That would be because you've looked at CO2 emissions, and not greenhouse gas emissions, which should be an obvious error to anyone familiar with high school chemistry. Specifically methane, the primary source of which is the livestock industry (Though not in the US). IIRC, the figure that the livestock industry makes up is closer to 19% of total greenhouse emissions worldwide, although that figure is from some time ago. And you know, methane is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. A bit of that pesky physical chemistry.
So I'd guess that this would be the part where we stop taking you seriously, having apparently diagnosed a terrible case of veganism, the horror.
Yar ... and it's not even a case of methane alone either. We know grazing on distressed lands causes desertification, which reduces the soil's means to provide effective management of even worse GHGs also. People who think greater livestock numbers are the answer to rising food demands are completely ignoring the many millions of hectares we lose, yearly, to desertification because of it. Also ignoring the fact that a focus on increasing new cropping techniques actively fight desertification, and increase a struggling society's means of guaranteeing food security.
Grazing isn't even the only problem of livestock. Even if you somehow removed all grazing from the running of livestock worldwide (impossible, but let's pretend shall we?), you'd still have the problem of soil compaction and river and creek bed erosion, raising salinity as you either have to clear more land to accomodate cattle or run more cattle on smaller lots, ... rather than leaving more land to native grass and tree cover. If you remove grazing, then you have to commit more high yield environments to feed production. Rather than commiting such sectors and labour for food production to limit expansion of farmland.
Regardless of either it compounds existing bad agricultural habits and significantly reduces our means to meet food targets worldwide or guarantee food security going into the future.
Apparently it's 'vegan preaching' to assume a society should guarantee their food security by decreasing stock numbers and grazing. I'll be sure to brand every scientist I meet with the label and bury my head in the sand. Fortunately due to soil erosion and that our drylands are disappearing so fast I'm left with numerous options of which sands to do so.
We've only lost half our topsoil in 150 years. No biggie. Topsoil ... pffh ...
Livestock is a problem, but it's not one that you're going to see go for a long time. Meat and dairy are staples, and you'll face a fairly heavy pushback culturally, but at the very least, we should be working towards reducing overall consumption of meat. Raising animals for slaughter is an incredibly inefficient process, and most Western diets overdo the amount of meat consumption anyway. Pretty much everyone could do with less of it, if only it weren't so damn tasty, and the focal point of most meals. Insects are interesting, but I don't think we'll see a lot of uptake of that for a long time, lab grown meat is interesting, and the price has recently fallen dramatically, but I'm not sure how efficient that is though.
A lot of our livestock land is overstressed. The sheer amount of cattle we need, and the way property works, encourages the overuse of the land for livestock, and prevents rotation. The land simply doesn't get the chance to regenerate.
It's funny, the way our diet has turned out is actually a bit of a nuisance for us. There's quite a few cultures that due to the unavailability of large amounts of meat have come up with other diets that are often more nutritious, and potentially better for the environment. It's just sort of a weird effect.
No, you don't get it. We need to collectively cut down on grazing, all grazing. That is what every scientist is telling us, and no ... You can't just substitute all grazing of milk production livestock worldwide with feed. You can't even do that with the dairy supply in Australia or the US. Australia has to pasture 80% of its total dairy cattle. In order to fill our desire for dairy-vbased products we've doubled herd numbers on larger farms that haven't increase in size. I don't give a flying fuck about emissions because emissions isn't even the biggest problem we're facing. 20% of our dairy cattle range on land consider 'high' as a chance of desertification.
In fact, dairy cattle farms are decreasing due to changing environmental conditions and market consolidation by large dairy companies, dairy cattle numbers are still same.
In all instances there was degradation of land viability.
It's not a matter of 'reform' ... it is too expensive, too land intensive, to keep running the same numbers of livestock as we do. We've lost 20% of drylands, we've lost 24% of productive lands. The single largest source contributor to greenhouse gases is desertification. It makes up 35 to 40% of our total GHG accumulation. It is the worst man-made natural disaster and greatest reduction of biodiversity that we will ever face, and even if we stopped it right now, it would take centuries to repair the damage that is done.
Fine, dairy cattle are less worse than beef cattleby their own emissions ... they still contribute to desertification worldwide. They're still many times worse than rotational crop growing at dealing with the real issue of land loss. 'Reform' implies that that all we need to do is tweak something. We have to radically re-examine how we use land. But even that shouldn't be so daunting because at the moment, we lost 3.4T Euros worldwide from the effects of soil degradation last year. There is economic reasons why combating soil degradation is viable. Pretending like we can continue following the same agriocultural practices we have done is not going to help us. By all means, keep animal products ... but it's stupid to assume we can continue eating them in the same volumes and expect nothing to change.
