Cornering dairy
The news this morning is full of stories about the 3rd major political event for the week - a State of the Environment report to be released at lunchtime today is likely to be highly critical of the impact of our dairy industry on the environment. Radio New Zealand currently has a Morning Report debate between Russel and the Federated Farmers on the awaited report.
In 2004 The Parliamentary Commission for the Environment reported that hectares of dairy farms in New Zealand were up 12% between 1994-2002, and the dairy cow population was up 34%; which means more cows per hectare (up 19%) and more intense industrial farming.
It also reported a 162% increase between 1994 and 2002 in the use of urea fertilizer use per hectare of dairy farm and the increasing use of feed supplements such as maize and cereal silage rather than grass to feed cows. This had resulted in a doubling of energy use by dairy farms in 20 years (mostly due to nitrogen fertilizer). All of this was helping to poison our waterways and lakes.
Since that report in 2004 we have put another 200,000 cows onto our pastures and MAF forecasts a further 400,000 in the next four years. Our industrial dairy farms are going to become even more intensive.
So it’s not just a question of farmers improving their environmental practices. There is a real issue about the pressure farmers are coming under to meet the needs of a global food industry that is demanding more, faster and cheaper food.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
norman did well..the fed farmers guy was squirming/defensive..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/russel-norman-kicks-arsego-figure/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
gee eh..can’t link you to my story on norman kicking ar*e..
cos’ it has ars* inthe headline..
poor fwoggy..!..he so sensitive..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 31st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Phil - Thanks for pointing out the link to Radio NZ. As for ‘arse’, Paul Henry gets to use it everyday on the telly, I’m not sure why you or I cannot! I really am a sensitive amphibian. I guess it helps to keep the abusive comments to a minimum.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
What exactly did he mean by saying it would take 40-50 years for us to see any results from what farmers were doing now, and that the problems we see today are the result of what we were doing 40-50 years ago??! Sounds like Labour blaming the last National government for some of today’s problems, except (presumably) this is based on some sort of science??
January 31st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
‘he’ being…uh, the FF guy.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
no stephen r..
it just shows/tells you how feckin’ big the problem is..
and it is non-ideological..
it is what ‘we’ have done..
do try to stop being such an auto-eroticiser..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 31st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
lol “auto-eroticiser”??
I was just wondering where the h*ll(?) he got that figure from! Sounds like a cop-out as 40-50 years is a very long time, but who knows.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
we know stephen..we know..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 31st, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Assume, for a moment, that we all became vegetarian, and did not need milk and beef from the dairy industry.
I suspect we would pretty much all survive, maybe even healthier than before.
But would the country’s economy survive??
What would hapen to NZ if we could no longer use the dairying industry to pay the debt on our overseas borrowings?
January 31st, 2008 at 11:10 pm
pah, at the moment we don’t even cover the interest.
there was a surprise trade surplus in december, but i bet you’ll find the country still slipped further into debt
February 1st, 2008 at 1:02 am
StephenR, Maybe he is suggesting (admitting?) that their is a 50 year buildup of these contaminants in soils and river sediments and it will take 50 years to wash them away?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:10 am
“But would the country’s economy survive??”
As far as I am concerned, if an economy depends upon trashing the environment, unspeakable animal cruelty, and pushing a product that is unhealthy, then it is better that the economy does not survive in that form.
All positive social changes will have had economic consequences but that has never been considered a good enough reason not to go through with them. The abolition of slavery is a good example.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Yeah Kevyn i’m baffled. The decrease in water quality would seems to coincide with dairying expansion. Would need to read that report in detail, see if FF care to expand on what that guy said in the interview.
kiore1 some people would be a bit baffled as to how leaving a cow in a paddock all day is “unspeakable cruelty” - i spose you mean the bit where they zap them then kill them though…Milk/cheese/yoghurt all have major nutritional benefits, and even if they were just ‘empty’ like junk food I might still want to eat them!
re: slavery, apparently Adam Smith thought it was a terrible waste due to the fact that slaves would only do just enough to not-get-whipped, had no real incentives, etc..
February 1st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
obviously the slave masters considered it a profitable enough activity to fight to preserve.
anyway, can any of you say where we should get our protein from?
February 1st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Yeah, maybe the chapter on Smitty could’ve expanded on that a bit more.
Shouldn’t be too hard to just go find a vegetarian website, surely?
February 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
to find out where to get protein from? all the vegetarian websites i’ve ever seen just say soy, a non-solution. http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz
February 1st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Sure, all I see is ‘infants infants infants’ though? Not really something i’ve ever looked at, i’m sure there are some experts hanging around this forum somewhere though…
February 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
or those who claim to be experts i’m sure. all the expertise seems to vanish the moment you ask a direct question: see my unanswered question here (not the protein one but regarding biological emmissions) http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2008/01/16/expect-a-big-impact-fro m-the-little-nano/
yes it mentioned problems for infants, that doesn’t mean we can disregard those problems does it? it also mentioned a lot of more general problems, just because it didn’t specify “these are problems for adults” doesn’t mean they aren’t
February 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Well experts or not, it shouldn’t matter if they provide references (credible ones anyway). Philu does provide a good, different type of critical input i.e. not right-wing-only, but doesn’t always make sense…lol anyway, I suppose a similar parallel could be mercury levels?? Very bad for infants, but tolerable (in say 3 servings of high in the food-chain fish) a once you get bigger. The benefits of what is in those fish e.g. omega 3 oils always seem to outweigh the hazards of the mercury.
