Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday November 20 2015, @04:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the stomach-bugging-you? dept.

Fast Coexist reports on the Edible Insect Desktop Hive, a kitchen gadget designed to raise mealworms (beetle larva), a food that has the protein content of beef without the environmental footprint. The hive can grow between 200 and 500 grams of mealworms a week, enough to replace traditional meat in four or five dishes.

The hive comes with a starter kit of "microlivestock," and controls the climate inside so the bugs have the right amount of fresh air and the right temperature to thrive. If you push a button, the mealworms pop out in a harvest drawer that chills them. You're supposed to pop them in the freezer, then fry them up or mix them into soup, smoothies, or bug-filled burgers. "Insects give us the opportunity to grow on small spaces, with few resources," says designer Katharina Unger, founder of Livin Farms, the company making the new home farming gadget. "A pig cannot easily be raised on your balcony, insects can. With their benefits, insects are one part of the solution to make currently inefficient industrial-scale production of meat obsolete."

Of course, that assumes people will be willing to eat them. Unger thinks bugs just need a little rebranding to succeed, and points out that other foods have overcome bad reputations in the past. "Even the potato, that is now a staple food, was once considered ugly and was given to pigs," says Unger adding that sushi, raw fish, and tofu were once considered obscure products. "Food is about perception and cultural associations. Within only a short time and the right measures, it can be rebranded. . . . Growing insects in our hive at home is our first measure to make insects a healthy and sustainable food for everyone."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @08:06PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday November 20 2015, @08:06PM (#265945) Journal

    I like the algae idea [hplusmagazine.com] better than worms. It could offer superior nutritional scaling without the yuck factor (or at least a more palatable yuck factor).

    People who want beef will have a more environmentally-friendly option: lab-grown meat.

    The cost of lab-grown meat will drop dramatically. [sciencealert.com] The high cost of the lab-grown burger was due to initial R&D costs and other "growing pains". Getting fat cells to grow alongside muscle cells is an issue, but one I'm confident they can solve. If they don't, at least it will be a possible replacement for very lean ground meat.

    Someone else mentioned veggie burgers and other vegetarian meat replacements. Even if they don't taste like meat, they can be good in their own right. Black bean burgers are a good example. They are not far from falafel, which plenty of people enjoy even though it is a bean paste type thing that takes the role of meat. These black bean burgers [morningstarfarms.com] are pretty good IIRC.

    20 years ago, when production and marketing of veggie burgers, facon, etc. was ramping up, they were derided by meat eaters in the media for claiming to be like meat and falling short. Even though they can be good on their own merits, we have newer products with even closer imitation, such as this one: [sciencealert.com]

    The burger is the brainchild of biochemistry professor Patrick Brown from Stanford University in the US, and it’s now being manufactured by his food company, Impossible Foods. The secret ingredient is called heme, or ‘plant blood’, which is an organic molecule found in the protein leghemoglobin - the plant version of haemoglobin.

    [...] Heme also creates flavours not unlike the ones we taste in meat when it's exposed to sugars and amino acids. So what Brown had to do was come up with the perfect formula for his veggie patties using heme and a variety of different plant-based compounds to not only replicate the flavour of meat, but also the textures of animal fat, muscle fibre, and tissue.

    Egg replacements [npr.org] are also on the menu.

    Back to the lab-grown burger/meat. There are some impressive environmental claims [bbc.com] for the process: "An independent study found that lab-grown beef uses 45% less energy than the average global representative figure for farming cattle. It also produces 96% fewer greenhouse gas emissions and requires 99% less land."

    Facilities could be placed close to or within cities. Try putting a cattle pasture and slaughterhouse in the middle of New York City. The price of the lab grown meat process has dropped dramatically and I see no reason why it couldn't cost less than raising cattle. It also gives you the ability to eat any animal that can be replicated. Endangered... maybe even extinct.

    TL;DR: Going vegan is a lot less painful than it sounds, and way better than eating bugs. Keep on eating meat for the next 15 years, and you will see many more replacements and lab-grown meat available.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @10:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @10:31PM (#265991)

    Assuming those environmental claims are totally correct, and utterly unbiased ... just for the sake of argument, you understand ...