Soil contributes to greater carbon sequestration than anything else, and if we don't maintain it, if we don't start moderating how we feed people, we won't put a dent in lowering emissions. Livestock are not the answer to meeting food security and supply. It's retaking land from desertification. Making lost land bloom again. The best way to do that is through modern crop development and less livestock. Dairy cattle are still worse than modern cropping practices. We should be raising land reclamation as a greater priority to finding means to feed people and combat climate change than meat and dairy.
More livestock will weaken our capacity to fight soil degradation.
My wife was raised is a bad environment were proper food preparation was not a common thing so if any meat product is not "fully cooked" (no red) to her it is unsafe. This is something that is non negotiable. It stems from something that was done to her that shaped her life. She knows what safe internal temps are.
Sometimes bad life events shape you in way no amount of knowing otherwise can undo. No amount of top shelf steak would change that. It's not simple.
Livestock is a problem, but it's not one that you're going to see go for a long time. Meat and dairy are staples, and you'll face a fairly heavy pushback culturally, but at the very least, we should be working towards reducing overall consumption of meat. Raising animals for slaughter is an incredibly inefficient process, and most Western diets overdo the amount of meat consumption anyway. Pretty much everyone could do with less of it, if only it weren't so damn tasty, and the focal point of most meals. Insects are interesting, but I don't think we'll see a lot of uptake of that for a long time, lab grown meat is interesting, and the price has recently fallen dramatically, but I'm not sure how efficient that is though.
A lot of our livestock land is overstressed. The sheer amount of cattle we need, and the way property works, encourages the overuse of the land for livestock, and prevents rotation. The land simply doesn't get the chance to regenerate.
It's funny, the way our diet has turned out is actually a bit of a nuisance for us. There's quite a few cultures that due to the unavailability of large amounts of meat have come up with other diets that are often more nutritious, and potentially better for the environment. It's just sort of a weird effect.
That's the thing ... you don't need to get rid of all livestock. We can keep the livestock and livestock numbers that we have, just don't increase their size. Reclaim lost land and you'll regain the best ability to store and process into organic compounds carbon and other greenhouse gases. Not only is soil the greatest source of GHG mitigation, but by reclaiming places of heavy soil erosion through viable crop growing and reduction of grazing, to promote greater vegetative cover, you also build up the natural GHG sinks of vegetation also.
I'm not saying get rid of animal products. I'm saying that a focus on land reclaiming by cropping and orcharding, and having these accomodate a greater share of our diets, is the way to go. Botswana is a perfect example that greater livestock numbers accelerates poverty and malnutrition because of desertification and overstocking. A rslow return to sustainable crop development and reduction of cattle in favour of soil conservation is slated to help feed more people.
The thing is that if we were merely to implement these strategies in developing countries, we could raise their living standards and contribute lasting action to dealing with climate change. You can't do it with livestock however. But that's not even the point we should be looking at. You're saying that people see meat and dairy as a staple, we will need to reduce livestock numbers as we lose more land regardless.
So either we look at new diets and new land reclamation strategies by choice ... or we suffer major food crises in 20 years where similar losses in agricultural production and viable land will serve to push us well below necessary supply. Either/or, something is going to change. We can either be smarter with land now, or we'll have no choice but to do something down the track.
So you're not going to prove what you're saying, just say a lot more of it? Well, can't say I didn't see that coming. I asked for you to show me, and if you can't, don't bother talking to me any more. Cattle for global dairy demand are orders of magnitude less damaging to the environment than global beef demand (see LightKnight's post). In fact it isn't even close. Show me your data specific to DAIRY and we can talk.
The way to prove that you're not "Vegan Preaching" is to show someone proof when they ask for it, not go on and preach for half a dozen paragraphs. You're just some random person online to me, I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR PASSION. I care about evidence you might have to support a theory you're putting forward, nothing more.
So the study I put up showing the effects of desertification and charted tested soil conservation programs and reducing grazing as the most effective options in food security and reclaiming land wasn't 'sciencey' enough? Yeah, Cambridge sucks like that. Or do you disbelieve the FAO's warnings on the loss of viable land due to overgrazing?
Or the link between desertification and greenhouse gases?
Or do you disbelieve in the overgrazing of Botswana and especially the region of Sandveld has critically worsened soil erosion?
I'm not your mum. You are more than couple of clicking on the links I gave to LightKnight. I'm done playing this game.
Also, just for your perusal.
http://www.rala.is/rade/ralareport/darkoh.pdf
A comprehensive study of specifically the Botswana problem and history of desertification in the region, if you'd like to see what even short term grazing of livestock can do in drylands without a focus on soil conservation efforts.
You: "BEEF BEEF BEEF! STUDIES ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF ALL CATTLE!"
Everyone else: "Beef and Dairy... very different."
I'll say it again though, as LightKnight has tried to explain to you already, they are different. Practically different animals. It's like damning Solar energy as evil and polluting because it exists in the same Energy Sector as coal. Get over it.
