Does milk and eggs have the same effect o the enviroment as meat?

Question

Does milk and eggs have the same effect o the enviroment as meat?

Answer 1

I'd say yes (I bet I have about a million thumbs down by now, but anyway) because every animal in the dairy and egg industries is slaughtered for meat. So not only is it contributing to the impact that meat has on the environment, but adds extra emissions into the air because of the milk machines etc. The animals in the dairy and egg industries are still fed enormous amounts of food, are still bred excessively and are still killed just like pigs and beef cows. So when you think about it, the dairy + egg industries appear to be similar to the meat industry in the end, it's just the short time before they are killed that is different.

Answer 2

If you drink milk, you're contributing to the veal and beef industry, and those industries are very harmful to the planet.  Although not quite as harmful as meat, it's close.

Answer 3

If you must have milk and eggs, try a local farm in your area where you know the cows and chickens are in a clean outdoor environment with plenty of roaming space and that they are in good health. Otherwise, try to get organic brands.

Answer 4

The short answer to your question is yes. There is no measurable difference between any of the livestock, whether dairy farming or for beef cattle.

Raising cattle for either beef or milk production is a completely different way of farming.

During the summer months all cattle will be outdoors. Only in extreme cold weather will they be indoors during winter.

One could argue the biggest impact on the environment would be egg production. They induce the poultry to lay more eggs by intensive lighting.

  Edit;

For those that think grain is the main feed of bovine animals, let me point out they eat grass during the summer. In winter a big part of their diet is hay & silage. Silage is the same as hay except it has a different way of being processed. Dairy cattle have their food supplemented with other food (cow cake) which is high in nutrients.

Answer 5

All of these products are results of practices that involve feeding grain to animals and harvesting a VERY inefficient output.

All of these practices contribute to the extra land that must be cleared to grow food for these animals.

An animal that is raised for flesh and an animal that is raised for what she produces naturally will create equal amounts of waste, including urine, f***s and gaseous emissions.

Egg and dairy production requires twice the breeding of flesh production because only half of the offspring can be assimilated into the industry.

This is all on top of the fact that eggs and dairy require the animals to suffer longer and to a greater degree.

Answer 6

Unlikely because meat has a long process that harms the environment more than you might think it will such as the factories that slaughter the animals and the animals poo releases alot of bad gases as well.

Answer 7

Don't eat anything! You'll increase your carbon footprint and make us all fry!

Try to take little breaths and don't move.

Sorry, but are you really serious? If you're worried about the effect a cow has on the environment, the best thing you can do is EAT it.

Answer 8

Are you wondering about the methane generated from producing milk and eggs as opposed to raising livestock purely for meat?  

Milking cows produce milk for a number of years, whereas beef cattle may only live for one year.  Less if veal is desired.  In that respect a cow raised for slaughter will produce far less methane then one raised for milk.  

The same holds true for laying hens which may lay for several years.  Chickens bred for meat mature very quickly, and are sent for slaughter in less then two months.  

If you want to rid the world of the worst methane producing offender you should actually look to the insect world.  Termites out-f**t all the livestock in the world combined.  

Answer 9

half and half ... milk no.. its a natural thing cows do...eggs kinda because your prematurely killing a chicken but there is like billions of them so its still not as bad as meat i suppose.

Answer 10

what? what effects on the environment does any of it have?

Answer 11

The United Nations IPCC report on global climate change named intensive animal agriculture the largest contributor to global warming, more damaging to the environment than all forms of transportation combined.

Beef and milk would presumably have the same negative effects on the environment, given that they involve breeding, raising, confining, feeding, medicating and eventually slaughtering the same animals.  And dairy cows have to eat, too, which is part of the problem with raising beef cattle (acres upon acres of arable land are needed to raise enough grain and soybeans to feed livestock and a lot of that land is cleared rain forest.)

Answer 12

Yup.  The hen houses have an overwhelming smell of ammonia and the carcasses are just thrown outside to rot.  Plus, the cows used for milk are eventually slaughtered.  That's how I look at it.

Answer 13

Peter you are a ********.

If we didn't eat cows there would be no reason to mass produce them, thus there would be fewer (murdered) cows.

You would not believe how many idiots think they are so great because they came up with that argument.

*rolls eyes*

Answer 14

The question is - why do people percieve that meat has an effect on the environment?  I'm presuming you mean the 'negative' effect of cows needing so much grass, etc, making 1 lb of meat requires a zillion pounds of cow food, and all that other stuff.  

The reality is,  MILLIONS of bison (usually called buffalo) roamed this continent for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!!.  They died of old age and from hunting and from predators, but there were MILLIONS of them.   They roamed around in herds that shook the ground and darkened the plains as far as the eye could see.  

Do you think they expelled less gas than our cows?  I don't think so.  

The bottom line is - all this hanky-twisting and bed wetting going on to stop cow gas and grass consumption is uneducated opinions and pseudo-science, and is being spread by people that don't know any better.

Answer 15

no