Can dairy farming ever be sustainable?(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Can dairy farming ever be sustainable?
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201208-climate-change-can-dairy-farming-become-sustainable
60 comments
Naive question. If cattle eat on grass how can they increase CO2 emissions?
I know farming will create some to run the machinery and transport the meant and milk but isn't it a closed loop for the cattle? They eat grass for energy. They use that energy and create CO2. But the grass had to pull the same amount of CO2 out of the air to store that energy right?
Is it that the other gases are more harmful or is there something I'm missing?
I know farming will create some to run the machinery and transport the meant and milk but isn't it a closed loop for the cattle? They eat grass for energy. They use that energy and create CO2. But the grass had to pull the same amount of CO2 out of the air to store that energy right?
Is it that the other gases are more harmful or is there something I'm missing?
Much of the cow diet is actually corn and soy, especially for US beef production cattle. There are emissions from the fertilizer inputs to corn and soy as well as emissions from the transportation of corn and soy from field to cow.
Ah that makes a lot of sense. Here in NZ most of our cattle are grass fed with very little feed transportation. Some farmers do use feed pads but when they do they are being fooled by the big dairy companies putting pressure on the farmers to get the milk solid production up. The tends to mean the farms revenue goes up but the costs go way up so they increase work and decrease profit. So not many of them keep up the practice. I'm guessing our climate allows us to farm differently, as we have few droughts and warm winters.
Highly depends on the specifics of a particular farm’s operations. Not a great generalization to make about dairy without supporting facts (that have got to be out there, so cite them).
CO2 isn't the problem with cattle, its methane, which is a byproduct of their digestion. Methane is a greenhouse gas.
The other issue is that grassland absorbs less CO2 than forests, and lots of forests have been cut down in favor grassland suitable for grazing animals.
The other issue is that grassland absorbs less CO2 than forests, and lots of forests have been cut down in favor grassland suitable for grazing animals.
Do we know if diet plays a factor in methane production?
I thought the issue was not the CO2 they emit out the front but the methane(CH4) emitted from the other end.
Methane apparently does an even better job than CO2 of keeping the heat in.
The Royal Society's Summer Science Exhibition a few years ago featured the work of some scientists measuring the impact of different feeds on the amount of methane produced.
But the real problem isn't cows, it's humans. As the sheer biomass of humans expands exponentially so do our demands.
Almonds are no panacea, just ask the bees, or take a look at the water tables beneath the almond fields (groves? plantations?.
Just popping into say this is not naive! Food systems are so complicated
That's not a naive question at all, and the answer is that they can't.
Cows don't have little nuclear fusion reactors in their rumens, producing carbon from other elements, nor do they eat fossil fuels.
Every atom of carbon "emitted" by a cow was taken from the atmosphere by a plant, likely a year ago at most. Now, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but it breaks down over time. The cycle can be perfectly "sustainable".
Much of the land in the United States that is currently occupied in grazing cattle was formerly inhabited by vast herds of American bison, an animal so genetically similar to domestic cattle that they can actually interbreed, yet the methane emissions from the bison didn't bring on a global climate crisis. Why not?
Cows don't have little nuclear fusion reactors in their rumens, producing carbon from other elements, nor do they eat fossil fuels.
Every atom of carbon "emitted" by a cow was taken from the atmosphere by a plant, likely a year ago at most. Now, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but it breaks down over time. The cycle can be perfectly "sustainable".
Much of the land in the United States that is currently occupied in grazing cattle was formerly inhabited by vast herds of American bison, an animal so genetically similar to domestic cattle that they can actually interbreed, yet the methane emissions from the bison didn't bring on a global climate crisis. Why not?
Well for one, there are 2x as many cows in America today than there ever were bison.
For 2, we “turn” cows faster by killing them to eat them (rather than letting nature sort it out). So that 2x is then multiplied by some factor
For 3, our consumption habits have exported the cow to new environments where bison were not native (like Brazil).
For 2, we “turn” cows faster by killing them to eat them (rather than letting nature sort it out). So that 2x is then multiplied by some factor
For 3, our consumption habits have exported the cow to new environments where bison were not native (like Brazil).
> Well for one, there are 2x as many cows in America today than there ever were bison.
