5 ms·

I think this is all nonsense. Chickens are incredibly efficient meat production machines. The feed conversion ration on chickens is 1.6: https://en.wikipedia.o

I think this is all nonsense. Chickens are incredibly efficient meat production machines. The feed conversion ration on chickens is 1.6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Poultry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Poultry – that's incredible to consider, 1.6 pounds of feed turns into 1 pound of chicken! Chickens don't just produce meat, they are self-contained meat growing machines with components to support that growth, including the ability to extract and filter nutrients from food with limited processing, a built-in enclosure for the process with self-healing abilities, a control system to deliver nutrients periodically and maintain system temperature, control systems to create a balance of nutrients at the cellular level, resilient systems to deliver those nutrients, and on and on. No lab will be as efficient in making chicken meat as a chicken is. And it's not because God got it right the first time around: chickens are human products, but a chicken is product that leverages all of the resilience, complexity, and power of a full organism. (There are ethical questions about factory farming... but it should be noted that those are not environmental questions.)

socialdemocrat 6y ago
Upvoted even if I strongly disagree because your provided so much good detailed info. Really should be different votes for agreement, interest, quality of argument etc.
estaseuropano 6y ago
That's like arguing hydroponics will never be more cosy-efficient than a greenhouse which will never be more cost-efficient than a garden. Because the former each uses more energy and speciality materials while the latter each can offer a more integrated ecosystem. I'd you see it purely economically, the question is just a matter of inputs vs outputs. If you can take grain and circumvent the inefficiencies of a chicken (gets sick, grows feathers, grows bones, produces excrement, ...) and instead get the same nutrients more directly to produce meat of course it's more efficient. The question is just how much else is needed - energy, space, cost of producing the initial materials, harvesting time, ... Not to mention moral implications that a vegetarian might care about or practical elements (can you grow it with flavour?; do you need less space?; ...). That said, obviously its not going to touch the ubiquity of chickens anytime soon - eapecially in poorer countries - as the tech is high cost while you can start your own chicken coop with two eggs or chicka. But heated greenhouses are also not replacing tomato fields and yet they have a huge role in some regions of the world.
- klipt 6y ago
  > can you grow it with flavour Just add some garlic and rosemary genes and voila, herb flavored chicken that needs no marinating!
leipert 6y ago
> but it should be noted that those are not environmental questions. Aren’t some of the ethical questions connected to environmental ones? Instead of chicken feed could one produce something better? industrial chicken farming also produces waste and consumes water. Together with noise and smell there are surely environmental impacts. Also an investment in labgrown meats could bring the cost down and is potentially a good driver for innovation. Not only growing meat for consumption, but maybe skin or other more complex cell structures for transplants or other medical purposes.
jka 6y ago
Thanks for the introduction to the concept of Feed Conversion Ratio; that's a useful measure. That led me to look for comparisons between FCR for poultry and cultured meat, and so far this report[1] seems informative. Selected quotes from the report, as relevant to the topic of (land-use) efficiency: "These results suggest that alternatives to the current mix of livestock production systems could substitute current animal products and substantially reduce the current agricultural land use footprint from food production." "Although, the two most efficient products considered, i.e. imitation meat and insects, both come with consumer perception barriers, a shift towards poultry meat, eggs and milk was also found to offer land use and associated environmental benefits, of only slightly smaller magnitudes." [1] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912417300056 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221191241...
tomp 6y ago
> that's incredible to consider, 1.6 pounds of feed turns into 1 pound of chicken! I find that hard to believe. Corn is 86kcal/100g while chicken breast is 165kcal/100g (according to a quick Google search). So you're saying that a chicken is a machine that converts 137kcal from corn to 165kcal of meat, while ... living?
- unnouinceput 6y ago
  It doesn't just eat, it also drinks water. And while water is not something that has calories, by using it will break down, oxidize and produce different compounds that can hold an even bigger kcal than the initial compound (corn in this example) it started with. Isn't organic chemistry amazing?
  - tomp 6y ago
    Can you give a more concrete example? I think that water is already accounted for in calorie calculations. 100g of corn is 19g of carbs (76kcal), 3g of protein (12kcal) and 1g of fat (9kcal - honestly I thought it was more fat). 100g of chicken breast is 3g of fat (30kcal) and 31g protein (124kcal) - and that's not even the most calorie-dense part of chicken (not a lot of fat)! I realize there's some discrepancy here (I guess nutrition isn't an exact science, there's variation in living beings, and different counting techniques (count fiber or not)), but the numbers roughly match.
    - ac29 6y ago
      Animal feed is a bit more complicated than just "corn". For example, the below source indicates poultry food is around 20% protein and 5% fat - significantly more than the numbers you cite for generic corn (which I assume is the sort of corn people eat, not animal feed). https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C954 https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C9...
    - unnouinceput 6y ago
      <Can you give a more concrete example?> Yes, I can. Try to have a chicken raised only with corn, and don't give it water. See how long it will last.
hinkley 6y ago
They can also convert insects, maggots, grass, and a lot of other inedible things into food. That’s why we started keeping all of these animals in the first place. It’s just along the way we started using feed corn instead.
sxp 6y ago
Feed conversion ratio is the wrong metric since you're forgetting about the energy required to grow the feed and transport it. The proper metric would be Joules in per gram of chicken out. Since the lab grown chicken doesn't need bones or organs, there is already an efficiency gain there. You also don't don't need to maintain a chicken for months since this burger only takes a few days to grow. Real chickens are currently more efficient, but that won't last forever as lab technology improves. Ideally, you just need a vertical farm that takes in electricity, organic feedstock, and some minerals and you should be able to get a better energy to meat conversion than an inefficient chicken that was cobbled together by blind luck.
disown 6y ago
It is nonsense. You can raise chicken on just grass/insects/leftovers. It's pretty much the most carbon neutral animal you can grow. Heck it's probably more carbon neutral than growing plants as you need fertilizer. It serve as pest control, source of eggs and meat.
- nasmorn 6y ago
  Yes but unfortunately it describes almost none of the chickens you can buy.
Andys 6y ago
The conversion ratio is under 1.0 for energy and feed if you live on a small piece of land and the chickens can free range and forage for bugs plus table scraps.