    Do they account for the beneficial side effects of cattle? Is there some efficiency cutoff beyond which cattle are OK? Who meets that standard? Is this with or without the costing of the beneficial side-effects of cattle? And how does this reflect the beef that is a byproduct of other things, such as animals used for labour, or dairy?

    There's a lot of missing context here, and serious economists should reflect on these.

    But maybe you're right. Start a business doing it and reap the rewards! However, I'll point out that I've tried a truly wide variety of substitutes on the market, and broadly speaking they all sucked. The only variation was the dimension of suckage.

    As for veganism, it's a mirage. There is no such thing as a vegan farm, because the moment you have one it's because you stopped pest control, or you're doing everything in hermetically sealed greenhouses. Either way, your output is insanely expensive per unit.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @11:33PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday November 20 2015, @11:33PM (#266005) Journal

      Hmm, I don't think vegan necessarily = organic (no "chemical pesticides"). Although, you know vegans.

      I am a fan of enclosed, vertical farming, and I think it can do better against traditional farming than you would expect. But like lab-grown meat, I want it to succeed because of market forces. They are the ultimate test. And in some ways, market forces and R&D won't be the only thing slowing the adoption of lab-grown meat. There are consumers that will say "ick" of course, but even corps will be reluctant to adopt a proven new technology because it involves change.

      Like I said, "substitutes" is a bad way to think about most of the products. Tempeh, tofu, realEgg or whatever should be considered on their own merits. They are marketed as meat substitutes because that is thought to increase sales. I don't have to believe a good black bean burger is like meat to enjoy it. Hell, maybe I'll stack a black bean patty on top of a burger and eat that.

      Probably the worst substitute I've seen is turkey bacon for real bacon. They use color to imitate a fat strip kind of thing. They cook terribly and don't retain much juiciness. The taste is definitely sub-par compared to bacon.

      There are several reasons why lab-grown meat COULD be better than cattle. I won't offer definitive proof, but I'll be posting stories on the topic in the future if the technology develops:

      • No suffering. This is one reason why PETA and others have given cautious endorsement of the process. If you are a vegetarian/vegan because you don't want animals to suffer, a lab-grown burger blows that reason away. The scientists are working on an alternative for the fetal bovine serum that they use to develop the culture.
      • Lower land use. This is a big one, because it helps you put the facilities closer to cities. Try putting a cattle field and slaughterhouse in the middle of NYC. That helps with the next point:
      • Lower energy and fuel use. Less distance from the product reduces the energy needed to get it to the customers.
      • Lower water and resource use. I tend to believe this one since field agriculture uses lots of water and the nutrients needed could come from anywhere... possibly algae?
      • Less emissions. Cow farts are considered a contributor to global warming.
      • The ability to grow any cut of meat you want. Right now the process looks pretty bad because the original lab-grown burger had no fat cells in it. So it's at a point where it could be easily mixed with other meat to create something that has fat and tastes better than pink slime. I think that over time we will see more types of cells in grown and in patterns that people pay the premium price for. This may even be done after the fact, with a vat of muscle cells and a vat of fat cells stitched together using a 3D printing type technology. You can bet this capability will develop further because the same techniques are needed to make synthetically grown organs for transplantation. Will it be able to replicate the taste of Kobe beef? I'm sure it will be considered.
      • The ability to grow the meat of any animal. The sky is the limit. Beef, chicken, pork? Lion or penguin? Mammoth? Or you could get existential and eat meat made of your own human cells. I'm sure some performance artist is just salivating over that prospect.
      • Lower cost. I have a feeling that the technology will scale to beat even the crappiest of slaughterhouses. This could be especially true for the simplest meat products, such as ground beef. As I've said, the market will determine this outcome. Until then, wealthy backers like Peter Thiel seem to be on board with funding the R&D of the lab-grown meat process.
      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:53AM (#266027)

        Quite a lot here, so I'll do my best to cover it all.

        Hmm, I don't think vegan necessarily = organic (no "chemical pesticides"). Although, you know vegans.