I don't know if you're trying to screw around for agenda purposes, or if you're just too upset to get it. Fortunately I have the benefit of not caring.
Actually, no. All overstocking was criticised if you bothered to read anything. Botswana is a fantastic example of what happens when you try to increase stock supply, regardless of livestock type (as cattle was not the only abundant stock type), to meet food demands and market. Are you telling me that Botswana could replace all its livestock with dairy cattle and fair better? Any increase in livestock to meet food supply is going to come with a corresponding degree of environment pressure to provide feed, or pasture.
In fact .... comparative studies of the Dairy industry in Australia (another high semi-arid/arid country) state that dairy production alone make up 12% of our national water usage. That it requires in Australia 800 litres of water ... to provide 1 litre of milk. That in order to get those volumes you need high pasture AND grain feeding.
For starters, dairy cattle cannot be run in most places. It is literally impossible to run substantial dairy operations viably without major grazing. We cannot look at dairy production to suitably feed people going into the future. Hence why there's been a push for soy-based products in places like North Africa and elsewhere as people are looking for alternatives. We don't have the land or the water resources to increase any form of dairy production.
Dairy cattle specifically in Australia is a failing industry. It is far more viable to simply run 2000+ heads of dairy cattle on farms rather than previous commercial numbers of an average of 263 prior the 1950s, to be commercially viable. We've gone backwards in terms of total dairy farms, yet total dairy cattle heads have remained largely inert. Regardless of this concentration, there is no means to be able to shift dairy production from grazing to feed. In fact half of our dairy production requires large quantities of both.
Lands are being degraded so fast that dairy production alone accounts for 25-30% of fertiliser sales in Australia to maintain necessary pastures. Raising dairy cattle numbers is not the answer to food security, or maintaining healthy lands. Fortunately I'm not telling people to get rid of all livestock. I'm saying that land reclamation, reduction in grazing, and modern cropping practices is more effective of feeding people and should be looked at to provide necessary foodstuffs to meet current and future demands on food and combat GHG emissions.
US standards are not very standard. Comparing US soil quality to most of the world is a joke. Australian dairy production has a higher emission rate even without factoring soil erosion and desertification. Primarily because the soil is already distressed ... but the funny thing is, Australian soil quality is a better representation of places like Africa, Middle East, Greater Asia region ... so if you plan to run more livestock to meet demand, you had best look at regional studies of soil conservation and sustainability. By looking at places like Botswana? Saying additional livestock, ANY GRAZING LIVESTOCK, is suitable means to meet food demand is dead wrong. At best, it's a short term measure, at worst it accelerates poverty and malnutrition.
No, you don't get it. We need to collectively cut down on grazing, all grazing. That is what every scientist is telling us, and no ... You can't just substitute all grazing of milk production livestock worldwide with feed. You can't even do that with the dairy supply in Australia or the US. Australia has to pasture 80% of its total dairy cattle. In order to fill our desire for dairy-vbased products we've doubled herd numbers on larger farms that haven't increase in size. I don't give a flying fuck about emissions because emissions isn't even the biggest problem we're facing. 20% of our dairy cattle range on land consider 'high' as a chance of desertification.
In fact, dairy cattle farms are decreasing due to changing environmental conditions and market consolidation by large dairy companies, dairy cattle numbers are still same.
You're saying that we need to cut down on all grazing, but the land impact of dairy cattle are extremely minor. Cutting down on even 10% of beef cattle would be the equivalent of wiping out the entire dairy industry. Do you believe that we need to have zero degradation?
I mean, coffee, cotton, palm oil, soybean and wheat all erode topsoil faster than it can maintain itself. While grazing is responsible for 35% of the degradation worldwide, agriculture is also responsible for 30% of it.
Heck, in the US, agriculture is responsible for 66% of soil degradation and grazing is still around 30%. So the claim that grazing is the great evil doesn't even come close to agriculture here whereas in places like Africa and Oceana those numbers are flipped.
So just proclaiming that we need to cut down on grazing doesn't make sense. Not when it is comparable to other categories and in some cases much less.
You're being too absolute and too discriminatory in general of one area. Not only do we need to eat, but the solution is improvements in soil sustainability rather than not supplying milk, cheese or meat. Grazing isn't the problem, over grazing is. Do you have numbers to support that dairy farming overgrazes at the same rate as beef grazing? I've already shown numbers that dairy cows require a tenth of the land that beef cows require so there's already a variance in land usage present.
It is financially advantageous for farmers to manage top soil and there are all kinds of practices that specifically address this because it saves a lot of money in the long term. Well managed grazing and manure application can actually improve the top soil in the pasture.
Better grazing regulations? More incentives centered around topsoil preservation? Those are things I can get behind. But no grazing at all? That's ridiculous.
