9 ms·

In general I’m bullish on biotech but best case for tissue culture meat still leaves me sceptical. Most of the hype focuses around beef substitutes, beef cattle

In general I’m bullish on biotech but best case for tissue culture meat still leaves me sceptical. Most of the hype focuses around beef substitutes, beef cattle is about as inefficient as animal agriculture gets at ~3% efficient on an energy basis of edible parts. Dairy jerseys and laying hens are both ~12%, with meat chickens ~15%. The best replicating eukaryotic cell culture I know are certain yeast at 50%. So a best case scenario is factor of 3 improvement, I'd welcome results from multicellular organisms that got anywhere close to that but I haven't seen it. Supposing there are no improvements to be had on the cell metabolism side; dressing percentage for broiler chickens is 70% so getting rid of brain, digestive tract, immune system, etc. doesn’t improve things that much. Keep in mind that tissue cultures are a lot more picky about feedstock than whole animals. Good luck shovelling hay into that bioreactor. All of the processing that the feedstock takes will claw back your productivity gains and then some. Margins are slim at the bottom. As capital intensive as modern farming is, biotech puts it to shame. Once you factor in amortizing all that equipment this is a non-starter. The only appeal is from an animal welfare angle. Even there an argument could be made that humane husbandry is positive-utility rather than the neutral of lab-grown, while also coming out ahead environmentally.

llukas 8y ago
You forgot about antibiotics use - unlike with traditional approach you can grow cell culture in sterile conditions.
- spqr0a1 8y ago
  Antibiotics are a small enough improvement that they could be phased out without much impact to consumers. If demand were there or externalities accounted for, it would be an easy transition. http://www.sandersonfarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ABF-Broiler-Sustainability-Executive-Summary-Deck-17Dec15.pdf http://www.sandersonfarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ABF...
CharlesW 8y ago
> Even there an argument could be made that humane husbandry is positive-utility rather than the neutral of lab-grown, while also coming out ahead environmentally. Can that be true? Animals from U.S. factory farms generate >1 million tons of manure per day (open-air lagoons of animal waste are a special treat) and are responsible for an impressive percentage of methane emissions.
- ericsoderstrom 8y ago
  There was a recent freakonomics podcast [1] from which I learned that greenhouse gas emissions mostly come from cattle breathing, not their manure (I guess the manure imagery that often goes along with describing livestock environmental impact is just used because it's evocative?). Also that livestock farming in the US only contributes 3% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions [2], which I wouldn't call a particularly "impressive percentage". [1]: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/ [2]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
  - Maximus9000 8y ago
    > Also that livestock farming in the US only contributes 3% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions "Worldwide, livestock accounts for between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. The percentage is lower in the United States in part because our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warmi...
    - ericsoderstrom 8y ago
      True, but CharlesW's parent comment was specifically about "U.S. factory farms". And even 14.5% is significantly lower than what I would have guessed before listening to the episode.
- cco 8y ago
tdfx 8y ago
Do you happen to know the efficiency basis for insects?
- spqr0a1 8y ago
  The usual comparisons are easy to misinterpret since insect productivity is often quoted on a dry weight basis and the data is less robust. But it appears to be as efficient as chicken, or possibly slightly better.
scythe 8y ago
>Dairy jerseys and laying hens are both ~12%, with meat chickens ~15%. Does the efficiency for chickens include processing and sanitation? 15% sounds really high. Labs ought to have a much easier time dealing with no feces or feathers. And the price of chicken at present in the US is reputed to depend on undocumented immigrants working for below-market wages, which hopefully isn't an issue with technomeat. As for dairy/eggs, those alone aren't enough of a meat substitute or we'd all be vegetarian already.
belorn 8y ago
Energy efficiency is interesting, but it is important to see the whole picture. Maybe we should be using a land efficiency rating instead? Take reindeer meat as an extreme case. Their energy efficiency from converting lichens to meat is not going to be 100%, but the alternative use for artic land are quite few. Applying the same line of thought, we can find examples also for beef. There are cattle farms here in Sweden that use highland cattle to graze forest areas, including protected forests. They keep down bushes and other plants which results in an increased bio diversity. A win win situation for everyone involved.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Typical cows in the US gain 50% of their meat mass at the feedlot, mostly from eating corn. Also, large parts of our natural environment are degraded by running too many cows on it, including a lot of "protected" areas. So sure, you can find whatever example you want.
  - belorn 8y ago
    The typical car is diesel and the typical power plant is coal. A lot of typical cases is the worst case scenario or close to it when it come to the environment, because they prioritize the cost aspect over everything else. Here is a nice policy theory for you. Lets imagine that with magic we could removed all the cost associated with slaughterhouse for the farmer. We could change the whole meat production in Sweden to operate exclusively on land not suitable for any other food production, and that without changing meat prices. The difference between the economics for a highland cattle farm and a cattle farm using feed from farms is by my understanding significant less than the cut that the slaughterhouse take. It might not be very applicable to the US since large part of Sweden is forests, but it is not hard to find areas in the US which are not suitable for farming. From a land efficiency perspective, I suspect a lot could be done which isn't currently done because of the economics involved.
- Illotus 8y ago
  With reindeers it is probably highly dependent on region. For example in Lapland of Finland there are way too many reindeers than the environment can support, so they are largely kept in pens during winter and fed protein feed, hay, collected lichen, dried feafy branches etc. Plus Finland produces about 2 million kilos of reindeer meat per year, so it is really miniscule part of the diet.
quux 8y ago
How do plants compare?
MarkMc 8y ago
> So a best case scenario is factor of 3 improvement Isn't the best case scenario that we replace cow-grown beef with lab-grown beef - that is, improved energy efficiency of 50/3 = 17 times?

