[HN Gopher] Lab-grown meat may never be cost-competitive enough ... ___________________________________________________________________ Lab-grown meat may never be cost-competitive enough to displace traditional meat Author : coldturkey Score : 132 points Date : 2021-09-22 20:24 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (thecounter.org) (TXT) w3m dump (thecounter.org) | oehtXRwMkIs wrote: | The fact that the CE Delft report used some random cheap | fertilizer off of Alibaba as their price estimate for | macronutrient feed is a really bad look. Makes me think there's a | lot of borderline fraudulent overhyping going on to attract money | and investment. | trompetenaccoun wrote: | There is, very obviously. They're exploiting the fact that most | people are lazy and dumb. " _You don 't need to look into the | details. You don't need to give up eating meat when lab-grown | is just around the corner. Invest in the future!_" While in | reality cutting down on meat consumption or even going | vegetarian/vegan would be the better option. Plant based meat- | replacement products are another promising option. | | There are so many examples of such hype. Take the recent | peddling of psychedelic drugs as a treatment for everything. | Companies collect a lot of cash with the investment hype | forming around this. But of course all your mental health | problems don't magically disappear with DMT. It's this | exploitative society and our lifestyles that make more and more | people sick. It's ultimate the same Peter Thiels who also sell | you the cure that are part of the problem in the first place. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | > "And yet, at a projected cost of $450 million, GFI's facility | ..." | | > " cultured protein is going to be even 10 percent of the | world's meat supply by 2030, we will need 4,000 factories like | the one GFI envisions ..." | | > "Each of those facilities would also come with a heart-stopping | price tag: a minimum of $1.8 trillion ..." | | The last sentence is clearly a mistake -- the 4,000 factories in | total would cost $1.8 trillion. Thus replacing all meat with | those would cost $18 trillion -- less than 20% of the world's | GDP. So clearly feasible, but still not realistic. | lapetitejort wrote: | I'm patiently waiting for the west to realize that insects are | the future of protein. I will gladly munch down a handful of | crickets, even before they're prepared to look appetizing. | "Beyond" and "Impossible" meats, lab grown meats, and black bean | patties are neat projects, but not the future. And movies like | Snowpiercer that shows the _horror_ of flavorful, nutritious, and | sustainable bars of crickets (edit: cockroaches) really aren 't | helping. | deworms wrote: | Ok, you eat bugs, I will stay with grass-fed beef like normal | people. Meat is not a "problem" and it doesn't need "solving", | and I will not eat insects, that's absolutely disgusting. | boston_clone wrote: | A dead carcass / decaying flesh is "normal" but bugs are | where you draw a line? That's kind of interesting, and almost | certainly cultural rather than logical. | deworms wrote: | We're not automatons that you can throw any random mix of | protein and carbohydrates into as fuel, and food choices | are not "logical". Being forced to eat insects like an | animal is humiliating and disgusting. Regular meat is | delicious. Most people will never consider eating bugs, | they're synonymous with disease, filth, and poverty. | boston_clone wrote: | Please don't straw-man here; I never said you can throw a | random mix of protein and carbs together as fuel. A | plant-based diet is recognized by dieticians around the | world as suitable for virtually all stages of life | | Meat _is_ a problem, too - for your health and for the | environment - not to mention the animals themselves. | | edited to remove fluffff | deworms wrote: | Meat is more nutritious and more tasty, and it's great to | eat either seasoned and not. What is definitely not | beneficial for health is a heavily processed and salted | mush of plant based meat facsimile, or whatever | frankenmeat they're trying to conjure in those labs. It's | also another step towards you being more heavily | dependent on enormous multinational industries. | boston_clone wrote: | Meat is still a problem, for all the areas I've listed | above. If you're willing to neglect that reality for | something tasting good, you're absolutely right that food | choices aren't logical (at least in your personal case). | | You're also welcome to provide evidence that something | like Beyond beef is less healthy than it's flesh | counterpart. With zero cholesterol in any plant-based | product, though, I have a feeling you're going to | encounter some difficulty. | yongjik wrote: | Americans used to consider lobsters disgusting: they look | like sea cockroaches after all. Yet look at where they | are now. | robbedpeter wrote: | A steak or chicken breast or pork chop is a fundamentally | different thing than anything you can get from bugs. | Culturally they might be interchangeable sources of | protein, but you can't get a steak from crickets or grubs. | | Like it or not, steak is normal, and good eats to a | majority of the west. | drooby wrote: | How much more efficient is it though than the current system | with livestock? This process is still growing plants to feed | animals to feed humans. | NickM wrote: | Look at how hard vegetarians and vegans have worked for decades | and decades to try to convince people to replace foods they | like with other types of food that they _already eat_ but just | _don 't like as much_. The amount of success they've had is | small, and the amount of backlash high. | | With insects you're trying to convince people to replace foods | they like with foods they literally find _disgusting_ and have | never eaten in their lives. Yes I 'm sure it makes sense on | paper, but I think you're drastically underestimating the | cultural barriers on this one. | irrational wrote: | I'm not sure anything would help. Though, I find hot dogs to be | disgusting, so I'm probably not a great candidate for cricket | dogs. | amenghra wrote: | Cricket can be turned into powder which then becomes flour | for baking protein-rich goods. Doesn't have to look like a | hot dog. | deworms wrote: | You can turn lots of things into a powder that contains | protein, that doesn't mean they should be eaten. Would you | try baking "protein-rich goods" with dried semen? | drooby wrote: | hmm, this sounds like this could create a lot of jobs | though. | heavyset_go wrote: | I'm waiting for the same thing, but with fungi. Mycelia alone | are protein rich and love to literally grow in giant vats. | Culturing fungi is well understood and massively scalable | compared to culturing animal cells. | boston_clone wrote: | A company already exists that uses this technology; see here | for more: https://www.quorn.us/mycoprotein | heavyset_go wrote: | As far as I know, they're one of the only companies doing | this and their strain of fungi is their IP. I'd like to see | this catch on at a larger scale. | soldehierro wrote: | I don't understand why people are looking to insects over | legumes for protein. Legumes are widely cultivated and socially | and culturally acceptable. Protein is pretty much a solved | problem. | barbazoo wrote: | Agree, and I don't understand any of this lab-grown meat hype | when there are so many plant based alternatives. It doesn't | seem that lab grown meat will be cheaper or have a better | carbon footprint than plant based foods. | Hammershaft wrote: | iirc legume protein is significantly lower quality then meat | protein? | sithadmin wrote: | I'm having difficulty discerning what your position on the | social/culture barrier is. | | Is it that the West has failed to realize a future in insect- | consumption that other regions/cultures already have? Or that | this future won't be realized unless the West in particular | embraces consumption of insects? | deworms wrote: | Insects are only eaten by people who are so extremely | impoverished that's their only alternative, sort of like | Haitian mud cakes. Nobody sane will willingly touch them. | tkzed49 wrote: | Is there an advantage of insects as a protein source over | plants or fungi? What makes you dismiss the plant-based | Beyond/Impossible meats? | lapetitejort wrote: | I'm struggling to find a real source, however glancing at | nutritional facts of cricket powder, it appears that protein | makes up 3/5ths of its mass, versus 1/4th for black beans. | tkzed49 wrote: | I think you'd have to factor in the resource input required | to create that mass of crickets vs beans/pulses/etc. I | realize crickets are pretty efficient but they could end up | being very similar. I also don't have good sources for | this. | wodenokoto wrote: | Have you seen the kilo prices of editable insects? I can by a | pack of crickets for 20 dollars for 26 grams at a domestic | online store. There are 453 grams in a pound! | | A cheaper