5 ms·

It should be possible to dramatically lower the cost of protein produced this way. It is just so much more efficient to grow corn, soy and pea protein and then

by dons 14y ago

It should be possible to dramatically lower the cost of protein produced this way. It is just so much more efficient to grow corn, soy and pea protein and then consume it directly, rather than feeding it to cattle first, to harvest a fraction of the input protein as meat. This stuff could win on cost alone.

planetguy 14y ago
>This stuff could win on cost alone For whom? Certainly not for me, I'm quite willing to pay a cost premium for real meat. For poor third-world villagers, then? I have my doubts. I mean, so many cultures in the world attach so much cultural significance to eating meat, and the less often you get to eat it the more significant it is. As far as point-missing innovations go, this reminds me of the Fleshlight more than anything else. You'd think that "feels just like a real vagina, only much cheaper and less trouble" would be a selling point, but it turns out that they're significantly less popular than the real thing. Oh, I'm sure they'll sell some of this stuff, there's a whole freezerful of gross-looking fake-meat products at my local supermarket. But it's not going to change the habits of any genuine omnivores.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Depends what the real meat premium gets to. Would a real meat eater rather eat a $5 burger made from (well you really don't want to know what burger meat is made from) or a $5 fake-steak sandwich that looks and tastes like steak? The initial market is going be fashionable fake meat for Wholefoods/Trader-Joes consumers. But assuming this is eventually cheaper than meat, keeps longer, has less problems with bugs/contamination/spoilage, is quicker easier to shape into burgers plus lower fat and healthier then fast food chains are going to offer it.
  - planetguy 14y ago
    "Would a real meat eater rather eat a $5 burger made from (well you really don't want to know what burger meat is made from)" Umm, yes please? Y'know what burger meat is made from? It's made from cow. Don't be squeamish, your ancestors ate far grosser bits of animals than you're gonna get in your hamburger.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      My ancestors did a lot of things I'm squeamish about. I don't see why that means I shouldn't be squeamish about them.
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      The reason there is no pork cat food? Because there is no part of a pig left over after you make sausages to put in the cat food!
    - shawnc 14y ago
      My ancestors didn't have indoor plumbing. By your logic, you should do just fine without. It's far more of an point being made, than just being squeamish. But somehow I don't think me re-listing what's been said will make a difference.
- mistercow 14y ago
  For whom? Certainly not for me, I'm quite willing to pay a cost premium for real meat. For poor third-world villagers, then? I have my doubts. I mean, so many cultures in the world attach so much cultural significance to eating meat, and the less often you get to eat it the more significant it is. That is a pretty weird false dichotomy there, and I don't know if you intended it, but you basically just divided the world into "people who can afford and are willing to pay extra for real meat" and "third-world villagers". Also, meat substitutes are already winning on price in some Asian cultures. You'd think that "feels just like a real vagina, only much cheaper and less trouble" would be a selling point, but it turns out that they're significantly less popular than the real thing. And then you followed it up with one of the worst, and most sexist analogies I've ever seen. First of all, why it's sexist: for your analogy to work, you must assume that the difference between a fleshlight and a real vagina is less than (or at least comparable to) the difference between meat and meat substitutes. One of the principal differences between fleshlights and real vaginas is that real vaginas have women attached to them. So if your analogy is to work at all, we must accept that the significance of a woman is less than the significance of the difference between fake and real meat. Preposterous. Secondly, why the analogy fails anyway: I think you'll find that if it were a contest to see what's rubbing penises the most, men's hands would be winning by a landslide.
mistercow 14y ago
As a matter of fact, it already sometimes does. For example, Texas Pete canned chili sauce contains soy grits instead of meat, yet makes no attempt on its packaging to advertise that it is vegetarian. I also wouldn't be surprised, given the incredibly low cost of textured gluten, if there were a fair number of Chinese restaurants out there passing it off as "duck" in their dishes. So far, vegetarian meat substitutes have been treated as a niche luxury good and made very expensive for western markets, but this is an artificial effect caused by demographics on the demand side, not a matter of supply costs. You can see proof of this by shopping for fake meat at Asian markets and comparing the prices to those in the hippie section of their local supermarket. A bag of dried soy protein that will turn into the equivalent of several pounds of ground beef can easily be found for under $3.

