I wrote a synopsis for the Vegetarian Society of DC newsletter, which follows:
How “Green” is Milk?
A Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) adds up the impact made in producing, processing, distributing, storing, selling/ buying, transporting, cooking, and disposing of food. Most of us know that according to LCIAs, the standard meat-based American diet is wildly unsustainable. Yet how many of us know that the ovolactovegetarian diet is also not sustainable? A paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition explains that “the other high impacting foods are cheese, fish and milk.”1 In fact, protein from milk is less efficient than protein from poultry.2 In terms of fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, dairy farming is quite unsustainable.
Furthermore, LCIAs do not account for soil degradation or other detrimental effects on biodiversity.3 Yet oddly enough, dairy consumption has largely escaped criticism; it is seen as the wholesome, sustainable, and “humane” form of animal agriculture. Let’s take a closer look at this image. In recognition that we are discussing the use of someone’s body, I’d like to frame the issues in terms of a dairy cow’s body. What is the impact of a dairy cow on the environment, in particular on wildlife?
Most of the relevant issues can be divided into “what she ingests” and “what she excretes.”
“What she ingests” includes large amounts of water, quantified as “virtual water,” including the water used for growing her feed, maintaining her metabolism (she and each of her 9 million sisters in the US drinks a bathtub-ful a day), and processing her body’s products (milk, urine, feces).4 It is continuously available, even in arid environments.5 Her feed is either from a monoculture of cereal crops or an artificially seeded pasture. All of these choices affect the landscape around the farm, making the habitat more amenable for some species and more hostile to others. Vegetation, insects, pollinators, herbivores, and carnivores--all are affected by her diet.6 Oftentimes, native species cannot adapt to the new conditions, and are outcompeted by invasive exotics.
When grazing, the dairy cow chooses different vegetation to graze, and to different heights than the original rangeland grazers.7 In fact, the farmer who grass-feeds his cow may plant new grass species that cater to her nutritional requirements (high magnesium, for instance) and her/his management decisions.8 Introducing non-native species can have unpredictable and far-reaching consequences, sometimes requiring extensive remediation.9
The dairy cow’s hooves are also different from those of the original grazers; her weight is differently distributed, to allow for intensive milking. With continuously available water, she grazes the same area more regularly,10 probably with more herdmates, excreting more nitrogen (from the high nitrogen diet she consumes in order to produce high volumes of milk).11 The soil is compacted, erodes easily, loses its structure and fertility. From soil organisms to plant life to other animal life, all things change.
In modern dairying, the dairy cow’s pastures are enclosed, fragmenting wild habitat. Some bird and butterfly species make use of the created edge habitat, and indeed at this point, they are part of the now-established landscape.12 However, many species are further at risk, unable to migrate or nest successfully. Harvesting grass for silage kills nestlings of ground-dwelling birds, sometimes without allowing time for a second clutch.13
Oftentimes, wildlife that is seen as “nuisances,” such as birds that feed at cattle troughs,14 or potential livestock predators, are eliminated by wildlife agencies. Methods of elimination, such as poisoning, may kill non-target wildlife as well.15
“What she excretes,” like all cow manure, is high in nitrogen and phosphorus.16 It may be washed out of intensive operations along with bedding, spoiled feed, and dairy shed effluent (including milk that is unsuitable for use) and held in lagoons. Alternatively, it may be spread out in paddocks.17 In either case, the nitrogen and phosphorus levels are too high for plants to use everything from the 120 lbs. of manure per day.18 The excess leaches into the groundwater, polluting it, or runs off into surfacewater, eventually smothering the aquatic wildlife in a process called “eutrophication.”19 Not only does the dairy cow use up vast amounts of water, but she also fouls much of the water that remains for the surrounding wildlife.
Other pollutants from her excrement include ammonia, which causes particulate matter and acidifies soil, changing conditions for plant life;20 hydrogen sulfide, which can cause brain damage, and methane, which traps radiating heat. Acute methane overexposure even proved deadly to two dairy workers who died in a 2003 manslaughter case.21 Phytotoxic heavy metals from her feed concentrates persist in the soil, poisoning both plants and animals.22
“What she excretes” is also loaded with zoonotic (infectious to other species) pathogens. Brucellosis,23 rinderpest,24 bovine tuberculosis, 25 Johne’s disease 26 – these diseases are dreaded by dairy farmers, who view wildlife as potential sources of disease. In fact, dairy cows are more likely to infect one another, and ironically, they are likely have brought all these diseases to formerly naïve (never exposed) wildlife.27 The antibiotics and anthelminthics often used to prophylactically also end up in the soil and water, contributing to the growth of resistant strains.28
Upon inspection, it appears that whether by competition, habitat alteration, or introduction of pathogens, our “wholesome” dairy cow actually kills quite a lot of wildlife. We human beings have turned an herbivore into an agent of significant animal destruction.