No, you don't get it. We need to collectively cut down on grazing, all grazing. That is what every scientist is telling us, and no ... You can't just substitute all grazing of milk production livestock worldwide with feed. You can't even do that with the dairy supply in Australia or the US. Australia has to pasture 80% of its total dairy cattle. In order to fill our desire for dairy-vbased products we've doubled herd numbers on larger farms that haven't increase in size. I don't give a flying fuck about emissions because emissions isn't even the biggest problem we're facing. 20% of our dairy cattle range on land consider 'high' as a chance of desertification.
In fact, dairy cattle farms are decreasing due to changing environmental conditions and market consolidation by large dairy companies, dairy cattle numbers are still same.
You're saying that we need to cut down on all grazing, but the land impact of dairy cattle are extremely minor. Cutting down on even 10% of beef cattle would be the equivalent of wiping out the entire dairy industry. Do you believe that we need to have zero degradation?
I mean, coffee, cotton, palm oil, soybean and wheat all erode topsoil faster than it can maintain itself. While grazing is responsible for 35% of the degradation worldwide, agriculture is also responsible for 30% of it.
Heck, in the US, agriculture is responsible for 66% of soil degradation and grazing is still around 30%. So the claim that grazing is the great evil doesn't even come close to agriculture here whereas in places like Africa and Oceana those numbers are flipped.
So just proclaiming that we need to cut down on grazing doesn't make sense. Not when it is comparable to other categories and in some cases much less.
You're being too absolute and too discriminatory in general of one area. Not only do we need to eat, but the solution is improvements in soil sustainability rather than not supplying milk, cheese or meat. Grazing isn't the problem, over grazing is. Do you have numbers to support that dairy farming overgrazes at the same rate as beef grazing? I've already shown numbers that dairy cows require a tenth of the land that beef cows require so there's already a variance in land usage present.
It is financially advantageous for farmers to manage top soil and there are all kinds of practices that specifically address this because it saves a lot of money in the long term. Well managed grazing and manure application can actually improve the top soil in the pasture.
Better grazing regulations? More incentives centered around topsoil preservation? Those are things I can get behind. But no grazing at all? That's ridiculous.
I'll leave it to you, if he's not going to listen to anyone, he might as well not listen to one person instead of two. That said, I would let it go, you've made your point with evidence and he's made his with nothing. It's a game over at this point.
Well, this is more specific information on causes of soil degradation as well as facts that grazing with correct soil treatment can make the soil better than before.
So I just want to make perfectly clear that not only is dairy farming less severe on the environment than beef farming, which the poster still doesn't accept despite the volumes of evidence, and to show that in a lot of places it isn't even the worst offender of soil degradation. In the US I would be more justified in saying that we need to stop growing food than the poster is in saying we need to stop grazing since agriculture is 66% of the degradation here.
Regardless, it has been beneficial to my own understanding to be able to go out and actually research these facts. So even if I'm not making any headway in the discussion I am still learning.
No, you don't get it. We need to collectively cut down on grazing, all grazing. That is what every scientist is telling us, and no ... You can't just substitute all grazing of milk production livestock worldwide with feed. You can't even do that with the dairy supply in Australia or the US. Australia has to pasture 80% of its total dairy cattle. In order to fill our desire for dairy-vbased products we've doubled herd numbers on larger farms that haven't increase in size. I don't give a flying fuck about emissions because emissions isn't even the biggest problem we're facing. 20% of our dairy cattle range on land consider 'high' as a chance of desertification.
In fact, dairy cattle farms are decreasing due to changing environmental conditions and market consolidation by large dairy companies, dairy cattle numbers are still same.
In all instances there was degradation of land viability.
It's not a matter of 'reform' ... it is too expensive, too land intensive, to keep running the same numbers of livestock as we do. We've lost 20% of drylands, we've lost 24% of productive lands. The single largest source contributor to greenhouse gases is desertification. It makes up 35 to 40% of our total GHG accumulation. It is the worst man-made natural disaster and greatest reduction of biodiversity that we will ever face, and even if we stopped it right now, it would take centuries to repair the damage that is done.
Fine, dairy cattle are less worse than beef cattleby their own emissions ... they still contribute to desertification worldwide. They're still many times worse than rotational crop growing at dealing with the real issue of land loss. 'Reform' implies that that all we need to do is tweak something. We have to radically re-examine how we use land. But even that shouldn't be so daunting because at the moment, we lost 3.4T Euros worldwide from the effects of soil degradation last year. There is economic reasons why combating soil degradation is viable. Pretending like we can continue following the same agriocultural practices we have done is not going to help us. By all means, keep animal products ... but it's stupid to assume we can continue eating them in the same volumes and expect nothing to change.
Soil contributes to greater carbon sequestration than anything else, and if we don't maintain it, if we don't start moderating how we feed people, we won't put a dent in lowering emissions. Livestock are not the answer to meeting food security and supply. It's retaking land from desertification. Making lost land bloom again. The best way to do that is through modern crop development and less livestock. Dairy cattle are still worse than modern cropping practices. We should be raising land reclamation as a greater priority to finding means to feed people and combat climate change than meat and dairy.
