5 ms·

But we can also produce milk from yeast now. Perfect Day, for example, produces milk without cows. So it's not out of the question we could scale that up to me

But we can also produce milk from yeast now. Perfect Day, for example, produces milk without cows. So it's not out of the question we could scale that up to meet plastics demand.

5o1ecist 8mo ago
[flagged]
- OkayPhysicist 8mo ago
  To be clear, Perfect Day doesn't make "milk" like plant-based milks (think almond "milk", oat "milk", etc). They bioengineered some yeast to grow whey protein directly. The milk they make (made?) probably wouldn't be considered "milk" in the strict sense (they had to get the fat and sugars from plants), but there's really not a good reason to distinguish between "whey protein from cows" and "whey protein from yeast" when it's the same stuff.
- qff 8mo ago
  The large diary producers are forcing things that everyone understand what is — “Oat milk” and “Almond milk” — to be called “Oat drink” and “Almond drink”. New terms for things that have existed for decades. Really, we should be calling the OG milk “cow milk” and let the good times roll. Big milk have been pushing questionable health research and narratives for cow milk for quite some time. All this coming from someone (me) who drinks 0,5L of cow milk every day. Yes, yeast milk is milk too. Just like coconut milk.
  - throwway120385 8mo ago
    I thought the reason things are called "Oat Drink" versus "Oat Milk" is because non-dairy "milks" have to be fortified with vitamin D and calcium and the stuff that's labeled a "drink" is not fortified.
- ahhhhnoooo 8mo ago
  You understand that the product I'm talking about is the same proteins as milk, and is essentially whey, right? I'm not talking about grinding up nuts or grains and calling it milk, I'm talking about engineering yeasts to literally produce the proteins that milk has to create a product that isn't just milk-like, but is literally identical proteins.
  - tredre3 8mo ago
    Whey is just a small part of milk, though. You can't isolate one aspect and pretend it's fair to call it (cow) milk. You wouldn't call whey protein powder mixed in water milk. You wouldn't call butter mixed with water milk. You wouldn't call casein powder mixed with water milk.
    - ahhhhnoooo 8mo ago
      You are correct. Thankfully I never said anything of the sort. I said proteins, plural. The s is a key indicator I was talking about more than one aspect. Milk is about 5% lactose, 3.5% casein (80%) and whey proteins (20%, almost entirely two specific sub proteins), and 3-4% fat. A negligible amount of minerals. Nonfat milk, which I think we'd both recognize as milk (unpalatable as it may be). Lactose free milk is milk, I think. One assumes lactose free nonfat milk is milk. So if one is producing the three primary proteins, you've got nearly the whole way there. There's some trace proteins you are missing, but if you are 99.99+% of the way to milk, you've got milk. You sure the milk you get from the store hasn't denatured those trace proteins?
- systoll 8mo ago
  Language changes. In this case just the spelling though. "Almaund mylke" is all over medieval cookery manuscripts, among other options. We’ve been using milk for non-animal products for longer than we’ve spelt milk with an i, and for longer than we’ve had companies, let alone multi-billion-dollar ones.
- vlabakje90 8mo ago
  The first documented use of the word coconut milk in English dates from 1698 ( Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, volume 20, page 333) and the use of almond milk goes quite a bit further back, to at least 1390 (The Forme of Cury).
- M95D 8mo ago
  I don't know about the rest of the world, but in EU you can't write "milk" on the packaging unless it comes from cows/goats/sheep/etc. Also, you can't name it "honey" or picture bees or honeycombs on the packaging unless it's genuine honey from bees. The solution is to write better laws and stop opposing regulations.
zer00eyz 8mo ago
Is this going to result in net less greenhouse gas emissions? Maybe but probably not zero, from parents article: "The use of such treated fertilizers will be most relevant for reducing the carbon footprint of milk in countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Netherlands, where N fertilizer is a major contributor to the footprint." In case you are unaware much of the nitrogen in plant matter (food for yeast or cows) comes from fertilizer. And that is extracted using the Haber process (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process ). This runs on natural gas, because it's effectively a waste product of other hydrocarbons being extracted.

