On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:21:17 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 24/01/2020 10:30, T i m wrote:

Then that depends on the overall footprint of each.

eg, It could well be that the 'fake milk' requires a faction of the
space to produce (compared with cows milk), a fraction of the water
and actually produces far less of the worst greenhouse gasses (methane
V CO2), then we may all still be better off overall (and no cow
hormones in fake milk for example).

https://www.alpro.com/uk/products/dr.../oat-original/



How can they claim no added sugars when one of their products is
labelled unsweetened?

You aren't very bright are you?

"* contains naturally occurring sugars"

Do you think they *add* lactose to cows milk?

(And they let these people vote ... rolls eyes). ;-(


Factor in the destruction of the soil structure by constantly growing
crops.

Of course.

Leaving the ground fallow and growing grass for a couple of years
and then using grazing animals for maintenance during this time may be
beneficial for the country.

But it may not, if grazing animals (even if also for milk or meat
production) takes up say 20x the land in the first place and produce
loads more methane (than say a combine harvester produces CO2).

It may be impractical to plant crops when the whole of the countryside
is full of wind

Makes no difference.

and solar farms.

Whilst they are planting crops under solar farms (agrivoltaics), solar
farms may be better positioned on land that may not be idea for
growing crops in the first place (inaccessible by big machines, rocky,
dry or contaminated).

Cheers, T i m