        Vegans don't even eat honey. Any biocide with negative effects on anything from an insect up is out of the question.

        I am a fan of enclosed, vertical farming, and I think it can do better against traditional farming than you would expect. But like lab-grown meat, I want it to succeed because of market forces. They are the ultimate test. And in some ways, market forces and R&D won't be the only thing slowing the adoption of lab-grown meat. There are consumers that will say "ick" of course, but even corps will be reluctant to adopt a proven new technology because it involves change.

        Enclosed farming: high capital costs, lots of entrained energy just to do a basic greenhouse.
        Vertical farming: high capital costs, lots of entrained energy just to do a basic floral tower.
        Enclosed, vertical farming: stupidly high capital costs, vast quantities of entrained energy just to get started.

        What's more, the density of your vertical farms can't be greater than that which your available sunlight permits, because a vertical farm in the shade of another vertical farm is either unproductive, or stupidly expensive in terms of mineral energy sources. If you think you have the secret to the biological perpetual motion problem, go for it and prove us all wrong.

        Like I said, "substitutes" is a bad way to think about most of the products. Tempeh, tofu, realEgg or whatever should be considered on their own merits. They are marketed as meat substitutes because that is thought to increase sales. I don't have to believe a good black bean burger is like meat to enjoy it. Hell, maybe I'll stack a black bean patty on top of a burger and eat that. Probably the worst substitute I've seen is turkey bacon for real bacon. They use color to imitate a fat strip kind of thing. They cook terribly and don't retain much juiciness. The taste is definitely sub-par compared to bacon.

        I don't happen to care for black bean patties, but I agree that painting things as meat substitutes that really aren't much like it does us all a disservice.

        There are several reasons why lab-grown meat COULD be better than cattle. I won't offer definitive proof, but I'll be posting stories on the topic in the future if the technology develops:
        + No suffering. This is one reason why PETA and others have given cautious endorsement of the process. If you are a vegetarian/vegan because you don't want animals to suffer, a lab-grown burger blows that reason away. The scientists are working on an alternative for the fetal bovine serum that they use to develop the culture.

        I have slaughtered hundreds of animals. Do it using a sensible system, and they're dead before they even hit the ground. The problem vis-a-vis suffering is ignorance, not inherent to the fact. I've even had a moral-based vegetarian accept meat that I farmed and slaughtered because he said it met all his criteria for humanity - and he watched me do it. You don't need a lab for this.

        + Lower land use. This is a big one, because it helps you put the facilities closer to cities. Try putting a cattle field and slaughterhouse in the middle of NYC. That helps with the next point:

        Not really. You think all the beneficial effects of animals will suddenly go away just because someone in a lab somewhere is growing artificial meat? Or that all the ranchland that can't possibly hope to support a justifiable crop, but is practical for ranched animals, will suddenly become a soy heaven? The fact that this isn't in downtown NYC is hopelessly irrelevant to the vast acreage out there.

        + Lower energy and fuel use. Less distance from the product reduces the energy needed to get it to the customers.

        If you hope to overcome the logistics of feeding the roughly 40 million people in the greater NYC conurbation you had better be putting out artificial meat by the kiloton daily. Right now that level of output is rank fantasy. You'll also need to source kilotons of inputs that right now come from ... not NYC. I don't see big savings in the near or even the medium term here. You'd probably be better off putting your meat boutique outside NYC and shipping stuff in by rail (about 450 ton*miles/gallon) pretty much the same way that meat currently is shipped. Oh, and you'll have the exact same refrigeration requirements because I promise you the food safety concerns will be very similar.

        + Lower water and resource use. I tend to believe this one since field agriculture uses lots of water and the nutrients needed could come from anywhere... possibly algae?

        Think again. Agriculture uses lots of water, sure, but did you think to check how much of that turns into urine on fields which nourishes the plants? Or, while we're checking, how much of that water is rainfall? Granted, some people are farming on failing aquifers, and they will have to change their ways, but I don't, and most farmers I know don't. The rain won't stop falling just because you have a factory.

        + Less emissions. Cow farts are considered a contributor to global warming.

