Plant based burgers and lab grown meat

[pooley]

thanks for throwing that up there Uber, they do seem heavily processed jpaul , to be expected tbh..

 

[Psycho Sonny]

ha love this 'the ingredients are healthy in the plant based ones because you know they are plant based'
it's still gonna be processed garbage..

even those kebabs you linked with it's glyphosate enriched soya has rapeseed oil in them.

and your ordinary burgers don't have anything processed in them? also they stick rapeseed oil into everything these days it's impossible to avoid it.

 

[pooley]

and your ordinary burgers don't have anything processed in them? also they stick rapeseed oil into everything these days it's impossible to avoid it.

' your ordinary burgers ' what are you talking about?
you claim that these plant based burgers are healthy just because they contains plant matter like it makes it ok, in reality they are no healthier than the meat burgers..in fact probably less nutritious to boot.

 

[UberTiger]

Even with comparable nutrition, the carbon footprint to produce and distribute would be very interesting to see, once they scale up production.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

' your ordinary burgers ' what are you talking about?
you claim that these plant based burgers are healthy just because they contains plant matter like it makes it ok, in reality they are no healthier than the meat burgers..in fact probably less nutritious to boot.

i said they were healthier than those that weren't plant based as in quorn (100% processed) made in factories with no plants involved.

the people who are going to be eating these and the target market are vegetarians. so they wouldn't be eating meat burgers.

so yes they are healthier than what they had before as a meat substitute burger. obviously a bean burger with even less processing would be healthier.

 

[UberTiger]

the people who are going to be eating these and the target market are vegetarians. so they wouldn't be eating meat.

Not necessarily. I love meat, and will continue to eat it, but would happily eat more of these or switch to the burger form of this kind of meat if I knew it was better for the environment and not worse for me than a normal burger.

 

[jpaul]

FT's favourite Kenji didn't hold back
the link has gratuitous closeup pictures https://www.seriouseats.com/2016/10/beyond-burger-impossible-burger-vegan-taste-test.html

With both burgers, it's important to note that doneness seems to have a major effect on flavor, even more so than with real beef. I initially made the mistake of following the package instructions and cooking a Beyond Burger all the way to 165°F. The flavor and fat got cooked out of it, and I ended up with a veggie burger patty that tasted not much different from the dry, insipid vegetable protein–based patties that have been on the market for ages. Cooking to medium-rare, though, produced much better results. The same was true of the Impossible Burger.
...
There are no two ways about it: In its raw state, the Beyond Burger does not smell good. The phrase "smells like dog/cat food" is often thrown around, but in this case, it is literally true. Raw, the Beyond Burger smells like cat food.
..
Researchers at Impossible Foods discovered that by adding heme to their plant-based burgers, they could capture a lot of the aromas we associate with meat. They call it their "magic ingredient,"

I could not see if the rest of the weight, from the ingrediant post, is water, but, maybe meat is similar.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Not necessarily. I love meat, and will continue to eat it, but would happily eat more of these or switch to the burger form of this kind of meat if I knew it was better for the environment and not worse for me than a normal burger.

the target market of gucci belts isn't chavs but chavs do also buy gucci belts.

so yes the target market of these burgers is vegetarians. that doesn't mean non vegetarians can't or won't buy them.

i linked to the fake kebab which i buy regularly and i'm not vegetarian.

 

[pooley]

Not necessarily. I love meat, and will continue to eat it, but would happily eat more of these or switch to the burger form of this kind of meat if I knew it was better for the environment and not worse for me than a normal burger.

i agree, they are marketing to the masses to eat these..
but as to the environmental and health aspects are questionable!

 

[UberTiger]

the target market of gucci belts isn't chavs but chavs do also buy gucci belts.

so yes the target market of these burgers is vegetarians. that doesn't mean non vegetarians can't or won't buy them.

i linked to the fake kebab which i buy regularly and i'm not vegetarian.

lol, you calling me the chav of the burger world

There can be more than one target market, and the target market for these newer meat replacement/alternatives companies isn't just vegetarians.

You could actually argue that the primary market for some of these companies is people like me, they're trying to convert meat eaters. It's a much bigger potential market, at about 80% of the worlds population, vs 20% that are already vegetarian.

Impossible states their mission is to make an eco friendly meat replacement that meat lovers will also enjoy.

https://medium.com/impossible-foods/the-mission-that-motivates-us-d4d7de61665

https://impossiblefoods.com/mission

 

[D.P.]

I'm very suspicious of that figure. And I wonder if they're including milking cows. Theoretically cattle should be very efficient - just look at bison in America and wildebeest in Africa.

