3 ms·

Can you explain what imaginary environmental benefits your imaginary fake milk is supposed to have?

slothtrop 4y ago
Presumably it has to do with methane from cows. This is now beginning to be mitigated with seaweed feed. Otherwise, land-use for cows has been decreasing in the U.S. despite population increase. It has, however, increased in Brazil owing to soybean crops used for feed. That has been contentious because of encroachment into rainforest land, but it's not clear the scope of it really matters. The most cut and dry benefit to alternatives is far and away animal welfare. When it comes to just flavor profile I'm not surprised there would be some disruption (good use-case for ice cream, a junk food), but there's no real sub for the animal protein (if you care about that). And in terms of calcium content the products are just fortified, so you're paying a premium for what might as well be a supplement. I've tried a few yogurt alts that tasted alright, and the nutritional content seemed satisfactory fitting into my diet (though nothing for good for kefir yet). Of course I'm not keen to spend more on plants than I would for an animal product, and one wonders how green something can be when it includes coconut transported via cargo ships and highly refined ingredients.
- kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
  Kudos for providing a useful answer to a question that doesn’t appear to be asked in good faith.
  - recuter 4y ago
    Why on earth is asking such an absolutely necessary question a bad faith thing :/ His reply is good, especially this bit: > Of course I'm not keen to spend more on plants than I would for an animal product, and one wonders how green something can be when it includes coconut transported via cargo ships and highly refined ingredients. Further down thread I discuss Oatly and their misleading marketing claims. A healthy amount of skepticism towards magical new solutions is very much in order. The methane thing is not true and has been debunked as I understand it. > The most cut and dry benefit to alternatives is far and away animal welfare. That is... very difficult to debate as it simply depends on where you are getting your milk from. It is certainly possible to produce milk with perfectly happy cows, if that is the main concern could just advocate and insist on that directly.
    - samwillis 4y ago
      > Why on earth is asking such an absolutely necessary question a bad faith thing :/ I think the issue is the way you phrased the question. The use of the word "imaginary" is dismissive. You are asking sensible questions and I agree scepticism is important for new things. But careful use of language so as not to dismiss people is also important so as not to alienate people during an important debate. It's similar with how you replied to my comment with "please do be careful", you may mean it but it can come off as condescending.
      - recuter 4y ago
        > If someone made fake milk that tasted like the real thing Note that he wrote the word fake. It is a hypothetical fake milk. There was no dismissiveness intended. > It's similar with how you replied to my comment with "please do be careful", you may mean it but it can come off as condescending. I do in fact mean it. The whole point is that Oatly and other milk alternatives present themselves as healthier but simply replace one set of disadvantages with another and hide it in the fine print. I will try to take your advice to heart but I do think folks just don't want to hear bad news anymore and shoot the messenger. I guess that in itself is part of the marketing trickery. :/ Anyway sorry if I am a bummer.
        ibn_khaldun 4y ago
        Thank you for being a bummer on this occasion. I for one, found strength in your tone.
        kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
        Thanks to all for the civil discussion. It’s what makes HN valuable for me.
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      > That is... very difficult to debate I see no difficulty in it. Alternatives give you 100% confidence of not having animal products in the production chain. The only thing to quibble is the degree to which animals might be harmed in commercial agriculture, which supplies the overwhelming majority of product in North America. Opinionated vegans and consumers in general have a different threshold and definition though (after all bleeding heart vegans would posit that even the "good" sources are harmful in some capacity). Personally I don't think dairy cows have it that bad, and I'm pro-slaughter. But it's still clear that abstaining from those products gives you far more confidence about animal welfare. > The methane thing is not true and has been debunked as I understand it. It's true. The only carbon-neutral cow rearing is in the context of allowing cows to migrate to fertilize different lands. This is not the case in commercial agriculture.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  There's another interesting approach to the cow-fart problem, this being methane capture for biogas production suitable to run engines from manure storage. With current technology it becomes profitable starting from a population of around 120 cows, at which it supplies about 17.5 tons of (compressed) biogas which is sufficient to run a common-sided tractor for around 1000 hours. This is currently being tested in a pilot project by New Holland on 20 farms in Germany, France and Italy. There are other similar projects in different states of development, the mentioned one should become commercially available in 2024 or possibly this year. Source: Land Lantbruk #5 2023-01-27 pp 20-21 (lantbruk.se - farmer's weekly in Sweden)
RobinL 4y ago
Making milk using cows is incredibly inefficient from an energy inputs point of view. You have to grow crops which you feed to cows which then turn a tiny percentage of the input energy into usable food. As a result, it's possible that synthetic milk could be massively more efficient in terms of its climate impact. Not saying it necessary is right now, but it certainly could be. Methane emissions are also very important as pointed out by another commentor

