Follow Topics

28 August 2012, 6.45am EST

Soy versus dairy: what’s the footprint of milk?

Are soy milk’s environmental attributes based on substance or froth? Is soy a sustainable solution in the dairy debate? Comparative environmental analysis of different food groups is like comparing, well, apples and oranges. Reports such as the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Livestock’s…

56x8k435-1345440935 — Soy might seem simply better, but what do the figures say? mc5556/Flickr

Are soy milk’s environmental attributes based on substance or froth? Is soy a sustainable solution in the dairy debate?

Comparative environmental analysis of different food groups is like comparing, well, apples and oranges.

Reports such as the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Livestock’s Long Shadow document the negative environmental impacts of cattle and dairy production and consumption.

If cattle are major emitters of the intensive greenhouse gas methane and use large amounts of water, are protein alternatives such as soy less harmful to the environment?

Soy, of course, is much more than soy milk. According to the CSIRO, “60 per cent of all products at the supermarket already contain soybean”. (Look at the ingredients lists on breads, flours, oils, pet food and sausages, for example.)

The Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry’s (DAFF’s) Australian Food Statistics (2011) report states that Australia produced 47kt of soybeans in 2010-11 and imported $36M worth of oilseeds in 2010-11 (soybean is classified as an oilseed rather than a pulse).

In 15 years, world production of soya has doubled. Carol Von Canon

According to Dr Andrew James, who leads CSIRO’s soybean breeding program, the vast majority of whole-bean soy products Australians consume – such as tofu, soy milk and many baking products – derive from Australian grown beans. However, the soy components used in processed foods generally come from imported soy protein powder, isolate or lecithin.

“We also import 500 to 800,000 tonnes of soybean meal. A crude guess is that would cost about $600 a tonne. That’s $500 million or more,” says Dr James.

Australians have been developing a taste for soy milk over the last decade. A Soy Australia report showed in 2009 Australians drank three litres each of soy milk a year. This is a 50% increase on 1998.

The report also claimed that most of the soy milk production in Australia is based on imported soy protein or soy protein isolate, a refined form of soy protein made from defatted soy flour.

Says Dr James: “If the milk is made from whole beans it will be Australian-grown beans that are used. If made from protein powder or isolate then that will be imported.”

In 2010-11, Australians drank 2296 ML of “dairy milk”, and 2061 ML in 2005-06. The annual average 2005-07 milk consumption per Australian was 230kg (approximately 223 litres).

Soy milk, soy-based drinks, soy dairy-free products and energy bars showed the strongest growth. Traditional foods like tofu have seen a decline in the past couple of years.

It takes less energy to produce soy beans than cows' milk. Melissa Powers

Australian data on the environmental impact of the dairy and soy industries is not as comprehensive as from other countries such as Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom. While there are international differences in production, life cycle analysis research is informative.

A recent Swedish study showed a span of 0.4 to 30kg of CO₂ equivalents produced per kilogram for different food items. The lowest emissions per kilogram were from legumes, poultry, and eggs. The highest were from beef, cheese and pork.

Cornell University scientist, David Pimentel, has found it takes about 14 kilo-calories (kcal) of fossil-fuel energy to produce 1kcal of milk protein using conventional milk production. Organically produced milk might require a little less than 10kcal of fossil-fuel energy per kcal.

In comparison, Pimentel’s data suggests that in a conventional soybean production system, one kcal of fossil energy invested produces about 3.2kcal of soybean. For 1kcal of fossil energy invested in organic soybean production, you get an average of 3.8kcal of soybeans. This means it takes between .26 and .31kcal of fossil fuel to make 1kcal of soybeans (contrasted with 10-14kcal to make 1kcal of dairy milk protein).

Pimentel states that soy protein accounts for about 35% of those kilocalories, so it appears that making soy protein is more energy-efficient than dairy protein.

Soy milk, of course, is the sum of its parts and whether using ground soy beans or soy isolate, other ingredients are added to make the liquid that consumers use in their coffees and cereals. These extras include calcium and oil. So the production process and its energy and water components need to be considered.

Soy beans have a low and energy footprint, but then there’s the footprint of converting beans to milk. gallixsee media/flickr

A 2010 “current and possible futures” study into greenhouse gas emissions across the top 45 food commodities in the UK recommended dairy milk and products be replaced by soy-based milk products.