Hmm….according to the Peanut Institute (LOL) they’re quite high in protein. Would wonder how much of our protein needs comes from the foods we eat every day e.g. bread, vegetables. Maybe it all adds up and you’ll just need a handful of peanuts, damned if I know.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
a lot of vegetables fit very well with the modern conception of a healthy protein-carbohydrate profile suitable for the atkins age, but the amounts of protein are still too small to be a significant source, while bread & other grain-related sources are too high in carbohydrate to be the main source of protein even in combination with legumes - not to mention that almost all commercial bread products are chock with soy now-days.
as for philu, he didn’t offer an answer to the question i am here referring to, the one starting “got a question” http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2008/01/16/expect-a-big-impact-fro m-the-little-nano/
February 1st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
well i thought Kevyn sorta kinda did…well whatever
February 1st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
stephen r said..
“..not right-wing-only,.”
sheesh stephen r..that’s the first time i’ve been called a rightwinger..(heh-heh..!..)
(you obviously have never visited my website..and take any criticisms of the failings of the green party as proof of ‘rightwingery’..?
(heh-heh..!)
you’d better tell redbaiter i am ‘one of them’..
i don’t think he realises..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Are you guys serious about not knowing where to find protein, and believing we need the dairying industry to provide it???
In the western world our health is worse than many other countries as a result of focussing on cow-protein rather than other sources. Not only because of the choice of predominantly cow-protein, but also because of the quantities we consume.
We eat so much cow, we have fat/protein rich poos.
Thats right…it goes straight down the loo. (Except what sticks to our arteries).
Check out the health stats for the USA and you will see a direct correlation between the amount of dairy protein consumed, and the rate of cardiovascular disase and early death. NZ is not as bad, but our stats echo that reality.
Why should we tolerate the destruction of our environment in pursuit of a misrepresented and overvalued product??
There are plenty of examples of non-western cultures with better health and greater longevity than westernern cow-eaters. For example, Japan has had the greatest longevity and lowest morbidity for a long time now. (No that is not due to eating whale meat!)
It is a painful reality but farmers in NZ need to review their methods, and show more respect for the environment that has sustained them for so long.
Time for NZ farmers to put something back.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 am
Beef and dairy are aquired tastes, aquired in the northern hemisphere during the little ice age when the only food that would last all winter was either living, salted, dried or pickled. But now we have snap frozen vegies and tinned veges as well. So we can safely unaquire our taste for beef and dairy if we want to.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
You mean fish greengeek?
Philu I perhaps didn’t write correctly. You’re an example of a more-or-less constant critic who has the distinction of NOT coming from a ‘right wing’ angle. Go hard!
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
chrs..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 5th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
sure you can get enough protein from veggies just like sheep & cows, but unless you want to spend your whole day doing nothing but eating & defecating just like cows it isn’t really a viable solution for humans.
(the same (in the latter case) might be said for any attempt to get the bulk of your protein from nuts or legumes).
hmm, i notice that despite this bold opening, greengeek went through his/her whole post without actually putting forward any alternative.
maybe greengeek is referring to fish. i prefer to avoid fish given the nature of their death - hauled from their natural environment & left to suffocate. it’s unconscionably cruel.
would you rather be stunned by electricity then have your throat cut, or say suffocated with a piece of glad wrap over your face - or drowned?
anyway aren’t there major sustainability issues with fish?
February 5th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Depends on the fish and the fishery.
So soy it is then?!
February 5th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
except soy too has all sorts of problems associated with it… as we discussed above. i’m inclined to say “mammal/fowl products it is then”
February 5th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hmm im gonna go with my highly scientific mercury-levels parallels hypothesis.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Unbelievable. I thought you guys were kidding when you were suggesting fish was the only alternative.
There is no need to go into detail as to the multitude of protein sources; any vegetarian website can suggest a host of different protein sources that will keep you alive and well. So will many non-vegetarian websites…there are lots of medical sites and healthy-eating websites that have lists of good ways to get your protein.
My point was that in the western world we have made a bad habit of believing we need huge quantities of protein, and that it needs to come from dairy.
It is just not true.
Our farming industry has continued to stretch the productivity of their soils to meet our unreasonable and unnecessary demand, and our soils are the poorer for it.
Perhaps one day the old wisdoms of allowing fallow fields some recovery time may come back into favour, and we will all have to eat 20% less cow.
We will probably be healthier as a result.