SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 20 2015, @04:45PM
I appreciate the parsimony of it, but it's still bugs. Bugs are not terribly fun to eat. Real yuck factor.
Alas I have been trying to cultivate spirulina, because eating an algae that's a perfect food is more appealing in a similar footprint, but have not had much luck so far. I would raise chickens or guinea pigs for food, but there are a lot of ordinances against that.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by dmbasso on Friday November 20 2015, @05:43PM
Two days ago I manually cleaned whole shrimps, for the first (and probably last) time in my life. While I was doing it I couldn't stop thinking how similar that would be for insects. It is just a matter of how it is prepared and presented. If it is convenient (cleaning shrimp is not, at least with my n00b skillz) and the end result doesn't look like living animals (I find those roasted whole pigs highly disturbing... don't you think they look like babies?), then it is ok.
Cultivating spirulina is in my "someday in the future" todo list. Is it difficult? What's the problem?
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 3, Funny) by Valkor on Friday November 20 2015, @06:39PM
I dunno what problem cmn32480 is having with it, I can't keep a fish tank WITHOUT growing the stuff like crazy. Just put it in some partial sunlight (or full sunlight if you're crazy) and in a week it'll be everywhere.
Of course I'm not 100% sure this is the same algae, I don't have the tools or skills to find out.
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Friday November 20 2015, @07:33PM
The problem I'm having with what? I am so VERY confused!
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday November 20 2015, @08:48PM
I doubt the stuff growing in your fish tank is spirulina. IIUC, spirulina is a variety of marine (i.e. salt water) algae. Certainly every time (rarely) I've tried to eat it it was unedibly high in salt.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday November 20 2015, @07:12PM
I think one of the key things here is scale too. A shrimp is really close to the bottom on my scale. You manually cleaned and processed those shrimp by removing the head, legs, shell, tail, and finally devaining (poo removal). That just isn't doable with insects and so they lie below my "it is food" scale. One small caveat is that i am mostly expressing preferences here. You can obviously eat insects and even live on them. Just like you could probably eat other people and live on them too. To each their own : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 20 2015, @09:16PM
I've gotten the kit from AlgaeLab [algaelab.org] a couple times and simply can't get the starter bottle to scale up. All the nutrients at the proper concentration, a PH tester to make sure the alkalinity is in the right range. I tried big translucent plastic containers, with an aquarium pump bubbling air through the mixture, but they all go yellow and die. I tried an automatic stirrer powered by an arduino and solar panels, same result.
The second time around I sprung for a full on glass aquarium with water heater to keep it at the optimal 80F, but that died even faster.
I thought maybe the lumens in the tanks were too high, or too low, and experimented with different placements and screens to control it, because everything seemed to instantly die in full sunlight. I thought I wasn't filtering the water enough (to remove any residual chlorine), so I double-filtered everything the second time around.
No luck. After two fresh restarts I have one last plastic container that seems to have become stable, but I can't seem to scale it up.
It's quite disappointing. Dunno, maybe I'll have to find a way to go somewhere and learn by workshop or something, or maybe I'll pack it in and build an aquaponic setup instead. There at least seem to be more online resources for the latter than the former.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jdccdevel on Friday November 20 2015, @11:36PM
Maybe there is some residual waste product from the alge's metabolism that's poisoning it, because it can't dissipate fast enough? (volume vs surface area?)
Could be that large amounts of alge dying (and decaying) at the end of it's life cycle is poisoning the stuff that's stil alive.
Just a thought, it seems like you've thought of everything else.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:40PM
Yeah, I dunno. If it was a normal fish tank you'd run a filter to get the waste products out, but in this case that'd get rid of the algae you want to grow. You look at pictures of commercial algae ponds and they're open-air. You'd think that a controlled environment like an enclosed tank would be easier.
It has given me something of a complex. I can handle the regular kind of farming/gardening with weeds, insects, moles, mercurial weather, fungus, but this I can't master. If I can't handle hydroponics they're never gonna let me live on Mars...
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jdccdevel on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:41PM
Not really, the closed environment has to maintain a perfect balance. In an open environment, waste products have somewhere to dissipate to. In a closed environment, they accumulate, and eventually kill.
It might be worthwhile to monitor the CO2 and O2 levels in the atmosphere around your algae tank if you can, since it sounds like you're using a enclosed tank. I suspect your algae is suffocating.