A recent Dutch study comparing the water footprints of soybean and equivalent animal products found that soy milk and the soy burger have much smaller water footprints than cow milk and the average beef burger. The water footprint of the soy milk products analysed in this study was 28% of the water footprint of the global average cow milk. The water footprint of the soy burger examined was 7% of the water footprint of the average beef burger in the world.

Another important environmental parameter to consider is how much phosphorus is used to produce food. Modern agriculture is dependent on phosphorus derived from phosphate rock. It’s a non-renewable resource, and current global reserves may be depleted in 50 to 100 years. Meat and livestock production are associated with high phosphorus use and a vegetarian diet demands significantly less phosphate fertilizer than a meat-based diet.

The genetic modification (GM) debate is a series on its own, but it is relevant to note that all soybeans grown in Australia are GM-free, according to CSIRO’s Dr James. He compares this to the US, Canada, Argentina and Brazil, where over 90% of the soybeans grown are genetically modified.

Dr James says that if the soy milk bought in Australia states it is made from whole soybeans, it is “most likely” made from non-GM Australian soybeans. If the label says it is made from soybean isolate, it is “most probably imported from the US”.

Coffee anyone?

Articles also by This Author

26 November 2012 Why aren’t we talking about meat and climate change?

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

46 Comments sorted by

Mister Anderson

Student

Brilliant article! As a vegetarian (for emissions reasons among others) I constantly hear the argument that soy products use more water and energy than dairy and meat. I always assumed that it was a non-argument and I'm glad that you've given me a perfect resource to refer my dairy guzzling, meat chomping friends who like to rub vegetarianism in my nose :)

(Still working on the cheese thing though, it's just too damned tasty!)

9 months ago report
1. Paul Goodsell
  
  Eco-Warrior / Business Owner
  
  In reply to Mister Anderson
  
  Hopefully you soon realise that your taste buds aren't an appropriate moral factor, and go vegan. ;)
  
  9 months ago report
2. Ian Donald Lowe
  
  Seeker of Truth
  
  In reply to Mister Anderson
  
  The principal soluble carbohydrates of mature soybeans are the disaccharide sucrose (range 2.5–8.2%), the trisaccharide raffinose (0.1–1.0%) composed of one sucrose molecule connected to one molecule of galactose, and the tetrasaccharide stachyose (1.4 to 4.1%) composed of one sucrose connected to two molecules of galactose. While the oligosaccharides raffinose and stachyose protect the viability of the soybean seed from desiccation (see above section on physical characteristics) they are not digestible…
  Read more
  
  The principal soluble carbohydrates of mature soybeans are the disaccharide sucrose (range 2.5–8.2%), the trisaccharide raffinose (0.1–1.0%) composed of one sucrose molecule connected to one molecule of galactose, and the tetrasaccharide stachyose (1.4 to 4.1%) composed of one sucrose connected to two molecules of galactose. While the oligosaccharides raffinose and stachyose protect the viability of the soybean seed from desiccation (see above section on physical characteristics) they are not digestible sugars, and therefore contribute to flatulence and abdominal discomfort in humans and other monogastric animals; compare to the disaccharide trehalose. Undigested oligosaccharides are broken down in the intestine by native microbes, producing gases such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane.
  
  For human consumption, soybeans must be cooked with "wet" heat to destroy the trypsin inhibitors (serine protease inhibitors). Raw soybeans, including the immature green form, are toxic to humans, swine, chickens, and in fact, all monogastric animals
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean
  
  9 months ago report
3. Stuart Burns
  
  Researcher, Broadcaster, Horticulturist
  
  In reply to Paul Goodsell
  
  Moral reasoning makes all eating perilous. How many individual animals die per kg of soybeans?
  
  9 months ago report
4. Helen Marston
  
  CEO Humane Research Australia Inc.
  
  In reply to Mister Anderson
  
  And this doesn't even begin to mention the inherent cruelty involved in breaking the strong maternal bond between the mother and her calf so that humans can steak their milk. What could possibly be more cruel than having your newborn taken away from you and sent to slaughter?
  
  Few people seem to acknowledge that just like other mammals - humans, dogs, monkeys - cows must be kept in a constant state of pregnancy/lactation.
  
  Dairy production is an extremely cruel industry and with so many alternative options now available there is absolutely no excuse to treat other creatures this way.
  
  9 months ago report
5. Daniel Kinsman
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Stuart Burns
  
  So because we can't eliminate harm entirely, we shouldn't even bother trying to minimise it?
  
  9 months ago report
6. Stuart Burns
  
  Researcher, Broadcaster, Horticulturist
  
  In reply to Daniel Kinsman
  
  How can we even measure harm in that context?
  
