Home Dairy How much Butter people Eat

How much Butter people Eat

38
SHARE

How much butter do you eat? Probably not that much, people in the past ate wayyy more butter than you do today.

Our society has been conditioned into believing that butter is not part of a healthy life. And because of these beliefs, butter consumption in America declined rapidly over the last century as people began to see butter as unhealthy.

Over the last century, It became trendy to eat low-fat diets. But since the government started recommending a “healthy diet,” — two-thirds of Americans are now overweight or obese. Butter consumption collapsed, yet incidences of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer skyrocketed.

image

There is now overwhelming evidence that saturated fats like butter are not unhealthy as previously thought. Butter is actually a superfood and provides your body with an array of health-enhancing, bioactive compounds. In fact, researchers are learning that butter actually helps prevent heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The food we avoided was the food essential to good nutrition.

To get the health benefits of butter, you should be eating much more butter that you are today. Butter is not bad for you, it’s actually a superfood. But how much butter can you eat?

Read more about the health benefits of the milk fat globule membrane.

Butter Consumption in the U.S.

If you’re worried about eating too much butter and negative health consequences from butter, you have nothing to fear. People in our past ate quite a bit of butter. Like wayyyy more than you are eating today.

In the early 1900s, Americans consumed about 17 pounds of butter per person per year; by 2004 butter consumption was only at 3.7 pounds per person per year.

How much butter eat per capita

That means Americans today are eating about 10 lbs. of butter less/ year than people did in the past. 10 lbs. of butter less per year!

People at more butter and dairy products in the past and had healthy lives. If you don’t believe that people prior to 1909 were eating a lot of butter, there aren’t extensive records about butter consumption in the 1700s and 1800s, but there are sailor’s rations for sea voyages from that time period. And they show that sailors ate a lot of dairy.

It makes sense because butter is a great nutrient dense food. Butter would be a great superfood for sailors.

Butter Powered Sea Sailors

Butter consumption prior to 1900s Pirates ate butter

Provisions listed for the British ship BELLONA – 74 guns in 1760 listed as provisions for 650 men for four months: (Source)

  • Beef 5,200 pieces 20,800 lbs
  • Pork 9,620 pieces 19,240 lbs
  • Beer 236 butts 29,736 US gallons
  • Water 339 butts 30 puncheons 60 hogsheads 49,018 US gallons
  • Bread 650 bags 72,800 lbs
  • Butter 3,900 lbs
  • Cheese 14,160 lbs
  • Oatmeal 19,008 lbs
  • Peas 20,800 lbs
  • Flour 15,590 lbs

Butter Consumption = 3,900 lbs. = 6lbs/ person for 4 months = 18lbs. of butter per year.

(Noticing Cheese Consumption also) 14,160 lbs. = 21.8 lbs/ person for 4 months = 5.4 lbs/month = 64 lbs. of cheese a year per person.

Provisions reported on-board the British Sloop ALERT – 1777, a sloop of 60 men for 4 months: (Source)

  • Beef 462 pieces in 6 barrels weighing 2238 lbs
  • Pork 777 pieces in 5 barrels weighing 1753 lbs
  • Beer 12 barrels weighing 788 lbs
  • Water 56 hogsheads and 25 casks of 18 gallons each about 4091 US gallons
  • Bread 6048 lbs in 54 bags
  • Butter 420 lbs

Butter Consumption = 420 lbs. = 7 lbs/ person for 4 months = 21 lbs. of butter per year.

USS Constitution

A sample menu that sailors aboard the USS Constitution notes that sailors ate 4 oz. of butter per week in 1798: (Source)

Butter Consumption = 4 oz per week = 208 oz. per person per year = 13 lbs. of butter per year.

It appears that butter was a main component of the sailors food ration and we can see that eating 18 lbs. of butter per year was not unreasonable.

People ate a lot of butter in the past.

Butter Beliefs Holding you Back?

So what is stopping you from eating more butter? Probably those voices in your head from all the conditioning and propaganda you learned.

I can still hear my mom warning me not to put too much butter on my pancakes. Do these thoughts sound familiar:

Old Thoughts about Butter and Fat

Don’t eat too much butter; you’ll clog your arteries”

Easy on the butter, you don’t want to get heart disease

Careful not to use too much, you’ll end up like Paula Dean

Lowfat is healthier for people watching their weight

Fat-free is the healthy choice

Always choose low or reduced fat to be healthy

Even though we can consciously know that butter is healthy, it’s still hard to think of butter as a good thing.

It’s hard to break habits or thinking once it’s been ingrained in our minds. But you can start reminding yourself when you eat butter that it’s good for you:

New Thoughts about Butter

Fat is a healthy part of my diet

Eating fat is a necessary part of a healthy diet

Butter is probably the healthiest thing I can eat in the morning

If anything the social experiment of eating less natural fats, like butter, this last century has proven how paradigms can change over time. It’s shown us that just because an idea becomes mainstream, the majority of people can be wrong.

Eat More Butter

Butter is one of the healthiest things you can eat. Our forefather knew this; why else would they eat so much butter. Butter is a great source of fuel for our bodies, rich in bioactive compounds, and an extremely cost-efficient source of nutrition. Research and science is still catching up and rediscovering what we already knew in the past.

Put butter on toast. Put butter on pancakes. Put butter on everything. Then watch your body, metabolism, and health change for the better. It’s probably the healthiest thing you’ve been eating each morning.

38 COMMENTS

  1. What a terribly bogus article. Encouraging people to eat more butter like it is some kind of elixir is irresponsible at best and bordering on dishonest. I assume you are not a nutritionist or scientist when you are not milking cows.The jury is still out and the health benefits of eating butter remain very much a point of contention.
    Quoting the diets of 18th century sailors as proof of the health benefits of butter is laughable. Just because they took it with them doesn’t mean it was good for them. As well as consuming big lumps of fatty butter, they also drank copious amounts of rum when they could and guess what, life expectancy was not great back then. I guess you’re not a historian either.
    So, a dairy farmer who makes a living selling the stuff makes wild claims which blatantly encourage eating more butter. Hmmmm…

    • When people ate butter, they lived happier, healthier lives. I’m guessing you haven’t done much research into this.. Obesity was not as prevalent until our society switched to high carbohydrate and sugar ladden diets. The jury still seems like it’s out for you on this topic because that what the public narrative has been the last 100 years or so… that how our society has gotten to this point.. Do some research before you start mocking dairy farmers. The dumb farmer is another stereotype that you’ve fallen for.. I’ve been studying dairy my whole life – practically and academically. You’re kind of proving one of the points of the article so thank you..

      • WHEN PEOPLE ATE BUTTER, THEY LIVED HAPPIER, HEALTHIER LIVES – No they didn’t! Unless you can quote me a reliable source that’s just not true?
        I’M GUESSING YOU HAVEN’T DONE MUCH RESEARCH INTO THIS – err, yes I have…
        OBESITY WAS NOT AS PREVALENT UNTIL OUR SOCIETY SWITCHED TO HIGH CARBOHYDRATE AND SUGAR LADDEN DIETS – humans consume more meat and dairy than they ever have. While consuming meat and dairy has some nutritional value no question, the connection between eating too much fatty meat and dairy and the record levels of obesity, cancer, heart disease and diabetes are well documented and generally accepted as fact within the medical industry.

        Here’s what the World Health Organisation (WHO) says about a “Healthy Diet for Adults”:
        A healthy diet contains: Less than 30% of total energy intake from fats. Unsaturated fats (e.g. found in fish, avocado, nuts, sunflower, canola and olive oils) are preferable to saturated fats (e.g. found in fatty meat, butter, palm and coconut oil, cream, cheese, ghee and lard).
        Practical advice on maintaining a healthy diet on Fats:
        Reducing the amount of total fat intake to less than 30% of total energy intake helps prevent unhealthy weight gain in the adult population.
        Also, the risk of developing noncommunicable diseases like diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer is lowered by reducing saturated fats to less than 10% of total energy intake, and trans fats to less than 1% of total energy intake, and replacing both with unsaturated fats. Fat intake can be reduced by: limiting the consumption of foods containing high amounts of saturated fats (e.g. cheese, ice cream, fatty meat).

        By quoting WHO I am quoting an undeniably reputable source, but the internet is full of credible facts and figures, from reliable sources, about the health risks associated with consuming too much fatty dairy…

        THE JURY STILL SEEMS LIKE IT’S OUT FOR YOU ON THIS TOPIC BECAUSE THAT WHAT THE PUBLIC NARRATIVE HAS BEEN THE LAST 100 YEARS OR SO… THAT HOW OUR SOCIETY HAS GOTTEN TO THIS POINT – No, I imply the research is inconclusive because… it’s inconclusive!! …and I think I am being generous to the “butter is good” brigade
        DO SOME RESEARCH… – I have
        …BEFORE YOU START MOCKING DAIRY FARMERS – Behave!!
        THE DUMB FARMER IS ANOTHER STEREOTYPE THAT YOU’VE FALLEN FOR – Oh you are not dumb Dairy Guy. Manipulative yes, but definitely not dumb. I am sure you make a hansom living exploiting animals and your website helps tell you customers all’s good, nice one.
        I’VE BEEN STUDYING DAIRY MY WHOLE LIFE – PRACTICALLY AND ACADEMICALLY – but clearly not impartially or compassionately
        YOU’RE KIND OF PROVING ONE OF THE POINTS OF THE ARTICLE SO THANK YOU – Your welcome… err which one?