I guess that depends, how good are you at growing potatoes? ;-)
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday November 20 2015, @10:13PM
Randall has similar feelings about lobster:
https://xkcd.com/1268/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 20 2015, @10:56PM
Randall is a fag bitch and none of the women he's kneading his dick over have any respect for him.
(Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:50AM
Shrimp are bugs.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @06:26PM
The vendor typically sprays some slightly salty sauce on it (maybe has msg and pepper?) and some vendors add some herbs/fragrant leaves. It's a bit like a slightly salty crispy chewier but noncrunchy fried bean? Not smelly.
Goes well with beer I guess - but I don't mind eating it without beer either. In fact I convinced a friend of mine to try it in Thailand (he ate a fair number) and now he and I both agree that every now and then we go "hmm I feel like eating some fried silkworms". Problem is it's not so easy to get it outside of Thailand.
I hope we end up in a world where we have more choices and can eat fried silkworm pupae or other stuff if we like it; not because we have run out of choices and stuff to eat.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday November 20 2015, @07:03PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @08:07PM
Actually I think you can get the Thai style ones:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crunchy-Critters-Silkworm-Pupae/dp/B011KWHU7C [amazon.co.uk]
But that's pretty expensive for just 20.
http://www.amazon.com/Fried-Bugs-Pupae-BBQ-Flavoured/dp/B014GVL9A8/ [amazon.com]
BBQ flavor? Would that really be nice? Don't like BBQ sauce with ribs.
Not so keen on fried crickets or grasshoppers (don't want to have wings and legs stuck between my teeth - if you think having vegetables stuck in your teeth is gross to others and embarrassing to you...).
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday November 20 2015, @08:36PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday November 20 2015, @06:59PM
Its all about Perception.
Lobster, crab, shrimp, prawns. As a friend calls them "sea bugs". We consider them delicacies even though they are more closely related to cockroaches than than anything else humans eat.
Clam, abalone, oysters. Most closely related to snails.
Escargot, A common garden snail with garlic butter.
In the Florida Keys you can get Conch chowder. Conchs are giant sea snails.
There are some places where you can get an isopod (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod) for dinner, they taste like crab. Closest land relative is the wood louse and pill bug.
The only aversions to eating common insects like crickets and even cockroaches is our cultural programing. as children we are taught that bugs are "creepy, slimy and disgusting" so that is how we think of them as adults.
Perceptions can be changed, we just need to keep an open mind about things.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Friday November 20 2015, @07:17PM
I have friends who love meat but won't eat seafood because they can "see their face", or the texture is too rubbery, or other reasons. For some, this means no whole fish when the head is included.
Meanwhile, I have no problem eating shrimp, lobster, and other seafood, but I *am* icked by the thought of eating bugs. At least if I can see them; maybe if it were mashed up and processed into something else like a sausage the thought of eating it won't turn my stomach.
It's definitely a learned preference; if I hadn't grown up with seafood as a staple, would I also shy away from seafood?
The current generation of westerners is very unlikely to pick up this new taste, it will take at least a generation of high prices on current meat before the west has a chance at accepting insects as a food source on a large scale.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @07:54PM
Bushnigger guy here.
Your squeamish friends are missing out on the best part of eating fresh ama ebi or lobster sushi - that the still-live creature gets to see you eat its tail, with antennae and legs moving. Then, the chef deep-fries the heads and returns them to you to eat.
Its also no secret that the head is one of the best parts of fish - the cheek meat is ethereal, just be aware that the eyes' lenses are hard. There are fewer great pleasures in this world than whole fish cooked by a Mexican woman. Every bite is buttery orgasmic goodness.
Yup, eating animals. Fuckin' ROCKS!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 20 2015, @09:05PM
I would sooner become a vegetarian than get my meat from bugs. Survival situation? OK, sure. But eating bugs is gross and pointless. Deep-fried scorpions taste like nothing. Silk worms taste like an even nastier version of brussels sprouts. Grasshoppers are usually (as I've had them) like eating sunflower seed shells.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by albert on Sunday November 22 2015, @07:03AM
Nearly all creatures dislike eating poo. There are a few notable exceptions, but this is fairly universal.
