-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 7610)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: 7Z, GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, RAR, SWF, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 551 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here

File 142047695346.jpg - (18.53KB , 460x276 , Beyond-meat-chicken-fork-010.jpg )
7610 No. 7610 ID: 1701f6
I'm fascinated by alternative protein/meats. I'm no vegetarian but with future water shortfalls, less grazing land and a wealthier global population wanting to buy meat.

First up is the Beyond Meat company: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/culinary/Replacing-Meat-Plant-Based-Meats-Vegetarian.html

Brown’s first breakthrough came when he discovered Fu-Hung Hsieh, a food scientist at the University of Missouri who had perfected a way to turn soy protein into strips that chewed like chicken. (Top secret, can’t tell you, but it has to do with heat, kneading, and cool water.) Brown founded Beyond Meat in 2009, and in 2012, its inaugural product, Beyond Chicken Strips, began wowing the gatekeepers of the food world.

“Most impressive,” said Food Network geek Alton Brown. “It’s more like meat than anything I’ve ever seen that wasn’t meat.”

“Fooled me badly,” Mark Bittman admitted in his New York Times food column. It also fooled Twitter cofounder (and vegan) Biz Stone, so he invested in the company.

So did Bill Gates, whose Gates Foundation backs potentially world-saving innovations. “I tasted Beyond Meat’s chicken alternative,” he wrote online, “and honestly couldn’t tell it from real chicken.” Gates quickly realized the blockbuster potential. “Our approach to food hasn’t changed much over the last 100 years. It’s ripe for reinvention. We’re just at the beginning of enormous innovation.”
Expand all images
>> No. 7611 ID: 1701f6
  Next is insect protein.

From the UN's FAO Edible insects Future prospects for food and feed security report:
- Insects are healthy, nutritious alternatives to mainstream staples such as chicken,pork, beef and even fish (from ocean catch).
- Many insects are rich in protein and good fats and high in calcium, iron and zinc.
- Insect rearing is not necessarily a land-based activity and does not require landclearing to expand production. Feed is the major requirement for land.
- Insects can be fed on organic waste streams.
- Minilivestock offer livelihood opportunities for both urban and rural people.

The TED talk (I know, I know) attached is about a company that converts crickets into a protein powder that can be used in baking. To me this seems the most plausible way to introduce them into mainstream diets.
>> No. 7612 ID: 1701f6
File 142047812587.jpg - (73.32KB , 600x401 , Burger-Meat.jpg )
Last we have lab-grown meat. These are honest-to-god cow bits grown under lab conditions in nutrient solutions. These tend to suffer from being too tender, though electrical stimulation is one possible fix for this. It still promises to be more efficient in an input -> muscle mass analysis.

>> No. 7613 ID: 52aa49
>alternative protein
>inb4 sperm
>> No. 7614 ID: db7b1c
You know that claim about needing thousands of liters of water to make a pound of meat is completely false, right?

Beef is as efficient to produce per pound as rice and some of the other grains
>> No. 7615 ID: 4b9857

Does that include the water needed to make all the grains the cows eat?
>> No. 7616 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142058534017.png - (472.10KB , 502x641 , water-to-make-burger.png )
Source? Because what little I have read of it, raising cattle is far more demanding in the amount of land and water compared to raising crops. And this is going to be a growing problem in a future of an increasing human population and a greater percentage of them want more meat-filled diets.

A human population expected to grow by 3 billion, a shift in developing countries to eating more meat, and global consumption on track to double in 40 years point to the mother of all food crises down the road. How much food we grow is not just limited by the amount of available land but meat-eaters need far more space than vegetarians. A Bangladeshi family living off rice, beans, vegetables and fruit may live on an acre of land or less, while the average American, who consumes around 270 pounds of meat a year, needs 20 times that.

Nearly 30% of the available ice-free surface area of the planet is now used by livestock, or for growing food for those animals. One billion people go hungry every day, but livestock now consumes the majority of the world's crops. A Cornell University study in 1997 found that around 13m hectares of land in the US were used to grow vegetables, rice, fruit, potatoes and beans, but 302m were used for livestock. The problem is that farm animals are inefficient converters of food to flesh. Broiler chickens are the best, needing around 3.4kg to produce 1kg of flesh, but pigs need 8.4kg for that kilo.

Other academics have calculated that if the grain fed to animals in western countries were consumed directly by people instead of animals, we could feed at least twice as many people – and possibly far more – as we do now.

