Slashdot Mirror


In Vitro Grown Meat 'Nearly Possible'

Bruce66423 writes "An article at The Guardian discusses the prospects for food from radically different sources than the ones we're used to. 'Sweet fried crickets' anyone? Quoting: '... artificial steak is still a way off. Pizza toppings are closer. The star of the Dutch research into in-vitro meat, Dr Mark Post, promised that the first artificial hamburger, made from 10bn lab-grown cells, would be ready for "flame-grilling by Heston Blumenthal" by the end of 2012. At the time of writing it is still on the back burner. Post (who previously produced valves for heart surgery) and other Dutch scientists are currently working over the problem of how to turn the "meat" from pieces of jelly into something acceptably structured: an old-fashioned muscle. Electric shocks may be the answer. ... The technological problems of producing the new hi-tech foods are nothing compared to the trouble the industry is having with the consumers – the "yuck factor," as the food technology scientists across the world like to put it. Shoppers' squeamishness has turned the food corporations, from whom the real money for R&D will have to come, very wary, and super-secretive about their work on GM in America.'"

44 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. A matter of perspective... by nine932038 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After encountering the notion in the Vorkosigan series and thinking about it a bit, the notion of lab-grown meat doesn't seem like a big deal. It's arguably more sanitary than an animal that's been standing in filth for its entire life, after all.

    1. Re:A matter of perspective... by dwywit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might be right - but it's your choice whether to eat that sort of meat, or not. I'm prepared to pay more - sometimes a lot more - for free-range meat. Doesn't have to be "organic", just not raised or fattened in pens or feedlots or cages.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:A matter of perspective... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You might be right - but it's your choice whether to eat that sort of meat, or not. I'm prepared to pay more - sometimes a lot more - for free-range meat.

      My guess is that this choice will go away very quickly once synthmeat becomes practical. It will become socially unacceptable to kill any actual animals for food at that point, even if the vat-grown stuff isn't as tasty at first.

      Not saying that this will be a good or bad thing, just that it's inevitable.

    3. Re:A matter of perspective... by Genda · · Score: 2

      Clearly getting the meat to resemble its cell source will be the critical problem. Using something like a massive 3D Printer to build large masses of artificial muscle (using electrical stimulation to exercise it and give it real structure and density) and controlling its growth to include extra nutritional values for instance high Omega 3 content. This meat would be much healthier than the meat we eat now, and because it was grown in an antiseptic environment, there would be virtually no possibility of food contamination. Also using different cell stocks gives you chicken, turkey, pork, beef, fish or shellfish. The efficiency of meat production would an order of magnitude greater than current livestock farming. The meat would be with any luck, healthy, inexpensive, delicious and environmentally friendly. So yes, the vast majority of people would eat the syn-meat. Real meat would be a luxury commodity for the super wealthy... like Kobe beef taken to the limit.

  2. you know what they should call it... by swampfriend · · Score: 5, Funny

    cownterfeit.

    1. Re:you know what they should call it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Godda...Fu...*sigh*

      There is a hatred I cannot convey, while simultaneously congratulating.

    2. Re:you know what they should call it... by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2

      or: conned beef

  3. Processed beyond recognition by Beetjebrak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand the yuck-factor. Go buy a McChicken at the big yellow M. There's nothing recognizably chicken-ish about that product at all. The taste and texture is completely different from the chicken I tasted as a kid, when my grandfather would routinely kill and prepare his own chickens for dinner. I can tell you from personal experience that the yuck-factor in actually killing a chicken with a blade is much higher than that of an electricallly stimulated nuggy grown inside a petri dish.

    --
    Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
    1. Re:Processed beyond recognition by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      I don't understand the yuck-factor.

      Me neither. I would actually be delighted to eat lab-grown meat, with no bacteria on it, no steroids, no antibiotics, with a consistent quality and so on. I'm just hoping for some real breakthrough in the area so that such meat will become easy and cheap to produce so that it can be properly brought into mass-market. I assume that lab-grown meat will also mean less by-products and environmental waste than the regular method, but alas, I'm not an expert in either area.

    2. Re:Processed beyond recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Errrr, there's a huge assumption in there that's unlikely to be fulfilled in real life. The current lab grown meat is in a research phase, and is therefore subject to clean room lab conditions where dollars/kilo are not a concern. You're assuming that the clean room conditions will extend to the mass market exploitation of the product: your assumption is that there will be no additives (really, really unlikely as yields are likely to be the biggest factor, and hence any yield enhancing agent you can imagine will be acceptable), and no waste (as is usual with breakthroughs such as this, I suppose the polution creation will be moved to somewhere else in the production chain, rather than removed).

