• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So we are talking about producing roughly 580 calories of almond milk vs producing 2400 calories of cow milk.

      So in terms of calories/pollution rate, we are talking about a scale of 1:2 in favor of cow milk efficiency.

      Meaning in terms of keeping people fed as a rate of efficiency in pollution, cow milk is twice as efficient.

      Does that math add up? feel free to check me.

      Edit: doubled the calories in an unsweetened silk almond milk for almond milk calorie count

      Used a local brand of whole milk that based on a short Google search seems pretty standard.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        Sounds about right, though I’m not sure if I agree with the direct comparison of calories. Milk probably isn’t going to be a major source of a person’s calories (at least it wasn’t a major source of calories for me before I went vegan), and it seems unlikely that someone will drink 4 cups of almond milk to replace each cup of dairy milk they would have drank in order to maintain the same calorie intake from milk. Comparing by volume produced makes more sense to me, since someone switching milks seems more likely to use them as a 1 to 1 replacement volume wise, e.g. someone adding 1 cup of almond milk to cereal vs. adding 1 cup of dairy to cereal.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I dont think it is fair to discard the value of calories in a discussion of efficiency in food production.

          Milk is a staple of many American diets, maybe as a result of the Got Milk Yada Yada, my point being drinking a cup of milk is going to fill you up with x calories, weather you would have replaced it with 4 cups of almond milk or not.

          If you decided not to drink cow milk, and only had 30 calories from the single cup of almond milk you drank, the 90 calories you are missing will be made up elsewhere in your diet, potentially in a more inefficient replacement food.

          Sure, food scarcity is not the tightest conversation in America due to the prevalence of our high calorie diets, but in terms of human dietary habits as a whole, calorie density, difficulty of obtaining, and difficulty in distribution are desperate conversations that lives depend on.

          • Primarily0617
            link
            fedilink
            81 year ago

            Milk is a staple of many American diets

            North America systemically over-consumes, hence its obesity crisis.

            the 90 calories you are missing will be made up elsewhere in your diet

            this doesn’t accurately represent a person’s relationship with food

              • Primarily0617
                link
                fedilink
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You are factually incorrect on point 2

                So I can eat 2000 calories in pure sugar and feel full for the whole day?

                point 1 was already addressed in my comment

                You said it didn’t matter in America but that it does matter globally, but we’re not talking about globally, because we’re talking about how milk forms part of the typical American diet.

                That’s not addressing anything.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I wasn’t really going into the context of nutrition as much as I was discussing energy production.

          There’s good information to be found in this further analysis, but it relies on fine points of data that I didn’t want to get bogged down on.

          My concept is more just efficiency of energy production over pollution rate. Good details though, so thank you.