        • Sorry, I did’t mean to offend you.. I’m thinking you’ve probably just researched the facts or sources that only reinforce your current beliefs because there are now actually more credible organizations and researchers saying butter is good for you than not. I cite sources in my previous articles. People did live healthier lives when eating butter and still do today. Take the website -butter makes your pants fall off . com. This guy shares his story about how he lost 150 lbs in 1 year by eating more butter and less carbohydrates and sugar. You should try this also and see how you feel after a few weeks. You should not deny until you try. It would probably change your life for the better.

  2. One of the greatest threats to health on long sea voyages was scurvy, a potentially fatal disease caused by a deficiency of vitamin C, normally sourced from fresh fruit and vegetables. No amount of butter was going to help this…

    • Touche, also one of the greatest threats to a long sea voyage was hunger. Remembering that butter helps with hunger and satiety, you cannot discounts butter’s assistance in reducing mutinies.. lol

          • 21 pounds of butter a year? That’s nuthin’. I consume about two ounces a day either melted in a bowl of very warm milk for breakfast and lunch or used in cooking meat. This comes to over 45 pounds a year. But then its fair to say those sailors in the 1700s were smaller than men today. Badger ought to travel to Mongolia and try to talk the ruddy-cheekd, white-toothed and vigouous Mongols out of eating meat and dairy. I’d watch that show!

            • I’ve been watching the show Marco Polo on Netflix, the mongols drink milk and are fierce warriors. I also think about the vikings, they were a herding culture. Many of their leaders were buried with barrels of butter. I don’t think anyone can say that butter (or dairy) is bad for you physical health. If your a warrior, you need to be fit.

  3. Consuming dairy products may or may not have health benefits, but one thing’s for sure, it is massively unhealthy for the dairy cows that are forced to produce milk for their greedy human owners. Any nutritional benefits there may be in consuming butter can be gained in other ways that do not involve the unnecessary suffering of animals. After all, cows are bred specifically to spend their short life producing milk for humans. Cows, like all mammals, only produce milk when they are pregnant or have given birth. To do this they are regularly artificially inseminated (raped) by humans, while pinned in a rack, against their will of course. They then have their babies (calves) forcefully taken from them causing massive distress to both, as it would to any sentient being, before spending a short lifes being hooked up to a milking machine a couple of times a day. Is this misery really justified when there are plant based alternatives to butter??

    • Being a hater is bad.. You can condemn humanity for eating meat, but you are guilty of the same thing as a meat eater -plant murderer, torcher, ect, ect..

      • You’ve got me wrong Dairy Guy, I am not a hater of omnivores; I was one myself for many years; most of my family and friends are omnivores too.
        ‘Hate’ is a strong word which you have chosen to use. What I will fight to expose is liars, deniers and those who make false claims to further their own cause; those who distort the truth and say things which are not proven or substantiated. Unlike you, I do not believe animals are objects meant for humans to exploit. That’s where you and I differ.
        As for the horrors of vegetable abuse and exploitation, this website may just help in understanding the comparison you make with animal cruelty 😉 vegetable cruelty .com

  4. I’d love to simply “agree” with people like Badger… If it could be guaranteed from then on that my daily supply of cow products (milk, butter, cheese, yogurt, meat, liver…) would continue thenceforth uninterrupted. I could care less what an idiot like him/her/it thinks and I don’t care to educate the masses who’ve swallowed all the líes put out in the 20th Century. The World Health Organization was mentioned? Yes, and in their “MONICA” study on heart disease vs cholesterol levels the cold, hard reality was found that the people on planet Earth with the highest blood cholesterol levels (the Swiss, French and Spanish) had the LEAST amount of cardiovascular disease and had the greatest longevity. Who had the shortest lives and the most heart disease? Australian aboriginals, who also have the lowest blood cholesterol on Earth. Badger, go to YouTube and watch “Fat Head – the movie” or “Saturated Fat & Cholesterol Lies”. And also watch “The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Keith.
    I would further point out that some people – like myself – have genetically adapted to dairy consumption to such a degree that it is even encoded in our DNA. It’s known as the lactase-persistence gene. For some European groups like the Swedes lactose tolerance is nearly 100% of the population. As for treatment of animals and for human health I only support farms and dairies that are humane and organic and by defintion raise their stock on grass. Without human stewardship and interest for mutual survival cows, sheep, goats,etc would be left to the balance of nature. Badger, have you ever seen wolves “slaughter” and butcher their prey? Hey that’s yer natural order at work. Modern, humane slaughtering is far, far less cruel and brutal compared to what happens in “nature”. I care about animals and their suffering too. I eat meat and drink milk and because of everything mentioned above I sleep very well at night and am ridiculously healthy. Good luck Badger. Believe what you want, say what you want… I’ll keep on on laughing at people like you into my Nineties. Just keep yer damn paws off my meat and milk providers.

    • Hey Alvin, you’re not the sharpest are you? But if calling me an “idiot” somehow makes you feel big, you go for it. By the way, it’s “couldn’t care less” and not “could care less”, but I’m sure a smart guy like you knew that. I personally think you should make more effort to be civil.
      It’s an interesting tact you take regarding the effects of cholesterol; choosing not to deny that fatty dairy (and red meats), heavy in saturated fats cause increased levels of cholesterol, instead arguing that increased levels of cholesterol are not harmful, despite the mountain of medical research directly linking the consumption of harmful saturated fats from dairy and red meats with an increased risk of heart disease and stroke. Others will have to make their own minds up about the research on this subject. It’s fairly irrefutable as far as I can tell. I personally go with the scientists.
      I, like you Alvin, am also lactose tolerant. However, I choose not to consume dairy because of the undeniable cruelty and violence involved in producing it. Let’s also not forget that billions of people around the world are in fact lactose intolerant and cannot consume milk into adulthood without feeling ill. It seems incredibly unnatural in principle to consume the milk from other animals and to do so beyond weening, but yes, if you do it over a number of generations you can build up a tolerance to its effects. But Alvin, just because you can do something doesn’t make it right to do so. I personally choose not to consume dairy for companionate reasons.
      So, you’re in favour of ‘humane’ farming and ‘humane’ slaughter. You do know there is no such thing right? Words like ‘humane’ are used in the animal farming industry to try and hide the truth about how animals must suffer to become food, which makes the public feel better about buying and consuming animal products. It’s like saying on a scale of suffering, nine is better than ten. I personally believe any unnecessary suffering is unacceptable. I see what people are doing when they use the word ‘humane’ and I don’t buy it. Consider this Alvin; if a man murdered another man could he argue in court, for a lesser sentence, that he slaughtered his victim in a more ‘humane’ way than another murderer? Would this lessen his crime? Of course not, that would be silly. Murder is murder and slaughter is slaughter however you dress it up. All farmed animals suffer violent deaths. Try and see the truth in this and be honest about it. What exactly do you think a ‘humane’ farm is anyway? Cows fed on grass? Do you really believe that the world’s dairy cow population can be fed on grass? Do you seriously think this is even remotely feasible? You need to research and rethink that idea as it just doesn’t stack up; there’s not enough room.
      Finally, you use the way wolves kill their prey to draw a comparison with premeditated, systematic, industrial-scale animal slaughter (150 billion+ animals slaughtered a year!). Why? Humans have evolved to operate on a more civilised, more intellectual, compassionate level than that of animals in the wild. We have the ability to think and to reason and choose not to do something against our instincts because it might be morally questionable. You clearly don’t care about animals and their suffering as not only do you knowingly participate in perpetuating animal abuse, but you seek to justify it. I get the distinct impression that you are a bit of a bully, don’t think things through properly and really don’t care much about animals, but hey, you just keep laughing at me big man and sleep easy

    • Excellent points Alvin, My faith in humanity has been restored. I think we will look back on the 20th century as an example of what happens when take food advice to the extreme – fat is a necessary part of a healthy diet

      • You know Dairy Guy that my main objection relates to the exploitation and undeniable cruelty that is routine in animal farming. The ‘environmental’ and ‘health benefits’ discussions, whilst really important, are secondary for me, as I am sure they would be for most vegans. It’s really about compassion and respect for animals and civilised progress. I know you are stuck doing what you do and have been brought up to believe it is morally justified. I wasn’t brought up a vegan, I just worked out myself that I wanted no part of animal exploitation. Alvin, I’m afraid, is a rude hater and a poor debater, but if you want to line yourself up with a guy like that, help yourself

        • A valid concern- I can confidently say that today’s dairy cow lives a better life than any time in history. Technology and knowledge have made their lives better just like its made our own lives better. We will probably not change each other’s minds, but we can learn about the opposing viewpoints. Alvin has made some great points and generated some great discussion.

