nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Vegan dairy - The end of using cows?

Xcellor

Just came across a video on YouTube reviewing a product from this crowd https://www.perfectdayfoods.com/

Obviously not mainstream yet but if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows.

It is lactose free and contains same proteins as cow milk. So many products contain whey protein so the applications are huge.

Would be nice if some indigenous company started something like this.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

*I must have missed that. You need to check your plant biology sources - Leghaemoglobin is an oxygen carrier and hemoprotein found in the nitrogen-fixing root nodules of leguminous plants and NOT animals. It functions are somewhat similar to the hemoglobin of blood - but it is not the same substance.

Did anyone say it was a 'vegan' conspiracy? It's big business. That is not difficult to understand.

No the created proteins are not "consumed by billions of people daily" - these are synthesised proteins used to replicate naturally occuring wholefoods such as milk.

On the other tack you delved into - Cattle can and are finished on grass without supplementary feed depending on time of year and the condition of the cattle. No one wants over fat cattle. Plus when prices are low - it makes no sense to add extra cost to finishing cattle.

'Stuffing' (sic) is clearly hyperbole because cattle are not stuffed full of supplementary feed including soy as you implied. Supplementary feed when used can and does come from a variety of sources including on farm.

"Environmentally more sustainable"? - compared by whom and what standard of sustainability exactly? Do you believe all production systems are somehow the same and that we should close down all animal farming because big business tell people to do so - regardless where those people live or that dairy products provide an valuable source of nutrients in many different parts of the world, India included. Or does that not matter?

We can of course spend lots of time in spurious if / when future speculations about commercial applications of genetically modified 'yeast' - which has no relevance to reality as was detailed previously. But hey do feel free if you wish to do so...

Thanks for correcting me. I meant to say leghaemoglobin is a naturally occuring protein in plants, just wouldn't be as concentrated as what impossible burgers are. But yes while similar to animal type in function it isn't identical.

Irregardless my point was this specific protein hasn't been eaten in the concentrated quantities that are present so there maybe questions over it.

In terms of big business, the meat and dairy industry are big business too and have very powerful well established lobbies - they have been dominant and it's not surprising that milk is included in many recommendations as healthy as a result.

Proteins in isolate form are already extracted from milk, the very same isolates that can produced directly as a byproduct from this GM yeast. So it's the same protein.

Why does the process that makes the protein matter if it is indistingishable from the one extracted from cow milk? It's nutritionallly identical.

I don't see whole milk disappearing anytime soon but for every other type of dairy protein given that we can produce to the same qualilty in terms of nutrition why wouldn't we?

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

Thanks for correcting me. I meant to say leghaemoglobin is a naturally occuring protein in plants, just wouldn't be as concentrated as what impossible burgers are. But yes while similar to animal type in function it isn't identical.Irregardless my point was this specific protein hasn't been eaten in the concentrated quantities that are present so there maybe questions over it. In terms of big business, the meat and dairy industry are big business too and have very powerful well established lobbies - they have been dominant and it's not surprising that milk is included in many recommendations as healthy as a result.
Proteins in isolate form are already extracted from milk, the very same isolates that can produced directly as a byproduct from this GM yeast. So it's the same protein. Why does the process that makes the protein matter if it is indistingishable from the one extracted from cow milk? It's nutritionallly identical.
I don't see whole milk disappearing anytime soon but for every other type of dairy protein given that we can produce to the same qualilty in terms of nutrition why wouldn't we?

No worries

You dont believe that the plant food and fake meat / milk industry is not big business?

Milk is recommended first and foremost by non commercial health care specialists such as bodies like the NHS in the UK etc. They recommend dairy products as a part of a healthy balanced diet so those types of misleading arguments can be firmly binned.

As detailed - it's not the same - it's a synthesised form of the protein. That has been gone into some detail already. So lets put that one to bed.

As to your question "Why wouldn't we"?

Again I'm not referring to 'isolates' - I referred speifically to the recognised value of wholefoods and not highly processed components used to make synthesised dairy products.

Animal farming is vitaly important part of many many peoples lives worldwide and provides for livelihoods and is a valuable source of nutrition. I have already given India as an example where this is the case for many millions of people. Manufacturing fake milk and telling people they can buy it from some pan global corporation instead of producing their own is clearly not progress - rather it is simply more domination of the processes of primary production by the few in order to generate corporate profit.

