The Impossible Burger 2.0

emaherx

MrMusician18 wrote: »

A photograph?! When was the last time you sent a photo of a mastitis infected quarter in order to get a few tubes?

Would that be never?

In the days before camera phones, I suppose you'd get the auld film developed first and fax it into the vet yeah?? I suppose that's what the auld lads that can't manage the camera phone do now still??

Why are you arguing about mastitis? it's easily diagnosed and antibiotic tubes are the correct treatment. How dose that equate to over use? In the last year I've had one case of mastitis that required treatment. You make it sound like cows have mastitis non stop.

MrMusician18

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

M9d note: We have a long history of civility to non farmers in this forum. For that reason alone, you are being given one chance to reign in your posting style here. The thread is a discussion of the fake burger being touted by the OP and that is all. If you have further discussions you wish to partake in on other issues pertaining to Agriculture, feel free to open a new thread on it.

Either way, this directive on civility remains.

Buford T. Justice

We do, do we? Allowing personal abuse, like being called a gob****e is a strange form of civility.

Anyway, my point stands. I don't think any farmer sends photos of common ailments that require antibiotic treatment to the vet. To suggest so undermines your credibility.

And to return this to the veggie burger, the over use of antibiotics is another major crisis brewing for humanity (not just in animals, it's rampant in humans too). The production of meat analogues could play a strong role in helping to delay this crisis, until we have time to develop new medicines.

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not a misquote, and Irish agriculture is not on a sustainable footing btw, not at it's current output.

Take away all the carbon inputs including the tractors, the fossil fuel derived fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics and where would production be? 20% of today?

Agriculture in Ireland hasn't been truly sustainable since mechanisation was introduced.

For beef on grass the drop off might be just a few percent, if anything at all.
Plenty of examples in the US and Canada of people actually increasing beef production by eliminating most inputs and farming with not much more than a quad and an electric fence. Look up Greg Judy or Neil Dennis on YouTube

By seriously are these the kind of rules you're holding us to?
We can't use any kind of technology if we're raising cattle, because we're all big bad farmers.
But it's fine for a big corporation to come in instead and use lots of oil, chemicals and sprays to create lab grown junk food, and that's better?

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

And to return this to the veggie burger, the over use of antibiotics is another major crisis brewing for humanity (not just in animals, it's rampant in humans too). The production of meat analogues could play a strong role in helping to delay this crisis, until we have time to develop new medicines.

Again with the double standards
Roundup is the world's most overused antibiotic.
Looking at the ingredients, I'm sure there's lots of it used in the production of the impossible burger, but it gets a free pass, while all farmers are bad because they treat a sick animal.

Xcellor

For anyone visiting the US check out https://www.bareburger.com I accidentally stumbled upon them. Vegan bun, choice of vegan patie , vegan cheese and all the trimmings.. also does meat / chicken etc. The impossible burger I had must have been fresh not frozen as it was indistinguishable from beef.

Yeah it has a lot of ingredients and in no way is healthy (actually had more fat than the regular beef burger tho no cholesterol). For an occasional treat I see no harm. Also bit mad everyone analysing the ingredients but forget majority of food has a load of stuff added for shelf life. The simple loaf of bread isn't just water, flour, yeast and a bit of salt....

gozunda

MrMusician18 wrote: »

...
And to return this to the veggie burger, the over use of antibiotics is another major crisis brewing for humanity (not just in animals, it's rampant in humans too). The production of meat analogues could play a strong role in helping to delay this crisis, until we have time to develop new medicines.

I'm really glad you brought up the use of antibiotics tbh. Because interestingly GM ingredients like those used in fake meats have been identified as one of the likely causes of growing antibiotic resistance.

The phenomenon of antibiotic resistance is due to marker antibiotics used for the purposes of genetic engineering in genetically modified plants. The marker antibiotics are normally used to indicate the completion of safe transfer of foreign genetic material into the host plant.

