On 12 May 2021 at 09:05:12 BST, "T i m" wrote:



Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

I think they are homogenised to an extent insofar as they seem to be mixed far
more thoroughly than I can manage. Not sure about heat treating but that
wouldn't surprise me for 'long life'. Although it doesn't affect the taste,
the 'slurry' is one of the downsides of home made . . .


I did buy a new blender after you mentioned you make your own oat milk
and keep some oats in stock ready to make some more (our old blender
hadn't been used for years and leaked) but as yet we haven't actually
run out. But from our first experiment it worked pretty well and so
I'm confident it would work even better in the new blender. The only
difference may be if the oats aren't fortified with B12 like the
commercial oat milk is?

That's true. I've added bits and pieces, informed largely by ingredients lists
on cartons. But generally don't bother - just oats and water.

I've refined my process and it's made the texture a lot better. By volume, 1
part oats to 6 parts water. Put it through the blender for about 10 seconds
(I've only got a smoothie maker type thing, so use that). Then through a
filter. I've got a really fine tea strainer that clogs near instantly. But
stirring the mixture while it's in the strainer gets it through quickly
enough. I'll do that twice. Still not perfect but getting there.


Daughter has been getting us Kavanagh's:

https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p.../4088600056135


Yes, suspiciously close to Flahavan's, and another not-so-subtle bit of
marketing :-)

I've been using the Aldi version for milk, and the proper for porridge. Not
sure I could tell the difference in a blind test.

I have a feeling that a cheaper, smaller oat might be better for milk - even
the economy oat Ready Brek dust-like substance. I'll give it a whirl next
time, and drive the price right down :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On Wed, 12 May 2021 08:48:44 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip

The estimates I generated from a variety of sources gave cow's milk 600 - 1000
litres of water per litre of milk. There is a bundle of variables that inform
where on the scale it is. I chose 628l in anticipation :-) (ref. Poore and
Nemecek)

Oat milk about a tenth of cow's milk. But that's partly due to irrigation.

Assuming any area is only irrigated by rain (and we know it isn't in
many countries around the world, we are 'lucky' that way in the UK)
the other uses in cow milk production that don't typically exist with
alternatives a

The cows drinking water directly.
The irrigation of imported additional feedstuffs (concentrates /
ruffage).
The cleaning of dairy parlors (wash water).
The cleaning of milk storage equipment.
The cleaning of abattoirs.
Cleaning within bottling plants.

There is also the indirect consideration of the loss of rain in areas
that have had rain regularly previously due to the impact of cow
livestock methane on GW. Wamer air can hold (also not release) more
water than cold.

There is also the risk of dairy cow waste polluting existing water
sources / table from runoff during storms etc.

Cheers, T i m

On 12 May 2021 at 10:13:31 BST, "T i m" wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2021 08:48:44 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip

The estimates I generated from a variety of sources gave cow's milk 600 -
1000
litres of water per litre of milk. There is a bundle of variables that inform
where on the scale it is. I chose 628l in anticipation :-) (ref. Poore and
Nemecek)

Oat milk about a tenth of cow's milk. But that's partly due to irrigation.

Assuming any area is only irrigated by rain (and we know it isn't in
many countries around the world, we are 'lucky' that way in the UK)
the other uses in cow milk production that don't typically exist with
alternatives a

The cows drinking water directly.
The irrigation of imported additional feedstuffs (concentrates /
ruffage).
The cleaning of dairy parlors (wash water).
The cleaning of milk storage equipment.
The cleaning of abattoirs.
Cleaning within bottling plants.

There is also the indirect consideration of the loss of rain in areas
that have had rain regularly previously due to the impact of cow
livestock methane on GW. Wamer air can hold (also not release) more
water than cold.

There is also the risk of dairy cow waste polluting existing water
sources / table from runoff during storms etc.


Yep, agreed.

To counter slightly, Tetra packaging is fairly obscene. We have *one* place in
Sheffield that accepts it for recycling. I'd guess millions of the things go
into landfill (or incineration in Sheff) here every month or so . . .

Of course it's used for dairy too - but exclusively for non-dairy IME. Can't
beat a bit of thread drift . . . :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On 12/05/2021 09:13, T i m wrote:

Assuming any area is only irrigated by rain (and we know it isn't in
many countries around the world, we are 'lucky' that way in the UK)
the other uses in cow milk production that don't typically exist with
alternatives a

Quite a few weasel-words in there, suggesting what follows is
supposition piled upon supposition?