        • Badger,

          I got this notification of a new post here when my phone buzzed but I was so busy raping and pillaging that I didn’t have a chance at first to read your comment of June 14.

          First I must respond: on April 2nd, you wrote: “Let’s also not forget that billions of people around the world are in fact lactose intolerant and cannot consume milk into adulthood without feeling ill.”

          This of course has nothing to do with me since I never said “Everyone must drink milk regardless of their tolerance”.

          I want to also comment on an earlier exchange about Vitamin C between you and Dairy guy.

          You wrote “One of the greatest threats to health on long sea voyages was scurvy, a potentially fatal disease caused by a deficiency of vitamin C, normally sourced from fresh fruit and vegetables. No amount of butter was going to help this…”

          I haven’t found this to be true.

          I grew up schooled in the same belief: If you go without Vitamin C in your diet you will die of scurvy- whether you’re on a boat at sea or not. Makes sense. Most other animals, I read, can make the Vitamin C they need. I can’t, so must get it from my diet.

          When I changed over to my present diet which appears to be very “Mongolian”, I certainly felt better. My innards were happier. My endurance increased and mental acuity improved. I lost excess weight and found my six pack.

          But the thing I couldn’t resolve was: Where do get my Vitamin C from? If my diet is evolution-based then obviously my ancestors would’ve had reasonably convenient access to a source of C whatever that might be. I could never find out what that could’ve been. If my parents weren’t lying to me my genes are from North of the Alps. What grows there? Very little in the way of C-bearing edible plants. Sure, some berries here and there but those are seasonal. What about the other colder, darker months of the year?

          Even fruit preserves don’t solve the problem: Whether dried or canned fruit loses it C so much that it could not have been the answer to keep people alive. I looked at what the Mongols ate. Couldn’t really find out how they met the supposed requirement for Vitamin C.

          Meanwhile, months are going by…which turns into years… and I’m eating no fruits and no vegetables…I think out of boredom or because I saw someone around me enjoying it…I had an orange – about 2 years ago. It was nice. Fructose being”sweet”, you know.

          Maybe my family actually adopted me from a Mongolian orphanage, didn’t tell me and my genetics are such that I simply don’t need supplementary Vitamin C. But I’ve gone without dietary C for years now and I have ZERO symptoms of scurvy and at 54 still have 20/15 vision.

          Everything I need must be in the milk, butter, cheese, liver and meat that I eat. I have liver once a week – right up near the limit that I’m told might cause Vitamin A toxicity. No symptoms yet. But my eyelashes are coming in longer and darker, my gray hairs are getting less gray. Like those scenes in a movie where someone turns into a Werewolf. Yeah. Ok, not that extreme, but yes it appears the huge dose of vitamins and minerals in the liver and milk are replenishing what I squandered away during the decade that I was brainwashed into drinking soy milk and eating high carbs only.

          Even with my good results I don’t preach to people all over the world to eat like me. They shouldn’t. They should eat primarily what is local to them and what they evolved on. Is that not reasonable? Why should people in Sweden be told they need foods they didn’t evolve on? Why fly bananas and papayas to Stockholm telling the people they “need” them? Aren’t we supposed to reduce our carbon footprint? I don’t push for any traditional societies that don’t eat red meat or dairy to start now. How am I being unreasonable or forcing my belief on anyone?

          I care about animals, too. Even Badgers. When someone brings to my attention the mistreatment of ANY animal, I listen and sometimes take action myself. I have rescued dogs, cats (and I don’t just mean taken them in for the night, I mean like off of the middle of a busy highway), I have fed and raised baby birds and set them free to fly away when they were ready. Concern for animals is important and organizations dedicated to protecting them are worthwhile and necessary.

          Given the previous paragraph what I find unproductive is being confronted by vegans so militant they’d think it appropriate to scream at a farmer for sitting down to milk a cow as though he were a grinning thug who just kicked a puppy and was about kick another.

          My fridge is stocked with milk, cheese, butter and liver. I’ll be OK for another week…

          I’m supposedly a “senior” now. That’s depressing. But when I ride my mountain bike and jump up and down curbs or surf or ski or fly aerobatics

          Like you I wasn’t brought up vegan. But in my past I have tried a few different diets. I was alive when the great advice was to each high-carb. “Live on bread and wheat

          • edit:
            … surf or ski or fly aerobatics I have more endurance than a teenager.

            “Live on bread and wheat” and whole grain we were told.

            But that’s unnatural and won’t work well in the long run for health or the planet.

          • Alvin – great thoughts, really enjoyed reading. How did the Eskimos get their vitamin C. Its true, we’ve all been taught that we need to eat our fruits and vegetables, but obviously Eskimos in the arctic eat very few yet survived for multiple generations without any. There is probably no diet that is the holy grail, but eating what our ancestors ate is probably going to be a safe bet for us. Eating meat and animal based foods offer more complete nutrition in smaller portions. You have to eat a wider amount of vegetable, grains, etc to get the same nutrition as in meat or dairy which begs the naturalness of it.

          • Dairy guy,
            You may have heard of Vilhjalmur Stefansson and his experience in the Arctic and also his participation in an experiment to see if humans could live on meat (and fat) alone. I believe he and another volunteer went about a year on that diet and showed that carbs were unnecessary.

            This was not a diet of “steaks” for that experiment. They had to eat essentially “every part of the animal” which is what traditional peoples would do. That is, they ate lots of organ meat, liver, bone marrow and fat. The muscle meat was likely consumed as “filler”. I think you have to eat organ meats since muscle meat (even with its’ fat) simply doesn’t provide enough of the critically necessary vitamins and minerals.

            Last year I went 46 days on meat alone (lamb shoulder mostly). It was doable and not particularly unpleasant but I made the mistake of not including any organ meat at all. I felt alright strengthwise and held my weight but my innards were not happy. After the first week I had softer stool which could have been due to the radical changeover to a ketogenic paleo diet. Many people report this same transition effect. Could it have been milk withdrawal too? Or beneficial bacteria die-off? who knows –

            Anyway, I figured 40 + days was long enough and reasoned my esteemed ancestors would rarely go without dairy products – if they had the cows or the goats they had likely the milk too. So I added the dairy (milk, butter, cheese) back in. Ahhh… and within a couple days, the innards are happy, I’m happy and the output is back to perfection. I haven’t been to a dairy farm to compare “output”, but while I keep hearing how “cow’s milk is for calves”, I have EXTREME difficulty believing a calf can digest cow’s milk more efficiently than I. I mean, for me it is the perfect fuel.

            Regarding Vitamin C I looked up some information on why and how we can get by without dietary C (from fruits or plant matter, etc) and I found this on the web by someone concerned with Autoimmune Thyroid Disease:

            “Meat not only prevents scurvy because it contains tiny quantities of vitamin C, it prevents it because it bypasses the need for vitamin C. Vitamin C is required to form collagen in the body, and it does this – despite being described everywhere as an antioxidant – by oxidation. Vitamin C’s role in collagen formation is to transfer a hydroxyl group to the amino acids lysine and proline. Meat, however, already contains appreciable quantities of hydroxylysine and hydroxyproline, bypassing some of the requirement for vitamin C. In other words, your vitamin C requirement is dependent upon how much meat you do not eat.”

            I think it’s that last line that really spells it out. If sailors on ships were fed bland and poor diets of hardtack, gruel with or without very lean (and unfresh) meat they developed scurvy. Their condition could then have been cured in either of two different ways: with fresh fruit containing lots of Vitamin C or with fresh meat. I’m not sure which would be the faster cure – whether an orange or maybe a thick fresh steak. I don’t plan on trying to develop scurvy to find out.

            As I said I’m doing fine, very strong, no wobbly teeth, hair not falling out, perfect vision, a shiny coat (haha), excellent stamina (like a Mongol warrior) just couldn’t be healthier – and I haven’t consumed any fruit or vegetables (other than an orange in 2015) or taken any vitamin supplements (or supplements of any kind) in years. My breakfast is a warm bowl of milk with a minimum three tablespoons of butter floating and melting into it. Midday snacking is more (cold) milk if I’m in the vicinity of the fridge. Dinner is usually 6 – 8 ounces of quality Dutch gouda, Irish cheddar or other cheese, preferably a raw milk variety. Today it’s a French raw milk cheese from Nantua. Then “dessert” is more milk… At this point cold milk tastes as sweet as ice cream to me. And once as week a half pound of grass-fed liver “boiled” in a couple ounces of butter.

            If you’re interested in getting more fat and nutrients in a portable condensed package (other than cheese) there are a couple places online that sell pemmican bars. Some are mixed with honey or berries.

