Milk's impact on the planet dairy, soya, rice, oat and almond compared

[Funky_monks]

You're going for denial? Try reading the links properly. They're stuffed full of references and links to sources.

Like this one
Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown
And this one
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

How much red meat should you eat?
Meat consumption, health, and the environment | Science

They aren't- they don't quote the science at all, they refer to "a study", but it's not referenced at the foot of the article, so I've no idea what the study was, or which journal it was published in, so I'm relying on a guardian journalist to interpret the science.
Unlike both of the articles I linked to which are referenced properly, so I can read the research that informed the opinion being expressed in the article.
For example: your first Guardian article refers to some research published in "Nature", but it doesn't tell me which papers/metanalyses they are, so I can't read them.
It then has three soundbites from academics - I have no idea what questions the academics were asked.

 

[editor]

They aren't- they don't quote the science at all, they refer to "a study", but it's not referenced at the foot of the article, so I've no idea what the study was, or which journal it was published in, so I'm relying on a guardian journalist to interpret the science.
Unlike both of the articles I linked to which are referenced properly, so I can read the research that informed the opinion being expressed in the article.

Try reading it properly. Again.

Example:

The new research, published in the journal Nature, is the most thorough to date and combined data from every country to assess the impact of food production on the global environment. It then looked at what could be done to stop the looming food crisis.

Which links to:
Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits | Nature

And

The study, published in the journal Science, created a huge dataset based on almost 40,000 farms in 119 countries and covering 40 food products that represent 90% of all that is eaten. It assessed the full impact of these foods, from farm to fork, on land use, climate change emissions, freshwater use and water pollution (eutrophication) and air pollution (acidification).

Which links to: https://josephpoore.com/Science 360 6392 987 - Accepted Manuscript.pdf

Etc etc etc

 

[Funky_monks]

Try reading it properly. Again.

Example:

Which links to:
Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits | Nature

And



Which links to: https://josephpoore.com/Science 360 6392 987 - Accepted Manuscript.pdf

Etc etc etc

I can only read the bloody abstracts for the first, the second is a metanalysis which does precisely what I was arguing against from the beginning, which is lumping vastly different production systems together.

 

[editor]

I can only read the bloody abstracts for the first, the second is a metanalysis which does precisely what I was arguing against from the beginning, which is lumping vastly different production systems together.

Ok. Denial it is.

 

[Funky_monks]

Ok. Denial it is.

It isn't, is it - its exactly the kind of study which I was talking about up the thread.
It's trying to provide a simple answer to a complex problem.
Lumping all beef production (for example) systems together will underestimate the value of the systems that store carbon whilst underestimating the harm caused by those that don't.

 

[editor]

It isn't, is it - its exactly the kind of study which I was talking about up the thread.
It's trying to provide a simple answer to a complex problem.
Lumping all beef production (for example) systems together will underestimate the value of the systems that store carbon whilst underestimating the harm caused by those that don't.

How about a study by the World Resources Institute in partnership with the World Bank, UN Environment, UN Development Programme, and the French agricultural research agencies CIRAD and INRA?

Here's the overview from yesterday's Daily Mail:

The world must turn towards healthy plant-based diets to stop climate change, a UN-backed report has warned.

Our food system accounts for between 25 and 30 per cent of greenhouse gases, and is choking the life from fresh and coastal waterways with excess nitrogen.

In order to feed the predicted 9.8 billion people on Earth in 2050, the world will need to produce 56 per cent more food compared to 2010.

If the level of meat and dairy consumption rises in line with current food habits, six million square kilometres (2.3 million square miles) of forests would need to be converted to agriculture - an area twice the size of India.

Two-thirds would be changed to pasture land, with the final third being used for crops, according to the Creating a Sustainable Food Future report.

And here's the report:
Creating a Sustainable Food Future

 

[Funky_monks]

How about a study by the World Resources Institute in partnership with the World Bank, UN Environment, UN Development Programme, and the French agricultural research agencies CIRAD and INRA?

Here's the overview from yesterday's Daily Mail:


And here's the report:
Creating a Sustainable Food Future

Once again, it's an overview.

I completely agree that we shouldn't be clearing forests for whatever reason, and we should be examining emissions within the food chain, most of which come from transport and processing, not farming. Take rice, for example. It has a small carbon footprint when it leaves the farm, but a massive one if it is bought washed and ready to cook in a non rice growing country, thousands of miles from where it is grown.


