Vegan dairy - The end of using cows?

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.

And as per our previous in depth discussion on this topic - that is incorrect.

These are the relevant extracts from that thread:

(The) single most valuable component of crushed soya beans - the oil, is primarily used for human consumption, although the proportion used for valuable biodiesel production is growing rapidly, especially in the U.S. 

Although the figures in my comments refers to prior market values - the price difference remains much the same as per Emahex's post above ... .

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109226536

Metric ton to metric ton - soy oil is significantly more valuable. The waste products - which are Soy Meal (left over After the oil has been extracted)and Husks (the discarded outer part of the soy bean) in the absence of other markets are both used as supplementary animal feed. That's all type of animals including pets, horses poultry etc etc. Not just cattle btw.

No amount of creative accounting changes any of that...

davidjtaylor wrote: »

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.

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Give me convenience or death!

I agree MoF. Being able to make this milk (and cashew milk is even easier than almond milk!) in exactly the right quantities, fresh, when it's needed, with no carton to dispose of, is the absolute ultimate in convenience! Go for it!

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Gozunda got the world market live figures in Feb this year and I worked out based on the beans themselves (oil: 640.66 US Dollars per Metric Ton, meal: 345.02 US Dollars per Metric Ton):

Soy oil: $70.47 - $115
Soy meal: $282.92 - $307.07

That worked out at nearly exactly 3x-4x the price depending on the content of the variety of bean.

This was based on quotes saying that a bean is 11%-18% of oil and the rest meal, which you seem to differ in and there is some issue there?
"By financial value, soy meal exceeds that of soy oil. Only 11-18% (depending on variety etc.) of processed soy beans by weight is oil."

Only 11-18% in 1980 using only mechanical means of extracting the oil?

Vast majority of today's Soya is GM, it is modified to increase the quality and yield of the oil. Also the most widely used process to extract the oil today involves solvents extracting upto 23% of the beans weight as oil.

Very little would yield as poorly as 11%

But the point remains if the meal was not used as animal feed 100% of the oil produced would still be produced for human food and bio fuel etc.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

They may be independent markets but the ability to sell something is symbiotic over all your markets and total amount made per unit created.

It's funny that you'd say that. So you agree it's not mostly grown just to produce animal feed.

If it was there are plenty of alternative forage crops that could be fed whole crop to animals.

Price of soybean oil fluctuates and has reached prices over €1,500 a tonne could possibly do so again an increase in value of oil dose no mean there will be an increase in value of meal.

And yes funny enough farmers do keep producing crops/produce even when they halve in worth. In the last 10 years soyabean oil has varied from €700 to €1500 and meal between €300 and €700

Xcellor wrote: »

Yeah people have been drinking milk since neolithic times but in those times it was largely survival it's vastly different today in the western world though. We can choose.

I accept that cow milk finds its way into "what constitutes a healthy diet" but these recommendations are often guided by lobby groups that profit from dairy.

This is changing though. Canadas food "pyramid" as an example has changed to reduce the importance of dairy by itself.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46964549

From archaeological evidence Neolithic diets were not 'largely survival' by any means of interpretation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190910105353.htm

The Neolithic period in Britain ran from 4,000 to 2,400 cal. BC and saw the emergence of farming, with the use of domesticated animals such as cows, sheep, pig and goats, alongside crops such as wheat and barley. Archaeologists have also discovered evidence of complex cultural practices, with Neolithic communities building large monumental and burial sites.

If you really believe a public health body such as the NHS in the UK are guided or a "lobby group(s) that profits from dairy" - you need to put down the corporate plant fluid lobby pamphlets assp.

There is little doubt there are always fashions in food. It remains dairy products are still a healthy part of a balanced diet.

Xcellor wrote: »

Neolithic people did not have the variety of food available to us or the technology / supply chains / refrigeration etc. they needed to use animals as sources of food.

We don't. It's a choice. Milk is not needed by any mammal past weaning that's a fact.

There are many other alternatives available that mean milk isn't needed to have a healthy and balanced diet. Even sources like the NHS say the same. In fact there are large populations who consume nearly no dairy and are healthy.

Neolithic peoples had a wider variety of wholefoods available to them than we do today. Our loss.

They had their own means of preserving and conserving food. Many groups of people were also largely nearly self sufficient as well, although trade was certainly common where suplus food and other goods were produced. For example Axes produced on Rathlin Island have been found on the other side of the country having been traded many hundred of miles.

Re choice. That's fine if you don't wish to eat dairy products. You have that choice. Many people enjoy dairy products and eat them as part of a healthy balanced diet. And that's fine as well.

And here we are ...

What happens all the cows when milk and meat are replaced by alternatives?

auspicious wrote: »

Any buisness can only operate if there is a demand for it's product. The greater the demand the greater the supply.
In contemporary cattle farming, farmers do not wait around for the animals to breed naturally. That simply wouldn't do.
Approximately only 40% ( of the Irish herd ) are born from bull impregnation. This natural process takes time plus bulls are not easy to manage. This obviously implies one and a half times that number are artificially inseminated.

Artificial Insemination is the technical term. If you want to think logically about it apply the term to a human which has not been given a choice in the matter. It is forcible impregnation, and that itself is a euphemism.
The ever growing number of people turning away from meat and dairy on account of learning about the inherently cruel practices used to obtain these unnecessary products or their detrimental contribution to climate change reduces supply.  With less demand less cows will be forcibly impregnated and bred in to existence.
Every product derived from animals has a plant-based counterpart which uses significantly less resources and causes less animals to suffer.

When in nature has a cow ever chosen to get impregnated? If a bull is in a field with a cow she gets no choice, never once have I seen a cow opt out.. #moo too!

