Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Radio Show & Podcast Feedback => Topic started by: Stevie Bain on 30/08/2017 15:54:28
-
Patrick says:
I was listening to last week's show (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/naked-scientists-podcast/diet-can-we-be-healthy-and-sustainable) about food and it was mentioned that eating meat (beef) produces 50% more green house gases than not eating meat.
But, when you eat beef, you have no differentiation between meat from beef cattle or meat from dairy cattle in the shop when you buy your steak. Beef from dairy cattle should by definition have a lower effect on the environment than a bull purely raised to be eaten (obviously looking away from the other uses of diverse animal parts that aren't eaten, like hide).
Why is it that most experts don't mention this difference?
Thanks for a great show.
What do you think?
-
Although there are some breeds of milk cow that are used for meat, in general there are specific breeds optimised for meat or milk.
Healthy? There has been a growing realisation over the past few decades that red meat is not the healthiest form and chicken/fish are much healthier.
-
You have unfortunately not addressed the query, I am not querying weather red meat is healthy, although eating it in moderation does not pose any substantial risk. My query is why a cow producing milk (a product consumed for both its nutritional value and taste) for several years before being consumed in an 'alternative ' format, has the same carbon footprint as a like animal that just stands around for 6 months to 2 years to come to the same demise? Surely it's as the difference between giving someone a fish and giving someone a rod. Speaking of fish - we have the problem of, not only overfishing, but also heavy metals found in fish, as it is with all food, eat in moderation and have a balanced diet is the advice, we should stick to it.
-
You're absolutely right, Patrick; it's a really good point and I'm going to go away and have a think about it, and maybe ask a few people, before I give you an answer.
-
My query is why a cow producing milk (a product consumed for both its nutritional value and taste) for several years before being consumed in an 'alternative ' format, has the same carbon footprint as a like animal that just stands around for 6 months to 2 years to come to the same demise?
Welcome Patrick, thanks for joining us.
I don't believe that the footprint/year is any different, but I'll be interested to hear what @chris finds out. I might expect a difference between grass and grain fed as you might argue that the grass would grow anyway and would take energy to cut, but not sure.
Patrick says:
But, when you eat beef, you have no differentiation between meat from beef cattle or meat from dairy cattle in the shop when you buy your steak.
Sorry, I didn't really expand in my answer. As I said there are specific breeds for beef and milk - although there are some dual breeds like Holstein.
A beef animal is bred for maximum yield of high quality, tender meat with a marbling of fat which enhances the taste. It is considered 'finished' and in prime condition at about 1000-1200lb approx 18months and sent to slaughter.
A dairy cow is usually at the end of its productive life after 4-5 years, but by this time its meat is not of prime quality so it goes for burgers or pet food. So there is differentiation in the shops, but it is understandable why they don't explain it to you, and to be fair when the average burger is eaten with sugared bun and various relishes, minced so you can't experience the texture, then most people won't notice.
It would be interesting to work out the total footprint vs food value of the combined milk/burger production of a dairy cow. Perhaps there is an argument for giving up prime steak and eating burgers. I'll ask my Aunt, who is a dairy farmer, if she knows if someone has looked at it.
-
I am a dairy farmer, but located in Sweden, in fact, up until the 'milk crisis' (overproduction of milk in the EU causing a dramatic drop in price of milk to farmers), the main source of Swedish beef in shops was from dairy cows. Now many of the dairy farmers that no longer have dairy cattle have taken the natural move to beef cattle farming (around 1000 farmers have moved over in 3 years - source is Jordbruksverket.se our agricultural agency in Sweden) so now I'm not so sure that dairy cattle is the main source of beef over the counter. Still though, the idea of burgers being better for the environment than a steak...
-
up until the 'milk crisis' (overproduction of milk in the EU causing a dramatic drop in price of milk to farmers), the main source of Swedish beef in shops was from dairy cows.
Was this because dairy cows were slaughtered at an earlier age (due to their reduced economic value) and were therefore more tender?
Still though, the idea of burgers being better for the environment than a steak...
Yes, a scary thought that McDonalds might be good for the environment ;D
Big Mac and a milkshake please.
-
Well, one can see it as that the farms that did not 'survive' the crisis to continue producing milk were the farms that could have been the least economically efficient ones. There are various reasons as to why.
We know that a dairy cow, on average only starts to pay her costs back during the second lactation period (farm dependent), and a dairy cow milks the most during the fourth lactation period.
There has been a lot of work done during the last three years by farming organisations to get farmers to keep cows for longer periods of time, as many farmers, because of higher recruitment rates (for example due to sex sorted sperm), or animal health reasons (a cow with a high cell count in their milk has a clinical/sub clinical mastitis and therefore milks less at a lower quality), get rid of new cows that don't reach a production target or quality standard and keep an older cow because forementioned cow is a good producer.
We are only ten million people in Sweden and we imported up to half our beef. That doesn't leave much space to fill in a fridge or freezer in the shop.
Therefore partly due to poor farming practice, the market over the years has been a flood of milk race bullocks, heffers that there is no place for (we generally have our dairy cows inside in the winter, less energy to stay warm = more energy to produce milk), and cows that farmers could have saved and saved money on by just calling a vet.
So in answer to your question, yes. But not necessarily for the reason you suggested.