Vegan Milk

MikePfirrman wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Fuzzipeg wrote: »

The point I was making from experience, (having had dil having a hissy fit at my parents about a piece of meat passing over a plate!) She would not accept dna extraction for the dairy substitute product or any other product yet to be imagined even as a vegetarian, she is now vegan.

Bees visit plants to use the pollen, without pollen many insects would die, we benefit from the fruits and seeds. All land and sea animals produce excrement - in the wild its freely dispersed so the plants and bugs can make use of it for life. So things which happen naturally aught to be ok, being established in the way the world works. Things which can only, happen hygienically in a science lab are totally different. Cultivating plants introducing pollen from one to another, if the seeds form a cross which is more productive than the parents and that is used, its natural but taking dna etc from a living thing plant or what ever introducing it into something totally different with no known outcome, only the guess, I'm yet to be convinced.

Your daughter-in-law's approach to veganism isn't the only one. I, and many other vegans I've encountered, don't have a standard of "no animal input at any stage" because we realize that isn't a realistic goal right now.

When you say "no animal input at any stage," you were not making a distinction between activities engaged in by animals in the wild versus controlled by humans. If you're now introducing that you recognize that distinction, I accept that. I'll point out that in many cases of modern agriculture, the pollination is NOT taking place by wild insects, but insects are moved from place to place deliberately by farmers. So if you're saying that the first is acceptable for someone practicing a vegan ethics and the second isn't, you'll have to explain how on earth a vegan -- as a consumer -- is supposed to distinguish between the two.

And you might also want to address how you expect a vegan to approach crops fertilized with animal byproducts. Does your daughter-in-law avoid these? Because those are absolutely "animal input" as well.

As far as your daughter-in-law's "hissy fit" about meat passing over her plate -- it's not at all uncommon for picky eaters to not want foods they have an aversion to passing directly over their own food or plate, as it may drip down. This isn't part of vegan ethics, although some vegans may have an aversion to meat. I personally have developed a strong aversion to the smell of ground beef cooking in the years I've been a vegan. This is not at all related to an ethical position and shouldn't be used as an argument that cooking ground beef is somehow more morally problematic than other forms of animal exploitation. It's just an aversion, like not wanting meat to pass directly over your plate.

Just a real quick funny story related to that. My daughter became a strict vegetarian at age 9. Though we tried to get her to eat meat (we honestly just weren't educated on it ourselves), she was committed.

I did the cooking at home and, after giving up after a year or so of encouraging her to eat like us, I respected her decision and completely separated any food, pan, utensil that I used in the kitchen for her. My wife, who likes to stroll into the kitchen, would go to grab a meat gravy spoon (or similar) and go to stir her food. When I'd tell her "don't do that...", she'd respond, "what's the difference?". My daughter saw her one time and was horrified! For around 10 years, while she lived at home, my wife had to stay out of the kitchen completely. She was banned.

Fuzzipeg wrote: »

The objection I share is to the DNA being required at all. Animals are still being exploited even if it is less so. I would like to know the nutritional values attached too this product for a full evaluation for it being any better than the range of grain/seed milks on the market. As it stands my opinion is "go without". No animal DNA, no animal harm.

I would have more respect for those of you females so very anxious to have a "good cheese" or similar texture had some of you volunteered your own DNA for use in this product. You would have had the choice to be exploited or not rather than this being another "product input" expected of some animal. Your donation of DNA will have the added benefits of providing something more in keeping with humanities needs with a lesser allergy rate. Or is this idea too repugnant for you?

As for the use of animal excrement. Unless you spray it directly on the growing plants, its applied in the autumn which gives time for the weathering process to happen and it will be reduced to its finer particles. If one owns a horse for recreation or relaxation or donkey, what would you do with the piles of excrement at your stables, you still have to pick up from fields where the animals are grazing for most of the time. You prefer the idea of petrochemicals being used instead?

Thank you for the comment, your wife banned from the kitchen. I hope your wife and your daughter will be reconciled. My dil has not changed in 30 years, I can see her changing now, she took a simple action as a personal snub. The rift her actions caused a deep rift in the family.

MikePfirrman wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Fuzzipeg wrote: »

My comment on "excrement" was in response to Jellyroll's remark. I referred to "no animal input" may be, had I said something like, "direct animal input", or possibly "no animal tissue or fluid", I might have been more clearly understood. Excrement is, in my view, an indirect input.