...Eat a steak or a chicken and you are effectively consuming the water that the animal has needed to live and grow. Vegetarian author John Robbins calculates it takes 60, 108, 168, and 229 pounds of water to produce one pound of potatoes, wheat, maize and rice respectively. But a pound of beef needs around 9,000 litres – or more than 20,000lbs of water. Equally, it takes nearly 1,000 litres of water to produce one litre of milk. A broiler chicken, by contrast, is far more efficient, producing the same amount of meat as a cow on just 1,500 litres.

Pigs are some of the thirstiest animals. An average-sized north American pig farm with 80,000 pigs needs nearly 75m gallons of fresh water a year. A large one, which might have one million or more pigs, may need as much as a city.
>> No. 7617 ID: db7b1c
Yes, of course... think about it... if it takes 108 gallons of water to produce one pound of corn, 132 gallons to produce a pound of wheat, 300 gallons to produce a pound of rice - waste plant matter of which cows would be eating - how the hell could it be possible for a cow to consume 2463 gallons of food for every pound of meat it makes?

In the time it takes a cow to mature from calf to slaughtering age it eats 936 pounds of dry feed, and finally weighs approx. 725 pounds 61% of which is sellable meat (442 pounds)
So roughly 2 pounds of feed per 1 pound of beef, depending on feed used the cost of dry vegetable feed is about 250 pounds of water for every pound of meat
Add water consumed by the cow to that, add wastewater and water for processing the meat, and the reasonable number would be under 500 gallons right?
And hippies claim 2500 gallons per pound of meat! Which if you backtrack the calculation and take away the cost of dry feed, comes out to just over 8000 gallons of direct water per day to rear a cow for slaughter... it's a completely ludicrous claim, even a sea cow would require less than that

Original article
Comes to 3680L/kg, or 441 gallons per pound, including processing and everything else

>raising cattle is far more demanding in the amount of land and water compared to raising crops
The people who originally brought this to our attention used the maximum water usage on cattle farms, including water that gets wasted in situations where water is plentiful and no one cares to save it

>Nor are cattle voracious consumers of water. Some environmental critics of cattle assert that 2,500 gallons of water are required for every pound of beef. But this figure (or the even higher ones often cited by advocates of veganism) are based on the most water-intensive situations. Research at the University of California, Davis, shows that producing a typical pound of U.S. beef takes about 441 gallons of water per pound—only slightly more water than for a pound of rice—and beef is far more nutritious.
>> No. 7618 ID: db7b1c
There's also a question of energy density
A pound of rice (~300 gal) has about 500 calories, a pound of corn (~100 gal) has about 1600 calories, and a pound of red meat (~450 gal) has 1100 calories
Comes out to 0.6 gallons of water per calorie for rice, 0.06 gallons of water per calorie for corn, and 0.4 gallons of water per calorie for meat
Corn being the most water efficient grain and rice being the least water efficient grain, with other cereals being somewhere in the middle (~0.1gal/cal)

That's what I meant over here >>7620, meat is a bit less water than some grains and a bit more than others but it's in that general amount, not some obscene level that keeps getting used everywhere
>> No. 7619 ID: 1e7cc7
Hm! That's why it is difficult to determine who is citing good data or biased bullshit. I went to the Guardian article and did not look at the articles from vegetarian websites.

Water Content of Things:

This Is How Much Water It Takes To Make Your Favorite Foods
The Huffington Post 10/13/2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water-footprint_n_5952862.html

The Hidden Water We Use:


The Hidden Costs of Hamburgers http://youtu.be/ut3URdEzlKQ
>> No. 7620 ID: db7b1c
File 142061103549.jpg - (99.83KB , 640x360 , puke.jpg )
Oh gee thanks for that vid bats, needed a laugh today

>1800 gallons of water per gallon of meat
At least they aren't going full retard with 2400, but they're still about 1350 too high... then it goes on to say chicken meat only 468gal/lb because by magic of hippie bullshit chickens apparently consume 3x less grain to make the same amount of protein
Which is practically impossible considering how ruminants are some of the most efficient eaters on the planet, by comparison chickens can't even digest cellulose, it makes no logical sense

Gonna stick to the guys with the calculations instead of people not showing their methodology
>> No. 7621 ID: bea15b
File 142061704627.gif - (866.96KB , 500x375 , nowhere kansas - courage the cowardly dog.gif )
Another thing to keep in mind when discussing the resources needed for raising cattle, is that the most cost effective areas to put them are places that don't have enough water to do anything else, or in combination with a cropping system. They are a method of making unproductive land, productive.
Sure, a pound of beef requires more water than a pound of whatever grain, but consider:
1. How many gallons of water would really be required (that needed to pumped, transported, etc) to provide for the water needs of a herd of cattle that roam over many acres of what would normally be unproductive land. Depending on the age, size of the cow and the environment, a single cow will go through something like 3-30 gallons of water a day. Where I was at in Kansas, about 20-30 would be put on a Quarter sized pasture for a few months in a more intensive grazing situation.

