3 ms·

Because the target group for this is product like this is virtually non existent. If you don't eat meat for health reason blood or meat doesn't make the differ

by j-pb 10y ago

Because the target group for this is product like this is virtually non existent. If you don't eat meat for health reason blood or meat doesn't make the difference, if you don't eat meat for the animals, why would you support a gruesome vampire farm. Also this sounds ridiculously impractical if you can just simulate the stuff by using ketchup for the color and iron for the taste.

mgraczyk 10y ago
Blood is not the unhealthy part of red meat. Couldn't you market these "blood steaks" to health and environmentally conscious people who want something that tastes a bit more like meat than a soy patty? Although I agree that selling blood at scale would need clever marketing. It seems like the blood imitation in the article would have similar problems, since it looks and tastes like blood.
- kevb 10y ago
  It narrows the market, it requires explaining and justification, and it's unappetizing. It sounds like they've figured out a good approach to heme, why bother using actual blood? I was thinking a similar thing about "veganic" farming: http://www.veganic.com/veganic-defined http://www.veganic.com/veganic-defined >Yet although organic crops are grown without the use of chemicals, an organic certification does allow farmers to use animal waste, including blood meal and bone meal, to fertilize fields. Some organic farms purchase these animal by-products from slaughterhouses and other non-organic sources. The animals have been given antibiotics and hormones throughout their lives, and exposed to pesticides and other chemicals. So why isn't there an organic+ that only uses organic animal waste? My guess is that it's because it's not worth advertising. Most people probably don't want to think about what kind of waste their produce grew in, and hearing that these potatoes grew in hormone free blood meal doesn't really make you more inclined to buy them. Whereas veganic can explain it's advantages without making you think it's gross. Plus the potential audience for veganic is all inclusive.

by j-pb 10y ago

mgraczyk 10y ago

Blood is not the unhealthy part of red meat. Couldn't you market these "blood steaks" to health and environmentally conscious people who want something that tastes a bit more like meat than a soy patty? Although I agree that selling blood at scale would need clever marketing. It seems like the blood imitation in the article would have similar problems, since it looks and tastes like blood.

kevb 10y ago
It narrows the market, it requires explaining and justification, and it's unappetizing. It sounds like they've figured out a good approach to heme, why bother using actual blood? I was thinking a similar thing about "veganic" farming: http://www.veganic.com/veganic-defined http://www.veganic.com/veganic-defined >Yet although organic crops are grown without the use of chemicals, an organic certification does allow farmers to use animal waste, including blood meal and bone meal, to fertilize fields. Some organic farms purchase these animal by-products from slaughterhouses and other non-organic sources. The animals have been given antibiotics and hormones throughout their lives, and exposed to pesticides and other chemicals. So why isn't there an organic+ that only uses organic animal waste? My guess is that it's because it's not worth advertising. Most people probably don't want to think about what kind of waste their produce grew in, and hearing that these potatoes grew in hormone free blood meal doesn't really make you more inclined to buy them. Whereas veganic can explain it's advantages without making you think it's gross. Plus the potential audience for veganic is all inclusive.