Reducing our carbon footprint BY dairy farming...

pdmjoker said:

People doing Low Carb often depend on red meat and dairy products.

As has been highlighted on a forum thread already: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/and-so-it-begins-eat-less-meat-or-we’ll-make-you.171429/ the UK government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, have advised measures to "encourage" consumers to eat less read meat and dairy and advised that more trees should be planted.

BUT have they got the science right?​

There appears to be an "unwillingness" for some people to see things as they really are.

I recently heard this podcast "Farming: Finding A Way Through Climate Crisis". It's all good, but if you listen from 7m 3s in for about 2.30 minutes you will hear how dairy farming IF DONE CORRECTLY causes carbon capture:

https://lifeissues.podbean.com/e/30th-nov-farming-finding-a-way-through-climate-crisis/

Quote from podcast: "It's not whether we farm animals but how we farm them".

This isn't new. Some preliminary results can be found here: http://eatwild.com/environment.html if you scroll down to "Finishing cattle on pasture may reduce greenhouse gasses" and the graph.

(Arable farming requires artificial fertilisers, I gather the production of which uses fossil fuels. Cows naturally fertilise the grass themselves.)

However, as we know from Global Warming, some people will not accept the (for them uncomfortable) truth however much data and evidence is provided...

Click to expand...

Quite. Its NOT the cow but the how! Resist the moral panic.

I am afraid it's all about the money. Making veganism fashionable is very profitable. So what do you do if not enough people are vegans? Guilt trip people with fake science. Just like they did with the low fat message...which was also about promoting fake foods.

If folk want to live a vegan lifestyle that's great but to convince them they are helping the planet by doing so is an out and out lie.

If farming is done well then no-one makes huge profits. As indicated in the link, feeding pasture to cows is the right (and obvious) way to produce dairy. The farmer makes an honest living and produces good quality food. There's nothing in that for big business so they are trying to kill off the independent farming industry.

pdmjoker said:

IF DONE CORRECTLY

Click to expand...

Correctly? The correct way to do anything is to do it in a way that makes as much money as possible for everyone involved. Any negative consequences are of secondary importance. The entire climate-panic soap opera is a fiasco. The truth doesn't matter and never has. It only matters what you can make people believe. And remember, folks, it's only a conspiracy theory if it isn't true. Otherwise it's merely a conspiracy.

pdmjoker said:

Yes, "IF DONE CORRECTLY" means that overall carbon is captured and topsoil is replenished - a win/win situation...

On the whole, UK farmers are aware of the need for thinking long-term and conserving the precious environment.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I was just being facetious, referring to the lobbying from 'big agra' etc. Not farmers.

Since the arguments for and against cows existing will be much the same in both threads, I wonder what dairy brings that normal livstock for meat does not in terms of carbon footprint.

Oldvatr said:

If one has to choose between keeping cows for meat as opposed to cows for dairy, which is better in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Meat for me, thanks

@pdmjoker

Cattle gases do not contribute to global warming. This is a fallacy. There is a good diagram which illustrates why. Any gases emitted are recycled. There is no net addition to gas levels generated. If no livestock is added then the figures do not change.

On the other hand gases (and oil) trapped within the earth, once released by man, are additional and not part of a short term cycle.

This is why meat should not be the target. And this is why any debate on the restriction of meat eating in environmental and global warming terms should include other contributing factors. There is a lot more to this that is relevant but am trying not to be seen to be crossing the thread boundary.

So in summary, we should not be restricting either form of farming at all. Equally there shouldn’t be a one or the other debate.

Oldvatr said:

Since the arguments for and against cows existing will be much the same in both threads, I wonder what dairy brings that normal livstock for meat does not in terms of carbon footprint.

Click to expand...

Nothing. But dairy is available for vegatarians, which may be a good middle ground between various diet types?

The leaner cattle which has been around for a couple of decades makes them a poorer source of healthy dietary fat compared to full fat milk, cheeses etc. from the dairy herds.

Okay I have just phoned a friend. It’s all about (restricting meat eating) an impending Malthusian outcome as the worlds growing population outstrips food supplies.

Listlad said:

Okay I have just phoned a friend. It’s all about (restricting meat eating) an impending Malthusian outcome as the worlds growing population outstrips food supplies.

Click to expand...

???? What is all about restricting meat and who have you asked?

We had a house cow and calve out at the block when we first came to Bundy, it supplied the kids milk for their cereal.

We sold the cow after the calve was weaned, and then when it was big enough it ended up in the freezer as steak and roasts.

lucylocket61 said:

???? What is all about restricting meat and who have you asked?

Click to expand...

