3 ms·

The article says: > Some hope that lab-grown meat could reduce the carbon footprint of the food industry. Some hope. What are the facts? I am sceptical that

by worik 4y ago

The article says: > Some hope that lab-grown meat could reduce the carbon footprint of the food industry. Some hope. What are the facts? I am sceptical that a lab process can be more efficient than a biological process. And being less efficient would it not use more energy, resources, and release more carbon? The energy for biological processes is often largely solar, for lab processes often largely from fossil fuels. I have no data, does anyone?

coldpie 4y ago
I also don't have any data, but my gut feeling is the opposite. There's a lot of waste[1] in growing a whole animal (skin, bones, organs, unused muscles, etc), not to mention the time and space required. It seems to me that growing only the "good parts" would be far more efficient, but you feel the opposite. It's impossible to know who's right. I wonder what the efficiency will be like in the future, I think that's the make-or-break factor here. [1] Waste purely from the perspective of growing human food. I understand many parts of the animal are actually used for other purposes.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > [1] Waste purely from the perspective of growing human food. I understand many parts of the animal are actually used for other purposes. That's pretty important. If we replace the high margin steak part of the animal with lab grown equivalents, what is the plan for all the things we've learned to make with the rest of the cow?
  - coldpie 4y ago
    We'll figure it out. Even in the most optimistic case, it's not like it's going to be a lightswitch where all food animals suddenly disappear overnight.
cwkoss 4y ago
Animals do a lot of stuff (and have a lot of parts) which are not necessary when producing a steak or ground meat. Will use more GRID energy, but require significantly less arable land per unit. (And thus probably less fossil fuels, because agriculture uses a lot).
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > Animals do a lot of stuff (and have a lot of parts) which are not necessary when producing a steak or ground meat. Useful parts, which will have to be replaced right along with replacing the profitable steak parts.
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    Aren't most of those parts only 'useful' because they are a cheap byproduct of steak production?
skeaker 4y ago
An obvious difference is that animals require extraordinary amounts of land to live on and lots of food that needs land to be planted on which necessitates a very significant amount of deforestation, something that will not be needed for a lab

by worik 4y ago

coldpie 4y ago

I also don't have any data, but my gut feeling is the opposite. There's a lot of waste[1] in growing a whole animal (skin, bones, organs, unused muscles, etc), not to mention the time and space required. It seems to me that growing only the "good parts" would be far more efficient, but you feel the opposite. It's impossible to know who's right. I wonder what the efficiency will be like in the future, I think that's the make-or-break factor here. [1] Waste purely from the perspective of growing human food. I understand many parts of the animal are actually used for other purposes.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> [1] Waste purely from the perspective of growing human food. I understand many parts of the animal are actually used for other purposes. That's pretty important. If we replace the high margin steak part of the animal with lab grown equivalents, what is the plan for all the things we've learned to make with the rest of the cow?
- coldpie 4y ago
  We'll figure it out. Even in the most optimistic case, it's not like it's going to be a lightswitch where all food animals suddenly disappear overnight.

cwkoss 4y ago

Animals do a lot of stuff (and have a lot of parts) which are not necessary when producing a steak or ground meat. Will use more GRID energy, but require significantly less arable land per unit. (And thus probably less fossil fuels, because agriculture uses a lot).

rootusrootus 4y ago
> Animals do a lot of stuff (and have a lot of parts) which are not necessary when producing a steak or ground meat. Useful parts, which will have to be replaced right along with replacing the profitable steak parts.
- cwkoss 4y ago
  Aren't most of those parts only 'useful' because they are a cheap byproduct of steak production?

skeaker 4y ago

An obvious difference is that animals require extraordinary amounts of land to live on and lots of food that needs land to be planted on which necessitates a very significant amount of deforestation, something that will not be needed for a lab