Tbh I fail to see how the endless advocacy of these synthesised products have got anything to do with a persons desire to lead a vegan lifestyle. It's not as if there are no plant based alternatives out there for those who wish not to eat dairy products. Tbh the endless promotion of these synthetised commercial products by means of tarring all animal farming (as in the case of the use of supplementary feedstuffs etc) ultimately fails because such tarring does not stand up to scrutiny

Rather the questions should be directed at looking at why corporate interests are so preoccupied with developong these types of synethised foods / concentrating the means of primary production in the hands of a few and instead ask why others haven't stopped to question whether they should ...

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

No worries

You dont believe that the plant food and fake meat / milk industry is not big business?

Milk is recommended first and foremost by non commercial health care specialists such as bodies like the NHS in the UK etc. They recommend dairy products as a part of a healthy balanced diet so those types of misleading arguments can be firmly binned.

As detailed - it's not the same - it's a synthesised form of the protein. That has been gone into some detail already. So lets put that one to bed.

As to your question "Why wouldn't we"?

Again I'm not referring to 'isolates' - I referred speifically to the recognised value of wholefoods and not highly processed components used to make synthesised dairy products.

Animal farming is vitaly important part of many many peoples lives worldwide and provides for livelihoods and is a valuable source of nutrition. I have already given India as an example where this is the case for many millions of people. Manufacturing fake milk and telling people they can buy it from some pan global corporation instead of producing their own is clearly not progress - rather it is simply more domination of the processes of primary production by the few in order to generate corporate profit.

Tbh I fail to see how the endless advocacy of these synthesised products have got anything to do with a persons desire to lead a vegan lifestyle. It's not as if there are no plant based alternatives out there for those who wish not to eat dairy products. Tbh the endless promotion of these synthetised commercial products by means of tarring all animal farming (as in the case of the use of supplementary feedstuffs etc) ultimately fails because such tarring does not stand up to scrutiny

Rather the questions should be directed at looking at why corporate interests are so preoccupied with developong these types of synethised foods / concentrating the means of primary production in the hands of a few and instead ask why others haven't stopped to question whether they should ...

I feel like we are going around in circles. The process to make something is irrelevant if what it produces is nutritionally and chemically identical - from the point of being a source of food. A biological process is used, just not one that involves a cow.

My OP was specifically about proteins that are extracted from dairy.

"...if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows.

It is lactose free and contains same proteins as cow milk. So many products contain whey protein so the applications are huge."

Why do you keep talking about whole milk?

In a society that is becoming more aware of our impact on the environment we can't continue on a path of expanding dairy herds to meet demand from population growth. Something needs to change...

I don't believe dairy proteins are healthy and should be eaten by humans whether as part of whole milk or in isolate form.

"The milk protein, casein, promotes the proliferation of prostate cancer cells such as PC3 and LNCaP."

"Western diet, rich in milk and dairy products, animal fat and sugars, with high calcium contents, is also connected to the risk growth of PC (6–8). Greater per capita milk consumption are probably correlated with higher PC incidence and mortality according World Cancer Research Foundation 2007 (9–13)."

We are so biologically different from a cow and the milk produced by a cow is significantly different. To think we can just feed this to humans with its bovine growth hormones and not have side effects is crazy.

davidjtaylor

Xcellor wrote: »

I feel like we are going around in circles.

That may be the point. Vegan Sidekick on FB illustrates the nonsensical tactics of last-worders quite well.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

That may be the point. Vegan Sidekick on FB illustrates the nonsensical tactics of last-worders quite well.

Is it david? or do you just like attacking other posters from the sidelines as we have seen continuously, without you actually engaging in any discussion? It certainly does nothing to convince anyone else of such "nonsensical tactics" for sure.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

I feel like we are going around in circles. The process to make something is irrelevant if what it produces is nutritionally and chemically identical - from the point of being a source of food. A biological process is used, just not one that involves a cow. My OP was specifically about proteins that are extracted from dairy. "...if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows. It is lactose free and contains same proteins as cow milk*. So many products contain whey protein so the applications are huge. Why do you keep talking about whole milk? In a society that is becoming more aware of our impact on the environment we can't continue on a path of expanding dairy herds to meet demand from population growth. Something needs to change...
I don't believe dairy proteins are healthy and should be eaten by humans whether as part of whole milk or in isolate form."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6527888/". We are so biologically different from a cow and the milk produced by a cow is significantly different. To think we can just feed this to humans with its bovine growth hormones and not have side effects is crazy.

