Slashdot Mirror
Grow Your Daily Protein At Home With an Edible Insect Desktop Hive
HughPickens.com writes: Fast Coexist reports on the Edible Insect Desktop Hive, a kitchen gadget designed to raise mealworms (beetle larva), a food that has the protein content of beef without the environmental footprint. The hive can grow between 200 and 500 grams of mealworms a week, enough to replace traditional meat in four or five dishes. The hive comes with a starter kit of "microlivestock," and controls the climate inside so the bugs have the right amount of fresh air and the right temperature to thrive. If you push a button, the mealworms pop out in a harvest drawer that chills them. You're supposed to pop them in the freezer, then fry them up or mix them into soup, smoothies, or bug-filled burgers. "Insects give us the opportunity to grow on small spaces, with few resources," says designer Katharina Unger, founder of Livin Farms, the company making the new home farming gadget. "A pig cannot easily be raised on your balcony, insects can. With their benefits, insects are one part of the solution to make currently inefficient industrial-scale production of meat obsolete."
Of course, that assumes people will be willing to eat them. Unger thinks bugs just need a little rebranding to succeed, and points out that other foods have overcome bad reputations in the past. "Even the potato, that is now a staple food, was once considered ugly and was given to pigs," says Unger adding that sushi, raw fish, and tofu were once considered obscure products. "Food is about perception and cultural associations. Within only a short time and the right measures, it can be rebranded. . . . Growing insects in our hive at home is our first measure to make insects a healthy and sustainable food for everyone."
Of course, that assumes people will be willing to eat them. Unger thinks bugs just need a little rebranding to succeed, and points out that other foods have overcome bad reputations in the past. "Even the potato, that is now a staple food, was once considered ugly and was given to pigs," says Unger adding that sushi, raw fish, and tofu were once considered obscure products. "Food is about perception and cultural associations. Within only a short time and the right measures, it can be rebranded. . . . Growing insects in our hive at home is our first measure to make insects a healthy and sustainable food for everyone."
Get us commoners to eat insects while the ruling class gets steak.
capcha: liberals
or, at least, i do. Renfield
sushi, raw fish, and tofu were once considered obscure products.
Sorry, but tofu is still gross - right up there with rice cakes.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Lobster and Shrimp...
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
REAL Klingons only eat live Gakh!
https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...
I enjoy fried mealworms as replacements for salty snacks, like any other pop-and-crunch food covered in chili powder.
currently inefficient industrial-scale production of meat
Yes, it is *currently* inefficient, because *they are doing it wrong*!!!
1 - destroy millions of acres of ecosystem and drain rivers dry to monocrop grains
2 - force-feed feedlot cattle candy
3 - pump them full of antibiotics to attempt to combat their inevitable poor health
4 - bitch about inhumane livestock treatment and conditions
5 - go vegan/grow meal worms to think you've solved the problem
- or -
1 - graze cattle on the 70+ % of land *that is not suitable for monocrop agriculture practices anyways* but happens to be plenty fertile enough to grow stuff naturally that cows will happily, and healthily eat. Let the cows do the work of walking to their food, rather than spending fuel to grow candy and bring it to them.
2 - grow something more eco-friendly in the millions of acres currently being wasted on corn (say, the original natural fauna?)
3 - round up the cattle when it's time to slaughter--they will be healthy and have a much better nutrient profile for us as well
Notice anything missing from the list? antibiotics? feedlots? grains? clear cutting to make feedlot grounds? check check check check.
Read Joel Salatin's works for more info.
Call it gagh and serve it with prune juice. Trekkies'll eat it.
Some of the highest protein sources out there are vegetable-based.
The problem is not the total amount of protein, but about getting all the nine essential amino acids (ones our body cannot make).
These are present in the right amounts in meat, but not vegetables. It is possible to get the right balance by combining different vegetable proteins, but not all vegans make the effort consistently, and are often deficient in methionine and lysine.
They never go into detail in the book (I believe... pardon it's been an eternity since I've read it) but my assumption was always Soylent Yellow and Red were some artificially produced edible protein where it's entirely likely yellow came from insects and red maybe even came from real animals (rats?).
The way to get people to eat this stuff is to have it come out in NOT-INSECT-LOOKING form such as a cube of blended worm-meal.. maybe even with some artificial flavoring / coloring added. I mean... people eat Tofu don't they? (I don't... but some people do. ;)
you are right, the reason to eat them is because they taste good
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If rice cakes are gross then you better not like rice krispies treats.
There's a HUGE difference between rice cakes and rice krispie treats, same as there's a huge difference between puffed rice (gross) and dishes made with rice.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I do a fair bit of home gardening, but producing say 50 lbs of beans a year takes a fair amount of space and effort. If you can really get that level of production out of a unit that small then it gives gardening a good run for its money. I don't think you could match the reported production here in a condo or apartment if you were to grow plants.