  Is the suffering of one cow greater than the suffering of a dozen mice, or two rabbits, or a hundred thousand aphids?
  
  And is the net amount of animal suffering altered at all by farming animals?
  
  Because animals in their natural states don't usually get the palliative care humans get when they age, they are likely to be eaten alive by other animals, or just die painfully.
  
  Pain is simply a stress response, evolved over time to help animals avoid damaging environments. We put some kind of emotional interpretation on that stress, when in fact all organisms exhibit stress responses. Only when they approach our own stress responses do we take any notice.
  
  9 months ago report
7. Blair Donaldson
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Paul Goodsell
  
  http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-carnivores-ongoing-dilemma/350/
  
  9 months ago report
8. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Blair Donaldson
  
  http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/31/balancing-smoke-mirrors/
  
  9 months ago report
Jarrad Whitaker

Tertiary Student

Nice article. :) It would be nice to expand on the GM-point to compare the energy usage of GM vs. non-GM soy protein production.

9 months ago report
1. Stephen Prowse
  
  CEO at Wound CRC
  
  In reply to Jarrad Whitaker
  
  Why would you expect substantially different energy use between the production of GM and non-GM soy?
  
  9 months ago report
John Newton

Author Journalist

Apart from anything else I would be most suspicious of any figures supplied by Professor Pimental, based on past performance.

For example: a figure of 100,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef is cited in many papers published by Professor Pimentel.

But to get through that amount of water, a pasture fed steer would have had to consume 12,500 tonnes of water - 25,000 litres per day - for the 500 days of its life.

Such a figure, even when applied to feedlot cattle, taking…
Read more

Apart from anything else I would be most suspicious of any figures supplied by Professor Pimental, based on past performance.

For example: a figure of 100,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef is cited in many papers published by Professor Pimentel.

But to get through that amount of water, a pasture fed steer would have had to consume 12,500 tonnes of water - 25,000 litres per day - for the 500 days of its life.

Such a figure, even when applied to feedlot cattle, taking into account the amount of water needed to raise the grain eaten in that feedlot and the water used in the abattoir, is ridiculous.

How did Pimentel arrive at it? In his book Meat: A Benign Extravagance British author and Simon Fairlie traces the history of the calculation which ‘… takes into account every scrap of precipitation that falls upon the area of land a beef cow might occupy.’ And doesn’t take into account the vast quantities of very useful fertiliser deposited on the land when cattle pee.

I’m afraid once a source has been found to be that unreliable – dare I say dishonest? – I have trouble believing any information supplied by that source.

Apart from anything else, soy milk is an industrial product. Milk, at its best – unhomogenised, unpasteurised is cow juice.

I know what I’d prefer to put into my body

9 months ago report
1. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to John Newton
  
  The Pimentel figure isn't wrong, its just based on certain assumptions, like all other figures. Visit the South East in SA and you will see that many beef paddocks have been laser levelled to reduce run off to make sure that no water gets into rivers and streams for wildlife and that as close as possible to 100% goes into raising feed for beef. Under such conditions allocating every scrap of water that falls on the land to its product is reasonable. In other areas it isn't. The UNFAO figure for Australia…
  Read more
  
  The Pimentel figure isn't wrong, its just based on certain assumptions, like all other figures. Visit the South East in SA and you will see that many beef paddocks have been laser levelled to reduce run off to make sure that no water gets into rivers and streams for wildlife and that as close as possible to 100% goes into raising feed for beef. Under such conditions allocating every scrap of water that falls on the land to its product is reasonable. In other areas it isn't. The UNFAO figure for Australia is about 17,000 litres of water per kilo of beef. It isn't calculated as an average, but its a reasonable number for general use.
  
  Milk isn't "cow juice", unpasteurised ... its a complex mix of hormones, fecal cells, somatic cells ... mainly white blood cells <100,000 per mL, bacteria. Pasteurisation was introduced to stop people dying. When the white blood cell count is too high, the milk is rejected because the cow has mastitis. With industrial dairy production (ie., high energy feeds and breeding for massive udders and huge milk output in an animal with a shortened lifespan) mastitis is a constant risk.
  
  The Harvard Healthy Eating Plate doesn't have a glass of milk next to it because the epidemiologists at Harvard reckon you should limit your intake because too much dairy food is associated with various cancers.
  
  9 months ago report
2. Ian Donald Lowe
  
  Seeker of Truth
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  ^ Sophistry of the highest order.
  