The point clearly already established is that the process is indeed relevant as it involves industrial production methods creating synthesised proteins whose usefulness or otherwise have yet to be shown. The endless promotion is very strange considering that it is simply another corporate commercial product.

And your own bias is clearly evident. Just because you believe that or want others to believe that - does not make it so. This from the NHS website on a healthy balanced diet.

Milk and dairy products, such as cheese and yoghurt, are great sources of protein and calcium. They can form part of a healthy, balanced diet.

As with all foods it comes with the caveat of dont eat too much. Simple really.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/milk-and-dairy-nutrition/

It remains milk from dairy cows is a recognised as a wholesome and nutritious wholefood. That is how it is.

If as above however you attempt to claim dairy proteins are not healthy then how in dogs name can you then try and claim that producing "same proteins as cow milk*" are somehow then magically healthy?

Do you not see the contradictions and inherent bias - no?

You may note humans are also biologically different from plants - and all of which contain plant hormones. Humans however have been consuming both plants and dairy products for millennia and no we haven't turned into anything strange from eating either of these two food types.

"...if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows."

Strange you would continue to completely ignore the importance of cows as a means of livelihood and nutrition to the vast numbers of humans across the globe and instead support the industrialisation of synethised milk and 'isolates' by already wealthy financial corporate interests.

Keep telling others what they should be allowed to do - even where much of that direction seems to come from endless promotion presented by those pushing a commercial agenda ...

And its not just me saying that ...

Dana Perls, senior food campaigner for the environmental group Friends of the Earth — are concerned that the FDA will not give sufficient scrutiny to this new wave of synthetic proteins. Perls worries that the adoption of these proteins will make our food supply even more dependent on the fruits of biotechnology. "
...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/02/747026144/dairy-ice-cream-no-cow-needed-these-egg-and-milk-proteins-are-made-without-animalike

PainInTheArse

Its crazy that dairy is put up on such a high pedal stool

, its on most of the worlds food pyramids and plates (I think the Canadians have left it out) and yet up to 75% of the worlds population are lactose intolerant.

I reckon there is some major dairy propaganda going on. :P

gozunda

PainInTheArse wrote: »

Its crazy that dairy is put up on such a high pedal stool , its on most of the worlds food pyramids and plates (I think the Canadians have left it out) and yet up to 75% of the worlds population are lactose intolerant. I reckon there is some major dairy propaganda going on. :P

And yet as detailed above - in India alone there are 75 million dairy farm (many with just a couple of animals) but hey go figure. I hear they are very good at 'dairy propaganda' (sic) there ...

PainInTheArse

gozunda wrote: »

And yet as detailed above - in India alone there are 75 million dairy farm (many with just a couple of animals) but hey go figure. I hear they are very good at 'dairy propaganda' (sic) there ...

If you look at the Chinese food pyramid, they recommend 300g of milk and milk products. That's very bizarre for a country, in which over 90% of the population are lactose intolerant.

The Chinese are the 3rd largest milk producers in the world.

Markcheese

Most dairy isn't consumed as fresh milk, it's fermented in some way first.. (To varying degrees) which uses up amounts of lactose... And apparently this has been going on for 10s of thousands of years (since before Europeans had a lactose tolerance)
But if you don't like it, or it doesn't suit you don't eat it... Like nuts or whatever,
Choice is the big thing... You can pay for processed laughing cow, industrial Red cheddar,or pricier farmhouse cheeses, it's your money,
Same with vegan or veggie products..

gozunda

PainInTheArse wrote: »

If you look at the Chinese food pyramid, they recommend 300g of milk and milk products. That's very bizarre for a country, in which over 90% of the population are lactose intolerant.
The Chinese are the 3rd largest milk producers in the world.

Bizarre if you try and only use a guestimate for an entire population I suppose.

Taking a quck look at a variety of sources it would appear there are a number of different opinions on the percentage of prople in China who are lactose intolerant

Although there seem to be no official figures,
some chinese sources suggest that lactose intolerance only affects around 10% - 50% of the population.