        You're right - oh, but wait, you're also wrong. All that grass that the cattle eat? Now that there are no cattle in your post-meat world (ignoring for a moment that there are excellent reasons for livestock beyond just ranching) what do you think the deer do? Or the bison? Or the goats? Or the pigs? You may be able to shift the dial a little bit, but the same vegetation is breaking down, even if it's just rotting, and releasing all sorts of gases. Sorry, no free lunch here.

        + The ability to grow any cut of meat you want. Right now the process looks pretty bad because the original lab-grown burger had no fat cells in it. So it's at a point where it could be easily mixed with other meat to create something that has fat and tastes better than pink slime. I think that over time we will see more types of cells in grown and in patterns that people pay the premium price for. This may even be done after the fact, with a vat of muscle cells and a vat of fat cells stitched together using a 3D printing type technology. You can bet this capability will develop further because the same techniques are needed to make synthetically grown organs for transplantation. Will it be able to replicate the taste of Kobe beef? I'm sure it will be considered.

        I won't say it won't ever happen, but with every layer of technology you're adding, you're adding complications, expense and inputs. And there's a hell of a lot more to a cut of meat, or how it tastes, than just the fat. Diet? Activity levels? Age? And of course, no soup bones in your factory. No organ meats. Want sausage? You'll have to grow your casing because you don't have any guts to brine for sausages. If you're hoping to do that, why not use the animals we will still have to have to keep growing all your inputs? Or do you think that you will grow things in your vertical farms on positive thinking when the mineral sources of phosphates run out? Manure is the farmer's friend, and for very good reasons.

        + The ability to grow the meat of any animal. The sky is the limit. Beef, chicken, pork? Lion or penguin? Mammoth? Or you could get existential and eat meat made of your own human cells. I'm sure some performance artist is just salivating over that prospect.

        Sure. More options are good. The consumer is currently way too unadventurous to do anything outside a narrow range, but you might be right. I don't really see this as a big win anyway.

        + Lower cost. I have a feeling that the technology will scale to beat even the crappiest of slaughterhouses. This could be especially true for the simplest meat products, such as ground beef. As I've said, the market will determine this outcome. Until then, wealthy backers like Peter Thiel seem to be on board with funding the R&D of the lab-grown meat process.

        I keep animals because they benefit my farm. Their meat is a byproduct. I would slaughter them anyway just to control the population - I would have to. I eat them and save their other byproducts such as hides because I disapprove of waste. Good luck beating that price point. I would still eat cheaper even if I lived in Manhattan because I don't mind eating pigeon. Squab is tasty.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:40PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:40PM (#266273)

          Okay, I think someone dropped the gloves. I'll take at shot it and try to be less
          condescendent then you appear to be...

          I've even had a moral-based vegetarian accept meat that I farmed [...]

          Right... so I will assume that you are not biased, but a mature individual capable of
          recognizing the failures of the animal farming industry at large.

          Vegans don't even eat honey.

          In your earlier post, you seemed confuse about the difference between vegans
          and organic food eaters. It still seems to be the case...

          "Pure" vegans, indeed, do not eat meat or their by-products. However, using
          pesticides is in now way (if it even is) a practice confined to bee control, but I
          am sure you know that.

          Since there seems be an agreement on the use of biocides, let's stay here.

          If you think you have the secret to the biological perpetual motion problem, go for it and prove us all wrong.

          There's a tad of cynisism in that sentence..

          You fail to recognize that not everyone has a land large enough to grow a year-long supply
          of food. In fact, populations tend to group in cities, which leads to the conclusion that more
          and more humans have to rely on external, rather than local, supplies.

          In that perspective, you can either go along the established and powerful supply chain,
          indirectly supporting practices you may not approve of, or find and adopt that suits you
          better. The economical justification is left to the individual(s) to find. Extrapolating, buying
          locally-made dinnerware is stupid. If you sell what you farm, should I ask if it is cheaper than
          at the mega-corp standing on the street corner?

          Calling it stupid is certainly not inviting and makes you appear as a closed-minded invididual
          who fails to be polite when faced with a behavior they don't approve. I certainly hope you are
          not.