      You know, you could grow perfectly healthly, perfectly clean, healthy animals with a 24x7 medical care and monitoring, a personal trainer and hospital level cleaning. We don't because at the end of the day it's the price that counts, not the quality. We're generally so far away from the production that we can no longer judge the quality at all, only the price.

    3. Re:Processed beyond recognition by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know, you could grow perfectly healthly, perfectly clean, healthy animals with a 24x7 medical care and monitoring, a personal trainer and hospital level cleaning. We don't because at the end of the day it's the price that counts, not the quality.

      You mean bonsai kittens?

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    4. Re:Processed beyond recognition by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      I don't understand the yuck-factor.

      "Hunger never saw bad bread." -- Benjamin Franklin

      Yucky food is the inspiration for fine home cookin'. Slaves in the US were given the throw-away parts of animals that their masters did not want to eat. So the slaves developed recipes with spices to make the yucky food very tasty. The same thing could happen with this meat.

      If you are really hungry, you will eat whatever you can. If it tastes good, you will eat it, even though you think it is yucky.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Processed beyond recognition by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      And often times the dead chickens are included in the pile of live chicken in the mass processing.

      Yes, that is a fair point. I used to eat anything and everything that came near my face, but these days I am more selective. Foster Farms is as low down the scale of chicken processors as I'm willing to go, I don't eat KentuckyFriedCrap or MickeyDeeznutz or ToxicSmell etc etc any more. Sometimes if I am really desperate I will eat a six dollar burger, that's scary enough but at least it's still recognizable as beef.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Irony by Virtually+Sane · · Score: 2

    What is ironic is that looking at current varieties of crops and farm animals, they have been cultivated to the point where they bear little resemblance to the original species. Also methods of generating new varieties include induced mutation, which is seen as OK by the organic lobby. Go figure.

    1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > which is seen as OK by the organic lobby. Go figure.

      Speaking for myself and not for any organization or lobby, I've been annoyed by a seemingly recurring method to promote particular technologies like nuclear energy or genetic engineering.

      Please let me take this opportunity to be on-topic and show how nefarious such method can be.

      For instance, as of recently some dude figured he was "wrong" and GM is not bad, so he changed his view. Well, he might be wrong in opposing GM, but the other extreme (give a blank blanche to labs) might be a bigger problem. In my particular case, I have no problem if they make more meat with a GM ox (actually, this is great as it leads to sacrificing less animal lives)... but I certainly don't want to eat plants engineered to produce more toxic components or able to resist better to -- and thus more contaminated with -- plant ("weed") killers.

      It's the same with nuclear energy: it's essential for medical use, but frankly, people don't know how to deal with nuclear reactors. It's not a Physics or Engineering problem -- it's a case of management incompetence. And I see no solution for that in the near future.

      The method I talk about is stressing some quality of a technology while minimizing important drawbacks it or some of its uses may have. This is highly biased and dishonest IMHO.

      Therefore, I welcome lab meat -- because I need meat, it's part of my culture, but I want to stop killing other animals lives to get the meat I need. Nonetheless, there must be proper management in place so that quality and origin are assured.

    2. Re:Irony by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      This. "Fake" meat requires fundamental science. That is, getting closer to the real muscle than any butcher has ever done. They will learn to create muscle tissue that is indistinguishable from tissue that spent its life on ancient forests.

      "Fake" meat will be more real than almost all "real" meat.

      Actually it's likely that once we get "close enough" that it'll turn out people like divergent varieties of meat which can only be produced through tissue engineering and definitely bear no resemblance to real tissue.

  5. Speaking as a vegan by aliquis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't get the yuck factor.

    To me a slaughtered animals is about as yucky as it can be. Even more so when combined with the slaughter house And even more so if you consider some things like the floors and skinn processing.

    There's also the hanging of the meat and for instance things like hams which have hanged around to develop flavour or whatever for three (?) years and such. I guess they keep the flies out but it looks very old and "half-rotten" with black spots and ugly surface.

    Imho something fresh rather than an old body stored long after death seem fresher and less discusting. Scavaging isn't my idea of fresh and little yuckiness.