Other studies indicate that lactose intolerance affects around 30% of Chinese children, and approx 92% of adults suffered from some degree of lactose mal-absorption.

And that's the thing about lactose - it is found in breast milk, and almost everyone is born with the ability to digest it. According to the literature - it is very rare to see lactose intolerance in young children up to the age of 5 - 7 years of age.

Lactose intolerance is something which develops with age and is usually caused by a decrease in lactase production.

So even if we ignore the lack of consistent data on the level of intolerance in adults and consider the diet of young children - then perhaps chinese food recommendations are not 'bizarre' at all.

Markcheese

Has anyone tried lactose free milk, does it taste the same ish as regular....? I'm pretty sure they just chuck in a bit of lactase to break down the lactose, (but I can't remember what it breaks down to....)

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

The point clearly already established is that the process is indeed relevant as it involves industrial production methods creating synthesised proteins whose usefulness or otherwise have yet to be shown. The endless promotion is very strange considering that it is simply another corporate commercial product.

And your own bias is clearly evident. Just because you believe that or want others to believe that - does not make it so. This from the NHS website on a healthy balanced diet.

As with all foods it comes with the caveat of dont eat too much. Simple really.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/milk-and-dairy-nutrition/

It remains milk from dairy cows is a recognised as a wholesome and nutritious wholefood. That is how it is.

If as above however you attempt to claim dairy proteins are not healthy then how in dogs name can you then try and claim that producing "same proteins as cow milk*" are somehow then magically healthy?

Do you not see the contradictions and inherent bias - no?

You may note humans are also biologically different from plants - and all of which contain plant hormones. Humans however have been consuming both plants and dairy products for millennia and no we haven't turned into anything strange from eating either of these two food types.

"...if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows."

Strange you would continue to completely ignore the importance of cows as a means of livelihood and nutrition to the vast numbers of humans across the globe and instead support the industrialisation of synethised milk and 'isolates' by already wealthy financial corporate interests.

Keep telling others what they should be allowed to do - even where much of that direction seems to come from endless promotion presented by those pushing a commercial agenda ...

And its not just me saying that ...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/02/747026144/dairy-ice-cream-no-cow-needed-these-egg-and-milk-proteins-are-made-without-animalike

Is traditional agriculture and milk production is not already industrialized?

Interesting article you posted.

"If all this sounds a little too futuristic, consider this: Much of the cheese produced today already relies on the same technology in the form of rennet, an enzyme used to curdle milk. Cheese makers used to get it from the stomachs of slaughtered calves but for many years now, much of the rennet used for cheese has been made via microbial fermentation, notes Friedrich."

A further bit of information reveals this comes from none other than GM...

Fermentation-produced chymosin
Because of the above imperfections of microbial and animal rennets, many producers sought other replacements of rennet. With genetic engineering it became possible to isolate rennet genes from animals and introduce them into certain bacteria, fungi, or yeasts to make them produce chymosin during fermentation. The genetically modified microorganism is killed after fermentation and chymosin isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the fermentation-produced chymosin (FPC) used by cheese producers does not contain a GMO or any GMO DNA. FPC is identical to chymosin made by an animal, but is produced in a more efficient way. FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and, because the quantity needed per unit of milk can be standardized, are commercially viable alternatives to crude animal or plant rennets, as well as generally preferred to them.[8]

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennet

So another working example of how animals were taken out of one process which previously required them.

I can understand why dairy industry would oppose this as it threatens a big chunk of their industry.

Many dairy farmers are also not on board. For one thing, says Alan Bjerga of the National Milk Producers Federation, an industry group that represents dairy producers, products made with synthetic dairy proteins may not have the same nutritional profile – such as vitamin and mineral content — as those made with milk from real cows.

This is a nonsense statement. Obviously a protein isolate is not going to have vitamins and minerals anymore than a protein isolate from cow milk would. These "synthetic dairy proteins" do NOT replace whole milk but as stated there are many applications where whole milk is NOT required.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

Is traditional agriculture and milk production is not already industrialized? Interesting article you posted.
A further bit of information reveals this comes from none other than GM... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennet So another working example of how animals were taken out of one process which previously required them. I can understand why dairy industry would oppose this as it threatens a big chunk of their industry. This is a nonsense statement. Obviously a protein isolate is not going to have vitamins and minerals anymore than a protein isolate from cow milk would. These "synthetic dairy proteins" do NOT replace whole milk but as stated there are many applications where whole milk is NOT required.