2. How many gallons of water would you need to irrigate onto unproductive land to produce a grain crop that breaks even? When dealing with a Quarter section of land (1/2mile by 1/2mile) in kansas, irrigation is generally in terms of hundreds of gallons of water per _minute_. All summer. To raise a field corn crop on a quarter in what is basically a desert on top of a rapidly diminishing aquifer, pumping at anything less than 600 gallons per minute during the summer is very risky. If your well output has collapsed, down to say ~250 gallons per minute (becoming ever more common), you're looking at growing shitty wheat or sorghum (grain sorghum which is cattle feed, or sweet sorghum for a kind of syrup) if you want to grow something during the summer.

Additionally for where I was at in kansas
-Cows were often put on winter wheat for a while, during the time when plants can actually grow because it finally fucking rained. As long as you take them off at the right time, the wheat is fine and all you need to do is add some extra nitrogen because the cows took it up as protein.
-It was very common to set cows out on recently harvested fields to clean up dropped heads and to graze among stubble and leftover weeds. This can also go a long way to cutting down on certain volunteer crops (like corn, cows fucking love corn) coming up the next season.

How many cows are present per acre of land varies wildly based on how the land is. Here is a great example of what I am trying to convey.
>I remember working once for a farmer/rancher in North Central Montana, near the Canadian border. This area is mainly comprised of dry land wheat, with mixed in patches of native short-grass pastures. Cold in the winter and hot in the summer with wind every day. Up there, I recall that the ratio was around 40 acres per cow unit. These were very large pastures with very few cross fences. In fact, their individual pastures were much larger than most farms where I grew up. Annual precipitation was around 12” annually. Cattle walked literally miles to water.
>Some other good friends of mine had moved 300 momma cows from Montana to Southern New Mexico (south of Carlsbad). There, they leased 43 sections of land for those 300 cows. Wow, that’s over 27,000 acres. That relates to over 90 acres per cow. They spent most of their daylight hours on horseback, moving cattle. From there, they moved those same 300 cows to a 1200 acre grass farm in the Ozarks of Missouri. After the transition, those cows think they are in heaven with 4 acres per cow. The local government boys tell them they are overstocked. But, I have watched their operation over the years and it is easy to see why they are successful. They are maximizing their resources and they literally live with their cattle.

That's 27,000 acres, and all they did was put 300 cows on it. Because there is shit-all that can be done with that area. Now mind you, that's on the far end of things as far as acres per cow go.
For reference, a Quarter (half mile by half mile) is 160 acres.

Cows would be terribly inefficient if we gave them the best of everything. But we don't raise them like that because that's fucking stupid and expensive and the only places where that occurs are where factors line up just right so that it makes economical sense. We fit cattle in the crevices of our agricultural system where there's really not much else to do. We put them in an ecosystem that can really only support the grasses and forbs that evolved with the presence of herbs of roaming herbivores. Funny, that.
Sure, when you lump all cows together they produce statistics and numbers that make them look like the worst thing in a world and if only we could just kill all the jews not raise cows then things would be so much better. But looking at things like that requires the dismissal of all the very important circumstances that accompany those numbers.
>> No. 7622 ID: 1e7cc7
File 14206230236.jpg - (418.12KB , 1280x960 , beef pork & sausages 1.jpg )
Well, I certainly hope the mounting problem of providing so much fresh water to cattle is overblown, but cursorily examining the weight of studies on it does stress that it is a problem. And articles from the Wall Street Journal from cattle conglomerates stating it isn't a problem do not inspire credibility, in the same way their articles from the coal industry stating how complaints about pollution are all hippie propaganda.