But we can also produce milk from yeast now. Perfect Day, for example, produces milk without cows. So it's not out of the question we could scale that up to meet plastics demand.

5o1ecist 8mo ago

[flagged]

OkayPhysicist 8mo ago
To be clear, Perfect Day doesn't make "milk" like plant-based milks (think almond "milk", oat "milk", etc). They bioengineered some yeast to grow whey protein directly. The milk they make (made?) probably wouldn't be considered "milk" in the strict sense (they had to get the fat and sugars from plants), but there's really not a good reason to distinguish between "whey protein from cows" and "whey protein from yeast" when it's the same stuff.
qff 8mo ago
The large diary producers are forcing things that everyone understand what is — “Oat milk” and “Almond milk” — to be called “Oat drink” and “Almond drink”. New terms for things that have existed for decades. Really, we should be calling the OG milk “cow milk” and let the good times roll. Big milk have been pushing questionable health research and narratives for cow milk for quite some time. All this coming from someone (me) who drinks 0,5L of cow milk every day. Yes, yeast milk is milk too. Just like coconut milk.
- throwway120385 8mo ago
  I thought the reason things are called "Oat Drink" versus "Oat Milk" is because non-dairy "milks" have to be fortified with vitamin D and calcium and the stuff that's labeled a "drink" is not fortified.
ahhhhnoooo 8mo ago
You understand that the product I'm talking about is the same proteins as milk, and is essentially whey, right? I'm not talking about grinding up nuts or grains and calling it milk, I'm talking about engineering yeasts to literally produce the proteins that milk has to create a product that isn't just milk-like, but is literally identical proteins.
- tredre3 8mo ago
  Whey is just a small part of milk, though. You can't isolate one aspect and pretend it's fair to call it (cow) milk. You wouldn't call whey protein powder mixed in water milk. You wouldn't call butter mixed with water milk. You wouldn't call casein powder mixed with water milk.
  - ahhhhnoooo 8mo ago
    You are correct. Thankfully I never said anything of the sort. I said proteins, plural. The s is a key indicator I was talking about more than one aspect. Milk is about 5% lactose, 3.5% casein (80%) and whey proteins (20%, almost entirely two specific sub proteins), and 3-4% fat. A negligible amount of minerals. Nonfat milk, which I think we'd both recognize as milk (unpalatable as it may be). Lactose free milk is milk, I think. One assumes lactose free nonfat milk is milk. So if one is producing the three primary proteins, you've got nearly the whole way there. There's some trace proteins you are missing, but if you are 99.99+% of the way to milk, you've got milk. You sure the milk you get from the store hasn't denatured those trace proteins?
systoll 8mo ago
Language changes. In this case just the spelling though. "Almaund mylke" is all over medieval cookery manuscripts, among other options. We’ve been using milk for non-animal products for longer than we’ve spelt milk with an i, and for longer than we’ve had companies, let alone multi-billion-dollar ones.
vlabakje90 8mo ago
The first documented use of the word coconut milk in English dates from 1698 ( Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, volume 20, page 333) and the use of almond milk goes quite a bit further back, to at least 1390 (The Forme of Cury).
M95D 8mo ago
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in EU you can't write "milk" on the packaging unless it comes from cows/goats/sheep/etc. Also, you can't name it "honey" or picture bees or honeycombs on the packaging unless it's genuine honey from bees. The solution is to write better laws and stop opposing regulations.

zer00eyz 8mo ago

Is this going to result in net less greenhouse gas emissions? Maybe but probably not zero, from parents article: "The use of such treated fertilizers will be most relevant for reducing the carbon footprint of milk in countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Netherlands, where N fertilizer is a major contributor to the footprint." In case you are unaware much of the nitrogen in plant matter (food for yeast or cows) comes from fertilizer. And that is extracted using the Haber process (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process ). This runs on natural gas, because it's effectively a waste product of other hydrocarbons being extracted.