Is that why 90% of vegans are severely undernourished?
Is that why 90% of statistics are made up?
The whole "moral" thing is a scam too. Humans are omnivores, ignoring that is a falsehood, a falsehood is a lie, therefore vegetarianism is unethical.
Ooh, let me play!
"Humans are warlike, ignoring that is a falsehood, a falsehood is a lie, therefore peace is unethical."
Did I do that right?
Citation needed.
Citation given:
http://cookforgood.com/blog/2014/3/5/how-much-protein-is-enough-what-are-the-best-sources.html
Those graphs in that blog posting are from the USDA National Nutrient Database. Notice how many plants provide more protein per calorie than, say, chicken. The real surprise to me was how people think scrambled eggs give them a lot of protein, and they just don't. The frellin' Egg Council (or whoever it is) has effective advertising, I must say.
Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "based". Heck, some vegatable-based foods (such as gluten, often used in Chinese cooking) are nearly pure protein. Most meat substitutes are based around things like TVP, which is overwhelmingly protein. Seitan is 80% protein.
Even common things like tofu have far more calories from protein than carbs (your standard). But really, that's the wrong standard: it's calories from protein vs. calories from "everything else". The majority common vegan ingredients are in the 20-50% protein range - your green leafies (lettuce? 36%; broccoli? 33%; spinach? 50%; collards? 38%; etc), legumes (peas? 33%; lentils? 31%; beans? ~25%; etc), some grains, etc, plus tons of secondary products) are in the 20-50% protein-calories range. While lean fish and skinless chicken cooked in non-fattening manners around 80%-ish percent of their calories from protein, most meats are much lower. A hamburger patty, 80% lean, 20% fat, broiled? 38% from protein. Batter-dipped fried chicken? also 38% protein. Bacon, fried? 27%. Etc. These are just the first "common" things that come to mind, do your own searches. Common meat dishes have the same sort of percent of their calories from protein as common vegetarian dishes.
Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
It's not "hard". At all. Period. Whole broad classes of vegetarian ingredients (legumes, greens, etc) have as high of a percentage of their calories from protein as things like hamburger patties, fried chicken and bacon. You don't need to "supplement with eggs and milk" for protein; you're confusing B12 with protein.
Also, it's wrong to overgeneralize about ancestral human diets; they varied greatly from society to society. The Masai didn't eat the same thing as the Aryans who didn't eat the same thing as the Inuit and so forth. Humans are omnivores and are adapted to diverse diets.
Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
"It's just that as we became more agricultural and started consuming tasty lamb and beef and chicken"
Tasty, yes. Agricultural, no. We ate those things before that. The man who has cows and sheep and chickens does not eat bugs.
Without those things, you are poor. Good thing there are always bugs to eat. They are nasty though, that is why no one else eats them. Or sometimes, prepared as well as possible, some are, as you say, not so bad.
or fed to prisoners and the poor. http://www.lobsterhelp.com/lob...
Our diets weren't as diverse as vegetarians like to think. If you look at the diets of most major human populations, there are some common themes: A mix of gathered plant matter, including roots, leaves, fruit, and nuts. And hunted meat including insects, birds, and large game. Even Inuit ate lots of plant food, contrary to the widely-circulated myth that they just ate meat (an important part of the Inuit diet is the half-digested plant matter found in the stomachs of wild game). But meat seems to be a constant. You can not find a major human population that didn't eat meat. They all did. They HAD to, because paleolithic plants were not nearly as nutritious or calorie-rich as modern agricultural inventions like potatoes and corn. None of these modern agricultural marvels existed for our ancestors. But they had buffalo.
The average caloric mix seems to be about 70% plants and 30% meat.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
One of the first thing you learn in survival school is you can eat a lot of things that you normally would not when you are very hungry. the second thing is a coach roach in a match box is a greta way to get a seat at a crowded bar. Take it out, take a bite, and be polite and offer to share it...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
We don't eat bugs because historically and culturally, bugs have been a sign of spoilage and infestation. Some cultures do eat mealworms, but this almost exclusively happens in places where agriculture is difficult and high quality protein sources are rare.
Another reason why we are averse to eating bugs is that they are eaten whole. There are few animals that we consume in their entirety.
Ways to get around both of these issues ultimately come down to processing. Chemical processing has the potential to extract the proteins while rendering the result into a form that is unrecognizable as being derived from an insect. But, for my own personal tastes, I am not any more or less inclined to want to eat a mealworm than I am inclined to want to eat the intestine of a cow. It's just that, on a cow, it's a lot easier to separate the muscle tissue from the organs.
On the other hand, fried battered chicken is only 38% protein on a caloric basis. Same as broiled hamburger patties, and far better than bacon.
