricultural practices, nationally or globally.

It is noteworthy to point out that Mitloehner's research was funded in part by the Beef Checkoff Program, which provides research money collected from beef producers to some scientists. Whether this funding reflects a conflict of interest and biases the conclusions drawn by Mitloehner is up to the reader to discern.

Q. In the conclusion to his article Mitloehner briefly considers this question: If livestock were simply eliminated from the global agricultural system, would the 18% figure be eliminated as well? Do you agree with him that the GHG emissions coming from the use of resources, previously dedicated to animal agriculture but now used for other "human activities," could produce even greater GHG emissions?

A. Mitloehner does not explore this topic at length and provides no specific examples of "other human activities" and how they would produce even greater amounts of GHGs. It is left to the reader to speculate.

However, he does rightly point out that non-livestock substitutes for such things as synthetic fertilizer in place of manure; vinyl instead of leather; and synthetic fibers to replace wool, etc. also produce GHG emissions. Mitloehner does not quantify these emissions values. Whether they would be greater or less than those of comparable livestock-generated products remains to be seen.

Some propose that if the world transitions to veganic farming where plant-based compost and inedible crop residues are used as fertilizer instead of animal waste products or synthetic fertilizers, it would be possible that a major reduction in GHGs produced by the agricultural sector could result. Interested readers may learn more about veganic farming at www.goveganic.net.

Q. If there were no animal agriculture and everyone were vegan, how much of a reduction of GHGs could result?

A. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been any comprehensive research done that answers this question. Possibly, the upcoming FAO report mentioned in a previous question will provide an answer or at least a well-reasoned, well-supported partial answer.

Mitloehner cites Bruinsma's 2003 report titled World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030, an FAO Perspective, that says "Overall, 32% of the world's cereal production (the primary concentrate) is fed to livestock" including corn (52%), barley (19%), and wheat (19%). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that approximately half of US soybean production (and the US is the world's leader in soybean production and consumption), is fed to livestock. Given these high quantities of foodstuffs given to livestock, it is reasonable to assume that significantly fewer GHGs would be produced in a world where fewer cereals and legumes are needed to support large numbers of livestock, i.e., in a world where everyone, or at least the majority, ate a plant-based diet. Long Shadow states that animal feed production is estimated to account for 33% of agricultural cropland, so an elimination or reduction in the numbers of livestock supported by that land would most likely result in less GHG emissions.

Research is beginning to support this claim. For example, a 2009 study titled Climate Benefits of Changing Diet by Elke Stehfest, et al. published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change (95:83-102), concludes that a global food transition to less meat, or even a total switch to a plant-based diet would have a dramatic effect on land use practices and result in climate stabilization. The researchers determine that up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned as a result of dietary change that excluded all or most livestock. The change would create large carbon uptake due to vegetation regrowth as the former cropland and pastures return to more natural states. Without livestock or with reduced numbers of livestock, methane and nitrous oxide emissions produced by enteric fermentation and manure would be eliminated or substantially reduced, further contributing to climate stabilization.

The VRG will continue to report on the relationship of diet to climate change as scientists and government bodies publish their findings and statistics. Interested readers may subscribe to our free e-newsletter for updates on this timely topic. Visit our website to read more about vegetarianism and the environment, including our newest brochure titled Save Our Water the Vegetarian Way.

Agricultural production accounts for a staggering 70% of the global freshwater consumption, 38% of the total land use, and 14% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

From the conclusions of the report:

Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.

Click here for the full UNEP report (112-page PDF).

Our brochure Save Our Water: The Vegetarian Way is now available online in Spanish: ¡Salvemos el agua por medio del vegetarianismo!

Thanks to VRG volunteers Cecilia and Elizabeth for translating this!

Sin lugar a dudas, todos necesitamos agua limpia. Cómo obtenerla y mantenerla limpia y abundante se está convirtiendo en un problema universal. De hecho, la FAO (la Organización para la Alimentación y la Agricultura de las Naciones Unidas), en un informe titulado La larga sombra del ganado (Livestock’s Long Shadow), predice que en el año 2050, dos tercios de los seres humanos en todo el mundo carecerán de agua potable para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas. Sin embargo, una parte de la solución es fácil y factible. Todo comienza con el tenedor. Read more

VRG’s new brochure, Save Our Water: The Vegetarian Way, is now online!

The beginning portion is excerpted below:

We all need clean water. No doubt about it. HOW to get it and keep it running clean and plentiful is becoming a problem almost everywhere. In fact, the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) predicts in a report titled Livestock’s Long Shadow, that by 2050, two-thirds of people worldwide will lack clean water to meet even their basic needs.

The good news is that one part of the solution is easy and close at hand! It all starts with your fork.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

H. Steinfeld, senior author, Livestock’s Long Shadow, A report from the United Nations

Saving Earth’s Water By Eating A Vegetarian Diet

Did you know that the largest user of fresh water is the livestock industry? Water is directly needed for drinking and cleaning of animals. And that’s a lot of water when we’re talking about over 10 billion animals raised for food in the United States alone every year.

But the biggest way animal agriculture consumes water is indirectly. A large amount of fresh water is used to grow the feed that livestock animals eat.

Click here to read the rest of this brochure.

Click here to view the entire version of VRG’s new lesson plan for kids about water usage.

Lesson Plan: Clean Water for Everyone Today and Tomorrow with Good Food Choices

by Jeanne Yacoubou, MS © The Vegetarian Resource Group.

Purpose: To visualize for young children how much water is used to do everyday tasks and how much water is needed to grow common food items. To graphically illustrate for children how some human activities and how food production causes water pollution. To instill in children that water is a precious resource and should not be wasted.

An integrated worksheet asks children to answer questions based on these adapted charts (numbers rounded for children):

Table 1. Water Consumed during Daily Activities (data taken from http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/p2pages/water.pdf)

 
Table 2. Water Used to Produce some Common Items (Data taken from Chapagain A, Hoekstra A (2004) Water Footprints of Nations Volume One: Main Report. Value of Water Research Report Series No.16. Delft (The Netherlands): UNESCO – IHE Institute for Water Education. http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Publications; numbers are rounded off on table children use for activity.)

Click here for the entire lesson plan.

Factors Involved in Calculating Grain:Meat Conversion Ratios

Jeanne Yacoubou, MS
VRG Research Director

“An environmental argument for vegetarianism often involves a discussion of the relative efficiency by which livestock convert grains and legumes that they consume into meat eaten by some people. The process of converting grain, legumes, and their byproducts into human-edible meat is commonly expressed as a grain:meat conversion ratio.

While researching the quantities and types of feedstuffs needed by livestock to produce meat, the writer noticed wide discrepancies in grain:meat ratios calculated by various scientists, government agencies, nonprofits, and agribusiness. Some ratios ran as high as 16 pounds of grain per pound of meat to a low of 0.3 pounds of grain per pound of meat. Thus began an investigation into some of the many factors involved in calculating grain:meat conversion ratios. The investigation revealed the importance of considering the assumptions implicit in all of the determinations. Without a working knowledge of authors’ assumptions, the ratios lack meaning. When two competing values based on different assumptions are viewed together, they cannot be accurately compared.”

Click here to read the rest of the article.