We are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we stop farming systems that actually reduce emissions, such as pasture based farming.

 

[editor]

Once again, it's an overview.

I completely agree that we shouldn't be clearing forests for whatever reason, and we should be examining emissions within the food chain, most of which come from transport and processing, not farming. Take rice, for example. It has a small carbon footprint when it leaves the farm, but a massive one if it is bought washed and ready to cook in a non rice growing country, thousands of miles from where it is grown.


We are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we stop farming systems that actually reduce emissions, such as pasture based farming.

I'm not sure why you think they're mutually exclusive. Oatly, for example, make a very big point of letting consumers know about the sustainability of their products
https://www.oatly.com/uploads/attac...-oatly-sustainability-report-web-2019-eng.pdf

But however you want to spin it, meat production has to be reduced. Full stop.

 

[Funky_monks]

I'm not sure why you think they're mutually exclusive. Oatly, for example, make a very big point of letting consumers know about the sustainability of their products
https://www.oatly.com/uploads/attac...-oatly-sustainability-report-web-2019-eng.pdf

But however you want to spin it, meat production has to be reduced. Full stop.

Where did I say that it didn't?
Meat production by certain methods needs to stop, and by others needs to be encouraged.

Joanna Blythman on why going veggie is not British

 

[editor]

Where did I say that it didn't?
Meat production by certain methods needs to stop, and by others needs to be encouraged.

Joanna Blythman on why going veggie is not British

Sorry, who is Joanna Blythman and why should I give a fuck about what she thinks? You were the one asking for credible links and now you've just posted up one to some pointless lifestyle opinion piece fluff.

I also wonder about the practicalities of a UK-based vegetarian diet. I do 90 per cent of my food shopping in local, independent shops and at my weekly farmers' market. Meat and dairy stalls form the dominant category in the market, a snapshot of the contemporary realities of small-scale food production. It's all part of our battered UK artisan food heritage, and I'm not about to let it go without a fight.

It's like small shops selling veggie/vegan food don't exist!

 

[Funky_monks]

As I see it, foodwise, the main things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint are:

Avoid: non British or Irish beef, avocados, some nuts (especially almonds), veg that has been airfreighted (see: peas grown in Kenya etc), soya, rice, processed foods and ready meals. Really, I would also probably avoid eating out at restaurants etc because of food waste.

I would keep eating: British beef, lamb, British veg, and wherever possible, cereals (but I think we import most of our bread making grain from Canada)

Of course, the biggest thing I could do is not to travel by plane and try to only travel by car when necessary (no decent public transport out in the sticks)

 

[Funky_monks]

Sorry, who is Joanna Blythman and why should I give a fuck about what she thinks? You were the one asking for credible links and now you've just posted up one to some pointless lifestyle opinion piece fluff.


It's like small shops selling veggie/vegan food don't exist!

There's plenty of peer reviewed evidence to support her opinion in the first articles I posted.

Here's a few:
Steinfeld, H. (2006) Livestock long shadow: In Food and Agriculture Organisations of the United Nations Corporate Document Repository.
Metz, B et al (eds) (2007) Climate Change2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group to the Fourth Assesment Reportof the IPCC, IIPCC, Cambridge University Presss.
Baument, K et al (2005) Navigating the numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Change Policy, World resources Institute, 2005, Retreived from www.wri.org/publication/navigating-the-numbers

http://www.regenerationinternationa...es-in-the-united-states-southern-great-plains

Fairlie, S. Meat a benign extravagance. Page 171
Why George Monbiot is wrong: grazing livestock can save the world
Judith D. Schwartz (2013). Cows Save the Planet: And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth. Chelsea Green Publishing. pp. 60–66. ISBN 978-1-60358-432-6
Nicolette Hahn Niman (2014). Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production. Chelsea Green Publishing. pp. 34–44. ISBN 978-1-60358-536-1.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/D...-GHG-Inventory-2014-Chapter-6-Agriculture.pdf
Dr Christine Jones - Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme
Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? | Worldwatch Institute

 

[editor]

There's plenty of peer reviewed evidence to support her opinion in the first articles I posted.