A number of studies have shown that with the consumption of food derived from GMOs, there is a possible risk of transport of antibiotic resistance to microbes of human gut which may contain some pathogenic forms. And In consequence, pathogens inducing various diseases may develop reduced sensitivity to specific antibiotics.

An EU report has also stated a likley transfer of antibiotic resistance genes from modified plants to environmental microbes. The report recommended that only genes coding for antibiotics and not used in human and veterinary medicine, should be the only ones allowed to be use when making GM plants.

So not only does the production of meat analogues not "delay this crisis" but the use of GM crops in these products may well actually exacerbate the crisis of antibiotic resistance.

drunkmonkey

Here we go again full of crap linking the impossible burger that's not on sale here to antibiotic resistance in Irish hospital patients.

_Brian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

these fake meats will become mass produced and cheap and will be the new filling for frozen burgers, chicken nuggets and everything else that 'iceland' and lidl sell to people.


Real meat will become a delicacy as concentrated feeding ops and giant factory farms die off, the kind of more 'natural' farming we do here will see higher prices as people yearn for the quality and authenticity of meat.

I think this will just end up being good news for Ireland, scotland and the few other countries known for producing actual good beef.

There’s no evidence that these fillings will become widespread, none at all. Because vegans would like it to be so doesn’t mean it’s goong to happen at all.

Best case it will be like quorn, just in the freezer with most ordinary people having a giggle at it as they pass.
We need to be encouraging people away from processed foods not flogging more.

gozunda

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Here we go again full of crap linking the impossible burger that's not on sale here to antibiotic resistance in Irish hospital patients.

Scientific reports etc are now 'crap' in your inestimable opinion? And btw its the ingredients in these 'meat analogues' (sic) and not particularly your sacred cow - 'the absolutely utterly impossible Berger' which have been linked to antibiotic resistance. But then you already know that. Btw your the only one who mentioned "Irish hospital patients". Stirring the pot maybe?

I do have to ask why are you engaged in promoting this one particular brand?

It's not like it's the only horse (burger) in the stable is it? There's quorn, beyond burger and many others. Why this particular brand which you've never tasted?

_Brian

Xcellor wrote: »

The simple loaf of bread isn't just water, flour, yeast and a bit of salt....

Mine is, make it three times a week.
People shouldn’t accept that the only option is to rely on foods with loads of ingredients. There really is no need.

Wake up people and stop accepting processed foods as normal.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

Mine is, make it three times a week.
People shouldn’t accept that the only option is to rely on foods with loads of ingredients. There really is no need.

Wake up people and stop accepting processed foods as normal.

Nice easy brown bread too with only a few ingredients

drunkmonkey

Go back far enough and chaps thought that was impossible.

MrMusician18

gozunda wrote: »

Scientific reports etc are now 'crap' in your inestimable opinion? And btw its the ingredients in these 'meat analogues' (sic) and not particularly your sacred cow - 'the absolutely utterly impossible Berger' which have been linked to antibiotic resistance. But then you already know that. Btw your the only one who mentioned "Irish hospital patients". Stirring the pot maybe?

I do have to ask why are you engaged in promoting this one particular brand?

It's not like it's the only horse (burger) in the stable is it? Theres quorn, beyond burger and many others. Why this particular brand which you've never tasted?

Why the inverted commas and (sic)? That's what they're called.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_analogue

Were you trying to be smart but just displayed your own ignorance?

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Were you trying to be smart but just displayed your own ignorance?

You're the person claiming

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There is no carbon sequestered in grass beyond a growing season. None. There are no farmers mowing grass and then burying it. It's a spurious argument.

Crops are grown, then consumed, and then transformed into meat, which in turn is consumed. The carbon from the grass ends up in the human, so you're hardly claiming that humans are the carbon reservoirs of agriculture?

I'd say in this thread it might be more relevant to have a proper understanding of soils and soil biology than going around starting arguments about grammar.