by dons 14y ago

planetguy 14y ago

>This stuff could win on cost alone For whom? Certainly not for me, I'm quite willing to pay a cost premium for real meat. For poor third-world villagers, then? I have my doubts. I mean, so many cultures in the world attach so much cultural significance to eating meat, and the less often you get to eat it the more significant it is. As far as point-missing innovations go, this reminds me of the Fleshlight more than anything else. You'd think that "feels just like a real vagina, only much cheaper and less trouble" would be a selling point, but it turns out that they're significantly less popular than the real thing. Oh, I'm sure they'll sell some of this stuff, there's a whole freezerful of gross-looking fake-meat products at my local supermarket. But it's not going to change the habits of any genuine omnivores.

excuse-me 14y ago
Depends what the real meat premium gets to. Would a real meat eater rather eat a $5 burger made from (well you really don't want to know what burger meat is made from) or a $5 fake-steak sandwich that looks and tastes like steak? The initial market is going be fashionable fake meat for Wholefoods/Trader-Joes consumers. But assuming this is eventually cheaper than meat, keeps longer, has less problems with bugs/contamination/spoilage, is quicker easier to shape into burgers plus lower fat and healthier then fast food chains are going to offer it.
- planetguy 14y ago
  "Would a real meat eater rather eat a $5 burger made from (well you really don't want to know what burger meat is made from)" Umm, yes please? Y'know what burger meat is made from? It's made from cow. Don't be squeamish, your ancestors ate far grosser bits of animals than you're gonna get in your hamburger.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    My ancestors did a lot of things I'm squeamish about. I don't see why that means I shouldn't be squeamish about them.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    The reason there is no pork cat food? Because there is no part of a pig left over after you make sausages to put in the cat food!
  - shawnc 14y ago
    My ancestors didn't have indoor plumbing. By your logic, you should do just fine without. It's far more of an point being made, than just being squeamish. But somehow I don't think me re-listing what's been said will make a difference.
mistercow 14y ago
For whom? Certainly not for me, I'm quite willing to pay a cost premium for real meat. For poor third-world villagers, then? I have my doubts. I mean, so many cultures in the world attach so much cultural significance to eating meat, and the less often you get to eat it the more significant it is. That is a pretty weird false dichotomy there, and I don't know if you intended it, but you basically just divided the world into "people who can afford and are willing to pay extra for real meat" and "third-world villagers". Also, meat substitutes are already winning on price in some Asian cultures. You'd think that "feels just like a real vagina, only much cheaper and less trouble" would be a selling point, but it turns out that they're significantly less popular than the real thing. And then you followed it up with one of the worst, and most sexist analogies I've ever seen. First of all, why it's sexist: for your analogy to work, you must assume that the difference between a fleshlight and a real vagina is less than (or at least comparable to) the difference between meat and meat substitutes. One of the principal differences between fleshlights and real vaginas is that real vaginas have women attached to them. So if your analogy is to work at all, we must accept that the significance of a woman is less than the significance of the difference between fake and real meat. Preposterous. Secondly, why the analogy fails anyway: I think you'll find that if it were a contest to see what's rubbing penises the most, men's hands would be winning by a landslide.

mistercow 14y ago

As a matter of fact, it already sometimes does. For example, Texas Pete canned chili sauce contains soy grits instead of meat, yet makes no attempt on its packaging to advertise that it is vegetarian. I also wouldn't be surprised, given the incredibly low cost of textured gluten, if there were a fair number of Chinese restaurants out there passing it off as "duck" in their dishes. So far, vegetarian meat substitutes have been treated as a niche luxury good and made very expensive for western markets, but this is an artificial effect caused by demographics on the demand side, not a matter of supply costs. You can see proof of this by shopping for fake meat at Asian markets and comparing the prices to those in the hippie section of their local supermarket. A bag of dried soy protein that will turn into the equivalent of several pounds of ground beef can easily be found for under $3.