I'd probably enjoy eating bugs, except... you expect me to eat them whole, including the poo! No, I'm not doing that. Look, I eat chicken and pork and beef and crab and scallops... but you won't see me eating the poo. That part is removed, normally before my meat even reaches the store.
Ditch the poo and I'll go for it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @07:34PM
http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/01/02/abundance-at-the-bottom-algae-based-nutritional-supplement-and-fuel-production/ [hplusmagazine.com]
I bet crushed/powdered insects could be used in ways that people would find palatable, but algae could rival it on nutrient content and ability to scale up..
What ordinances prevent you from raising and slaughtering guinea pigs?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 20 2015, @09:01PM
New York City and its suburbs have a lot of irritating anti-sustainability and anti-independence ordinances. You're meant to drive everywhere and buy everything. As such, you can't keep food animals on your property.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by pyg on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:45AM
The same to could be said of soybeans. Employ a skilled culinary advocate (when you pay them they like to be called chef) for some ideas. I can easily see mealworm "sloppy joes" coming off as well (better even) than soy based.
I withhold comment on efficiency/ethics/etc. I think soldier fly larva will be a big hit 5+ years after eating bugs becomes at least ok. Almost pure fat/protein and heavy on the fat it rivals a well marbled beef steak in terms of composition.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:52PM
So you'll be the guy in the scene from Dark Matter [wikipedia.org] who grabs everyone else's meal worm burgers when they find out what they're made of [mikesfilmtalk.com].
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @04:50PM
I'm not giving up my tastes for prime cut cow flesh, pork chops and bacon, chickens, and endangered sea creatures.
Eating bugs is for bushniggers and Mali scroungers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday November 20 2015, @04:52PM
Technically, every thing that's turned into food is quite endangered.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @08:15PM
And nor should you be forced to give those things up. I am however very happy that regulations and pure market forces will drive up the cost of these things to price most people out of it without coercion. It's a very good thing for all involved when people can't afford to eat meat every day, every meal. When bacon is $20/lb because hogs have to be given x-number of feet^2 to live and can't be cruelly and inhumanely packed closely together anymore, you'll have to cut back--and you'll be healthier for it. You can still be a grumpy, ungrateful, little cry baby though. That's your right.
No need to thank us, btw. Your impotent rage that your unhealthy, unsustainable, lifestyle is being gently disincentivized out of existence is more satisfy enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @08:38PM
Bushnigger guy here. I was born with a rare disorder which allows me to post only in this discussion. I am a native of Chad and my disorder is Fickle Cell Anemia.
The parent should be modded up. I do not agree with them but what xe describes is the future of meat. Those who want to eat meat will have to import it from states undominated by faggots, where fresh kills can be shipped at a huge markup to those like me who are addicted to real meat.
Those without financial access to real meat will take it underground...we will have to settle for canine meat, feline meat, the meat of all rodentia we can catch, fishing, raiding pet stores for hermit crab meat.
But God Damn, I declare, we will not settle for insects! The battle lines have been drawn and I'm hungry for Chihuahua tacos!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @09:13PM
Howdy. Farmer here.
Leaving aside the condescending self-righteousness of your post, and the thinly disguised malice, I would like to address the factual accuracy.
I'm sure it's true that you're happy about your view of the world. Unfortunately, you seem to be a little weak on the underlying agricultural economics. Let's see if I can help.
A somewhat naive, but functional way of viewing agricultural efforts is as a cycle. It's not a closed cycle - you're constantly getting sunlight, rainwater and atmospheric CO2 in, for example, and pulling away agricultural products. If you want more productivity, you need your cycle to run hotter (add petrochemically sourced nutrients and boosters) or more frequently (greenhouses and similar forcing technologies) or more efficiently (permaculture, integrated agriculture, intercropping and so on).
Since the long term trend of gasoline and its petrochemical friends is definitely upwards, and we're exhausting things like mineral phosphate sources, the next place to look is efficiency because most forcing technologies turn out to be quite energy-intensive. Turns out, animals are great in agriculture! Pigs to turn over your soil, ducks to consume pests, and of course sheep for brush control. Not to mention wool, hide, eggs and all the other good stuff.
Oh boy, and will we need a lot of animals. When that there John Deere or Caterpillar gets a little pricey to feed, we'll be needing a bunch of oxen, horses and other critters to keep things going, or you and all your suburban friends won't have your tofu and oatmeal. It don't harvest itself, son. We might even need some scary mexicans who know how to swing a scythe, cause I'm betting that you're a little rusty on your mowing skills.