    Something grown in a clean environment (though of course the bodies of the animals are likely good at keeping themself clean except for some parasites and such) imho seem less yucky and if you've got some compassion for others that's even better.

    What I personally wonder is if it's still grown in bouillon made of animals because then the difference isn't all to big. You still need to kill animals and use them in the process. But then again they likely could use some scraps to make that one to get better effectiveness.

    For me personally there may still be some mental issue due to what it is even if no animal had to die and the cells wasn't grown on an animal based diet/medium. That may not make much sense though, and having a protein based staple for your diet would be very convenient.

    1. Re:Speaking as a vegan by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To me a slaughtered animals is about as yucky as it can be.

      Did you know there are no indigenous vegetarians? There may have been some, but they were probably eaten. Your distaste for what is one of the most natural processes on the world (before blood existed, there were predators and prey) would make you unfit to survive in the wild.

      or me personally there may still be some mental issue due to what it is even if no animal had to die and the cells wasn't grown on an animal based diet/medium. That may not make much sense though,

      You're hardly the only person I know who is grossed out by meat. To me, though, that's not just a mental issue, it's mental illness. We are omnivores. Actual predators often don't even wait until an animal stops moving before they eat it. They have no sense of nicety.

      You've convinced yourself of something arbitrary and false.

      The simple truth is that an animal has an immune system and a vat of meat doesn't, so from any logical standpoint, it's the vat-grown meat that's "yucky". Animals are self-cleaning and self-repairing. With that said, CAFOs are the devil's work.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Speaking as a vegan by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      You may benefit from watching some nature videos. I think waiting for your dinner to be actually dead and unresponsive to stimuli is a rarity. As soon as the predator can bite a piece off, he's chowing down. Sometime during dinner, the prey actually dies. In the case of snakes, I'm not sure that the prey dies before it reaches the stomach. I found a king snake ingesting a copperhead several years ago. Because I was there, the king reversed the ingestion, the copper head lay there for a few seconds, then started slithering away. I crushed the copperhead's head, apologized to the king, and left.

      Needlessly causing an animal to suffer is stupid and pointless, so some of your examples irritate me, but they don't irritate me as much as they bother you.

      I can't speak for your ancestors, but mine were all omnivores. We all eat anything that moves unless it moves to fast for us to catch. To solve that, we invented snares, bows and arrows, and finally guns. Somewhere in between we invented fences and barns. We evolved to eat meat, vegetables, and anything else that didn't poison us.

      Homegrown meat-like stuff from a culture? I don't think that's on our menu, because we've never encountered it in the wild, or on a farm. Before I try it, it had better be a damned convincing copy. I'll wait until a few generations of PETA fans have subsisted on the stuff, before I try it. Maybe around the year 2250, I'll be convinced! Oh - wait. I don't think my life expectancy is anywhere near 300 years . . . crap!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Speaking as a vegan by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      "Did you know there are no indigenous vegetarians? There may have been some, but they were probably eaten."

      ROFLMAO

      I have it on good authority that some omnivores eat other omnivores, too. I hear that long pig tastes just like pork! Way off topic, but I served with a guy whose grandfathers were headhunters. We asked him once if he ever ate another person. He said, "I don't know, I just ate whatever my mother gave me!"

      It's unlikely that he did. In theory, at least, the last of the tribes in the Phillipines were "civilized" before he was born. But - stuff happens!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Speaking as a vegan by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2

      Something grown in a clean environment (though of course the bodies of the animals are likely good at keeping themself clean except for some parasites and such) imho seem less yucky

      Well, there's the problem right there: animals are self-contained systems. They have a circulatory system that filters out all kinds of bad stuff and keeps a delicate balance, they have an immune system that wards off bacteria, fungi and viruses. They move around by themselves.

      I guess most people find the thought of some meat "living" in a petri dish revolting, but the actual "yuck" factor should come from all the chemicals needed to grow the meat.

      Prevent infections? Add some more antibiotics and preservatives. Needs a better color? Add some food dyes. Need more muscle? Grind up some dead fish for protein, filter and add to artificial blood stream.

      I assume that in the end it will all be strictly regulated, but as with all regulations, people tend to work around them if it saves them pennies. Before these regulations are in place, I will be very weary of eating artificial meat.