My apologies. I only saw your reply now. As to your first question.

"Is traditional agriculture and milk production is not already industrialised? "

Simple answer is no. Most milk is produced on family farms. It is true that the milking process itself has become more efficient with the use of on farm milking parlours. But the process is not 'industrialised' or based in factories. Animals spend most of their time outdoors grazing and return to the milking parlour themselves at certain times of the day. It's quite amazing to see cows making their own way for milking and lining up to be let in.

Milk is collected and sent to one of a number of dairy co-ops for bottling and sterilisation as required by law. In Ireland dairy co-ops have been in operation for at least 170 years. In the old days the churns were brought by ass and cart. These days it is transported by milk tanker.

As for the rennet example. It's not that 'animals were taken out of the process" rather a solution to the variable supply of natural Rennet was developed by scientists due to seasonal variations in supply - this is detailed in your wiki link. Dairy farmers do not oppose the use of artificial rennet - as it makes the use of whole milk in cheese making a viable operation. The Rennent is simply the an enzyme
which plays a very small (but fairly essential) part in the making of cheese.

As for whole milk - from the website the company set up to produce and market this synethised product are selling it as 'milk'. With this being promoted as one of their primary products. So indeed these "synthetic dairy proteins" are being used as a substitute for whole milk. Hence the comparison

TheFortField

Danzy wrote: »

The rainforests are being burnt for Soy.

Almond milk is as environmentally catastrophic product as one can find.

As is the continuing corporatization of agri at the expense of small producers.

I drink Almond milk on a daily basis, is there a more environmentally friendly alternative milk?

I’ve ruled out a number of alternative milks for various reasons:

I don’t consume any soya products, soya milk included
I’ve concerns about arsenic levels in rice milk
I’ve an intolerance to gluten so oat milk is out

What’s left?

Xcellor

TheFortField wrote: »

I drink Almond milk on a daily basis, is there a more environmentally friendly alternative milk?

I’ve ruled out a number of alternative milks for various reasons:

I don’t consume any soya products, soya milk included
I’ve concerns about arsenic levels in rice milk
I’ve an intolerance to gluten so oat milk is out

What’s left?

What's wrong with soya are you allergic to it?

Not sure what is the most environmentally friendly, ive seen hemp milk before. Hemp can even grow in Ireland

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/tillage/wanted-farmers-to-grow-5000-acres-of-hemp-for-westmeath-firm-38292515.html

Maybe the new cash cow...

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

My apologies. I only saw your reply now. As to your first question.

"Is traditional agriculture and milk production is not already industrialised? "

Simple answer is no. Most milk is produced on family farms. It is true that the milking process itself has become more efficient with the use of on farm milking parlours. But the process is not 'industrialised' or based in factories. Animals spend most of their time outdoors grazing and return to the milking parlour themselves at certain times of the day. It's quite amazing to see cows making their own way for milking and lining up to be let in.

Milk is collected and sent to one of a number of dairy co-ops for bottling and sterilisation as required by law. In Ireland dairy co-ops have been in operation for at least 170 years. In the old days the churns were brought by ass and cart. These days it is transported by milk tanker.

As for the rennet example. It's not that 'animals were taken out of the process" rather a solution to the variable supply of natural Rennet was developed by scientists due to seasonal variations in supply - this is detailed in your wiki link. Dairy farmers do not oppose the use of artificial rennet - as it makes the use of whole milk in cheese making a viable operation. The Rennent is simply the an enzyme
which plays a very small (but fairly essential) part in the making of cheese.

As for whole milk - from the website the company set up to produce and market this synethised product are selling it as 'milk'. With this being promoted as one of their primary products. So indeed these "synthetic dairy proteins" are being used as a substitute for whole milk. Hence the comparison

I disagree with your assessment of the dairy industry. It's referred to as an industry for a reason. Even the cows that are used have been bred to ensure they produce as much milk as possible. Very unnatural. But then so is always being pregnant too. Poor animals that are subjected to this cycle over and over again, there is no retirement for them - just a trip to a slaughter house when they are no longer as profitable as they could be.