So yeah, animals as far as the eye can see, and precisely because of the limitations we have. And those animals will end up on the plate and they will be cheaper than you think because their meat is a byproduct of agriculture in the new world order.
That said, I don't see where you combine regulations and pure market forces. They're kind of antithetical to each other. It's more like regulations from the likes of you, and distorted market reactions from the likes of me who have to contend with your idiotic regulations. Idiotic because the hand-wringing suburbanite masses who get duped into voting for these things don't actually grasp the implications of what they're talking about. For example, if I want an acre turned over in a hurry, I will put a few snacks in holes, and pack it with pigs on a density which is bound to horrify people - and then I'll move them elsewhere later. All sound agricultural practice.
Why? What is precisely so great about an environment where the sheer cost of an abundant resource, necessary because of its role in our food supply, is so expensive relative to the general level of income that people can't afford it regularly? We need those meat supplies. We want (or at least I want, I won't speak for you) a prosperous society. What the hell is wrong with you that you want Maslow's hierarchy of needs to become a Tower of Babel rather than a pyramid?
Because sows crushing and eating their piglets is obviously humane! Here's a heads-up for you: farmers do not invest in expensive, complex, large arrangements unless there's a return. Why not? Because it's a business, and if you go broke you are farming nothing any more. Different farmers have different rates of acceptable losses, but I'm here to tell you that anyone peddling the idea of free range pigs is pro pig cannibalism. Maybe not nice to contemplate, but absolutely true. Chickens, too. Chickens regularly kill and eat each other.
I could go on, but I'm hoping that these few words will give you opportunity to reflect on your preconceptions.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 20 2015, @04:52PM
Interesting article and a great submission for SN, but I made the mistake of reading the comments under the article. The derp hurts.
I think this will become a thing, in time. You'll see a few ecohipster types taking on bug consumption over the next few years. It will develop into a weird niche, from there to a trendy subculture, and from there it's a short hop to mainstream. Give it fifteen years and your twenty-something kids/grandkids will be dragging you along to this 'amazing insectivore cafe/ restaurant/ art gallery/ improv comedy jazz poetry hangout' in some bohemian part of town for family celebrations. It's not that long ago that vegetarian / vegan food was considered weird and hippyish, now there's a veggie option on almost every menu in the western world.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday November 20 2015, @04:59PM
> but I made the mistake of reading the comments under the article. The derp hurts.
Try omeopathy.
Researcher: Katharina Unger
Complete surname, Unger Von Insektz?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @07:18PM
This is the bushnigger guy from below replying to your post.
And I pray to Jesus Christ, Buddha, Allah, and Zeus that you are correct, because it will drive the prices of meat - you know, the good stuff like beef - down. Let the hipsters pay top dollar for grasshoppers and mealworms, and let beef be considered 'garbage' meat as squid and lobster once were.
The more it bleeds, struggles, and thrashes during a kill; the better the meat's gonna taste. Even the humble fish puts up a mighty and noble fight long after its been dragged out of the water by a metal barb ripping through the side of its mouth. They will make every attempt to impale your hand with their sharp fin spines.
Killing and eating an animal is like winning a boxing match or giving your wife the Irish sunglasses when she gets too lippy. You feel like a king...no...a GOD.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 20 2015, @05:24PM
What is not addressed n the article is whether the bugbox supports a complete beetle lifecycle, or whether you have to keep restocking it with mailorder "microlivestock" kits. In other words, does this system allow any of the mealworms to develop into beetles and seed the next generation?
Also, what happens when the thing inevitably gets knocked off the worktop and splashes its contents all over the kitchen floor? Do you have escapee worms and beetles crawling around your home for the next 3 weeks?
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday November 20 2015, @06:17PM
From the Kickstarter I believe it is the complete lifecycle. There is a cross-sectional which has a pupae shelf and a dotted line to the top where the beetles get busy.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Friday November 20 2015, @06:24PM
the one picture on the livin farms site shows 'pupae are put back into top to restart lifecycle', which i gather means you just take some of the meal worms and pop them in the top so they'll grow into beetles and continue from there.
i used to raise mealworms for my turtle: it's easy, but this seems like maybe it would be easier? good idea, but $700? I'd have to save aplenty for that, so i guess i'd have to start back raising them myself to save on meat to save for the kit.....
