Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Advocate Replacing Cattle With Insects
rhettb writes "Scientists in the Netherlands have discovered that insects produce significantly less greenhouse gas per kilogram of meat than cattle or pigs. Their study, published in the online journal PLoS, suggests that a move towards insect farming could result in a more sustainable — and affordable — form of meat production."
Would they be more allergenic though?
I know more people who are allergic to arthropods than who are allergic to beef/chicken/pork.
Not sure why this is so- maybe it's the exposure to dust mites?
I've also heard it suggested that ostrich would be a pretty sustainable replacement.
Remember we have a very tolerant soft drugs policy. In the end it all works out.
The scientists here have managed to completely ignore one simple but important fact; no one has any good recipes for insect meat. With the meat being so far outside what's usually considered food, that could kill it. Even currying might not be enough to get people to eat this stuff.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
It sounds even more awesome than you can imagine. The bugs in the front are locusts. I prefer not to imagine what will happen if we "improve" them as we do with all domestic animals and the improved locust capable of living in let's say across the entire temperate zone gets our in the wild.
In any case - fair point about the lawns.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Makes me even happier that I am a vegetarian.
You can't handle the truth.
A much bigger problem is the efficiency of food production: to produce one kg of meat you need many kgs of other foods. And while some of those foods may be inedible to humans (e.g. grass), cattle is also fed other foods that are grown specifically for them. Instead of growing cattle food, that same land could be used to grow human food, with a much better overall return.
If you're looking at plain food production per hectare (or even per farmer's effort) then meat is very inefficient. Crops that are human edible are much more efficient.
And for the greenhouse effect: the temperature increase is only a few degrees. Quite small differences, with potentially large impact. When you'd think of a similar but opposite effect it's not that crops start to freeze where it wasn't freezing before - the effect is much more subtle. It's more that winters start to last longer, or in case of global warming, that winters become shorter.
Like you get used to eating shrimps and crabs, you'd probably get used to eating all kind of insects as long as scientists growing them bigger...
*Clicking on TFA and looking at the giant freaking COCKROACH*
Ok, I take my words back. I'll never get used to it.
I advocate our insectiod overlords eat us instead.
If only we could get over the gross factor.
But then in large parts of the world, I know at least Africa and here in Asia I've also seen them, insects are part of the menu already. Often considered delicacies even. So they're definitely edible.
Let the buggalo roam.
The reason I eat meat is that it tastes like meat, which is tasty. I don't know what these insects taste like (a quick search of the articles didn't find anything, I havn't read them through though), but I bet it's not anything like a deliciously red on the inside piece of cow. There are other sources of necessary proteins, so I don't see what the point of farming insects would be.
I can't wait until lab meat growing becomes mature and industrial. Always getting the nicest piece of the animal, cheaply, with no killing. I love the future...
Countdown to breeding larger insects for human consumption starts in ...
Think what would happen if all corn suddenly froze in the US several years in a row. Or that the yield dropped on other base food with 30%.
The #1 health issue in the US would be eliminated.
It is only because you have been brain-washed by the rightwing media that you believe otherwise.
I will use that as my signature from now on, ok?
Isn't their cousine bad enough?
Yes, but how many KGs of protein are produced per hectare?
America, Home of the Brave.
Instead of coming up with moronic stuff of this kind, hoping that people will start eating insects, start a vegetarian movement. At least that has some chances of getting implemented.
Many fish species naturally eat insects. AFAIK on the other hand current fish farms mostly use smaller wild fishes. Breeding insects coold be used to farm fish eating insects that are either useful for selling to humans or to feed other carnivores fishes instead of the current wild fishes.
Everyday, our bright future looks more appealing.
Eating insects is quite widespread, apart from few areas of cultural oddity (highly visible though; and we do eat other invertebrates), not to mention at least an order of magnitude more efficient from vertebrate farm animals when it comes to transformation of resources into meat.
In the form of industrially-produced meat paste (for a start) it would be probably hard or impossible to taste a difference; maybe military could introduce it to its diets - I imagine grunts can't whine quite as much as a typical consumer, and it would be one good part of the puzzle towards solving this, might get acceptance from there.
As a matter of fact - you all eat insects every day; standards for grain, flour, vegetables, etc. generally speak of "maximum number of insect body parts per unit"
(and feeding the world in a sustainable way - not exactly an Idle-grade material)
One that hath name thou can not otter
In places where large clouds of flies congregate, such as Lake Malawi, the locals net millions of flies and compress them into little cakes. Handy protein packs. I'm sure they may have some nice recipes.
You'd eat a lot less McDonalds if you KNEW where their meat came from, especially if it came from bugs.
You'd eat a lot less McD if you knew where their meat comes from and how it is processed, handled and cooked. No need for bugs in that particular equation...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Hopefully there will be a lot of (good) jokes about the ability of the average consumer to "stomach" (ha ha) these critters.
However "unappetizing" that prospect may be, why not give them to Fido or Socks? From what I've seen of dog/cat food, it is so heavily processesd, flavored and dyed that they, being unable to read the labels, may not be able to tell the difference. I don't know what other domesticated/farmed animals are fed animal protein (fish farms?) but the amount could be significant.
Just trying to take a "bite" out of the problem of global warming.
The amount of benefit a human gets from food is not measured in kilograms.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Kind of what I was thinking. I try not to eat corn any more, though it's damn near impossible since everything seems to contain "maize starch", so I haven't eliminated it entirely.
which is totally what she said
or the government would start subsidizing imports to feed the masses their delicious carbs
It would be quite interesting to know how succeptable insects are for infections if farmed. One of the problems with livestock is the prophelactic use of antibiotics. This has its effect on the symbiosis further down the chain. If insects could provide a untainted protein source, then it shouldn't be too bad. We eat prawns already, don't we?