The cows drinking water directly.
The irrigation of imported additional feedstuffs (concentrates /
ruffage).
The cleaning of dairy parlors (wash water).
The cleaning of milk storage equipment.
The cleaning of abattoirs.
Cleaning within bottling plants.

Abattoirs are cleaned anyway, so why lard milk production in there too?

There is also the indirect consideration of the loss of rain in areas
that have had rain regularly previously due to the impact of cow
livestock methane on GW. Wamer air can hold (also not release) more
water than cold.

Keep larding it in, T i m , and you might get the answer you want?

There is also the risk of dairy cow waste polluting existing water
sources / table from runoff during storms etc.

And that lards into milk production in what way, exactly?

--
Spike

In message , RJH
writes
On 12 May 2021 at 09:31:02 BST, "Spike" wrote:

On 12/05/2021 08:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
Tim Streater writes

Look, if you're that bothered by your planetary footprint, you
could always
cease to exist. That way, you could avoid the production of around half a
ton
of CO2 each year.

I'm curious about this 60,000 litres of water business. I suppose it
could be linked to the rainfall on an acre or so of grass?

It probably stems from a wild over-exaggeration of the sort T i m has
provided us with for quite some time now.

Possibly - could you share your source? I'd add that I made the claim, not
Tim. Happy to be corrected.

The estimates I generated from a variety of sources gave cow's milk 600 - 1000
litres of water per litre of milk. There is a bundle of variables that inform
where on the scale it is. I chose 628l in anticipation :-) (ref. Poore and
Nemecek)

Ok. Rob. I wasn't having a pop at you. My father had a herd of dairy
cows for most of his working life. From 1960 onwards on a metered
supply. 600-1000litres/ litre does not come out of a tap! I guess
someone has totted up the rainfall producing the dairy ration? In Texas
it may come out of a borehole which is a different consideration.

Oat milk about a tenth of cow's milk. But that's partly due to irrigation.


--
Tim Lamb

On 12/05/2021 08:05, T i m wrote:

Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

As homo sapiens has, in the same way that it has developed a gene for
lactose digestion, developed to generate its own cholesterol (a vital
substance) as well as digest it from consumed foods, why do you seem to
think a 90% reduction in a minor artificially-processed consumable is a
good thing?

--
Spike

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:03:57 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

On 12 May 2021 at 09:05:12 BST, "T i m" wrote:



Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

I think they are homogenised to an extent insofar as they seem to be mixed far
more thoroughly than I can manage.

Understood but because they don't have the same levels of fat and that
fat is being broken down into tiny particles that can pass into the
bloodstream, rather than being passed out, I'm not sure it would have
the same 'issues'?

Not sure about heat treating but that
wouldn't surprise me for 'long life'.

Yes, it could well be pasteurised (is a field of oats 'a pasture').
;-)

Although it doesn't affect the taste,

Or not in any way that makes it perfectly palatable.

As I mentioned, a very fussy (how he has his tea) friend said it made
his tea taste like porridge but I get very little of that and even if
I did, I wouldn't mind (considering the bigger picture etc).

the 'slurry' is one of the downsides of home made . . .

Yes, I noticed that but it's nothing that a little shake of the
container before use doesn't solve (like non homogenised milk etc).


I did buy a new blender after you mentioned you make your own oat milk
and keep some oats in stock ready to make some more (our old blender
hadn't been used for years and leaked) but as yet we haven't actually
run out. But from our first experiment it worked pretty well and so
I'm confident it would work even better in the new blender. The only
difference may be if the oats aren't fortified with B12 like the
commercial oat milk is?

That's true. I've added bits and pieces, informed largely by ingredients lists
on cartons. But generally don't bother - just oats and water.

Yeah. Ironically, unlike most carnists who are *hoping* they get
enough B12 from the meat they eat (hoping that in turn is fortified
with food additives, ground treatment or skin implants and digestive
implants), vegans eat many foods that *are* fortified with B12, as has
been proven by our recent blood tests. When you challenge the trolls
re *their* B12 levels they offer no actual proof and so could easily
be in the 40% of the population (few of whom are vegan statically) are
B12 deficient?