More livestock will weaken our capacity to fight soil degradation.
|Because it's not independant. In Australia, dairy cattle grazing is responsible for far greater emissions.
Lightknight said:
Well, this is more specific information on causes of soil degradation as well as facts that grazing with correct soil treatment can make the soil better than before.
So I just want to make perfectly clear that not only is dairy farming less severe on the environment than beef farming, which the poster still doesn't accept despite the volumes of evidence, and to show that in a lot of places it isn't even the worst offender of soil degradation. In the US I would be more justified in saying that we need to stop growing food than the poster is in saying we need to stop grazing since agriculture is 66% of the degradation here.
Regardless, it has been beneficial to my own understanding to be able to go out and actually research these facts. So even if I'm not making any headway in the discussion I am still learning.
Because agriculture feeds more people. That modern cropping techniques can actively fight desertification. Or did you fail to read that Cambridge study again? Don't give me garbage that you're 'willing to research' if you can't be bothered to read a 30 page report on how to improve soil and combat desertification. Hint, it has to do something with crops and plant growth ...
If overgrazing is the largest problem in the world for soil degradation, then why do you pretend to still have an argument? Cut down livestock numbers, cut down grazing. Why are you arguing my point for me? Also, dairy cattle is not less severe on the environment. Because there are many environments that they are responsible for so much land loss by capita of head. By head of cattle, dairy cattle are worse than beef cattle in Australia, as beef cattle sometimes range on lands as low as 1 beast per 50 hectares ... Dairy cattle do not have that ranging space. Requiring huge amounts of soil treatment to repair the damages.
Dairy cattle need good land. Good land is not a universally shared condition. Pretty shitty land is a far more universal condition. Land that would be better served and serving by crops and orchards .... which would require less fertiliser.
So no you have yet to prove that their impact is 'minor' ... after all, we need to use a third of fertilisers to maintain a measly 1.9M dairy cattle. How is that 'minor'? And the thing is, you won't get better results than Australia in prime locations of the world where food security will need to be drastically improved.
IF we needed to run more dairy cattle to meet food demands, we'd end up in a far more serious situation. That it would literally be impossible to do so in most places of the world. What are you not getting? We need to cut livestock numbers, cut grazing. The reason why the dairy cattle industry is so small and run in so few places in substantial volume is because you can't run dairy cattle everywhere.
Why are you arguing this point? How would we run substantial dairy cattle operations in the Kalahari? Most of the world cannot increase dairy production. In many of the places that dairy cattle are run there is substantial measures needed to be taken to maintain soil integrity. You cannot compare the few places where dairy cattle can be run with relatively minor measures needed to be taken to prevent land loss, and port those models to the rest of the world.
You can, however, port effective agriculture measures to large tracts of places which are suffering major land loss. Overgrazing is the single largest contributor to soil degradation. We need to cut grazing. Not increase it. It is a wasteful way to feed people and will contribute to increased obstacles in the future to meet world food targets. Increasing livestock grazing to meet a growing world population is not the answer. Particularly if we look at regional food security, and providing food security to places that are already suffering major land loss.
To simulate the dairy cattle industry elsewhere as in Australia, not only do you have to convert good land from agricultural potential into grazing land, you would need to radically increase fertiliser and water usage to maintain them. So no ... dare I say you haven't researched a damn thing. Hell, if I had a choice between dairy cattle and beef in high human growth centers like Africa, I might even side with beef.
I would certainly prefer to go with sheep and goat.
I will, however, always side with modern agriculture practices to improve lands, improve vegetative cover and produce more food.
(edit) Look at that map you provided before. Australia exports more grain, vegetable, fruit and nuts (not to mention viticulture and other semi processed goods based on them) than it will ever do livestock and dairy products. How much land loss is attributeable in Australia to crop production? Australia mass exports more green stock than it does livestock and animal products. Not even including the huge amounts we produce simply to FEED livestock and ourselves domestically ... and yet overgrazing is still our greatest environmental challenge. That is an insane amount of damage to simply enjoy a cheap glass of milk or a cheap piece of sirloin.
Most of the world cannot look at cheeses as a future staple.
Sri Lanka... in 1999 Sri Lanka needed to run over half of its current buffalo milk stock on dry lowlands, and according to the Sri Lankan environmental authorities, the situation was; "There is little being done to protect fodder and pasture protection still." And Sri Lanka is considered more responsible in its dairying than India or Pakistan. And yet, despite that fact, the only way that they could effectively price regulate dairy quotas sustainably is 38% of total domestic supply being completely 'informal' (in common parlance, no testing, no regulation, no health status checks of cattle, and no guarantee of future supply on a year to year basis). One third of their entire milk supply is given over to good faith, in other words.