The figure is collaborated with numerous independent peer-reviewed scientific publications. If you doubt it you should present your own evidence. Estimates are between 55 and 70% of all crops grown are used purely to feed animals. IF humans ate the crops directly we could massively reduce the amount of farmland used, feed billions of people more and have a huge impact on global warming.

The wild grazers you speak of had natural population controls at far lower levels that maintained a natural sustainability. Modern intensive farming is not sustainable on the grasslands, hence it requires around two thirds of the entire global crop production just to feed the animals.

Wool, milk, leather, clothing.

As I said, the sheep aren't producing anything we need.

Yup, you try growing trees on the South Downs. Or Exmoor. Or other moorland.

Most of this is moorland because it is overgrazed. The natural treeline in Scotland away form the exposed coast is over 2500ft yet you will barely find a tree due to a combination of historic clearances and continued over-grazing, along with burning scrub for grouse shoots etc. A lot of the English Moorland would be naturally covered in trees given sufficient time, although it my take a 100 years to fully develop. The only issue on the English moors is the wind, but Forests provide their own natural wind shelter so over time can spread over windier areas. There isnlt a climatic issue preventing forests over most of Exmoor and Dartmoor for example, just thousands of years of clearing and sheep farming have decimated the natural coverage

 

[UberTiger]

Here's a summary of the report that was commisioned to get the figures in the stats image I posted above.

https://impossiblefoods.com/if-pr/LCA-Update-2019

Animal farming occupies about half of all vegetated land (at the expense of forests and grasslands that store carbon), uses about one third of all freshwater, contributes about one seventh of global GHGs and generates nutrient pollution2 (which creates enormous ‘dead zones’ in coastal ecosystems). In the US, beef provides just 3% of our calories but generates half of agricultural greenhouse gases and uses nearly half of the contiguous land area.1

To implement strategies needed to keep global warming below a 1.5 °C rise -- as adopted by the 2016 Paris Agreement -- we need truly sustainable options that can satisfy the growing consumer demand for meat and dairy.

Enter the Impossible Burger®, made from plants. The average American eats approximately three burgers worth of ground beef per week, equivalent to 50 billion burgers per year. The Impossible Burger was made for this market -- made with the same nutrition, flavor, aroma, and “beefiness” as meat from a cow, but made entirely from plants and with a vastly reduced environmental impact.

• Aquatic eutrophication potential decreases by more than 78% due to the avoided manure emissions from raising beef cattle, avoided fertilizer emissions during feed production, and a reduction in electricity consumption by avoiding slaughtering activities.
  
  
• Global warming potential decreases by more than 60%, primarily due to the avoided emissions associated with manure and enteric emissions generated over the course of raising cattle.
  
  
• Land occupation is reduced by more than 99%, by avoiding reliance on pasture for grazing (the majority of beef’s land footprint). Cropland demand is also reduced from 6.8 m2 per year to 2.4 m2 per year due to the elimination of agricultural products for beef cattle feed.
  
  
• Water consumption is reduced by more than 79% as a result of avoiding the irrigation used to cultivate feed crops for beef cattle.
  

 

[krooton]

I have cooked Beyond Burgers before, and they are perfectly passable, especially if you burger it kitted out, but they are crazy expensive, especially when I make my own smash burgers with just 20% fat mince, salt and pepper.

 

[Quartz]

Here's a summary of the report that was commisioned to get the figures in the stats image I posted above.

And have you actually looked at some of those 'vegetated lands'? You know, like the Australian Outback? Or American ranch-lands? The Arctic? The amount of vegetation is often very low and you cannot grow human-edible crops there. And livestock are very efficient at converting what vegetation there is into human-edible meat. And how about places like floodplains? Follow the money: arable crops are usually much more profitable than animals (see page 2). If a farmer can make more money by changing what they farm then they will. So if they can't make more money by switching to arable farming then it's for very good reasons.

 

[jpaul]

due-diligence full paper : http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf

Foods also provide additional non-nutritional 10 functions including pleasure, emotional and psychological value, and cultural identity. While important, these additional functions are equally challenging to quantify. In the case of the Beyond Burger, as its flavor and texture profiles are designed to mimic beef, it is reasonable to assume qualitatively that the two products provide similar non-nutritional functions
...
...
Cellulose from Bamboo Bamboo plantation LCI data from (Wang et al., 2014) (no processing included due to lack of information on extraction and processing)
..
Refined Coconut Oil [Agrifootprint] Refined coconut oil, at plant/ID Mass, (Indonesia production) with transport to BB processing facility via ocean freight (22224 km) (port of entry: New York or Boston) and truck (4835 km)

but moreover, saw this on vegan site https://veganoutreach.org/environment/

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (2018) compared the land use of each individual animal-based food item in the US food system with that of a nutritionally comparable plant-based alternative. They found that replacing all animal-based products could sustain 350 million additional people. They also found that an area of land that could produce 100 grams of edible protein from plants could only produce 60 grams of edible protein from eggs, 50 grams of protein from chickens, 25 grams of protein from dairy, 10 grams of protein from pigs, and just 4 grams of protein from beef.

which re-enforces earlier comment that beef is particularly 'bad' ... beef flavoured chicken ?

