To be mad at FIL for feeding my daughter meat?

[Fruitypebbles]

Hi, just joined the site to ask this.

We're vegans, and my daughter has been raised and weaned vegan. She's 5 and happily eats anything put in front of her. She's very healthy, not lacking in any vitamins or nutrients at all and is beautiful, happy and refuses to eat meat usually because she knows in child friendly terms why we are vegans.

Despite her health being perfectly fine (she rarely ever gets ill, let alone any deficiencies in iron and protein - there's plenty of protein in plants!) my FIL thinks we're evil. We've given him all the information, shown him exactly how much she gets in a normal day and he can see how healthy she is. He fed her a meat casserole, she obviously couldn't recognise the meat in the stew because we use meat subs occasionally. She was very, very sick after this as her body can't digest meat after never eating it. Why can't he just respect our choices to not eat animal products? AIBU?

[dizzytomato]

I think there's probably a lot we don't know about the process because animals that have evolved with grasslands that can only sustain 1 animal every 700 hectares and yet have evolved to live in herds considerably higher than that doesn't make much sense. If it's that high for cows, it would be even higher for giraffes and no natural levels of the animals would even be sustainable. Methane levels would have been increasing for centuries not just in the last 100 years.

It is absolutely certain that there's a problem, my calculation shows Britain has too many cows. Not to mention the ones grazed on cleared rainforest with grass that cannot sustain them and being fed n other products (which apparently increases methane)

There's also the small fact that over 70% of the world's cattle live in India and Brazil and yet the USA and China are responsible for the majority of methane emissions released annually. So why is that if cattle are the biggest methane polluters you would expect to see a ot more methane coming from Brazil. Yet the USA accounts for 37000 a year compared with Brazil's 8900. The UK alone contributes half what Brazil does despite having less than 1% of the number of cows and 2% of the population and landmass. That can't be right if cows are such massive producers of methane. Interestingly Britain has higher C02 emissions and is more reliant on fossil fuels than Brazil, so again my concern is, is it is something about the developed world lifestyle that's causing such massive levels of pollution and what is it in the UK and the USA other than cows that is contributing such enormous levels of methane pollution? There is a high possibility that it is farming methods rather than what is actually being farmed and we could be looking at a scape cow (wink).

Thanks for the debate and one thing we both agree on is modern farming methods are a bad thing. Hope we've both given people food for thought (no pun intended)

[bbpp]

It's more than they estimated, although I don't doubt I probably messed up my calculations somewhere! I used info from "New Zealand’s largest Crown Research Institute, AGResearch" at 50 gallons per day. Which is 96 377 147.86mg. Which mean's each cow needs 7034m2, or 0.7034 hectares. Definitely not 100 cows per hectare. That would mean a 75 hectare farm can process 10,275,000mg of methane. Or like, 10% of a single cow.

Now I've embarrassed myself (twice) I hope at least that calculation is right. Not that it particularly matters as we know their are multiple and serious environmental risks from livestock. And health. And ethical. But grass definitely isn't particularly making an impact on how much livestock methane enters in the environment.

Anyway, nice debate. Enjoy your farm. We're both trying to do our bit to help it seems.

[dizzytomato]

Actually looking at other sources say 100kg a day, so which one is it or is that per day taking into account transport or other factors? Other sites say it is impossible to know exactly how much cows or other grazing animals actually produce, it can't accurately been measured and depends on many factors! So based on that I think I'll wait until it has been properly investigated and continue to live off my land.

[dizzytomato]

Your calculations are way off! Firstly a dairy cow produces 110 kg per year and a beef cow 55kg. muchadoaboutclimate.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/how-much-methane-does-a-cow-actually-produce/
So divide that by 365 and you get 0.27 for dairy cows per day and 0.15kg per day for beef. Now grass per square metre processes 13.7 mg or 0.0000137 kg. There are 10000 m2 in a hectare. So 0.0000137 x 10,000 gives you 0.137 per hectare. The average UK farm is 50-100 hectares giving you between 6.85 and 13 kg a day. Or about 45-90 cows. That's half the number the average farm has so the uk has a problem. Sheep are probably within the range, as are horses as both also produce methane. So the number of cows needs to be reduced, but not dramatically so.

