Why is everyone giving editor unnecessarily argumentative bullshit?
Have you been here long?! Lol
I think the criticism at the style and use of the original statistics in this thread is entirely valid from the perspective of someone who understands the reality of milk production and its environmental effects, but would be keen to see these expressed fully, accurately, and without leaving a gap for deniers to squeeze through.
As subsequent posts have shown, this is a complex area once land use, water use and transport are factored into non-dairy milk production. A quick Google of UK dairy industry stats for example shows that some 50% of UK cows get pregnant by a bull standing up in the traditional way, which is not what editor has intimated. However, the use of artificial insemination also has a provably negative effect on conception rates and fertility, which means the more we use it the fewer calfs we are getting, and this means in turn that genetic research is now being used to identify stronger reproductive genomes in cows for isolation.
If you thought only a small fraction of calves came from natural insemination, rather than 50% or so, you would be inclined to underestimate the impact of AI on reproductivity and so create a skewed picture of the industry trends and likely future direction... Which isn't really being as well-informed as we could be.
Editor's heart is clearly in the right place. But he'll know better than anyone that if you aren't thorough in your claims and honest in your debate, you will get torn a new one round here, no matter who you are, and that is actually the way we prefer it.