I've refined my process and it's made the texture a lot better. By volume, 1
part oats to 6 parts water.

Oh, weren't we at around 3 :1 previously?

Put it through the blender for about 10 seconds
(I've only got a smoothie maker type thing, so use that). Then through a
filter. I've got a really fine tea strainer that clogs near instantly. But
stirring the mixture while it's in the strainer gets it through quickly
enough.

I used a fairly fine (stainless) sieve but I think that was too
coarse. Still not a real problem in use though, given I may well be
eating oats in any case. ;-)

I'll do that twice. Still not perfect but getting there.

Cool. ;-)


Daughter has been getting us Kavanagh's:

https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p.../4088600056135


Yes, suspiciously close to Flahavan's, and another not-so-subtle bit of
marketing :-)

Oh, I didn't know that (I previously bought Sainsbury's own / white
label stuff before daughter got the oats from Aldi) and they are
cheeky eh. ;-)

I've been using the Aldi version for milk, and the proper for porridge. Not
sure I could tell the difference in a blind test.

Excellent. And that's the point isn't it, it's a bit like this:

https://ibb.co/VYMxVhZ

I have a feeling that a cheaper, smaller oat might be better for milk -

That's what I thought when I first opened this Kavanaghs, a bit too
good to blend ... as compared with the cheapo (well, 'Basics', I don't
even how they compare, piecewise): checks

https://tinyurl.com/3tamt74w (11p/100g versus 16p/100g at Aldi).

the economy oat Ready Brek dust-like substance.

Yeah (long time since I've had that).

I'll give it a whirl next
time, and drive the price right down :-)

Lol.

Now, apparently we can grow soya beans in the Uk:

https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option

https://www.soya-uk.com/soya/

And I've grown plenty of beans before. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:26:57 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip

There is also the risk of dairy cow waste polluting existing water
sources / table from runoff during storms etc.


Yep, agreed.

To counter slightly, Tetra packaging is fairly obscene.

Sure.

We have *one* place in
Sheffield that accepts it for recycling.

Ours goes with the std recycling?

I'd guess millions of the things go
into landfill (or incineration in Sheff) here every month or so . . .

Yup and there is nothing stopping them bottling alternative milks. ;-)

Of course it's used for dairy too - but exclusively for non-dairy IME.

Agreed.

Can't
beat a bit of thread drift . . . :-)

Especially here. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 11/05/2021 21:40, T i m wrote:

snip

And the real irony is that it's 'nice' for everyone including all the
sea creatures that don't have to suffer the waste runoff polluting
their environment or the methane that is 100x more potent a greenhouse
gas compared with CO2 (all be it it that it only lasts 10 years it's
still 10 years more than necessary (to those levels)).

If it was important to you, you would support methods like:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ons-scientists

There are other methods too, which successfully reduce the amount of
methane ruminants produce.

We all know you don't really care about atmospheric methane and your
agenda is based on envy where our loved ones allow us to eat meat.

Eat your heart out T i m.

On 12/05/2021 06:37, RJH wrote:
On 12 May 2021 at 06:25:36 BST, "Richard"
wrote:

On 12/05/2021 06:09, RJH wrote:
On 11 May 2021 at 22:14:22 BST, "Tim Streater"
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 19:33:19 BST, RJH wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:




https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved
a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

I'd guess others did similar.

Whatever for?

Animal welfare, environmental sustainability, convenience, price (especially
if you make your own - 1p/pint), it doesn't taste bad at all.


Intrigued. Make your own what at 1p/pint?

Oat milk

A 1kg of oats will cost ~ £1, so 1p will be ~10g or 1/3oz

I tend to use 100g 1cup for a pint which is like 10p, still cheaper than
the Supermarket for milk, do you have a secret cheap source of oats?

Your post is infinitely superior to T i m's, I hope he learns from your
example.

On 12/05/2021 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 12/05/2021 07:38, T i m wrote:

The new AWA also sets out the crazy idea that animals have feelings
and sentience (that's going blow the likes of FredXX and Spikes (BS)
arguments out of the water) and therefore they need to be considered
when we enslave them to exploit (milk / eggs / meat).