(citation needed)
> For 2, we “turn” cows faster by killing them to eat them (rather than letting nature sort it out). So that 2x is then multiplied by some factor
Neither the absolute number nor the turnover rate matter. Only the raw amount of biomass. The turnover rate has nothing to do with the fact that essentially all the carbon emitted by the cow was recently removed from the atmosphere by a plant, making the whole process carbon-neutral.
> For 3, our consumption habits have exported the cow to new environments where bison were not native (like Brazil).
I limited my observation to the United States for a reason, but okay, I'll bite. How does a cow being "in Brazil" change the fact that any carbon it emits was almost certainly removed from the atmosphere by a plant within the last year, making the cow's digestion effectively carbon-neutral?
(citation needed)
> For 2, we “turn” cows faster by killing them to eat them (rather than letting nature sort it out). So that 2x is then multiplied by some factor
Neither the absolute number nor the turnover rate matter. Only the raw amount of biomass. The turnover rate has nothing to do with the fact that essentially all the carbon emitted by the cow was recently removed from the atmosphere by a plant, making the whole process carbon-neutral.
> For 3, our consumption habits have exported the cow to new environments where bison were not native (like Brazil).
I limited my observation to the United States for a reason, but okay, I'll bite. How does a cow being "in Brazil" change the fact that any carbon it emits was almost certainly removed from the atmosphere by a plant within the last year, making the cow's digestion effectively carbon-neutral?
Bison Carrying Capacity Peak Population Estimate: 30mn but other estimated vary, so let's call it 50mn. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/artic...
About 95mn head of cattle in the US. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/...
Why would I make up such a specific number?
Most US beef and dairy cows also eat hay / grain that's been grown commercially (using a lot of energy to plant, fertilize, harvest & transport). It's cute to think cows just wander around grassy fields eating naturally occurring 'carbon neutral' grasses, but there's a reason one sees so many bales of hay at dairy farms.
And a cow being 'in Brazil' means it's standing where the rainforest used to be.
About 95mn head of cattle in the US. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/...
Why would I make up such a specific number?
Most US beef and dairy cows also eat hay / grain that's been grown commercially (using a lot of energy to plant, fertilize, harvest & transport). It's cute to think cows just wander around grassy fields eating naturally occurring 'carbon neutral' grasses, but there's a reason one sees so many bales of hay at dairy farms.
And a cow being 'in Brazil' means it's standing where the rainforest used to be.
> And a cow being 'in Brazil' means it's standing where the rainforest used to be.
That's not answering my question.
Any atom of carbon emitted by a cow was almost certainly removed from the atmosphere by a plant quite recently, yes?
So how is that not a carbon-neutral cycle?
We're talking about the specific claim that cow digestion, in and of itself, leads to increased carbon levels in the atmosphere. Clearly it does not, and cannot.
Talking about the rain forest is shifting the goalposts.
Note that North America has more forest land than it did a hundred years ago, largely because modern mechanized agriculture has dramatically increased the crop yield per acre, leading to marginal agricultural land being returned to forest cover.
The "slash-and-burn" agricultural methods that destroy the rain forest are largely a feature of the "low tech" "traditional" "organic" farming techniques that are beloved by environmentalists.
That's not answering my question.
Any atom of carbon emitted by a cow was almost certainly removed from the atmosphere by a plant quite recently, yes?
So how is that not a carbon-neutral cycle?
We're talking about the specific claim that cow digestion, in and of itself, leads to increased carbon levels in the atmosphere. Clearly it does not, and cannot.
Talking about the rain forest is shifting the goalposts.
Note that North America has more forest land than it did a hundred years ago, largely because modern mechanized agriculture has dramatically increased the crop yield per acre, leading to marginal agricultural land being returned to forest cover.
The "slash-and-burn" agricultural methods that destroy the rain forest are largely a feature of the "low tech" "traditional" "organic" farming techniques that are beloved by environmentalists.
>Much of the land in the United States that is currently occupied in grazing cattle was formerly inhabited by vast herds of American bison, an animal so genetically similar to domestic cattle that they can actually interbreed, yet the methane emissions from the bison didn't bring on a global climate crisis. Why not?
Bro, I'm answering your question as to why cows cause a global warming crisis and bison did not.
You're intentionally being obtuse on that point though, right? Like yeah, cows may be just like bison in a very very narrow frame of reference, but bison did not get their food trucked to them & they did not cut down trees to graze (both of which are things cows require now).
