Fake meat

[MKG]

I've just been perusing the Gaurdian website, in particular an article about the state of the art in producing a meat substitute indistinguishable from the real stuff. The impression I have is that we've some way to go before we can make a sirloin steak or fillet of cod, but we're almost there in terms of burgers and fishcakes. The journalist wasn't allowed to say too much, but could say that he found it impossible to distinguish the fake from the real.

The article brings up the point that, if this process becomes technically and economically viable, the need for farm animals decreases enormously and this has consequent effects on rural land usage. Alarm bells rang just there.

Without getting into vegan/veggie/carnie arguments, what's the feeling? Would a massive amount of freed-up rural land be preserved because it's pretty, would it be taken over (remembering that pastoral land is usually that for good reason) for other agricultural purposes, or would it be ........ (please fill in the blank space).

Mike

[Green Aura]

Hmm. I read something about this last week. The people who set up Twitter are apparently investing heavily in it.

All i can say is, I'm starting to feel more and more like a redneck survivalist. I don't own a shotgun but they're looking more attractive by the day.

Aldous Huxley et al have a lot to answer for, putting ideas in poor scientists' tiny brains

[oldjerry]

With or without fake meat,I'm not sure there'd be such a huge difference,,especially in lowland areas.Given the price of cereals and veg protein crops,many smaller farmers are abandoning livestock due to the cost of feed.Those that are continuing with livestock(at least on purely commercial terms)are ,contrary to what many people think,concentrating them, often inside.This has long been the case with 'Barley Beef' but now seems the way the UK dairy industry is heading,and as for pigs.......

Obviously in upland areas where any sort of arable isn't feasible,you'll still see flocks of sheep.

We're never going to get back to small mixed holdings serving, and relying on,the local community.Proper country life is finished,the only difference between here and suburbia is most of the commuters round here drive 4x4s,they still shop in T***o ,and worry about the mortgage,and good luck to them.Most of them wouldn't know how to skin a rabbit,let alone catch one with ferrets,but so what,who the hell needs to know all that stuff now anyhow?

[The Riff-Raff Element]

For me the issues would include sustainability.

One of the major advantages of mixed farming is that it allows the huge amount of nitrogen captured by pasture plants and the minerals brought up from the subsoil by deep-rooting herbs to be "cashed in" - converted to meat and, importantly, manure. In the West we perhaps don't really appreciate this, but over much of the globe people have no access to fertilisres above what they and their beasts produce. A wholesale shift to arable agriculture would involve greatly increasing the inputs of artificially manufactured NPK fertilisers made from exhaustable mineral reserves and ever more scarce hydrocarbons.

This would be quite mad.

Better would be to divert some of the funds wasted on stupid ideas like this one into rather less glamorous science examining how soil fertility could be maximised by optimising existing practices.

But there's not much money in that, is there?

[oldjerry]

That post in it's entirity should be carved on slabs of granite small enough to be thrown through the windows of Monsanto,DEFRA,BBC 'Farming Today'et al,which can then be sent to me .

Ironically, Jon,it's precisely the economic development in the formerly undeveloped places like China,India,Brazil etc that's fueling the demand for cereal and meat that's accelerating these changes in our landscape.Strangely, they see 'development' and progress as apeing the mistakes of the West, success would seem to mean feeding your kids loads of burgers.

So maybe Mike's Fake Meat aint such a bad idea after all!

( Not a circular arguement in it's true sense,I grant you,but not bad for a Sunday Morning!)

[The Riff-Raff Element]

That post in it's entirity should be carved on slabs of granite small enough to be thrown through the windows of Monsanto,DEFRA,BBC 'Farming Today'et al,which can then be sent to me .

I'll get me chisel! I suspect that we might see a swing back to more traditional mixed farming anyway: industrial farming is "efficient" only while the price of oil is less than that of labour. In terms of calories produced per square meter, intensive manual cultivation is far more efficient. That's what I think, anyway.

[chickenchargrill]

Yes, but does it taste like meat in the same way *this* powdered burger meal in a box tastes like meat? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8gJOCwBuFc

[Green Aura]

Speechless!

[gregorach]

There's also a big question about the energy footprint of the process to make this fake meat...

[GeorgeSalt]

What's the feedstock for the process?
And as Gregorach says, what's the energy input required?
And, quite frankly, why?

Selling fake meat to the general public shoudn't be a problem.. they've been eating MRM for decades, and having seen that in its raw state I can confirm that it's as fake as a ticking Rolex.

It could be another biofuel "miracle" (input energy as great as or exceeding useful output energy)..

"There is nothing so environmentally damaging as doing with great effort that which does not have to be done at all"

[Mustardseedmama]

Yes, but does it taste like meat in the same way *this* powdered burger meal in a box tastes like meat? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8gJOCwBuFc

My first reaction to this is; WHY!?

My second reaction is,...well I shouldn't post what my second reaction is. Let it suffice to say that I'm very happy to have so much to occupy my mind and hands. Obviously they're not quite as busy being workaholics as I've been lead to believe

[Sophie_Chillie]

It makes me to very sad if this is the only future for food.

Then my second thought was - why do 'we' want food to look and taste like fish or meat if it isn't real fish or meat?

I'm trying my best to be more veggie but to me that means not eating meat, not eating soya shaped like a sausage!

I'd like to think more community and smaller farming was the answer but I guess that's not going to happen is it, although I'd always support it.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

What's the feedstock for the process?
And as Gregorach says, what's the energy input required?
And, quite frankly, why?

The leading light behind this is a Californian, a vegan, who is being very, very, secretive about what is actually being done.

However.

We can probably assume that:

- The feedstock is probably intended to be raw vegetable protein made from grains & beans. This could be broken up easily enough to the constiuent amino acids and these would then go into the vat where the "meat" was being grown. No place for hay or silage, so bye-bye all that nature friendly pasture land and hello vast tracts of soya.
- As to the energy requirement... Well, I don't suppose the vat would need a great deal of heating. It could be the ideal kind of application for solar or heat pumps. But the production and transport of all that vegetable protein will require a lot of energy, possibly more than is needed for meat production now since much fodder is consumed where it is produced on the farm.
- There's no clear information about how efficient the process would be in converting vegetable protein into meat compared to putting it through an animal.

The man just ain't telling anything. In itself, this is suspicious.

[GeorgeSalt]

The leading light behind this is a Californian, a vegan, who is being very, very, secretive about what is actually being done.

Sounds all a bit ethical-ovo-lacto-vegetarian to me..

[Susie]

I think it's time to go veggie again.