          • Stupid?

            Yes, milk has nutritional value, which is why ALL new-born mammals drink their mother’s up to weening.
            Yes, some humans drank the milk from other animals at some points in recent history, some for survival.

            The vast majority of us, particularly in the developed world, have absolutely no need to consume cow’s milk for survival anymore; it is a choice erroneously sold to the masses as being natural, normal and necessary.

            There are a number of points of contention regarding milk consumption both on this site and on the wider internet, which include:

            The naturalness of drinking another animal’s milk.
            Drinking milk unnecessarily beyond weening.
            Lactose intolerance in a huge proportion of the world’s human population.
            Any negative health benefits and the implications of daily milk consumption.

            So without wanting to revisit these specifics, because let’s face it, we’ve done that, there are a few irrefutable FACTS that remain TRUE and must be part of this debate. These include:

            Vast numbers of cows are purposefully breed and kept captive, against their will, on dairy farms.
            Artificial insemination, routine in the dairy industry, is a terribly invasive and stressful procedure.
            Calves are separated from their mothers at an unnaturally young age.
            Male calves are surplus to requirements in the dairy industry, so routinely destroyed.
            Dairy cows live vastly shorted lives (just 25%); they are routinely slaughtered when they become unproductive.
            Dairy farming generates significant GHG emissions and is, in part, responsible for the alarming rate of global warming.
            Farmed animals are exploited as a resource and processed accordingly on production lines in factories.

            So, sorry to interrupt your mutual appreciation Alvin and DG, but I think it is crucial that truths are heard and a sense of balance maintained in this important debate. How else are people meant to make an informed choice otherwise, unless they know the truth behind where their food comes from? If all they ever hear is your side DG then they are not getting the full picture, simply a dairy farmers perspective with a vested interest.

          • “So without wanting to revisit these specifics…”

            Of course not. You just want to post your entire screed again without its’ problematic “specifics” being challenged.

            You never answered what you would do with the “vast numbers of cows” currently kept for meat and milk. They would go where then?

            “The vast majority of us, particularly in the developed world, have absolutely no need to consume cow’s milk for survival anymore; it is a choice erroneously sold to the masses as being natural, normal and necessary.”

            Hmm. “Developed world.” Badger, would you try to “sell” the Maasai (or Mongols) on giving up their dairying cattle? And if that didn’t work would you resort to force to get them to “go vegan”? I wonder…do you look like the Maasai? I’m just trying to picture someone like you – an effete and “developed” First Worlder – overseeing the confiscation of African cattle from African natives. It’s quite a picture.

            Do you have “absolutely no need” for cow’s milk? Good for you. Your weekly milk bill must be way lower than mine. But then I probably spend far, far less than you on soybeans, wheat, rice, corn or any other grains, cultivated fruits or vegetables, “seitan” or any factory-processed and produced Frankensteinian combination of the above.

            And of course I don’t contribute to “green house gases” by funding the monoculture Agri-businesses that depend so intensely on mechanized harvesting and processing. How much diesel needs to be burned to harvest a row of corn, wheat or soybeans? To fertilize the soil? How many human field workers – who themselves inevitably add to GHG by their mere presence in a region where they drive cars, or use mass transportation, burden infrastructure, use state services, consume electricity – are needed in the fields to pick your fruit and veggies?

            “There are a number of points of contention regarding milk consumption both on this site and on the wider internet.”

            Really?

            “The naturalness of drinking another animal’s milk.”

            What was it you said about not wanting to “revisit the specifics” we’ve been through before?

            And yet, there you go again… So I’ll ask once more:
            Do you define the “naturalness” of human activity by what other animals do? If they don’t do it, we shouldn’t either? If they do – then we should?

            Billions of flies and lots of “higher animals” like rabbits, chimps, gorillas are coprophagic. So you have at it, Badger. I’ll just accept being called “unnatural” for drinking cow’s milk and disposing of my “output” instead of eating it. (shudder)

            “Lactose intolerance”? In the words of McEnroe: “You cannot be serious.”
            How is this an issue? It just hit me! There’s a solution! If someone is lactose intolerant… stay with me, now… they shouldn’t drink milk!
            If someone is allergic to peanuts… don’t force them to eat peanuts. See how this works?
            What do you eat, Badger? If I tried eating what you like or live on and I have a bad reaction or ill-feeling or just dislike the taste should I go on a world-wide campaign to have that food banned? Taken away from you?

            “Any negative health benefits and the implications of daily milk consumption.”

            None here. But I’ll let you know next decade, shall I? This one’s in the bag and I’m far better off health-wise now than when I was consuming plant matter.

            “Vast numbers of cows are purposefully breed and kept captive, against their will, on dairy farms.”

            Interviewed them all, have you?

            “Artificial insemination, routine in the dairy industry, is a terribly invasive and stressful procedure.”

            But if you take away artificial insemination then farmers will have no way to sustain or multiply their herds and all cattle-keeping and dairying will have to disappear!
            …or the farmers could just introduce Mr. Bull to Miss Heifer and … well, you know… let NATURE take its’ course. Would that be “stressful”? Only if he’s doing it right…

            “Calves are separated from their mothers at an unnaturally young age. Male calves are surplus to requirements in the dairy industry, so routinely destroyed.”

            It occurs to me that in their “natural” state, calves of “free” wild ruminants are very often “separated from their mothers at an unnaturally young age”. When lions and tigers and wolves and other predators act naturally and hunt them and tear them apart and eat them. Between us, Badger, I think your problem is far more with Nature herself than with me.

            But in the dairy industry it does happen that calves are slaughtered, albeit far more humanely than by lions’ claws and wolves’ teeth.

            It doesn’t need to happen by definition and everyone doesn’t do it. But you know that right? Your memory isn’t that short, is it? Don’t you remember California dairyman Mark McAfee who you called “dumb Mark”? As this was addressed before:

            “McAfee found that 70% of the time cows would leave their young to be eaten by coyotes or be trampled, as their maternal instinct had long been bred out of them after generations of never having to fend for themselves, or their young.”

            “Mark prefers to put his calves in group pens, raise them on real milk, and then release them back into the herd once they reach seven to eight months of age. Instead of being used for veal, male calves are raised to maturity to produce Organic Pasture’s 100% grass-fed ground beef.”

            I didn’t want to “revisit” this, you did, by regurgitating an old claim about how mankind’s dairying is inherently brutal to calves – as opposed to gentle and merciful Nature.

            “Dairy cows live vastly shorted lives…”

            Compared to what? How long they’d live in a “zoo”? In the wild?

            “Dairy farming generates significant GHG emissions and is, in part, responsible for the alarming rate of global warming.”

            I’m not convinced that human-activity or cattle ownership is causing the warming – if it is getting warmer. I haven’t seen enough good science to support the claims. And I have a big problem with the tactics of some of the supporters tossing out psych warfare terms like “denier” to try to discredit their opponents. That use of “denier!” immediately throws a red flag up that these pushers of an agenda can’t support their theory any other way.
            That said, I support all efforts to end or reduce pollution, and I support most if not all “green” technologies. I want a clean Earth as much as anyone because I want the milk I drink to come from cows who in turn had clean air and water and nutritious grass to eat. See how that works?

            But regarding cows and grass and “greenhouse gases”, I found this response someone wrote on this issue:

            “Do you understand that the CO2 that is released from “burping herbivores” comes from the process of the sugars in the plant material breaking down? That is a process that WILL occur no matter how that plant material is broken down. Whether it’s from herbivores, omnivores, ruminants, rodents, primates, BACTERIA, or anything else, those sugars will be broken down and CO2 will be a by-product. It’s a natural cycle that keeps the planet breathing. In living plants CO2 is absorbed to create sugars and give off O2 as waste. When plants decay, the organism “eating” the plant absorbs O2 to break down the sugars and give off CO2 as waste. It is a zero-sum equation. That plant matter that those burping herbivores are eating would have decayed from some other process that would have produced equal amounts of CO2 and those plants being devoured makes way for new plants to grow which will then again absorb equal amounts of CO2 and give off O2.
            The reason CO2 is constantly increasing for us is because when trees evolved there was nothing that could consume them, there weren’t even any bacteria that were adapted to eating the dead trees. So they did not decay. They were left in the earth for millions of years under pressure and that’s where fossil fuels come from. All that CO2 that was abosrbed by those trees was never released back out into the atmosphere. Now that we are burning them, that is exactly what is happening. And since bacteria and animals have evolved to be able to eat trees, we’re never going to have all that CO2 packed away buried in the Earth again.”

            Ah, science. I need a glass of milk now.

            “Farmed animals are exploited as a resource and processed accordingly on production lines in factories.”

            I’m right there with ya. Let’s oppose and stop mistreatment of animals in these “factory farms” and instead support those farmers that are humane. Wait – I’m already doing just that.