  Water that falls on land isn't all taken up by whatever plants are on the land, even if it is laser leveled. (Water has been known to move through soils, don't you know?)
  
  Cow milk isn't entirely healthy for humans but at least it's not poisonous in it's raw state. (The only way fecal matter can enter milk is through sloppy dairy management procedures.) (The modern dairy herd is a genetic nightmare geared for milk production and they have many health issues, yes but not all cows are equal when it comes to soundness and suitability.) Soy beans are poisonous in the raw state. Soy Bean is an oil crop, extracting the oil leaves you with a tasteless, edible by-product. Enjoy your tofu burger by all means but I prefer beef and I prefer milk to some manufactured milk substitute. I don't force my meal choices upon you, so a little reciprocal respect would be nice for a change. Just for a change.
  
  9 months ago report
3. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Ian Donald Lowe
  
  You don't force your food choices on me, but you certainly do on the cow and her many calves.
  
  9 months ago report
4. Paul Goodsell
  
  Eco-Warrior / Business Owner
  
  In reply to Ian Donald Lowe
  
  Milk substitute? Why must cow milk hold the monopoly over something, say, you add to coffee? I add soy to my coffee. I don't do it as means of substituting something else. I do it because I desire a certain flavour and consistence in my coffee. Same with, say, a veggie pattie. I don't try to emulate meat... I desire something of a certain kind to compliment certain kinds of other things.
  
  9 months ago report
5. Ian Donald Lowe
  
  Seeker of Truth
  
  In reply to Paul Goodsell
  
  Yes, manufactured (made by man) "Soy Milk" is a milk substitute.
  
  Regarding the issue of cows and calves Geoff, I see a lot of emotion in your posts but I don't see much understanding of how dairy farms operate in the real world. Even I am unsure of modern dairy practices but traditionally, only unwanted calves are sold after weaning as yearling beef. No-one eats milk-veal any more, do they? Also, once a calf is weaned, the cow can be kept in production through a number of seasons so the need to impregnate the cow only arises when the cow starts to dry off an go into heat. Cruelty to animals is relative. The dairy herd is maintained in size for many years and this limits the need for supplemental feeding. The herd is kept healthy and well fed because this increases milk production. If we all stopped eating beef and drinking milk, the cattle population of Australia would be destroyed and the carcasses pushed into mass graves, or burnt on funeral pyres. How kind is that?
  
  9 months ago report
6. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Ian Donald Lowe
  
  Your knowledge of dairy farming is about 2-3 decades out of date.
  
  Calves these days are typically removed from their mother about 12 hours after birth and given colostrum replacer rather than real colostrum ... for which there is now a boutique "health food" market so is much too valuable to feed to calves who are destined for slaughter anyway. After a week the males and any unwanted females go for slaughter. Dairy herd replacement rates are about 25% in Victoria but can go up to 40% during drought…
  Read more
  
  Your knowledge of dairy farming is about 2-3 decades out of date.
  
  Calves these days are typically removed from their mother about 12 hours after birth and given colostrum replacer rather than real colostrum ... for which there is now a boutique "health food" market so is much too valuable to feed to calves who are destined for slaughter anyway. After a week the males and any unwanted females go for slaughter. Dairy herd replacement rates are about 25% in Victoria but can go up to 40% during drought. The cows will typically be culled for failure to conceive ... they are impregnated annually. In some areas calving is synchronised and gestation shortened by induction of calving with drugs ... dexamethasone trimethylacetate
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16958626
  
  If people stopped drinking milk the Murray Darling Basin would have an assured future ... during the big boom before the drought, dairy was the biggest user of water in the MDB ... 9 times more than fruit and veg combined. The herd would gradually diminish ... do you really think being shot and pushed into a ditch is worse than being put on the back of a truck and sent to slaughter?
  
  9 months ago report
7. Daniel Kinsman
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Ian Donald Lowe
  
  I doubt we will manage to convince the entire population to stop consuming meat and dairy overnight.If demand decreases gradually over time, farmers will simply stop breeding cattle.
  
  9 months ago report
8. Ian Donald Lowe
  
  Seeker of Truth
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  If what you have said is true, then there is very much wrong with the dairy industry today* and that needs to be addressed. But dicrediting, destroying and removing thousands of years of human interaction and villainizing rich, natural food sources in favour of the corporate crop of choice - the Soy Bean; toxic in it's natural state, cannot be eaten raw; that's just some suicide cult pact that I will never sign up to. Only an insane person would.
  