That's why. Period.
EDIT: If you want to narrow your frame of reference even further & just talk about methane, then 1) It's not the main culprit so I guess we agree there. But again, Global Warming is a cumulative thing, so they fact that they product that methane AND require carbon emissions to exist is pretty bad. 2) Yeah, it's a crude estimate, that's why I almost doubled it to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Bro, I'm answering your question as to why cows cause a global warming crisis and bison did not.
You're intentionally being obtuse on that point though, right? Like yeah, cows may be just like bison in a very very narrow frame of reference, but bison did not get their food trucked to them & they did not cut down trees to graze (both of which are things cows require now).
That's why. Period.
EDIT: If you want to narrow your frame of reference even further & just talk about methane, then 1) It's not the main culprit so I guess we agree there. But again, Global Warming is a cumulative thing, so they fact that they product that methane AND require carbon emissions to exist is pretty bad. 2) Yeah, it's a crude estimate, that's why I almost doubled it to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not being "obtuse" at all, "Bro".
I'm addressing the specific, and oft-repeated, claim that cow farts as such somehow magically put more carbon in the air than there was before.
Now, there may be other issues associated with cattle raising, but that is not, and has never been, my point.
Since you apparently do not dispute my main point, I think we're finished here.
P.S. After reading your reference on the pre-European number of bison more carefully, your claim of 30 million is not supported at all by the author. The previous estimates given in the paper range all over the place, up to 1 billion (!). The author is careful to point out that all of those numbers are more or less junk, and the only conclusion the author actually makes is that there were "likely" "tens of millions" of bison.
That does not match your claim of a hard 30 million.
I'm addressing the specific, and oft-repeated, claim that cow farts as such somehow magically put more carbon in the air than there was before.
Now, there may be other issues associated with cattle raising, but that is not, and has never been, my point.
Since you apparently do not dispute my main point, I think we're finished here.
P.S. After reading your reference on the pre-European number of bison more carefully, your claim of 30 million is not supported at all by the author. The previous estimates given in the paper range all over the place, up to 1 billion (!). The author is careful to point out that all of those numbers are more or less junk, and the only conclusion the author actually makes is that there were "likely" "tens of millions" of bison.
That does not match your claim of a hard 30 million.
Listen, America Has more forest landthan 100 years ago because we clearcut the entire continent for the century before (1) talk about moving goalposts. (2) seriously, go to Vermont & tour the abandoned farms in the middle of nowhere, you'll be stunned by the sins of our ancestors.
(3)Trending is great on that one very small thing, but again, Global Warming is a cumulative problem, not a trending one.
And btw, what's your endgame here? Climate Change denialism? I hope not, b/c that's a real bummer.
And btw, what's your endgame here? Climate Change denialism? I hope not, b/c that's a real bummer.
Those farms are abandoned, and have returned to forest cover, precisely because modern agricultural methods have made it possible to raise plenty of food using far less land than the "traditional" "organic" methods ever did.
Just as I said.
I'm not sure why that counts as "moving goalposts".
And my "endgame" here is to not doom billions of people in the Third World to starvation because modern agricultural methods offend the sensibilities of privileged white people living in an affluent society.
Just as I said.
I'm not sure why that counts as "moving goalposts".
And my "endgame" here is to not doom billions of people in the Third World to starvation because modern agricultural methods offend the sensibilities of privileged white people living in an affluent society.
[deleted]
> Bison Carrying Capacity Peak Population Estimate: 30mn but other estimated vary, so let's call it 50mn.
That number is just for the "western prairies", when in fact bison were found throughout the entire North American continent.
The author is also careful to point out that this number is, at best, a crude estimate.
That number is just for the "western prairies", when in fact bison were found throughout the entire North American continent.
The author is also careful to point out that this number is, at best, a crude estimate.
In 1491 it’s speculated that the levels of bison and passenger pigeon reported by settlers in North America were a population bubble created by reduced management (predation) by First Nations people.
The stable populations of both may have in fact been about half of their peak. And while that doesn’t absolve us of anything, it may mean when we are building a report card for our current progress, we may be setting the bar a little high, and could be directing some of that energy elsewhere.
The stable populations of both may have in fact been about half of their peak. And while that doesn’t absolve us of anything, it may mean when we are building a report card for our current progress, we may be setting the bar a little high, and could be directing some of that energy elsewhere.