          I have slaughtered hundreds of animals.

          Judging from your number, I can only assume that you are talking about a small, family-style,
          farm. To be real, the market share of these farms is a droplet and, in that line of thought,
          the fact that you (apparently) do it "correctly", is anecdotal. In fact, most industrial slaughterhouse
          do it following certain "respectful" guidelines. For instance, chickens are frequently placed
          on a water bed to be electrocuted; rather than being beheaded and left to run around in
          a cage.

          McDonald's just recently changed their policy regarding the farming of eggs and decided they
          will now let the birds be able to walk; instead of being caged and not able to move. This is the
          kind of practice that some people boycott by becoming vegan. If you are not using such
          practices: be proud, defend yourself when accused and call out the others if you find it
          disgusting too.

          Or do you think that you will grow things in your vertical farms on positive thinking when the mineral sources of phosphates run out?

          Your whole argument is about using the animals being farmed as a whole rather than just
          for meat. Which is logical. However, I fail to see how it should be considered a problem solved.
          Without going too philosophical, the original thought was whether there is a better way to do
          things rather than just accept how things are. For one, and I am no expert, manure does not
          just come from animals, nor do nutrients in general. Also, there more and more facilities
          recycling organic wastes to use as nutrients. So it appears that, at a certain scale, synthetic
          and animal-based nutrients can be ignored.

          You think all the beneficial effects of animals will suddenly go away [...]

          I don't think that is what what said or implied. Following your line of thought, all the
          benefits of animals are obviously used in industrial farming because it makes sense.
          Although it does from an economic perspective, I highly doubt it is the case. However,
          you seem to distort things trying to defend your own practice. What you seem to perceive
          has an anti-animal/anti-meat-farming zealot probably isn't and actually makes you appear
          like someone incapable of distinguishing itself from other groups.

          I know some small farm owners who tend to have that behavior and are, in fact, quite
          respectful and considerate in general. I hope you are like them.

          I don't really see this as a big win anyway.

          I am sure you know success on the market place is in no way related to the quality of
          the product. Humans tend to be conservative by nature. On the scientific side, or simply
          from an evolutionary perspective if you will, looking out for improvements is crucial.
          Whether a solution is adopted right now or in 100 years makes no difference to its
          intrinsic qualities. Or, to be more specific, the short-term viability of lab-grown meat has
          no real impact on its potential.

          Also, in an industrial age, talking about the bone in the soup or how sausages are
          packaged is pretty funny.

          Good luck beating that price point.

          Good for you! Now let's talk about the rest of the population: your farm won't satisfy the
          world's hunger.

          In conclusion, I decided not to reply to all your arguments because you are obviously
          feeling personally attacked and trying to defend yourself; failing to recognize the matter
          at hand, in the process. In that light, I invite you to reconsider your perspective on the
          comments on the GP when in a lighter mood, since some candidates for improvement
          and potential solutions were mentionned.

          P.S. I find the thought of lab-grown meat pretty weird. If, however, synthetic food would
          become mainstream, I highly doubt farms would be endangered. Their products would
          simple become a niche market and I, for one, would probably be making irrational
          economic decisions. ;)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @10:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @10:05PM (#266364)

            In your earlier post, you seemed confuse about the difference between vegans and organic food eaters. It still seems to be the case...

            "Pure" vegans, indeed, do not eat meat or their by-products. However, using pesticides is in now way (if it even is) a practice confined to bee control, but I am sure you know that.

            I'm very well aware of the difference between vegans, vegetarians, lacto/ovo, paleo, organic, macrobiotic and other forms of selective diets. I am also well aware of the difference between adherents of Jainism and modern secular veganism. Vegans avoid what is characterised as the exploitation or assault upon animals. There are some factions within this grouping, as I'm well aware, but my particular point was that you can't have a vegan farm as such because you're contending with the need for pest control. The point about honey was a direct illustration of the vegan concern about apiaries in general and honey harvest in particular on the bees, i.e. that insects merit similar consideration. The prior poster had been making a point about veganism, and the rejoinder was to the effect that the concerns of vegans are so far beyond this original concern that they can be disregarded as being, essentially, self-delusory in nature. All those vegans who love their almond butter? They're depending on the apiary industry precisely because of the need for pollinators - with all the bee-related death that entails. In point of fact, honey is a byproduct of the pollination industry at this point, as is beeswax.