            “So, sorry to interrupt your mutual appreciation Alvin and DG, but I think it is crucial that truths are heard and a sense of balance maintained in this important debate.”

            “Truths”? “Balance”? You’re just posting your personal views. You refuse to answer direct questions that challenge your vegan agenda:

            What would you do with the ‘vast numbers’ of domestic cattle we have on hand now?
            Do you admit there is a difference between “factory farming” and humane non-factory dairying? Or is it “all the same” in your judgment?
            Do you deny the importance and role of cholesterol in the body?
            If doing what animals do is “natural” and correct will you be eating some poop today?
            Why is it the longest lived people on Earth with the fewest cardiovascular problems also have the highest blood serum cholesterol? And the reverse is true for those with the lowest?
            Is dietary Vitamin C from fruits, vegetables, plants necessary for human survival? If it is…then disregard this entire post and see a doctor: You’re arguing with a ghost 😉

            “How else are people meant to make an informed choice otherwise, [I agree…] unless they know the truth [yours?] behind where their food comes from? If all they ever hear is your side DG then they are not getting the full picture, simply a dairy farmers perspective with a vested interest.”

            Who are YOU, Badger? Someone also with a “vested interest”? How do we know you aren’t in the nut “milk”, soy “milk” business yourself or hired by them to assault your direct competition – the dairy milk providers? How do we know you aren’t otherwise employed in some way by the vegan-products industry? Your word?
            You have no credibility or credentials here that make you superior to anyone. And when you evade answering direct questions you have no credibility at all.

  5. A: “So without wanting to revisit these specifics…”

    B: You’re not listening Alvin… I said “because let’s face it, we’ve done that”. I’ve been debating this with DG for some time now. Check it out…
    I can’t believe how much utter tosh you speak Alvin! I’m gonna do my best here because going over and over stuff with someone who is not prepared to entertain reason, is frustrating.

    A: Of course not. You just want to post your entire screed again without its’ problematic “specifics” being challenged.

    B: That’s just not true

    A: You never answered what you would do with the “vast numbers of cows” currently kept for meat and milk. They would go where then?

    B: Farmed animals are “purposefully breed” (I did say this!) in their billions, for human exploitation. I’m sure you must have heard of ‘supply and demand’? I can’t believe you are incapable of working this out. Sit and ponder this for a moment and see if a solution comes to you. I’ll give you a clue… if farmers didn’t “purposefully breed” animals….

    A: “The vast majority of us, particularly in the developed world, have absolutely no need to consume cow’s milk for survival anymore; it is a choice erroneously sold to the masses as being natural, normal and necessary.”
    Hmm. “Developed world.” Badger, would you try to “sell” the Maasai (or Mongols) on giving up their dairying cattle? And if that didn’t work would you resort to force to get them to “go vegan”? I wonder…do you look like the Maasai? I’m just trying to picture someone like you – an effete and “developed” First Worlder – overseeing the confiscation of African cattle from African natives. It’s quite a picture.

    B: Oh dear Alvin, I used the term “developed world” intentionally and specifically so as not to prejudice people like the Maasai. Have another read and think about what I said. My criticism is of the ‘developed’ world where people can walk in to a giant grocery store anytime, which sells over 20,000 products, and buy whatever the hell they like. Now that’s choice. It’s a shame you cannot grasp what I am saying when I write things down. To think you mistakenly thought I was getting at Third Worlders. That’s funny

    A: Do you have “absolutely no need” for cow’s milk? Good for you. Your weekly milk bill must be way lower than mine.

    B: My animal milk bill is zero! However, I use plant-based milks thanks for asking Alvin; simple, delicious, nutritious and 100% cruelty free.

    A: But then I probably spend far, far less than you on soybeans, wheat, rice, corn or any other grains, cultivated fruits or vegetables, “seitan” or any factory-processed and produced Frankensteinian combination of the above.

    B: You sound bitter and uneducated making comments like that. Go for it Alvin!

    A: And of course I don’t contribute to “green house gases” by funding the monoculture Agri-businesses that depend so intensely on mechanized harvesting and processing. How much diesel needs to be burned to harvest a row of corn, wheat or soybeans? To fertilize the soil? How many human field workers – who themselves inevitably add to GHG by their mere presence in a region where they drive cars, or use mass transportation, burden infrastructure, use state services, consume electricity – are needed in the fields to pick your fruit and veggies?

    B: Bingo! That’s the argument right there! It’s extremely well documented that animal farming generates a huge amount of GHG in the form of methane and nitrates. Of course we all have a personal carbon footprint to consider, but that’s not quite the same as industrialised GHG generation, don’t you agree? If you want to significantly cut your individual carbon footprint, ditch animal products. Do some research before trying to defend the indefensible.

    A: “There are a number of points of contention regarding milk consumption both on this site and on the wider internet.”
    Really?

    B: Yes, really

    A: “The naturalness of drinking another animal’s milk.”
    What was it you said about not wanting to “revisit the specifics” we’ve been through before?
    And yet, there you go again…

    B: I’m simply stating some well-known points of contention without wanting to waste my time making points I have already made on this site… keep up

    A: “Any negative health benefits and the implications of daily milk consumption.”
    None here.

    B: Are you seriously suggesting Alvin that you are the yard-stick we should all base our diets on? No one in their right mind can take a guy seriously who deliberately eats meat only for 40+ days! That’s just ridiculous. You may have survived, but I can assure you that any credible dietician worth their salt, basing their advice on qualified research and scientific evidence, would recommend a balanced diet including plenty of fruit and veg.

    A: “Vast numbers of cows are purposefully bred and kept captive, against their will, on dairy farms.”
    Interviewed them all, have you?

    B: The ignorance displayed by your unintelligent reply is impressive.
    Consider this… even though all those victims of slavery were not interviewed, it might be a fair assumption that they were held against their will. What you thinking Alvin?

    A: “Artificial insemination, routine in the dairy industry, is a terribly invasive and stressful procedure.”
    But if you take away artificial insemination then farmers will have no way to sustain or multiply their herds and all cattle-keeping and dairying will have to disappear!
    …or the farmers could just introduce Mr. Bull to Miss Heifer and … well, you know… let NATURE take its’ course. Would that be “stressful”? Only if he’s doing it right…

    B: Your inappropriately whimsical reply didn’t really answer my point about it being “a terribly invasive and stressful procedure” did it Alvin? After all, that was my actual point.
    Pinning animals and inseminating them against their will is tantamount to rape wouldn’t you agree? The farmer does this purely for his own gain as you have so aptly pointed out, thank you. How a cow may feel about this is of no regard whatsoever to the farmer. It’s a baby-making production-line with profits to be made. As for animals mating in the wild as oppose to being forcefully inseminated in captivity, yep, that would seem pretty NATURAL to me.

    A: It occurs to me that in their “natural” state, calves of “free” wild ruminants are very often “separated from their mothers at an unnaturally young age”.

    B: Some evidence to back this up would have been useful, rather than just thinking something that simply ‘occurs’ to you has any credibility? Trying to compare the natural occurrence of infant/parent separation in the wild, with the routine systematic premeditated forced separation of millions and millions of new-born and infant offspring from their mothers on farms, seems a pretty weak argument. Try researching some numbers to support your this and come back to me if it turns out you have a valid point.

    A: Between us, Badger, I think your problem is far more with Nature herself than with me.

    B: Yeah, of course Alvin, that’s why I speak up for defenceless animals who suffer cruel abuse in captivity on production lines in factories, because I have a problem with “nature herself”. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense…

    A: But in the dairy industry it does happen that calves are slaughtered, albeit far more humanely than by lions’ claws and wolves’ teeth.

    B: So, let me get this right… as long as the millions of male calves who are bred deliberately, only to find themselves surplus to requirements, are murdered in a ‘humane’ way, that’s all good with you. No moral question there then. Nice logic

    A: I didn’t want to “revisit” this, you did, by regurgitating an old claim about how mankind’s dairying is inherently brutal to calves – as opposed to gentle and merciful Nature.

    B: Wrong again Alvin. I didn’t want to revisit the points of contention I stated “because let’s face it, we’ve done that” (haven’t I already said that? I’m sure I did. I’ll leave you to check that).
    However what I am more than happy to discuss are the standard cruel practices which are routine in the industrialised exploitation of animals.

    A: “Dairy cows live vastly shorted lives…”
    Compared to what? How long they’d live in a “zoo”? In the wild?

    B: Yes Alvin, in the wild! A cow in the wild would naturally live 20-25 years. On a dairy farm they are killed off after just 4-5 years when they become commercially unviable. No retirement plan there for Mrs Cow, its hamburger time for her.

    A: “Dairy farming generates significant GHG emissions and is, in part, responsible for the alarming rate of global warming.”
    I’m not convinced that human-activity or cattle ownership is causing the warming – if it is getting warmer. I haven’t seen enough good science to support the claims.