I visited a friend's family dairy farm in a little town in Utah a few months back and it was quite a change from the tech bubble I tend to dwell in.
I think this article reads pretty fair to the mindset of my friend's family too. My friend's family has been dairy farmers for generations, and their dad loves the hard work seemingly because it's turned into a part of his identity. They've started seeing the writing on the wall and have picked up other crops and animals to "diversify their portfolio" a little.
I think this article reads pretty fair to the mindset of my friend's family too. My friend's family has been dairy farmers for generations, and their dad loves the hard work seemingly because it's turned into a part of his identity. They've started seeing the writing on the wall and have picked up other crops and animals to "diversify their portfolio" a little.
There's an excellent Slate article that's an interview with a former climate change denier & it interviews a farmer named Megan Brown. I follow her now on Twitter & it's a reaaaally valuable perspective to keep learning about the foods that literally keep us + our economy alive + how toxic much of the ag world can be (in her opinion) https://twitter.com/MegRaeB
Less of a “handwriting on the wall” and more of a “following an eternally prudent small farm management strategy”. ‘Twas ever thus.
I think the answer is "no". Cow's milk requires far more land & water, and produces far more emissions than other types of "milk". See the chart here: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042 It seems clear that cows milk has the most environmental impact of any "milk".
I've recently switched from cow's milk to almond milk for my cereal, and to an oat-milk based creamer for my coffee, and I don't miss "real" milk/cream at all.
My ancestors are rolling over in their graves though, as my grandfather and both my uncles were dairy farmers.
I've recently switched from cow's milk to almond milk for my cereal, and to an oat-milk based creamer for my coffee, and I don't miss "real" milk/cream at all.
My ancestors are rolling over in their graves though, as my grandfather and both my uncles were dairy farmers.
I went through a phase of drinking milk substitutes but I'm back to milk.
The glycemic index of most milk substitutes (oat,soy,almond) are equivalent or greater than a can of coke. Milk substitutes also tend to be really really high in vegetable oils that seem to at least have a troubling correlation with chronic disease.
The metrics used for the environmental impact of intensive animal husbandry tend too skew towards the worst case (obese cows on a grain fed diet in a feedlot). There are plenty of dairy farms raising cows with a more sustainable grass-based diet that doesn't release nearly as much methane (Think how gassey you'd be if the only thing you ate was ice-cream?)
I like supporting my local dairy farmers, more than I enjoy supporting some multi-national milk-substitute beverage company with a supply chain spanning the globe.
The glycemic index of most milk substitutes (oat,soy,almond) are equivalent or greater than a can of coke. Milk substitutes also tend to be really really high in vegetable oils that seem to at least have a troubling correlation with chronic disease.
The metrics used for the environmental impact of intensive animal husbandry tend too skew towards the worst case (obese cows on a grain fed diet in a feedlot). There are plenty of dairy farms raising cows with a more sustainable grass-based diet that doesn't release nearly as much methane (Think how gassey you'd be if the only thing you ate was ice-cream?)
I like supporting my local dairy farmers, more than I enjoy supporting some multi-national milk-substitute beverage company with a supply chain spanning the globe.
I am very interested in this as I only drink alternatives now and although not very much I will often eat foods made from the same ingredients (soy, almond, etc).
Glycemic Index - Are we talking about sweetened milk alternatives here? From what I have seen most alternatives come out the same or lower than dairy milk unless they have added sugar.
Vegetable Oil - I am sure alternatives contain more vegetable oils, but interested to know what you mean by "really really high". The opposing side is dairy milk containing saturated fat which has it's own implications.
Would love to see some studies if you have any handy.
Glycemic Index - Are we talking about sweetened milk alternatives here? From what I have seen most alternatives come out the same or lower than dairy milk unless they have added sugar.
Vegetable Oil - I am sure alternatives contain more vegetable oils, but interested to know what you mean by "really really high". The opposing side is dairy milk containing saturated fat which has it's own implications.
Would love to see some studies if you have any handy.
Hey yeah Im no expert but happy to share some of the stuff that I've looked at.
Glycemic Index - not every gram of carbohydrate is made equal. You can have a drink with fewer grams of sugar but that still has a higher glycemic load. Lactose has a fairly low glycemic index which results in it often having a lower glycemic load of drinks sweetened with lower quantities of maltose/dextrose. In terms of scientific literature I think there are a bunch of well regarded studies on this topic (glycemic load and how it relates to health) since its a pretty key factor in diabetes.