Presumably it has to do with methane from cows. This is now beginning to be mitigated with seaweed feed. Otherwise, land-use for cows has been decreasing in the U.S. despite population increase. It has, however, increased in Brazil owing to soybean crops used for feed. That has been contentious because of encroachment into rainforest land, but it's not clear the scope of it really matters. The most cut and dry benefit to alternatives is far and away animal welfare. When it comes to just flavor profile I'm not surprised there would be some disruption (good use-case for ice cream, a junk food), but there's no real sub for the animal protein (if you care about that). And in terms of calcium content the products are just fortified, so you're paying a premium for what might as well be a supplement. I've tried a few yogurt alts that tasted alright, and the nutritional content seemed satisfactory fitting into my diet (though nothing for good for kefir yet). Of course I'm not keen to spend more on plants than I would for an animal product, and one wonders how green something can be when it includes coconut transported via cargo ships and highly refined ingredients.

kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
Kudos for providing a useful answer to a question that doesn’t appear to be asked in good faith.
- recuter 4y ago
  Why on earth is asking such an absolutely necessary question a bad faith thing :/ His reply is good, especially this bit: > Of course I'm not keen to spend more on plants than I would for an animal product, and one wonders how green something can be when it includes coconut transported via cargo ships and highly refined ingredients. Further down thread I discuss Oatly and their misleading marketing claims. A healthy amount of skepticism towards magical new solutions is very much in order. The methane thing is not true and has been debunked as I understand it. > The most cut and dry benefit to alternatives is far and away animal welfare. That is... very difficult to debate as it simply depends on where you are getting your milk from. It is certainly possible to produce milk with perfectly happy cows, if that is the main concern could just advocate and insist on that directly.
  - samwillis 4y ago
    > Why on earth is asking such an absolutely necessary question a bad faith thing :/ I think the issue is the way you phrased the question. The use of the word "imaginary" is dismissive. You are asking sensible questions and I agree scepticism is important for new things. But careful use of language so as not to dismiss people is also important so as not to alienate people during an important debate. It's similar with how you replied to my comment with "please do be careful", you may mean it but it can come off as condescending.
    - recuter 4y ago
      > If someone made fake milk that tasted like the real thing Note that he wrote the word fake. It is a hypothetical fake milk. There was no dismissiveness intended. > It's similar with how you replied to my comment with "please do be careful", you may mean it but it can come off as condescending. I do in fact mean it. The whole point is that Oatly and other milk alternatives present themselves as healthier but simply replace one set of disadvantages with another and hide it in the fine print. I will try to take your advice to heart but I do think folks just don't want to hear bad news anymore and shoot the messenger. I guess that in itself is part of the marketing trickery. :/ Anyway sorry if I am a bummer.
      - ibn_khaldun 4y ago
        Thank you for being a bummer on this occasion. I for one, found strength in your tone.
        kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
        Thanks to all for the civil discussion. It’s what makes HN valuable for me.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    > That is... very difficult to debate I see no difficulty in it. Alternatives give you 100% confidence of not having animal products in the production chain. The only thing to quibble is the degree to which animals might be harmed in commercial agriculture, which supplies the overwhelming majority of product in North America. Opinionated vegans and consumers in general have a different threshold and definition though (after all bleeding heart vegans would posit that even the "good" sources are harmful in some capacity). Personally I don't think dairy cows have it that bad, and I'm pro-slaughter. But it's still clear that abstaining from those products gives you far more confidence about animal welfare. > The methane thing is not true and has been debunked as I understand it. It's true. The only carbon-neutral cow rearing is in the context of allowing cows to migrate to fertilize different lands. This is not the case in commercial agriculture.
the_third_wave 4y ago
There's another interesting approach to the cow-fart problem, this being methane capture for biogas production suitable to run engines from manure storage. With current technology it becomes profitable starting from a population of around 120 cows, at which it supplies about 17.5 tons of (compressed) biogas which is sufficient to run a common-sided tractor for around 1000 hours. This is currently being tested in a pilot project by New Holland on 20 farms in Germany, France and Italy. There are other similar projects in different states of development, the mentioned one should become commercially available in 2024 or possibly this year. Source: Land Lantbruk #5 2023-01-27 pp 20-21 (lantbruk.se - farmer's weekly in Sweden)

RobinL 4y ago

Making milk using cows is incredibly inefficient from an energy inputs point of view. You have to grow crops which you feed to cows which then turn a tiny percentage of the input energy into usable food. As a result, it's possible that synthetic milk could be massively more efficient in terms of its climate impact. Not saying it necessary is right now, but it certainly could be. Methane emissions are also very important as pointed out by another commentor