Using those calculations for my farm which is 1000 hectares it can process 137kg per day. 100 dairy cows (we have half that) produce 27kg and 100 beef cows produce 15kg. Even if you halve the amount the farm can process to 70kg as we have coffee and some other fruits and vegetables we still stay under the threshold.

[bbpp]

Oops I messed up my calculations too! It's actually 1738 acres per cow needed! Still unsustainable though and much higher than the article suggested. With the right calculation it turns out that with a completely grass covered UK we can only support 34,477 cows. Not 9.7 million.

[bbpp]

The cancer research link says 'But some research suggests there could be a link between dairy intake and the risk of developing prostate and ovarian cancers.' This video goes into the evidence more carefully, albeit only for prostate, and throws in a comparison with almond milk for good measure. [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15531686 This gives a quick run down of ovarian cancer]] It does say high intakes, but I'm fairy sure oats or almonds don't cause it at all. It's easy enough to avoid carrageenan if that worries you.

That Greenpeace article agrees with the contribution of livestock to green house gas emissions and that a vegan diet would be successful at helping livestock. The primal eye article is highly inaccurate. The 'grass is great' articles assumption that a hectre of grass absorbs 100 cows worth of methane is wrong. A cow produces 50 gallons of methane a day, equivalent to 96 377 147.86mg. A single cow would require over 7,000 acres to absorb the methane is produces, when calculated using the most 'efficient' area found. 1.8 acres is seen as a good rule of thumb per cow. It doesn't add up. Then add on deforestation, Co2 emissions, and use of water onto that. In the UK there are 9.7 million cattle, even if the entirety of the UK was just grass we only have 28% of the total land area needed for cows to not be having a hugely detrimental effect.

The UN's calculation's are trustworthy. It compares 'livestock' to 'transport emissions'. Manufacturing is calculated separately. I'm not sure why this one group's calculations should trump all others.. He turns the statistics to 'everything involved in transportation' and 'raising cattle and pigs'. He can't suggest a statistic isn't accurate, then fight it with an inaccurate one himself. America is also a bit of a different ball game, as they are huge manufacturers and drive everywhere. When you look at worldwide statistics what you see in the US is not what is seen everywhere. He also advocates for 'efficient' farming to cut green house gas emissions. This is NOT cows grazing on large amounts of pasture, as your other article says could help limit the amounts of methane the reaches the air. This is NOT good conditions, happy cows, free range. Efficient means factory farms. It's 2016 and too late for that. If we can not raise meat sustainably in a humane manner than we shouldn't be eating meat.

[dizzytomato]

bbpp hasn't advocated over consumption, the developed world consumes too much, too much of everything not just food. Changing that would make a massive contribution to the environment. Developed world landfill contributes more methane than the dairy industry. So continuing to use packaging for foods like milk substitutes is still a problem. What makes you think I haven't seen cowspiracy? Because I eat meat and dairy? Not everyone becomes a vegan just because they watch it, it is a one sided documentary.

The documentary massively underplays the pollution of fossil fuels and the transport industry. Comparing the llivestock industry with exhaust emissions is not the same as comparing the llivestock industry with the transport industry (taking into account road building, manufacturing and disposal) you are looking at a figure closer to 50% or more. The phrase letting the greater villain lose comes to mind. The film is also very inaccurate about. Greenpeace

grass can lock down the methane produced by the animals that graze it , so the actual methane produced and the methane released into the atmosphere can be very different. Grasslands are vital for the planet, to plant other plants on them could be environmentally devastating as could removing the grazers. Grazing animals are part of the ecosystem of grasslands. Growing crops for intensive agriculture is really a serious problem but eating beef raised on grass is not necessarily an evil planet destroying thing to do. Most methane emissions come from humans, the USA contributes 60% of methane emissions. Fraking, Fossil fuels and landfills contribute a lot more than grazing animals.

this is interesting it s not black and white. I'm not saying a vegan diet isn't good for the environment. I am saying it will not save the planet like some would have you believe.

[fascicle]

dizzy
I use almond milk as an example because a lot of vegans drink Alpo, cutting that out would be part of their contribution.

You say this, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that dairy farming requires more water than almond growth. I didn't see any Alpro in the US last year. It's a European company, using Mediterranean almonds.

why are you so convinced that keeping over consumption as it is and just cutting out meat and dairy would solve all the world's problems.