MrMusician18

Upstream wrote: »

You're the person claiming



I'd say in this thread it might be more relevant to have a proper understanding of soils and soil biology than going around starting arguments about grammar.

The sequestering that goes on is minimal in a grass system that's constantly cut back, either by animals grazing or forage harvesting. Those root sugar stores are being raided constantly for regrowth.

If Irish soil was indeed self fertilising, you might want to let other farmers know before they go spreading bag manure.

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Hope much sequestering that goes on is minimal in a grass system that's constantly cut back, either by animals grazing or forage harvesting. Those root sugar stores are being raided constantly for regrowth.

If Irish soil was indeed self fertilising, you might want to let other farmers know before they go spreading bag manure.

Minimal is a step up from none I suppose.
You seemed so adamant about 'None.' a few hours ago...

Yes, you are right that that constant regrazing is hard on the grass roots, but there are techniques like mob grazing that help here, and do cut down on the need for external inputs.

But I'm not just talking about the sugar in the roots, I'm talking about the root exudates, sugars that the plant sends out into the soil to feed the soil biology. They in turn make substances like glomalin, the glue that gives soil its texture and can store as much as 30% of the carbon in the soil.

Don't be embarrassed if you don't know know what glomalin is, it was only discovered in the 1996, a long time after we'd put humans on the moon, so it just goes to show how ignorant we are about soil and how much we all have to learn.

gozunda

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why the inverted commas and (sic)? That's what they're called https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_analogue Were you trying to be smart but just displayed your own ignorance?

Turning miaow now? The commas simply denote the text taken from your comment and 'sic' in normal parlance indicates that which was said. Sic comes from the Latin adverb sic "thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written") and the fact that 'Meat analogues' - is not a descriptor I would use tbh. It masks a lot imo. And yes thank you, I know how to use Wikipedia.

Anything else you would like to know?


Edit: Did someone say something about 'personal digs" being made? Really?

MrMusician18

Upstream wrote: »

Minimal is a step up from none I suppose.
You seemed so adamant about 'None.' a few hours ago...

Yes, you are right that that constant regrazing is hard on the grass roots, but there are techniques like mob grazing that help here, and do cut down on the need for external inputs.

But I'm not just talking about the sugar in the roots, I'm talking about the root exudates, sugars that the plant sends out into the soil to feed the soil biology. They in turn make substances like glomalin, the glue that gives soil its texture and can store as much as 30% of the carbon in the soil.

Don't be embarrassed if you don't know know what glomalin is, it was only discovered in the 1996, a long time after we'd put humans on the moon, so it just goes to show how ignorant we are about soil and how much we all have to learn.

If we accept that then the microbes in the soil will consume this sugar through respiration and emit CO2. Glomalin breaks down over the course of 50 years, with it's constituents then returning to the cycle.

It can be best considered a steady state reservoir, that's not getting any bigger.

That's money already in the bank. You can't count it twice.

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If we accept that then the microbes in the soil will consume this sugar through respiration and emit CO2. Glomalin breaks down over the course of 50 years, with it's constituents then returning to the cycle.

It can be best considered a steady state reservoir, that's not getting any bigger

Why do you say this? Management practices can make a huge difference to the levels of exudates that get sent out into the soil, and hence how much carbon is stored in the soil. If we have tillage soils with less than 3% organic matter and livestock pastures with 15 or 18%, we must be able to affect the levels either positively or negatively.

The microbes do consume the exudates and emit CO2, but if the plants are exuding carbon at a high enough rate, it exceeds the amount they consume, and so it becomes a carbon sink.

Your analogy of a resevoir is good, soils can get deeper over time, and store more carbon in this way, like for example the 20 foot soils on the Great Plains.

Buford T. Justice XIX

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If we accept that then the microbes in the soil will consume this sugar through respiration and emit CO2. Glomalin breaks down over the course of 50 years, with it's constituents then returning to the cycle.

