3 ms·
Let's say in a few years time Soylent is successful enough to have multiple product lines. I wonder what, if any, advantages there would be to a variation that
by forrestthewoods 12y ago
Let's say in a few years time Soylent is successful enough to have multiple product lines. I wonder what, if any, advantages there would be to a variation that did include animal products.
- baddox 12y agoI would assume it's cheaper and/or logistically easier to fulfill nutritional requirements with animal products. Presumably that's why Soylent used fish oil initially.
- jack-r-abbit 12y agoFTA: A perfect example of the inefficiency of animal-based nutritional compounds is fish oil That sounds like getting the fish oil is more costly than getting it straight from the algae.
- baddox 12y agoI assumed that referred to environmental efficiency rather than cost efficiency.
- jack-r-abbit 12y agoPossibly. Adding this part "turned into fish oil through an energy-intensive process" makes me think of cost. But I can see it both ways.
- mikeyouse 12y agoDepending on the concentration you're after and the form (triglyceride vs. ethyl ester), fish oil is almost an order of magnitude cheaper than algae-based omega-3s. The price is just a question of scale since fish oil is often a byproduct or co-product with fish meal production for livestock, and millions of metric tons of fish meal are processed annually. Fortunately for Soylent, a KG of wholesale Omega-3 from algae costs roughly $150/kg and they're only using 2.5G per serving, so you can figure maybe $0.30 - $0.40/serving depending on the concentration of Omega-3s in the powder they're buying. It is pretty interesting that maybe 1/10th of the cost is tied up in Omega-3s though.