socialdemocrat 6y ago

Upvoted even if I strongly disagree because your provided so much good detailed info. Really should be different votes for agreement, interest, quality of argument etc.

estaseuropano 6y ago

That's like arguing hydroponics will never be more cosy-efficient than a greenhouse which will never be more cost-efficient than a garden. Because the former each uses more energy and speciality materials while the latter each can offer a more integrated ecosystem. I'd you see it purely economically, the question is just a matter of inputs vs outputs. If you can take grain and circumvent the inefficiencies of a chicken (gets sick, grows feathers, grows bones, produces excrement, ...) and instead get the same nutrients more directly to produce meat of course it's more efficient. The question is just how much else is needed - energy, space, cost of producing the initial materials, harvesting time, ... Not to mention moral implications that a vegetarian might care about or practical elements (can you grow it with flavour?; do you need less space?; ...). That said, obviously its not going to touch the ubiquity of chickens anytime soon - eapecially in poorer countries - as the tech is high cost while you can start your own chicken coop with two eggs or chicka. But heated greenhouses are also not replacing tomato fields and yet they have a huge role in some regions of the world.

klipt 6y ago
> can you grow it with flavour Just add some garlic and rosemary genes and voila, herb flavored chicken that needs no marinating!

leipert 6y ago

> but it should be noted that those are not environmental questions. Aren’t some of the ethical questions connected to environmental ones? Instead of chicken feed could one produce something better? industrial chicken farming also produces waste and consumes water. Together with noise and smell there are surely environmental impacts. Also an investment in labgrown meats could bring the cost down and is potentially a good driver for innovation. Not only growing meat for consumption, but maybe skin or other more complex cell structures for transplants or other medical purposes.

jka 6y ago

Thanks for the introduction to the concept of Feed Conversion Ratio; that's a useful measure. That led me to look for comparisons between FCR for poultry and cultured meat, and so far this report[1] seems informative. Selected quotes from the report, as relevant to the topic of (land-use) efficiency: "These results suggest that alternatives to the current mix of livestock production systems could substitute current animal products and substantially reduce the current agricultural land use footprint from food production." "Although, the two most efficient products considered, i.e. imitation meat and insects, both come with consumer perception barriers, a shift towards poultry meat, eggs and milk was also found to offer land use and associated environmental benefits, of only slightly smaller magnitudes." [1] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912417300056 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221191241...

tomp 6y ago

> that's incredible to consider, 1.6 pounds of feed turns into 1 pound of chicken! I find that hard to believe. Corn is 86kcal/100g while chicken breast is 165kcal/100g (according to a quick Google search). So you're saying that a chicken is a machine that converts 137kcal from corn to 165kcal of meat, while ... living?

unnouinceput 6y ago
It doesn't just eat, it also drinks water. And while water is not something that has calories, by using it will break down, oxidize and produce different compounds that can hold an even bigger kcal than the initial compound (corn in this example) it started with. Isn't organic chemistry amazing?
- tomp 6y ago
  Can you give a more concrete example? I think that water is already accounted for in calorie calculations. 100g of corn is 19g of carbs (76kcal), 3g of protein (12kcal) and 1g of fat (9kcal - honestly I thought it was more fat). 100g of chicken breast is 3g of fat (30kcal) and 31g protein (124kcal) - and that's not even the most calorie-dense part of chicken (not a lot of fat)! I realize there's some discrepancy here (I guess nutrition isn't an exact science, there's variation in living beings, and different counting techniques (count fiber or not)), but the numbers roughly match.
  - ac29 6y ago
    Animal feed is a bit more complicated than just "corn". For example, the below source indicates poultry food is around 20% protein and 5% fat - significantly more than the numbers you cite for generic corn (which I assume is the sort of corn people eat, not animal feed). https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C954 https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C9...
  - unnouinceput 6y ago
    <Can you give a more concrete example?> Yes, I can. Try to have a chicken raised only with corn, and don't give it water. See how long it will last.

hinkley 6y ago

They can also convert insects, maggots, grass, and a lot of other inedible things into food. That’s why we started keeping all of these animals in the first place. It’s just along the way we started using feed corn instead.

sxp 6y ago

Feed conversion ratio is the wrong metric since you're forgetting about the energy required to grow the feed and transport it. The proper metric would be Joules in per gram of chicken out. Since the lab grown chicken doesn't need bones or organs, there is already an efficiency gain there. You also don't don't need to maintain a chicken for months since this burger only takes a few days to grow. Real chickens are currently more efficient, but that won't last forever as lab technology improves. Ideally, you just need a vertical farm that takes in electricity, organic feedstock, and some minerals and you should be able to get a better energy to meat conversion than an inefficient chicken that was cobbled together by blind luck.

disown 6y ago

It is nonsense. You can raise chicken on just grass/insects/leftovers. It's pretty much the most carbon neutral animal you can grow. Heck it's probably more carbon neutral than growing plants as you need fertilizer. It serve as pest control, source of eggs and meat.

nasmorn 6y ago
Yes but unfortunately it describes almost none of the chickens you can buy.

Andys 6y ago

The conversion ratio is under 1.0 for energy and feed if you live on a small piece of land and the chickens can free range and forage for bugs plus table scraps.