    B: Okay, a CLIMATE DENIER as well. Why am I hardly surprised? Look Alvin, just research it. Life is too short for me to try and educate you on this. The environmental harm caused by animal farming is well documented and scientifically accepted. There is a mountain of fact-based evidence out there to support this. Just look it up and read it. Check out what NASA says if that’s credible enough for you. Thousands of scientists are frantically working on climate change as we speak, and the data shows animal farming is a very real part of the problem. Pretending otherwise is foolish. If you live in America then maybe you don’t get to hear about the realities of climate change as much the rest of the world does, so maybe I could make some allowance for your ignorance on this critically important and deeply worrying subject.

    A: “Farmed animals are exploited as a resource and processed accordingly on production lines in factories.”
    I’m right there with ya. Let’s oppose and stop mistreatment of animals in these “factory farms” and instead support those farmers that are humane. Wait – I’m already doing just that.

    B: Your arguments suggest otherwise

    A: “So, sorry to interrupt your mutual appreciation Alvin and DG, but I think it is crucial that truths are heard and a sense of balance maintained in this important debate.”
    “Truths”? “Balance”? You’re just posting your personal views.

    B: I think it’s fair to say that DG has posted huge amounts on his blog about how he feels, what he thinks and how he morally justifies dairy farming. I’m simply trying to bring some balance to that one-sided view point, get it? DG does at least try to use some scientific and historical info to support his views.

    A: You refuse to answer direct questions that challenge your vegan agenda:
    What would you do with the ‘vast numbers’ of domestic cattle we have on hand now?

    B: Answered that…

    A: Do you admit there is a difference between “factory farming” and humane non-factory dairying? Or is it “all the same” in your judgment?

    B: There is not enough land on earth to meet the meat and dairy demands without factory farms – research it…
    All farmed animals die brutal deaths in slaughterhouses regardless of where they come from, so in that sense, yes, they are the same.

    A: Do you deny the importance and role of cholesterol in the body?

    B: No, that would be an ignorant thing to do. Do you deny that too much LDL cholesterol is bad?

    A: If doing what animals do is “natural” and correct will you be eating some poop today?

    B: What? Sorry, that’s a very strange and slightly disturbing thing to say

    A: Why is it the longest lived people on Earth with the fewest cardiovascular problems also have the highest blood serum cholesterol? And the reverse is true for those with the lowest?

    B: Why is the Western world, which gorges on foods high in saturated fats, riddled with heart disease, strokes, diabetes, etc.? Have a read of this (if DG allows it)… I trust that a Harvard Institute piece on ‘Dietary Fat and Disease’ is a credible enough source for you??

    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/dietary-fat-and-disease/

    A: “How else are people meant to make an informed choice otherwise, [I agree…] unless they know the truth [yours?]

    B: The truths I speak of, of routine cruelty, oppression and exploitation of defenceless animals on farms, are based on research and evidence. Check it out…

    A: If all they ever hear is your side DG then they are not getting the full picture, simply a dairy farmer’s perspective with a vested interest.”
    Who are YOU, Badger? Someone also with a “vested interest”?

    B: Who are YOU, Alvin to answer for Dairy Guy? How charming of you to do so, but I suspect he is more than capable of speaking for himself. You sure you’re not in cahoots?

    A: How do we know you aren’t in the nut “milk”, soy “milk” business yourself or hired by them to assault your direct competition – the dairy milk providers? How do we know you aren’t otherwise employed in some way by the vegan-products industry? Your word?

    B: Now you’re sounding desperate Alvin. Clutching at straws? Of course I would happily promote vegan products and a vegan lifestyle simply because it’s cruelty-free. Not to make money Alvin, no, because I do not want to be involved in the undeniable exploitation of animals. Have I not made this clear enough? I’m sure I have. If you want to try and label me as anything other than someone who gives a shit, because you are running out of things to say, you go for it. I could make similar accusation against you, but that would mean lowering my standards.

    A: You have no credibility or credentials here that make you superior to anyone. And when you evade answering direct questions you have no credibility at all.

    B: I am but a humble member of society with a conscience, that’s all Alvin. I know that’s a hard concept for you, that someone could feel unconditional compassion towards other beings, enough to stop using and abusing them.
    Credibility is based on and backed up by scientific research and facts, not some mystical mumbo-jumbo which inspires someone to eat just red meat for 40+ days straight claiming it’s a healthy thing to do. That’s completely ridiculous. Show me some ‘credible’ scientific medical research which says that was a good idea and should be encouraged. Where’s YOUR credibility Alvin?

    • Post #1 to Badger,

      I asked: What would you do with the ‘vast numbers’ of domestic cattle we have on hand now?

      Your response:
      “B: Farmed animals are “purposefully breed” (I did say this!) in their billions, for human exploitation. I’m sure you must have heard of ‘supply and demand’? I can’t believe you are incapable of working this out. Sit and ponder this for a moment and see if a solution comes to you. I’ll give you a clue… if farmers didn’t “purposefully breed” animals….”

      Since you left this vague….let me see if I can figure out using logic what your solution would be: The “billions of animals” we now have are the “supply” and the populace (those now wanting meat and milk) are the “demand”.

      For simplification I’ll limit this examination just to the cattle alone since reducing absolutely all domestic stock of all kinds to zero is a far greater hurdle.

      Due to a change in demand there are essentially two possible scenarios – at either end of the spectrum – that would reduce the “supply” of domestic cows to zero:

      1) A gradual reduction in demand which would mean that the number of animals being milked or consumed for food would decrease to zero over a longer period of time.

      2) A rapid reduction in demand which would mean that the number of animals being milked or consumed for food would decrease to zero over a shorter period of time.

      The time period and the rate of change in demand are the only variables here. The end result you say you want remains the same: No more animals kept for meat and milk on this planet.

      While either scenario plays out with either a rapid or a gradual reduction in demand there would remain X number of animals still on the farms, those being unsold, essentially unmilked and unutilized for food – being that the farmer could not sell them for their meat or their milk. I would suppose in this case that the more humane among the farmers (do we think they exist?…) would continue to milk their cows and/or feed the calves on hand that could use it or pour it out on the ground. Milk being according to you “unnecessary, unfit, improper, genocidal”, etc thus quite, quite wrong for human consumption. So, into a calf or on the ground it goes.

      In the case of a rapid reduction in demand this number of cows remaining on the farm would be huge, if “overnight”, then 100% of the stock on hand would remain unsold, unmilked (for human consumption) and unutilized on Day One.

      I’m not certain what would happen in this case. Yes, perhaps millions of farmers would go bankrupt with some reactions similar to the stock market crash of 1929 but for the purposes of this examination that isn’t a concern for us. At any rate, there they would remain on Day One: a billion plus cows and their milk, unsold as humanity switches over to a vegan diet.

      No more cattle are being bred so there are “only” those 1.4 billion on hand in this scenario to worry about and dispense with. What happens to them now? Well, with no more being bred, even allowing them to stay on their farms (supported by who?) they would live out their lives, die off and be gone.

      So in the case of a rapid reduction in demand – such as humanity switching overnight to a vegan diet – the end result will be (X years down the road) the death of all the cows that were on the farms. So no more cattle there.

      One could indeed suggest that all these cattle or a portion of them (number to be determined by you…) be set “free” in some geographic location to live out their lives and even to procreate follow-on generations instead of remaining on the now-bankrupt farms during their natural attrition. The Serengeti, perhaps? But nevertheless, the ones currently in “captivity” , on ranches and on dairy farms would all die off eventually anyway. The only cattle surviving this scenario will be the ones you’ve set “free” on the Serengeti (or wherever you’ve decided…) where they will then have to fend for themselves among new “neighbors” with Nature dictating their future.

      The other possible scenario is a gradual reduction of domesticated cattle by a more gradual reduction in demand (over X number of years). But this scenario ends the same as the other: No more cows alive on farms. That’s your goal. Whatever number is still alive down the road in the future would be wild and “free” and living in Nature – where their numbers would be held in check by natural predation, which will include from time to time the young being stalked and killed and eaten (as seen on countless nature programs) without which of course, they would multiply to the point where they would outstrip their living space’s capacity to sustain them and then begin to die off due to starvation.

      Notice that the end result in either scenario – or in any variation – of your “final solution” to the domesticated cattle “problem” is still the death of all the cows that were on the farms in the first place. It doesn’t matter whether death comes as a result of being food for man or for beasts on the Serengeti – they WILL all die. You have just determined that people won’t be consuming the meat nor drink the milk before they go.

      If you have a different solution that doesn’t end with all the cows on farms today being dead in the future and the ones set “free” being hunted and eaten by predators, do share it. And this time, be very specific not coy and vague.

    • Post # 2 to Badger:

      I asked: Do you admit there is a difference between “factory farming” and humane non-factory dairying? Or is it “all the same” in your judgment?

      Your response:
      “B: There is not enough land on earth to meet the meat and dairy demands without factory farms – research it…
      All farmed animals die brutal deaths in slaughterhouses regardless of where they come from, so in that sense, yes, they are the same.”