option is buffalo worm flour at just over 100 dollars | per kilo. | | "Beyond" and "Impossible" meats have already undercut insect | prices tremendously on super market shelves. | skybrian wrote: | Note that the article is about bioreactor-grown meat, not plant- | based meat like Beyond, Impossible, and so on. | deworms wrote: | Note how they never tell you what plant it's based on, exactly. | It's a mush of enzyme-treated mixed plant refuse. | skybrian wrote: | Source? | jelliclesfarm wrote: | Ag is subsidized to the hilt. That's why food is so cheap. That | and borderline wages for labour. | | We only subsidize commodity ag that is publicly listed in | financial markets. | | This is also the reason why food growing(non commodity market) | farms don't get sufficient investment or experience the benefits | of cutting edge tech. Investors can see returns on already | optimized markets because there is room to introduce new services | and products..that is enhanced by AI and subsequently data | collection on steroids. | | None of this is going to end well. Hubris. We need to consume | less meat, automate Ag and focus on plant based nutrition(not | fake meat altho cell based vat created meat has its place). | oxfordmale wrote: | I remember similar stories about solar panels and wind energy | decades ago, and they are definitely viable now. The lab grown | meat industry will either have to wait for a break through or for | meat prices to sky rocket. Both are probable in the next few | decades. | woeirua wrote: | There's a difference between the natural progression of | technology, manufacturing capability, and economic and | efficiency improvements brought about by large scale | manufacturing. The path to cheap solar panels was relatively | straightforward 10 years ago. The argument this paper makes | (convincingly IMO) that the path to these efficiency | improvements for cultured meat are still TBD. | rini17 wrote: | The point here is that investors are promised not "probable | breakthrough in next few decades" but "in 2030s we'll feed the | world". | exdsq wrote: | So what? Meat is too cheap anyway - it's subsidized beyond reason | and healthcare costs are crazy. Give it time and there's a non- | zero chance we won't have an economy to care about due to climate | change. This is a good step even if it's 'costly'. | deworms wrote: | We've been hearing that line for the last 50 years. Bacon and | eggs cause/cure cancer depending on the week of the year. Meat | remains one of the healthiest and most nutritious things you | can eat, the problem is a wild west of cancerous additives and | unrestrained processed foods in countries like USA. | kdamica wrote: | This is the exact argument people made against solar power 20 | years ago. They were wrong. Technology costs are very hard to | predict. | OrvalWintermute wrote: | I imagine insect "meat" would be far cheaper than this. | | Now, I don't know how people feel about eating Charlotte & Hopper | over Elsie & Foghorn Leghorn - probably wouldn't be too bad with | the right _sauce_ | jrochkind1 wrote: | I mean, beyond/impossible already are a pretty good simulacrum | of _some_ kinds of meat. If what you 're trying to do is | simulate meat, I don't think you're going to do better wth | insects. If what you're trying to do is just have good protein, | we already have tons of options, starting at beans. But sure, | insects is another. (I ate a bunch of Brood X cicadas this | summer, they were tasty. They did not make me think they were | beef or chicken). | | I think the idea of lab-grown meat in the OP is supposed to be | a much _better_ simulation (I mean, arguably not a simulation | at all) than impossible /beyond, and be able to simulate whole | pieces like a steak or piece of chicken not just ground meat. | | But yeah, that's a question I have, with plant-based meat like | beyond/impossible already being way better than I would have | predicted a few years ago... what's the point of spending so | much money on the "moon shot" of vat-grown meat, instead of | just doing more with the plant-based approach that's already | working well? | lapetitejort wrote: | Needing to fake meat mouthfeels will hopefully be a short | trend. Beyond/impossible requires so much processing to | produce a patty (and in the process, potentially losing | nutrition), versus mashing beans or grinding insects. | jrochkind1 wrote: | Right, and vat-grown meat will require even more resources, | as per OP, if it were even possible. | | If people were or could become happy with beans or even | ground insects, there would be no purpose to it at all. But | when we have plant-baset meat simulation already, there | already is no purpose to it. | deworms wrote: | Beyond/impossible "meat" are a mess of extremely heavily | processed ingredients infused with a mix of low quality | enzyme-treated plant protein broth. Doesn't sound like | anything anyone sane would want to touch, but then again | most people don't read labels on food, and in some | countries (USA) most of the disturbing details (such as | inclusion of GMO) are legally allowed to be hidden from the | consumers. There's no shortage of reports of these things | stinking, bubbling, falling apart, dissolving, and behaving | in many other unappetizing ways. Most people will stick to | regular meat, which is healthy and delicious. | howderek wrote: | Future Meat Technology can already produce cultured meat at | roughly the prices quoted in the article ($4/100g, which would be | $18.14/lb). It seems unrealistic that the industry would have | already reached its lowest price point considering large scale | facilities are just now being made. | sinemetu11 wrote: | Plenty of brown rice, soy, nuts, beans etc for people to stop | eating meat altogether if they actually needed more protein (they | probably don't). -\\_(tsu)_/- | | Maybe we should direct funds towards advertising meat-free and | the benefits of not consuming carcinogenic meat instead of all of | this meat replacement. [1] | | [1] | https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo... | bserge wrote: | Take a lesson from "AI" companies and "communism" - Have the pigs | be in a coma for their whole lives or something and call it lab | grown. | SimeVidas wrote: | We could tax cow farts. | deworms wrote: | Funny how every solution to "global warming" is more taxes, | isn't it? | Hammershaft wrote: | Not true, only the most efficient and market driven solutions | are based around pigeovian taxes. Plenty of inferior | solutions involve onerous regulations or huge subsidies, but | because republicans pop a new blood vessel whenever they hear | about climate taxes the inferior solutions are the only ones | that are politically palatable right now. | deworms wrote: | Most of the world doesn't have "republicans", we just don't | want to pay an ever increasing amount of taxes on | everything that will be wasted by corrupt politicians. The | government can absorb any amount of taxes and very little | of it is spent in a way that I approve of. We already have | to give over 65% of what we make to the government, I want | nothing more than to be left alone. | Forbo wrote: | Sounds like you need better representation in your | government. | Hammershaft wrote: | carbon taxes under most systems are revenue neutral. Here | in Canada, most people recieve more back then they payed | in, because the highest income brackets emit | disproportionately. | deworms wrote: | All taxes come with an overhead required to process them. | I oppose all such arbitrary wealth redistribution as | unjust in principle. | lnxg33k1 wrote: | Ive seen gaming companies missing deadlines over and over and | they didn't even have to invent the computers they had to run on | sbierwagen wrote: | Technical minded people might want to skip the popular article | and go straight to the Open Philanthropy analysis: | https://engrxiv.org/795su | | The punchline: muscle cells are much more fragile than yeast, | don't grow as fast, and need more expensive feedstocks. The | bioreactors have to be smaller and run much longer, making them | vulnerable to bacterial contamination. You'll never get to the | price of commercially produced bulk yeast, because muscle isn't | yeast. | | You could imagine tweaking the temp range and growth rate with | genetic engineering or adding in an immune system. But now you're | talking about decades of investment, not years. | Aloha wrote: | We should eat less meat, not none, just.. less. | | Like, anyone who tells you "everyone must be a vegetarian" is in | my opinion, a fool. | | Meat should cost a bit more, and we should feed our meet sources | as naturally as possible, cows from grass, pigs from offal (and | other sources, pigs will eat anything), and end factory farming | of poultry - quite arguably poultry should cost 2-3x more. | | Similarly, if folks want to lose weight, the best answer is just | to eat _less_ , and I say this as a fat person. | cs702 wrote: | As a big fan of the idea of manufacturing meat in an | environmentally