3 ms·

> It's not all that inefficient for what it is I'm not even sure what that means. "for what it is"? As I said, it is inefficient from so many different angles

by shlant 7y ago

> It's not all that inefficient for what it is I'm not even sure what that means. "for what it is"? As I said, it is inefficient from so many different angles. Water footprint, feed-to-food conversion, environmental externalities, land usage etc. Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default. > Just look at how expensive products like Beyond Meat are, and they don't even come that close in terms of taste and nutrition. Not sure how this is relevant, but meat alternative are becoming cheaper and cheaper and will continue to due to economies of scale. Also, "the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has >99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of U.S. beef."[1] Lastly, taste is subjective, but many people are really enjoying Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat. Also, the point isn't to make something more nutritious, the point is to make a viable alternative to meat that doesn't have all the inefficiencies mentioned above (and less killing of conscious things is great too). 1. http://css.umich.edu/publication/beyond-meats-beyond-burger-life-cycle-assessment-detailed-comparison-between-plant-based http://css.umich.edu/publication/beyond-meats-beyond-burger-...

gridlockd 7y ago
> Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default. Beef is quite nutritious and tasty. While technically you might be able to feed people on what cows are fed, that would be a very poor living indeed. Food isn't all about efficiency, unless maybe you're living barely above subsistence. > Not sure how this is relevant, but meat alternative are becoming cheaper and cheaper and will continue to due to economies of scale. Perhaps, but I think it's equally likely that it'll stay an overpriced niche product, just like the stuff that came before it. > Also, "the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has >99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of U.S. beef."[1] Yet, it's more expensive, so there clearly other inefficiences in that process. In any event, cows aren't just burgers. Those "milk alternatives" aren't really cheaper either. There's no "vegan steak". We can put a price on greenhouse emissions. We produce energy to meet demand, not the other way around. We don't need to have cattle farming in water scarce areas. We have more than enough land. I'll stick with beef.
- shlant 7y ago
  > Food isn't all about efficiency This thread you have been commenting on is talking about efficiency... > I think it's equally likely that it'll stay an overpriced niche product You say, ignoring that the opposite is happening > Yet, it's more expensive, so there clearly other inefficiences in that process It's still currently expensive because of the sunk cost of R&D. Now it's just about demand and scale which are both there and growing. Your arguments are weak. All you have is "it's more expensive" and "It's tasty". Keep your head in the sand.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > This thread you have been commenting on is talking about efficiency... Yes, but this kind of raw input efficiency isn't the only consideration when it comes to food. There would still be plant-based products that are more efficient to grow than other plant-based products. Apples are cheaper to grow than Oranges, which is exactly what this comparison of food for livestock against food for people is. Beef production is 100% efficient at producing beef. Milk production is 100% efficient at producing milk. You just claim these alternatives are "more efficient", yet they are more expensive, they do not taste quite like beef, nor do they have the same nutritional profile. They're more efficient on some metrics, some of which are irrelevant to us. > You say, ignoring that the opposite is happening It's not clear that the opposite is happening. There's a lot of media buzz around Beyond Meat or Impossible Burger (and their IPOs). Their initial output was tiny, so naturally it can currently grow fast. This is the hype phase. We'll see how it works out in a few years. > It's still currently expensive because of the sunk cost of R&D. I doubt that. Those companies are in their growth phase and they're burning lots of capital. This is not the time to pay back on R&D. It's rather that their processes are not mature, that they're simply trying to figure out their markup, and/or that they have lots of other overhead that beef producers do not have. For instance, would you not count the marketing budget as an "inefficiency"? > Your arguments are weak. Well, alright. I think your "efficiency" argument is weak. It's pretty much irrelevant to our economy. Just look at how cheap beef is. Shockingly cheap, in fact. It could easily tolerate price increases. Even if plant-based meat replacements were significantly cheaper, they probably wouldn't displace a lot of demand for beef. Rather, they'd displace demand for vegetarian/vegan products. Those countries where meat is relatively more expensive, where efficiency is more important, those already have a rich cuisine based on plant-based products. They already have their own "fake meat" made out of for example Tofu. In my experience, that stuff is already superior to crappy Western products made for vegetarians.

by shlant 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

> Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default. Beef is quite nutritious and tasty. While technically you might be able to feed people on what cows are fed, that would be a very poor living indeed. Food isn't all about efficiency, unless maybe you're living barely above subsistence. > Not sure how this is relevant, but meat alternative are becoming cheaper and cheaper and will continue to due to economies of scale. Perhaps, but I think it's equally likely that it'll stay an overpriced niche product, just like the stuff that came before it. > Also, "the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has >99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of U.S. beef."[1] Yet, it's more expensive, so there clearly other inefficiences in that process. In any event, cows aren't just burgers. Those "milk alternatives" aren't really cheaper either. There's no "vegan steak". We can put a price on greenhouse emissions. We produce energy to meet demand, not the other way around. We don't need to have cattle farming in water scarce areas. We have more than enough land. I'll stick with beef.

shlant 7y ago
> Food isn't all about efficiency This thread you have been commenting on is talking about efficiency... > I think it's equally likely that it'll stay an overpriced niche product You say, ignoring that the opposite is happening > Yet, it's more expensive, so there clearly other inefficiences in that process It's still currently expensive because of the sunk cost of R&D. Now it's just about demand and scale which are both there and growing. Your arguments are weak. All you have is "it's more expensive" and "It's tasty". Keep your head in the sand.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > This thread you have been commenting on is talking about efficiency... Yes, but this kind of raw input efficiency isn't the only consideration when it comes to food. There would still be plant-based products that are more efficient to grow than other plant-based products. Apples are cheaper to grow than Oranges, which is exactly what this comparison of food for livestock against food for people is. Beef production is 100% efficient at producing beef. Milk production is 100% efficient at producing milk. You just claim these alternatives are "more efficient", yet they are more expensive, they do not taste quite like beef, nor do they have the same nutritional profile. They're more efficient on some metrics, some of which are irrelevant to us. > You say, ignoring that the opposite is happening It's not clear that the opposite is happening. There's a lot of media buzz around Beyond Meat or Impossible Burger (and their IPOs). Their initial output was tiny, so naturally it can currently grow fast. This is the hype phase. We'll see how it works out in a few years. > It's still currently expensive because of the sunk cost of R&D. I doubt that. Those companies are in their growth phase and they're burning lots of capital. This is not the time to pay back on R&D. It's rather that their processes are not mature, that they're simply trying to figure out their markup, and/or that they have lots of other overhead that beef producers do not have. For instance, would you not count the marketing budget as an "inefficiency"? > Your arguments are weak. Well, alright. I think your "efficiency" argument is weak. It's pretty much irrelevant to our economy. Just look at how cheap beef is. Shockingly cheap, in fact. It could easily tolerate price increases. Even if plant-based meat replacements were significantly cheaper, they probably wouldn't displace a lot of demand for beef. Rather, they'd displace demand for vegetarian/vegan products. Those countries where meat is relatively more expensive, where efficiency is more important, those already have a rich cuisine based on plant-based products. They already have their own "fake meat" made out of for example Tofu. In my experience, that stuff is already superior to crappy Western products made for vegetarians.