      Regarding your own claim “there is not enough land on Earth to meet the demand for meat and dairy without factory farms” are you saying the demand is so great that were these factory farms shut down and the stores “go empty” that people would riot? Go to war to re-open them? The world-wide demand for meat and milk is that overpowering?

      Then your cause is lost right now. You’ll never come close to shutting down the abusive industry – because according to you people won’t stand for it.

      Or – are you saying that if people knew “what really happens” on factory farms that rather than forcing the farms to change they would instead accept empty store shelves and just go vegan? Which is it? Do they eat meat and drink milk because of an overpowering internal demand that you cannot change- or because they don’t know about the abuse or they couldn’t care less?

      At any rate I totally disagree with you. Saying that humane non-“factory” dairy farms can’t exist today is of course asinine – they do. The rational among us know that. But I can’t get a rational admission from someone who thinks cows are being “raped”. I suppose even putting a bull in a pen with a cow is morally questionable: I mean they might copulate but, was it really “consensual”…

      Your premise that “there is not enough land…” is patently and historically laughable. “Factory” farms are entirely modern things – 20th Century things in fact. Domestication of cattle for dairying alone is upwards of 7,000 years old. Look up the Funnel Beaker Culture.

      My ancestors, and their neighbors… and the tribes and nations in which they lived and survived and functioned and thrived, ate meat and drank milk and made cheese…generation after generation… and did so quite successfully millennium after millennium – all without factory farming. Or even machinery or engines.

      How could this be? How could they live on meat and milk without factory farms? Because each family and homestead was a “farm”. You must be so removed from your own past and your ancestors that you’ve forgotten that. Either that or your ancestors never kept herd animals for meat or milk because it’s not part of your own history or ancestry – in which case you’d have what right to insist I adapt to your dietary demands? Right. None at all.

      Eventually some farmers – likely the more successful ones – remained (alive) and continued as farmers and dairymen. Others, through necessity and by free enterprise and other abilities became carpenters, blacksmiths, soldiers, thinkers and explorers and built the civilization and infrastructure which today you are living off of and benefiting from the foundation of.

      While not all remained farmers all in a tribe or region needed sustenance. Farms and herds got proportionately larger and meat, milk and cheese was bought, sold and bartered for as markets were established. But they got by quite well and all this for thousands of years with not a factory farm, mechanized or motorized milking machine or tractor in sight. And then along comes Badger… preaching: “It’s not possible!…it can’t be…not without factory farms and torturing animals!” Tosh. Utter tosh.

    • Post #3 to Badger:

      On a post of yours (April 2) you had written:
      “It’s an interesting tact you take regarding the effects of cholesterol; choosing not to deny that fatty dairy (and red meats), heavy in saturated fats cause increased levels of cholesterol, instead arguing that increased levels of cholesterol are not harmful,”

      You misunderstood or misrepresented me: I am not “denying” that eating saturated animal fat raises cholesterol and I didn’t say anything as wishy-washy as : “yet it’s not harmful”. I am EXTOLLING the relationship between dietary fat and cholesterol in the body. Higher cholesterol – above 200 – or whatever would normally occur in a healthy individual not on statins – is to be desired in my view. You do what you want, in fact Badger, if you haven’t already, run out to your doctor and get a long-term prescription for statins. May I suggest Lipitor? I have never taken statins and never will. I have zero fear of the cholesterol level naturally occurring in my body but lots of concern with the incredibly profitable drug industry making billions. I’ve lost relatives – watched them suffer and decay without being able to intervene while someone’s making a bundle. So you have at it: Knock your nasty cholesterol down to zero. That’ll make ya healthy. And the sooner the better.

      I asked: Do you deny the importance and role of cholesterol in the body?

      By your responses we clearly see cholesterol differently. And I am so totally at peace with that…

      You ask: “Do you deny that too much LDL cholesterol is bad?”

      I don’t know. What constitutes”too much”? What someone has told you or what nature develops and regulates within you as a healthy individual? We need water in our bodies to live but too much can kill you. If I ask you, “Do you deny that too much water is bad?” what would your answer be? Right.

      Nevertheless, here’s my stand: I have no fear of the naturally-occurring levels of cholesterol in me, no matter the type: High Density Lipo-protein….Low Density Lipo-protein… due to my diet of meat and dairy. Is that clear enough?

    • Post #4 to Badger:

      Because you trotted out yet again the notion that we shouldn’t drink cow’s milk, I had to ask you yet again to take a position and stick to it:

      I asked: Do you define the “naturalness” of human activity by what other animals do? If they don’t do it, we shouldn’t either? If they do – then we should?

      Your response:
      “B: I’m simply stating some well-known points of contention without wanting to waste my time making points I have already made on this site… keep up”

      Could I get an answer in English?
      Like “Yes, what animals do is “natural” thus we should do exactly as they do”. Or “No, our “naturalness” is not defined by what other animals may or may not do. We can behave differently but still be “natural”.

      How hard can that be to get a definite answer from you? Is English not your first language?

      Later, you responded to my point blank question: If doing what animals do is “natural” and correct will you be eating some poop today?

      With this:
      “B: What? Sorry, that’s a very strange and slightly disturbing thing to say”

      Oh, Badger. Not at all. It’s not disturbing at all. Eating poop – sometimes your own – is perfectly “natural”. Not for me of course since I’m an “unnatural” milk-drinking, non-poop eating toilet-flusher. But you are “natural” like the animals. Who eat their poop.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia#Vertebrates

      Please don’t waste my time with evasion. Don’t post a blizzard of vegan crap telling me how “unnatural” milk-drinking is because no other animals do it but when it’s pointed out that animals also “naturally” eat poop you play this game of evasion. Everyone can see you’re running from answering the question.

    • Post #8 to Badger:

      I’m going to take a break but I’ll hit on this one for now. By the way, thanks for removing any doubt I may have had about your militancy by thrusting the label “DENIER!” upon me (all caps, too!) :

      You wrote:
      “B: Okay, a CLIMATE DENIER as well. Why am I hardly surprised? Look Alvin, just research it. Life is too short for me to try and educate you on this. The environmental harm caused by animal farming is well documented and scientifically accepted. There is a mountain of fact-based evidence out there to support this. Just look it up and read it. Check out what NASA says if that’s credible enough for you. Thousands of scientists are frantically working on climate change as we speak, and the data shows animal farming is a very real part of the problem. Pretending otherwise is foolish. If you live in America then maybe you don’t get to hear about the realities of climate change as much the rest of the world does, so maybe I could make some allowance for your ignorance on this critically important and deeply worrying subject.”

      You know, my own background is in aerospace: Flying both civilian and military. Designing and building aircraft myself. NASA is quite an organization. But very political, maybe it always has been. It’s understandable – since it is a government-funded outfit. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Are they smart? Not enough to build their own stuff. They don’t actually build anything… did you not know that? If you’re outside the US looking in and see “NASA” mentioned so prominently it must seem like they are the fountain of all genius space creation. My “education”… I grew up in a family with actual rocket scientists in it. Both my uncles and my father. My father designed some of the hydraulic systems for what was the most famed of the X-planes throughout its’ creation and run and those for the Shuttle. Not NASA. Let me say this again: My pops designed the space ships that NASA couldn’t. NASA, is doodley. In so far as it is the expression of the “National Aeronautics and Space Administration” – they “administer” space. Enough of that. If you had talked to an engineer like my father or like Burt Rutan…. you would get an intelligent well-studied answer on any subject – like climate change.

      Not that you’ll entertain such inquiry, but here it is for everyone else:

      http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

      For now, Badger, I don’t expect you to change or entertain a fresh thought or use the gray matter you have left after a long period of drinking nut-“milks”. So I’ll just leave you with the most important thought: Your cholesterol is likely very high (whatever it may be) and you need to lower it. I fervently suggest you ask your doctor to start you on statins ASAP.

    • It looks like Post #4 I either missed or it didn’t make the cut due to the link in it… so I’ll call this one “Post #4-A to Badger”:

      I couldn’t pass this by…
      “A cow in the wild would naturally live 20-25 years.”

      I suppose that’s possible, physiologically. But is that reality? I’ve seen several documentaries from PBS’s “NATURE” and seen what happens on the African Savanna or in Yellowstone.

      I’m trying to picture a “cow” of the type we’re discussing standing there grazing….day in, day out, year in, year out and occasionally trucking on down to the water hole. So the lions just lie there and watch this for “20 years”, is that right?

      • Yes you’re right, nature is a harsh place- a cow can live to that age on the farm but not in the wild. A 10 year old cow cannot run as fast as the younger ones.