Bees, beetles and other small insects which go about their uninhibited in their way of life. Their "life cycle" doing what they do, what they need to do, to replace themselves and keep their species represented in the now decreasing, once long list of life forms on this planet is natural. So if seeds, fruits and the like, are used as food breaking part of the cycle of plant reproduction, some seeds need to go through the digestive tracts of appropriate (to the plant) animals to ensure subsequent germination, That again is Nature. Plants left to their own devices produce enough and more seeds to guarantee, in their natural historic environment, sufficient plants and more to replace themselves. Nature's expectation is some potential will be lost along the way from seed to seed pod or tuber.

As for my dil, she does have dietary intolerances and is an ethical Vegan. The meat was a slice of shop cut cold ham, so it was cold just taken from the fridge to be eaten from cold, the cross contamination risk of debris as suggested cooking juices dropping from it were non-existent. She could have been more mindful of the elderly persons in whose home she was a guest. Picking up another point we are all entitled to find "smells" totally disgusting, how we express it is usually within our personal control.

I've run the idea of this Vegan milk with "Bovine DNA", past several UK vegetarian and Vegan friends and they all came back with the same view of this product, "its not vegan". I would very much doubt it would ever be accepted over here as you all seem to embrace it over there down to the potential desirable cheese!

Were the cows consulted before the DNA was taken, were they able to consent? My understanding of DNA is, it carries the blueprint for life and the processes thereof, expressed in/by chromosomes. So taking/steeling the Bovine DNA without their explicit "consent" of said herd of dairy cattle, their being sentient animals, took/stole the process from them. Just because you can do something does not make it right.

This so called "milk" still has animal origins, (the DNA).

By referring to "you all," you seem to be ignoring the people in this conversation are one ethical vegan who has said she is unsure whether or not she'd consume it and made one flippant comment about missing blue cheese (that's me) and a few non-vegans who are being thoughtful about their participation in animal exploitation and are generally open to considering products of this type. To compare this group to your vegetarian/vegan friends to try to make this a UK vs US vegan standoff is outlandish. If you asked a group of US vegans about this product, I promise you that some of them would find it unacceptable as well (as you could also likely find some UK vegans who might be willing to consider consuming it).

I don't understand the POV that it's okay to farm an animal, sell their milk and flesh, and then make additional profit off their manure and consider the manure vegan, but that it's somehow crossing an exploitation brightline by using their DNA in an attempt to prevent the real and very profound suffering that millions and millions of animals undergo in the name of bringing dairy to human dining tables.

The manure can't be viewed as a single isolated product that is somehow being gathered at no harm to the animals. It's part of the overall profit that farmers make from the animals that they're using in all sorts of ways so you can't handwave it away as not somehow being "animal input." It's not "nature's expectation" that farmers will sell manure from the animals they're keeping in productivity. It's not an "indirect input" anymore than farmers selling things like hooves and connective tissue for gelatin are. It's part of the whole superstructure that keeps animal agriculture profitable.

If you wish to withdraw your statement about "no animal input," I completely understand. I agree that it isn't a useful way to measure veganism.

Yes, this product has "animal origins." So do the vegetables on our plate made with animal based fertilizer, things like manure or bone meal. I'm arguing that a coherent theory of veganism goes beyond the "ew ham is in the vicinity of my plate" argument and instead focuses on considering the impact to the animals and actually ending animal exploitation.

It's ironic you mention bone meal. I wish I didn't know about chicks being ground up and I put some organic fertilizer on a small orange tree this year that I have in the yard. My dogs were going nuts over the smell of this stuff. Then I started remembering how male chicks are ground up in egg production and wondering if that's where this stuff came from.

Some of the conversations on this thread likely spurred that thought.

Similarly, my daughter (I've mentioned she's a vegetarian) takes an Algae Omega. But as a tech recruiter and someone that's worked in the algae industry space, I can tell you that algae is all grown with heavy fertilizer in a closed loop, recycling as much water and fertilizer as possible. Once you establish that loop, though, some of the algae left after extracting oil can be used to enhance the purchased fertilizer levels. But they are adding fertilizer all the time.