Since 1999 they still consistently fail to meet domestic demand, and more cattle are being run on smaller holds. Compounded by excess tea production as well as grazing near highly susceptible regions that contribute to severe soil erosion. Despite raising demand, total ruminants have decreased from 2000 to 2007. Sri Lanka now consumes less milk now than it did 30 years ago. If anything, animal product consumption has radically transformed into chicken meat consumption and milk powders (principle, whey). Regardless of 20 years of attempted reform, Sri Lanka still cannot meet its dairy demands, and is simply going backwards in terms of fresh dariy product consumption.
Dairy consumption is dropping worldwide. There are fewer places capable of providing it. By acre, chicken meat and eggs are better than dairy production, and so many countries are simply giving up trying to meet dairy demand domestically, and many countries are focussing on egg production which has higher protein yields for less.
Most of Sri Lanka's buffalo ruminants are used for farm operations. Not as commercial-level milk or meat. Pulling hoes, a source of manure, or merely rounding out a farmer's personal diet and putting them on uncultivated land because ... well, why not? You can always split the milk with the calves, slaughter bull calves, or sell them at markets if you think they look strong and others might be interested at breeding stronger stock. Makes sense if you're poor. But such operations are far and beyond the average living experience of Sri Lankans. They are certainly beyond any large scale commercial enterprise or long term degree of dairy production.
They are planning to mass slaughter dairy cattle in Australia and so expect dairy supply to go down again by next year, but not only that .... expect more dairy farms to disappear. Half of them even in Western Europe have disappeared in the last 20 years. But apparently we should just run more and throw more of our money into fires to sustain world demand for dairy products. As dry periods periodically coalesce for longer between ever shortening wet spells with climate change, dairy cattle are going to be consistently looked at as the least productive, most expendable herd type there is. You can turn dairy cattle into meat to avoid increases in the cost of grain when pastures die, after all.
Dairy production is shit at feeding people. Most countries can't achieve milk self-sufficiency, and those that can, most of them are being destroyed for it. And no, you haven't researched a damn thing. If you had, you'd realize a minute handful of countries can actually produce large export quantities of milk products. In fact, due to high consumer price but low global demand from most societies (who either can't afford it or don't want it), a lot of surplus milk, sold as milk, is merely being dumped.
In fact, due to the supply of energy corrected, pasteurized milk (4% fat, 3.3% protein milk), the milk/feed ratio price of producing milk is ridiculously volatile on a year to year basis. Leading to undersupply with undesireable fresh milk at best, and sudden oversupply and crippling shortfalls with minimal price reduction for consumers at worst. The 2015 milk oversupply in February contributed to only a 5% drop in price for consumers, despite massive volumes of unsold milk.
Due to dairy production being so incredibly volatile, it is the least dependable type of herd cattle to run. That most of the 122 million 'milk farms' in the world (remember, the average is a whopping 3 cows per farm to be a 'dairy farm' by International Farm Comparison Network standards) ... most of those farms will barely survive trying to meet commercial volumes, and rather nearly all dairy production relies on intimate trade between farmer and maybe a nearby common market, if not only for familial use.
All in all, dairy production is cost effective in a handful of countries, and prohibitively expensive in nearly all developing nations. Put it this way .... a skilled farmer could milk 12 cows a day prior modern milking machines and rotational feed and milking technologies. In places without consistent power, without feed, or without proper price guarantees and modern veterinarian science, will not meet the demands of establishing competitive dairy production that exceed the yields guaranteed by good agricultural cropping practices ... much less running beef cattle. Part of the reasons why developing countries default to running animals for meat, or as a minor adjunct to crops, to begin with.
You don't need a multimillion dollar milking machine to make a profit with beef, nor do you risk selling something that might be not even be wanted in commercial supply. Most of the world is lactose intolerant, but most of the world can still eat a burger.
Looking at the diets of people beyond the Western sphere, this is also painfully obvious.
Funny, I never heard this, and I even know some vegans. As long as THEY don't eat the things they don't wanna eat, they're pretty chill. I'm really not concerned if any of them disapprove of my nature.
What does one have to do with the other? Because in the case of one unusually giant, unusually lightly populated continental nation it doesn't work that way, you don't think these issues should be separately examined? How is the beef industry, and its primarily wealthy, Western market not very different from the diary market with its broad role as an international staple? How can you compare activities that in most parts of the world, exist at different scales of production, and act like they're part of one mixed problem?
What does one have to do with the other? Because in the case of one unusually giant, unusually lightly populated continental nation it doesn't work that way, you don't think these issues should be separately examined? How is the beef industry, and its primarily wealthy, Western market not very different from the diary market with its broad role as an international staple? How can you compare activities that in most parts of the world, exist at different scales of production, and act like they're part of one mixed problem?
