Please excuse my utter ignorance on this subject, but where exactly does the water consumed in the production process "go"?

For example, one statistic quoted earlier in this thread was that the production of one kilo of cheese requires 5,000 litres of water.

While this is clearly a frightening statistic, is it the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Can anyone on this forum explain where all that water came from, and what happened to it?

Was it all compeletely destroyed, or was it simply "used", only to reappear in another form - evaporated into clouds, perhaps, or filling an artesian basin somewhere?

Enquiring minds need to know this stuff, you see. It helps separate the genuine problem from the scary doomsday stories.

In answer to Pericles question,"where does the water go?",if he were to visit any food processing facility,much would be revealed.
A lot of water is used just to clean incoming produce.
With some products,a brine solution is sometimes used to separate good from bad.Have a look inside a can of carrots or peaches;much of what you see is - water.
Then there is all the hosing down,for health and safety reasons,of hard surfaces.
Where does it all go? Some,hopefully a lot,is recycled but much is not.

So what happens after a farm uses water?

Plants transpire water, but farm plants produce food and fiber as a result

Urban plants produce a nice green lawn in a hot dry climate

Farm water is drunk by animals, to product that is new wealth to be shared around the economy.

Much City water is used once, turn into “grey” water and discarded in to the ocean

Problem here seems to be that most of the new wealth seems to stay in the urban areas, not where it is produced.
This happens because what a farmer needs to produce this new wealth with, he has to buy at prices well above world market prices, yet sell his product at world market prices, minus the exbortant cost to export it through our ports.

Sounds like discrimination in any form you like to put it me...

So who uses water smartly?
So who uses water to most benefit the community’s well being?

As usual, a person commenting on a topic with a negative view point, and no knowledge.

This person is also claiming his 5 time’s footprint impact on the world’s resources as a positive.
Yes more products that are produced from water are exported than used here.
But it produces a massive wealth level in the urban areas as a result, so if you are going to argue against exports, also argue against the high living standards in the urban areas.

Well there's truth and then there's 'truth'. The former is what we each, solipsistically, consider to be the most valid (although usually biased toward the outcomes we really want to be the truth), the second is somewhere in-between all of our individual notions.

Our ecosystems are uniquely adapted to a sporadic and essentially stochastic input of precipitation within any one season, and inter-seasonally. It is the second part of this equation that is the real limit for an Australian population – average annual rainfall is very misleading. When we speak of drought, what are we really talking about? Surely not the lack of precipitation to grow a crop, or the water levels in our dams and the subsequent water restrictions we may face. It is to be expected that rainfall is and will continue to be sporadic in nature (with arguments of climate change aside). It is not drought, it is the nature of our climate, and we should be taking this into consideration when planning urban expansion, a new crop to grow, or a new industry.

To argue how much water a crop takes to grow and where this water ends up is valid, as it is to question how urban areas demand water which usually comes from rural landscapes in the forms of run-off, then pollute or ‘waste’ this water thereafter. Yes, both arguments area valid. Most farmers would almost certainly value their water availability and quality as it directly affects their day to day production, moreover, longer-term survival. For urbanites, the true cost of production of food is probably not reflected in pricing, and it should be as it is rather hard for farmers to be ‘green when they are in the red’.

Lastly, urban areas must become more ‘rural-like’, and their populations learn to ‘trap’ their own water and use it locally. In the first week of March 2006 for example, the Gold Coast had more than 250mm of rain flow promptly off the concrete and bitumen into the ocean, while pulling water from the Upper Brisbane dams which are still on level 3 water restrictions.

Everal got his dates wrong Nathan Dam has been talked about since tge 1899s. In 1920 the Premier Theadore announced that the Scheme was tp proceed. The dam was to have sufficent water to irigate 220,000 acres. Apart from the small Theodore area all that seems to have eventuated was the establishing of a new Irrigation Commission. I note followong the present premiers annpouncement about a new Dam he has announced the setting up of a new Water Commission, I wonder if History will be repeated