Please point out where bbpp has advocated over consumption. Vegans tend to weigh less than those on non vegan diets and are less prone to over consumption. Cutting down on meat and dairy produce, for the environment and for health, has been advocated for some time by different sources, it's not just a vegan thing.

[dizzytomato]

That article doesn't really mean anything, does it?*
Well if that article doesn't mean anything, then by that logic none of them do.

Milk is the second most inflammatory food (after gluten) and is directly linked to various cancers, diabetes, etc. One has been proven, the other has not.

No it hasn't. www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/does-milk-cause-cancer

A balanced diet with natural food that is not factory processed and not poisoned by pollutants and leaked toxins is the healthiest.

I don't think it's healthy to eat too much meat and dairy but the vegans I know eat far too much factory processed food and two of them are considerably over weight. Their diet is far from healthy.

I've told you that the majority of the world cannot eat an exclusive vegan diet, it is a developed world luxury. You even said the so called third world is exempt from your opinion that the whole world should go vegan.

The developed world eating patterns and over consumption and throw away lifestyle is the main problem. I say changing that would benefit the planet, why are you so convinced that keeping over consumption as it is and just cutting out meat and dairy would solve all the world's problems. A vegan diet is a choice, it should not and cannot be forced on people.

You, me and everyone on the planet has a duty to reduce consumption, reverse the trend of intensive farming. That means buying local produce, paying more for meat and dairy from better sources and cutting processed crap out of your diet. I use almond milk as an example because a lot of vegans drink Alpo, cutting that out would be part of their contribution. I am not hung up on almonds, I love almonds, we eat them but in their natural form not the intensively farmed and processed variety. Those, like all other intensive farmed products are what I am against.

[fascicle]

pearlylum
No way would I drink soy milk. It's not healthy.

Evidence please (preferably human based, rather than with reference to rats, genistein etc).

Unfermented soya contains endocrine disrupters.

How does that compare to dairy milk from pregnant cows?

pearlylum
^www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/oct/21/almond-milk-quite-good-for-you-very-bad-for-the-planet^

From that article (which also sites a 2% almond content for Alpro almond milk):

this isn’t to say cow’s milk, which takes about 100 litres of water to produce 100ml of milk, is more environmentally friendly – more that its production is not concentrated in one area of the globe

Re: almond growing in California - it's as though almonds are being made responsible for California's droughts. If growing almonds in California is such a problem, grow something else! Almonds are also grown in plenty of European countries, where less water will be required.

[bbpp]

That article doesn't really mean anything, does it? Water pumping is not the fault of almonds when livestock uses up 50% of California's water. Almond growing is getting more efficient requiring 33% less water. With alfalfa being the most thirsty plant, reducing our production of it and switching to almonds is surely a good thing? And this is happening due to an increase in demand for almonds, which means a decrease in dairy products, and since cow's milk is the most water intensive this is surely a good thing for California and the world's water resources. A decrease in cow's is a good thing for the planet all together.

It has been linked to inflammation of the intestines. Any potential effects of this are inconclusive for the form of carrageenen used in plant milks. Milk is the second most inflammatory food (after gluten) and is directly linked to various cancers, diabetes, etc. One has been proven, the other has not.

I'm not sure why we're getting hung up on one little nut though, which is not necessary for a vegan diet. And neither is plant milks.

Looking at the big picture clearly shows how positive a vegan diet is, and I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to accept that. Cowspiracy and Forks over Knives could be interesting for you to watch, they go into environmental and health issues. You have such a strong stance it seems silly to not look into it properly, and then you can be confident in your opinion either way. It's not really possible to be without knowing all the facts.

[dizzytomato]

Californian farmers are moving away from Alfata and into nut production.

Which could be bad news for California. This article tells it from both sides and sounds much more realistic.
www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/real-problem-almonds

I didn't find anything when I searched Almond milk and language delay either but when I searched for information about the individual ingredients in Almond milk I did find information about an ingredient that is potentially harmful, especially in pregnancy. Bands like Alpo contain carrageenan and that could be what the nurse was talking about.

[pearlylum]

Substitute milk that should read.

[pearlylum]

I don't drink milk anyway, dairy or otherwise.
I have never given my kids dairy or any other type of milk.