      Myself, I would have no problem eating a burger made from crickets. Most people eat shrimp, so why not insects? As a vegan, I assume you wouldn't eat those either, but you have to draw the line somewhere, because in the end all our food is/was alive.

    5. Re:Speaking as a vegan by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You need to study formal logic a bit more. What you are committing is popularly known as the naturalistic fallacy. This is the assumption that what is natural is good, and what is good must be natural.

      Which is stupid when you actually stop and think about it. Dolphins rape each other, perfectly natural. Not good.

    6. Re:Speaking as a vegan by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

      So now you want to conflate eating meat with rape, and then tell me I need to study formal logic a bit more?

      What he used is called an "analogy." Using an analogy is not at all the same as saying that two things are exactly alike. Rather, what he was trying to say is that just because something is natural, that doesn't mean it's automatically good. So no, he very likely wasn't trying to say that eating meat is like raping someone.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:Speaking as a vegan by guises · · Score: 4, Informative

      You actually used two fallacies in your original post: one was the naturalistic fallacy, claiming that eating meat was good because it was natural, while the second was a straw man fallacy, where you made an argument claiming that eating meat was natural (and therefore good) in counter to an argument by OP that modern meat processing was yucky (an unnatural process).

      In your second post you have used two fallacies again: the first was another straw man fallacy - GP gave a perfectly reasonable, though unrelated, example of the naturalistic fallacy and you have made an argument against some concoction of your own, where you've put the GP's example together with the previous topic. Your second fallacy is called an appeal to ridicule. Example: you used the appeal to ridicule fallacy because you are an obstinate idiot incapable of critical thought and resentful of those who are, the very idea that you have anything worthwhile to say is preposterous.

    8. Re:Speaking as a vegan by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Well, look at it a different way, when you eat the stuff grown in a vat, you avoid all the hormones that are naturally produced in a cow. There's a lot of nasty stuff coursing through the body of a cow.

      So laboratory grown meat is actually the cleaner stuff. And if they make it taste better than normal beef, as in, you can get a nice Kobe Beef-like steak in America, I'm sure not going to complain about it not being 'natural.'

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Speaking as a vegan by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      So now you want to conflate eating meat with rape, and then tell me I need to study formal logic a bit more? You need to study your teeth and your stomach a bit more. Presumably you are already sufficiently familiar with your asshole.

      Carnivore teeth:
      1) Tiger
      2) Baboon

      Herbivore teeth:
      1) Deer
      2) Horse

      And finally, human teeth.

      We like to think of ourselves as "King of the Jungle", and we are. But that's not due to our physical power, but rather, to our brain power. Also - our teeth are much closer to the herbivore's teeth than to the carnivores. We don't have the ruminant stomachs, but we have the ruminant teeth with a carnivore-lite's stomach. Which suggests to me that we're probably designed to eat mostly plants but can digest animal protein if we come across it.

    10. Re:Speaking as a vegan by LingNoi · · Score: 2

      As a vegetarian I keep things to myself and don't preach to anyone. Please ignore this moron vegan and remember that the silent majority don't care if you eat meat or not. Thanks.

    11. Re:Speaking as a vegan by Genda · · Score: 2

      What he's saying is that human beings are omnivores, that by our very design we were built to eat meat (meat in this case includes insects, grubs, rodents, and a fair collection of reptiles... as well as domesticated herd animals and wild ruminants.) Its the price of having this big brain, it needed more nutrients than a primate could consume from leaf eating (watch how much leaf matter a gorilla has to pound down to function, and notice the size of that lower veg crushing jaw.) So we are build to mix up our intake including a little meat.

      In a modern society we can create artificial diets that combine elements that would have been very difficult to attain in the past in sufficient quantities for optimal health. So being a vegan is possible. You can feel superior, but just remember that the same modern technology that brought the grains and legumes and food items you consume from the corners of the world also impact the viability of the ecosphere, so you nay want to stretch that consciousness a little and ask is my lifestyle helping life on the planet or simply assuaging my upper middle class guilt. You may want to eat more local, and that isn't always easy. By the way, though plants are the fundamental source of food energy on the planet, you might want to ask why animals have more value than plants. Cute animals more than ugly ones. Its all just cells clustered to create forms. Life consumes life. The carbon and nitrogen cycles delineate this process. Your squeamishness is arbitrary and invented and is not at all reflected in your very biology. Just something to think about.

      So there are no indigenous vegetarians. Vegetarianism is the result of cultures and belief systems.