They are also proposing that ALL cats must be microchipped [1] so I
predict a bigger plague of cats on the streets as people further back
out of their responsibilities around *their* pets. Link a their DNA
with the chip and then we can get cat owner to clear up after their
pet like dog owners already have to.

This new proposed legislation might well end up forcing pet owners treat
their pets to the same standard as farm animals.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...-pets-24065021

Read the shocking words a woman who fed her puppies an all VEGAN diet
told animal inspectors as they discovered the malnourished dogs. One
did not recover despite medical help and had to be put to sleep.

Don't forget Tim claims to feed his dogs meat products, so I guess that
makes him a non-ethical vegan.

On 12 May 2021 10:51:14 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 12 May 2021 at 11:16:54 BST, Spike wrote:

On 12/05/2021 08:05, T i m wrote:

Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

As homo sapiens has, in the same way that it has developed a gene for
lactose digestion, developed to generate its own cholesterol (a vital
substance) as well as digest it from consumed foods, why do you seem to
think a 90% reduction in a minor artificially-processed consumable is a
good thing?

Perhaps T r o l l is also unaware that the body needs cholesterol, and if it
doesn't have enough in the diet, then it makes its own.

So it doesn't *need* it externally then?

And didn't I say there was *no* cholesterol in plant based milks did
I? How much do you get from other sources?

Once again you are desperately clawing for *any* reason to try to
argue with me to defend your continuing justification of the
unnecessary suffering and death of innocent, sentient creatures.

It's the same as the argument against veganism based on protein or
B12, it's all bollox for anyone taking care of what they eat (which
should be everyone).

Cheers, T i m

On 12/05/2021 11:15, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , RJH writes
On 12 May 2021 at 09:31:02 BST, "Spike" wrote:

On 12/05/2021 08:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
Â*Tim StreaterÂ* writes

Â*Look, if you're that bothered by your planetary footprint, you
could always
Â*cease to exist. That way, you could avoid the production of around
half a
ton
Â*of CO2 each year.

Â*I'm curious about this 60,000 litres of water business. I suppose it
Â*could be linked to the rainfall on an acre or so of grass?

It probably stems from a wild over-exaggeration of the sort T i m has
provided us with for quite some time now.

Possibly - could you share your source? I'd add that I made the claim,
not
Tim. Happy to be corrected.

The estimates I generated from a variety of sources gave cow's milk
600 - 1000
litres of water per litre of milk. There is a bundle of variables that
inform
where on the scale it is. I chose 628l in anticipation :-) (ref. Poore
and
Nemecek)

Ok. Rob. I wasn't having a pop at you. My father had a herd of dairy
cows for most of his working life. From 1960 onwards on a metered
supply. 600-1000litres/ litre does not come out of a tap! I guess
someone has totted up the rainfall producing the dairy ration? In Texas
it may come out of a borehole which is a different consideration.

My feeling is that it's a red-herring, cattle can only consume so much
water and apart from evaporation the water can only go back into / onto
the ground.

I guess where irrigation is sued for silage water may be used, as it is
for any crop where there is a rainfall deficit.

Oat milk about a tenth of cow's milk. But that's partly due to
irrigation.

I can't quickly find numbers, but oats require a fair amount of water.
In some countries grown with flooding.

On 12/05/2021 09:05, T i m wrote:

snip

Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

Low cholesterol levels can lead to complications, "men of all ages and
women over 50 with very low cholesterol were likely to die of cancer,
liver diseases, and mental diseases".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol

I think I'll stay with my wide, natural balanced diet thank you.

On 12/05/2021 11:51, Tim Streater wrote:
On 12 May 2021 at 11:16:54 BST, Spike wrote:

On 12/05/2021 08:05, T i m wrote:

Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

As homo sapiens has, in the same way that it has developed a gene for
lactose digestion, developed to generate its own cholesterol (a vital
substance) as well as digest it from consumed foods, why do you seem to
think a 90% reduction in a minor artificially-processed consumable is a
good thing?

Perhaps T r o l l is also unaware that the body needs cholesterol, and if it
doesn't have enough in the diet, then it makes its own.

Er no, minor correction. The body makes *all* its own cholesterol.
Cholesterol in food has zero impact on blood cholesterol levels

Starch however, does...