Here's a few:
Steinfeld, H. (2006) Livestock long shadow: In Food and Agriculture Organisations of the United Nations Corporate Document Repository.
Metz, B et al (eds) (2007) Climate Change2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group to the Fourth Assesment Reportof the IPCC, IIPCC, Cambridge University Presss.
Baument, K et al (2005) Navigating the numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Change Policy, World resources Institute, 2005, Retreived from www.wri.org/publication/navigating-the-numbers

Smack bang up to date. Now look at the UN report. Released last week.
World food security increasingly at risk due to 'unprecedented' climate change impact, new UN report warns

 

[editor]

As I see it, foodwise, the main things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint are:

Avoid: non British or Irish beef, avocados, some nuts (especially almonds), veg that has been airfreighted (see: peas grown in Kenya etc), soya, rice, processed foods and ready meals. Really, I would also probably avoid eating out at restaurants etc because of food waste.

I would keep eating: British beef, lamb, British veg, and wherever possible, cereals (but I think we import most of our bread making grain from Canada)

So do you think the customers of fast food outlets - which make up a huge percentage of meat sales - are going to start demanding non British or Irish beef? Do you think that's likely when price is often the driving factor?

 

[Funky_monks]

Smack bang up to date. Now look at the UN report. Released last week.
World food security increasingly at risk due to 'unprecedented' climate change impact, new UN report warns

That agrees with my point "action must be taken to stop erosion and capture carbon". Pasture based farming does both of these things.

 

[Funky_monks]

What's your point?

How many consumers demand non dairy milk substitutes? Not many. Just like not many currently demand uk produced beef.

 

[WouldBe]

But however you want to spin it, meat production has to be reduced. Full stop.

Monbiot was on C4 news the other day saying this and said that the rich pasture land that cows graze on should be left to revert to woodland. Where does he think we are going to grow all the protein rich vegies we will need to replace meat? The man's an idiot.

Earlier there was a graph showing how much water is used to produce a glass of alternative milks. Rice milk was one of the lowest. Do these clowns not realise that rice grows in paddy fields?. That's about as stupid as saying that fish needs a litre of water to produce a kilo of fish. I'd like to see them keep a 9Kg cod in a bucket of water.

Rice and oats are dry when harvested so you need to add a glass full of water the the ground material to be able to get 'milk' out of the process. As well as the amount of water required to grow the crops.

Waste from animals can be used to fertilise crops. If we stop meat production then we will either have to dig more fertiliser out of the ground or manufacture it which will use a lot of energy to do so releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

When you consider that vegetarians and vegans are supposed to like animals who is going to exterminate all the cows and sheep to stop the methane problem if we all went veggie?
Then what do you do about all the millions / billions of large herbivores all around the planet like zebra, water buffalo, wildebeast, antelopes and elephants that will all produce methane either in the digestion process or from their dung as it gets broken down?

Some clown was saying on the news the other day that we should stop draining the moors as the peat gives off methane. All rotting vegetation gives off methane. While wetting the moors would encourage the growth of moss which will absorb CO2 in the process it will also encourage the growth of the microorganisms that breakdown organic matter releasing more methane in the process. Also water logged moors will not be able to absorb as much water when you get heavy rainfall resulting in faster run off and the likely hood of more flash flooding.

 

[Poot]

Monbiot was on C4 news the other day saying this and said that the rich pasture land that cows graze on should be left to revert to woodland. Where does he think we are going to grow all the protein rich vegies we will need to replace meat? The man's an idiot.

Earlier there was a graph showing how much water is used to produce a glass of alternative milks. Rice milk was one of the lowest. Do these clowns not realise that rice grows in paddy fields?. That's about as stupid as saying that fish needs a litre of water to produce a kilo of fish. I'd like to see them keep a 9Kg cod in a bucket of water.

Rice and oats are dry when harvested so you need to add a glass full of water the the ground material to be able to get 'milk' out of the process. As well as the amount of water required to grow the crops.

Waste from animals can be used to fertilise crops. If we stop meat production then we will either have to dig more fertiliser out of the ground or manufacture it which will use a lot of energy to do so releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

When you consider that vegetarians and vegans are supposed to like animals who is going to exterminate all the cows and sheep to stop the methane problem if we all went veggie?
Then what do you do about all the millions / billions of large herbivores all around the planet like zebra, water buffalo, wildebeast, antelopes and elephants that will all produce methane either in the digestion process or from their dung as it gets broken down?