    • Badger, you caught me: but it’s not what you think. I don’t get a paycheck. It’s worse than that. Once a week a lorry with the word “MILK” emblazoned on its’ side (direct from the GALACTIC empire distribution hub) visits my secluded cottage on the rugged coast of Downeast Maine. I hear the tires crunching the gravel as it rolls up the long driveway. It stops… the driver’s door opens. I peek through my curtains and catch a capped figure dressed in uniform white dropping off three gallons of full fat whole milk: the “hard stuff”… on my front porch. Sometimes this “delivery” man sees me and gives a wave. Such is the audacity of these demonic deliverers of dairy addiction! But I know: this is my “pay off” for another week of pushing the propaganda of Big Moo on the interwebs. Oh, agony of Faustus! Oh, Richard Burton! I swear by thee I forswear!! I know, I know…I’m strung out on the moo-juice! Also every other week there’s a pound package of butter as well, which is nice. Unsalted. You know I need it pure. Dammit! I knew this would come back to haunt me! And I would have gotten away with it …if it weren’t for you meddling kids!!

    • Post #9 to Badger:

      I read the Harvard diet article you linked.

      First your comment about “the Western world” is your own belief – it’s not in the article. And not all of the Western world “which gorges on foods high in saturated fats is riddled with heart disease, strokes, diabetes”. France, Switzerland and Spain are in the “Western world”. Those three Western countries have some of the highest consumption of saturated animal fat from meat and dairy, the highest blood cholesterol levels and also the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide. They are also among the longest lived.

      America – where Harvard is located – is a whole ‘nother ballgame. Americans eat far too much heavily-processed unnatural food : pizza, bread, corn chips, carbs, sugar (which burns out the pancreas leading to Type 2 diabetes) and when they do eat meat it’s not fresh and grass-fed, it’s cured and preserved and low in nutrients and buried inside a fast-food burger and “gorged” along with fries and a sugary shake or soda. People are addicted to coffee too – hence the invasive growth of the coffee shops that sell the brown swamp water.

      Speaking about heart disease, the Harvard article recommends “the Mediterranean Diet” because it includes “extra-virgin olive oil or nuts, both rich sources of unsaturated fat” then points out below:

      “This study highlighted that low-fat diets are continuing to lose credibility, and that incorporating healthy fats – such as those included in the Mediterranean diet – can improve heart health.”

      “Low-fat diets are losing credibility”. I agree.

      But the article isn’t sure what a “Mediterranean Diet” is, saying:
      “There isn’t one exact Mediterranean diet, as this eating style takes can [sic] incorporate the different foods, eating patterns, and lifestyles in multiple countries that border the Mediterranean Sea.”

      So Harvard itself isn’t sure what the Mediterranean Diet is.

      They note that “However, there are similarities that define a Mediterranean eating pattern including:

      – High intake of olive oil, nuts, vegetables, fruits, and mainly whole grain cereals
      – Moderate intake of fish and poultry
      – Low intake of dairy products, red meat, processed meats, and sweets
      – Wine in moderation, consumed with meals”

      I definitely agree that processed meats and sugar are unhealthy, as I noted in my first two paragraphs above. However Spain is a Mediterranean country, I think, and they eat a lot of red meat and also consume dairy, cheese and butter (as well as olive oil) and they have high cholesterol, a long life-expectancy and among the lowest CVD. Is France considered a “Mediterranean” country? Well, whatever. The French have among the highest consumption of dietary fat: red meat, cheese, butter…. and they too, like the Spanish have high blood cholesterol, long lives and among the lowest rates of CVD. Switzerland is NOT a Mediterranean country and they don’t eat a lot of “healthy” fish but here again their story is the same as France: High saturated fat intake (butter, cheese, red meat), high blood cholesterol levels but long life expectancy and among the lowest rates of CVD.

      On Cancer the article states: “Researchers once suspected an association between dietary fat and common cancers. However, in adults, the percentage of calories consumed from total fat appears to have no significant association with cancer risk, and there is currently no clear evidence linking any specific type of fat with cancer incidence.”

      Why am I reading this article?

      On Breast Cancer it says: “In the early 1980s, most nutrition experts believed that dietary fat was a major cause of breast cancer. (28, 29) This thinking was largely based on international comparisons showing higher breast cancer rates in countries with higher per capita fat intake. But as more prospective studies and randomized controlled trials were performed over the next couple of decades, the apparent link between total fat intake and breast cancer has faded.”

      What did they just say? The link between fat intake and breast cancer has “faded”?

      Next paragraph says this: “The Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial, which was specifically designed to examine the effect of a low-fat diet on the development of breast cancer, showed similar rates of breast cancer in women eating a low-fat diet and in those eating a “regular” diet. (31)”

      So, “similar rates of breast cancer in women eating a low-fat diet and in those eating a “regular” diet. ”

      I’ll buy that…with scientific reservations. What is a “regular diet” according to Harvard? They don’t seem too sure about what constitutes a specific diet like the “Mediterranean” one, how do we know what they mean by “regular”?

      Harvard: “Although studies of different types of fat have largely failed to find a link with breast cancer, some evidence suggests that animal fat intake in young women may be linked to higher risk of breast cancer. In the Nurses’ Health Study II, premenopausal women who ate diets high in animal fat had a 40 to 50 percent higher risk of breast cancer, compared to women who ate the least animal fat. (33) Because vegetable fat was not related to risk of breast cancer, these findings suggest that red meat and high-fat dairy products may contain other factors, such as hormones, that increase risk of breast cancer.”

      This above appears incriminatory of saturated animal fat contributing to breast cancer. I tried to find the source of this 2003 study to see where it was done and the particular reporting criteria it was based on. What were these women eating? Fast-food burgers, fries and shakes? That isn’t clarified. Was the red meat and dairy suggested as being a possible cancer cause here the store-bought, homogenized, conventional corn-fed feedlot stuff or the grass-fed organic kind? If they drank shakes, what was in those shakes to sweeten them? What kind of oil were the fries fried in? Since this was a study by the (American) National Cancer Institute it would be correct to assume that these were American women and not French, Swiss or Spanish, correct?

  6. Post #5 to Badger:

    I asked: Is dietary Vitamin C from fruits, vegetables, plants necessary for human survival?

    You failed to answer that.

  7. Post #6 to Badger:

    I asked: Would you try to “sell” the Maasai (or Mongols) on giving up their dairying cattle? And if that didn’t work would you resort to force to get them to “go vegan”?

    You did not answer that. Instead you informed us about the “availability of 20,000 products in stores” where people can “buy whatever the hell they like”. But you did not answer whether or not if you had the power you would confiscate the herds from the Mongols and the Maasai.
    Could you answer that question with a definitive Yes or a No?

    Or will we get more evasion?

  8. Post #7 to Badger:

    You wrote:
    “It’s extremely well documented that animal farming generates a huge amount of GHG in the form of methane and nitrates.”

    In your own mind, perhaps. All you’ve brought here is “It’s extremely well documented that…”. That’s not an argument. I could just as well say “It’s extremely well documented that veganistic doctrine working through a misled public will lead to governmental policies resulting in world-wide monoculture farming which to support it will ultimately wreck the planet’s natural food-production eventually causing hunger crises leading to instability and then to civil and international wars.” but without the details of how this could happen it carries no weight here.

    I supplied you with a scientific explanation of how the product gases of cows are related to the issue of global warming – which exonerates the cattle as being no worse and no different than natural decomposition of plant material. Did you not understand it? I find it pretty straightforward. If you can’t understand this, how can you lecture others on the science of “climate change”?

    “Do you understand that the CO2 that is released from “burping herbivores” comes from the process of the sugars in the plant material breaking down? That is a process that WILL occur no matter how that plant material is broken down. Whether it’s from herbivores, omnivores, ruminants, rodents, primates, BACTERIA, or anything else, those sugars will be broken down and CO2 will be a by-product. It’s a natural cycle that keeps the planet breathing. In living plants CO2 is absorbed to create sugars and give off O2 as waste. When plants decay, the organism “eating” the plant absorbs O2 to break down the sugars and give off CO2 as waste. It is a zero-sum equation. That plant matter that those burping herbivores are eating would have decayed from some other process that would have produced equal amounts of CO2 and those plants being devoured makes way for new plants to grow which will then again absorb equal amounts of CO2 and give off O2.
    The reason CO2 is constantly increasing for us is because when trees evolved there was nothing that could consume them, there weren’t even any bacteria that were adapted to eating the dead trees. So they did not decay. They were left in the earth for millions of years under pressure and that’s where fossil fuels come from. All that CO2 that was abosrbed by those trees was never released back out into the atmosphere. Now that we are burning them, that is exactly what is happening. And since bacteria and animals have evolved to be able to eat trees, we’re never going to have all that CO2 packed away buried in the Earth again.”

    • Interestingly, modern farming has done a great deal to reduce emissions by getting better efficiencies from cows- just by giving them better care and being more attentive to their needs . Today 9 million cows in the US produce what 30 million cows produced in 1950s. Being that there used to be 80 million buffalo roaming the plains of central N. America, i think we are making progress. Im sure there is a biological reason though why cow emmitions exist, we just haven’t discovered it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here