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 12/05/2021 12:28, T i m wrote:
On 12 May 2021 10:51:14 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 12 May 2021 at 11:16:54 BST, Spike wrote:

On 12/05/2021 08:05, T i m wrote:

Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

As homo sapiens has, in the same way that it has developed a gene for
lactose digestion, developed to generate its own cholesterol (a vital
substance) as well as digest it from consumed foods, why do you seem to
think a 90% reduction in a minor artificially-processed consumable is a
good thing?

Perhaps T r o l l is also unaware that the body needs cholesterol, and if it
doesn't have enough in the diet, then it makes its own.

So it doesn't *need* it externally then?

And didn't I say there was *no* cholesterol in plant based milks did
I? How much do you get from other sources?

Once again you are desperately clawing for *any* reason to try to
argue with me to defend your continuing justification of the
unnecessary suffering and death of innocent, sentient creatures.

It's the same as the argument against veganism based on protein or
B12, it's all bollox for anyone taking care of what they eat (which
should be everyone).

Please confirm why many vegans say honey is not suitable for vegans.

Some say that by replacing honey with sugar syrup is bad for the bees'
health.
https://justbeehoney.co.uk/blogs/jus...is-honey-vegan

In much the same way I wouldn't want to remove meat and meat products
from my loved one's diet because of the known and unknown consequences.

In addition to B12, who knows what vegans lack in their diet, especially
the effect it might have on growing children. There is anecdotal
evidence it can promote fanaticism.

On 12/05/2021 11:28, T i m wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 12/05/2021 08:05, T i m wrote:

Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

As homo sapiens has, in the same way that it has developed a gene for
lactose digestion, developed to generate its own cholesterol (a vital
substance) as well as digest it from consumed foods, why do you seem to
think a 90% reduction in a minor artificially-processed consumable is a
good thing?

Perhaps T r o l l is also unaware that the body needs cholesterol, and if it
doesn't have enough in the diet, then it makes its own.

So it doesn't *need* it externally then?

And didn't I say there was *no* cholesterol in plant based milks did I?

What you did say was "...[non-milks] contain 90% less cholesterol etc'.

How much do you get from other sources?

Time for a cholesterol lesson?

Body cholesterol is 80% body-manufactured and 20% ingested.

Consuming a food with added plant sterols blocks the ingested
cholesterol but not the body-manufactured cholesterol. That's why they
are advertised as 'reducing cholesterol by up to 20%'.

Once again you are desperately clawing for *any* reason to try to
argue with me to defend your continuing justification of the
unnecessary suffering and death of innocent, sentient creatures.

Once again you are desperately clawing for *any* reason to try to argue
with me to defend your continuing justification of your
wildly-exaggerated claims.

It's the same as the argument against veganism based on protein or
B12, it's all bollox for anyone taking care of what they eat (which
should be everyone).

Is it?

--
Spike

On 12/05/2021 08:43, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2021 06:25:36 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

snip

Animal welfare, environmental sustainability, convenience, price (especially
if you make your own - 1p/pint), it doesn't taste bad at all.


Intrigued. Make your own what at 1p/pint?

A classic example of a lack of lateral thinking by a left brainer
there. Or maybe he realised men still had nipples and Rob was
expressing his own milk.

Be a good boy and **** off.

On 12/05/2021 06:25, Richard wrote:
On 12/05/2021 06:09, RJH wrote:
On 11 May 2021 at 22:14:22 BST, "Tim Streater"
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 19:33:19 BST, RJH wrote:

Â* On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:
Â*Â* On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
Â*Â*Â* On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:
Â*Â*Â* The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not
paying to
Â*Â*Â* continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy
consumption is down
Â*Â*Â* 40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer
animals will
Â*Â*Â* have to suffer.
Â*Â*Â* I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a
search
Â*Â*Â* engine, and the first hit came up with this:
https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

Â*Â*Â* "The consumption of dairy products has increased during the
pandemic,
Â*Â*Â* with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK
dairy
Â*Â*Â* market. "
Â*Â* I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another
fanatical
Â*Â* vegan.
Â* I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop
visits - and
Â* it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus -
saved a few
Â* hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)
Â* I'd guess others did similar.

Whatever for?

Animal welfare, environmental sustainability, convenience, price
(especially
if you make your own - 1p/pint), it doesn't taste bad at all.


Intrigued. Make your own what at 1p/pint?

Thanks.