The Impossible Burger 2.0

Xcellor

Just back from US and tried beyond burger and impossible burger. Impossible burger wins it for me. The texture was scary.. I had to ask twice just to be sure it wasn't beef.

Eric Cartman

these fake meats will become mass produced and cheap and will be the new filling for frozen burgers, chicken nuggets and everything else that 'iceland' and lidl sell to people.

Real meat will become a delicacy as concentrated feeding ops and giant factory farms die off, the kind of more 'natural' farming we do here will see higher prices as people yearn for the quality and authenticity of meat.

I think this will just end up being good news for Ireland, scotland and the few other countries known for producing actual good beef.

MrMusician18

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

No, in the majority of cases, they are administered by the stockman.


But it has to be prescribed by a vet who has attended on farm within the previous 30 days before it can be distributed.


Anything else you'd like to know?

The sick animal will not have been diagnosed by a vet, it will be by the stockman. And treated by the stockman, with no vet oversight.

briangriffin

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The sick animal will not have been diagnosed by a vet, it will be by the stockman. And treated by the stockman, with no vet oversight.

God your some gob****e

MrMusician18

briangriffin wrote: »

God your some gob****e

Thanks.

I'm not wrong though am I?

Buford T. Justice XIX

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The sick animal will not have been diagnosed by a vet, it will be by the stockman. And treated by the stockman, with no vet oversight.

Incorrect.

Again.

You don't need a veterinary degree to diagnose pink eye or mastitis. So the stockman will diagnose along with the vet and the vet will prescribe the medicine for the animal with a phone call along with a photograph and his experience of the farm in question.

Then there's withdrawal and the inspection regime relating to the prescribing of those medicines. A higher rate of antibiotic prescribing by a vet or to a farmer will flag both for an inspection to examine the reasoning for that pattern of prescribing meds for cattle.

And if you think mandating a €100 call out fee for a case of pinkeye is going to be called anything other than the usual lazy propaganda by vested interests, you are obviously living in an alternate reality.

briangriffin

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Thanks.

I'm not wrong though am I?

No you can be both things at once. Well done

emaherx

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Antibiotics are used for the treatment of common infections study as mastitis and pink eye. These are not administered by a vet.

Herbicide use might be low, but there's plenty used - particularly to control rushes.

Anything else you'd like to know?

So treating mastitis and and pink eye don't deserve the use of antibiotics?

And herbicide / pesticide use is low you acknowledge and would be much higher if growing ingredients for fake meat.

MrMusician18

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Incorrect.

Again.

You don't need a veterinary degree to diagnose pink eye or mastitis. So the stockman will diagnose along with the vet and the vet will prescribe the medicine for the animal with a phone call along with a photograph and his experience of the farm in question.

Then there's withdrawal and the inspection regime relating to the prescribing of those medicines. A higher rate of antibiotic prescribing by a vet or to a farmer will flag both for an inspection to examine the reasoning for that pattern of prescribing meds for cattle.

And if you think mandating a €100 call out fee for a case of pinkeye is going to be called anything other than the usual lazy propaganda by vested interests, you are obviously living in an alternate reality.

A photograph?! When was the last time you sent a photo of a mastitis infected quarter in order to get a few tubes?

Would that be never?

In the days before camera phones, I suppose you'd get the auld film developed first and fax it into the vet yeah?? I suppose that's what the auld lads that can't manage the camera phone do now still??

Buford T. Justice XIX

MrMusician18 wrote: »

A photograph?! When was the last time you sent a photo of a mastitis infected quarter in order to get a few tubes?

Would that be never?

In the days before camera phones, I suppose you'd get the auld film developed first and fax it into the vet yeah?? I suppose that's what the auld lads that can't manage the camera phone do now still??

Mod note: We have a long history of civility to non farmers in this forum. For that reason alone, you are being given one chance to reign in your posting style here. The thread is a discussion of the fake burger being touted by the OP and that is all. If you have further discussions you wish to partake in on other issues pertaining to Agriculture, feel free to open a new thread on it.

Either way, this directive on civility remains.

Buford T. Justice

emaherx

MrMusician18 wrote: »

A photograph?! When was the last time you sent a photo of a mastitis infected quarter in order to get a few tubes?

Would that be never?

In the days before camera phones, I suppose you'd get the auld film developed first and fax it into the vet yeah?? I suppose that's what the auld lads that can't manage the camera phone do now still??

Why are you arguing about mastitis? it's easily diagnosed and antibiotic tubes are the correct treatment. How dose that equate to over use? In the last year I've had one case of mastitis that required treatment. You make it sound like cows have mastitis non stop.

MrMusician18

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

M9d note: We have a long history of civility to non farmers in this forum. For that reason alone, you are being given one chance to reign in your posting style here. The thread is a discussion of the fake burger being touted by the OP and that is all. If you have further discussions you wish to partake in on other issues pertaining to Agriculture, feel free to open a new thread on it.

Either way, this directive on civility remains.

Buford T. Justice

We do, do we? Allowing personal abuse, like being called a gob****e is a strange form of civility.

Anyway, my point stands. I don't think any farmer sends photos of common ailments that require antibiotic treatment to the vet. To suggest so undermines your credibility.

And to return this to the veggie burger, the over use of antibiotics is another major crisis brewing for humanity (not just in animals, it's rampant in humans too). The production of meat analogues could play a strong role in helping to delay this crisis, until we have time to develop new medicines.

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not a misquote, and Irish agriculture is not on a sustainable footing btw, not at it's current output.

Take away all the carbon inputs including the tractors, the fossil fuel derived fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics and where would production be? 20% of today?

Agriculture in Ireland hasn't been truly sustainable since mechanisation was introduced.

For beef on grass the drop off might be just a few percent, if anything at all.
Plenty of examples in the US and Canada of people actually increasing beef production by eliminating most inputs and farming with not much more than a quad and an electric fence. Look up Greg Judy or Neil Dennis on YouTube

By seriously are these the kind of rules you're holding us to?
We can't use any kind of technology if we're raising cattle, because we're all big bad farmers.
But it's fine for a big corporation to come in instead and use lots of oil, chemicals and sprays to create lab grown junk food, and that's better?

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

And to return this to the veggie burger, the over use of antibiotics is another major crisis brewing for humanity (not just in animals, it's rampant in humans too). The production of meat analogues could play a strong role in helping to delay this crisis, until we have time to develop new medicines.

Again with the double standards
Roundup is the world's most overused antibiotic.
Looking at the ingredients, I'm sure there's lots of it used in the production of the impossible burger, but it gets a free pass, while all farmers are bad because they treat a sick animal.

Xcellor

For anyone visiting the US check out https://www.bareburger.com I accidentally stumbled upon them. Vegan bun, choice of vegan patie , vegan cheese and all the trimmings.. also does meat / chicken etc. The impossible burger I had must have been fresh not frozen as it was indistinguishable from beef.

Yeah it has a lot of ingredients and in no way is healthy (actually had more fat than the regular beef burger tho no cholesterol). For an occasional treat I see no harm. Also bit mad everyone analysing the ingredients but forget majority of food has a load of stuff added for shelf life. The simple loaf of bread isn't just water, flour, yeast and a bit of salt....

gozunda

MrMusician18 wrote: »

...
And to return this to the veggie burger, the over use of antibiotics is another major crisis brewing for humanity (not just in animals, it's rampant in humans too). The production of meat analogues could play a strong role in helping to delay this crisis, until we have time to develop new medicines.

I'm really glad you brought up the use of antibiotics tbh. Because interestingly GM ingredients like those used in fake meats have been identified as one of the likely causes of growing antibiotic resistance.

The phenomenon of antibiotic resistance is due to marker antibiotics used for the purposes of genetic engineering in genetically modified plants. The marker antibiotics are normally used to indicate the completion of safe transfer of foreign genetic material into the host plant.

A number of studies have shown that with the consumption of food derived from GMOs, there is a possible risk of transport of antibiotic resistance to microbes of human gut which may contain some pathogenic forms. And In consequence, pathogens inducing various diseases may develop reduced sensitivity to specific antibiotics.

An EU report has also stated a likley transfer of antibiotic resistance genes from modified plants to environmental microbes. The report recommended that only genes coding for antibiotics and not used in human and veterinary medicine, should be the only ones allowed to be use when making GM plants.

So not only does the production of meat analogues not "delay this crisis" but the use of GM crops in these products may well actually exacerbate the crisis of antibiotic resistance.

drunkmonkey

Here we go again full of crap linking the impossible burger that's not on sale here to antibiotic resistance in Irish hospital patients.

_Brian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

these fake meats will become mass produced and cheap and will be the new filling for frozen burgers, chicken nuggets and everything else that 'iceland' and lidl sell to people.


Real meat will become a delicacy as concentrated feeding ops and giant factory farms die off, the kind of more 'natural' farming we do here will see higher prices as people yearn for the quality and authenticity of meat.

I think this will just end up being good news for Ireland, scotland and the few other countries known for producing actual good beef.

There’s no evidence that these fillings will become widespread, none at all. Because vegans would like it to be so doesn’t mean it’s goong to happen at all.

Best case it will be like quorn, just in the freezer with most ordinary people having a giggle at it as they pass.
We need to be encouraging people away from processed foods not flogging more.

gozunda

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Here we go again full of crap linking the impossible burger that's not on sale here to antibiotic resistance in Irish hospital patients.

Scientific reports etc are now 'crap' in your inestimable opinion? And btw its the ingredients in these 'meat analogues' (sic) and not particularly your sacred cow - 'the absolutely utterly impossible Berger' which have been linked to antibiotic resistance. But then you already know that. Btw your the only one who mentioned "Irish hospital patients". Stirring the pot maybe?

I do have to ask why are you engaged in promoting this one particular brand?

It's not like it's the only horse (burger) in the stable is it? There's quorn, beyond burger and many others. Why this particular brand which you've never tasted?

_Brian

Xcellor wrote: »

The simple loaf of bread isn't just water, flour, yeast and a bit of salt....

Mine is, make it three times a week.
People shouldn’t accept that the only option is to rely on foods with loads of ingredients. There really is no need.

Wake up people and stop accepting processed foods as normal.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

Mine is, make it three times a week.
People shouldn’t accept that the only option is to rely on foods with loads of ingredients. There really is no need.

Wake up people and stop accepting processed foods as normal.

Nice easy brown bread too with only a few ingredients

drunkmonkey

Go back far enough and chaps thought that was impossible.

MrMusician18

gozunda wrote: »

Scientific reports etc are now 'crap' in your inestimable opinion? And btw its the ingredients in these 'meat analogues' (sic) and not particularly your sacred cow - 'the absolutely utterly impossible Berger' which have been linked to antibiotic resistance. But then you already know that. Btw your the only one who mentioned "Irish hospital patients". Stirring the pot maybe?

I do have to ask why are you engaged in promoting this one particular brand?

It's not like it's the only horse (burger) in the stable is it? Theres quorn, beyond burger and many others. Why this particular brand which you've never tasted?

Why the inverted commas and (sic)? That's what they're called.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_analogue

Were you trying to be smart but just displayed your own ignorance?

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Were you trying to be smart but just displayed your own ignorance?

You're the person claiming

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There is no carbon sequestered in grass beyond a growing season. None. There are no farmers mowing grass and then burying it. It's a spurious argument.

Crops are grown, then consumed, and then transformed into meat, which in turn is consumed. The carbon from the grass ends up in the human, so you're hardly claiming that humans are the carbon reservoirs of agriculture?

I'd say in this thread it might be more relevant to have a proper understanding of soils and soil biology than going around starting arguments about grammar.

MrMusician18

Upstream wrote: »

You're the person claiming



I'd say in this thread it might be more relevant to have a proper understanding of soils and soil biology than going around starting arguments about grammar.

The sequestering that goes on is minimal in a grass system that's constantly cut back, either by animals grazing or forage harvesting. Those root sugar stores are being raided constantly for regrowth.

If Irish soil was indeed self fertilising, you might want to let other farmers know before they go spreading bag manure.

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Hope much sequestering that goes on is minimal in a grass system that's constantly cut back, either by animals grazing or forage harvesting. Those root sugar stores are being raided constantly for regrowth.

If Irish soil was indeed self fertilising, you might want to let other farmers know before they go spreading bag manure.

Minimal is a step up from none I suppose.
You seemed so adamant about 'None.' a few hours ago...

Yes, you are right that that constant regrazing is hard on the grass roots, but there are techniques like mob grazing that help here, and do cut down on the need for external inputs.

But I'm not just talking about the sugar in the roots, I'm talking about the root exudates, sugars that the plant sends out into the soil to feed the soil biology. They in turn make substances like glomalin, the glue that gives soil its texture and can store as much as 30% of the carbon in the soil.

Don't be embarrassed if you don't know know what glomalin is, it was only discovered in the 1996, a long time after we'd put humans on the moon, so it just goes to show how ignorant we are about soil and how much we all have to learn.

gozunda

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why the inverted commas and (sic)? That's what they're called https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_analogue Were you trying to be smart but just displayed your own ignorance?

Turning miaow now? The commas simply denote the text taken from your comment and 'sic' in normal parlance indicates that which was said. Sic comes from the Latin adverb sic "thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written") and the fact that 'Meat analogues' - is not a descriptor I would use tbh. It masks a lot imo. And yes thank you, I know how to use Wikipedia.

Anything else you would like to know?


Edit: Did someone say something about 'personal digs" being made? Really?

MrMusician18

Upstream wrote: »

Minimal is a step up from none I suppose.
You seemed so adamant about 'None.' a few hours ago...

Yes, you are right that that constant regrazing is hard on the grass roots, but there are techniques like mob grazing that help here, and do cut down on the need for external inputs.

But I'm not just talking about the sugar in the roots, I'm talking about the root exudates, sugars that the plant sends out into the soil to feed the soil biology. They in turn make substances like glomalin, the glue that gives soil its texture and can store as much as 30% of the carbon in the soil.

Don't be embarrassed if you don't know know what glomalin is, it was only discovered in the 1996, a long time after we'd put humans on the moon, so it just goes to show how ignorant we are about soil and how much we all have to learn.

If we accept that then the microbes in the soil will consume this sugar through respiration and emit CO2. Glomalin breaks down over the course of 50 years, with it's constituents then returning to the cycle.

It can be best considered a steady state reservoir, that's not getting any bigger.

That's money already in the bank. You can't count it twice.

Upstream

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If we accept that then the microbes in the soil will consume this sugar through respiration and emit CO2. Glomalin breaks down over the course of 50 years, with it's constituents then returning to the cycle.

It can be best considered a steady state reservoir, that's not getting any bigger

Why do you say this? Management practices can make a huge difference to the levels of exudates that get sent out into the soil, and hence how much carbon is stored in the soil. If we have tillage soils with less than 3% organic matter and livestock pastures with 15 or 18%, we must be able to affect the levels either positively or negatively.

The microbes do consume the exudates and emit CO2, but if the plants are exuding carbon at a high enough rate, it exceeds the amount they consume, and so it becomes a carbon sink.

Your analogy of a resevoir is good, soils can get deeper over time, and store more carbon in this way, like for example the 20 foot soils on the Great Plains.

Buford T. Justice XIX

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If we accept that then the microbes in the soil will consume this sugar through respiration and emit CO2. Glomalin breaks down over the course of 50 years, with it's constituents then returning to the cycle.

It can be best considered a steady state reservoir, that's not getting any bigger

You're not having a very good day here at all.


The physical structure of soil is composed of more than sand, silt and clay in various proportions that give different soils their properties. It also has humus, Soil Organic Matter (SOM) that binds those particles together an provides a substrate for the various organisms like bacteria, fungi, earthworms and various arachnids that feed on decomposing SOM that come from recycling of dying plant matter and the microbiota itself.


And it's not 'in a steadt state' as you imply but in various states of flux depending on the purpose the soil is put to. As per the tweet and linked paper which you don't seem to have perused at all, once grassland is ploughed, the SOM drops by 33% and the microbiota by 52%

"research found that within one month of tillage events, in the surface 10 cm of the soil there were losses of 52% of microbial biomass and 33% of organic carbon."

Rather large drops for a steady state, no?


Now here's a little research you can do yourself while rambling around your neighbourhood. Take a gander at the grass levels at the kerbing wherever you are. You'll notice the newer kerbing a good cm or so above the grass level while the older kerbing will have grass growing out over the kerbing. That's a result of soil organic matter building up from the recycling of organic matter from the grass and microbiota which raises the absolute level of the soil.


Again, easily looked up online and basic junior level science.