            I'll allow that in principle, if you only grew wind-pollinated crops, or hand-pollinated crops, in hermetically sealed greenhouses that completely exclude anything from the size of a louse up, you could in principle satisfy the needs of strict vegans, but it would basically have to run by robotic or at least remote control work. The point about biocides is that any time you have anything that will affect anything from an insect on up, you've left veganism behind in practice. The mere fact that some urban vegan can imagine that the reality of farming is different from what it really is while eating potato that had been doused in biocides from day one is an exercise in deliberate blindness, not a reflection of agricultural pragmatics.

            You fail to recognize that not everyone has a land large enough to grow a year-long supply of food. In fact, populations tend to group in cities, which leads to the conclusion that more and more humans have to rely on external, rather than local, supplies.

            I don't know what gives you this idea. I'm very well aware of it, in detail and specific. I am aware of the industrial and logistical efficiencies of cities, as well as the cost of funneling resources there. I'm aware of the personal and spatial limitations on urban dwellers and what can be grown in intensive systems in cities. Nothing about what I said has anything to do with the limitations on urbanites.

            In that perspective, you can either go along the established and powerful supply chain, indirectly supporting practices you may not approve of, or find and adopt that suits you better. The economical justification is left to the individual(s) to find. Extrapolating, buying locally-made dinnerware is stupid. If you sell what you farm, should I ask if it is cheaper than at the mega-corp standing on the street corner?

            Mega-corps don't offer what I offer. I don't try to compete on their turf. I offer niche products they neither can nor will offer, and yet I do so at a frequently lower price than their nearest equivalents. I don't know what practices you think I disapprove of, so I can't answer that aspect. As long as people aren't poisoning the environment I couldn't give a damn what they do.

            Judging from your number, I can only assume that you are talking about a small, family-style, farm. To be real, the market share of these farms is a droplet and, in that line of thought, the fact that you (apparently) do it "correctly", is anecdotal. In fact, most industrial slaughterhouse do it following certain "respectful" guidelines. For instance, chickens are frequently placed on a water bed to be electrocuted; rather than being beheaded and left to run around in a cage.

            Think again. I have slaughtered, by my own hands, hundreds. That has nothing to do with how many I've sent to slaughter elsewhere, or sold to people who intend to slaughter. As for what constitutes family-style these days, I hardly even know. You get family farms of thousands of acres, and corporate ownership of a few dozen acres. My bigger point isn't that I'm particularly good at slaughter, or that anyone else is particularly bad at it, but that merciful slaughter is neither impossible nor particularly inconvenient. The fabricated panic of pressure groups has no bearing on this aspect of the process.

            McDonald's just recently changed their policy regarding the farming of eggs and decided they will now let the birds be able to walk; instead of being caged and not able to move. This is the kind of practice that some people boycott by becoming vegan. If you are not using such practices: be proud, defend yourself when accused and call out the others if you find it disgusting too.

            As far as I know, nobody's really accusing me of anything, so I don't know what this is about.

            Your whole argument is about using the animals being farmed as a whole rather than just for meat. Which is logical. However, I fail to see how it should be considered a problem solved. Without going too philosophical, the original thought was whether there is a better way to do things rather than just accept how things are. For one, and I am no expert, manure does not just come from animals, nor do nutrients in general. Also, there more and more facilities recycling organic wastes to use as nutrients. So it appears that, at a certain scale, synthetic and animal-based nutrients can be ignored.

            No, my whole argument is that the ideas behind proposals for vertical urban farming are founded, as presented in this forum, on some fundamental misconceptions concerning actual animal agriculture. The animals having a use on the farm is one, fairly readily comprehensible but far from complete example. The fact is that animals are not going away in efficient agriculture, and in fact large parts of the country will see increased stocking density if they hope to retain productivity. Nothing about what I've said promoted stasis, and in fact I'm a strong advocate for improving farming practices in this country because there's a hard limit to how long we can blast soil until it's a sterile growth medium, pack it with mineral or mineral-sourced nutrients, and grow monocultures.