It can be best considered a steady state reservoir, that's not getting any bigger

You're not having a very good day here at all.


The physical structure of soil is composed of more than sand, silt and clay in various proportions that give different soils their properties. It also has humus, Soil Organic Matter (SOM) that binds those particles together an provides a substrate for the various organisms like bacteria, fungi, earthworms and various arachnids that feed on decomposing SOM that come from recycling of dying plant matter and the microbiota itself.


And it's not 'in a steadt state' as you imply but in various states of flux depending on the purpose the soil is put to. As per the tweet and linked paper which you don't seem to have perused at all, once grassland is ploughed, the SOM drops by 33% and the microbiota by 52%

"research found that within one month of tillage events, in the surface 10 cm of the soil there were losses of 52% of microbial biomass and 33% of organic carbon."

Rather large drops for a steady state, no?


Now here's a little research you can do yourself while rambling around your neighbourhood. Take a gander at the grass levels at the kerbing wherever you are. You'll notice the newer kerbing a good cm or so above the grass level while the older kerbing will have grass growing out over the kerbing. That's a result of soil organic matter building up from the recycling of organic matter from the grass and microbiota which raises the absolute level of the soil.


Again, easily looked up online and basic junior level science.

MrMusician18

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

You're not having a very good day here at all.


The physical structure of soil is composed of more than sand, silt and clay in various proportions that give different soils their properties. It also has humus, Soil Organic Matter (SOM) that binds those particles together an provides a substrate for the various organisms like bacteria, fungi, earthworms and various arachnids that feed on decomposing SOM that come from recycling of dying plant matter and the microbiota itself.


And it's not 'in a steadt state' as you imply but in various states of flux depending on the purpose the soil is put to. As per the tweet and linked paper which you don't seem to have perused at all, once grassland is ploughed, the SOM drops by 33% and the microbiota by 52%

Rather large drops for a steady state, no?


Now here's a little research you can do yourself while rambling around your neighbourhood. Take a gander at the grass levels at the kerbing wherever you are. You'll notice the newer kerbing a good cm or so above the grass level while the older kerbing will have grass growing out over the kerbing. That's a result of soil organic matter building up from the recycling of organic matter from the grass and microbiota which raises the absolute level of the soil.


Again, easily looked up online and basic junior level science.

The excuse that I'm not emptying the reservoir, is a lot different to adding to the reservoir.

Recycling of organic matter is much much slower on land that is worked, hence why I did concede from none to minimal. And the amount of additional carbon sequestration that happens in grass based agriculture is minimal

Nice few personal digs there too.

drunkmonkey

Don't worry about the personal digs, they'll be begging us to buy their land by the time the impossible burger 10.0 rolls around.

Belittling the burger is akin to telling Henry Ford the car won't catch on.

my3cents

Think I'll stick with beef 1.0 thanks.

emaherx

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Recycling of organic matter is much much slower on land that is worked, hence why I did concede from none to minimal. And the amount of additional carbon sequestration that happens in grass based agriculture is minimal

So plant based burgers will help how again?

MrMusician18

emaherx wrote: »

So plant based burgers will help how again?

Is this not obvious? A plant based diet is between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one.

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

Buford T. Justice XIX

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The excuse that I'm not emptying the reservoir, is a lot different to adding to the reservoir.

Recycling of organic matter is much much slower on land that is worked, hence why I did concede from none to minimal. And the amount of additional carbon sequestration that happens in grass based agriculture is minimal

Nice few personal digs there too.

No dig there, the majority of the worlds reservoir of knowledge is available at your fingertips. The fault for you not availing of that knowledge and its availability is nobody fault except your own.


Like I said, there's a plethora of knowledge available outside the one simple link I provided to you which you either ignored or misunderstood. There's no point in blaming everybody else for your failure to dig even a little under the soft coating your beliefs provide you with.


I note you haven't provided any backing for your position, surprisingly.