Vegetable Oil - tbh I'm less sure of the science for this but reading https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/why-is-vegetable-oil-unhealt... gave me enough doubt to try to reduce my consumption.
I still occasionally use unsweetened coconut milk, since it has no added sugars and none of the more suspicious vegetable oils. But what I've found is that when you get rid of the sugar/vegetable oils none of the milk substitutes taste anything like milk.
Glycemic Index - not every gram of carbohydrate is made equal. You can have a drink with fewer grams of sugar but that still has a higher glycemic load. Lactose has a fairly low glycemic index which results in it often having a lower glycemic load of drinks sweetened with lower quantities of maltose/dextrose. In terms of scientific literature I think there are a bunch of well regarded studies on this topic (glycemic load and how it relates to health) since its a pretty key factor in diabetes.
Vegetable Oil - tbh I'm less sure of the science for this but reading https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/why-is-vegetable-oil-unhealt... gave me enough doubt to try to reduce my consumption.
I still occasionally use unsweetened coconut milk, since it has no added sugars and none of the more suspicious vegetable oils. But what I've found is that when you get rid of the sugar/vegetable oils none of the milk substitutes taste anything like milk.
For me the biggest benefit of switching to oat milk is how long it lasts. Milk was never a huge part of my diet but it was important & I used it it in random things but I'd always waste it. Now that stuff lasts daaays
The glycemic index of most milk substitutes (oat,soy,almond) are equivalent or greater than a can of coke.
That's true of oat and rice milk, but not of almond or soy. That's to be expected: the former two are made out of starchy grains, the latter two out of fatty nuts/pulses. Those are on a par with milk for glycemic index (~25).
The worst case ("obese cows on a grain fed diet in a feedlot") is also the common case: if you go to the grocery store and buy generic "milk", that's what you're going to get. Organic may be slightly better, though it's unclear. You can go out of your way to get more sustainably-produced milk, but you're going to pay at least twice as much for it.
That's a decent choice, though I'd be happier if it were easier to verify. (I don't trust the labeling of "grass fed milk", and locally-sourced milk that I can check myself is hard to come by.) The small comfort is that dairy cattle have to be treated relatively well, since they can't produce good milk if they're sick or abused.
That's true of oat and rice milk, but not of almond or soy. That's to be expected: the former two are made out of starchy grains, the latter two out of fatty nuts/pulses. Those are on a par with milk for glycemic index (~25).
The worst case ("obese cows on a grain fed diet in a feedlot") is also the common case: if you go to the grocery store and buy generic "milk", that's what you're going to get. Organic may be slightly better, though it's unclear. You can go out of your way to get more sustainably-produced milk, but you're going to pay at least twice as much for it.
That's a decent choice, though I'd be happier if it were easier to verify. (I don't trust the labeling of "grass fed milk", and locally-sourced milk that I can check myself is hard to come by.) The small comfort is that dairy cattle have to be treated relatively well, since they can't produce good milk if they're sick or abused.
Commercial beef feedlots vs commercial dairy feedlots are a mile apart, but unfortunately most dairy cows end up at the former after they hit declining milk production.
I'd recommend checking if you can go tour a local dairy, I've found that any quality dairy will let you do that and you can judge for yourself about the welfare of the animals. You're gonna to pay more but the nutritional value of a gallon of milk at $8 vs $2 is still well worth it imo.
I'd also really recommend looking into the health impacts of vegetable oils. Most milk substitutes are, at their core, emulsified vegetable oils. I found that the trade-offs were higher glycemic load(oat/rice), increased vegetable oils(soy/almond) or something that tastes nothing like milk (unsweetened coconut milk).
I'd recommend checking if you can go tour a local dairy, I've found that any quality dairy will let you do that and you can judge for yourself about the welfare of the animals. You're gonna to pay more but the nutritional value of a gallon of milk at $8 vs $2 is still well worth it imo.
I'd also really recommend looking into the health impacts of vegetable oils. Most milk substitutes are, at their core, emulsified vegetable oils. I found that the trade-offs were higher glycemic load(oat/rice), increased vegetable oils(soy/almond) or something that tastes nothing like milk (unsweetened coconut milk).