sustainable way (and without having to resort to | raising and killing animals), reading this article felt as if | someone was throwning a bucket's worth of ice-cold water on my | face. | | According to the article, the barriers to cost-efficient | manufacturing of lab-grown meat at large scale are _fundamental_ | , e.g., impossible to overcome according to the Laws of | Thermodynamics and our current understanding of cell biology and | chemistry. | | Quoting from the OP: | | > David Humbird, the UC Berkeley-trained chemical engineer who | spent over two years researching the report, found that the cell- | culture process will be plagued by extreme, intractable technical | challenges at food scale. In an extensive series of interviews | with The Counter, he said it was "hard to find an angle that | wasn't a ludicrous dead end." | | > Humbird likened the process of researching the report to | encountering an impenetrable "Wall of No"--his term for the | barriers in _thermodynamics, cell metabolism, bioreactor design, | ingredient costs, facility construction, and other factors that | will need to be overcome before cultivated protein can be | produced cheaply enough to displace traditional meat_. | | Is there anyone on HN with deep expertise in this area who can | comment on this article's scientific accuracy? | cameronh90 wrote: | I have no experience in the area, but just to point out that | you could equally apply some of those arguments to meat | production. | | The current meat industry is only cost effective because we've | spent the last few millennia optimising the everloving hell out | of it - and its scale is just as unfathomable. A significant | proportion of the Earth's land surface is currently dedicated | to either growing animals or growing animal feed. | | So of course, for an alternative to displace it, it would also | have to work at unfathomable scales too. | | And bearing in mind, the technology to grow meat is essentially | an exercise in recreating eons of evolution in a factory. It's | an enormous challenge, but that alone doesn't mean it's | impossible. Current meat production is also incredibly | inefficient from a thermodynamic perspective. | | I have no idea whether lab meat will ever come to pass. I | suspect it will eventually, but probably take longer than | expected. | elliekelly wrote: | Optimizing _and_ subsidizing. And that's to say nothing of | the cost of the negative externalities. | philwelch wrote: | I like to joke sometimes that we already have a technology to | transform indigestible biomass into meat: livestock. | | > A significant proportion of the Earth's land surface is | currently dedicated to either growing animals or growing | animal feed. | | Almost the entire land surface of the earth, as well as | almost all of the water, ultimately provides nutrients to | carnivores. Sometimes the carnivores are fish, dolphins, | tigers, or bears. Sometimes we are the carnivores. | | You could argue that agriculture and livestock domestication | are a huge difference, but that only becomes a concern at a | certain scale and a certain level of industrialization. Well | into the 19th century, large parts of North America were | primarily populated by nomadic hunter-gatherers who mostly | subsisted off of wild bison. | | There is a part of me that finds the notion of lab-grown meat | somewhat revolting in this context. Not only did the white | man massacre the bison and transform their habitat into | cattle ranches, but now even the cattle ranch is not | industrial enough for him. | FredPret wrote: | The _white man_!? There is a global question of high meat | consumption. | nitrogen wrote: | _A significant proportion of the Earth 's land surface is | currently dedicated to either growing animals or growing | animal feed._ | | If those stats include wild areas double-used as grazing | land, then "dedicated" is too strong of a word. | missedthecue wrote: | _" A significant proportion of the Earth's land surface is | currently dedicated to either growing animals or growing | animal feed."_ | | It's important to note that almost all of the land that | cattle are raised on is unsuitable for any other purpose. | They aren't grazing cattle in Manhattan, it's in places like | rural Australia or Texas where there is no infrastructure, no | arable land, and no human population that is competing with | the cattle population for resources. | cameronh90 wrote: | I was pointing it out purely as a reference to the utterly | enormous scale of the industry. | boston_clone wrote: | That's only a portion of it, though. That area could be | used for something other than agriculture, and a | significant portion of arable land is used for growing | crops that go exclusively toward animals that are later | slaughtered, e.g. soybeans. | | Moving away from meat is the right way forward - ethically, | ecologically, and economically. | Broken_Hippo wrote: | Realistically, though, it isn't used for other things. | Lack of infrastructure is a decent barrier for many | things. | | Not that I disagree with the last bit - I'm mostly | vegetarian save for an occasional fish dish. | munk-a wrote: | If not used by cattle ranching it would be used as a | natural preserve - there are huge chunks of the country | that aren't fit even for ranching and in those chunks of | the country you'll see... nothing. Except a biome that's | doing its thing without human intervention. If this land | is good for nothing but cattle rearing and we stop cattle | rearing then we can return big chunks of it to nature. | novok wrote: | You can do cattle ranching in a regenerative way that | would be better than doing nothing and making a place a | national park. [0] Are there problems with current | chicken, pig and some ruminant ranching? Yes. Does it | have to be done this way? No. Are there major | environmental issues also with monoculture plant farming | that nobody seems to bring up? Yes. | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=1s | | Getting rid of ruminant cattle farming will just make the | world worse off as food demand gets redirected to a | smaller amount of arable land and missing cattle would | accelerate climate change and desertification. Humanity | does not have a lack of land to live on, there is plenty | to go around. City land is expensive because everyone | wants to be on small space. | philwelch wrote: | A lot of the land used in the US for raising cattle was | previously the habitat of wild bison, who were themselves | the primary food source of the indigenous people who | lived on that land. Cattle ranching in the American Great | Plains is just a domesticated and industrialized version | of what the Great Plains have been doing all along. | quickthrowman wrote: | > That's only a portion of it, though. That area could be | used for something other than agriculture, | | Like what? What do you propose as a better use of the | high plains? (Let's define this as land west of 100 | degree W to Rocky Mountains) There are no natural | resources, no large cities, lack of infrastructure, etc. | Other than wind farms, what can you do with grasslands | that receive less than 10" of rain a year that sits on | top of a rapidly depleting aquifer? | jonas21 wrote: | Yeah, maybe land wasn't the best thing to call out as it's | not particularly scarce in the US. Water, on the other | hand... | | California uses more water to grow animal feed (Alfalfa + | irrigated pasture) than it does for all residential and | commercial uses combined. | nightcracker wrote: | Here in the Netherlands it's the exact opposite. We have | infinite water, just not a lot of space. | moffkalast wrote: | Manatee farms when? | nicoburns wrote: | > It's important to note that almost all of the land that | cattle are raised on is unsuitable for any other purpose | | I'm not so sure about that. Brazil is the second largest | producer of beef, and there have been huge outcries because | large swathes of the Amazon are being cut down to | facilitate beef production (as well as crops such as soya - | which I should note is mostly used as animal feed - and | palm oil). | | Apparently the soil does soon become unsuitable for even | raising cattle, so it does become land unsuitable for other | purposes. But it certainly didn't start out that way. | ghayes wrote: | I'm a little confused; why is rural Texas less able to | support human life than Manhattan? Other than the | infrastructure that was built by humans, I assume the | primary advantage of Manhattan is protection from human | invasion and easily accessible water? | [deleted] | [deleted] | missedthecue wrote: | If a cattle farm isn't built in Manhattan, a thousand | other people will be lining up to turn it into office, | residential, or retail space. | | If a cattle farm isn't built in Erath County Texas, that | land is going to sit there doing nothing. It has no other | productive use case. | | The point of this is that pointing out how much land beef | production uses isn't as insightful as it may at first | seem, because that land isn't being taken from another | economic activity. | mc32 wrote: | Some of that land historically was inhabited by relatives | of current herbivores (bisons) so some of the land is | feeding herbivores as it did historically. | | Now, there are places where forest was cut down for | grazing. Thats true. We also have experience where leaving | the land alone a few decades reverts it back to forest | (this is seen in forests in the eastern US which were once | grazing lands for domesticated herbivores and now are back | to being mature forests. | je_bailey wrote: | I think the thing to keep in mind is that this is very specific | to the concept of growing meat using a cellular culture. This | in no way invalidates other methods of replicating meat. | fabian2k wrote: | If you use current technology for growing cells I can easily | believe that it will never be competitive. Even with economies | of scale that is rather sensitive work that is very easily | spoiled. Unless you figure out how to ensure clean-room | conditions for low cost this part alone might make this too | expensive. | | But I don't see how there could be any kind of insurmountable | problem here. Animals "solve" this problem for us right now, so | there is a way. I just think that the solution has to be quite | different than how we grow cell cultures in the lab right now. | | Short term I'd be really skeptical on the prospects of | replacing meat in this way. But long term is an entirely | different question. | lazerpants wrote: | It's like looking at the Wright Flyer and saying that it is | neat proof of concept, but that affordable transatlantic | flight will simply never be possible. Prescient at that point | in history, but myopic over a long enough time frame. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I'm surprised it was downvoted. It was a good point. Those | of us in the computer industry can well remember when "640K | should be enough for anyone." | | We _literally_ cannot imagine what the future will bring. I | 'm still waiting on my flying atomicar. | | I think it will end up being necessary to make food this | way, and that we'll figure out how to do it (Soylent Green, | anyone?). | White_Wolf wrote: | I do have times when I look at my phone and think about | the first "computer" I touched. I'm still amazed | sometimes of how tech changed since I was 6-7 years | old(talking almost 40 years) | | I'm no fan of lab growing anything because or banning | people from raising animals or having food plots because | those that make the food make the rules. That being | said... I wouldn't be suprised to see, in 2-3 decades, | something taking off in that regard. All it takes is one | stroke of genius and a ton of elbow grease to change it | all. | michaelrpeskin wrote: | I've been on the other side of this - going more toward | regenerative ranching as the other way away from the industrial | food supply. I can't really beat Diana Rogers on explaining | this, so I'll just point you here. | | https://sustainabledish.com/fake-burgers-make-no-sense/ | | Also - before folks say that we couldn't feed everyone that | way, I always like to point out that before the Europeans | decimated the American bison, there were more head of bison | roaming the west than there are head of cattle today. Just | turning our monocrop soy and corn farms in the midwest back to | prairie (by actually doing nothing to the land - just leave it | alone), we could have regenerative ranching and cows and more | food for less energy input than we do today. | mikeg8 wrote: | You are right on the money here and I wish more people | understood that there is a sustainable path forward using | animals as part of the carbon capture solution. When you say | you are on the other side do you mean actively working on | ranching? It's something I'm very interested in myself. | Falling3 wrote: | >I always like to point out that before the Europeans | decimated the American bison, there were more head of bison | roaming the west than there are head of cattle today. | | I don't think that's true. Most estimates of the peak Bison | population I've seen put them at about 30 million. Some | estimates are as high as 60 million. Today, we have about 94 | million head of cattle down from a peak of 104. | | Additionally, your linked article is incredibly unconvincing. | It's riddled with Appeals to Nature and attempts to use a | single instance of questionable behavior by a single company | to poison the well for all alternatives to raising animals | for slaughter. | resonantjacket5 wrote: | > Nothing on this scale has ever existed--though if we wanted | to switch to cultivated meat by 2030, we'd better start now. If | cultured protein is going to be even 10 percent of the world's | meat supply by 2030, we will need 4,000 factories like the one | GFI envisions, according to an analysis by the trade | publication Food Navigator. To meet that deadline, building at | a rate of one mega-facility a day would be too slow. | | Optimistically it seems even according to this article that | most of barriers for affordable cultivated protein are with | high capital costs and once the factories are built, you can | eventually amortize a lot of the costs aka how solar/electric | cars did so. Also they are aiming for a self-imposed 2030 | deadline, sure it might take until 2040/2050 but nothing the | article says it won't eventually be built. (Unlike say the | water/housing/ education/healthcare crises with bottlenecks of | land/regulations/labor) | sinemetu11 wrote: | > If cultured protein is going to be even 10 percent of the | world's meat supply by 2030 | | Why do we need protein from meat? The money to engineer | cultivated protein could be directed to educating simple | americans on the fact that they're consuming way too much | protein already. Most americans consume twice the daily | protein they need.[1][2] | | [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much- | protein... | | [2]https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do- | you-... | 908B64B197 wrote: | Discussing computing pre-transistor must have been pretty | similar. | ElijahLynn wrote: | It is hard for me to fully buy into this too. I feel like the | same was said for electric cars... | woeirua wrote: | And it was true, until cheap LI ion batteries became | commercially available because they have the required power | density to make it viable. From there it was just a matter of | the economies of scale. | void_mint wrote: | It's the treadmill of solving previously thought to be | unsolvable problems. Each step is going to be more "See it's | impossible", until it's not. | tobiasSoftware wrote: | "According to the article, the barriers to cost-efficient | manufacturing of lab-grown meat at large scale are fundamental, | e.g., impossible to overcome according to the Laws of | Thermodynamics and our current understanding of cell biology | and chemistry." | | I came away with the opposite understanding. I don't understand | why lower cost lab grown meat would be _fundamentally_ | impossible. At its theoretical best, lab grown meat takes the | existing non-lab grown situation and improves on it in two very | important ways - no energy wasted growing non-meat, and | vertical farming would allow for less land to be required. | Rather, the issues I saw that the article talks about, such as | issues maintaining sterile environments, aren 't things that | are theoretical limits, but are practical problems that might | or might not have an eventual answer. | mchusma wrote: | I think this article is more clickbaity than it should be. From | a physics perspective, of course you should be able to grow | meat, because we do it now with a bunch of other unnecessary | things like thoughts, nerves, behaviors, etc. There is no | reason in principle that it cannot be done. | | But it's a lot of work, which everyone agrees. | | I personally think a blend of lab grown and veggie | (Impossible/Beyond) will be the first "killer app": tastes | better and costs less than traditional meat for most | applications. | | IMO impossible is close now for some cases, cost is probably | the main issue with some extra flavor that I think may need to | be synthesized. | [deleted] | jjoonathan wrote: | All advanced technology looks like a "wall of no" until someone | finds a path through. Or doesn't. The only way to know is to | throw dollars and smart people at it until one's appetite for | risk is spent, or one hits it big. | mixmastamyk wrote: | Exactly. Putting folks on Mars is very difficult too, yet | we're still working on it. | issa wrote: | I went vegan decades ago and these sorts of discussions always | crack me up. I understand that for a lot of people (myself | included at one time) giving up meat sounds absolutely impossible | to imagine. But in reality, it is very simple. These days there | are so many readily available plant-based products. There isn't | really a NEED for lab-grown meat except in the sense that people | think they need to eat meat. It might be a better plan to spend | hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to deprogram | people from that way of thinking. | caturopath wrote: | I really doubt that is an effective way to spend the money, it | might not be hard to go veg(an), but so far it's really hard to | get people to go veg(an). | | Occasionally I hear animal welfare researchers and activists on | the 80,000 Hours podcast report their actual modeling and | computation where they seem consistently to come to the | conclusion that changing minds is not an effective use of money | and effort at the margin. | a5aAqU wrote: | There is a better solution to the problem: edible insects. | | The first reaction most people have is that the public in | developed countries wouldn't eat insects, but people once thought | lobsters were gross. Changing people's tastes is not as large of | a barrier as most people think. | | If society is going to spend lot of money to spend on the | problem, we should start investing it in the cultural shift to | eating insects and see how far it can be taken via "influencer" | and celebrity culture. It's a much easier problem than the | alternatives. | | https://theconversation.com/eating-insects-good-for-you-good... | | https://theconversation.com/eating-insects-has-long-made-sen... | | Before you downvote, look at the projected market size, even | without an intentional cultural shift: | | https://fortune.com/2019/06/28/edible-insects/ | airstrike wrote: | I don't know about you, but I find lobsters much meatier than | grasshoppers... | a5aAqU wrote: | Many great ideas sound ridiculous at first. That's why most | people don't build new things. Convincing people that insects | are a good food source is far less of a challenge than what | many successful companies have done (or hope to do). | oxfordmale wrote: | I have tried eating insects.The taste is fine, but I don't like | the crunchiness of it. On the other hand I did try meat | substitute and they are much more palatable | a5aAqU wrote: | It will take time for people to get used to it. You don't | necessarily eat something like a "bowl of crickets", but you | can grind them up and add to dishes, like protein smoothies. | deworms wrote: | Ok, billionaires and politicians first. | a5aAqU wrote: | "Influencers" and billionaries will probably happen before | the rest of the public does. | | Billionaires should get on board before someone else does. | | > By 2030, the global industry for edible insects, sold whole | or in a smoothie-ready powder, will grow from sales of $1 | billion to $8 billion, according to a report from Barclays | and Meticulous Research. | | https://fortune.com/2019/06/28/edible-insects/ | deworms wrote: | According to those who have invested in the nightmareish | companies who produce these abominations, their investments | will skyrocket soon. | a5aAqU wrote: | The global food market is worth trillions of dollars. | People in many countries eat insects. It doesn't have to | start with people in the US who have never really given | serious consideration to it. | | I've traveled a lot and seen how people's perceptions of | foods change when they are exposed to new things. I don't | think edible insects is a huge stretch if it were done in | the right way. | goldenshale wrote: | Wait, so you mean if you take linear projections of today's | outputs and costs and extrapolate into the future it seems | impossible? No shit. This is basically the case with every | interesting technology project. There will no doubt have to be | innovations in the approach, the equipment, etc. But in reality | all we are talking about is mixing fluids and maintaining some | temperatures. All of which is done at massive scale for | chemicals, oil and gas, etc. I don't have strong claims to make | regarding cultivated meat, but the kind of thinking behind this | article is rampant. If the money is there, then this can no doubt | be scaled up for far, far cheaper than the author envisions. | woeirua wrote: | Maybe you should RTFA before commenting. The people who did the | detailed analysis in the article have extensive experience | doing exactly this thing and even using the most optimistic | projections still found that it's just not feasible. | twofornone wrote: | >New studies show cultivated meat can have massive environmental | benefits and be cost-competitive by 2030 | | I don't understand the fixation that environmentalists have on | meat. Methane farts is a trivially solvable problem with cheap | dietary supplementation and otherwise the carbon footprint of a | cow is negligible compared to a host of other, far more pressing | pollutants. And what little deforestation happens to make | pastureland only happens once. What am I missing? | debo_ wrote: | One thing: The massive monoculturing of soy and other grains | required to feed the cattle? That eclipses the deforestation | used for animal pastures (the article goes into this in some | detail.) | Zababa wrote: | That's a problem with some cattle but not all. Some cattle | mostly eats grass on non-arable land. | nicoburns wrote: | If you want to get rid of some cattle production, that | still implies reducing meat consumption. | Zababa wrote: | Sure but reducing meat consumption is oversimplifying. If | you reduce meat consumption of grass-fed cattle, there's | no point. | deworms wrote: | Meat is not a problem, and it doesn't need to be "solved". You | are the carbon they want to reduce, don't let them. | Zababa wrote: | > What am I missing? | | Not eating meat is easy to do and easy to signal. It has also | been repeated so much that people don't question it. | | Just like many ecologists are against nuclear power for | political (and not environmental) reasons, there are also lots | of vegetarians/vegans leveraging the ecologist movement to push | their ideals. | deworms wrote: | The future is more meat, especially as more people are lifted | from poverty and are able to afford better food. Most people | eat it every day. | Zababa wrote: | I think that's true. The biggest consumers of meat are not | the USA but Brazil. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | I agree, they'll have to come up with a continuous process to | replace the batch process they have now. | bilekas wrote: | > In all this, it would be so good to know we have a silver | bullet. But until solid, publicly accessible science proves | otherwise, cultured meat is still a gamble | | The article is written as if this lab-grown meat was expected to | solve the worlds problems. There are more factors in play. I | appreciate other sides of the coin argument, but this is a | strange one.. | downWidOutaFite wrote: | With Impossible and Beyond Meat's proven success do we really | need cultured meat? Though personally I have no idea why | Impossible and Beyond have been successful over existing | delicious veggie burgers. | [deleted] | analog31 wrote: | Did the article take subsidies and externalities into account? | JoeCianflone wrote: | Basically this seems to be saying that this is a no-go at the | moment and possibly forever. We're going to need innovation on | top of innovation on top of innovation to make this work...if it | can be done at scale. To me though I think we're looking at the | wrong problem. Why scale the technology up? Could we just build | smaller facilities...like a lot of them that serve as local hubs | that cultivate and grow for an area? You know...like a farm? Go | to your local "farm" to get the meat. If the hump is scale...stop | scaling get smaller. | | I'm cynically assuming the answer to why this won't work is that | there's no money in it so no one would fund it. | criddell wrote: | Is an analyst of today trying to figure out if lab grown meat can | succeed different from an analyst in 1970 trying to figure out if | something like an iPhone will ever be viable? | blululu wrote: | Maybe, but the sake of venture funding a 40 year horizon is | irrelevant. An analyst in 1970 would have easily concluded that | a iPhone would be impossible for the next 10 years. Maybe | possible in 50 years is as good as impossible for a venture | backed artificial meat companies that needs to turn a profit in | the next 20 years. | dragontamer wrote: | I mean... the mother of all demos was 1968. Moore's law was | also fully active with truly exponential growth in the number | of transistors per dollar and per watt for years at that point. | | Those computer guys in the late 1960s / early 1970s were | looking far into the future for how computing would evolve, and | their predictions were largely accurate. If anything, the | trajectory of computer progress has been one of the more | predictable things in the last 50 years. | reissbaker wrote: | "Those computer guys in the late 1960s / early 1960s were | looking far into the future for how computing would evolve, | and their predictions were largely accurate." | | This is survivor bias -- you're familiar with the "computer | guys" who made accurate