When you get down to it, really what is best is minimal pain and suffering. Otherwise, it's just mental gymnastics wondering how far down to push. Anything that gets us closer to a cruelty free society is advancement.

It reminds me of the environmental issues, something I've long been involved with through my consulting business. Nickel mining pollutes the hell out of the environment, but it's necessary in Electric Vehicles. Most like the idea of EVs, but opponents point to nickel mining pollution. Well, a Canadian company just figured out how to produce nickel without polluting. Sometimes, you have to take steps in the right direction without knowing all the answers in advance. Sustainability is the common theme along with cruelty.

Eventually, they'll be able to genetically engineer DNA of milk, perhaps without ever using cows. But we're not there yet. Scientists are already producing lab grown meat. What if you had cows that could live a full life span and never be slaughtered and take great care of them because you don't need to slaughter them if you can grow meat in a vat? I realize the stern stance is not having animals captive for human's use at all, but this (to me) is a much more attractive alternative if it can work in the long term. Less pollution and much less cruelty.

https://www.wired.com/story/lab-grown-meat/

janejellyroll wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

MikePfirrman wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Fuzzipeg wrote: »

My comment on "excrement" was in response to Jellyroll's remark. I referred to "no animal input" may be, had I said something like, "direct animal input", or possibly "no animal tissue or fluid", I might have been more clearly understood. Excrement is, in my view, an indirect input.

Bees, beetles and other small insects which go about their uninhibited in their way of life. Their "life cycle" doing what they do, what they need to do, to replace themselves and keep their species represented in the now decreasing, once long list of life forms on this planet is natural. So if seeds, fruits and the like, are used as food breaking part of the cycle of plant reproduction, some seeds need to go through the digestive tracts of appropriate (to the plant) animals to ensure subsequent germination, That again is Nature. Plants left to their own devices produce enough and more seeds to guarantee, in their natural historic environment, sufficient plants and more to replace themselves. Nature's expectation is some potential will be lost along the way from seed to seed pod or tuber.

As for my dil, she does have dietary intolerances and is an ethical Vegan. The meat was a slice of shop cut cold ham, so it was cold just taken from the fridge to be eaten from cold, the cross contamination risk of debris as suggested cooking juices dropping from it were non-existent. She could have been more mindful of the elderly persons in whose home she was a guest. Picking up another point we are all entitled to find "smells" totally disgusting, how we express it is usually within our personal control.

I've run the idea of this Vegan milk with "Bovine DNA", past several UK vegetarian and Vegan friends and they all came back with the same view of this product, "its not vegan". I would very much doubt it would ever be accepted over here as you all seem to embrace it over there down to the potential desirable cheese!

Were the cows consulted before the DNA was taken, were they able to consent? My understanding of DNA is, it carries the blueprint for life and the processes thereof, expressed in/by chromosomes. So taking/steeling the Bovine DNA without their explicit "consent" of said herd of dairy cattle, their being sentient animals, took/stole the process from them. Just because you can do something does not make it right.

This so called "milk" still has animal origins, (the DNA).

By referring to "you all," you seem to be ignoring the people in this conversation are one ethical vegan who has said she is unsure whether or not she'd consume it and made one flippant comment about missing blue cheese (that's me) and a few non-vegans who are being thoughtful about their participation in animal exploitation and are generally open to considering products of this type. To compare this group to your vegetarian/vegan friends to try to make this a UK vs US vegan standoff is outlandish. If you asked a group of US vegans about this product, I promise you that some of them would find it unacceptable as well (as you could also likely find some UK vegans who might be willing to consider consuming it).

I don't understand the POV that it's okay to farm an animal, sell their milk and flesh, and then make additional profit off their manure and consider the manure vegan, but that it's somehow crossing an exploitation brightline by using their DNA in an attempt to prevent the real and very profound suffering that millions and millions of animals undergo in the name of bringing dairy to human dining tables.

The manure can't be viewed as a single isolated product that is somehow being gathered at no harm to the animals. It's part of the overall profit that farmers make from the animals that they're using in all sorts of ways so you can't handwave it away as not somehow being "animal input." It's not "nature's expectation" that farmers will sell manure from the animals they're keeping in productivity. It's not an "indirect input" anymore than farmers selling things like hooves and connective tissue for gelatin are. It's part of the whole superstructure that keeps animal agriculture profitable.

