I’m not vegan or even vegetarian, so I feel pretty impartial on this. My partner uses oat milk for their coffee, and over the years I just got used to using it straight, or in cereals, etc. Now I greatly prefer it. It’s just “milk” for me now.
Never thought it would happen, but getting cow milk when I’m out feels off - that mouth-feel you mention; just doesn’t sit right anymore. It really is an acquired taste.
Right there with you. I’ve been living the plant milk life for years at this point and cow milk just tastes so… water-y for lack of a better explanation.
Yeah! That’s the perfect way to put it, thank you. It’s like a foreign extra flavour - a certain cowiness that I didn’t notice growing up. Cow milk used to taste like “default milk,” where everything else was a variation on that normal base. But now it’s one of the “other” milks, because I taste it so infrequently.
Spot on. People are out here trying to play like almond, oat, soy and every other milk substitute is exactly the same as dairy based milk, it’s not and will not ever be, they’re different products
Also pretending that people swapping from dairy to alternate milks will somehow impact the looming climate crisis is also pretty disingenuous
If we all went vegan we’d reduce food based emissions by 70%, which is 15% of the entire planets GHG emissions. Not to mention recovering 75% of farm land.
It really is a no brainer if you want to make a difference. And if I, “a rural New Zealander who grew up on a dairy farm who said he’d never eat a vegetarian meal in his life” can convert to veganism based on the logic of it, surely anyone could.
i don’t believe the methodology used to calculate emissions from animal agriculture is appropriate: every examination i’ve done has attributed emissions to animals that are actually conservation, like feeding cattle cottonseed and then attributing the impacts of cotton grown for textiles to cattle.
But then you doubt the number and not the general effect of reducing carbon emissions by switching to a plant-based diet, right? Because it is pretty obvious, that growing plants and then feeding those plants to animals is way more inefficient than eating the plants without extra steps.
a lot of what is fed to animals are parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. there may be some reduction but i don’t believe it can be anywhere near 70%
you can doubt whether i doubt something but i am the authority on whether i doubt something so self-reporting my doubt is the strongest evidence that can be gathered in support of the claim.
Do we really need to recover farmland, though? At least in the US, we have way more than enough to go around. And there’s like 19 people in New Zealand, y’all don’t need the space. :P
Yeah our rivers in NZ got so polluted with cow effluence and runoff the waters became legally unswimmable. Then the right wing government changed what is legally define as “polluted” so people could swim again.
Farm land (in particular farm land unsuitable for crops) can be used to plant forests, further reducing climate change. If the boomer generation lost 6-10 IQ points on average for leaded petrol, ours will see that again from high PPM CO2 rates.
Or look at the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. That all done to produce more farmland. So, if we were using or land more efficiently we wouldn’t be carving up the “lungs of the world”
When you say “It’s not rocket science/surgery” it implies that what you’re saying is an evidence, in this case their answer is false, it’s not subsidized because it tastes better or people enjoy it more, it’s purely political.
Because most plant juice tastes like shit and has the wrong mouth-feel for most things we use cow milk for. Its not rocket surgery.
I’m not vegan or even vegetarian, so I feel pretty impartial on this. My partner uses oat milk for their coffee, and over the years I just got used to using it straight, or in cereals, etc. Now I greatly prefer it. It’s just “milk” for me now.
Never thought it would happen, but getting cow milk when I’m out feels off - that mouth-feel you mention; just doesn’t sit right anymore. It really is an acquired taste.
Right there with you. I’ve been living the plant milk life for years at this point and cow milk just tastes so… water-y for lack of a better explanation.
Have you considered heavy cream? /s
My wife says she can “taste the cow” in the milk, in the same way she could “taste the goat” in goat milk before moving to plant based milks.
I know exactly what she means though, it’s a weird aftertaste that tastes ‘wild’ in the same way you can differentiate wild game from beef or pork.
However, it seems only people who have been off cow milk for a while can identify this element.
Yeah! That’s the perfect way to put it, thank you. It’s like a foreign extra flavour - a certain cowiness that I didn’t notice growing up. Cow milk used to taste like “default milk,” where everything else was a variation on that normal base. But now it’s one of the “other” milks, because I taste it so infrequently.
Spot on. People are out here trying to play like almond, oat, soy and every other milk substitute is exactly the same as dairy based milk, it’s not and will not ever be, they’re different products
Also pretending that people swapping from dairy to alternate milks will somehow impact the looming climate crisis is also pretty disingenuous
If we all went vegan we’d reduce food based emissions by 70%, which is 15% of the entire planets GHG emissions. Not to mention recovering 75% of farm land.
It really is a no brainer if you want to make a difference. And if I, “a rural New Zealander who grew up on a dairy farm who said he’d never eat a vegetarian meal in his life” can convert to veganism based on the logic of it, surely anyone could.
there is no reason to think farmland would be “recovered” or converted to any less- environmentally destructive use.
Ready for another reply where I used /u/commie’s clever abilities to reply to an argument? Prepare yourself for an amazing analytical response!
“I disagree”
this is poisoning the well
I doubt it.
If you see how much crops we need to grow and fresh water we need to feed a cow, you’d see how inefficient meat is.
70% of all the crops we grow is to feed our livestock.
Meaning for 1/3 on our plate, we use more than double the resources than the other 2/3 combined.
that’s a lie
Why? Because all the animal herders will still produce lots of meat at a loss and then just burn everything no one wants to eat?
i don’t believe the methodology used to calculate emissions from animal agriculture is appropriate: every examination i’ve done has attributed emissions to animals that are actually conservation, like feeding cattle cottonseed and then attributing the impacts of cotton grown for textiles to cattle.
But then you doubt the number and not the general effect of reducing carbon emissions by switching to a plant-based diet, right? Because it is pretty obvious, that growing plants and then feeding those plants to animals is way more inefficient than eating the plants without extra steps.
a lot of what is fed to animals are parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. there may be some reduction but i don’t believe it can be anywhere near 70%
Do you have any sources on hand? It’s hard to google for this stuff without running into sites by PETA etc, which are too biased for my taste.
I’m going to use your sound logical deductions and reasoning skills to reply to your comment in kind, ready?
Yeah? Well I doubt THAT.
you can doubt whether i doubt something but i am the authority on whether i doubt something so self-reporting my doubt is the strongest evidence that can be gathered in support of the claim.
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. i’ve presented exactly as much evedince as the claim to which i was responding.
Do we really need to recover farmland, though? At least in the US, we have way more than enough to go around. And there’s like 19 people in New Zealand, y’all don’t need the space. :P
Yeah our rivers in NZ got so polluted with cow effluence and runoff the waters became legally unswimmable. Then the right wing government changed what is legally define as “polluted” so people could swim again.
Farm land (in particular farm land unsuitable for crops) can be used to plant forests, further reducing climate change. If the boomer generation lost 6-10 IQ points on average for leaded petrol, ours will see that again from high PPM CO2 rates.
Or look at the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. That all done to produce more farmland. So, if we were using or land more efficiently we wouldn’t be carving up the “lungs of the world”
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-yeast-cow.html
If this hits market, I’ll be all for it.
deleted by creator
Calm down Chidi…
How did the man not die from starvation?
You have to grow the feed for cows, give them water, and cows emit significant greenhouse gasses.
Almond trees use way less water and actively reduce CO2 during growth.
Well, dairy takes more.
Seems like it is because the answer isn’t what you said.
deleted by creator
When you say “It’s not rocket science/surgery” it implies that what you’re saying is an evidence, in this case their answer is false, it’s not subsidized because it tastes better or people enjoy it more, it’s purely political.