Yep. Turns out that milk is actually really healthy for you, at least if you belong to a population group that evolved the ability to digest lactose.
(Lactose-free milk is getting better, though it's still too sweet; A2 milk (w/o the A1 proteins) is an interesting option for some people).
I get it, the cows aren't living their most self-actualized life, but I basically sit in a stall all day producing code and documentation, so while I can empathize with them, it doesn't mean I want to pay a bunch more so _they_ get to go outside all day while I'm still stuck here on the git treadmill.
(Lactose-free milk is getting better, though it's still too sweet; A2 milk (w/o the A1 proteins) is an interesting option for some people).
I get it, the cows aren't living their most self-actualized life, but I basically sit in a stall all day producing code and documentation, so while I can empathize with them, it doesn't mean I want to pay a bunch more so _they_ get to go outside all day while I'm still stuck here on the git treadmill.
So you want a world no only with no milk but no butter or cheese or sour cream or yogurt or cream cheese or ice cream or ... ? No thanks, I think we have bigger problems and other ways to solve our environment issues, they are just a lot less popular. Plus, it is kind of silly to think about since it would never happen. Better to tax coal and gas into oblivion.
Surprisingly, cows are worse for the environment than cars. That sounds insane, and it took me a while to believe it myself. But do your own research.
I have had dairy-free versions of all of the foods above. Most are really good, though I have to admit that I don't care for the vegan cream cheeses that I've tried.
I have had dairy-free versions of all of the foods above. Most are really good, though I have to admit that I don't care for the vegan cream cheeses that I've tried.
Have you tried this one - I really enjoy it, but maybe I've been vegan for too long to remember what regular cream cheese tastes like...
https://violifefoods.com/product/original-flavour-creamy/
https://violifefoods.com/product/original-flavour-creamy/
Tofutti's cream cheese does it for me. Likewise can't quite recall the difference, but I enjoy it nonetheless.
Yes, there is some in my fridge right now! Its the best I've had, but still not as good as the real thing to me.
In general, I think Violife does the best job with imitation cheeses.
In general, I think Violife does the best job with imitation cheeses.
There are quite a lot of delicious vegan alternatives. Some cheeses seem difficult to reinvent as vegan options, but the rest that you mention definitely have great alternatives. Those alternatives were a lot worse 5 years ago. The dairy industry will probably not vanish completely or directly, but when the vegan alternatives are good enough for the majority, combined with a generational shift the dairy industry will start decreasing rapidly.
So the notion that "it would never happen" is a bit silly imo. I predict that the global dairy industry will be cut by half in 10 years.
So the notion that "it would never happen" is a bit silly imo. I predict that the global dairy industry will be cut by half in 10 years.
> I predict that the global dairy industry will be cut by half in 10 years.
I could have maybe let this go if you'd said "will have stagnant growth or have declining demand relative to the population", but cut in half? Where do you get such a grandiose proclamation from?
I wish we could bet money on that, because there's really no chance of this as long as the demand continues to exist. Where exactly do you think the demand is going to go?
As long as it exists, the industry will do what it can to ensure the product is inexpensive enough for us to buy; as long as it is inexpensive enough it will be the product of choice. The alternatives are not actually yet produced at sufficient scale to replace dairy, neither are they cheap enough, and there's no guarantee they're actually more sustainable at all (consider the long supply chain to get me some soy milk, vs the farm -> bottling plant -> grocery store pipeline that keeps the entire chain within a single city and its outlying agricultural areas in much of the first world).
Don't get me wrong - as someone who has become increasingly lactose intolerant as I age, I'm totally in favour of continued development of alternatives, but let's face it: it's not cheese you're eating, it's not milk you're drinking, and it never will be. You're fighting against thousands of years of co-evolving the dairy industry and our own bodies to be able to digest the bacteria in cheese and yogourt, no doubt helping the microbiome in ways we haven't begun to understand yet.
I could have maybe let this go if you'd said "will have stagnant growth or have declining demand relative to the population", but cut in half? Where do you get such a grandiose proclamation from?
I wish we could bet money on that, because there's really no chance of this as long as the demand continues to exist. Where exactly do you think the demand is going to go?
