top of page

Will cow's milk cease to exist?


ree

Every now and then, in many media outlets and social media, I come across a statement or question: 'Will cow's milk cease to exist?'


The topic can be chilling for those who make their living from and through the production of this noble food. I confess to feeling uncomfortable and having difficulty understanding the superficial and unfounded approaches to the subject. But, upon reflection, I've come to the conclusion that the most appropriate approach is to read and interpret everything published on the subject , within the capabilities of a mere mortal, since the topic has been increasingly discussed.


I'm well aware that the anti-dairy and pro-plant beverage movements are relevant. Furthermore, they have enormous potential for mobilization and engagement. I also follow and understand the quest to meet consumer needs and global demands related to climate change, but I also understand that these fronts aren't necessarily antagonistic.


Reading, understanding, questioning and counter-arguing is very important and all of us, involved in the milk production chain in various ways, can do this based on data and facts.


1 liter of milk x 1 liter of plant-based drink?


One common approach is to directly compare 1 liter of plant-based beverage with 1 liter of milk, in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In my opinion, this comparison isn't fair, as milk and plant-based beverages have different nutritional values, and dairy products generally have higher nutritional density (Tables 1 and 2). In other words, the comparison should be made taking into account the nutrient content of each food to meet each individual's needs.


Production of noble proteins, such as those of animal origin, present in milk, necessary to meet the population's needs


When evaluating the protein equivalent of plant-based foods, while the tasting experience may be interesting, there's a significant discrepancy compared to cow's milk. The fact is, plant-based beverages are, in most cases, many times lower in protein than cow's milk (tables 1 and 2). Therefore, when calculating the environmental impact in terms of protein, the calculation becomes much more complex and involves more than just calculating the carbon footprint, for example, of 1 liter of cow's milk vs. 1 liter of plant-based beverage.


Table 1 - Comparison of energy and protein values between almond milk and cow's milk

Source (item)

Item

Energy (Kcal)

Protein (g)

Sweetened almond milk

Per serving (240 g)

91

1.0

Cow's milk (1% fat)

Per serving (244 g)

102

8.2

Table 2 - Comparison between the content and availability of essential amino acids between almond milk and cow's milk

Source (item)

Item

Lysine

Methionine + Cystine

Threonine

Tryptophan

Sweetened almond milk

Per serving (240 g)

26.8

17.5

28.3

10.0

mg/g protein

26.8

17.5

28.3

10.0

Digestibility

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

Digestible essential amino acids (mg/g protein)

23.6

15.4

24.9

8.8

Cow's milk (1% fat)

Per serving (244 g) (mg/g protein)

688

264

349

105

mg/g protein

83.7

32.1

42.5

12.8

Digestibility

0.95

0.94

0.90

0.90

Digestible essential amino acids (mg/g protein)

79.5

30.2

38.2

11.5

Relative value

Cow's milk (1% fat)/Sweetened almond milk

270%

Source of tables:

Review: Optimizing ruminant conversion of feed protein to human food protein

GA Broderick

US Dairy Forage Research Center, University of Wisconsin and Broderick Nutrition & Research, LLC, Madison, WI 53705 USA


And I'll go further, considering a nutrient density in which each beverage meets more than 15% of an adult's daily requirement, milk has the advantage of emitting 7.7 and 2.2 less CO2e* per kg of nutrient compared to oat or soy beverages, respectively. This was already demonstrated in the 2010 study by Smedman et al., based on typical diets from northern European countries.


*CO2 equivalent


Smedman, Annika et al. “Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate impact.” Food & nutrition research vol. 54 10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170. 23 Aug. 2010, doi:10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170



 
 
bottom of page