    12. Re:Speaking as a vegan by Genda · · Score: 2

      This would be a demonstration of the mistake of using a religious source of knowledge rather than a scientific, the result being that you have missed out on very important dietary opportunities. Those foods you call rotten, do those include fermented foods? Yogurt? Kimchee? Sauerkraut? Japanese pickles? Cheese? All of these foods in fact have fantastic probiotic value which has been demonstrated to support improved nutrient uptake, vitality, regularity, and a significant reduction of bowel relaated diseases, including colon cancer and irritable bowel.

      Are wines putrid? They are the result of fermentation as are beers. Both of these beverages have noted health value in measure quantities. Not the least of which is these being a sense of happiness. This is not an argument for intoxication, but that small amounts of alcohol has studied benefits.

      Butter and meat are high in fat and cholesterol. Its important to limit the intake of these foods no matter how much Krishna liked them. So you might want to use your religion as a starting point but open your mind a little and read the latest research to supplement those beliefs, because they may help keep you healthy.

  6. Re:why not use meat by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because the resource consumption rates needed to make it the natural way cannot continue.

    People have no idea the absolutely unbelievable amount of agricultural and hydrological resources the world pours down a veritable black hole to make meat. Put it this way: The amount of grain and water it takes to raise the meat eaten by Americans alone could feed everyone in the entire world.

  7. Doesn't matter. by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Dr Mark Post, promised that the first artificial hamburger, made from 10bn lab-grown cells, would be ready for "flame-grilling by Heston Blumenthal" by the end of 2012. At the time of writing it is still on the back burner."

    It doesn't matter if it's on the back- or front-burner, the important thing is that it's on the BQ already.

  8. Re:why not use meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The amount of grain and water it takes to raise the meat eaten by Americans alone could feed everyone in the entire world.

    Most of the grains we feed to livestock aren't worth a shit to humans from a nutritional point of view. I wish every stupid hippie who propagates this bullshit would go out, pick up a couple bales of alfalfa, and try actually surviving on it. Doesn't work so fucking well, because you're a human and not a goddamn cow.

    Look, out in your back yard all that grass? Goats can get fat eating that stuff. So do us all a favor and next time you feel like spreading this type of FUD, go cut your lawn and put the trimmings on your plate, and try living off that.

  9. Ethics for veggies by Smivs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a vegetarian for the last 40-odd years this would certainly pose an ethical question for me - could I eat it?
    Probably yes, as it's not a part of the corpse of an animal and presumably no animal has suffered or been exploited in its manufacture. But in practice no, because What's the Point!? I ate meat until my late teens and don't miss it at all. I enjoy a very tasty, healthy and nutritious diet and that's what really matters.

    1. Re:Ethics for veggies by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only reason your diet is tasty to you is because you haven't had bacon in forty years. And if ever we needed proof that greys were replacing humans with pod people, that would be it.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    2. Re:Ethics for veggies by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're a vegetarian for that specific reason it would be quite hypocritical to eat "animal-free meat" that was developed from the suffering of all those poor cuddly cows, mice and rats...

      Seems like an extension of the sunk cost fallacy - if the cost has already been paid, refusing to use the product doesn't really make sense.

      TBH, this is something that really winds me up about vegitarians - If you want to reduce animal suffering by not eating meat, or reduce environmental impact, then fair enough. But refusing to eat anything that has been grilled on the same bars as meat makes no sense - no extra suffering is going to happen because someone didn't wash the grill pan between cooking their bacon and your vegi-burgers. Similarly, flatly refusing to eat some meat that is only going to be thrown away if no one eats it is completely nonsensical. The best way to reduce your environmental impact is to use as much of the produce as possible, rather than refusing to eat left over meat and grilling up some vegi-burgers instead!

  10. Re:The Japanese eat anything.. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Wrong. You stereotype a whole country. Japanese eat things that they have been eating for decades or centuries, a lot of that may look strange to Westerners. Recently, Japanese have been eating a lot of western food. Den Fujita opened the 1st Mac Donalds in Japan in 1971. Because it was tasting better? Because "Fujita was amazed by its efficiency and popularity [in the US]" - read "a better way to make money". To sell his hamburgers, he said to the Japanese

    The reason Japanese people are so short and have yellow skins is because they have eaten nothing but fish and rice for two thousand years... If we eat McDonald's hamburgers and potatoes for a thousand years we will become taller, our skin become white, and our hair blonde

    Due to the heavy impact of the press and TV on the Japanese, this helped a lot. Price as a reason? For your information, for the price of a cheeseburger you get here in Japan a very decent and cooked traditional Japanese meal (Ootoya TBT, Yoshinoya ...). Back to the story, Japanese will not eat "anything", unless TV endorses it. If TV comes to that and you want to compare this "new meat" to something: compare it to the western hamburgers - and certainly not to the traditional Japanese food that has been eaten in Japan for a very long time.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  11. My vision by 32771 · · Score: 2

    I'm still dreaming of a steak tree - doesn't have to move, grows on sunlight, doesn't need the highly interdependent energy intensive support infrastructure of industrial society, tastes delicious.

    The downside would be that trees normally take a while until they can procreate, delaying breeding attempts. The other thing might be that the global greenhouse pickle we got ourselves into would rather favour movable trees, much like the ones seen in Lord of the Rings, due to the rapidity of the climate changes and weather extremes persisting for longer durations. Maybe cows with chlorophyll would be a better idea. Oh no, wait - cows move around to harvest stored energy from the grass, their own surface would never be enough at the puny photosynthesis efficiencies! They might get maybe a 1-2W assuming 100W average insolation.

    Well maybe I could settle for beans with beef taste and some additional proteins.

    --
    Je me souviens.
  12. Re:why not use meat by aliquis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not true and you could also grow other crops.

    True for areas which isn't suitable for farming grains though.

  13. Chinese Faux Meats by assertation · · Score: 3, Informative

    This technology isn't really needed. Chinese Buddhists have been making faux meats for centuries. They are quite good.

    There are also newer, Western faux meats that are quite good. Check out brands like Gardein and Beyond Meat.

    Throughout most of human history, meat in the quantity Westerners are used to has been quite rare. The result are ethic cuisines thousands of years old that use little, if any meat, for tasty, complete ( and healthier ) nutrition.

  14. Re:why not use meat by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the area currently devoted to making feed for ruminants weren't needed for that, we wouldn't be farming grass and alfalfa on it now would we?

    Regardless, you can't deny that the biological growth process is staggeringly inefficient from an energy in / energy in biomass standpoint. There's a reason why prey:predator biomass relationships tend to fan in something like 100:1 per level. It's possible given a large effort to farm a whole bunch of meat, but we're doing severe damage to water tables, river systems and everything within 100 miles of the Mississippi river delta due to farm runoff, a significant part of which is making feedstock for animals.

    And no, I'm not confused about why I have sharp front teeth and I enjoy a good steak'n'taters as much as anyone. I simply see a situation whose energy/resource consumption is a Bad Idea (tm) in an era of imminent resource constraints. We should eat meat, but a whole lot less would be much healthier.

  15. Re:why not use meat by bogjobber · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because Americans eat a lot of goat meat, right?

    Most of the meat eaten in the US is beef and chicken. What do we feed most of the beef and chicken? There's some forage, sure. But the majority of it is corn and soy, grown on commercial farms. This is particularly true in large-scale commercial lots where the overwhelming majority of our meat is produced.

    And I hate to burst your bubble, but alfalfa doesn't come falling out of the sky into fully formed hay bails. You have to plant it, fertilized it, and harvest it like all the other crops. That requires arable land, water, gasoline, and labor costs that could easily be used in a much more efficient way than producing meat, which was the GP poster's point.

    But I guess having a understanding of basic economics makes us stupid goddamn hippies.

  16. Really curious what a "moral" Vegan thinks about by Dyinobal · · Score: 2

    I'm really curious what someone who doesn't eat meat for "moral" reasons thinks about this? Would you eat it? Would you not? Why either way?

  17. Can you beat the current meat machines? by russotto · · Score: 2

    We've already got a machine which produces meat. It's almost fully-automatic; it gathers a large proportion of its nutrients on its own, eliminates the waste products, and in the process exercises the muscle tissue to produce the desired texture (though some external work is typically required before harvesting to "finish" the meat). It requires no electricity or other energy input aside from the nutrients it gathers. In short, the cow sets a pretty high standard for meat machines.

    1. Re:Can you beat the current meat machines? by Zouden · · Score: 2

      the cow sets a pretty high standard for meat machines.

      Sure, and the horse sets a pretty high standard for transport.

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"