Some clown was saying on the news the other day that we should stop draining the moors as the peat gives off methane. All rotting vegetation gives off methane. While wetting the moors would encourage the growth of moss which will absorb CO2 in the process it will also encourage the growth of the microorganisms that breakdown organic matter releasing more methane in the process. Also water logged moors will not be able to absorb as much water when you get heavy rainfall resulting in faster run off and the likely hood of more flash flooding.

I don't know whether you've looked at the Exmoor Mires project which I was tangentially involved with and which interested me.

https://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/331244/EXMOOR-MIRES-PROJECT.pdf

The project was to encourage water to the moor to act as a carbon sink, which is beneficial to all sorts of wildlife. There are species that can only be found there. (I dug some of the ditches myself!) The saturation prevents run-off because there is no dry surface.

 

[editor]

Monbiot was on C4 news the other day saying this and said that the rich pasture land that cows graze on should be left to revert to woodland. Where does he think we are going to grow all the protein rich vegies we will need to replace meat? The man's an idiot.

Earlier there was a graph showing how much water is used to produce a glass of alternative milks. Rice milk was one of the lowest. Do these clowns not realise that rice grows in paddy fields?. That's about as stupid as saying that fish needs a litre of water to produce a kilo of fish. I'd like to see them keep a 9Kg cod in a bucket of water.

Rice and oats are dry when harvested so you need to add a glass full of water the the ground material to be able to get 'milk' out of the process. As well as the amount of water required to grow the crops.

Waste from animals can be used to fertilise crops. If we stop meat production then we will either have to dig more fertiliser out of the ground or manufacture it which will use a lot of energy to do so releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

When you consider that vegetarians and vegans are supposed to like animals who is going to exterminate all the cows and sheep to stop the methane problem if we all went veggie?
Then what do you do about all the millions / billions of large herbivores all around the planet like zebra, water buffalo, wildebeast, antelopes and elephants that will all produce methane either in the digestion process or from their dung as it gets broken down?

Some clown was saying on the news the other day that we should stop draining the moors as the peat gives off methane. All rotting vegetation gives off methane. While wetting the moors would encourage the growth of moss which will absorb CO2 in the process it will also encourage the growth of the microorganisms that breakdown organic matter releasing more methane in the process. Also water logged moors will not be able to absorb as much water when you get heavy rainfall resulting in faster run off and the likely hood of more flash flooding.

I'm sorry, i must have missed my post where anyone was arguing that the entire world should go veggie. Perhaps you could highlight it for me?

 

[WouldBe]

I'm sorry, i must have missed my post where anyone was arguing that the entire world should go veggie. Perhaps you could highlight it for me?

I didn't say you did. I was replying to (I thick) your post that referenced resource usage per glass of milk and one thing led to another.

 

[WouldBe]

The saturation prevents run-off because there is no dry surface.

Dry peat acts like a sponge. If the ground is saturated it can't hold any water so it has to run off. There was something on the news where they were re-wetting part of a moor by filling in the ditches not by digging new ones.

 

[Funky_monks]

That agrees with my point "action must be taken to stop erosion and capture carbon". Pasture based farming does both of these things.

I've now read the report, and although headlines in various news outlets talk about meat, no mention of it is made in the report itself, unless I've missed a bit.

 

[Poot]

Dry peat acts like a sponge. If the ground is saturated it can't hold any water so it has to run off. There was something on the news where they were re-wetting part of a moor by filling in the ditches not by digging new ones.

Nope. Wet peat acts like a sponge. Dry peat acts like a surface over which water can run. The ditches that we were digging were for wooden 'gates' in the ground to create a build up of water and stopping it running down the previously-created ditches. A peat moor will hold a lot more water than a river.

 

[ddraig]

<<snip>>

When you consider that vegetarians and vegans are supposed to like animals who is going to exterminate all the cows and sheep to stop the methane problem if we all went veggie?<<snip>>

really?? Really??
Not heard that one in a while

 

[WouldBe]

Nope. Wet peat acts like a sponge.

Damp or wet peat will but you said "saturated" which means it can't hold anymore.

 

[WouldBe]

really?? Really??
Not heard that one in a while

Well if you listen to the likes of Monbiot then methane from cows is a big problem for climate change. Something needs to be done sooner rather than later. Horses can live for 30 years so cows are probably similar so you can't just let them grow old and die naturally you'd run out of time.