[bbpp]

Pearly, if you clicked previous you'll see that discussing of almond milk's water consumption is a red herring.

I'll repeat anyway. Dairy uses far much more water for an equivalent amount. The most water intensive crop California grows is alfalfa, a plant used to feed livestock. The second biggest cause is pasture, which includes the land that livestock grazes on. California is America's biggest producer of milk, and we know how much water that takes up.

I'll post the graph, again.

[pearlylum]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/oct/21/almond-milk-quite-good-for-you-very-bad-for-the-planet

[bbpp]

I just did a search, 'almond milk language delays' and 'almond milk speech and language', nothing of relevance came up. Except one article which mentioned a possible effect of dairy on language development.

[dizzytomato]

you know, I guess the nurse was wrong. Perhaps she was paid by the dairy industry she told me it was linked with language delay, the two people I know who consume vast quantities of almond milk have children with speech and language problems. So I will keep well clear, thanks.

I don't eat processed foods, not a single one. Everything we eat comes from the farm. No one is going to convince me that stuff sold on a massive scale in vacuum containers from a factory is better for me than the milk from my own cows. My son had severe excema in London. I was told both dairy and sun would make his symptoms worse. He was so bad once he was wet wrapped in the hospital and it was depressing. Four months of living with clean air and fresh food and not only is his exema gone but he can now wash in washing up liquid and it wouldn't do anything to his skin. Everytime we go back to London it flares up again and as I said up thread my vegetarian mother feeds my kids Linda McCartney and meat substitute crap and I hate her doing it. But we don't see her often enough to care and at least when she comes here we can de-tox her

[pearlylum]

No way would I drink soy milk. It's not healthy.
I lived in SE Asia where a lot of soya is consumed, but always fermented. Unfermented soya contains endocrine disrupters.

[crazycatdad]

Exclusively drink soy milk here. It's sweetened with apple juice. Don't claim to have checked them all but I don't recall seeing a milk alternative that was sweetened with artificial sweeteners, I can't see that selling well given the market.

[bbpp]

And dairy milk has been linked to prostate and overian cancer, diabetes and high cholesterol. The casein increasing you chance of developing cancer when exposed to a carcinogen. I'm not going to worry about water and a little nuts/grain. Linked a graph about alfalfa.

[bbpp]

Oh, and California's most water intensive crop is alfalfa. Which is, are you ready for a shock, exclusively used to feed livestock.

[bbpp]

I don't know why you're posting that? Yes, all food has a carbon footprint, and uses water, and uses space. Rice is a staple carbohydrate for a large proportion of the worlds population, of course it contributes to green house gas emissions? Less than meat though.

Soy requires space. Cattle ranching is responsible for 4/5ths of Amazon deforestation. I have to wonder if 'foods, not cattle foods' was found on your source or if you added that on yourself, because currently 97% of soy production is used to feed animals.

I'm not sure the 16 almonds blended into water has many health risks, but you do whatever you want.

[SpeakNoWords]

I go for Oatly oat milk, it doesn't have any artificial sweeteners.

[dizzytomato]

You can't criticise commercial production, and make assumptions about it

No but I was told by a nurse to avoid alternative milks due to the untested health risks. There is lots of information out there and a lot of things in these "milks" that you probably shouldn't consume on a daily/weekly basis. Artificial sweetners for example.

Here's some facts
Soy Milk: 4 million hectares of forests are destroyed every year for soy foods. (foods not cattle food).
Rice Milk: Rice growing is responisible for 1.5 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and takes 1000-3000 litres of water to produce one kg of rice
Almond Milk: California produces 80% of the worlds almonds and is suffering from severe draught. farmers have been drilling into the ground to tap into aquifers. California uses 60 per cent of the US's managed honeybees to pollinate the almond trees, but up to 25 per cent are dying from the pesticides. Honeybees are endangered and that's not going to get better with mass almond production.
Dairy Milk: The dairy industry contributes about 3 per cent to global greenhouse gas emissions but organic methods can cut this by 35% .

The best alternative is coconut but it is not a good idea to drink a lot of that, it's too rich in large quantities. So I pick my own organic cows milk. It works for me, everyone else makes their own decision about their best option to lower their carbon footprint. Assuming that a vegan diet is a one glove fits all best solution is not always correct.