If you wish to withdraw your statement about "no animal input," I completely understand. I agree that it isn't a useful way to measure veganism.

Yes, this product has "animal origins." So do the vegetables on our plate made with animal based fertilizer, things like manure or bone meal. I'm arguing that a coherent theory of veganism goes beyond the "ew ham is in the vicinity of my plate" argument and instead focuses on considering the impact to the animals and actually ending animal exploitation.

It's ironic you mention bone meal. I wish I didn't know about chicks being ground up and I put some organic fertilizer on a small orange tree this year that I have in the yard. My dogs were going nuts over the smell of this stuff. Then I started remembering how male chicks are ground up in egg production and wondering if that's where this stuff came from.

Some of the conversations on this thread likely spurred that thought.

Similarly, my daughter (I've mentioned she's a vegetarian) takes an Algae Omega. But as a tech recruiter and someone that's worked in the algae industry space, I can tell you that algae is all grown with heavy fertilizer in a closed loop, recycling as much water and fertilizer as possible. Once you establish that loop, though, some of the algae left after extracting oil can be used to enhance the purchased fertilizer levels. But they are adding fertilizer all the time.

When you get down to it, really what is best is minimal pain and suffering. Otherwise, it's just mental gymnastics wondering how far down to push. Anything that gets us closer to a cruelty free society is advancement.

It reminds me of the environmental issues, something I've long been involved with through my consulting business. Nickel mining pollutes the hell out of the environment, but it's necessary in Electric Vehicles. Most like the idea of EVs, but opponents point to nickel mining pollution. Well, a Canadian company just figured out how to produce nickel without polluting. Sometimes, you have to take steps in the right direction without knowing all the answers in advance. Sustainability is the common theme along with cruelty.

Eventually, they'll be able to genetically engineer DNA of milk, perhaps without ever using cows. But we're not there yet. Scientists are already producing lab grown meat. What if you had cows that could live a full life span and never be slaughtered and take great care of them because you don't need to slaughter them if you can grow meat in a vat? I realize the stern stance is not having animals captive for human's use at all, but this (to me) is a much more attractive alternative if it can work in the long term. Less pollution and much less cruelty.

https://www.wired.com/story/lab-grown-meat/

Even if preference for lab-grown meat became universal, or nearly so, to the point that people reacted to the idea of eating flesh that once was part of a living cow in the way that most people now would react to the idea of eating maggots, I still can't picture farms taking on the care and feeding of animals for their natural lifespans with no return. Even if there's no market for them, farms would most likely, perhaps with regret, be forced to conclude that slaughtering them and throwing the carcasses in a pit would be cheaper than feeding them.

Ideally, you would have a situation where there was a staged decline in demand for flesh from a once-living creature (as opposed to simply skipping meat or eating a lab-grown meat), so cow populations would decline along with demand for meat harvested from their bodies.

Given human nature, I think this would be the most reasonable scenario (assuming one direction for the demand for lab-grown meat - it's also easy to imagine situations where other technical/economic/social needs cause us to stop moving in the direction of lab-grown meat). When lab-grown meat goes on the market, you'll have people who are willing to adopt it early and use it to replace some or all of the "regular" meat in their diet. But you'll also have people who just aren't interested or actively hostile to the idea of eating it -- people with an ideological objection to reducing animal exploitation, people who feel lab-grown meat is risky or unclean or just creepy, people who either imagine or conclude that it isn't an acceptable substitute in terms of taste or texture. There will also be people who won't want to pay extra for it or cannot pay extra for it, but can still afford "regular" meat. Let's say that lab-grown meat is good and gets better (in terms of taste/texture) and it becomes clear over a period of years that there are no observable negative consequences of replacing some or all of one's "regular" meat with it . . . you'd expect to see the group of people objecting to it get smaller each year, especially if prices become competitive.

Agriculture is like any other business, they understand demand and try to keep supply tied to that. So if there is less of a demand for "regular" meat, there would be fewer cows. Eventually, the population we'd have to potentially face caring for would be very small.

This is obviously a very optimistic projection of how lab-grown meat could impact the market, there are other ways that it could go.

cows that could live a full life span and never be slaughtered and take great care of them because you don't need to slaughter them if you can grow meat in a vat

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

MikePfirrman wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Fuzzipeg wrote: »

My comment on "excrement" was in response to Jellyroll's remark. I referred to "no animal input" may be, had I said something like, "direct animal input", or possibly "no animal tissue or fluid", I might have been more clearly understood. Excrement is, in my view, an indirect input.