predictions, because they were lauded | for being on the right side of history. There are plenty of | people who predicted the opposite in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, | 80s, 90s, etc; e.g. there is only a world market for "maybe" | five computers (IBM president, 1943); there is no reason | anyone would want a computer in their home (DEC founder, | 1977); the Internet is a fad and will collapse by 1996 (3COM | founder, 1995); etc etc. | bonzini wrote: | Compare the ENIAC to the Apollo Guidance Computer, and you'll | see that by 1970 we were already on a pretty good track. | dougSF70 wrote: | Agreed, miniaturization took a giant leap forward moving from | valve's to transistors. Even in the 1980s Bell Labs said that | in the future we will receive our telephone signals through | the air and our TV signals through a wire. An accurate 30 | year prediction. | Pxtl wrote: | Honestly, I think conventional vegetarian food manufacturers will | produce quality substitutes far before lab meat is even a rate | luxury, much less commonplace. Beyond Meat is already excellent. | | Scaling back labmeat targets to simple liquid slurry gravies that | could be used as flavor additives to fakemeat products seems more | achievable. | ekzy wrote: | I agree. As a vegetarian, I think those alternative products | are very good and close enough to meat for burgers, sausages, | nuggets etc. How is lab grown meat going to compete? | igetspam wrote: | I'm not even vegetarian and I've replaced most of my meat | consumption with plant based alternatives because they taste | great. There are some things that aren't there yet but I | can't imagine it'll be long. | aviraldg wrote: | This is equivalent to saying: "paid labour may never be cost- | competitive enough to replace slavery". | | Sure, "traditional meat" is cheaper. But that's because it | involves the torture and murder of animals. | deworms wrote: | Animal husbandry is not "torture and murder". Man is the ruler | of this planet and has the right to feed himself as he sees | fit. | skybrian wrote: | I think the point is that if it's that expensive, some other | alternative is likely to win. There are other meat substitutes, | which are already having some success. | | Expensive technologies win a lot of market share only if no | other alternative can work, and even then their use will be | minimized. | drooby wrote: | It's also subsidized | KingMachiavelli wrote: | There is a decent chance this article is correct but I also | dislike part of article's focus. | | The part I dislike was focusing a lot on the size of the reactors | needed in order to replace the US meat production. It is a bit | unfair to compare the size of a bioreactor to a meat packing | plant without considering the size of all the (organic?) | bioreactors... livestock. There are ~30M cattle in the US at any | given time so the volume is considerable. To ignore the | infrastructure and space that livestock use is making the | implicit claim that livestock are 'free' instead of 'cheaper | currently'. | | Considering how efficient meat production is (at the expense of | everything else), we can basically make a single head of cattle | as our standardized unit to evaluate the cost & thermodynamics. | | Basically at scale is a engineered bioreactor cheaper than the | natural blood & bones bioreactor? Certainly not upfront unless | small scale bioreactor in a bag technology... oh wait that exists | [1]. Sucks that pricing isn't easy to get but I think it is still | more expensive than fixed/reusable vessels at least over time. | | [1] https://www.sartorius.com/en/products/fermentation- | bioreacto... | | It's really hard to know without having more knowledge about the | specifics of but I think there's a lot of unexplored areas that | makes these projects worthwhile. | moralestapia wrote: | >Basically at scale is a engineered bioreactor cheaper than the | natural blood & bones bioreactor? | | No, it's not. That's what the whole article is about. It won't | be cost effective, not even _at that scale_. Plus, it gives | some other physical /pragmatic reasons on why it may not be | even possible to do it (disregarding costs). | KingMachiavelli wrote: | It was a question. My main disagreement is not the outcome | but rather that there was never a real cost breakdown of lab | vs natural. Personally I found the article's structure makes | it a bit hard to follow and even more difficult to formulate | a good response. | | However the reports it mentions are pretty good: | | GFI (Good Food Institute which represents these lab meat | companies) https://gfi.org/wp- | content/uploads/2021/03/cultured-meat-LCA... | | Ezra Klein/Vox/Huw Hughes: | https://www.scribd.com/document/526220188/Cultivated-Meat- | re... | | Open Philanthropy/David Humbird: https://engrxiv.org/795su | robbiep wrote: | It seems you missed the point of the article - which is that | given some of the fundamentals underpinning the growth of cells | out of the body, with our current and mid-future predicted | levels of technology, it is not going to be possible to produce | economical meat in a lab anytime soon. | moffkalast wrote: | So it just needs subsidies to be economical then. | | I suppose this is a bad time to mention that commercial | airlines would all have to close down years ago if it wasn't | for the tax free fuel they get to use. | | If something's useful enough we can make it happen | regardless. | hirundo wrote: | > ... projected [they] could lower the production price | from over $10,000 per pound today to about $2.50 per pound | over the next nine years--an astonishing 4,000-fold | reduction. | | The author is skeptical that this is achievable. So how | many multiples of the current cost of meat should we be | willing to subsidize? If they could "only" get it to | $100/lb, should we subsidize around $95/lb? There wouldn't | be much money left to subsidize anything else. | avalys wrote: | "tax-free fuel" is not a subsidy. | sbierwagen wrote: | >Basically at scale is a engineered bioreactor cheaper than the | natural blood & bones bioreactor? | | A cow walks around and eats grass by itself. A bioreactor needs | constant monitoring by a worker. | | If each and every beef cow was hand-raised by a single human, | regular beef would be $100/kg too. | tasty_freeze wrote: | I read half the article and skimmed the rest so maybe this was | addressed and I missed it. | | The existing meat industry, in the US at least, is subsidized | both directly and via corn subsidies. Secondly, it bears none of | the costs of its externalities. If those were factored into the | cost of meat used by the report it might make for a more fair | comparison. | trhway wrote: | So, people/companies heavily invested in the animal meat | production do research and find out that artificial meat | production will be economically unfeasible. Just like GM found | out electric cars unfeasible or Shell/BP/etc - solar/wind energy. | Back then at Sun the Linux/x86 was also considered a joke. Just | like ARM at Intel. ... | | The artificial meat will be not only cheaper, it will be | healthier. You will be able to customize it for your health and | well being. And human civilization stopping killing other | sentient beings - the impact of that is hard to estimate. For | example it will allow to develop various empathy related areas of | our mentality which are currently naturally suppressed. That will | tremendously affect all aspects of human society. | AlbertCory wrote: | There's a criminal trial going on in downtown San Jose as we | speak, of someone who also applied lessons from elsewhere to a | place where they don't fit: Elizabeth Holmes & Theranos. | | Her responses whenever someone challenged her were similar to | most of the commenters here: "first they say it's impossible, | then you change the world." She was thinking of computers and her | idol, Steve Jobs. She would never talk about blood tests and | accuracy, only about how cool it would be to change the world. | | Unfortunately, Moore's Law does not apply everywhere. "Hard | sciences" are hard. We have it easy in software. Boundless | optimism is only appropriate in certain domains, not in all of | them. Most of us on Hacker News (not all of us, I'm sure) have | spent our lives in the domains where it is. | new_guy wrote: | > The New York Times, 1903: "Man won't fly for a million years - | to build a flying machine would require the combined and | continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanics for 1-10 | million years." The Wright Brothers made their first powered | flight 9 days later. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/19/opinion/IHT-1903-wright-b... | | https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-30d29e9c0cdc44c7a2cb26... | Hammershaft wrote: | There is a meaningful difference between a physicist reporting | on thermodynamic and biological challenges to a technology and | a newspaper making breathless and unsubstantiated claims about | a technology. | rootusrootus wrote: | Maybe the real future of factory meat is figuring out how to grow | animals that don't have an appreciable amount of brain aside from | the minimal bits required to sustain life. Could certainly | alleviate the moral concerns a bit, even if it doesn't really | solve the efficiency problem. | barbazoo wrote: | Or maybe we just stop eating meat and eat plant based | alternatives instead. | mikeg8 wrote: | No thanks. I really enjoy eating meat and can source it from | environmentally responsible sources in addition to raising my | own pigs for meat. The "Lets stop eating meat" is a hollow | path forward. How about instead we eat _more_ meat that is | raised in ways that increase the fertility of the land and | capture _more_ carbon? it 's totally viable if you are | willing to spend more... | barbazoo wrote: | What do you mean by "hollow path forward"? | | Sourcing it from environmentally responsible sources might | work in your case but isn't feasible on a large scale | required for mass consumption. | | And all that obviously doesn't take the animal cruelty | aspect of it into account. | hardwaregeek wrote: | My hot take is that meat eating will be the smoking of my | generation. I say this as a proud degenerate meat eater myself. | It's been shown to be rather unhealthy; beef is terrible for the | environment; and most animals are raised in profoundly unethical | environments. I've noticed more and more people my age going | vegetarian or low-meat and I can't say I blame them. As much as | synthetic meat is tempting, the solution might just be to stop | eating meat altogether. | rootsudo wrote: | And I'm 180, eating meat is natural - and has been part of | human diets for, since, forever. | | Humans have been eating eat longer than driving, flying, and | more. | | Beef isn't terrible for the enviornment, is that companies are | looking at one side of the sustainability of their organization | and are running profit first. There's most likely reasonable | ways to improve land use, or even increase cost of meat to make | it better for the enviornment. | | People your age, can't compare 1:1, people my age are doing | keto, high protein date, carnivore diet, fasting / one meal a | day and protein is on there, vs soy. | | Stopping eating meat is not a solution itself. Especially for | the world. | | Especially for emerging economies and such, hah. The last bit | really, IMO is just so short sighted and assuming that everyone | in this world has a choice in their diet, what they eat and to | tell them "no, meat is bad." is laudable at best. | hardwaregeek wrote: | I dunno, frequent, daily meat eating is a relatively new | phenomenon for 99% of the population. For a lot of history | your worker would eat carbs, vegetables and a tiny morsel of | meat. Meat is affordable due to grain subsidies, massive | industries and vastly underpaid workers. Sure, there was a | period before that where hunting was a primary food source, | but it's not like humans need to eat meat. | | Appealing to nature is also a little suspect. There's a lot | of things that are "natural" that we don't partake in due to | changing ethics and mores. | | I'll concede that comparing it to smoking is not entirely | accurate. Smoking is a very binary relation; you are either a | smoker or not. It's much more likely that people in 50-100 | years will be light meat eaters, i.e. eat meat once or twice | a week. | | Emerging economies may eat more meat. They may also smoke | more. I agree that it's not always productive to demand that | an emerging economy follow the rules of a developed economy. | But a lot of these emerging economies will not be so emerging | in 50-100 years. It's quite possible the populace will reduce | their meat consumption as education and concern about the | environment increases. | Aloha wrote: | You analogized it to smoking - there is no safe amount of | smoking, it _will_ kill you, sooner, and more unpleasantly. | | You can consume meat safely, consuming only meat is bad for | you in the long run, but a balanced diet is good. Broadly, | we need to eat less meat, our meat consumption needs to | look like it did 80 years ago, not like it does now. | Aloha wrote: | We should eat less meat, not none, just.. less. | | Like, anyone who tells you "everyone must be a vegetarian" is | in my opinion, a fool. | | Meat should cost a bit more, and we should feed our meet | sources as naturally as possible, cows from grass, pigs from | offal (and other sources, pigs will eat anything), and less | factory farming of poultry - quite arguably poultry should | cost 2-3x more. | | Similarly, if folks want to lose weight, the best answer is | just to eat _less_ , and I say this as a fat person. | globular-toast wrote: | I agree but important to note that "less" really just means | similar to what people ate a few generations ago or what | some people still eat today, like around the Mediterranean | and Italy. Eating vast quantities of meat has never been | normal. Traditionally an entire family would consume one | large animal a year (like a pig) and a few smaller ones | like chickens. The bulk of the diet should be vegetables. | concinds wrote: | I'm a fan of the carnivore diet, and I hate this push for | "fake meat" with a passion. Corporations are ruining the | quality of meat (hormones, feed composed of "non-foods" like | corn, soy, and other proinflammatory nonsense, poor | treatment, destroying land quality unsustainably); and then | other faceless corporations are taking advantage of this, | starting a highly aggressive marketing campaign against meat | and in favor of their future products, with the obvious goal | of banning real meat altogether one day, preventing one from | raising animals themselves, solidifying this false dichotomy | between corporate fake-meat and corporate "real"-meat. With | the current push, all across Europe, to ban perfectly good | cars from being driven, it's obvious that the "moral | emergency" of climate change will inevitably lead to | governments feeling entitled to tell us we can't eat foods we | evolved on, and have eaten for hundreds of millenia. Hard to | think of something more dystopian. To be hurriedly replaced | with unproven, non-Lindy, lab meat with zero long-term health | studies, or other vegan foods (which, in today's worls, sadly | isn't taken by most people to mean healthy vegetables, but | mostly sugar-laden monstrosities; corporations love sugar, | and sugar is a plant!) | | Current vegans might rejoice, but all the ex-vegans and other | dieters who switched to keto or carnivore and experienced | immediate and (sometimes) lifechanging health benefits will | be very, very angry at this prospect. | mikeg8 wrote: | My take is the opposite. There is some incredible work going on | at smaller regional farms using cattle to increase grasslands | and provide a sustainable source of protein. Farming in a way | that doesn't vilify the cow. _CAFO (concentrated animal feeding | operation)_ meat will be the smoking equivalent in the future, | but making the distinction between "dirty:" beef and | sustainably raised beef is important. | debo_ wrote: | I appreciate that a user named 'coldturkey' posted an article | that's bearish on lab-grown meat. | hprotagonist wrote: | created (grown?) just for this submission! | | user: coldturkey created: 38 minutes ago karma: 4 | rgrieselhuber wrote: | " Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, | shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades | discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about | abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I didn't read that as insinuating anything. I saw it as | noting a congruence between the new name and newly-grown | meat, just as the top-level post was noting the congruence | of the user name and the topic. I thought it was funny. | rangoon626 wrote: | This is great news for the germ line of humanity | BSVogler wrote: | As someone donating every month to foster R&D in this area this | is very disappointing to read. | gattis wrote: | After reading the linked-to Humbird paper, I'm not so sure I | agree with the glum outlook. A huge chunk of the cost seems to be | macronutrients, which currently, yes, are very expensive. But | even the report mentions emerging technologies such as plant | protein hydrolysates that could be done much cheaper at this | scale. The problem seems to be that nobody has ever had any | reason to look into optimizing costs at this insane scale. I | don't think we should just assume that means it won't get much | cheaper once we do. | woeirua wrote: | The article makes a bunch of points about economics, and those | may be true now, but there are many products widely available | today that were at one point considered impossible to produce at | significant scale. | | That said, I think the article raises a few fundamental limits | that probably cannot be currently overcome: 1 - animal cell | division times are far too long, and 2 - animal cell cultures | would be highly susceptible to