llukas 8y ago

You forgot about antibiotics use - unlike with traditional approach you can grow cell culture in sterile conditions.

spqr0a1 8y ago
Antibiotics are a small enough improvement that they could be phased out without much impact to consumers. If demand were there or externalities accounted for, it would be an easy transition. http://www.sandersonfarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ABF-Broiler-Sustainability-Executive-Summary-Deck-17Dec15.pdf http://www.sandersonfarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ABF...

CharlesW 8y ago

> Even there an argument could be made that humane husbandry is positive-utility rather than the neutral of lab-grown, while also coming out ahead environmentally. Can that be true? Animals from U.S. factory farms generate >1 million tons of manure per day (open-air lagoons of animal waste are a special treat) and are responsible for an impressive percentage of methane emissions.

ericsoderstrom 8y ago
There was a recent freakonomics podcast [1] from which I learned that greenhouse gas emissions mostly come from cattle breathing, not their manure (I guess the manure imagery that often goes along with describing livestock environmental impact is just used because it's evocative?). Also that livestock farming in the US only contributes 3% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions [2], which I wouldn't call a particularly "impressive percentage". [1]: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/ [2]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- Maximus9000 8y ago
  > Also that livestock farming in the US only contributes 3% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions "Worldwide, livestock accounts for between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. The percentage is lower in the United States in part because our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warmi...
  - ericsoderstrom 8y ago
    True, but CharlesW's parent comment was specifically about "U.S. factory farms". And even 14.5% is significantly lower than what I would have guessed before listening to the episode.
cco 8y ago

tdfx 8y ago

Do you happen to know the efficiency basis for insects?

spqr0a1 8y ago
The usual comparisons are easy to misinterpret since insect productivity is often quoted on a dry weight basis and the data is less robust. But it appears to be as efficient as chicken, or possibly slightly better.

scythe 8y ago

>Dairy jerseys and laying hens are both ~12%, with meat chickens ~15%. Does the efficiency for chickens include processing and sanitation? 15% sounds really high. Labs ought to have a much easier time dealing with no feces or feathers. And the price of chicken at present in the US is reputed to depend on undocumented immigrants working for below-market wages, which hopefully isn't an issue with technomeat. As for dairy/eggs, those alone aren't enough of a meat substitute or we'd all be vegetarian already.

belorn 8y ago

Energy efficiency is interesting, but it is important to see the whole picture. Maybe we should be using a land efficiency rating instead? Take reindeer meat as an extreme case. Their energy efficiency from converting lichens to meat is not going to be 100%, but the alternative use for artic land are quite few. Applying the same line of thought, we can find examples also for beef. There are cattle farms here in Sweden that use highland cattle to graze forest areas, including protected forests. They keep down bushes and other plants which results in an increased bio diversity. A win win situation for everyone involved.

greglindahl 8y ago
Typical cows in the US gain 50% of their meat mass at the feedlot, mostly from eating corn. Also, large parts of our natural environment are degraded by running too many cows on it, including a lot of "protected" areas. So sure, you can find whatever example you want.
- belorn 8y ago
  The typical car is diesel and the typical power plant is coal. A lot of typical cases is the worst case scenario or close to it when it come to the environment, because they prioritize the cost aspect over everything else. Here is a nice policy theory for you. Lets imagine that with magic we could removed all the cost associated with slaughterhouse for the farmer. We could change the whole meat production in Sweden to operate exclusively on land not suitable for any other food production, and that without changing meat prices. The difference between the economics for a highland cattle farm and a cattle farm using feed from farms is by my understanding significant less than the cut that the slaughterhouse take. It might not be very applicable to the US since large part of Sweden is forests, but it is not hard to find areas in the US which are not suitable for farming. From a land efficiency perspective, I suspect a lot could be done which isn't currently done because of the economics involved.
Illotus 8y ago
With reindeers it is probably highly dependent on region. For example in Lapland of Finland there are way too many reindeers than the environment can support, so they are largely kept in pens during winter and fed protein feed, hay, collected lichen, dried feafy branches etc. Plus Finland produces about 2 million kilos of reindeer meat per year, so it is really miniscule part of the diet.

quux 8y ago

How do plants compare?

MarkMc 8y ago

> So a best case scenario is factor of 3 improvement Isn't the best case scenario that we replace cow-grown beef with lab-grown beef - that is, improved energy efficiency of 50/3 = 17 times?