As long as it exists, the industry will do what it can to ensure the product is inexpensive enough for us to buy; as long as it is inexpensive enough it will be the product of choice. The alternatives are not actually yet produced at sufficient scale to replace dairy, neither are they cheap enough, and there's no guarantee they're actually more sustainable at all (consider the long supply chain to get me some soy milk, vs the farm -> bottling plant -> grocery store pipeline that keeps the entire chain within a single city and its outlying agricultural areas in much of the first world).
Don't get me wrong - as someone who has become increasingly lactose intolerant as I age, I'm totally in favour of continued development of alternatives, but let's face it: it's not cheese you're eating, it's not milk you're drinking, and it never will be. You're fighting against thousands of years of co-evolving the dairy industry and our own bodies to be able to digest the bacteria in cheese and yogourt, no doubt helping the microbiome in ways we haven't begun to understand yet.
I’ve noticed this rhetorical device a few times on HN. A reasonable argument suddenly make a turn for the extreme at the very end. I think it is a desensitizing technique...you’ve bought everything else, let’s see if I can push you into a more extreme position at the end...the hook at the end, as it were. It’s annoying, and leads instead to a questioning of the argument at the beginning.
This whole discussion of this topic is veering into the “paper v. plastic” overthinking/overtalking discussions of the 1990s. It’s a non-trivial analysis to figure out the basic issues and their relative importance. Won’t be done here...
This whole discussion of this topic is veering into the “paper v. plastic” overthinking/overtalking discussions of the 1990s. It’s a non-trivial analysis to figure out the basic issues and their relative importance. Won’t be done here...
I recently made my own oat "milk" and it was surprisingly tasty, too. I'd like to switch to it completely but haven't had the time to find the perfect recipe for us. So it's mostly unsweetened soy milk for us. As far as I know, emissions from producing soy milk are far lower than those of dairy but correct me if I'm wrong.
Is almond milk an improvement with regards to environmental impact, though? Almonds are a very resource-intensive crop, and in my experience there’s a lot of waste involved when making almond milk.
My understanding is that almond milk is not good, but is far better than cow's milk. Oat milk supposedly has the least impact. See the chart in the article I linked in up-thread.
Far better in what sense? Almond "milk" has almost no nutritional content compared to real milk. It's useless for people trying to gain weight/muscle mass.
It has ~20% of the protein and fat content of regular whole milk, so at the very minimum it has to be 5x environmentally friendly.
In fact it is so nutritionally empty, that it is more fitting to compare it to slightly sugared water, and see if it beats that on environmental record.
It has ~20% of the protein and fat content of regular whole milk, so at the very minimum it has to be 5x environmentally friendly.
In fact it is so nutritionally empty, that it is more fitting to compare it to slightly sugared water, and see if it beats that on environmental record.
I imagine most people trying to gain weight/muscle are not using milk to do it.
I think more people drink milk purely out of habit/pleasure.
I think more people drink milk purely out of habit/pleasure.
Only if you consider "bulk" consumption of dairy. Make it a luxury good, raise prices by few orders of magnitude and reduce the production accordingly and I'm sure you start finding ways to make it sustainable enough.
Good analysis on how to reduce the carbon emissions of cows: https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustain...
Basically feed them seaweed and try to manage the land in a way that sequesters CO2 on balance
Basically feed them seaweed and try to manage the land in a way that sequesters CO2 on balance
cow are ruminants. they are not meant to be fed seaweed. they turn grass and sunshine into protein and fat.
https://extension.umn.edu/dairy-nutrition/ruminant-digestive...
[..]The rumen (on the left side of the animal) is the largest stomach compartment and consists of several sacs. It can hold 25 gallons or more of material depending on the size of the cow. Because of its size, the rumen acts as a storage or holding vat for feed. Aside from storage, the rumen is also a fermentation vat.[..]
we get milk because their stomachs are basically fermentation vats. if cows dont fart, they are not rumen. what are we doing?
https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy...
https://extension.umn.edu/dairy-nutrition/ruminant-digestive...
[..]The rumen (on the left side of the animal) is the largest stomach compartment and consists of several sacs. It can hold 25 gallons or more of material depending on the size of the cow. Because of its size, the rumen acts as a storage or holding vat for feed. Aside from storage, the rumen is also a fermentation vat.[..]
we get milk because their stomachs are basically fermentation vats. if cows dont fart, they are not rumen. what are we doing?
https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy...