What is driving these proposed changes to levels of meat eating ( that is continually being raised as a reason for concern on the forum ) is the impending Malthusian outcome. The Malthusian outcome is based upon the world population outstripping available food supplies including meat. He recommended a read of a recent copy of New Scientist to gain an understanding:



I have just ordered a copy and a copy of the following weeks issue too.

So this isn’t about a carbon footprint for cattle. It isn’t about climate change. It is about world population growth and food supplies.

His message to me was:


“This weeks New Scientist carries an article about the number of people that can be sustained long term by current agricultural practices, I've read a bit of it, the headline number is about 3.4 billion less than half the current population but they think that changes in practice could support about 10.8 billion by 2050, it makes grim reading as it suggests that we could see the Malthusian catastrophe within the next 30 years.”

This is the New Scientist article:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...can-feed-only-3-4-billion-people-sustainably/

Listlad said:

@pdmjoker

Cattle gases do not contribute to global warming. This is a fallacy. There is a good diagram which illustrates why. Any gases emitted are recycled. There is no net addition to gas levels generated. If no livestock is added then the figures do not change.

Click to expand...

[snip]
Recycled HOW FAST? Methane stays in the air several decades before it is absorbed, and during that time, it contributes more to global warming than an equal weight of carbon dioxide does.

milesrf said:

[snip]
Recycled HOW FAST? Methane stays in the air several decades before it is absorbed, and during that time, it contributes more to global warming than an equal weight of carbon dioxide does.

Click to expand...

Agreed. However by comparison with other sources of methane it is a very quick cycle.

BTW isn’t it more like a decade.

Listlad said:

Okay I have just phoned a friend. It’s all about (restricting meat eating) an impending Malthusian outcome as the worlds growing population outstrips food supplies.

Click to expand...

Its doesn't make sense.
We probabely eat more meat than we need to provide enough protein and the right protein for our bodies. If you eat only plant protein it is not nutrient dense so you have eat more of it. Anyone who has been on a low carb diet will tell you end up eating less food.
The less land we have for crop cultivation, perhaps due to rising sea levels, the more important it will be that ruminants will be in converting poor grazing that we can not eat, in to edible protein.
The worlds population is predicted to fall, by the UN, the amount of the population under 15 is falling, and the baby boomer generation who in general have lived longer than their parents will eventually die.
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
A lot of the recent rise in methane is due to wet lands in parts of Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland_methane_emissions

Population - that dear people is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. So we sre being guilt tripped into suppposedly caring for animals (by making them extinct) and Climate change (kill the evil cows) So what we should be discussing is whether the proposed vegan like diet will sustain the population, and is really sustainable long term. In parallel we are indeed needing to curb our lifestyles to conserve the planet and stop it attacking us. Limiting waste, reducing fossil fuel use, updating farming practices to make them sustainable, removing plastic wrapping from my wastebin..

Replacing cows with monculture wall to wall soybean crops is not the answer we should be forcing through and planting zillions of tress will not cut it either. converting household heating boilers it hydrogen is a nice slogan, but not really practical. Electric cars for everyone is not practical, but electric or poo powered public transport is actually feasible now,

I am glad that some here are beginning to see the bigger picture. We need to raise the discussion above the them and us battles and start supporting initiarives that work to solve these problems. This is not a war against veganism but it is an analysis of the proposed global diet and how it will affect us and is there no other way. I believe there is.

I believe that dairy will actually provide a good compromise for most of mankind. It allows a low carb higher fat diet that seems to be so effective for many metabolic disorders, and it also provides us with the essentiial amino acids and vitamins that a pure vegan diet lacks. It is also capable of upscaling to be sustainable. To my mind this is a good solution (apart from the obvious 'ethics') and reduces stress on the use of fish as the only animal source used in the Global diet for omega3 source. As we know fishing is strugggling to supply current demand. What we need to do is make the lives of dairy cattle better by stopping live exports, cruel practices, and proper facilities for them to give of their best. We need to look on cows and sheep as partners, not edible objects, Sorry if this upsets carnivores but I am an onmivore, so I can adapt.

zand said:

I am afraid it's all about the money. Making veganism fashionable is very profitable. So what do you do if not enough people are vegans? Guilt trip people with fake science. Just like they did with the low fat message...which was also about promoting fake foods.

If folk want to live a vegan lifestyle that's great but to convince them they are helping the planet by doing so is an out and out lie.

Click to expand...

Critical thought is a rare find these days @zand .. feng shui was once de rigeur. Fashionable ... but easily disposable and the sooner, the better.

Classic example from a Melbourne suburb 2 years back ... 4 women opened a vegetarian restaurant and charged MEN more for their custom. Went broke in two months. They blamed the males ....