 

[D.P.]

FT's favourite Kenji didn't hold back
the link has gratuitous closeup pictures https://www.seriouseats.com/2016/10/beyond-burger-impossible-burger-vegan-taste-test.html



I could not see if the rest of the weight, from the ingrediant post, is water, but, maybe meat is similar.

Meat is mostly water.

Nutritionally, the impose burger is healthier than a meat based burger, but that isn't really the aim. The goal is to remove animal suffering, greatly reduce environmental impact and produce a patty that is at least comparable to a moderately good beef burger. In this it has succeeded. If one was purely concerned about health then a homemade bean burger served with a salad would win


It is also early days. There are now several of these plant based burgers with several new comers including the big players like Nestle, so people have a choice if they find some have slightly better textures or tastes. The recipes also seem to be evolving. Impossible burger is on to the second recipe that most people agree is a good step closer to being that double-blind can't tell the difference category.

 

[D.P.]

And have you actually looked at some of those 'vegetated lands'? You know, like the Australian Outback? Or American ranch-lands? The Arctic? The amount of vegetation is often very low and you cannot grow human-edible crops there. And livestock are very efficient at converting what vegetation there is into human-edible meat. And how about places like floodplains? Follow the money: arable crops are usually much more profitable than animals (see page 2). If a farmer can make more money by changing what they farm then they will. So if they can't make more money by switching to arable farming then it's for very good reasons.

You continually miss the point that there simply isn't the need to raise animals on these lands that can;t support crops. The animals generate additional protein, only by consuming huge amounts of resources that could be used for crops which produce a greater amount of protein.

If we removed all the animals from these non-arable lands and simply used the crops produced to feed humans we would massively increase the amount of protein available for humans to consume.

As JPaul's link above shows, if the US went entirely vegan then they could feed an extra 350million people. Having cows raised on ranches in semi-arid tracks of land in the mid-west where no human crop can grow on;y ends up reducing the amount of protein available for humans to consume and it does so by producing massively more pollution and consuming vast quantities of water.

 

[Quartz]

You continually miss the point that there simply isn't the need to raise animals on these lands that can;t support crops. The animals generate additional protein, only by consuming huge amounts of resources that could be used for crops which produce a greater amount of protein.

Huh? You're contradicting yourself. The land can't be used for crops so to put it to productive use, it's used to raise livestock. Let me repeat that: the land can't be used for arable crops.

 

[pooley]

You continually miss the point that there simply isn't the need to raise animals on these lands that can;t support crops. The animals generate additional protein, only by consuming huge amounts of resources that could be used for crops which produce a greater amount of protein.

If we removed all the animals from these non-arable lands and simply used the crops produced to feed humans we would massively increase the amount of protein available for humans to consume.

As JPaul's link above shows, if the US went entirely vegan then they could feed an extra 350million people. Having cows raised on ranches in semi-arid tracks of land in the mid-west where no human crop can grow on;y ends up reducing the amount of protein available for humans to consume and it does so by producing massively more pollution and consuming vast quantities of water.

this is based a fallacy that we a herbivores which we are not...

 

[D.P.]

Huh? You're contradicting yourself. The land can't be used for crops so to put it to productive use, it's used to raise livestock. Let me repeat that: the land can't be used for arable crops.

No, you continuously fail to understand. The land can't be used for crops, but the land doesn't support animals either. The animals have to be supported with additional food stuffs that comes from arable land that could be used to produce protein for humans.

In theory we could raise millions of cows on the moon. the moon can;t be used to grow crops, but we could put cows up there (with special space suits) and send up food and water taken from arable land. Sure, the moon now produces animal protein where previously it couldn't grow crops, but protein isn;t actually being generated form nothing. Thee is a highly inefficient conversion form plant protein to animal protein. As the link above shows, the area of land used to produce 100grams of plant protein only produced 4 grams of beef burgers and steaks.

If you don't waste the land and resources growing crops only to feed animals then we can feed several times the current human population with much lower environmental impact.