Not all ruminants produce methane at the prodigious rate that cows do. The fermentation process is a complicated mix of biota. Just a small change in diet of a few percent seaweed makes a huge difference in methane output.
It blows my mind that we are still doing this.
It's not sustainable, it's not ethical, heck, it's not even good for us. It's a pleasure/habit thing.
The alternatives have been getting a lot better and a lot more popular too. It won't be long till the dairy industry has to do something drastic [0].
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40274645
It's not sustainable, it's not ethical, heck, it's not even good for us. It's a pleasure/habit thing.
The alternatives have been getting a lot better and a lot more popular too. It won't be long till the dairy industry has to do something drastic [0].
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40274645
Man, let's just invest in societal carbon capture machines already, so we can stop talking about killing off desirable industries
These folksy farmers pretend like they're part of rich heritage of humanity - the dairy farmer through the ages supplying people with a healthy and necessary drink. Dairy production is just another demand created in the modern world by marketers and little to do with actual nutrition [1].
The dairy farmers in this article try to portray a peaceful relationship between farmer and cow, yet 99% of dairy in the US is produced in factory farms quite different from idyllic pastures [2]. More like what we're seeing in China with multi-story pig farms [3].
I think economics, environment and consumer behavior could easily wipe out the dairy industry, except that it's an integral part of food/industrial production. You obvs don't have a cheese industry without dairy, but you also don't have a source of male cows for the veal industry, a source of bones and other parts for the myriad other uses like adhesives, filtration (bone char filtration makes sugar white [4]), chemicals, textiles, etc.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/4/19/8447883/milk-health-benefit [2] https://www.livekindly.co/99-animal-products-factory-farms/ [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/18/a-12-sto... [4] https://www.journalofnaturalmedicine.com/sugar-companies-tha...
The dairy farmers in this article try to portray a peaceful relationship between farmer and cow, yet 99% of dairy in the US is produced in factory farms quite different from idyllic pastures [2]. More like what we're seeing in China with multi-story pig farms [3].
I think economics, environment and consumer behavior could easily wipe out the dairy industry, except that it's an integral part of food/industrial production. You obvs don't have a cheese industry without dairy, but you also don't have a source of male cows for the veal industry, a source of bones and other parts for the myriad other uses like adhesives, filtration (bone char filtration makes sugar white [4]), chemicals, textiles, etc.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/4/19/8447883/milk-health-benefit [2] https://www.livekindly.co/99-animal-products-factory-farms/ [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/18/a-12-sto... [4] https://www.journalofnaturalmedicine.com/sugar-companies-tha...
The problem that I see with these sorts of articles is that there aren't viable alternatives. If people want us to eat differently then they need to create viable alternatives.
A better question: Can concentrated animal feeding operation's ever be sustainable? It's not just dairy, but the vast majority of the agricultural meat markets.
short answer: no.
slightly longer answer: not if there are subsidies.
i will have to devote more time and attention to a longer proper answer that i feel obligated to provide. i hope to revisit this again once work ebbs.
i will have to devote more time and attention to a longer proper answer that i feel obligated to provide. i hope to revisit this again once work ebbs.
Cowspiracy is a great documentary
Yet another "eat the cockroach protein, peasant" message from our lizard overlords. Thanks for sharing guys.
This seems excessively harsh. I don’t think we should doubt the sincerity of people who believe that modern agriculture should be transformed in order to reduce its climate impact.
haha yeah it does come off a bit harsh. I don't doubt their sincerity but am definitely curious about how many farms they've visited.
If anytime you think of meat/dairy you think of mcdonalds style feedlot hellscapes, you're out of touch. Your oat/soy milks are coming from giant monocrop fields, loaded up on pesticides, fertilized with the poo scraped off the feedlots you hate.
I think its much more likely that dairy production becomes more sustainable than it gets replaced by even more intensive monocropping.
If anytime you think of meat/dairy you think of mcdonalds style feedlot hellscapes, you're out of touch. Your oat/soy milks are coming from giant monocrop fields, loaded up on pesticides, fertilized with the poo scraped off the feedlots you hate.
I think its much more likely that dairy production becomes more sustainable than it gets replaced by even more intensive monocropping.
I’d have loved to hear about feed additives under development to curb emissions, but the condescension throughout aligns with the general tone of pity for an industry presumed terminal.