Maybe i'll go to the pet store, buy some mealworms and have a wok-fry and try it out and see how it tastes....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @08:16PM
Bushnigger guy here.
Ever consider kicking it up a notch and breeding turtles for turtle soup? Would certainly save some effort dishwashing bowls.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday November 20 2015, @05:34PM
I actually like this idea. Even just as a composting technique, it is effectively Vermicompost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicompost [wikipedia.org]
However, it is not like we don't have non-meat sources of protein available. Tofu, eggs, vegetables, nuts, fish for example have smaller environmental footprints over red meat. However, many Western cultures (USA in particular) consider a large portion of meat critical to a meal. Compounding on that industries of scale exist in such a way that beef is a very inexpensive form of protein.
If mealworms taste delicious, I suspect we would be eating them already. And given my culinary skills, I have to wait until the mealworm frozen dinner is available anyway.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:43PM
>If mealworms taste delicious, I suspect we would be eating them already.
If you mean "we" as in Americans, there are a ton of delicious food that Americans don't and wouldn't eat.
If you mean "we" as in human beings, I can assure you that there are humans that enjoy mealworms as a delicacy (Bonus points to the Soylentil who provides a concrete example).
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @05:54PM
I listen to the No Agenda podcast, mostly for laughs. John Dvorak is an entertaining and competent writer and has been reporting on technology for decades. He's not too far out there most of the time, but can be somewhat abrasive and overly-opinionated. His cohost however, Adam Curry, is in the same category as Alex Jones, and just a bit more connected to reality. He is however more charming and affable which makes it harder to notice.
Anyway, one of their recurring shticks is lampooning stories like this. Their thesis is that insects-as-food is another New World Order plot to make the slaves (working/middle class) eat the cheapest food possible and use media manipulation to convince them it's good for them and for the environment (which doesn't actually need protecting because AGW is also a myth to further impoverish and control the slaves). Shot through their entire program is a smugness at their own intelligence for being so much smarter than the sheeple (they don't use this term but the sentiment is there) who can't figure out they're being played.
In his conspiracy addled brain I'm sure soylent green will be next.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 20 2015, @07:14PM
Anyway, one of their recurring shticks is lampooning stories like this. Their thesis is that insects-as-food is another New World Order plot to make the slaves (working/middle class) eat the cheapest food possible and use media manipulation to convince them it's good for them and for the environment...
Worked for lobster.... [history.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @08:56PM
But that wasn't a conspiracy, it was just exploitation of an extremely abundant and convenient food supply which caused the diet to become monotonous and boring.
For another example of his delusion, he thinks the fad of tiny houses, those little one-room dwellings [curbed.com], is also a NWO plot to condition "the slaves" to think it's chic and desirable to live packed together in slums--which is where the elites want us all to go along with our bug farms. I guess the newly depopulated countryside will then be used for...something? Maybe they want to make the entire Great Plains into a giant golf course.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @07:24PM
That reminds me of a certain scene in Snowpiercer [imdb.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Touché) by tangomargarine on Friday November 20 2015, @05:56PM
Of course, that assumes people will be willing to eat them. [...] says Unger adding that sushi, raw fish, and tofu were once considered obscure products.
Oh look--sushi, raw fish, and tofu are 3 things I'm not a fan of, either.
Pass.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Friday November 20 2015, @06:38PM
You can pass on them now. But wait for tyranny of majority, none of us will be safe. The eco-hipsters will eventually turn each of us into ouroboros, I mean why waste all that feces right?
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 20 2015, @07:48PM
Well, I mean, ultimately pretty much all meat is fecal matter and dead things converted into plants, converted into animals, and then chopped up and put in friendly little wax paper packages, right? I mean, we don't exactly fertilize crops with rainbows and unicorn horns after all.
Really, what's the difference between that process and some other process? Long as it doesn't taste shitty (heh), it's the same price or cheaper, and there's no health concerns, I might be willing to try not to think too hard about it and give it a shot.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday November 20 2015, @06:57PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 20 2015, @07:13PM
Sushi used to creep me out until I finally tried it, now I love it. Mercury content is a bit of a concern, but it's expensive enough that it keeps me from eating it more than one or twice a month.
I'd be eating it much more if it was cheaper, probably dangerously close to daily. It's like the stuff from the movie, er... "The Stuff."
Tofu is something I have a harder time getting behind, but it's not bad in a miso soup. A previous girlfriend fried it for me once, and I recall that being decent, though I'm not sure what else she did to it to make it so.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @07:29PM
Try tofu in saag paneer. It is a vegan replacement for the paneer, a type of cheese, and a common dish at Indian restaurants these days.
Fried tofu has a nicer texture and flavor. You can do it on the stove. Add some spices like cumin or something.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 20 2015, @07:35PM
I actually enjoy saag paneer quite a bit and I've made my own before, but it never comes out quite like a good Indian place does. Paneer is pretty easy to make and I've never cooked for a woman who wasn't impressed as hell when I tell them I made it from scratch.
I haven't tried a tofu variant though. I normally go for chicken masala or vindaloo if I feel like being in pain for a couple hours after, but I'll give it a shot next time I'm out. Thanks for the recommendation!
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @09:43PM
The Taiwanese fast food place here (part of the Quickly chain) does up their fried tofu with a batter coating, optionally containing chili powder. The outside is rough and crisp but the center is hot and soft.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 20 2015, @08:21PM
You have to marinade it for ages in diluted soy sauce. Preferably ketjap manis. Then it acquires some taste before you fry it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 20 2015, @07:22PM
Touche indeed. I'm sure the author is reeling from the wit and insight of your personal taste preferences.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 20 2015, @11:56PM
My point was that he was saying, "See, all these other foods were obscure and now people like them!" and I'm a counterpoint, that *not* everybody loves them, Captain Sarcasm.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday November 20 2015, @06:18PM
I don't much care where the meat I eat comes from, if it's tasty (I also prefer veggie burgers and sausages to the real thing)... but mushing up a whole mealworm makes me a little squicky. I mean, do mealworms poop? Cuz you'll be eating mealworm poop and guts.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Informative) by SanityCheck on Friday November 20 2015, @06:47PM
You are correct, they do in fact frass [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday November 20 2015, @11:10PM
"Frass," huh? Marketing might actually be able to do something with that...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @06:23PM
Cheaper
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Geezer on Friday November 20 2015, @06:29PM
Never. Ever.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Friday November 20 2015, @07:28PM
Of course, the answer to the world's food crises is re-branding. I should have known. Look, instead of retraining the ignorant masses to enjoy eating insects, why don't we just retrain them to eat each other. That solves even more problems.
"Soylent Green, It's Good for People because it IS People!"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:06AM
There's no food crisis, just a transport/logistic problem.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @08:06PM
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]
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]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @10:31PM
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
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:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:53AM
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
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
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.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday November 20 2015, @08:15PM
At 28 grams per ounce, they're talking 1/2 to 1 pound of meat a week. The average american eats much more than that.
Every time a Christian defends Trump an angel loses it's lunch.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Friday November 20 2015, @08:20PM
Per day no less.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @08:27PM
There's also this bizarre connection to patriotism and masculinity that meat-eating has in the USA. If you suggest someone's diet has far too much red meat in it, they often react like you just spit on the flag. You'd think a burger a day was in the Bill of Rights or something with how seriously it's taken. I don't think this is an accident, I think it's an attitude that was deliberately created by the meat industry over decades.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fritsd on Friday November 20 2015, @08:25PM
That's nothing!
I've know students, who could grow a mixed culture of mealworms and fruit flies, using just a cheap garbage container!
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:54PM
So why are so many Westerners/Americans scared of eating things like insects, sashimi, tofu (live octopus, live monkey brains, fish gonads (milt))? I can't help but think of such people as kids: "Eww! Cooties!" I can understand perhaps "I do not like their texture", "I do not like their taste", but the majority of the comments come from people who have not even tried the food or have only tried a tiny bit with an extremely biased mindset: "Eww! Insects!"
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:05PM
Firstly, people reserve the right to feel the way they do. It shouldn't bother you that people feel a certain way. Most feelings are not logical.
Secondly, there are certain evolutionary behaviors in play. Eating brains for example can transmit diseases you would not get any other way. Being squeamish about it might be useful.
Lastly, they might have predispositions about the taste and texture, and that doesn't mean that they should have to test these predispositions.