The example of rennet is to show how a product that you would class as synthetic can be just as good (in this case even better) than one extracted from animals. These synthetic proteins which are nutritionally identical to those extracted from cows milk also have significant advantages. The big one is not needing to have cows involved...

I'm more interested in the technology in general. I think it could be a huge disruptor and given the huge consumption of dairy products and the environmental impact associated with it we need to be challenging the status quo.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment of the dairy industry. It's referred to as an industry for a reason. Even the cows that are used have been bred to ensure they produce as much milk as possible. Very unnatural. But then so is always being pregnant too. Poor animals that are subjected to this cycle over and over again, there is no retirement for them - just a trip to a slaughter house when they are no longer as profitable as they could be.
The example of rennet is to show how a product that you would class as synthetic can be just as good (in this case even better) than one extracted from animals. These synthetic proteins which are nutritionally identical to those extracted from cows milk also have significant advantages. The big one is not needing to have cows involved...I'm more interested in the technology in general. I think it could be a huge disruptor and given the huge consumption of dairy products and the environmental impact associated with it we need to be challenging the status quo.

Well I'd be surprised if you argued otherwise as a vegan

. But no the primary production of milk is not an industrial process. Family farms are not 'industies'. Cows are still cows and do what cows do. That breeding has improved this aspect of milk production is something which is possible through good management practices.

The cows being pregnant is much the same as that which happens in the wild. Once a wild cow gives birth - the cow will go in heat and be impregnated - that's how it works. The main difference here being - that domestic cows are cared for and looked after by humans. Yes older animals are slaughtered and that is part and parcel of responsible farming. In the wild the same animals would be predated or starve to death. Good Animal welfare practises ensures that animals are humanely killed and then processed as food.

The relevant issue with rennet is that it is simply an enzyme and not a final product. What you are advocating is a wholey synthesised product which does not exist outside a laboratory. Tbh I never could understand why those who are vegan - (widely promoted as a diet based on natural wholefoods) inexplicably choose to advocate for such highly processed synthesised products funded by huge corporate interests.

The fact is that all food production globally contributes less than a quarter of all emissions and more importantly feeds people and provides for peoples livelihoods whether that is a small farmer in India with two cows or one here with 60.

It remains the bulk of greenhouse emissions (approx 70 - 80 %) come from the use of fossil fuels in the energy and transport sector and crazy that cows have become the virtual football in the game of food fashion wars and market share.

davidjtaylor

TheFortField wrote: »

I drink Almond milk on a daily basis, is there a more environmentally friendly alternative milk?

I’ve ruled out a number of alternative milks for various reasons:

I don’t consume any soya products, soya milk included
I’ve concerns about arsenic levels in rice milk
I’ve an intolerance to gluten so oat milk is out

What’s left?

It depends on where the almonds come from. Organic almonds from the EU are best. Avoid Californian.

Check out with specific manufacturers to find the origins of their ingredients.

Or better still make your own almond milk, it's simple and you can ensure you get organic EU almonds. It gets rid of the disastrous packaging that is Tetrapak too.

P.S. these people who blame vegans for destruction of rainforest for soy. Bollix. Most rainforest soy is fed to cattle; the bulk of the rest is consumed directly as a cheap bulking agent and as lecithin etc. So in reality, practically every scrap of rainforest soy is consumed by meat-eaters!

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment of the dairy industry. It's referred to as an industry for a reason. Even the cows that are used have been bred to ensure they produce as much milk as possible. Very unnatural. But then so is always being pregnant too. Poor animals that are subjected to this cycle over and over again, there is no retirement for them - just a trip to a slaughter house when they are no longer as profitable as they could be.

The example of rennet is to show how a product that you would class as synthetic can be just as good (in this case even better) than one extracted from animals. These synthetic proteins which are nutritionally identical to those extracted from cows milk also have significant advantages. The big one is not needing to have cows involved...

I'm more interested in the technology in general. I think it could be a huge disruptor and given the huge consumption of dairy products and the environmental impact associated with it we need to be challenging the status quo.

Cows being always pregnant is very unatueral?
What? Why? And how?

If anything farmers extend the period between pregnancy compared to nature, this is to allow cows calve in batch's at convenient times of the year it's actually not possible to shorten it. Many animals have much shorter gestational times and have multiple litters a year, as far as I know humans are the only animals who plan for not being pregnant.