Primarily because they shouldn't be compared at all. Increasing dairy production is not going to work to feed more people. The technological and environmental barriers to competitive dairy production is far greater than simply running beef cattle. Dairy industry is pathetically small, but its effects are no less observable. Dairy herds in small numbers makes sense, but if you honestly think that most farmers out there can run more dairy cattle then you've never handmilked an animal. Which is why the blanket statement of reduce grazing is more than apt. Modern rotary milking procedures in places like Germany? They are twice as efficient than technologies only 10 years ago, and those technologies were 80 times more efficient than hand milking.
It is also not a problem for 'one continent' ... major desertification due to running grazing cattle is a world condition of developing nations. It also represents one of the principle reasons why developing nations will continue to suffer to meet food security. The problem in Botswana was caused by the maketing of beef cattle to the rest of the world, not to feed domestic people. When you had major scale desertification and a sudden dought period, you had increased conflicts between roaming cattle and domestic crop growers who were doing more to feed their own people than said graziers. The vegetation conflict between graziers and natural and crop vegetation alsmot doubled. Leading to further shortfalls in domestic food security at the time it was most needed.
Also, the principle problem of desertification is that it's happening in places with corresponding high human population growth. Compounding the issue of food security. Dairy cattle are not the primary problem, simply running more dairy cattle will make it a problem. Pretending that dairy cattle can become competitive industries in most of the developing world is also unviable in any realistic measure. It is more than apt to merely say 'cut grazing, cut livestock numbers'. There is no reason to discriminate between grazing animals for dairy production and grazing animals for meat. Total grazing has to be reduced.
This is why I made the argument before ... if you must have grazing, then it might as well be for meat. Because dairy sure as hell isn't going to cut it. It's why developing countries run beef cattle to begin with. You don't need things like consistent power supply, housing, milking machines, high feed counts, and increased labour. Meat livestock you can run a few large herds of with a handful of graziers and a couple of dogs.
The claim that "dairy cattle grazing" is significant is a claim you have not backed up. Please do so before responding to the following minor points because I am finding data that conflicts with your claims.
1. First up, Australia has a massive problem with native and introduced wildlife overgrazing and this is considered one of the single biggest causes of soil degradation and would fall under "overgrazing" numbers. It's bad to the point where the Australian government has authorized the culling of large numbers of native species because of it. The most recent example was in 2013 when they authorized killing 1455 kangaroos due to overgrazing. [http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Australias-Striped-Legless-Lizard-Threatened-by-Overgrazing-Kangaroos/] Unfortunately, animal rights activists who don't understand animal population management saves other species as well as the environment have delayed the attempt to fix this problem. There are also problems with animals introduced to Australia from elsewhere over the years, like rabbits. I have been able to find that Australia has major issues with native animal grazing being unchecked due to native inhabitants no longer hunting grazing wildlife for sustenance and due to natural predators like Dingoes being reduced.
2. Dairy doesn't make up as much as you may think of Australian agriculture as it does in other countries: <a href=http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Environment-and-resources/Climate/MicroSite1/Home/Climate-and-greenhouse-basics/Greenhouse-gas-footprint/Dairy-footprint.aspx>For example, on the emission side of things, agriculture (including dairy) only make up 17% of Australia's emissions and dairy only makes up 10% of that (so 1.7%).
So emissions aren't bad at all though their agriculture emissions in general are low too.
3. <a href=http://www.landcareonline.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/natural-resource-management-on-Australian-farms-2004.pdf>Regarding soil degradation in Australia,, this is a 2004 pdf that discusses a recognition of soil degradation by farmers in Australia and a report on a significant number of participants (over half) changing their grazing practices to ensure future sustainability. Basically, it makes financial sense to mitigate soil erosion and it is something that sustainable grazing practices can not only fix but can actually improve on.
So again, you're argument that it has to stop rather than just implementing sustainable grazing is not only the same argument that can be levied at multiple crops but is basically squashing a fly with a sledgehammer.
I'm not sure why anything that happens in one country that has significant contributing factors means anything to the others if the others are experiencing something very differently. Doesn't that sound more like Australia sucks at regulating their industry if huge establishments like dairy in America can have such drastically different results?
So again, even if your claim was correct I'm not seeing why "Australia is bad at producing dairy efficiently" means "the entire world needs to cease dairy production.
First off, dairy and meat are both considered agriculture. So I'm assuming you're meaning crop agriculture specifically feeds more people which is a meaningless statement since crop agriculture includes all veggies, fruit and legumes across the board. Dairy has a significantly better emission/soil erosion ratio per calorie than a significant portion of agriculture and is actually significantly beneficial to our health (particularly milk). So I'm not sure what your point is here. Dairy is farmed to meet demand and as such makes up a small portion of agriculture but it is more efficient than many forms of agriculture including soybeans. Essentially, dairy is just the equivalent of one crop but more wildly consumed than most crops while being more efficient than other crops. A better argument regarding ceasing operations due to soil degradation and emissions can be made against various crops. You could say, for example, that soybeans should not be farmed anymore because the rest of crop agriculture feeds far more people than those specific items do and soybeans contribute heavily to soil erosion and GHGs, moreso than say, dairy. Again, don't forget that the efficiency of food is emission per calorie.