AI is not used because the natural process takes time, you cannot speed up the natural process a cow can only be impregnated if she is in heat which is about every 21 days, where do you even get this information from?

Yes AI is used over bulls in a lot of cases for safety reasons but the main reason is selective breeding.

To answer the previous posters question in the case where cows are no longer needed for farming the vast majority will need to be slaughtered any remaining kept in cow sanctuaries will require regular culling except in areas where there is a natural large predator to keep there numbers in check.

emaherx wrote: »

When in nature has a cow ever chosen to get impregnated? If a bull is in a field with a cow she gets no choice, never once have I seen a cow opt out.. #moo too!

AI is not used because the natural process takes time, you cannot speed up the natural process a cow can only be impregnated if she is in heat which is about every 21 days, where do you even get this information from?

Yes AI is used over bulls in a lot of cases for safety reasons but the main reason is selective breeding.

To answer the previous posters question in the case where cows are no longer needed for farming the vast majority will need to be slaughtered any remaining kept in cow sanctuaries will require regular culling except in areas where there is a natural large predator to keep there numbers in check.

In this case we will decimate the cattle species on earth by initially slaughtering excess stock and subsequently the loss thru extinction of hundreds of breeds of cattle

Wegian wrote: »

In this case we will decimate the cattle species on earth by initially slaughtering excess stock and subsequently the loss thru extinction of hundreds of breeds of cattle

No.

As I explicitly stated, buisness' work on supply and demand.
Hypothetically if everyone switched to meat and milk alternatives overnight ( this will not happen period ) then there would be excess cattle stock- because they already exist.
But by keeping the bull away and not artificially inseminating them there will not be excess stock. So there will be nothing to cull.

The types of breeds of cattle today are not natural in nature but have been selectively bred through the years to maximise profits. Today a cow produces ten times as much milk then they would naturally. A cow’s natural lifespan is 20 to 25 years but dairy cows are considered ‘worn out’ at 5 years old by the strain of constant milk and calf production and are slaughtered. Beef cattle are slaughtered between one and two years.
The huge overproduction of milk has severe welfare implications for dairy cows and has resulted in a number of ‘production’ diseases, including mastitis and lameness. A cow heading down to an automated milking parlour is not doing so because it is fun. Rather the weight of the milk hanging between the hind legs is very uncomfortable.
Mastitis in dairy cows is caused by udder infections, usually resulting from bacteria introduced either during the milking process or from environmental contact. Examples include contamination from milking equipment, milking personnel, manure contamination or dirty stalls.

If over time everyone did switch to the diet with the least impact on the planet which is veganism, large swathes of land could be rewilded. This is essentially giving the natural landscape a helping hand initially and then allowing it to do it's thing. It creates an abundance of native flora and fauna and thus a much healthier ecosystem then exists today.
One which is not under the constant strain of agricultural polluiton from pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers making their way into groundwater jeopardising drinking water. Oxygen levels in water reduced as a result of excess nitrates from manure and fertilisers badly affects aquatic life and compounds dead zones. Ireland has 20 dead zones.

auspicious wrote: »

.....

If over time everyone did switch to the diet with the least impact on the planet which is veganism, large swathes of land could be rewilded.

This is essentially giving the natural landscape a helping hand initially and then allowing it to do it's thing. It creates an abundance of native flora and fauna and thus a much healthier ecosystem then exists today.

...

We already discussed all the stuff about cows being milked etc and found it mainly to be misinformation taken from various vegan websites. So not bothering going all over that again

The highlighted bit is another much repeated piece of vegan 'thunk' which again does not stand up to a scutiny.

It mainly seems to come from the idea that crops are grown and fed solely to domestic animals. And by freeing this land - then it will all become magically available for other uses such as forestry or just left to go "wild'.

And this been shown to be pure baloney. And yet the same old vegan kitchen sink throwing continues...

The fact is the bulk of all the supplementary feedstuffs fed to cattle and other domestic animals is made up of the left overs and by-products of the human food industry.

Animal food sources make a vital contribution to global nutrition and are an excellent source of macro- and micronutrients. Livestock products make up 18% of global calories, 34% of global protein consumption and provides essential micro-nutrients, such as vitamin B12, iron and calcium. Livestock use large areas of pastures where nothing else could be produced. Animals also add to agricultural production through manure production and drought power. Further, keeping livestock provides a secure source of income for over 500 million poor people in many in rural areas.

This study determines that 86% of livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption. If not consumed by livestock, crop residues and by-products could quickly become an environmental burden as the human population grows and consumes more and more processed food. .

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html

So no - the fact is the land used to grow these crops wont be available to be abandoned. And with an ever increasing population - there is zero chance of this ever been anything other than a pipe dream.

As for the next often repeated rubbish seem on nearly every vegan activism website -

One which is not under the constant strain of agricultural polluiton from pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers making their way into groundwater jeopardising drinking water. Oxygen levels in water reduced as a result of excess nitrates from manure and fertilisers badly affects aquatic life and compounds dead zones. Ireland has 20 dead zones.

Some of the biggest users of pesticides/ herbicides/ and fertilisers in modern agriculture occurs within intensive arable and horticultural production. Imo these production methods can certainly be cleaned up - but it needs to be remembered that the present highly efficient production of food is heavily linked to the use of these resources.

Put simply - stopping agriculture means stopping food production. Getting rid of cattle means getting rid of our means to prevent waste and the use of permanent grasslands to help feed people.

Just because someone may choose to be vegan - certainly does not give their dietary choices precedence over reality.

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Do you have a source or sources for that highlighted passage?

Well your colleague in the post above yours agrees in the opening sentence of his penultimate paragraph.
Feel free to correct him.

auspicious wrote: »

Well your colleague in the post above yours agrees in the opening sentence of his penultimate paragraph.
Feel free to correct him.

???? Where????