[Deleted User]

A special place in hell is reserved for people who complain about the presence of lactose in medications.

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

Well I'd be surprised if you argued otherwise as a vegan . But no the primary production of milk is not an industrial process. Family farms are not 'industies'. Cows are still cows and do what cows do. That breeding has improved this aspect of milk production is something which is possible through good management practices.

The cows being pregnant is much the same as that which happens in the wild. Once a wild cow gives birth - the cow will go in heat and be impregnated - that's how it works. The main difference here being - that domestic cows are cared for and looked after by humans. Yes older animals are slaughtered and that is part and parcel of responsible farming. In the wild the same animals would be predated or starve to death. Good Animal welfare practises ensures that animals are humanely killed and then processed as food.

There is nothing natural about what goes on in dairy farms. It's an industry that has tuned itself to be as efficient as possible to maximize profits at the expense of other sentient non human animals. But we diametrically opposed on this point of ethics.

The relevant issue with rennet is that it is simply an enzyme and not a final product. What you are advocating is a wholey synthesised product which does not exist outside a laboratory. Tbh I never could understand why those who are vegan - (widely promoted as a diet based on natural wholefoods) inexplicably choose to advocate for such highly processed synthesised products funded by huge corporate interests.

Not sure I get you on this point. The dairy protein produced by this yeast exists in nature. It's the same one produced and found in cows milk. Yes it's made by yeast that doesn't naturally produce dairy protein but the output at the end is protein that is identical under a microscope from it's "natural" counterpart.

The fact is that all food production globally contributes less than a quarter of all emissions and more importantly feeds people and provides for peoples livelihoods whether that is a small farmer in India with two cows or one here with 60.

It remains the bulk of greenhouse emissions (approx 70 - 80 %) come from the use of fossil fuels in the energy and transport sector and crazy that cows have become the virtual football in the game of food fashion wars and market share.

A quarter is a big chunk and something that individuals can make small changes in habits to make an overall difference. Not everyone can go out tomorrow and buy an electric car so lets start with something that is achievable.

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

There is nothing natural about what goes on in dairy farms. It's an industry that has tuned itself to be as efficient as possible to maximize profits at the expense of other sentient non human animals. But we diametrically opposed on this point of ethics.

Sentient non human animals, do you think phrases like this help the vegan movement?

Is it meant to make animals sound smarter and therefore more deserving of life?
Dose it not also describe all creatures even those whos lives are very undesirable even to vegans. Don't see anyone campaigning to save the now endangered pubic lice, nobody is going to speak of the ethics of their silent disappearence from existence.

Xcellor

emaherx wrote: »

Sentient non human animals, do you think phrases like this help the vegan movement?

Is it meant to make animals sound smarter and therefore more deserving of life?
Dose it not also describe all creatures even those whos lives are very undesirable even to vegans. Don't see anyone campaigning to save the now endangered pubic lice, nobody is going to speak of the ethics of their silent disappearence from existence.

Are cows sentient. Yes.
Are cows non human animals. Yes.
Do cows feel pain: Yes
Are cows aware of their existence: Yes
Do cows have emotions: Yes

The dairy industry even recognises cows are emotional creatures. So called "good farms" talk about "happy cows" though it's hard to imagine how happiness could apply at any stage of a dairy cows life. Maybe for the day they get to spend with their offspring before they are pulled apart so humans can steal their milk.

Intelligence has nothing to do with the right to life.

I've never seen head lice being used before to justify animal agriculture...

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Killing a parasite which causes harm to its host is compatible with this stance.

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

Are cows sentient. Yes.
Are cows non human animals. Yes.
Do cows feel pain: Yes
Are cows aware of their existence: Yes
Do cows have emotions: Yes

The dairy industry even recognises cows are emotional creatures. So called "good farms" talk about "happy cows" though it's hard to imagine how happiness could apply at any stage of a dairy cows life. Maybe for the day they get to spend with their offspring before they are pulled apart so humans can steal their milk.

Intelligence has nothing to do with the right to life.

I've never seen head lice being used before to justify animal agriculture...

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Killing a parasite which causes harm to its host is compatible with this stance.