That modern cropping techniques can actively fight desertification. Or did you fail to read that Cambridge study again? Don't give me garbage that you're 'willing to research' if you can't be bothered to read a 30 page report on how to improve soil and combat desertification. Hint, it has to do something with crops and plant growth ...
And? Modern grazing techniques can also actively fight desertification. What's your point? Do you think I'm against implementing sustainable practices? Because I'm not. My problem is with you saying that all grazing has to stop when it doesn't and isn't even always as bad as crop agriculture on the land nor does it have to be when done properly.
If overgrazing is the largest problem in the world for soil degradation,
First off, it isn't the biggest problem in regulated areas. It is the largest problem in Africa and Asia which both have massive problems regarding any kind of attempts at sustainability, but elsewhere the biggest problem is deforestation with agricultural activities and overgrazing being about equivalent. Claiming that it is the biggest problem all over is intellectually dishonest which brings me to the second point.
Secondly, this varies greatly by region. You are citing Australia which (regarding soil degradation in susceptible drylands) has the third smallest degraded land numbers (just above South America and, surprisingly to me since this is in raw numbers and not proportion, N. America). If you were citing N. America you would see that agricultural activities account for 52.1% as of this as compared to 34.8% that is overgrazing (which includes both dairy and beef). As already stated too, beef grazing requires ten times the amount of land that dairy does.
Lastly, you continue to group dairy grazing in with beef grazing. I have repeatedly showed you that not only does dairy require significantly less land overall, but is significantly healthier on its land. Here, again, is the chart of that:
Stop waving your hand at grazing as though all grazing is the same. It isn't. Please understand that point. You can continue citing the impacts of grazing but until you accept that not all grazing is the same then you have no right to proclaim that every individual form of grazing must cease. Especially not when agriculture plays an equivalent or much larger role in other regions.
Dairy cattle need good land. Good land is not a universally shared condition.
Which is all the more reason to implement modern grazing techniques to improve the land.
Pretty shitty land is a far more universal condition. Land that would be better served and serving by crops and orchards .... which would require less fertiliser.
Cool, which is why the industries that rely on grazing are converting to sustainable farming techniques because there is significant financial motivation to increase land yields by restoring soil quality and mitigating future degradation. Same with other agricultural sectors that see the same kind of reductions in produced goods as the soil quality diminishes.
Also, orchards provide a small fraction of what people consume. It's fruit (which requires a ton of pesticides and causes worse emissions than some meats) and nuts (which is a very small portion of diets). You're actually supposed to drink more milk (3 cups) per day than fruit (2 cups) and nuts (1.5 ounces) combined. It's nice to say that "orchards are the solution", but they're not. Per acre they are far less efficient at producing food and both modern crop techniques and dairy techniques can have a positive impact on the soil when employed.
So no you have yet to prove that their impact is 'minor' ... after all, we need to use a third of fertilisers to maintain a measly 1.9M dairy cattle. How is that 'minor'? And the thing is, you won't get better results than Australia in prime locations of the world where food security will need to be drastically improved.
IF we needed to run more dairy cattle to meet food demands, we'd end up in a far more serious situation. That it would literally be impossible to do so in most places of the world. What are you not getting? We need to cut livestock numbers, cut grazing. The reason why the dairy cattle industry is so small and run in so few places in substantial volume is because you can't run dairy cattle everywhere.
Why are you arguing this point? How would we run substantial dairy cattle operations in the Kalahari? Most of the world cannot increase dairy production. In many of the places that dairy cattle are run there is substantial measures needed to be taken to maintain soil integrity. You cannot compare the few places where dairy cattle can be run with relatively minor measures needed to be taken to prevent land loss, and port those models to the rest of the world.
Because you are wrong. Dairy grazing requires significantly less land that beef grazing and dairy grazing has a smaller impact per acre than beef has. To the point of it already being more efficient than a large number of crops. Dairy grazing is frequently as harmless as any other crop farming. Beef grazing is crazily disproportionate when done improperly. But no one here is saying that sustainability shouldn't be pursued. We're just disagreeing with your assessment of dairy grazing.
Why increase dairy production? Why not just cut beef production, which will free up land for non-grazing use, and dairy grazing. As far as I can tell, dairy also has the benefit of not being subject to the kind of abuses that beef has been for pure economic gain, at the same scale. The useful lifetime of a single cow for dairy is a lot longer than a steer for beef, and less resource intensive as you're not fattening them for market.
For some reason, the poster simply cannot accept this point as valid. No matter how many studies or articles we send his way. It's all "Grazing" to him.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