Bees, beetles and other small insects which go about their uninhibited in their way of life. Their "life cycle" doing what they do, what they need to do, to replace themselves and keep their species represented in the now decreasing, once long list of life forms on this planet is natural. So if seeds, fruits and the like, are used as food breaking part of the cycle of plant reproduction, some seeds need to go through the digestive tracts of appropriate (to the plant) animals to ensure subsequent germination, That again is Nature. Plants left to their own devices produce enough and more seeds to guarantee, in their natural historic environment, sufficient plants and more to replace themselves. Nature's expectation is some potential will be lost along the way from seed to seed pod or tuber.

As for my dil, she does have dietary intolerances and is an ethical Vegan. The meat was a slice of shop cut cold ham, so it was cold just taken from the fridge to be eaten from cold, the cross contamination risk of debris as suggested cooking juices dropping from it were non-existent. She could have been more mindful of the elderly persons in whose home she was a guest. Picking up another point we are all entitled to find "smells" totally disgusting, how we express it is usually within our personal control.

I've run the idea of this Vegan milk with "Bovine DNA", past several UK vegetarian and Vegan friends and they all came back with the same view of this product, "its not vegan". I would very much doubt it would ever be accepted over here as you all seem to embrace it over there down to the potential desirable cheese!

Were the cows consulted before the DNA was taken, were they able to consent? My understanding of DNA is, it carries the blueprint for life and the processes thereof, expressed in/by chromosomes. So taking/steeling the Bovine DNA without their explicit "consent" of said herd of dairy cattle, their being sentient animals, took/stole the process from them. Just because you can do something does not make it right.

This so called "milk" still has animal origins, (the DNA).

By referring to "you all," you seem to be ignoring the people in this conversation are one ethical vegan who has said she is unsure whether or not she'd consume it and made one flippant comment about missing blue cheese (that's me) and a few non-vegans who are being thoughtful about their participation in animal exploitation and are generally open to considering products of this type. To compare this group to your vegetarian/vegan friends to try to make this a UK vs US vegan standoff is outlandish. If you asked a group of US vegans about this product, I promise you that some of them would find it unacceptable as well (as you could also likely find some UK vegans who might be willing to consider consuming it).

I don't understand the POV that it's okay to farm an animal, sell their milk and flesh, and then make additional profit off their manure and consider the manure vegan, but that it's somehow crossing an exploitation brightline by using their DNA in an attempt to prevent the real and very profound suffering that millions and millions of animals undergo in the name of bringing dairy to human dining tables.

The manure can't be viewed as a single isolated product that is somehow being gathered at no harm to the animals. It's part of the overall profit that farmers make from the animals that they're using in all sorts of ways so you can't handwave it away as not somehow being "animal input." It's not "nature's expectation" that farmers will sell manure from the animals they're keeping in productivity. It's not an "indirect input" anymore than farmers selling things like hooves and connective tissue for gelatin are. It's part of the whole superstructure that keeps animal agriculture profitable.

If you wish to withdraw your statement about "no animal input," I completely understand. I agree that it isn't a useful way to measure veganism.

Yes, this product has "animal origins." So do the vegetables on our plate made with animal based fertilizer, things like manure or bone meal. I'm arguing that a coherent theory of veganism goes beyond the "ew ham is in the vicinity of my plate" argument and instead focuses on considering the impact to the animals and actually ending animal exploitation.

It's ironic you mention bone meal. I wish I didn't know about chicks being ground up and I put some organic fertilizer on a small orange tree this year that I have in the yard. My dogs were going nuts over the smell of this stuff. Then I started remembering how male chicks are ground up in egg production and wondering if that's where this stuff came from.

Some of the conversations on this thread likely spurred that thought.

Similarly, my daughter (I've mentioned she's a vegetarian) takes an Algae Omega. But as a tech recruiter and someone that's worked in the algae industry space, I can tell you that algae is all grown with heavy fertilizer in a closed loop, recycling as much water and fertilizer as possible. Once you establish that loop, though, some of the algae left after extracting oil can be used to enhance the purchased fertilizer levels. But they are adding fertilizer all the time.

