Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Tuesday September 01 2020, @06:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the yummy-yummy-in-my-tummy? dept.

Study finds insect shows promise as a good, sustainable food source:

With global food demands rising at an alarming rate, a study led by IUPUI [( Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis)] scientists has found new evidence that a previously overlooked insect shows promise as alternative protein source: the yellow mealworm.

The research is based upon a new analysis of the genome of the mealworm species Tenebrio molitor led by Christine Picard, associate professor of biology and director in Forensic and Investigative Sciences program at the School of Science at IUPUI.

[...] "Human populations are continuing to increase and the stress on protein production is increasing at an unsustainable rate, not even considering climate change," said Picard, whose lab focuses on the use of insects to address global food demand.

The research, conducted in partnership with Beta Hatch Inc., has found the yellow mealworm—historically a pest—can provide benefit in a wide range of agriculture applications. Not only can it can be used as an alternative source of protein for animals including fish, but its waste is also ideal as organic fertilizer.

[...] "Mealworms, being insects, are a part of the natural diet of many organisms," said Picard. "Fish enjoy mealworms, for example. They could also be really useful in the pet food industry as an alternative protein source. Chickens like insects—and maybe one day humans will, too, because it's an alternative source of protein."

Journal Reference:
T. Eriksson, et al. The yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) genome: a resource for the emerging insects as food and feed industry [open], Journal of Insects as Food and Feed (DOI: 10.3920/jiff2019.0057)


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:12PM (2 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:12PM (#1045327) Journal

    Humans are highly adaptible, highly mobile, and highly interconnected. Do you starve if there's a local drought? No, you probably don't even notice, because the supermarket sources the food from Chile or Canada or some other place. If climate change means the container ships start moving less in this direction and more in that, well, we'll deal with it. With only today's technological capabilities, we can handle it. With tomorrow's, we'll do even better.

    There's also the question of rate of change. If sea level jumps 50 feet everywhere tomorrow, then you are correct that "billions may die in the process," but that's a florid scenario. What's much more likely to be the case is that it will creep up over generations. Short, by a geologist's or climatologist's standards, but long by a normal human's.

    We definitely should live lighter on the Earth. We should stop burning fossil fuels, and we should consume less as individuals for a whole host of reasons. But let's refrain from panic. Life will be fine. The Earth will be fine. Humanity will be fine.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:18PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:18PM (#1045331)

    That's a rather dangerous attitude to have here. We may figure out how to deal with it or we may not. You're assuming that we will get it figured out quickly enough, but the reality is that at some point we may cause a problem that is so significant and/or fast that we can't solve it in time. And even if we do manage to solve it, there's no guarantee that there won't be mass starvation in the meantime while trying to implement it.

    At some point, we may well find that things are shifting so quickly that we can't move the infrastructure fast enough to keep up. A local drought is one thing, we can just grow food elsewhere, but when it's huge swathes of the planet becoming inhospitable it may turn permanently unusable for agriculture the way that the Sahara did.

    This is one of the reasons why it's so foolish to rely on technology to solve the climate crisis without doing what we can to reduce emissions as much as practical. We can pretty much always cut emissions by simply powering down most of the equipment that's emitting carbon dioxide, but making things more efficient is a much harder task to accomplish.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @03:01PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 03 2020, @03:01PM (#1045875) Journal

      We may figure out how to deal with it or we may not. You're assuming that we will get it figured out quickly enough, but the reality is that at some point we may cause a problem that is so significant and/or fast that we can't solve it in time.

      Evidence for this "reality"? I'll point out that we have plenty of evidence that we can adapt to a lot of problems pretty quickly.

      This is one of the reasons why it's so foolish to rely on technology to solve the climate crisis without doing what we can to reduce emissions as much as practical.

      What makes you think we're not already doing that? There's an awful lot of poor people who can't eat reduced emissions, for example.