[speik]

In case anyone isnt getting the sarcasm in the title, quote from the article:

>Since I happened to have a pound of almonds in the refrigerator I decided to count up those little water suckers and see how much water it takes to produce a pound of almonds. It was bad. Four hundred and thirty-three gallons of water.

>Four hundred and thirty-three? Wait a minute. How about a pound of beef? (I dare say it’s a lot easier to eat a pound of beef than it is to eat a pound of almonds.) According to the folks at waterfootprint.org it takes between 3,000 and 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef.

[tptacek]

Ruefully commenting on a story I also flagged, but: chicken takes less water per pound than almonds. Depending on which source you believe, so does pork.

A pound of beef is about half as calorically dense as a pound of almonds, but a half gallon of almond milk also takes a whole pound of almonds, so you have to take into consideration the different ways they're eaten.