The Impossible Burger 2.0

MrMusician18 · 22-02-2019 8:36pm

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

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%

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.

The excuse that I'm not emptying the reservoir, is a lot different to adding to the reservoir.

Recycling of organic matter is much much slower on land that is worked, hence why I did concede from none to minimal. And the amount of additional carbon sequestration that happens in grass based agriculture is minimal

Nice few personal digs there too.

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 8:46pm

Don't worry about the personal digs, they'll be begging us to buy their land by the time the impossible burger 10.0 rolls around.

Belittling the burger is akin to telling Henry Ford the car won't catch on.

my3cents · 22-02-2019 8:48pm

Think I'll stick with beef 1.0 thanks.

emaherx · 22-02-2019 8:53pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Recycling of organic matter is much much slower on land that is worked, hence why I did concede from none to minimal. And the amount of additional carbon sequestration that happens in grass based agriculture is minimal

So plant based burgers will help how again?

MrMusician18 · 22-02-2019 9:11pm

emaherx wrote: »

So plant based burgers will help how again?

Is this not obvious? A plant based diet is between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one.

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

Buford T. Justice XIX · 22-02-2019 9:12pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The excuse that I'm not emptying the reservoir, is a lot different to adding to the reservoir.

Recycling of organic matter is much much slower on land that is worked, hence why I did concede from none to minimal. And the amount of additional carbon sequestration that happens in grass based agriculture is minimal

Nice few personal digs there too.

No dig there, the majority of the worlds reservoir of knowledge is available at your fingertips. The fault for you not availing of that knowledge and its availability is nobody fault except your own.

Like I said, there's a plethora of knowledge available outside the one simple link I provided to you which you either ignored or misunderstood. There's no point in blaming everybody else for your failure to dig even a little under the soft coating your beliefs provide you with.

I note you haven't provided any backing for your position, surprisingly.

Upstream · 22-02-2019 9:15pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't worry about the personal digs, they'll be begging us to buy their land by the time the impossible burger 10.0 rolls around.

Strange comment, are ye getting paid for this?

emaherx · 22-02-2019 9:23pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is this not obvious? A plant based diet is between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one.

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

Land used to grow plant based food is much harder "worked" than that used to grow cattle with some estimates claiming only 100 harvests left in much of the "worked" tillage land. And animal agriculture may be the only cure for such land.

Upstream · 22-02-2019 9:27pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is this not obvious? A plant based diet is between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one.

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

Stockless rotations don't work all that well in an organic system.
Or are you back to double standards again, one set standards for this burgers production, and another for meat?

MrMusician18 · 22-02-2019 9:28pm

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

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%

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.

It's in steady state in grassland, neither growing not shrinking. Im not the one claiming that grass based been production has an unaccounted for carbon sink.

For soil to be effective carbon sink it has to increasing it's absolute carbon content. This can be done by increasing the proportion of carbon in the soil (after thousands of years one could reasonably expect grassland to have reached it's carbon saturation point) or increase the volume of soil - which doesn't really happen on land that's worked and the organic matter is carted off.

Upstream · 22-02-2019 9:36pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Im not the one claiming that head based been production has an unaccounted for carbon sink.

Head based been production???
Whether you're claiming it or not, you're not making much sense either way

MrMusician18 · 22-02-2019 9:38pm

Upstream wrote: »

Head based been production???
Whether you're claiming it or not, you're not making much sense either way.

Grass based. Swype on the phone sometimes behaves oddly.

roosterman71 · 22-02-2019 9:45pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

This nugget has been shown to be incorrect. Leaving land fallow leads to desertification. In countries such as Mexico, Zimbabwe and the like, the reintroduction of herd animals have been used to turn bare land back to being covered in vegetation. Which in turn "grows" the soil by the decay of the grasses, manure, urine, etc. It in turn reduces flooding, streams and rivers start to flow again even in dry seasons. Interesting TED talk on it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 10:19pm

Why are you on about land when this is fermenter in vats from yeast.

emaherx · 22-02-2019 10:24pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Why are you on about land when this is fermenter in vats from yeast.

What is?
The entire burger?

What about the soy, the sunflower oil, coconut oil or the potatoes? That are all part of the ingredients! All grown without land?

gozunda · 22-02-2019 11:07pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is this not obvious? A plant based diet is between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one.

Less land area worked to support the population means more land can be left fallow, then you get the actual carbon sequestration that some have been banging on about here. Maybe even plant trees on all that old pasture and we could have our old forests back

Listening to the propaganda and misinformation from the usual "plant based diets" aficionados ?

Significant amounts of animal feedstuffs are derived from a range of sources including the by-products the human food industry, crops which don't meet human grade food quality standards and perhaps most importantly all the livestock which are fed forage from permanent grassland which is not suitable for other forms of cultivation.

No plant based diet is "between 5x and 10x more efficient than a meat based one". That is at best a fallacy pushed by those promoting an ideology based on evident misinformation.

These statements are not only inaccurate - they also fail to take into account local production compared to the importation of cheap foodstuffs produced in areas with few if any environmental or ethical standards.

As for the claim that somehow less land will be required for a growing population is another myth promulgated off the back of the same fallacy. The fact is that the majority of suitable cultivable land is already used to produce foodstuffs for human use and consumption. From these foodstuffs by-products of harvesting and processing are diverted to animal use. Get rid of livestock and you not only lose a source of valuable soil nutrients requiring much larger inputs of chemical fertilisers but most of humanity will also be up to their neck in the waste products of human food processing.

Sounds like a version of hell rather than the paradise trotted out by plant based believers tbh.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 22-02-2019 11:12pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's in steady state in grassland, neither growing not shrinking. Im not the one claiming that grass based been production has an unaccounted for carbon sink.

For soil to be effective carbon sink it has to increasing it's absolute carbon content. This can be done by increasing the proportion of carbon in the soil (after thousands of years one could reasonably expect grassland to have reached it's carbon saturation point) or increase the volume of soil - which doesn't really happen on land that's worked and the organic matter is carted off.

So nothing to back up your assertation?

Ok then, just your unsupported opinion.

gozunda · 22-02-2019 11:27pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't worry about the personal digs, they'll be begging us to buy their land by the time the impossible burger 10.0 rolls around. Belittling the burger is akin to telling Henry Ford the car won't catch on.

"Belittling the burger" lol. God help us that anyone should criticise corporate interests :pac:

Not a 'vegan' or a 'vegetarian' but appears to openly pray for the same corporate interests to save ourselves from our 'selfish' meat eating ways!

Tbh many of the comments in this thread have done little else than bash farming methods and those involved in Irish farming.

Here's something I think will be a bit more productive. Its a new game for those feeling so aggrieved with everything that their hobby is to bash farming. Its what's been mostly happening here anyway lol.

Enjoy!

kk.man · 23-02-2019 12:24am

Larry has launched the meat free burger

https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2019/02/22/ABP-UK-launches-plant-based-range?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22-Feb-2019&c=05LeDp71oZoj%2FW%2F1BOWjViye%2Bbt2eMhs&p2=

Eggs and baskets springs to mind...fair play to him.

gozunda · 23-02-2019 3:06am

kk.man wrote: »

Larry has launched the meat free burger

https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2019/02/22/ABP-UK-launches-plant-based-range?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22-Feb-2019&c=05LeDp71oZoj%2FW%2F1BOWjViye%2Bbt2eMhs&p2=

Eggs and baskets springs to mind...fair play to him.

Haha and another bandwagoner like "I really cant believe it's not awhataburger inc". I wonder will the plant based advocates get behind Larry as well :pac:

_Brian · 23-02-2019 7:28am

gozunda wrote: »

Haha and another bandwagoner like "I really cant believe it's not awhataburger inc". I wonder will the plant based advocates get behind Larry as well :pac:

I do wonder would Vegans have an issue buying from a company who’s main role is slaughtering animals, dealing with slaughter waste and turning the waste into dog food.

It’s exactly as I said earlier, commercial entities see the vegan movement as a real cAsh cow and they are all jumping on board for their slice of the pie.

ABP are as likely to stick some horse in there as plants

Gawddawggonnit · 23-02-2019 8:50am

https://www.inverse.com/article/53443-future-food-lab-grown-meat-bad-for-climate-change

_Brian · 23-02-2019 9:13am

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

https://www.inverse.com/article/53443-future-food-lab-grown-meat-bad-for-climate-change

“The future food fix carnivores are hoping for”

Meat eaters don’t wish for a time when we can eat some lab grown chemically laced substance. Who thinks that.
The drive for these lab grown alternatives comes from vegan and veggie groups who miss their meat but don’t want to admit their lifestyle choice is lacking.

emaherx · 23-02-2019 11:18am

roosterman71 wrote: »

This nugget has been shown to be incorrect. Leaving land fallow leads to desertification. In countries such as Mexico, Zimbabwe and the like, the reintroduction of herd animals have been used to turn bare land back to being covered in vegetation. Which in turn "grows" the soil by the decay of the grasses, manure, urine, etc. It in turn reduces flooding, streams and rivers start to flow again even in dry seasons. Interesting TED talk on it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

Well he's obviously doing it wrong!
You don't prove science by actually producing results..... What you do is you give everything a number, over exaggerate the numbers for the parts you want to prove bad, leave out any variables which may tip your expected result in the wrong direction and when you finally produce an equation that produces your predefined result then you publish it!

drunkmonkey · 23-02-2019 1:22pm

_Brian wrote: »

Meat eaters don’t wish for a time when we can eat some lab grown chemically laced substance. Who thinks that.

I don't think there's any meat eater who would have any problems taking animals out of the loop if technology could provide an alternative which is better in every way.

Your problem is they way it's made and what's in it. Once those issues are put to bed you don't really have any excuse to keep eating meat.

Something has to give anyway were hardly going to be taking 200 heifers off in the back of the spaceship to the other side of the galaxy.

_Brian · 23-02-2019 1:42pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't think there's any meat eater who would have any problems taking animals out of the loop if technology could provide an alternative which is better in every way.

Your problem is they way it's made and what's in it. Once those issues are put to bed you don't really have any excuse to keep eating meat.

Something has to give anyway were hardly going to be taking 200 heifers off in the back of the spaceship to the other side of the galaxy.

The way it’s made.

You can’t have an artificial food that’s naturally produced in the same way cattle are reared. That’s the point. It’s not like they’re going to invent a tree that these things grow naturally on. The ingredients will always be industrialised chemically produces and same withnthe final product. Nothing, absolutely nnorhing will make that a natural acceptable product. Lab grown meats fall the same hurdle, it’s industralised chemical driven muck.
These are the exact products humans need to be avoiding, partly because they are overprocessed and partly because bit by bit it’s handing food supply over to mega corporations to control, people will rue the day all food is controlled by them both in terms of quality, health and financially.

It would benefit society much more if pressure was applied to government to support more environmentally friendly farming methods, ban feedlots, encourage more extensive farming methods, which yes would increase meat prices but the current cost of meat to consumers does not reflect the true intrinsic value of the product.

Less meat consumption would likely follow, but not to be supplemented with ridiculous fake products, meals should be supplemented with more fresh fruit and vegetables, locally sourced and prepared from raw in people’s homes.

Say my name · 23-02-2019 1:46pm

_Brian wrote: »

The way it’s made.

You can’t have an artificial food that’s naturally produced in the same way cattle are reared. That’s the point. It’s not like they’re going to invent a tree that these things grow naturally on. The ingredients will always be industrialised chemically produces and same withnthe final product. Nothing, absolutely nnorhing will make that a natural acceptable product. Lab grown meats fall the same hurdle, it’s industralised chemical driven muck.
These are the exact products humans need to be avoiding, partly because they are overprocessed and partly because bit by bit it’s handing food supply over to mega corporations to control, people will rue the day all food is controlled by them both in terms of quality, health and financially.

It would benefit society much more if pressure was applied to government to support more environmentally friendly farming methods, ban feedlots, encourage more extensive farming methods, which yes would increase meat prices but the current cost of meat to consumers does not reflect the true intrinsic value of the product.

Less meat consumption would likely follow, but not to be supplemented with ridiculous fake products, meals should be supplemented with more fresh fruit and vegetables, locally sourced and prepared from raw in people’s homes.

You missed the most important bit of this whole debate.

How are we going to get 200 beef animals onto a spaceship and fly to the other end of the galaxy??

_Brian · 23-02-2019 1:48pm

Say my name wrote: »

You missed the most important bit of this whole debate.

How are we going to get 200 beef animals onto a spaceship and fly to the other end of the galaxy??

200 vegans would fit easier 😆

drunkmonkey · 23-02-2019 1:53pm

I'd agree on the lab grown meat it's not something I'd like to try. But I've no issue with something like yeast been modified to achieve the same ends. Soy, Sunflower oil again I've no problem with these foods. I use them already when cooking.
It's great to say locally produced but I know if I go across to the supermarket now my strawberries will be from Egypt, the Oranges from Spain, the onions from the Netherlands etc. Were gone past the point of no return.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 23-02-2019 1:53pm

Say my name wrote: »

You missed the most important bit of this whole debate.

How are we going to get 200 beef animals onto a spaceship and fly to the other end of the galaxy??

I'll vote for a ramp. The added bonus is it'll be there when the second ship is being loaded as well:pac:

The Impossible Burger 2.0

Comments