!
Hmm, you come over all emotional. And not all that knowledgeable either.
There is a growing number of people in America that eat insects - why not check it out instead of airing your bigotry and insulting people in other cultures?
What is disgusting is simply a matter of what you are used to; humans being apes with less hair means that we throughout our evolution have eaten insects much more than chordates, so our metabolism is much more at home with insect protein and fat.
Some domestic animals are even incapable of reproduction without our assistance...
One that hath name thou can not otter
At least they taste better than tofu.
In the west we continue to produce cattle and eat meat not because we need it , we could perfectly replace it with an array of protein from various source, we do it because we like the taste. And trust me on that one, some insect are not too bad grilled, some are downright disgusting, some are "neutral" , I tried about anything from spider to cricket, to various crawling and creeping stuff, and nothing, nothing can replace the texture and taste of my angus filet.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Via insects - apparently around an order of magnitude more than via cattle. Even greater advantage when it comes to conservation of water.
One that hath name thou can not otter
The problem is not the absolute levels, it is the changes. The ecosystem we live in is adapted to whatever lakes etc. output - they have been doing it for millions of years. The problem is the change - we are suddenly adding a whole lot of extra C02 and CH4 into a system that was (moderately) stable. In the long term, there is no problem: in a few hundred thousand years, a new equilibrium will be found and the Earth will trundle happily on. So if you don't mind a few billion human deaths over the next few generations, there is no problem at all. The Earth is in fine condition - it is only seething humanity that has a problem. And the human race is not at risk - billions will not die. So if you are happy to treat humans as we treat cattle (or insects) there is no problem.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Insects are arthropods - as are lobsters, shrimps etc. Lobster is not commonly regarded as disgusting and horrible. Can you justify why a land-dwelling arthropod is more disgusting and horrifying than a sea-dwelling one? The insect could very well be a pure vegetarian, whereas many of the sea-dwelling ones we eat are scavengers (e.g. crabs) which flourish on carrion and sewage.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
...is called overpopulation.
Do you really want to live on a planet along with ~20 billion people, eating squished insects (aka Soylent Yellow (tm))? I know I don't. Why are we trying to make life so uncomfortable, ugly and boring? We likely wouldn't have most of today's problems (like global warming, scarcity of natural resources, energy problems,...) if we had a population of say ~200 million. Maybe not every business would be efficient or possible anymore and technology would probably advance not as fast as today, but would that really matter? Isn't that a much more appealing future?
I agree. The more I see articles like this the more appealing (in the long run) a global catastrophe seems. A metor strike, with billions killed, followed by survivors living in reasonable conditions beats an optimal population living in small apartments fed on insects in a global megacity.
Maybe we do not NEED to be 7 billion people on this planet. Yea, there I said it.
I'm not advocating genocide, but we would start with (1) two children per family. One child per family causes too big tragedy if that child is lost, and causes cultural strangeness in some countries where the families try to make that one child be a boy. Two is better.
Considering not every family wants two children, and not everyone creates a family, this will stop growth and begin a new process of population reduction.
Next, (2) encouraging traits that cause women to have their children later in life. Education of women, equal employment of women: while it's in the name of women, it also causes them to have their child later in life (late 20-s, early 30-s) rather than early (mid-teens-s to early 20-s). This means about 10, up to 20 years less "overlap" between generations, so slower reproduction means a lesser number of people.
Cap and trade is too easily corrupted, especially with "offsets", even if well intended, so let's face it: (3) we need to reduce some other taxes, and tax greenhouse production at some point, with no possibility for the business filling in papers for offsets. The money from these taxes can then be used by the government to produce additional offsets themselves.
So, just three things in no particular order, I'd gladly see in this world, before we're forced to eat cockroaches. Just saying, mmk?
Remember the ribwich?
And how Krusty said in the end when asked what animal it was made of "Think smaller. Think more legs"?
It's all in the commercial, I tell you. Just don't tell people what they're eating, slap a lot of MSG-loaded sauce on it and it will sell.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Some equilibriums would be more comical, in a way, than others...
One that hath name thou can not otter
It might go a long way to help offset famine and food shortages around the world. On the face of it, how could it not be more efficient than raising cattle or pigs.
But I'll stick with steak and bacon, thanks.
M.
Great presentation on the subject. There are more advantages than what is described in TFA.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/marcel_dicke_why_not_eat_insects.html
We are what we don't poop.
rewriting history since 2109
its a bitch to produce, bitch to ship, store, distribute. to eat, to digest, and creates a lot of wear & tear on the metabolism while at it. we are at a point in civilization where we do not need to continue habits of a hunter gatherer society anymore. just do away with it, and reinvest all that money and effort to something else that is easier to maintain and less 10,000 BC .
Read radical news here
Or everyone could just become a vegetarian/vegan.
I know everyone hates the guy who brings this up on every article even remotely related to meat, but there are plenty of benefits (it's healthier, meat is incredibly wasteful to produce and whether or not you agree, some people think that killing animals for pleasure is immoral) and few if any drawbacks (except for the inevitable "But I like BACOOOOON").
Funny how ideologies overlap.
The move to reduce global warming is (in the US) associated with the left side of the political spectrum, especially with environmentalism.
But there's another strain of thought on the left, also associated with environmentalism: The population control movement, given a boost by Paul Erlich. Even beyond that, there's the voluntary extinction movement.
For these folks, catastrophic global warming should be seen as a godsend, and they should be voting for (what is considered) the head-in-the-sand policies of the GOP.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
What a fantastic idea! The mere though of eating insects is probably enough to put everyone off meat so we won't have to farm any meat. Perhaps it'll be even be enough to put people off food altogether so we can give all our food to 3rd world countries. World problems solved!
humans being apes with less hair
Technically, an average human has more hair follicles on his or her body than an average chimpanzee. The type of hair is responsible for visible differences, for "nakedness".