 

[Funky_monks]

Monbiot was on C4 news the other day saying this and said that the rich pasture land that cows graze on should be left to revert to woodland. Where does he think we are going to grow all the protein rich vegies we will need to replace meat? The man's an idiot.

Earlier there was a graph showing how much water is used to produce a glass of alternative milks. Rice milk was one of the lowest. Do these clowns not realise that rice grows in paddy fields?. That's about as stupid as saying that fish needs a litre of water to produce a kilo of fish. I'd like to see them keep a 9Kg cod in a bucket of water.

Rice and oats are dry when harvested so you need to add a glass full of water the the ground material to be able to get 'milk' out of the process. As well as the amount of water required to grow the crops.

Waste from animals can be used to fertilise crops. If we stop meat production then we will either have to dig more fertiliser out of the ground or manufacture it which will use a lot of energy to do so releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

When you consider that vegetarians and vegans are supposed to like animals who is going to exterminate all the cows and sheep to stop the methane problem if we all went veggie?
Then what do you do about all the millions / billions of large herbivores all around the planet like zebra, water buffalo, wildebeast, antelopes and elephants that will all produce methane either in the digestion process or from their dung as it gets broken down?

Some clown was saying on the news the other day that we should stop draining the moors as the peat gives off methane. All rotting vegetation gives off methane. While wetting the moors would encourage the growth of moss which will absorb CO2 in the process it will also encourage the growth of the microorganisms that breakdown organic matter releasing more methane in the process. Also water logged moors will not be able to absorb as much water when you get heavy rainfall resulting in faster run off and the likely hood of more flash flooding.

Couple of points:

We wont be able to grow protein rich veggies on pasture land, it's not suitable for cropping, but it often grows grass very well. Good cropping land is worth substantially more money and often provides a better return than pasture.
Really, the only protein rich veggies we can cultivate here are peas and beans.

Leaving pasture to return to woodland will mean that we can produce even less food here (we haven't been self sufficient in food since Victorian times). We won't be able to use the woodland for anything, because, of course as soon as we utilise the wood, the carbon the tree stored is leaching back into the environment.

I fear that the reality of leaving a minimal carbon footprint will be a hard sell because it will both take effort and the diet of people in the UK will be reasonably "boring" if we are going to make a serious dent in food miles.
It'll probably involve a lot more growing your own veg/community growing, it will be seasonal and the types of food we grow well here isn't very exotic/glamorous.

I hope people can learn to like turnips and cabbages...

 

[Poot]

Well if you listen to the likes of Monbiot then methane from cows is a big problem for climate change. Something needs to be done sooner rather than later. Horses can live for 30 years so cows are probably similar so you can't just let them grow old and die naturally you'd run out of time.

So you are expecting everyone to turn vegan overnight? I'm not. How would you even go about it? Make animal products illegal? How would you deal with the inevitable civil unrest?

 

[ddraig]

And to state the bleeding obvious, cows, pigs, sheep etc are bred for food and held in disgusting conditions their whole life to satisfy demand for meat. As this goes down less will need to be bred, artificially inseminated and forced to produce more and more offspring

 

[lazythursday]

Couple of points:

We wont be able to grow protein rich veggies on pasture land, it's not suitable for cropping, but it often grows grass very well. Good cropping land is worth substantially more money and often provides a better return than pasture.
Really, the only protein rich veggies we can cultivate here are peas and beans.

Leaving pasture to return to woodland will mean that we can produce even less food here (we haven't been self sufficient in food since Victorian times). We won't be able to use the woodland for anything, because, of course as soon as we utilise the wood, the carbon the tree stored is leaching back into the environment.

I fear that the reality of leaving a minimal carbon footprint will be a hard sell because it will both take effort and the diet of people in the UK will be reasonably "boring" if we are going to make a serious dent in food miles.
It'll probably involve a lot more growing your own veg/community growing, it will be seasonal and the types of food we grow well here isn't very exotic/glamorous.

I hope people can learn to like turnips and cabbages...

We won't be able to use the woodland for anything - except storing carbon and helping prevent civilisational collapse... I really don't see that it matters whether or not we are self-sufficient, what matters is that food is grown in the best locations to do so and that (absolutely vital) trees are grown in the best places for that. Food miles are a total red herring in all this. The local food movement has been absolutely dire for understanding of the environmental impact of our diet.