3 ms·

It's a lot less efficient to grow almonds than livestock-grade soybeans, so perhaps almond milk is worse for the environment than cow's milk? The article doesn'

• vfc1 7y ago
  Soy crops are a good example, the majority of them are to feed livestock but they are a great crop to feed humans instead, and without all the waste involved in having to feed a cow first and then eat parts of it. You can make plant milk with soy too, its a very versatile crop. With it, you can feed the same amount of people with a fraction of the land, water, and pollution.
  • jakemoshenko 7y ago
    You didn't address, and I don't know: what is the relative environmental impact of growing human-grade soy vs. livestock-grade soy? Is there even necessarily a distinction?
    • vfc1 7y ago
      As far as I know it's all just beans, they are all eatable by humans. The difference between resource consumption of different types of soy crops, if any, is not comparable to the difference between eating the soy directly or feeding it first to an animal, the second is a much more wasteful and environmentally impactful as you can imagine.
    • zpallin 7y ago
      You won't need to grow livestock-grade soy if you don't have livestock to feed. But we will always have humans to feed (because we're humans).
    • wtmt 7y ago
      AFAIK there is no human-grade soy vs. livestock-grade soy. But the soy grown for livestock can usually be fed in the ratio of <soy for one animal>:<soy for many humans> (this ratio varies based on which animal and farming practice you consider).
  • bryanlarsen 7y ago
    Barley crops are a good counter-example. There are three main purposes: malting, milling & animal feed. A good chunk of the feed barley on the market is barley grown for malting or milling but wasn't good enough for those purposes and is fed to chickens. The alternative to feeding it to chickens is to throw it away. That's hardly environmentally friendly. Some barley is purposefully grown for feed rather than aiming for the higher price that malting or milling will get. Yields on such variants can be as much as 3 times that of a nice malting or milling variant. Given that a chicken can convert 1.5 grams of barley protein into 1 gram of meat protein, you can see how it be more environmentally efficient to "eat" barley by running it through a chicken first.
    • vfc1 7y ago
      Well then lets no plant Barley to feed humans, let's use something else. The thing is a good portion of the surface of the Earth is covered with agricultural fields, most of them aimed at feeding cattle, not humans. It's a bit insane if we think about it. I doubt that conversion from barley to chicken is so efficient. There is more nutrition in barley than the protein, there are carbs as well and fiber and micro nutrients that would be good for humans, besides only the protein. A better comparison would be in calories, considering the waste of slaughtering the chicken and all the parts with don't eat, plus all the waste produced by the chicken and the water used.
      • NickBusey 7y ago
        Not plant Barley? Hate to tell you, but when they said 'malting' that means 'malted barley' as in the primary ingredient in beer. We are not going to stop planting that any time soon.
      • bryanlarsen 7y ago
        Feed barley also yields almost 2X that milling wheat does on dryland Canadian prairie, so switching species rather than variants doesn't change the argument. And if you want to use calories instead of grams of protein, be my guest. It'll just help my argument. Chickens eat unhulled barley; the hull is almost half the weight of the kernel. Humans eat hulled barley and still a good chunk of its calories are indigestible fiber. That may help your digestive system but you're not extracting any energy from it.
• cpk5 7y ago
  Sure, that's true from a purely ecological perspective, but your argument does not capture the general inhumane practices that go on within the diary industry (e.g., caging, keeping cows perpetually pregnant, separating mother / calve at birth, etc.). All of these combined create a life of significant distress for all the animals involved and should be captured as an "environmental cost" in your equation above.
• ainiriand 7y ago
  You are making the mistake of assuming that just by growing livestock-grade soybeans you magically have milk. You still have to make this animal drink about 3 gallons per 100pounds, per day. https://beef.unl.edu/water-requirements-for-beef-cattle https://beef.unl.edu/water-requirements-for-beef-cattle
  • vfc1 7y ago
    You're right the water consumption of livestock raising is very important too, besides the huge amount of excrement produced.
• vfc1 7y ago
  To answer your question, it takes a lot more soy beans to feed a cow, that then will digest them and use only part of them, produce waste, consume water. The cow will be slaughtered and only part of the body will be consumed (gut, head, for example, make for a huge part and are not usually eaten), some of the eatable parts will be wasted in the food chain. If you count for everything, the amount of land and resources used to produce a gallon of cow's milk is always going to be much higher than anything done with a crop directly, because you cut out the middleman, the animal. For the specific case of almonds, why not use soy milk instead for a better comparison. I'm sure you will agree that you can produce a lot more soy milk by using the soy directly then by feeding to a cow, impregnate it, shooting the calf on birth if its male, etc. the whole process. Not to mention the copious amount of cow excrement produced and the impact on global warming due to methane emissions of the cows intestines.
• thrownblown 7y ago
  cows dont eat soy, too much fat, it makes them sick