(Upcoming segments will examine “what she ingests” and “what she excretes” in further detail.)
Notes for “How “Green” is Milk?
1. L Baroni et al., “Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems,” Eur J Clin Nutr 61, no. 2 (October 11, 2006): 279-286.
1, 2. “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment -- Pimentel and Pimentel 78 (3): 660S -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,” http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S#SEC2.
2. Roger Segelken, “Livestock Production” (Cornell University Science News, August 7, 1997), http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/au ... k.hrs.html.
3. L Reijnders and S. Soret , “Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices -- Reijnders and Soret 78 (3): 664S -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,” http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/664S.
4. D. Atkinson and C. A. Watson, “The environmental impact of intensive systems of animal production in the lowlands,” Animal Science 63 (1996): 353-361.
4. A.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra, Water Footprint of Nations, Research Report, Value of Water Research Report Series (Delft, The Netherlands: Institute for Water Education, UNESCO-IHE, November 2004), http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf.
5, 6, 9, 10, 15. “Pastoralism in the new millennium,” http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2647E/y2647e00.htm#toc.
22, 19. Centre for European Agricultural Studies Consultants (Wye) Ltd and European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, The Environmental Impact of Dairy Production in the EU: Practical Options for the Improvement of the Environmental Impact (European Commission Environment Directorate-General, April 2000), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/agricul ... /dairy.pdf.
6, 12, 25. Jeffrey A. McNeely and Sara J. Scherr, Ecoagriculture : strategies to feed the world and save wild biodiversity / Jeffrey A. McNeely and Sara J. Scherr. , 2003.
7. “Habitat selection and conservation of Sharpe's longclaw (Macronyx sharpei), a threatened Kenyan grassland endemic,” zotero://attachment/15511/.
8. Neva Hassanein, Changing the way America farms : knowledge and community in the sustainable agriculture movement / Neva Hassanein. , 1999.
11, 16. R. G. Silva et al., “A lysimeter study of the impact of cow urine, dairy shed effluent, and nitrogen fertiliser on nitrate leaching,” Aust. J. Soil Res. 37, no. 2 (January 1, 1999): 357-370.
12. Agriculture and the Environment (Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture, December 2003), http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/f ... 003_en.pdf.
13. Austin R. Troy et al., “Attitudes of Vermont dairy farmers regarding adoption of management practices for grassland songbirds,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, no. 2 (June 1, 2005): 528-538 , doi:10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[528:AOVDFR]2.0.CO;2.
14. Greg Lawson, National Parks Service Ranger, “Impact of Dairy Farming,” reply, Vegan Represent, September 8, 2008, http://www.veganrepresent.com/forums/sh ... hp?t=14253.
17, 19. “Effluent Management - DairyNZ -,” http://www.dairynz.co.nz/page/pageid/2145836874.
18, 21. “Got Pollution? — Food & Water Watch,” http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/f ... term=dairy.
19, 20. D. Gurian-Sherman, CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2008), http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ ... overed.pdf.
23. J. Godfroid, “Brucellosis in wildlife” (2002), http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2102/GODFROID.pdf.
23, 24, 25. The Domestic Animal/Wildlife Interface: Issues for Disease Control, Conservation, Sustainable Food Production, and Emerging Diseases (New York, N.Y: New York Academy of Sciences, 2002).
24. “History of battle against rinderpest, Animal Production and Health (APH), Joint FAO/IAEA Programme,” http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stor ... story.html.
26. “Wildlife: FAQs - Johne's Information Center,” http://www.johnes.org/wildlife/faqs.html.
26, 27. Joseph L. Corn et al., “Isolation of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis from Free-Ranging Birds and Mammals on Livestock Premises,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, no. 11 (November 2005), doi:10.1128/AEM.71.11.6963-6967.2005, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1287718.
27, 28. Emilie Lyautey et al., “Distribution and Characteristics of Listeria monocytogenes Isolates from Surface Waters of the South Nation River Watershed, Ontario, Canada,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, no. 17 (September 1, 2007): 5401-5410, doi:10.1128/AEM.00354-07.
28. Ronchi, B. & Nardone, A., 2003. Contribution of organic farming to increase sustainability of Mediterranean small ruminants livestock systems. Livestock Production Science, 80(1-2), 17-31.
Let's hope it affects some of the vegetarians in VSDC. Please feel free to use any or all of what I wrote for purposes of outreach.