  *Much of what has happened to the dairy industry in the last 40 years has been against the wishes and best interests of most dairy farmers (mostly gone now) and what is left now is a struggling, mechanised industry, trying to compete against global imports.
  
  9 months ago report
9. John Newton
  
  Author Journalist
  
  In reply to Daniel Kinsman
  
  And what then of the animals that have been part of our ecology for many thousands of years?
  
  “All natural ecosystems have animals that eat the vegetation as well as one another, and are integral to the ecological balance”.
  
  If you read The Covenant of the Wild (Stephen Budiansky), you'll read a pretty good argument that animals chose domestication
  
  9 months ago report
10. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to John Newton
  
  There is nothing natural about having 1.4 billion cattle on the planet (or 7 billion people!). There has never been such a population of herbivores on the planet for
  millions of years (it has been proved for a couple of million, but is probably totally unprecedented). We are currently using about 6 times more biomass than the megafauna of the pleistocene ... and most of that is being consumed by livestock (58%) ...
  
  http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/4/044001/
  
  About 3% of factory farmed chickens can walk normally toward the end of their 6 week growing period. The rest suffer some degree of abnormal gait ... crippling and pain. Did they choose this? Or do free range chickens put their head on the killing block? The idea of species making choices is just a basic category mistake. Individuals make choices, not species.
  
  9 months ago report
Geoff Russell

Computer Programmer, Author

Thanks Judith. But I have one quibble ... "The lowest emissions per kilogram were from legumes, poultry, and eggs. The highest were from beef, cheese and pork." you are pretty much quoting the abstract, but the actual data in the table (Table 3) don't really support the abstract. Beef has a 30 kg-CO2eq/kg footprint
and the low foods like wheat and potatoes come in under 1 kg-CO2eq/kg. Eggs are more than double this at 2.5 and chicken comes in at more than 4 times this at 4.3. Pasta imported from Italy and then cooked came in at 1.1.

9 months ago report
Robert Davy

person

Thank you for the enlightening article.
I recently attempted to compile information on water use of dairy vs soy in the Australian context. Industry figures show that to produce one cup of dairy milk requires 200 litres fresh water - this would fill up a bathtub. The water footprint from the average person's dairy consumption is about twice the average per capita household water consumption. Much of this water is provided through irrigation. Soy milk uses much less water. Of course, soy is not the only alternative, but there is a lot of data on soy agriculture so it provides a convenient comparison.
My estimate for the per capita milk consumption was a bit low due to the old figures from 1998. The article is here if anyone is interested.
http://canberravegan.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/milking-dry-murray-darling.html

9 months ago report
Lisa Talya Strover

logged in via Facebook

Interesting article. I grew up on soy milk but gradually switched over to dairy over the last few years, mostly because it's cheaper. Does anyone have the figures on fossil fuel consumption for the overall production of soy milk (from farm to supermarket shelf) compared to dairy milk?

9 months ago report
1. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Lisa Talya Strover
  
  It's not hard to work out transport emissions but you can look them up in a study a fews years back (http://www.ceres.org.au/foodmilesreport )
  
  That study found that it generates 66 gms-CO2eq per kilo to move stuff 300 kms. Now look at the article ... beef was estimated at 30 kg-co2eq per kilo. So consider any food with production emissions of 1 kg-co2/kg. The difference is 29 kg-co2/kg ... divide by 66gms and multiply by 300 ... voila ... to give legumes the same carbon footprint as beef, load them onto a truck and drive it 131,700 kilometers. For pasta (1.1) to have the same footprint as chicken (4.3) you'd need to drive it ... 14,545 kilometers.
  
  What matters most in terms of your climate footprint is WHAT you eat (plant good, animal bad), where it comes from is of far lesser importance. But backyard tomatoes just taste better!
  
  9 months ago report
2. John Newton
  
  Author Journalist
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  Geoff - (plant good, animal bad) is somewhat simplistic response to what really is a very complex argument - whether you are a vegetarian or not.
  
  Could I direct you firstly to an article of mine - actually an extended review of a very interesting and thorough book on this topic; and then to the book itself.
  
  You may not agree with Fairlie's conclusions but at least then you'll see it's not simply a case of (plant good, animal bad)
  
  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/food-wine/chewing-it-over/story-e6frg8jo-1226093262311
  
  9 months ago report
3. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to John Newton
  
  From a strictly environmental viewpoint, plant good animal bad is simplistic but close enough to make reasonable decisions. I did email what I thought was Fairlie's publisher trying to do a book swap, but to no avail. In any event, from what Monbiot wrote and by your reference to protein quality in your article, I doubt Fairlie's book is as really very thorough.
  