When you get down to it, really what is best is minimal pain and suffering. Otherwise, it's just mental gymnastics wondering how far down to push. Anything that gets us closer to a cruelty free society is advancement.

It reminds me of the environmental issues, something I've long been involved with through my consulting business. Nickel mining pollutes the hell out of the environment, but it's necessary in Electric Vehicles. Most like the idea of EVs, but opponents point to nickel mining pollution. Well, a Canadian company just figured out how to produce nickel without polluting. Sometimes, you have to take steps in the right direction without knowing all the answers in advance. Sustainability is the common theme along with cruelty.

Eventually, they'll be able to genetically engineer DNA of milk, perhaps without ever using cows. But we're not there yet. Scientists are already producing lab grown meat. What if you had cows that could live a full life span and never be slaughtered and take great care of them because you don't need to slaughter them if you can grow meat in a vat? I realize the stern stance is not having animals captive for human's use at all, but this (to me) is a much more attractive alternative if it can work in the long term. Less pollution and much less cruelty.

https://www.wired.com/story/lab-grown-meat/

Even if preference for lab-grown meat became universal, or nearly so, to the point that people reacted to the idea of eating flesh that once was part of a living cow in the way that most people now would react to the idea of eating maggots, I still can't picture farms taking on the care and feeding of animals for their natural lifespans with no return. Even if there's no market for them, farms would most likely, perhaps with regret, be forced to conclude that slaughtering them and throwing the carcasses in a pit would be cheaper than feeding them.

Ideally, you would have a situation where there was a staged decline in demand for flesh from a once-living creature (as opposed to simply skipping meat or eating a lab-grown meat), so cow populations would decline along with demand for meat harvested from their bodies.

Given human nature, I think this would be the most reasonable scenario (assuming one direction for the demand for lab-grown meat - it's also easy to imagine situations where other technical/economic/social needs cause us to stop moving in the direction of lab-grown meat). When lab-grown meat goes on the market, you'll have people who are willing to adopt it early and use it to replace some or all of the "regular" meat in their diet. But you'll also have people who just aren't interested or actively hostile to the idea of eating it -- people with an ideological objection to reducing animal exploitation, people who feel lab-grown meat is risky or unclean or just creepy, people who either imagine or conclude that it isn't an acceptable substitute in terms of taste or texture. There will also be people who won't want to pay extra for it or cannot pay extra for it, but can still afford "regular" meat. Let's say that lab-grown meat is good and gets better (in terms of taste/texture) and it becomes clear over a period of years that there are no observable negative consequences of replacing some or all of one's "regular" meat with it . . . you'd expect to see the group of people objecting to it get smaller each year, especially if prices become competitive.

Agriculture is like any other business, they understand demand and try to keep supply tied to that. So if there is less of a demand for "regular" meat, there would be fewer cows. Eventually, the population we'd have to potentially face caring for would be very small.

This is obviously a very optimistic projection of how lab-grown meat could impact the market, there are other ways that it could go.

I dunno. I think the result is the same, just spread out over time compared to the stark everbody-dies-today scenario it might have seemed like I was describing (which wasn't really what I intended, but as I'm saying I don't think it makes much difference to the number of cows that will have to be killed to get from current however many millions we're talking about today to zero -- I think the area under the curve is the same whether you traverse the curve in a single days or slowly over decades).

I used the term "cows" in my earlier post because that was the term used by the person I was responding to, but as I understand it, most beef consumed by humans comes from steers. Steers are grown-up calves, and calves come from cows. No matter what point on the declining demand curve for beef from once-living animals we are at, there will be a proportional number of cows deemed no longer fit or profitable for breeding given the declining demand, so I still don't see us reaching this situation described in the post I was responding to:

cows that could live a full life span and never be slaughtered and take great care of them because you don't need to slaughter them if you can grow meat in a vat

This raises a related point. If the beef-from-once-live-animals producers are going to reduce the supply at the same pace as demand declines, they will have to "retire" breeding cows early (and I think we all know what that will mean in reality), slaughter more female calves along with male calves, and/or stop breeding existing cows.
Even if they didn't slaughter the cows they stopped breeding, would it be cruel/inhumane/unkind/exploitive to prevent cows from breeding and raising offspring, which presumably is a natural and instinctive behavior for most cows?