tion to carbon dioxide (CO2), which
is why their respective amounts are
converted into CO2 equivalents. A
similar procedure is used for the
water footprint, taking into account
how scarce the resource water is in
a particular water catchment area.
And in the case of the land footprint,
not only is the amount of land
required determined, but also the
extent to which nature is affected
by land use. Both are included in
the calculation of land use.
Another key feature of the life
cycle assessment of milk and dairy
products and their plant-based alternatives
is the consideration of the
complete life cycle of the products
under consideration, from farming
(including all farm inputs and feed),
through processing and packaging,
to sale in the supermarket. For
all production steps - from milk
production to the supermarket -
the associated climate gas emissions
are determined. Typical, average
conditions (for Germany) are
used as a basis, e.g. for the yields
per unit area of feedstuffs or the
milk yield of cows.
In the case of milk, in addition
to feed production, methane emissions
from cows play a major role in
the carbon footprint due to the high
climate impact of methane. Credits
for by-products and recycling of
packaging are of only minor importance
PLANT BASED DAIRY ALTERNATIVES 2021
in the climate gas balance of
milk.
Milk and yoghurt
compared to plant-based
alternatives
The figure compares the carbon
footprint and water footprint of
cow's milk with some possible alternatives
based on soy, almonds
or oats. For comparison purposes,
the results are related to the average
daily footprint of a German
citizen and are therefore expressed
in inhabitant-days. In terms of the
carbon footprint (green bars), milk
consistently performs worse than
plant-based alternatives. This is
mainly due to the high methane
emissions of the dairy cows, the
farm manure emissions, and the
carbon footprint of the dairy products.
Packaging, transport, storage
and refrigeration in the supermarket
have only a small share in the
carbon footprint.
Comparing only the alternative
products, their carbon footprints
are similar, with slight disadvantages
for the soy drink. In the case
of the water footprint, however,
a different picture emerges when
water scarcity is taken into account:
cow's milk from Germany causes a
significantly lower water footprint
than soy or almond drink. The same
conclusion is reached when consid-
ering other ecological impacts such
as the land footprint. Incidentally,
these results do not only apply to
milk: yoghurt and its plant-based
alternatives behave in the same
way.
This means that not all plantbased
milk and yoghurt alternatives
can be rated as ecologically
more advantageous than milk or
yoghurt without reservation. Only
the oat drink performs better. This
conclusion applies without reservation
to cases in which milk and
yoghurt are replaced by the plantbased
alternatives in equal quantities,
for example as a component of
a muesli. A nutritional analysis with
a focus on nutritional values (e.g.
protein content) may yield other results.
Organic versus
conventional farming
If one compares organic products
with conventionally produced products,
the land footprint of organic
farming is systematically higher
than that of conventional farming,
the water footprint tends to be
lower and the CO2 footprint usually
somewhat higher. Nevertheless,
there are many arguments in
favour of organic farming, in particular
the extensive avoidance of
pesticides and the generally higher
nature conservation benefits.
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
Kuhmilch
Soja-Drink
Mandel-Drink
Hafer-Drink
Daily footprints/kg food/drink
Einwohnertageswerte / kg Lebensmittel
Cow’s milk
Almond drink
Soya drink
Oats drinks
CO2 footprint Water footprint © ifeu 2021
CO2-Fußabdruck Wasser-Fußabdruck • •••••• • •••••••• • • • •
September/October 2021 ¦ international-dairy.com · 13
/international-dairy.com