The real verifiable problem is how much meat costs at the grocery stores in the USA. The falling petroleum prices have lessened the costs of food transportation, but the consumer costs of meat still has still risen much faster than the rise of normal inflation.
>> No. 7623 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142062304285.jpg - (52.11KB , 660x456 , stats Food-Inflation-2014-12-24.jpg )
And exasperating this is the problem of droughts:
A drought that thinned cattle herds two years ago has driven up wholesale beef prices 23% the past year, according to Sterling Marketing. Meanwhile, a virus outbreak in the hog population has pushed up pork prices by 56%, the firm says. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/04/16/cpi-shows-food-prices-rising/7742669/

Beef and veal prices continued to rise, increasing 0.8 percent from October to November and 18.1 percent year-over-year. Prices remain high, as the U.S. cattle inventory is currently at a historical low. Pasture conditions have improved somewhat in the Southern Plains and Southwest but not significantly in the West. In addition, improved crop yields allow cattle producers to feed cattle longer and to hold cattle for expansion. However, signs of herd expansion at this point are anecdotal at best. Many producers are holding on to their inventory to increase live weights, as steer and heifer prices have hit record highs. Most retail beef prices, on average, are also at record highs, even after adjusting for inflation. ERS predicts beef and veal prices will increase 11.0 to 12.0 percent in 2014 and 4.5 to 5.5 percent in 2015. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings.aspx

-[GRAPH] In November 2014, the price index for meat stood at 267.3, compared to 267.7 in October. This index has been increasing sharply since the beginning of 2014. The poultry index increased to 238.4 compared to 236.9, and the fish and seafood index was at 291.8 compared to 290.8 a month ago. The dairy products index stood at 228.4 compared to 228.8 in October.

Meat prices rose sharply toward the end of 2013 due to a hit on the supply side. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a lower number of cattle herds and a dry spell in Texas resulted in a shortage in the supply of beef products. It further stated that these prices will remain heightened because of the time it takes for cattle to be ready for slaughter. http://marketrealist.com/2014/12/food-inflation-meat-eases-november/
>> No. 7624 ID: cd4a7e
File 142066753969.jpg - (98.20KB , 960x540 , south-park-s08e06c10-present-day-english-please-16.jpg )
And my friends laugh at me for only eating chicken sandwiches when we get fast food. I only enjoy a burger once or twice a month max.
>> No. 7625 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142067165570.jpg - (861.36KB , 1920x1200 , Pulp Fiction - Samuel L Jackson Big Kahuna Burger .jpg )
Well, I do like a tasty burger.
Would hate to see high prices interfere with that enjoyment.
>> No. 7626 ID: e8f72b
  It's fact now that large herds that are constantly moving are actually good for grasslands and the loss of these large migrating herds is the reason so many grasslands are turning into desert.
Great watch.
>> No. 7627 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142094499486.jpg - (1.28MB , 1800x1505 , beef peppercorn steak at Fleming's Prime Stea.jpg )
If meat prices get really expensive, I recommend that we eat the vegetarians.

- a peppercorn steak at Fleming's Prime Steakhouse.
>> No. 7628 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142094552868.jpg - (227.20KB , 1728x1152 , beef braised short ribs 1.jpg )
I went to a Fleming's Prime Steakhouse in Denver and saw they offered a "small plates" menu section that had really great food for reasonable prices. If you don't buy wine (where the prices can be astronomical), even this expensive steak house can be affordable.

I ordered the braised beef ribs for $18 and it was terrific!

Small Plates
SLICED FILET MIGNON* - shiitake risotto, chili oil, porcini butter drizzle

COLOSSAL SHRIMP SKEWERS - chimichurri dipping sauce, fennel citrus salad

NEW ZEALAND PETITE LAMB CHOPS* - pistachio-mint pesto, F17 sauce, polenta fries

BRAISED SHORT RIBS OF BEEF - boneless, with savory arugula and spinach, natural au jus

SEARED AHI TUNA* - fresh vegetable salad, spicy mustard sauce
NEW BEDFORD SCALLOPS* - meyer lemon-honey glaze, carrots, green beans, asparagus

FLEMING'S LOBSTER TEMPURA - soy-ginger dipping sauce, arugula, jicama salad https://www.flemingssteakhouse.com/menus/
>> No. 7629 ID: 7dadba

Here is a good documentary on the insect option. It discusses how insects are prepared as a traditional food in many places around the world.

I live in Louisiana and used to wonder what the now extinct native tribes did during times where fish, game, and edible plants were scarce, and now I figure they must have eaten insects of some sort, what with the practical plagues of horse lubbers and the like.
>> No. 7630 ID: 2593b7
I think we're going to skip insects and stuff and go directly to something like this:


I expect a growing distinction between consuming calories to maintain your body and eating for pleasure as health and wellness comes to the forefront more as healthcare costs continue to rise, food becomes more expensive and time is at more and more of a premium for everyday people. I haven't tried Soylent myself but I'd like to. Seems like it could do wonders for impoverished areas too, if they can figure out clean water.
>> No. 7631 ID: 1701f6
File 142188052187.jpg - (218.86KB , 2048x1152 , 1.jpg )
I've made my own Soylent for a while. I didn't bother with the commercial version but I mix up batches of People Chow.

I like to scale down the masa for calories to leave room for misc. snacks. Also don't panic if your pee is florescent yellow, that's just a surplus of riboflavin that needs to be tweaked. Also mix it up thick and use a bunch of lime juice to actually make it taste like something.
>> No. 7632 ID: 1e7cc7
Why not just Futurama Bachelor Chow (tm)? Now with FLAVOR!
Slurm & Bachelor Chow, Futurama, Feast of Fiction Ep. 6
Slurm: http://youtu.be/YHYraNetJw8
Makes 6 servings
- 12 tablespoons (3/4 cups, 180 mL) sugar
- 12 tablespoons (3/4 cups, 180 mL) fresh lime juice
- 24 teaspoons (1/2 cups, 120 mL) fresh ginger juice
- 2 quarts (1.9L) of sparkling water
- Natural green food coloring
- 6 clear twist off bottles

- Stir sugar, lime jiuce, and ginger juice together. Mix well until sugar is dissolved.
- Add sparkling water
- Add food coloring
- Pour into empty twist off bottles

Bachelor Chow:
- 1 box of cereal (your choice)
- Powdered sugar
- 1/2 cup (120 mL) peanut butter
- 1/4 cup (60 mL) butter
- 1 cup (240 mL) chocolate chips
- 1 teaspoon (5 mL) vanilla extract
- 1 doggie bowl

- Heat a pot on a stove at medium
- Add butter, chocolate chips, and peanut butter
- Stir until liquid
- Add in vanilla extract
- Remove pot from stove
- Add cereal into pot
- Mix until all of the cereal is covered
- In a ziploc bag, pour in powdered sugar then spoon in covered cereal.
- Shake the bag and thoroughly mix the contents until all cereal is covered
>> No. 7633 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142188910537.jpg - (1.63MB , 4000x3000 , Futurama Bachelor Chow & Slurm 1.jpg )
>> No. 7634 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142188969659.png - (1.03MB , 2823x1997 , Futurama Bachelor Chow box 1.png )
>> No. 7635 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142188970694.png - (128.98KB , 1000x599 , Futurama Bachelor Chow logo 1.png )
>> No. 7636 ID: 1e7cc7
File 142189094372.png - (1.67MB , 1600x1236 , Futurama Slurm 1.png )
>> No. 7637 ID: 2593b7
I'm going to have to try that out. I bookmarked the open source recipe sharing site but wasn't about to go wading through all of them to find one that looked enticing

I'm less worried about crazy colored pee as I am about getting twice as much fat-soluble vitamin A as is recommended every day on that particular recipe but obviously that hasn't hurt you.
>> No. 7638 ID: 1701f6
File 142222911799.jpg - (63.12KB , 298x471 , Soylent_green.jpg )
If you click over to the recipe editor they give you the max for the nutrients and you can tweak it to see how it works.
>> No. 7639 ID: 2404e6
  I always thought stuff like this was interesting. I mean id prefer to eat tasty things. But its supposedly cheap as shit, and you could use it whilst SHTFing or whatever.
>> No. 7641 ID: 511ecb
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Quinoa provide every nutrient the human body needs?

If that's true, that could be the basic foodstuff.
>> No. 7642 ID: fe22ac
I'll just leave this here

>> No. 7643 ID: fe22ac
I hate it when I forget to read the thread
>> No. 7644 ID: 1f4942
whey + oats + multivitamin pill

You can make it yourself cheap if you own a blender

Im pretty sure he uses soy based protein
milk based comes with a shitload of vital enzymes and to my experience taste much better then soy.
>> No. 7645 ID: 97c6c1

Didn't some group find a bunch of heavy metals in that stuff?
>> No. 7646 ID: 06a0fb
they found heavy metals what were in excess of California State health whatever board's "safe levels," which are on the order of thousandths of milligrams.

The reality is you'd have to drink gallons of the stuff every day for months before you'd begin to reach levels hazardous to human health.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post