Yes, it's possible to select meats and prepare them in a manner that gets very high protein figures. But the same applies to vegans, who can choose, for example, gluten, saitan, textured vegetable protein and products made from it, etc. No, your average meat dish doesn't have those kind of protein figures - just like your average vegan dish doesn't. And nor does the human body need such extreme protein levels. Your average meat dish will probably have in the ballpark of 30-35% protein. So will your average greens dish or your average legumes dish.
Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
Sorry, you are abusing the statistics a little here. Plants have high protein % as total calories - because plants have ridiculously low calories to begin with. On the other hand, ground beef provides 38% of calories from protein - because the fat is much richer source of calories to begin with. A more useful statistic for you to consider is grams of protein per 100g serving of the said food.
Lettuce - 1.35g protein / 100g;
Broccoli - 2.8g protein / 100g;
Dried legumes have higher proteins. Keyword: Dried.
Lentil - 26g protein / 100g;
Soy beans - 36g protein / 100g;
Still, meat provides higher protein at higher bioavailability:
Beef, 15% fat - 26g / 100g;
Dried beef (jerky): up to 65g / 100g;
Salmon - 20g protein / 100g.
There is no point in arguing. On a per-gram basis, meats provides much higher protein % than plants. If you want to use protein calorie % as your metric, you can eat meat moderately - or eat a shitlaod and shitload of veggies.
I'm a carnivore. I eat plants very seldom. I'm sure it means I'll never see 90 years but my Dad is 90 now and seeing him I think I'll be good with about 70 or so. I eat meat because I like the taste. If they can make the bugs taste like a grilled medium rare aged black angus ribeye steak then count me in. If it is like most of the bland tasteless shit veggie lovers always prattle on about they can keep it. I see no point in suffering just to live a little longer.
There is 4.2 grams of protein in a 5 ounce serving of broccoli and 22 grams in a serving of beef, a serving of ground beef being 3 ounces. It's about protein per serving and there is no question that meat rules.
No, I'm saying that if an Islamaphobic site publishes some bullshit story about a "refugees throwing away food", and people are sharing that story on Facebook, they are probably douchebags.
And yes, I realize you're just trolling at this point. But maybe not; maybe you're just an idiot and legitimately don't see how those people are douchebags. Your call.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Sometimes that whole idea of consuming mammal excretions or animal embryos or mammal carcases, in various staged of partial decomposition, with varying levels of our own pollution stored within them, just seems more than a little repulsive or it's actual totally unpalatable state in my digestive tract where it is actually consumed.
The taste of crispy bacon on the tastebuds cures all such silliness. I've seen it happen. Seriously, I've literally seen it happen. To be fair, the hog was raised "at home" not in an industrial facility.
I don't get your argument - do you think that vegans eat less total calories per day or something? Of course it's "per calorie" that matters, not "per 100 grams". You write things like "keyword: dried" as if water soaking into them when they cook is supposed to somehow change the nutritional picture - I mean, what the heck?
And since when are legumes low-calorie?
Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
If you do some research on the subject you would discover a few things. Like the real critical point for "not starving" was not meat but fire. Eating meat (without using fire to cook it) has a detrimental effect because of the health hazards. But fire (used to cook food) has the property of increasing available caloric content.
The rated caloric content of a food is pretty much just theoretical with only a weak correlation to what the digestive system is able to extract from it. Cooking food improves the available caloric content with an effect ranging from mild to extreme (I forget the exact examples of top providers, but it is something like yams/potatoes/bananas).
Focusing on protein alone is not silly, its stupid. You need protein, you need calories, you need fiber, and so on.
There are all sorts of attempts to justify a particular diet. A popular one is that a lack of red meat leads to diminished stature (which makes the error of assuming that great stature is even desirable and lacks strong evidence for the claim). Another popular one is that humans digest meat more easily -- and conversely that humans digest vegetables more easily. In both cases there is an agenda attached to the claim.
Having surveyed available research data on the "ease of digestion" claim I can say that both are wrong. There is too much individual variability. It is sufficiently difficult to measure both rate and extent of digestion that only very narrow studies have been done with scope and results that preclude making any strong statements.
Accept that digestion is not that well understood. Make a reasonable attempt to eat well, whatever that means to you. And accept that others will make reasonable attempts to eat well that do not follow the same diet as you. Not only is there no need for you to be right, there is too much individual variability for there to be "one right way" and too much over time variability in an individual for one diet to best suit a person over time.
Be flexible. Avoid foods that cause upset (e.g., if you suffer from IBS it is wise to at least try cutting out tomatoes). Be willing to try new things. Be willing to try old things. Avoid mandating specific regimens or insisting that another person's diet is wrong (except in unusually extreme cases, like parents that insisted on a diet solely consisting of bananas to the detriment of the children's health -- IIRC they lost their children over that one).