4 ms·

I disagree with some of the premises. First, I think that the right choice is to pick the right protein for the job, and not choose wheat and soy because of pr

I disagree with some of the premises. First, I think that the right choice is to pick the right protein for the job, and not choose wheat and soy because of price. Mung beans, for example, are expensive because people aren't growing them. If quantity demanded grows, so will supply and supply chains, which will lower the price. It is possible that mung beans (as an example) are marginally more expensive to grow for some reason other than scale, but I would be surprised. Second, I think they are getting cause and effect mixed up. They are saying to go downmarket because it will be cheaper, but it is much harder to beat Tyson at its own game with chicken nuggets than it is to provide a product at a higher perceived quality, then use profits to provide scale to go downmarket. Plant-based versions already suffer from a perception of lower quality - it makes sense to compete on taste before cost because failing at both will never scale.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
The thing that I found incredibly strange about this analysis is that it is saying how older plant-based products from Morningstar and Gardein show it can be done cheaper. What??? I don't even consider those older veggie products in the same category as Impossible and Beyond, mainly because I think they taste like shit. Well, not shit exactly, but for me an Impossible Burger can completely satiate my hunger for meat. Morningstar-type burgers do absolutely none of that for me.
- nicpottier 6y ago
  100 percent agree. I'm almost entirely vegetarian but would occasionally allow myself a burger as a treat as it is one of my favorite meals when I have a real hankering. A Beyond or Impossible patty now completely satisfied that craving. They really have done a great job of it. Note I am not saying they are indistinguishable from real beef, but they are meaty enough in a way that scratches the itch which previous products never did.
- redisman 6y ago
  Morningstar is pretty good with their sausage patties and hot dogs. Some of the best in those categories. The gap between the 1.0 veggie meats and the current ones ( especially impossible) is insane though. Juiciness and flavor are completely on a different level. I love that it doesn’t feel like eating a fake burger to somewhat satisfy my craving anymore, but like I ate a burger.
  - asdff 6y ago
    I can't get over the oilyness. These things are like sponges for whatever they are cooked in. I wish they cooked more like a falafel patty, where the outside forms a crust and acts as a grease barrier for the inside.
dehrmann 6y ago
> They are saying to go downmarket because it will be cheaper Ah, yes, the Tesla strategy. Tesla also keeps issuing more shares and has failed to deliver a $20k-$30k Civic/Accord competitor.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Tesla has also proved the market and accelerated the EV roadmaps of most of the other car manufactures.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    True, it's done great things for EVs. It has yet to turn that into a business that's more than nominally profitable, so you should be cautious in using its playbook.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      > [Tesla] has yet to turn that into a business that's more than nominally profitable, so you should be cautious in using its playbook. And all their profits come from selling carbon credits to competitors, not from selling cars. Not to mention non-refundable presales for FSD functionality. That's not to say Tesla shouldn't be doing those things. They are trying to run a company after all. But it's important to remember that when judging them on the viability of their business and how profitable it is. One of my favorite automobile companies, Porsche, has a very long complicated history with more than one moment of nearly going bankrupt, and their greatest savior was the VW squeeze so I'm not necessarily opposed to this sort of thing.
      - thordenmark 6y ago
        >And all their profits come from selling carbon credits to competitors, This is merely a current strategy so more can be funneled into R&D, and growing the infrastructure.
jcampbell1 6y ago
The protein yield per acre for soybeans vs mung beans is 6x. No amount of try hard is going to make mung bean protein close in price to soy. What gets me is that I can’t even source tofu that is cheaper than chicken. Chickens are very good reactors for turning carbohydrates into protein.
- slacka 6y ago
  > Chickens are very good reactors for turning carbohydrates into protein. The remnant wiring from my chemistry and biology classes tells me this is impossible. Did a little digging and no animal seems capable of this feat.[1] Chickens are fed a mix of cheap grains, like wheat and corn that are ~16% protein.[2] What they are is efficient at turning this protein into body mass/eggs. [1] https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-organism-that-can-convert-carbohydrates-into-protein https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-organism-that-can-convert-... [2] my backyard chickens
  - bsdz 6y ago
    In the UK a popular plant based "meat" is Quorn. I believe that is grown by an organism that is fed glucose. The glucose is predigested maize starch. So perhaps not a single organism but two to make it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum
    - pinot 6y ago
      You still need a nitrogen source. They are using the glucose energy to turn nitrogen (ammonia in this case) into protein.
      - bsdz 6y ago
        I'm not sure I agree with your wording, ie use "glucose energy to turn nitrogen into protein". Proteins are made up of amino acids which are made from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms. The glucose not only provides energy to the process but also carbon, oxygen and nitrogen. In fact, this is a very common process in plants. Note: The comment I originally responded to appears to have changed their wording from "living organism" to animal. Although curiously this might not be correct either. For example, humans synthesize some “nonessential amino acids” from glucose (eg glucose → pyruvate → alanine). It's possible similar amino acid pathways can be combined into a protein completely synthesized by the human body. It also seems very likely that this happens in other animals. https://www.quora.com/Can-the-human-body-turn-excess-glucose-into-proteins https://www.quora.com/Can-the-human-body-turn-excess-glucose...