viral and bacterial contamination, | which could completely kill an entire culture. It seems like we | could genetically engineer our way out of these problems, but a | tractable solution is probably decades away. | sva_ wrote: | Interesting when people suddenly create an account, just to post | one article, which immediately gets pushed to FP. Is HN really so | important for that? | | It makes me wonder who pays which kind of organizations what | amount for these kind of stunts. | [deleted] | 10u152 wrote: | The point about cattle taking 25 calories in grass to produce 1 | calorie of meat is true but in most places, those cattle get | their nutrition from grazing grassland that has no arable value. | The grass grows with no human intervention and they wander around | and feed themselves. Humans can't eat grass. So it's not really | "inefficient" in that sense. | mmiyer wrote: | 97% of cattle is grown on feedlots, not grass [1]. So massive | amounts of corn and soy are wasted (as the original article | notes growing soy for cattle feed leads to massive amounts of | deforestation) | | 1. https://www.nrdc.org/resources/feedlot-operations-why-it- | mat... | Zababa wrote: | 97% of the cattle is grown on feedlots, not grass IN THE | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. So massive amounts of corn and soy | are wasted IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (as the original | article THAT EXCLUSIVELY TALKS ABOUT THE UNITED STATES OF | AMERICA notes growing soy for cattle feed leads to massiva | amounts of deforestation) | manux wrote: | ...and the USA is a large country of >300M people. It must | lead in humanity's work towards reducing GHG. What is your | point exactly? | deworms wrote: | This is a variation of the paternising "white man's | burden" myth. | manux wrote: | I fail to see how this is the case, but perhaps I'm | missing the point you're trying to make? What you're | referring to is about colonialism, whereas here the USA | is very much incentivized to work within its own borders, | on its own food industry. It just so happens that climate | change is a global problem as well, and the USA being a | large rich country it has more causal influence on the | outcome of climate change. | imtringued wrote: | Presumably 97% of cattle are dependent on feed imports. | After all, it means the huge non arable grasslands of the | USA that people pretend are super important aren't enough | to feed them. | Zababa wrote: | My point was that your comment was wrong as it only | applies to the USA. | | > the USA is a large country of >300M people. It must | lead in humanity's work towards reducing GHG | | Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than | getting the USA to stop beef. | manux wrote: | > Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than | getting the USA to stop beef. | | Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be | more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in | between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the | things we can realistically do". Both _must_ be done. | Zababa wrote: | > Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be | more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in | between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the | things we can realistically do". | | I don't agree. We have limited time and energy to act. | Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a | problem is a waste, compared to using that time and | energy to focus on a more important problem. I think | focusing on moral imperatives instead of the most | efficient actions is actually dangerous, as it's a denial | of the reality we live in. | sinemetu11 wrote: | > Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not | a problem is a waste | | It's a problem. Most americans consume way more meat than | what they could possibly need and they do it because | they've heard they need lots of protein which could come | from many other sources besides dead animals. | graton wrote: | Are they raised their entire life on the feedlot? If not what | percentage of their life is on the feedlot? | gruez wrote: | AFAIK: | | >Are they raised their entire life on the feedlot | | no. | | >If not what percentage of their life is on the feedlot? | | about half. | debo_ wrote: | Do you know what percentage of total meat production is | represented by pasture-sustained animals? Because my | understanding is that it is very small. | 0_____0 wrote: | my understanding is that most cattle are fed on a combo of | both. on pasture initially then moved to feedlot later in the | process to fatten up | Zababa wrote: | In France that's ~70% of what cattle eats. I feel like most | of the information about things like that is very USA- | centric. | kova12 wrote: | No matter how small %% it is, lab meat is not grazing at all | missedthecue wrote: | 93% of a beef cattle's lifetime diet consists of food that is | not in direct competition with the human food supply, such as | grasses or agricultural waste (cornstalks and such). | | https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/print- | publications... | | pdf warning | [deleted] | dudus wrote: | Reference needed for (in most places). | | I always heard most cattle is fed grain and have no access to | pasture. | 10u152 wrote: | You're right, I have experience but only in Australia. The | number of barn raised and or processed grain fed cattle is | almost 0. | EL_Loco wrote: | That's true for some countries, not all. | nso95 wrote: | This is correct. Most would also say grain fed tastes far | better than grass fed. | rvense wrote: | I'm guessing you're talking about America? | | 50% of the surface area of Denmark is dedicated to growing feed | for pigs, and we import a lot as well. All that land could be | used for growing food for people directly, or for other things. | Since there's basically nowhere in this country where you're | more than five kilometers away from some sort of settlement, | almost all of it is interesting for other developments as well. | So at least here, some of us would very much like agriculture | to change. | s0rce wrote: | I've wondered about this since so much alfalfa and corn are | specifically grown on arable land to feed cattle. What fraction | of beef calories is derived from non-arable grazing lands? | | There is also the extensive use of water to irrigate pasture in | arid areas just to feed cattle. That water could be used more | efficiently. to grow food directly. | pengaru wrote: | In the US there's endless fields of corn grown to feed | livestock. | mcguire wrote: | Currently, technically, no. Most of the corn fed to livestock | is the remains left after distillation for alcohol. | pengaru wrote: | [citation needed] | | Here's mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_ | in_the_United_... | | 33% livestock feed, 27% ethanol, 11% "other" (which | includes beverage alcohol according to the above link) | Ekaros wrote: | Billion dollar industry easily, but at what margins? | abraae wrote: | This article reminds me of the fever over insect apocalypse. | | Techy types love to imagine swarms of tiny drones taking up the | job of pollinating our plants when the bees die off. | | I can only imagine that anyone thinking like this has never kept | bees or simply watched them in amazement as they do their job, | entirely undirected and uncoordinated by us. The ultimate low | tech solution, working reliably and consistently for millenia. | | Lab-grown meat feels the same to me. Yes, it seems clear we | shouldn't continue consuming pasture and methane intensive foods | like beef. | | But does that mean we try and replicate that product by hurling | science at it - trying to do ourselves what nature already has | worked out? At huge cost in $$ and in distraction while we take | our eye off of the more important things? | | I'd say as humans we would be better off getting a little | pragmatic about this and a bit less arrogant about our ability to | re-shape nature. | | Instead of looking for artificial beef, how about just | substituting chicken every second time we eat? That would move | the needle enormously on environmental impact. And requires no | new technology at all. | | Same goes for elaborate carbon capture technologies. Why even | bother when our planetary economy continues to incentivise people | burning fossil fuels in unimaginable quantities? | igetspam wrote: | Why not vegetables? Is meat really a requirement for every | meal? | nso95 wrote: | As with most things, I would expect scaling up production to | reduce the costs drastically... | rexreed wrote: | According to the article, that expectation is not meeting | reality. | villasv wrote: | Abundant evidence of that assumption being wrong is the whole | message of the article | dang wrote: | Since the article's title and subtitle are both linkbaity, we | replaced the title above with representative language from the | article body. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-22 23:00 UTC)