  Consider ... here's a 125 page research paper entitled "Explaining Child
  Malnutrition in Developing Countries" by a couple of experts…
  Read more
  
  From a strictly environmental viewpoint, plant good animal bad is simplistic but close enough to make reasonable decisions. I did email what I thought was Fairlie's publisher trying to do a book swap, but to no avail. In any event, from what Monbiot wrote and by your reference to protein quality in your article, I doubt Fairlie's book is as really very thorough.
  
  Consider ... here's a 125 page research paper entitled "Explaining Child
  Malnutrition in Developing Countries" by a couple of experts. These people
  are really thorough ... http://bit.ly/PmhpAa
  
  There isn't a single mention of protein in the entire paper. Why not? Nutritional scientists worked this out back in the 70s, protein is irrelevant. It's incredibly hard to be protein deficient unless you are also starving. The only people who worry about protein these days is the meat industry who keep pushing protein and people who aren't very thorough about fact checking just lap it up. So go and download a set of amino acid requirements and a database on foods and amino acid content and play around trying to define a diet that is protein deficient but calorie sufficient. It's not impossible, but it just doesn't happen. Find me anybody anywhere in Australia with an "amino acid" imbalance due to "low quality" protein. I spent a few days combing the AIHW database and couldn't find a single person ... going back a decade.
  
  I did do a couple of blog posts on what Monbiot had to say.
  
  http://animalliberation.org.au/blog/83-monbiot-sides-with-muddle-headed-romanticism.html
  http://animalliberation.org.au/blog/81-monbiot-sides-with-muddle-headed-romanticism.html
  
  9 months ago report
4. John Newton
  
  Author Journalist
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  Geoff - I'll get back when I've read your offerings. In Fairlie's defence the book is subtitled 'a benign extravagance' and he is attempting to refute some of the wilder vegan claims, responding as a farmer. and suggesting that yes we have to eat less meat but it would be madness to take animals out of the landscape.
  
  Modern practices of husbandry, production and processing - including dairy - are disgusting but can we get back to a more humane way of farming? To Joel Salatin's "my animals have…
  Read more
  
  Geoff - I'll get back when I've read your offerings. In Fairlie's defence the book is subtitled 'a benign extravagance' and he is attempting to refute some of the wilder vegan claims, responding as a farmer. and suggesting that yes we have to eat less meat but it would be madness to take animals out of the landscape.
  
  Modern practices of husbandry, production and processing - including dairy - are disgusting but can we get back to a more humane way of farming? To Joel Salatin's "my animals have a good life and one bad day."? If we adopt Fairlie's ideas of 'default' livestock it'll be better for animals and humans. During the course of writing the piece I spoke to the vet working for the pork Corporation and found out that it is illegal to feed swill to pigs - in a country that discards thousands of kilograms of food a day.
  
  As for protein, don't think that was part of Fairlie's argument, n either ewas forcing mest down people's throats, merely as he said '‘because I like eating meat and keeping livestock and I wanted to address doubts I had about the sustainability and environmental justice of my way of life.’ I think he did.
  
  9 months ago report
5. Daniel Kinsman
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Lisa Talya Strover
  
  Interesting, I would like to know why soy milk is more expensive than dairy milk, especially given that this article indicates it is less resource intensive.
  
  9 months ago report
ross Jacka

Domestic Harmony

I worked in a factory that packaged soy milk in the past and on of the employees told me that the soy milk was so acidic that they'd had to had food grade caustic to get a neutral pH.

9 months ago report
1. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to ross Jacka
  
  The ph of plain soy milk is about 6.4-6.5, so yes a little acidic. But rather less than beef at 5.1-6.2 or blueberries (yum) at 3.7. Food grade caustic is ... food grade ... because you can use it in food and it's used in all manner of food. As the toxicologists say: The dose maketh the poison.
  
  9 months ago report
2. Ian Donald Lowe
  
  Seeker of Truth
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell
  
  The pH you refer to is the adjusted pH after the additive of a caustic substance, Geoff.
  
  Food grade caustic is... caustic soda.
  
  9 months ago report
3. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Ian Donald Lowe
  
  I'll show you my reference if you show me yours ... http://bit.ly/Rt2fbB
  
  9 months ago report
Tim Scanlon

Debunker

Soy can't replace dairy.

For starters dairy actually tastes good. Soy milk tastes like someone has strained normal milk through a sweaty footy sock and then added a bunch of sugar to take the edge off.

The next part is that dairy is far superior nutrition wise to soy milk. Aside from lactose intolerance, milk is just in a class of its own and has no comparison. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43672735/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/skinny-milk-nutrition-cow-goat-rice-or-soy/#.UDx-wMFmQrM
http…
Read more

Soy can't replace dairy.

For starters dairy actually tastes good. Soy milk tastes like someone has strained normal milk through a sweaty footy sock and then added a bunch of sugar to take the edge off.

The next part is that dairy is far superior nutrition wise to soy milk. Aside from lactose intolerance, milk is just in a class of its own and has no comparison. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43672735/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/skinny-milk-nutrition-cow-goat-rice-or-soy/#.UDx-wMFmQrM
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/69/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/4387/2

Soy is also not much of a replacement for meat, it isn't in the same ballpark on that one.

My point here is that before comparing water use and environmental impact you have to compare apples with apples. My next point is that soy cannot be widely grown in Australia, requiring summer irrigation systems and they are very photo-period sensitive. They are also nutrient hogs, requiring large fertiliser inputs but they do have the advantage of fixing nitrogen. http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/grain-crops/crop-production/growing-soybean
Essentially, soy can't be talked about as a replacement for milk or meat, it just isn't in the same class and can't really be expanded. Dairy is energy and water intensive, but it does produce a lot from what it uses. I'd like to see more focus on improving dairy efficiency rather than talking about replacing it.

9 months ago report
Shona Walter

Master in Environment and Energy law

Fairly good overview of the subject, but the main criticism would be not expanding enough upon the differences in production between the dairy industry in northern Europe and say Aust. and NZ.

It was interesting to see examples taken from Dutch and British studies done on dairy production, but these are hardly comparable to dairy production in New Zealand. I have no personal experience of dairy production in Australia, so I won't comment here.

Personal observations of dairy farms in the Netherlands…
Read more

Fairly good overview of the subject, but the main criticism would be not expanding enough upon the differences in production between the dairy industry in northern Europe and say Aust. and NZ.

It was interesting to see examples taken from Dutch and British studies done on dairy production, but these are hardly comparable to dairy production in New Zealand. I have no personal experience of dairy production in Australia, so I won't comment here.

Personal observations of dairy farms in the Netherlands and Belgium show that animals are typically raised in-doors for much of the year and grain feed. In the Netherlands, energy to heat animal enclosures would typically come from natural gas and in Belgium it could be a mix of natural gas or nuclear. Compared to animals raised outdoors, using the direct energy of the sun.

Being grain-fed, compared to grass fed, significantly rasies the carbon foot print of production. and is another reason why data taken from dairy farms in northern europe is not comparable to practices in the NZ and Aust..

From what I know of the dairy industry (I was raised on a 300 cow dairy farm on 200 acres, in South Auckland, my mother now has 2 cows which she hand milks every day) -the comments on animal husbandry lie either side of what typically happens on a family run, normal sized dairy farm in NZ.

I think most farmers do the best they can when it comes to looking after their animals and the land. They work 24/7 with these animals and many farmers wouldn't like to admit it, but there is a bond that exists. Any slip ups with animal husbandry are usually due to the pressures that come from not having enough time and help around.

In NZ the Clean Streams Accord signed by the Dept of Ag, local council and Fonterra have now pretty much assured that all fresh water sources running through farms are fenced off from stock. This will go a long way to combat nutrient run-off from the land. However, nothing much has been done in this area from the beef and sheep industry which is a shame.

9 months ago report
1. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Shona Walter
  
  Shona, grass fed cattle generally have HIGHER methane output compared to grain fed animals, but I've not seen dairy specific data.
  
  http://jas.fass.org/content/77/6/1392.abstract
  
  9 months ago report
Steve Brown

logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

How much does soy consumption add to a country's health care costs compared to dairy consumption?

The ill effects of the non fermented form are pretty well documented, especially it's effect on thyroid.

9 months ago report
1. Stephen Prowse
  
  CEO at Wound CRC
  
  In reply to Steve Brown
  
  Can you please provide a link to a real reference that describes the ill effects of soy consumption? How do they compare with the health costs associated with the (over) consumption of sugar, fat and salt (no references needed)?
  
  9 months ago report
2. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Stephen Prowse
  
  I'm only guessing, but what are the odds that Steve Brown won't include any references to the
  human studies which demonstrate the benefits of soy ... e.g.,
  
  http://nutritionfacts.org/video/breast-cancer-survival-and-soy/
  
  9 months ago report
David Paxton

Veterinarian

This is a useful conversation, thank you. There is much more to it than the environment, obviously. Industrialised dairy farming is cynically exploitative. If cows and calves are sentient (they are) it is also a heartless and cruel industry. On the matter of safety, eating is necessarily a risk/benefit exercise. I have begun drinking soy milk, about a litre a day. I knew I tended to be lactose intolerant but never did anything about it since I didn't do the shopping, even though I increasingly disliked the taste of the manipulated product we call milk. Now I share the shopping and stock up on soy milk. No more gurgling stomach ...revolutionary. Soy beans may not be cute but, until evidence to the contrary, I don't think they are sentient.

9 months ago report
David Oakenfull

food scientist

Great article. To go back to the GM issue - I have on my pantry shelf a pack of UHT soy milk (from Aldi's). The ingredients list says it's made from soy protein isolate which, as you say, has most likely been imported from the US where most of the soy crop is now GM. This means the product most likely contains genertically modified protein which, according to the Food Standards Code, must be declared on the label. There's no such declaration on this product, neither have I seen it on any other brand of soy milk. Maybe this is something the ACCC should be investigating?

9 months ago report
Blair Donaldson

logged in via Facebook

Judith's article could have been interesting but it was ruined by false comparisons and mixing, incidentally related subjects.

If the consumption figures are accurate, dairy farmers don't have to worry much about losing market share to soy milk. A 50% increase over a decade to 3 L is nothing compared to the increase in population over that time. And anyway, the fresh milk market is only a part of the overall dairy production in Australia.

Regarding environmental issues, an interesting recent…
Read more

Judith's article could have been interesting but it was ruined by false comparisons and mixing, incidentally related subjects.

If the consumption figures are accurate, dairy farmers don't have to worry much about losing market share to soy milk. A 50% increase over a decade to 3 L is nothing compared to the increase in population over that time. And anyway, the fresh milk market is only a part of the overall dairy production in Australia.

Regarding environmental issues, an interesting recent Occam's Razor podcast explains the origin of the dodgy claim that cattle use huge amounts of water and are responsible for large amounts of methane into the atmosphere… The UN figures most often referred to were little more than a guesstimate.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/cattle-and-methane/4182182

Does the writer realised that a large percentage of milk production in the US comes from shedded dairy cattle which is very energy intensive unlike the grazing dairy cattle in Australia? Comparing energy usage with US dairy cattle versus Australian grown soy is disingenuous and leads to a seriously flawed conclusion.

As for the merits or otherwise of organic versus well, can anybody provide an example of an inorganic cow or soy bean? The "organic" label seriously abuses reason and honesty and unfortunately takes on the connotations of a religion by some proponents.

The comments about calves are again a generalisation, the majority of dairy farmers keep heifer calves as replacements and good farmers know that high production comes only from healthy, well maintained cattle. Bad farmers don't last long.

Finally, it doesn't matter whether the produce is meat or crop, you cannot produce nutritious food without appropriate inputs in some kind of fertiliser and trace elements. All that matters is where those inputs are obtained and how they are applied.

I grew up on a dairy farm and keep in close contact with a number of dairy farming friends.

9 months ago report
Joe Gartner

Tilter

When you can make Gorgonzola or le dauphin cheese from soy is the day I'll start eating it. Sure, drink your manufactured smug-milk all you like but I consume food for taste as well as health benefits and I refuse to bow to political correctness when it comes to cheese. The planet be damned! I will have my cheese, and if cows have to stand around all day farting and expressing milk I'm happy with that.

9 months ago report
Elizabeth Raine

logged in via Facebook

This article doesn't mention how much rainforest is destroyed by the so-called "soy barons" in South America, who clear fell forest to plant soy that is largely intended as filler. Surely this needs to be factored in when calculating the carbon footprint of soy. See http://ran.org/fileadmin/materials/comms/mediacontent/presskits/ag/Soy_and_Rainforest_DestructionFINAL.pdf

9 months ago report
1. Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author
  
  In reply to Elizabeth Raine
  
  This is part of the ecological and carbon footprint of pig and chicken meat ... very little Brazilian soy is
  eaten by people.
  
  9 months ago report

Articles also by This Author

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter