Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

I would definitely like to try the products (another reason to make a trip back to Colorado).

Lots of questions long term though. Is this the "Ethanol of Meat" ? Where the total cost/impact of producing the good overwhelms the benefits? Ground chuck roast is $7/lb and currently this stuff is more expensive than that. Can it be less expensive than that? Way less expensive?

The fundamental question is does this move us toward a more efficient use of the resources we have to feed us, or is it more the high tech / high energy lifestyle? I am always wondering is this this increasing the kilowatt / person ratio or decreasing it.

View on HN

There are places in the world where cattle production is the most efficient (and really only) efficient use of resources.

Very large herds of cattle on extremely large areas of semi-arid grasslands mimic the buffalo that humans eradicated. They take few to no resources that aren't already there, and they actually support the ecosystem.

In some places cattle suck down resources that could go to other more useful places (grain, water, etc.) but in others they're the only way to gain anything from the land, and they protect it from desertification.

It's not just about use of land resources though, it's about greenhouse gases (methane) generated by cattle. Beef is just about the worst thing you can eat with regards to climate change.

How would this differ from an equivalent buffalo?

From an ecological perspective, replacing cattle with buffalo wouldn't be much of a win. There are too many meat-eating people on the planet to make either animal the primary source.

Is there a problem with having a 'revolving' population of 60M? That is, we are eating out of the population, and it is replacing itself (with our help)?

Assume we could feed all the meat-eaters on a revolving 60M cattle--would we then have solved the problem? Or are we supposed to maintain a smaller-than-original population?

60M is possibly double the population there ever was, and that was a time when far, far more land was devoted to them. The only way to have that many now would be an extremely concentrated population (with its methane output) plus all the other outputs of humanity.

There is no single answer about what we're "supposed to" do, but it is clear that cattle are driving the increase of methane production and that methane is a far, far more potent greenhouse gas than C02. A plant-based replacement wins hands-down in any ecological analysis.

There are an order of magnitude more cattle than there have been equivalent buffalos?

Hmm, I was going to say "No way!" but looking around it seems like 60M buffalo back in the day [1] and at times 100M cows [2], certainly not "order of magnitude" but more cows that buffalo.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Range_and_popul...

[2] http://www.cattlenetwork.com/advice-and-tips/cowcalf-produce...

Worldwide there are around 1 billion cows [1]

[1] http://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-ranking-co...

100M is an order of magnitude more than 60M, by definition. "order of magnitude" doesn't mean "ten times as much", it means "you have to use another column to describe it"... and so 1x10^8 is an order of magnitude more than 6x10^7...

You're just wrong.

Here are three sources that say an order of magnitude means ten times as much:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/order-of-magnitude

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/order+of+magnitude

Each of those links say that it can be used both ways. I was wrong that it wasn't used the OP's way, but not wrong in my own definition of it.

an order of magnitude conventionally means an approximate power of 10; the implicit accuracy of the approximation is such that n orders of magnitude means a multiple between 10^(n-0.5) and 10^(n+0.5).

>> does this move us toward a more efficient use of the resources

It's a complicated question, but there's one analogy: The company behind "beyond mayo" can make egg substitutes for ~50% the cost of an egg.

I think this could increase the kilowatt/person ratio and still be a net win for our climate. Eating less meat as a society reduces our reliance on animals, which as husbandry reduces so does the methane output. Methane is a significant contributor to climate change, although it dissipates relatively quickly so is much easier to recover from than CO2.

So to me, reducing methane is more important than reducing total energy used (as long as we're using renewable resources for energy). If we're burning coal to produce eco-friendly plant burgers, then forget it.

Ground chuck roast is heavily subsidized; it would be surprising if any fake meat product could actually rival the energy and water costs needed to raise and process beef. So one solution would be to price both more fairly, in which case lots of consumers might be happier to choose the vegan option.

How exactly is ground chuck roast heavily subsidized? Is it any different than the subsidies for agriculture that make up meat alternatives?

They are both subsidized, clearly - but since it takes 8lbs / 3.6kg of grain to produce 1lb / 0.45kg of beef [1], and the livestock then receive additional subsidies [2], the effect is magnified.

1: https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic... 2: https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=live...

If it takes more agriculture product to produce meat, the plain plant version should then be cheaper.

     cost of meat/plant version = real cost of producing - subsidies

Since subsidies in meat version are bigger, end result can be cheaper despite having higher "real" cost.

Only if you assume that the only costs/inputs are the grain. There maybe other manufacturing costs, which do not receive any subsidy.

> Ground chuck roast is heavily subsidized; it would be surprising if any fake meat product could actually rival the energy and water costs needed to raise and process beef.

Substitutes have much lower growing costs in energy and water, but so far also much higher processing costs. Not too surprised that these might end up offsetting each other.

If you want plants to be efficient food sources, the best approach is not to try to make them imitate meat. Making them imitate meat is an inefficient use of plants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com