One that hath name thou can not otter
Cows are very efficient at converting grass inputs into human-usable protein, in the form of milk.
Cattle eat grass and weeds (high-quality protein!), and can operate on rocky slopes where John Deere can't farm.
While all cows start their life in a pastures, agribusiness finishes cattle on feedlots because it's much quicker to fatten animals up on grain than grass. ConAgra doesn't care that grain-finished beef has 1/2 as much beta-carotene, 1/5 as much Vitamin A, and 1/5 as much Vitamin E as cows that have eaten grass from start to finish.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Last time I was in Thailand, I made a point of trying various fried insects, which is very common staple in South Thailand (not so much around Bangkok). I was surprised at how good they tasted. However, not at all comparable with meat. It's completely different but not worse, IMHO.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The rest of us will be eating healthy Ramen Noodles.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Quite frankly, you'd eat a lot less McD if you knew what well-prepared food tastes like.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Lobsters, "crawdads", and shrimp are disgusting. People will eat just about anything if you convince them that it's something only to be enjoyed by the upper crust (how else does one explain caviar?).
If you want to pepper your own diet with crickets roaches, go for it. Just don't suggest that it's somehow going to magically replace the diet about a billion people already currently have any more than you expect people to replace their current cow/pig/whatever diet with dog (which some people would say having an aversion to eating makes them an emotional, ignorant, bigot and I'm okay with that label in that case).
This is just a group of scientists looking to make a breakthrough and jumpstart a new industry - no different than if some jackass pointed out how sustainable seaweed is and that we should all transition to a seaweed diet. Perhaps what people see as some over-reaction to the concept is actually my contempt for the modern trend of embracing ridiculous new dietary fads, because it somehow makes people better than others and worldly. Look, I'm a big fan of the idea of just having a pill that you swallow twice a day that takes care of everything for you. I'm also a big fan of the idea that we'll eventually just be able to generate "meat" of any type right out of thin air by re-composing atoms all replicator-like. In fact, that's likely to happen long before you find the majority of the population in America, Canada, the UK, etc sitting down for a delicious nightly plate of bugs.
(I definitely won't argue that beetles would be any worse than the majority of the fast food crap people already eat, of course.)
When I eat a lobster, I skip the shell and the icky gunk in the middle.
It seems I'm expected to eat the insects whole, shell and icky gunk included. That's a different deal entirely.
A nice fat juicy bug steak. Joy.
While it's true that poikilotherms have a far more efficient conversion ratio when it comes to food because they're not burning off all that energy just to maintain body temperature like hot blooded animals do, I am surprised that the first answer from these scientists is culturally unacceptable (well in most western cultures anyway) insects. I mean, what happened to fish? I'm sure that the difference in energy consumption between insects and fish is not all that great when compared to say a cow, sheep or pig. Basically what you feed is what you get in weight gain, it only takes around 1.2kg of food (in some species) to produce 1kg of muscle in fish. That's very efficient. Plus pretty much every culture in the world already eats fish.
My only thought is that said scientists were worried about the huge water consumption of aquaculture. However they have completely failed to consider the up and coming field of aquaponics which is extremely water efficient (the only loss is evaporation). With aquaponics you also get delicious veggies with your protein - you have to; it's part of the system that cleans your water to keep your fish healthy. Hey but what do I know, I've only met the guy that invented it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Leets go further and simply produce Soylent?
The easiest way to make food from a grassy hill with poor soil is a grazing animal. Farm equipment requires flat land. Humans can't live on grass. What else would you do, bulldoze the hills and dump on lots of chemicals to make food crops grow?
Now consider the beans you so love. What about the rest of the plant? You're wasting nearly all of the plant if you don't eat it, but you can't really eat it because you're human. Feed that to an animal though, and now you have more food.
Here, LMGTFY
That would be 20 pounds edible protein per acre per year, that is about 8 lb (3.7 kg) per hectare per year.
For comparisson:
up to 15 times more protein per acre than land set aside for meat production.
I've never donated pie to support development of a Firefox extension before, but I'm willing to learn. :-)
I would sample insect-based food, for the same reasons that I eat foods made with yeast, if...
a) I was certain it wouldn't harm me,
b) if it had been killed with minimal suffering, and
c) if I could figure out how to cook it in a tasty way.
Nearly all modern meat production and fishery fails test b), so I rarely eat meat.
Edit: The quoted text is from the Wikipedia link, and relates to Soy protein.
Ok, that is a freakishly un-informed response in terms of efficiency of meat.
Yes, it takes X Kg of Food to produce Y meat where X > Y. HOWEVER, what you are not factoring in, is the fact that more than 90% of X is derived from Plant sources that are inedible to humans, and Grow in regions that are impossible to farm and produce plant foods that humans can eat. scrub desert, mountainsides, and VAST portions of the world that you can't make a wheat seed eek out a living, or reach with a tractor to farm in the first place are the places where Cattle gain the vast portion of their total size. The whole "feeding of grain to cattle to make meat' Only occurs in the last month or less of their lives, and amounts to a tiny fraction of the total lifetime diet of the animal.
You may insist i cite sources on all of this, which is where I explain that I come from a long line of people deeply ingrained in the livestock trade, and have a full working knowledge of the process, from birth of an animal until it lands on your plate.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Real life isn't like a 4x strategy game where you can only focus on one possible advance at a time. Some people are thinking about sustainable foods, some about ways to stop pollution, some about more efficient ways to use other resources. There are even subgroups of each of those, looking at different ways to accomplish each of these things.
Your (not at all charming) naivete about who eats bugs and who doesn't aside, the fact that it squicks you out is pretty much irrelevant. Lots of foods that are seen as luxury items were originally considered food suitable only for the poor (because they looked hideous - I'm thinking of lobsters), and many foods we see as staples are actually quite disgusting if you spend even a fraction of a second thinking about where they come from.
As to the urine thing - what do you think you're drinking every time you have water? Recycled pee. What do you think you're breathing in every time you inhale? Particles of poop, and other things. Maybe if you educated yourself (or quit lying to yourself about just how gross the environment you live in is) you'd be less squeamish about eating bugs and able to appreciate things you haven't been conditioned to appreciate your whole life.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Most cattle here around are produced on field which are not used for wheat production that years (rotation) or downright never used for meat production (lotta sheep rising area are full of rock, don't matter for the sheep but make the field improper to any wheat/legumes mass production). There are some food fed to the cattle, but such food would not be produced if the cattle was not here to eat it up. Best example of it are some non-sweet corn, which are produced just for cattle feeding, because producing anything else (food/wheat) would be at a *LOSS*.
The bottom line is that we can , in the west, grow non feed stuff for cattle , and be inefficient at food production, because we are over producing and swamping all otehr market ! So yes, meat production is inneficient per hectare, but whore care when efficiency is not a factor in area where food is overproduced ? Remember the hunger problem is not a problem of producing not enough food, it is a distribution problem on where the food is produced, and where it is needed. Also quite a political problem, as when we *dump* our price on food (remember we over produce) we can sometime destroy local market in place where agriculture is not as extended, and destroy local people living.
In conclusion, all the rethoric on meat being inefficient , is rather missing the point. The place which produce the most meat, don't have a food production quantity problem. On the contrary we already destroy meat, legumes, fruit, and milk by the tons, and pay farmer to *NOT* produce more !
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
They are more efficient partly because of their coldbloodedness according to the article. In places with sufficiently long growing seasons that won't be a problem. But you will have to transport the stuff to places with longer cold seasons, adding inefficiency. Cattle have built in warmers.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Unless it's just trillions of mealworms, what happens when 100 billion cockroaches escape from the farm down the road? Or locusts?
Really--why stop at farming insects--or farming anything at all if your only consideration is sustainability?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I guess this puts pestilence in a whole new light. From the perspective of somebody who only has grains to eat all the time, insects would be a boon if you were willing to eat them. God gives you locusts, make locusts and honey, right?
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Apples vs. oranges is old hat. The new dietary debate is all about soylent red vs soylent yellow. First one to turn green gets eaten.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
At least, nobody will never ever complain about a bug in his soup.
Achille Talon
Hop!
...once they work the bugs out.
...with insects as food. That could be a giant incentive to give it a try here in the states. Once the true potential of insects as an alternative and one that allows people to avoid heart disease and cancer, that could shift the balance in the market towards taxation of meat rather than subsidies. Elimination of greenhouse gases would just be a bonus.
As to whether or not Americans can find a palate for insects, I'm not worried. American food processors have figured out ways to incorporate soy and corn into thousands of products without giving any hint to the customer. It's unfortunate that ignorance of the food supply is so prevalent here, but with insects, that could actually be an advantage.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
See, you only need to change one letter on the Chick-fil-A cows' signs.
That was easy.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Think the real estate market is bad now? OK, imagine that the population is shrinking. Actually, I don't see why a bank would even offer a loan under those conditions. Home value plunges.
Of course, human evolution selects for people with a desire to foil your plans. Before long, nobody will even want birth control because everybody will be descended from those who wanted lots of children.
I know a lot of people that think Lobster, Shrimp and other sea insects as totally disgusting.
do you consider monkey brains to be yummy? some people do. People will eat anything.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Funny how getting news about there being Even More People Than Ever Before makes the people who are here now panic all to shit and fall all over themselves arguing about how to take it all back. Here's where you start: make a consortium with a huge international membership where everyone agrees that there are simply put "too many people". Then once you have your membership and some date-from-inception has passed, and the membership has passed some pre-determined level of international political strength, then you begin amongst your members to vote and make different decisions about what to implement. That way, you'd at least be sure that the decisions have something to do with the result, because the democratic process wouldn't allow for actions that don't serve the function of the group.
However, that's not what we see in population panic. What happens, instead, is everybody argues at once, mostly out of guilt, and eventually down the line these arguments -- which rarely reach closure or see fruition but are dear to each person who makes them -- become the foundations of new divisions of feudalistic tendencies, and in the midst of social upheaval these divisions prompt sudden outbreaks of violence, largely on behalf of people who believe that not only is their idea right but that it should be forced on other people.
In other words, the population tends to take care of itself. The real issue is that given our current means, thanks to the industrial revolution, we are capable of pushing the environment past sustainability, past tenability, and past supporting any life at all between our various chemical and radio contaminants.
Population reduction arguments are usually started by people who are concerned for their immediate comforts and well-being, who foresee that the population might reach critical and ungovernable levels in their lifetime and so should be treated as urgently as a riot underway. Sure, they make plans for the future, but their arguments are half-hearted. People who argue for protecting the environment, no matter what the population, see the real key to the matter and their solutions tend to naturally present means of controlling the population.
Consider hunting and gathering. If we all had to rely on that, there wouldn't be any agriculture fit to sustain population explosions and therefore no huge numbers of people to feed the purposeless growth and spread of industry. In hunting and gathering, if you *don't* practice it properly it *doesn't* sustain the population. The animals manage to reach places that are unreachable and people run out of the energy necessary to pursue them, and die. Given technology people can get over that barrier (see those who hunt from helicopters with scopes and night vision) but if you are arguing for the environment you're largely arguing against industry and technology anyways, so why not include the requisition of technology in your "solution" in the first place?
You know an idea involving forcing everyone to hunt and gather and never use agriculture, industry or technology (versus tools) again would never be accepted by the whole, would create schisms and that those schisms would be violent by way of the obviated advantages given those who refuse to pursue the proposed option. Yet it's the easiest working ideal that doesn't involve enforcing some authoritarian ideal and leveling things by force from on high (like from, say, the ISS, or Berlin if you prefer).
So what kind of "solutions" do we get, instead? Ones that fail due to attack the wrong side of the problem. Having babies isn't the root of the population explosion, it's the sustenance afforded by forcing the earth to yield food through agriculture that makes it possible. Etc.
In any case, I'm just stating all this in pointing out how the need for some group consensus is obvious and yet impossible, so you get population panic every time there's news that the numbers are still increasing.
It especially makes the rich, uppity people living in "developed" countries EXTRE
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
People in the US (maybe 'the West') consider shrimp a delicacy, and what is a shrimp but a marine cockroach? It's all in the marketing.
As good as it sounds, eating insects just bugs me to no end since I didn't grow up doing it.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Please report to reeducation building #475 for your correctional adjustment.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Their study, published in the online journal PLoS, suggests that a move towards insect farming could result in a more sustainable — and affordable — form of meat production.
:P but why don't they try to solve the greenhouse gas reduction (different food for the animals, trying to harvest their gases, etc.) instead of trying to totally replace the problem and convert meat eaters into bug eaters. Make them eat insects for a few years, that should be their prize for this study.
Sustainable? Probably. Affordable? Maybe. Meat production? What? Geez man, replace those study writers with insects, that would be better. Maybe insects don't fart
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
The cow-bugs will get swept up into a whirlwind. Kip will go try to rustle them up to win Amy's love. The plot will lead to the Martian's lair in Olympus Mons where it is found that Amy's parents have traded a huge diamond for the the Martian's land. The Martians respect Kip for being able to ride a flying cow-bug and decide to leave Mars with their riches.
Their they're doing there hair.
McDonalds are quite clear on their website ( http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ourfood/ ) about how they make their burgers - they get cuts of beef, pack it and nothing else into a patty, and freeze it and ship it to the outlets (I hesitate to call them restaurants). 367,000 head of cattle a year, in the UK, apparently.
Wouldn't a meteor strike destroy most infrastructure, thus removing the 'reasonable conditions' for the survivors to live in?
Surely a better solution is a targeted deadly virus? One that attacks politicians, lawyers and the media?
The reality is that things aren't going to change with relation to human population, so best to work out how to feed the world and minimise poor living conditions. Most people on this website could survive in a small apartments with a single bed, a desk for a computer, and a pizza delivery slot in the wall.
you ignore the essential difference between animals and crops, the animal pretty much poops most of the nutrients back onto the soil, but the crop depletes the land of nutrients, which need to be replenished. its not about the amount of land used, its about the amount of nutrients you remove from the soil per calorie. and you also ignore the fact that meat is nessecary to a healthy diet, no matter what vegans say.
You're a primate. Look at the diets of other primates living in the wild. Your organism might be somewhat better adapted to diet dominated by insect / invertebrate meat than vertebrate one. In fact, considering that the latter was probably a relative rarity for most of our evolution, the current (very recent) levels of its availability and consumption can be more aptly described as "ridiculous new dietary fag".
One that hath name thou can not otter
When I have to switch to insects from mammals than I would rather stop eating meat at all. I eat that stuff because it is delicious not because it is absolutely necessary to eat meat. So insects are no replacement for a cow or a pig or a chicken or a spring bock or a sheep or a mus or a crocodile (ok chicken and crocodile are no mammals, even though they are delicious).
Thai's have been eating insects for some time.
I think if there were wide spread negative effects they would have been discovered there by now.
Still, one of the things I wont eat in Thailand, some Thai girls love them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Scientists Advocate Replacing Cattle With Insects
Stop putting words in my mouth (and no insects either, thank you). Would it really be that difficullt to write "some scientists" or "one loony scientists" instead of expressions like the above that (though technically ambiguous) to most people sounds like that there is a consensus in the scientific community?
Did anyone else read that headline and flash on Fallout series radroaches?
Or is it just me?
There is no 'i' in team, but there is in fiasco...
Anybody else feel like they'd probably prefer Soylent Green?
Of course, it must be said that most food safety laws allow a certain percentage of insect parts in stuff that winds up on grocery store shelves.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
tl;dr: OMG you're an imperialist nazi
In case of growing soy beans: a lot. Other posters gave some numbers. Actually for many people in Indonesia soy (and derivatives, such as tofu) are their major and often only source of protein, as meat is too expensive.
I don't think I'm quite ready for a cricket burger with cheese and two strips of cicada bacon.
Surely it's going to be a lot of time lost attaching a million of them to a plough in the morning.
And I pity the poor farmer who has to milk enough to get a pint for his breakfast.
Working for the (other) man
I doubt that insect meat will EVER be acceptable in the west, though it is eaten in parts of Asia. Also it would be against the dietary laws of both Jews and Muslims to eat insects.
Or we could not eat meat.
Or less meat.
Or we could simply not eat. That would also solve the problem of overpopulation. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Plants do not deplete the soil as long as 1) you have a healthy soil (lots of insects and worms living in it), 2) you regularly rotate crops, and 3) plough in the unusable parts of the plants (e.g. the tomato plant after picking the fruit). Then you don't need animal poo. Besides we've already more than enough of that.
Then the vegans: well that part I must agree with. When working at a pop club I've met many vegans, especially in the punk rock scene, and man they look bad. Pale faces, skinny, really not good.
Vegetarians otoh generally have no problem. The difference is that they do eat animal products such as eggs, cheese and milk. They just don't eat dead animals (the eggs is a point of dispute: that's an aborted chicken).
The latter has a few exceptions: a very small portion of humans can not or insufficiently synthesize a certain amino acid that can only be found in meat. An ex of mine lived primarily vegetarian, but eats meat once every week or two. She said she started off 100% vegetarian but after a year or so was recommended to eat a little meat as she was not feeling very well. That did the trick, after eating bits of meat she was feeling much.
Sure eating bugs would be better for the environment. For that matter we could become vegetarians, stop over populating, stop driving gas guzzlers, stop buying junk we don't need. How about stopping wars?
The trick is not finding more efficient ways to serve human needs, but to change human values, and behaviour.
Soylent Green: Why not get rid of the largest producers of green house gases, lower world population and have a new food source?
I tried Tyson Farm-Fresh Cricket Thighs for Thanksgiving, and frankly, they don't compare to turkey. Also, the wishbones are way too small.
Demos means people, not person. You as a person is ruled by the rest of the people. You as a part of the people can rule over other persons.
Wouldn't a meteor strike destroy most infrastructure, thus removing the 'reasonable conditions' for the survivors to live in?
Surely a better solution is a targeted deadly virus? One that attacks politicians, lawyers and the media?
The reality is that things aren't going to change with relation to human population, so best to work out how to feed the world and minimise poor living conditions. Most people on this website could survive in a small apartments with a single bed, a desk for a computer, and a pizza delivery slot in the wall.
Why? If you don't stop population increasing we are headed for disaster anyway. If you do limit it, then why not down to some reasonable level where we can have nature reserves, lakes, mountains, etc. instead of aiming for the maximum sustainable number of humans?
These scientists prove that Education != Common sense.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Well prepared food can be considerably more healthy and taste just as good as fatty food, but McDonalds uses the fat to compensate and it ends up being cheaper and less time consuming to get it.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
there's a cow in my bug soup!
I know a lot of people in developing countries consume insects as a staple form of food, the squirm factor for western audiences would be quite high however.
Western audiences do consume stuff that's pretty close to insects.
I guess the right way to market it would be to call it "something shrimp". Few people would to the research to find out exactly what that means.
"I'd like a Scrab Cakes with my Paramite Pie side."
Can Tasty Treats be far behind? Or Soylent Green?
What about cruise ships?
Estimates are that a 3,000-passenger ship generates the air pollution equivalent of more than 12,000 cars in a single day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal_dye
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_the_Buggalo_Roam
Free Range eggs also taste much better than factory eggs. Not just a bit better, MUCH better.
No sig today...
...is not people.
From what I've heard, McDonald's is already halfway there...
I'm just posting to remove an accidental moderation. Slashdot needs a code overhaul... this sort of thing shouldn't be necessary. And while I'm at it: TONE DOWN THE AJAX, TACO!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Basically what I was saying. If you're accustomed to decent home-made meals with real ingrediënts, McD (or any other major fastfood chain) tastes like crap. Overprices, unhealthy crap. It has no redeeming qualities that I'm aware of.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
20 billion people is extremely unlikely unless the population growth rate, which has been dropping for the past 50 years, suddenly increases again. Current projections show the world population will level off a little past 9 billion around 2050.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It would put an end to the old trick of placing a cockroach (half of a cockroach even better) on your plate in order to get a free meal.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
We already are stopping population growth. Birth rates in Europe and North America have been below replacement rate for decades and the world population growth rate has been dropping since the 60s.
At current trends, the world population will level off at a little more than 9 billion around 2050 and start to drop slowly after wards.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Horns and Hooves.
Otherwise it's not food.
It's what food eats.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Have we learnt nothing from the past?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/3179101952_3f729a500a.jpg
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/538/538263/starship-troopers-20040812003517858_640w.jpeg
bugs are made from disgusting bug. no thanks.
in other news, scientists from the Netherlands are made from soylent green... .
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I would eat a lot less McDonalds (Burger King, Wendys, Sonic) if there were a lot more drive thrus with healthier and better tasting food.
The "Bug, it's what's for dinner!" campaign...
That is all.
Chimps and Bonobo hunt monkeys for food regularly, Gorilla's fish. While a daily diet of ~half meat is excessive, regularly eating meat has been a staple of our diet for longer than we have been human.
I unless you are a 12 year old playing counterstrike 12 hours a day, I think you misspelled "fad".
Perhaps insects could be a replacement for fishmeal, an important component in feeds for both aquaculture and livestock. They use the fishmeal to provide protein to the livestock/salmon. One of the persistent criticisms of aquaculture is that it takes several kilograms of wild-caught forage/bait fish (mostly anchovies) to be processed into feed to make one kilo of salmon. Same with feed for livestock made from fishmeal. I suspect it would not be too hard to grind up grasshoppers instead of anchovies.
We eat tofu once a week and I'd rather switch to full-time consumption of tofu rather than continue my carnivorous ways with this substitute.
A much easier and tested way is to simply use a vegan diet
reinforced with supplements for the essential nutrients that
are hard to get from plants.
This has considerably lower CO2 footprint than an omnivorous diet,
but anybody that wishes to try it needs to know that supplementing
some vitamins is an absolute must for a vegan diet to work. In particular
vitamin B12 has no reliable plant sources since it is only made from
bacteria, and failing to supplement it while on a vegan diet WILL cause
a dangerous deficiency.
There are other things one may want to supplement in a vegan diet as well,
but they are more dependent on individual factors and your eating habits.
Tumors tend to grow and adapt. We can probably breed them to feed off of HFCS in a bioreactor type vat and harvest a meat like substance from them.
Call me when they figure out insect bacon. Then we might have a deal...
since no one said it - this process has got to be buggy as hell
It's more about relative frequency; and AFAIK, while great apes obviously don't abstain from vertebrate meat, it's not exactly a foundation of their diet. Supposedly less than other (usually less "labor" intensive?) options, anyway.
(yeah, I also think I misspelled it; might be a case of words having less immediately obvious meaning for non-native speaker, and false sense of correctness from spell-checker...)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Until they can make grasshoppers moo, I'll pass.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
the eggs is a point of dispute: that's an aborted chicken
Only if the chicken is the result of virgin birth. Practically no hens are allowed access to roosters, even in organic farming.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
This is only reasonable if you consider bugs to be meat.
I can see insushi bars popping up all over the world to serve the raw insect delicacies! Num, Num!
Roach tartar anyone?
Like the beaver, it's just Dam one thing after another
With USA being in the top 3 most populated, and a relatively low infant mortality rate... (46th of 224 countries). Your solution may work for developing countries, but not for those already developed. With states constantly refusing public school sex ed classes (Legislator's vote down sex ed bill), major politicians supporting absitnence as the only contraceptive and leaders whom also condemn masturbation... Our population is in trouble. My highschool sex ed class was little more than a P.E. Coach talking about how he used to have tons of money and then lost it all.
soylent grey is Quorra !!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The answer might surprise you, as it is paradoxal : get rid of infant mortality. This has been proven in every developing country : the FIRST step to reducing population is to completely eliminate infant mortality
It is a fact that lower infant mortality is correlated with lower number of children per family. But the real question is which causes the other? Which came first?
I can see a clear rationale for arguing that smaller families cause lower infant mortality rates. Parents can take better care of their children if there aren't too many mouths to feed.
OTOH, I cannot see people having children as redundancy against premature death. That would imply in a long term family planning and those people have no instruction on family planning. If they had, they wouldn't have that many children.
Ya sure that'll sell well @ Kmart and Walmart!! Hello shoppers we are having a blue light special on on on um um fresh ground BUGS!! I recommend staying out of the way of the mass of shoppers runnin for the door!!!
Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!
patron: "Waiter, what is this fly doing in my soup?"
waiter: "Yes, I know. You have the greenbottle fly chowder. Is there a problem with it?" (what, were you expecting him to retort with "the backstroke?!")
patron: "There wouldn't be, except I ordered from the vegan menu."
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
California has a 1 year budget cycle that has to be fought out all the time which wastes time; it should be 2 year cycles. It takes 2/3 vote to get budgets which means its not majority rule its super majority and it has been in worse shape for years than the broken filibuster US senate has been for just 2 years. They don't have a filibuster problem, they wrote the problem INTO the process.
Most the CA budget is set by laws not by the budgeting process. This makes it even more difficult to adapt/change quickly because so much of it is allocated in a distributed way that is time consuming to touch and independent of other budgetary concerns. If you want to cut something its a big fight that has to happen outside the budget debate so the actual planning of just how much you need to compromise among many areas is removed-- its hard to say I need to cut down on eating out when I can't also consider all the other items I spend money on and make a relative judgment. This is why budgeting needs to have a lot of things available on the table during the process.
Taxes are based on the economy. bad economy. people are so selfish and short sighted they see surplus and want it back instead of saving for rainy days. We can run on debt until times get better; however, the reality is that people in the know have figured out that we will never get back to the good times of decades past so they are for a change thinking ahead; while others just want to gut public service from the government because they view government as for the corporations and not for the people.
Then there is the illegal immigrant problem in CA which harms the economy and lowers tax revenue while adding government expenses. sorry but that is how it is. Make them legal and you boost revenue and the economy; however, then the cheap bastards will hire more illegals (because they are cheap to exploit) so you need to punish people who exploit illegals (or at least make them pay min wage and register with gov for tax purposes.) Now, I don't think the problem is #1 but its a contributing factor and hardly anybody can reasonably debate the issue because emotional mobs on either side (or both) go after them. The immigrant quota system is totally wrong but I don't see that getting fixed anytime soon either; its too long term for citizens to contemplate.
CA also needs to raise taxes. selfish pricks want everything for nothing; well the rich want no taxes and think they need nothing because they have all the money (yet seem to forget police/fire and tons of gov services they do benefit from directly; probably unaware of what an indirect benefit even is.)
CA has HIGH sales taxes. This should be lowered and income taxes should rise. I shouldn't have to explain the benefits of this; if you need it, then you probably need to learn some more.
CA doesn't get enough federal AID. They pay more in federal taxes than they get back unlike every southern state-- CA state may be broke but its people support all the broke ass states in the nation who get tons of federal support to keep them from going broke. I'd be just fine with CA protecting its people from underpaying their federal income tax - which they could do.... what a fight that would be! I'm ok because I'm in MN and we also support the loser states federally so losing CA's money wouldn't change it much for us; we are shafted by the south as well.
Some people seem to revel in CA going down but they are an economic powerhouse helping prop this nation up; they are 8th in the world if considered with other countries. That is a big economy people! They can afford some tax increases with a few cuts-- its not so much about cutting as it is the system is broken and that results in these problems. Common sense is to TREAT THE DISEASE not just amputate (and become like Louisiana; government does impact the well being of the state, its not just the weather in CA that attracts people.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Just look at that picture. That is sure to win everyone over. Roasted bug on a stick with what looks to be cups of urine on the side. Bug a la urine cup anyone? I'm feeling tempted here.
Why not go whole-hog, and engineer us a slig?
Think of all the fights it will solve over who gets a drumstick during Thanksgiving Dinner. There should be enough drumsticks for everyone!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
No one pick up on Them!
Soylent Green is weevil
The taste of meat is very strongly influenced by environmental factors. This includes both what the animal eats as well as the conditions under which it is slaughtered, though the latter has less influence than the former. I grew up on a sheep farm on a diet consisting primarily of meat. I avoid lamb and mutton that is not from our farm because it just does not taste the same. I don't mind beef, poultry, pork and venison from other areas.
The vegetation where I grew up is quite flavourful and this provides a distinctive flavour to the meat. Most of our meat is prepared without any spices as there is no need. The vegetation has a bigger influence on the taste of the meat than breed. I prefer a different breed of sheep reared on our vegetation to one of our standard breed reared in a different part of the world. The fact that farmers from our area get quite a high premium for their meat suggests that others agree.
Some abattoirs use trained goats "to lead the lambs to the slaughter". This is to avoid stressing the sheep by herding them unnecessarily. Stress releases adrenalin that definitely affects the quality of the meat, as does lactic acid. Lactic acid is normally more noticeable with venison, but I suspect this has more to do with sheep being tame and game being wild.
Given the right climatic conditions (happens very rarely) on the farm, we get a proliferation of a particularly fragrant flower. When the sheep graze on this it too affects the smell and taste of the meat. My wife finds it quite disturbing when she opens the freezer and it smells more like an air freshener than meat.
especially while eating meatloaf. it was a mistake and I am without a lunch right now after regurgitating it into the trash bin and I am not talking about the virtual kind.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
So now you will want a flies in your soup? This seems a big ridiculous. You will have to pry ribeyes from my cold dead hands.
Can't agree more - I always like to hug, cuddle and run around in the fields with my lambs and goats before I slaughter them; I even help with the reproduction procedure if there's a shortage! It's so nice to know that they had a good time before they were butchered. I think I'll patent it : "Happy Meat: Cause it had a good time before you ate and burped it"
pound per pound they are of less nutrient and calorie value than their mammal food cousins. Societies that eat insects usually developed the habit because of a LACK of good food sources. In places where larger game was available or could be grazed the people did not eat insect life.
Frankly, that's bullshit. McD's isn't eaten because it taste amazing, its eaten because its quick, comparatively cheap, and most people don't find it to be completely disgusting. It isn't expected to be five-star food.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
I think the Project Triangle applies: There's good, fast, and cheap. Pick any two.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I understand your point, but I think you're underestimating the impact of grain fed to animals. I'm more likely to trust info with a credible source, like the reports put out by the UN
I really think the 90% number is inaccurate. That is true in part, but it's certainly not a universal truth, definitely not for all animal types. Here in the midwest US 99% of hogs are kept in confinements and fed grain.Cattle, many of those used for beef are grazed, but not all, and dairy cows are fed indoors, mostly hay or silage plus grain. Poultry animals, again mostly if not all, grain. Come see the volume of corn that is grown that is not designed for human consumption-- millions of acres grown across several states, elevators full of it.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
I mean how are you going to get the meat out from inside the tiny exoskeletons?
now and then we read articles about new researches that unveil animals behaviour under a more and more humanzied way, we read about their social bonds, new skills, unforseen communication abilities, higher empathy levels, recently, deliberate use of drugs(plants) for 'recreational' purposes. But yet we fail in considering breeding a cow just to shortly after shot a nail in their brain and devour it , as an abomination. We should spend billions (and maybe it's not needed a so great amount) into modifing vegetables so they taste and feel like chicken , and I dont care if it's not 100% the same, we have brains , we can choose. For those of you who think slaughterhouses are nice places and everyone there is playing the good boy, I advice you to google for it.. and watch some videos, if you are worthy living being you will at least agree that the less we kill and eat our fellow animals, the better.. as for the insects, as they usually lack a central brain and their neural system is so relatively simple, I would advise to use them as a transitory solution...
This ant for one welcomes our new human overlords.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Where do you propose to get all the water needed for converting grassy plains to rows of crops? It's not like they're using prime, fertile land for growing grass for cows. Cows graze in many places that are, quite frankly, poorly suited for growing crops for human consumption.
You make a good Point. Perhaps i should have specified that I was referring to Beef Cattle. You are quite correct in your information on hogs, chickens and dairy cattle.
perhaps this is an indication that the food use of animals kept in confined areas and unable to forage for food on their own is a practice that may need to end.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Lobster is not commonly regarded as disgusting and horrible.
[citation needed]
In my experience, lobster is not universally but most certainly is commonly regarded as disgusting. Might be a regional thing...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Isn't insect farming what Amy's parents do in Futurama?
From the first article:
However, if the idea of eating meat grown in a lab doesn't appeal to you, there is another option.
So people too dainty to eat lab grown meat are going to strap on a bib and chow down on insects?
I don't know the situation in the US, but here in the Netherlands and -- from what I know -- most of europe, go to any independant snackbar and you'll get cheaper, better tasting and often healthier food. If you want fast food, go to an ordinary snackbar. The only thing you have to trade is a 5 minute wait for the food to be prepared instead of a 5 minute wait in line for the counter/drive-through.
Judging by the numbers I'm probably an exception, but I find McD food truely disgusting.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I hear that a lot, but still have a hard time agreeing with it. I have dined in some of the fanciest restaurants around. I have had pretty much the best filet mignon money can buy along with new potatoes and a well aged pinot noir. But I still find myself enjoying the odd Big Mac from time to time for two reasons - first they're obviously convenient (fast and cheap), but secondly they still taste so damn good.
Granted I live in New Zealand, so our Big Macs are probably quite different to yours (NZ beef, NZ cheese, etc)
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Beef is amazingly good to eat , taste wise....but what about bugs, if shit was very nutritional, does not mean i want to eat it....
ARE YOU ALL MAD?!!! They're talking about replacing meat with bugs!!!! GROSS!!!!
and I did post interesting related technicality
One that hath name thou can not otter