There is nothing technically wrong with the phrase "sentient non human animals" but it seems unnecessary and partially redundant even the smallest child understands that cows are non human animals but it's strange to speak that way. Personally if I were advocating Veganism and trying to use sentience as a reason for it that would be more than enough adding the "non human animals" just makes most people go :rolleyes: .

I know stupid comparison (but no worse than the why cow not dog argument)... Vegans constantly spout how all animals are equal. But obviously they are not. The thing about lice is they could be made extinct and nobody cares, cows on the other hand are in no such danger unless of course the world actually goes vegan.

Hard for you to imagine something you have never seen. A few minutes of YouTube clips of some unhappy cows leaves you completely unable to imagine happy cows. It would be very difficult to get cows in from a field twice a day if they were not happy to come in to do so, but infact they come in to be milked at milking time of there own accord.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

There is nothing natural about what goes on in dairy farms. It's an industry that has tuned itself to be as efficient as possible to maximize profits at the expense of other sentient non human animals. But we diametrically opposed on this point of ethics.

There's little strictly 'natural' about anything humans do. Whether that is intensive arable or horticultural production or animal farming. If we are going to ban one on that basis - then we need to ban it all.

And more importantly such criticisms appear to boil down to certain extremes of vegan sentiment. And that's fine if you do not wish to eat dairy products. That's a personal choice. But the facts are that humans have been milking cows and consuming dairy foodstuffs since neolithic times - just as we have been with growing and eating crops since then. Humans continue to do much the same today - the main difference are the improvements in good management practises and animal welfare. And whose perceived 'ethics' exactly.'? And no milking a cow is not comparable to some daft comparison of human murder or other crimes which are often thrown by way of attack against the normality of producing high quality foudstuffs in a way that provides for the welfare of the animals.

The fact remains dairy products are a continuing source of healthy foodstuffs as recommended by bodies such as the NHS and contributes to an important part of of many vegetarian and normal diets.

Throwing everything at all animal farming (whether any such arguments even stand up to scrutiny) because of personal lifestyle / diet preferences, does nothing to bolster or even support any such criticism

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

...Killing a parasite which causes harm to its host is compatible with this stance.

As with all such beliefs there is a continium which goes from your own opinion to the equivalent of this ...

Don’t kill mosquitoes - let them take blood donation, urges French animal-rights activist

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mosquito-bite-kill-blood-france-animal-rights-eggs-a9036946.html

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

It depends on where the almonds come from. Organic almonds from the EU are best. Avoid Californian. Check out with specific manufacturers to find the origins of their ingredients.Or better still make your own almond milk, it's simple and you can ensure you get organic EU almonds. It gets rid of the disastrous packaging that is Tetrapak too.P.S. these people who blame vegans for destruction of rainforest for soy. Bollix. Most rainforest soy is fed to cattle; the bulk of the rest is consumed directly as a cheap bulking agent and as lecithin etc. So in reality, practically every scrap of rainforest soy is consumed by meat-eaters!

Correct that it's 'bollix' but wrong that soy is fed to solely to cattle. What is fed to cattle is the by-product or waste of the processing of soy into soya oil. The number one oil in terms of value and production globally.

The left overs of this process including the husks and soy meal are fed to cattle in the absence of other competing markets. So yes blaming cattle for deforestation is as much gross misinformation as those people who "blame vegans" (sic)

Tar.Aldarion

When growing soy, the meal is worth 3 to 4 times the oil, they care far more about the meal than the oil as it is up to 80% of the money they make. It's funny to call 60%-80% of revenue of a product the waste.

emaherx

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

When growing soy, the meal is worth 3 to 4 times the oil, they care far more about the meal than the oil as it is up to 80% of the money they make. It's funny to call 60%-80% of revenue of a product the waste.

If they stopped selling the meal, do you think they would stop producing the oil?

Also they are separate commodities, their prices vary hugely and your 3 to 4 times seems way of the mark (maybe there is a point in time where this was true?)

Aug 2019 prices
1 tonne soya oil was €793
1 tonne soya meal was €337

Now there is about 1 tonne oil to 3 tonnes of meal which means producing €793 of soya oil also produces €1,011 worth of meal.

So that means currently soy meal is worth 1.2 times soya oil. Way off the 3-4 times claimed. Both commodities are a valuable part of the crop both have there ups and downs but their prices are independent, one can go up while the other drops.