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

The thing that I found incredibly strange about this analysis is that it is saying how older plant-based products from Morningstar and Gardein show it can be done cheaper. What??? I don't even consider those older veggie products in the same category as Impossible and Beyond, mainly because I think they taste like shit. Well, not shit exactly, but for me an Impossible Burger can completely satiate my hunger for meat. Morningstar-type burgers do absolutely none of that for me.

nicpottier 6y ago
100 percent agree. I'm almost entirely vegetarian but would occasionally allow myself a burger as a treat as it is one of my favorite meals when I have a real hankering. A Beyond or Impossible patty now completely satisfied that craving. They really have done a great job of it. Note I am not saying they are indistinguishable from real beef, but they are meaty enough in a way that scratches the itch which previous products never did.
redisman 6y ago
Morningstar is pretty good with their sausage patties and hot dogs. Some of the best in those categories. The gap between the 1.0 veggie meats and the current ones ( especially impossible) is insane though. Juiciness and flavor are completely on a different level. I love that it doesn’t feel like eating a fake burger to somewhat satisfy my craving anymore, but like I ate a burger.
- asdff 6y ago
  I can't get over the oilyness. These things are like sponges for whatever they are cooked in. I wish they cooked more like a falafel patty, where the outside forms a crust and acts as a grease barrier for the inside.

dehrmann 6y ago

> They are saying to go downmarket because it will be cheaper Ah, yes, the Tesla strategy. Tesla also keeps issuing more shares and has failed to deliver a $20k-$30k Civic/Accord competitor.

nicoburns 6y ago
Tesla has also proved the market and accelerated the EV roadmaps of most of the other car manufactures.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  True, it's done great things for EVs. It has yet to turn that into a business that's more than nominally profitable, so you should be cautious in using its playbook.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    > [Tesla] has yet to turn that into a business that's more than nominally profitable, so you should be cautious in using its playbook. And all their profits come from selling carbon credits to competitors, not from selling cars. Not to mention non-refundable presales for FSD functionality. That's not to say Tesla shouldn't be doing those things. They are trying to run a company after all. But it's important to remember that when judging them on the viability of their business and how profitable it is. One of my favorite automobile companies, Porsche, has a very long complicated history with more than one moment of nearly going bankrupt, and their greatest savior was the VW squeeze so I'm not necessarily opposed to this sort of thing.
    - thordenmark 6y ago
      >And all their profits come from selling carbon credits to competitors, This is merely a current strategy so more can be funneled into R&D, and growing the infrastructure.

jcampbell1 6y ago

The protein yield per acre for soybeans vs mung beans is 6x. No amount of try hard is going to make mung bean protein close in price to soy. What gets me is that I can’t even source tofu that is cheaper than chicken. Chickens are very good reactors for turning carbohydrates into protein.

slacka 6y ago
> Chickens are very good reactors for turning carbohydrates into protein. The remnant wiring from my chemistry and biology classes tells me this is impossible. Did a little digging and no animal seems capable of this feat.[1] Chickens are fed a mix of cheap grains, like wheat and corn that are ~16% protein.[2] What they are is efficient at turning this protein into body mass/eggs. [1] https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-organism-that-can-convert-carbohydrates-into-protein https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-organism-that-can-convert-... [2] my backyard chickens
- bsdz 6y ago
  In the UK a popular plant based "meat" is Quorn. I believe that is grown by an organism that is fed glucose. The glucose is predigested maize starch. So perhaps not a single organism but two to make it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum
  - pinot 6y ago
    You still need a nitrogen source. They are using the glucose energy to turn nitrogen (ammonia in this case) into protein.
    - bsdz 6y ago
      I'm not sure I agree with your wording, ie use "glucose energy to turn nitrogen into protein". Proteins are made up of amino acids which are made from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms. The glucose not only provides energy to the process but also carbon, oxygen and nitrogen. In fact, this is a very common process in plants. Note: The comment I originally responded to appears to have changed their wording from "living organism" to animal. Although curiously this might not be correct either. For example, humans synthesize some “nonessential amino acids” from glucose (eg glucose → pyruvate → alanine). It's possible similar amino acid pathways can be combined into a protein completely synthesized by the human body. It also seems very likely that this happens in other animals. https://www.quora.com/Can-the-human-body-turn-excess-glucose-into-proteins https://www.quora.com/Can-the-human-body-turn-excess-glucose...