            As for manure, it pretty much by definition comes from animals. Manure, dung, shit - that's valuable. The fact that it can be collected from sewage facilities is great. Every truck that goes to a city full of food can come back full of composted sewage, and I'm fine with that. Yes, there are other sources of nutrients but the majority of those are exhaustible, and being exhausted quite rapidly. This means that ignoring non-animal nutrient sources is a fast road to starvation.

            I am sure you know success on the market place is in no way related to the quality of the product. Humans tend to be conservative by nature. On the scientific side, or simply from an evolutionary perspective if you will, looking out for improvements is crucial. Whether a solution is adopted right now or in 100 years makes no difference to its intrinsic qualities. Or, to be more specific, the short-term viability of lab-grown meat has no real impact on its potential.

            Sure. No problem there. Grow it all you want - but the economic case being made from it right now is deeply inadequate. The comparison with the meat in the field is completely lopsided. Accounting for water use that is rainfall as if that rain will stop falling when we move to an industrial meat culturing system is ludicrous. Failing to account for beneficial side effects of animals currently in agriculture is completely off kilter. And so on. If you want to make your economic case, by all means do - but make it complete.

            Also, in an industrial age, talking about the bone in the soup or how sausages are packaged is pretty funny.

            Then why ain't I laughing? One of the biggest industrial machinery and energy needs in the whole food chain is refrigeration. As energy becomes more expensive, as resources become scarcer (and don't be blinded by the current commodities war keeping prices artificially low), we will have to go to high temperature friendly food preservation techniques. Fermentation, canning, brining, pickling, smoking. Bones aren't hard to keep, and they enrich cooking, even if you're just simmering down stock. Sausages offer a packaged form for recovered meats that are otherwise hard to unify into useful units. Sausages also offer easier approaches to drying, smoking and fermentation.

            Good for you! Now let's talk about the rest of the population: your farm won't satisfy the world's hunger.

            I know. Of course. Let's consider it, because it turns out that efficiency will be an absolute key to avoiding worldwide turmoil on a level that will make the Arab Spring look like a picnic. What's your solution, and why, specifically, is your energy and resource budget comparable to that of an integrated cycle on living soil? You may be right - this may all work fine - but handwaving about the water use of current agricultural practices isn't a sufficient answer.

            In conclusion, I decided not to reply to all your arguments because you are obviously feeling personally attacked and trying to defend yourself; failing to recognize the matter at hand, in the process. In that light, I invite you to reconsider your perspective on the comments on the GP when in a lighter mood, since some candidates for improvement and potential solutions were mentionned.

            You completely misconstrue my position. I don't feel personally attacked. The original authors don't know me, and don't know what I do. How can it be personal?

            My real position is that of fatigue and frustration. Fatigue, because I keep having these conversations with people who think that they have all the damn answers when all they have is a blinkered view, and frustration because I keep running into the same magical thinking. We're going to BUILD (expensively) a TALL (expensive), FARM (energy-expensive) in which we will feed vast numbers of people (with no additional solar input, all the heat and pest problems of greenhouses, no plausible illustration of a stable cycle, and consequent massive dependency on resource streams and energy availability). And it will magically be better because we won't have to ship stuff (except all over our local area), and we'll recycle nutrients and water (just like any intelligent farmer already does) and so on and so forth.

            I have yet to see a competitive analysis, a risk analysis with respect to power, water, nutrients and disease control (greenhouses are great for all sorts of pests) or any competent ROI estimation.

            That's just scratching the surface, a broad brushstroke indication of my preliminary problems. Now maybe you see, just a little, why after decades of listening to this stuff I'm fatigued and frustrated? Google is bringing us closer to a functional AI than the proponents of vertical farming and artificial meat have brought us to any kind of viable alternative farming, and Google is a long, long way away from an AI.