Upstream

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't worry about the personal digs, they'll be begging us to buy their land by the time the impossible burger 10.0 rolls around.

Strange comment, are ye getting paid for this?

emaherx

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is this not obvious? A plant based diet is between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one.

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

Land used to grow plant based food is much harder "worked" than that used to grow cattle with some estimates claiming only 100 harvests left in much of the "worked" tillage land. And animal agriculture may be the only cure for such land.

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is this not obvious? A plant based diet is between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one.

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

Stockless rotations don't work all that well in an organic system.
Or are you back to double standards again, one set standards for this burgers production, and another for meat?

MrMusician18

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

You're not having a very good day here at all.


The physical structure of soil is composed of more than sand, silt and clay in various proportions that give different soils their properties. It also has humus, Soil Organic Matter (SOM) that binds those particles together an provides a substrate for the various organisms like bacteria, fungi, earthworms and various arachnids that feed on decomposing SOM that come from recycling of dying plant matter and the microbiota itself.


And it's not 'in a steadt state' as you imply but in various states of flux depending on the purpose the soil is put to. As per the tweet and linked paper which you don't seem to have perused at all, once grassland is ploughed, the SOM drops by 33% and the microbiota by 52%

Rather large drops for a steady state, no?


Now here's a little research you can do yourself while rambling around your neighbourhood. Take a gander at the grass levels at the kerbing wherever you are. You'll notice the newer kerbing a good cm or so above the grass level while the older kerbing will have grass growing out over the kerbing. That's a result of soil organic matter building up from the recycling of organic matter from the grass and microbiota which raises the absolute level of the soil.


Again, easily looked up online and basic junior level science.

It's in steady state in grassland, neither growing not shrinking. Im not the one claiming that grass based been production has an unaccounted for carbon sink.

For soil to be effective carbon sink it has to increasing it's absolute carbon content. This can be done by increasing the proportion of carbon in the soil (after thousands of years one could reasonably expect grassland to have reached it's carbon saturation point) or increase the volume of soil - which doesn't really happen on land that's worked and the organic matter is carted off.

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Im not the one claiming that head based been production has an unaccounted for carbon sink.

Head based been production???
Whether you're claiming it or not, you're not making much sense either way

MrMusician18

Upstream wrote: »

Head based been production???
Whether you're claiming it or not, you're not making much sense either way.

Grass based. Swype on the phone sometimes behaves oddly.

roosterman71

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

This nugget has been shown to be incorrect. Leaving land fallow leads to desertification. In countries such as Mexico, Zimbabwe and the like, the reintroduction of herd animals have been used to turn bare land back to being covered in vegetation. Which in turn "grows" the soil by the decay of the grasses, manure, urine, etc. It in turn reduces flooding, streams and rivers start to flow again even in dry seasons. Interesting TED talk on it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

drunkmonkey

Why are you on about land when this is fermenter in vats from yeast.

emaherx

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Why are you on about land when this is fermenter in vats from yeast.

What is?
The entire burger?

What about the soy, the sunflower oil, coconut oil or the potatoes? That are all part of the ingredients! All grown without land?

gozunda

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is this not obvious? A plant based diet is between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one.

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

Listening to the propaganda and misinformation from the usual "plant based diets" aficionados ?

Significant amounts of animal feedstuffs are derived from a range of sources including the by-products the human food industry, crops which don't meet human grade food quality standards and perhaps most importantly all the livestock which are fed forage from permanent grassland which is not suitable for other forms of cultivation.

No plant based diet is "between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one". That is at best a fallacy pushed by those promoting an ideology based on evident misinformation.

These statements are not only inaccurate - they also fail to take into account local production compared to the importation of cheap foodstuffs produced in areas with few if any environmental or ethical standards.

As for the claim that somehow less land will be required for a growing population is another myth promulgated off the back of the same fallacy. The fact is that the majority of suitable cultivable land is already used to produce foodstuffs for human use and consumption. From these foodstuffs by-products of harvesting and processing are diverted to animal use. Get rid of livestock and you not only lose a source of valuable soil nutrients requiring much larger inputs of chemical fertilisers but most of humanity will also be up to their neck in the waste products of human food processing.

Sounds like a version of hell rather than the paradise trotted out by plant based believers tbh.

Buford T. Justice XIX

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's in steady state in grassland, neither growing not shrinking. Im not the one claiming that grass based been production has an unaccounted for carbon sink.

For soil to be effective carbon sink it has to increasing it's absolute carbon content. This can be done by increasing the proportion of carbon in the soil (after thousands of years one could reasonably expect grassland to have reached it's carbon saturation point) or increase the volume of soil - which doesn't really happen on land that's worked and the organic matter is carted off.

So nothing to back up your assertation?

Ok then, just your unsupported opinion.

gozunda

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't worry about the personal digs, they'll be begging us to buy their land by the time the impossible burger 10.0 rolls around. Belittling the burger is akin to telling Henry Ford the car won't catch on.

"Belittling the burger" lol. God help us that anyone should criticise corporate interests :pac:

Not a 'vegan' or a 'vegetarian' but appears to openly pray for the same corporate interests to save ourselves from our 'selfish' meat eating ways!

Tbh many of the comments in this thread have done little else than bash farming methods and those involved in Irish farming.

Here's something I think will be a bit more productive. Its a new game for those feeling so aggrieved with everything that their hobby is to bash farming. Its what's been mostly happening here anyway lol. Enjoy!

kk.man

Larry has launched the meat free burger

https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2019/02/22/ABP-UK-launches-plant-based-range?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22-Feb-2019&c=05LeDp71oZoj%2FW%2F1BOWjViye%2Bbt2eMhs&p2=

Eggs and baskets springs to mind...fair play to him.

gozunda

kk.man wrote: »

Larry has launched the meat free burger

https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2019/02/22/ABP-UK-launches-plant-based-range?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22-Feb-2019&c=05LeDp71oZoj%2FW%2F1BOWjViye%2Bbt2eMhs&p2=

Eggs and baskets springs to mind...fair play to him.

Haha and another bandwagoner like "I really cant believe it's not awhataburger inc". I wonder will the plant based advocates get behind Larry as well :pac:

_Brian

gozunda wrote: »

Haha and another bandwagoner like "I really cant believe it's not awhataburger inc". I wonder will the plant based advocates get behind Larry as well :pac:

I do wonder would Vegans have an issue buying from a company who’s main role is slaughtering animals, dealing with slaughter waste and turning the waste into dog food.

It’s exactly as I said earlier, commercial entities see the vegan movement as a real cAsh cow and they are all jumping on board for their slice of the pie.

ABP are as likely to stick some horse in there as plants

Gawddawggonnit

https://www.inverse.com/article/53443-future-food-lab-grown-meat-bad-for-climate-change

_Brian

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

https://www.inverse.com/article/53443-future-food-lab-grown-meat-bad-for-climate-change

“The future food fix carnivores are hoping for”

Meat eaters don’t wish for a time when we can eat some lab grown chemically laced substance. Who thinks that.
The drive for these lab grown alternatives comes from vegan and veggie groups who miss their meat but don’t want to admit their lifestyle choice is lacking.

emaherx

roosterman71 wrote: »

This nugget has been shown to be incorrect. Leaving land fallow leads to desertification. In countries such as Mexico, Zimbabwe and the like, the reintroduction of herd animals have been used to turn bare land back to being covered in vegetation. Which in turn "grows" the soil by the decay of the grasses, manure, urine, etc. It in turn reduces flooding, streams and rivers start to flow again even in dry seasons. Interesting TED talk on it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

Well he's obviously doing it wrong!
You don't prove science by actually producing results..... What you do is you give everything a number, over exaggerate the numbers for the parts you want to prove bad, leave out any variables which may tip your expected result in the wrong direction and when you finally produce an equation that produces your predefined result then you publish it!

drunkmonkey

_Brian wrote: »

Meat eaters don’t wish for a time when we can eat some lab grown chemically laced substance. Who thinks that.

I don't think there's any meat eater who would have any problems taking animals out of the loop if technology could provide an alternative which is better in every way.

Your problem is they way it's made and what's in it. Once those issues are put to bed you don't really have any excuse to keep eating meat.

Something has to give anyway were hardly going to be taking 200 heifers off in the back of the spaceship to the other side of the galaxy.

_Brian

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't think there's any meat eater who would have any problems taking animals out of the loop if technology could provide an alternative which is better in every way.

Your problem is they way it's made and what's in it. Once those issues are put to bed you don't really have any excuse to keep eating meat.

Something has to give anyway were hardly going to be taking 200 heifers off in the back of the spaceship to the other side of the galaxy.

The way it’s made.

You can’t have an artificial food that’s naturally produced in the same way cattle are reared. That’s the point. It’s not like they’re going to invent a tree that these things grow naturally on. The ingredients will always be industrialised chemically produces and same withnthe final product. Nothing, absolutely nnorhing will make that a natural acceptable product. Lab grown meats fall the same hurdle, it’s industralised chemical driven muck.
These are the exact products humans need to be avoiding, partly because they are overprocessed and partly because bit by bit it’s handing food supply over to mega corporations to control, people will rue the day all food is controlled by them both in terms of quality, health and financially.

It would benefit society much more if pressure was applied to government to support more environmentally friendly farming methods, ban feedlots, encourage more extensive farming methods, which yes would increase meat prices but the current cost of meat to consumers does not reflect the true intrinsic value of the product.

Less meat consumption would likely follow, but not to be supplemented with ridiculous fake products, meals should be supplemented with more fresh fruit and vegetables, locally sourced and prepared from raw in people’s homes.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

The way it’s made.

You can’t have an artificial food that’s naturally produced in the same way cattle are reared. That’s the point. It’s not like they’re going to invent a tree that these things grow naturally on. The ingredients will always be industrialised chemically produces and same withnthe final product. Nothing, absolutely nnorhing will make that a natural acceptable product. Lab grown meats fall the same hurdle, it’s industralised chemical driven muck.
These are the exact products humans need to be avoiding, partly because they are overprocessed and partly because bit by bit it’s handing food supply over to mega corporations to control, people will rue the day all food is controlled by them both in terms of quality, health and financially.

It would benefit society much more if pressure was applied to government to support more environmentally friendly farming methods, ban feedlots, encourage more extensive farming methods, which yes would increase meat prices but the current cost of meat to consumers does not reflect the true intrinsic value of the product.

Less meat consumption would likely follow, but not to be supplemented with ridiculous fake products, meals should be supplemented with more fresh fruit and vegetables, locally sourced and prepared from raw in people’s homes.

You missed the most important bit of this whole debate.

How are we going to get 200 beef animals onto a spaceship and fly to the other end of the galaxy??

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

You missed the most important bit of this whole debate.

How are we going to get 200 beef animals onto a spaceship and fly to the other end of the galaxy??

200 vegans would fit easier 😆

drunkmonkey

I'd agree on the lab grown meat it's not something I'd like to try. But I've no issue with something like yeast been modified to achieve the same ends. Soy, Sunflower oil again I've no problem with these foods. I use them already when cooking.
It's great to say locally produced but I know if I go across to the supermarket now my strawberries will be from Egypt, the Oranges from Spain, the onions from the Netherlands etc. Were gone past the point of no return.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Say my name wrote: »

You missed the most important bit of this whole debate.

How are we going to get 200 beef animals onto a spaceship and fly to the other end of the galaxy??

I'll vote for a ramp. The added bonus is it'll be there when the second ship is being loaded as well:pac: