The Impossible Burger 2.0

gozunda · 22-02-2019 2:43am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In fairness that's all a load of nonsense. Where did you get those facts from? Do you even know how it's made. Not a notion by the sounds of it.

I do indeed. And no it is not 'nonsense.' It's an area I am qualified in. And yes I have a decent knowledge of the soybean processing industry and the food industry in general. Plus I've took it on myself to do some basic research on this latest product. I just love it when posters rock up to the farming forum and try to tell regular posters here that they know nothing about farming and food production lol.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's served in 4000 restraunts and about to hit supermarkets, it's been deemed harmless to humans. Yeast is already well known to the human gut no reason for this to be any different, haven't read of anyone sick or dying and plenty have been eaten.There nothing wrong with something been modified to make it better.

Lol.

Are you sure you're not on commission. A scientist you are not. :pac:

_Brian · 22-02-2019 6:06am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's served in 4000 restraunts and about to hit supermarkets, it's been deemed harmless to humans. Yeast is already well known to the human gut no reason for this to be any different, haven't read of anyone sick or dying and plenty have been eaten.
There nothing wrong with something been modified to make it better.

Wow, as many as 4000 worldwide.
I shouldn’t have much bother avoiding it so

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 9:18am

It's not sold here so how can you say it has to be shipped across the Atlantic. It's like me saying beef is bad because it has to be shipped across the Atlantic. Surely it's sustainable close to point of manufacture in the same way that meat production is once it's close to home.
You haven't provided anything to back up your assumption that it's bad for your health. The nutritional values point in the opposite direction, it appears more nutritional.
I'm not pro this burger but at the same time I'm not daft enough to think that beef farming is good for the environment.
They both have impacts.

_Brian · 22-02-2019 9:29am

Humans have been eating beef for a very long time and the positive health benefits are well known.

A product that the FDA has concerns over, that bases its safety on one single trial where an ingredient never ever consumed by humans before was fed to rats for 28 days and they survived. That’s it, that’s how it’s safety has been “proven”.

Many, many of the ingredients are lab produced substances where masses of chemicals and energy are concerned both to produce the ingredients and the final “burger” like food.

Again, in a rush to replace proper animal farming veganism is selling out it’s food chain to large industrialised massively processed foods with questionable ingredients, little regard for the environmental impact of their manufacture and a staggering demonstration of ignorance about being manipulated by big business to turn them into a massive cash cow for shareholders.

Comparing this “product” to a beef burger with say 3 or 4 natural ingredients is just bizarre.

As for all the fortifications, it’s well known that your vitamin/mineral intake is much more beneficial if achieved through consuming a wide variety of fruit, veg, dairy and meat foods, by that they mean proper natural food.

Upstream · 22-02-2019 9:42am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not pro this burger but at the same time I'm not daft enough to think that beef farming is good for the environment.

Not daft enough?
You've missed the point, I'll say it again, it's not the cow, it's the how.

Beef farming can be bad or good for the environment, it all comes down to how the cattle are managed. And correctly managed cattle and other ruminant animals have the potential to help soils sequester enough carbon to reverse global warming in less than a decade, if every farmer farmed using regenerative practices.

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 9:58am

Ah come now lads GM food is not safe, cows will reverse global warming.

_Brian · 22-02-2019 10:24am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ah come now lads GM food is not safe, cows will reverse global warming.

Beef can be sustainably produced, much is currently and I think more could be given proper support and education. Interesting it becomes a better meat too somits a win win.
Compare that to highly processed foods with scary ingredients and processing which can never be environmentally friendly or sustainable, never mind healthy.

I’ve worked with silicone valley companies extensively, I understand the mindset. I can see how they see no problem with massive chemical and energy usage, it’s how they live their lives surrounded by noxious chemicals and processes, it’s normalised for them.
So you take that mindset, add in some serious marketing gurus who have identified a market ripe for the grooming, a set of consumers that will never question the use of chemicals and highly processed ingredients as long as it carries the high moral ground vegan sticker. It’s a match made in heaven, the perfect storm for investors and share holders.

Look up some of the ingredients and how they are made, SPO for instance uses an eye watering number of petrochemical derivatives and nurotoxins in its manufacture, a really scary ingredient.

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 11:02am

The simple fact is you can make all the claims you want about going back to the good old days it's not going to happen. Meat is now a mass produced product. You have to discuss it in the now context not some utopian ideal you hold about the future of meat production.

I'm not saying meat should be replaced but giving people an alternative is not such a bad thing when people are being encouraged to cut down on their consumption.

As for the scary SPO, have you anything to back that up, https://medium.com/impossible-foods/soy-facts-myths-and-why-its-in-our-new-recipe-12815b4997cf

Bass Reeves · 22-02-2019 11:13am

The biggest problem we face now is taking a phrase from Donald Trump Fake News. Over the last 6 months we have being pumped with fake news regarding meat regarding it health issues and its effect on global warming.

On global warming about 55% is caused by fossil fuels. Any sane person realizes to reduce emission the best way is to target the biggest emitter. But too many vest interests especially in the US are unwilling to target this issue. The only way global warming will be reversed will be to increase the price of fuel in countries that sell petrol and diesel at sub 1 euro/lit and get it above that level. In the US petrol retails at less than 70c/litre. Most of North and South America are the same, Australia and NZ are slightly sub the euro/liter and in the Gulf states it is below 50c/liter. Airlines access there fuel without vat or custom's excise. If we managed to reduce fossil fuel emission by 20% we would reduce green house gas by way over 20% by knock on effects such as smaller cars being produced etc.

Food production (agriculture) is accountable for 15% of emissions that include the cows farts and belches in all. I am not sure what % is atributable to beef. But by in far dairy would have more of an impact that beef production. In general Beef is a byproduct of the dairy system. It is arguable whether meat is such a greenhouse emitter. In fact of them all beef produced where 80-90% of its food is from grass either by grazing or fodder is maybe no more harmful that some vegetable or grain production. This is because most grain and vegetable production removes carbon from the soil and there production is highly mechanized. Just look at any 200 acres beef farm and tillage farm. The beef farm will have a small sub 100 HP tractor or two and putting up a few hundred hours a year and some small machinery. The tillage or vegetable farm will have 150Hp+ tractors putting up a few thousand hours between them as well as emission tied up in large machinery as well. If you put diesel up by 50c/liter in the morning which could continue and take the price shock.

Just looking at the impossible Burger at present it has a few dodgy ingredients which have either health or greenhouse gasses implication. First we have Soy protein which is mainly produced in the US and Brazil. In the US by cheap fuel and in Brazil agriculture expansion is one of the biggets emission issues caused by deforestation
Brazil deforestation greehouse gas implications.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brazil-greenhouse-gas-emission-spike-blamed-on-deforestation/

Next we have Coconut oil. The jury is out a while on this one. You have it being promoted as a healty alternative to other oils but there is balancing opin where it is considered one of the most danger oils you can consume

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/16/coconut-oil-isnt-healthy-its-never-been-healthy/402719001/

But the real danger will be in 5 years+ time as these impossible burgers are mass produced. The use of alternative cheaper ingredients will change what ever health benefits they may be perceived to have. What we know about burgers is that big company's looks for miniscule savings whereever possible. The bigger the company the more dodgy the production.

I wonder how long before someone puts horse meat in the impossible burger to reduce costs. I take a bit of steak, a salmon cutlet(even farmed salmon) a lamb chop or a piece of roast chicken any day. And all this to save maybe 1-2% of greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we save that

gozunda · 22-02-2019 11:36am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not sold here so how can you say it has to be shipped across the Atlantic. It's like me saying beef is bad because it has to be shipped across the Atlantic. Surely it's sustainable close to point of manufacture in the same way that meat production is once it's close to home.
You haven't provided anything to back up your assumption that it's bad for your health. The nutritional values point in the opposite direction, it appears more nutritional. I'm not pro this burger but at the same time I'm not daft enough to think that beef farming is good for the environment. They both have impacts.

Why the pedantism? As you claimed - it's to be available here shortly. How'd do you think they're going to get it from the US to Europe? Magic it with unicorns and fairy dust?

The vast distances involved in shipping soybean meal and all the other additives including the synthesised vitamins and other ingredients even before this product leaves the US is quite staggering tbh. All highly processed foodstuffs have a large ecological footprint due to the high usage of fossil fuels and transport- these being the number one cause of greenhouse gases.

At the end of the day it is a type of highly processed junk food to be imported from the US - that's it. What more do you want? I've already outlined that all food products have impacts on the environment. The main point you appear to be missing is that locally produced and consumed primary foodstuffs such as vegetables and meat have less of an impact here especially since much of our beef is grass based.

MrMusician18 · 22-02-2019 11:55am

gozunda wrote: »

Why the pedantism? As you claimed - it's to be available here shortly. How'd do you think there going to get it from the US to Europe? Magic it with unicorns and fairy dust?

The vast distances involved in shipping soybean meal and all the other additives including the synthesised vitamins and other ingredients even before this product leaves the US is quite staggering tbh. All highly processed foodstuffs have a large ecological footprint due to the high usage of fossil fuels and transport- these being the number one cause of greenhouse gases.

At the end of the day it is a type of highly processed junk food - that's it. What more do you want? I've already outlined that all food products have impacts on the environment. The main point you appear to be missing is that locally produced and consumed primary foodstuffs such as vegetables and meat have less of an impact here especially since much of our beef is grass based.

Interesting argument to make when the vast majority of Irish agriculture output is destined, ultimately, for export.

patsy_mccabe · 22-02-2019 11:59am

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Interesting argument to make when the vast majority of Irish agriculture output is destined, ultimately, for export.

This is a good thing, no? Especially if we produce at a lower carbon foot print.

_Brian · 22-02-2019 12:02pm

The fact that the margins of society are starting to accept this massively manufactured food as a real healthy alternative is worrying, it’s another step down the road and loss of food culture.

Worse it’s being tarted up as ethical and environmentally friendly and people are lapping up the propaganda.

We need meals with fewer unnecessary ingredients not inventing new ones. Someone posted the ingredients of a commercially produced beef burger, I wouldn’t accept that as good food either.

Humans need to eat food that has the least possible ingredients and processing imvolved.
Cooked on site from fresh ingredients prepared on site.

That’s what we try to do every day, we teach our kids that skill. We buy locally grown veg and fruit where possible, we eat our own meat. We teach them to grow fruit and veg, to rear animals correctly and how good the meat is compared to commercial alternatives.

gozunda · 22-02-2019 12:06pm

DrunkMonkey wrote:

You haven't provided anything to back up your assumption that it's bad for your health.

Lol. I think you are mixing me up with some other poster btw ...

From the available data on the present product - here are the nutritional differences between this product and a beef burger. Please note the a serving as listed is only three ounces. In the US the smallest impossible burger was one-third of a pound, which is 5.3 ounces, so it is necessary to nearly double the nutrition facts information to gauge nutritional guidelines etc.

Here's the full nutritional breakdown of one three-ounce serving of Impossible burger:

220 calories
13 g fat (10 g saturated)
430 mg sodium
20 g protein
5 g carbohydrates
0 g fiber
Less than 1 g sugar

Here's how it compares to a serving of a three-ounce beef burger that's 93 percent lean:

164 calories
8 g fat (3 g saturated)
56 mg sodium
22 g protein
0 g carbohydrates
0 g fibe
0 g sugar

The lowdown?
The present impossible Burger has roughly 29 percent more calories than a traditional beef burger sourced from a butcher. Overall there is more calories, more fat a hell of a lot more salt (sodium) and more carbohydrate in the Impossible burger compared to a beef burger.

What's the other main difference? One is a whole food ie beef. Even in burgers with other ingredients added such as Bufords one above - the additions are again whole foods such as oatmeal.

The impossible burger is made from the derivites of plants eg soy and highly processed additives such as SLH and synthetic vitamins.

Looking just at the SLH and the added Vitamins:

The SLH in the Impossible Burger is extracted from GM yeast, which is fermented in large vats in an industrial setting. The yeast must be grown in a nutrient-rich broth made of chemically synthesized ingredients that are themselves industrially manufactured.

The vitamins in the impossible burger are another example of highly processed ingredients. The vast majority of vitamins are not natural extracts from foods but are synthetic. They may be produced by chemical synthesis or from extracted biological processes using algae, bacteria, or fungi (including yeasts).

Even most vegans advocate for a whole food diet - in their case plants. What the impossible burger is highly processed junk food - not a wholefood. Beef is a primary product and as bought from a good local butcher is a primary unprocessed foodstuff.

Is the impossible food 'bad for you? I have no idea but I'll guess we will find out in time. I will continue to eat beef in moderation. And I certainly wont be buying this rubbish.

It is evident that no amount of fact or information is going to shift your rather inexplicable promotion of this product considering you haven't even tried one yet. But there you go ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 12:10pm

I'm glad you said it, a commercially produced beef burger that's what you should be comparing this to. Neither are comparable to the meat some of us enjoy. A lot of consumers don't have access to it, I know I wouldn't if it wasn't for the larger family and their role in the beef and dairy business.

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 12:13pm

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. I think you are mixing me up with some other poster btw ...

From the available data on the present product - here are the nutritional differences between this product and a beef burger. Please note the a serving as listed is only three ounces. In the US the smallest impossible burger was one-third of a pound, which is 5.3 ounces, so it is necessary to nearly double the nutrition facts information to gauge nutritional guidelines etc.

Here's the full nutritional breakdown of one three-ounce serving of Impossible burger:

220 calories
13 g fat (10 g saturated)
430 mg sodium
20 g protein
5 g carbohydrates
0 g fiber
Less than 1 g sugar

Here's how it compares to a serving of a three-ounce beef burger that's 93 percent lean:

164 calories
8 g fat (3 g saturated)
56 mg sodium
22 g protein
0 g carbohydrates
0 g fibe
0 g sugar

The lowdown?
The present impossible Burger has roughly 29 percent more calories than a traditional beef patty. Overall there is more calories, more fat a hell of a lot more salt (sodium) and more carbohydrate in the Impossible burger compared to a beef burger.

What's the other main difference? One is a whole food ie beef. Even in burgers with other ingredients added such as Bufords one above - the additions are again whole foods such as oatmeal.

The impossible burger is made from the derivites of plants eg soy and highly processed additives such as SLH and synthetic vitamins.

Looking just at the SLH and the added Vitamins:

The SLH in the Impossible Burger is extracted from GM yeast, which is fermented in large vats in an industrial setting. The yeast must be grown in a nutrient-rich broth made of chemically synthesized ingredients that are themselves industrially manufactured.

The vitamins in the impossible burger are another example of highly processed ingredients. The vast majority of vitamins are not natural extracts from foods but are synthetic. They may be produced by chemical synthesis or from extracted biological processes using algae, bacteria, or fungi (including yeasts).

Even most vegans advocate for a whole food diet - in their case plants. What the impossible burger is highly processed junk food - not a wholefood. Beef is a primary product and as bought from a good local butcher is a primary unprocessed foodstuff.

Is the impossible food 'bad for you? I have no idea but I'll guess we will find out in time.

It is evident that no amount of fact or information is going to shift your rather inexplicable promotion of this product considering you haven't even tried one yet. But there you go ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You've left out a lot of ingredients to make it seem the beef is better it just makes rubbish of your whole agreement when you won't even post the truth when it's already been given in the thread.
You whole argument is made on assumption without any facts.

gozunda · 22-02-2019 12:14pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Interesting argument to make when the vast majority of Irish agriculture output is destined, ultimately, for export.

Why dont you misquote my comment as well while your at it? I was comparing and advocating local consumption of primary produce such as beef versus the importation of highly processed foodstuffs from the US.

The fact remains that the bulk of Ireland's agricultural exports go to mostly adjacent markets in the UK and Europe. And the reason Ireland produces a surplus to export is because of the fact that Irelands sustainable production is largely grass based and of a high quality.

gozunda · 22-02-2019 12:16pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've left out a lot of ingredients to make it seem the beef is better it just makes rubbish of your whole agreement when you won't even post the truth when it's already been given in the thread.
You whole argument is made on assumption without any facts.

Have I? Thats the way I eat my meat - I'd suggest you do the same. The impossible burger is highly processed junk food. But as I said - l It is evident that no amount of fact or information is going to shift your rather inexplicable promotion of this product considering you haven't even tried one yet. But there you go ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

MrMusician18 · 22-02-2019 12:27pm

gozunda wrote: »

Why dont you misquote my comment as well while your at it? I was comparing and advocating local consumption of primary produce such as beef versus the importation of highly processed foodstuffs from the US.

The fact remains that the bulk of Ireland's agricultural exports go to mostly adjacent markets in the UK and Europe. And the reason Ireland produces a surplus to export is because of the fact that Irelands sustainable production is largely grass based and of a high quality.

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.

_Brian · 22-02-2019 12:32pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm glad you said it, a commercially produced beef burger that's what you should be comparing this to. Neither are comparable to the meat some of us enjoy. A lot of consumers don't have access to it, I know I wouldn't if it wasn't for the larger family and their role in the beef and dairy business.

Cuts of Irish meat are insanely cheap to buy. Almost nobody in Ireland is precluded from it based on price. Lots of people have convinced themselves they can’t cook properly, largely based on cunning advertising drives from commercial entities similar to the one that produces that muck imitation burger.

gozunda · 22-02-2019 12:44pm

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.

What is your point? Get rid of mechcanisation? So I guess for you to live sustainably you have given up your car etc, no longer use public transport, grow and consume your own food and use no fossil fuels whatsoever? Well done you..

Ths fact is Ireland historically and today has always been a net exporter of agricultural produce because what we produce is largely based on a relativly low input grassland system

Btw I see you are trotting out the usual bullskite. Antibiotic use etc is strictly regulated and used primarily for animal welfare purposes under the direction of the DOA and veterinarians.

If you're worried about herbicides and pesticides - go and take a look at what is used in the cultivation of soybeans which are processed into those lovely impossible bergers.

At the end of the day - local consumption of primary foodstuffs such as beef is a hell of a lot more sustainable than importing highly processed junk food from the US. End of story.

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 1:33pm

_Brian wrote: »

Cuts of Irish meat are insanely cheap to buy. Almost nobody in Ireland is precluded from it based on price. Lots of people have convinced themselves they can’t cook properly, largely based on cunning advertising drives from commercial entities similar to the one that produces that muck imitation burger.

Where are these cunning advertisement your referring to, where are people afraid to cook.
Your hatred for this burger is clouding all common sense.

You'd swear it's nothing but tree hugging hippies running the Irish meat industry the way your going on. Next you'll tell us there powering the meat factory's on unicorn poop.

Upstream · 22-02-2019 1:43pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You'd swear it's nothing but tree hugging hippies running the Irish meat industry the way your going on. Next you'll tell us there powering the meat factory's on unicorn poop.

I told you about how cows can help soils sequester carbon and so can help reverse global warming. (Can help, not will help, it comes down to management practices and people's choices) and you didn't believe me, so I don't think you're ready to believe in unicorns just yet

Did you think I was making that up?

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 1:48pm

So your acknowledging there's a problem and you know what's needed to fix it. That's great but do you think the UK, US and Brasil give a contintental how ethical we are.
The factory farms in the US and UK the cattle hardly know what grass is.

emaherx · 22-02-2019 1:49pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

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.

Please tell me more about all these antibiotics we use. I keep hearing about it from people who know nothing about farming but have not seen any supporting evidence.

Also herbicides and pesticides use would be low in animal agriculture compared to plant based farming.

emaherx · 22-02-2019 1:51pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So your acknowledging there's a problem and you know what's needed to fix it. That's great but do you think the UK, US and Brasil give a contintental how ethical we are.
The factory farms in the US and UK the cattle hardly know what grass is.

So another reason to support Irish meat, surely?

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 1:55pm

emaherx wrote: »

So another reason to support Irish meat, surely?

Who's knocking Irish Meat? 100% support it but how much of it are we importing via supermarkets. There must be some of that UK factory meat making its way onto shelves here.
When you see the empty boxes outside the Chinese or Italian the country of origin isn't Ireland. Not even the EU in some cases. The turkey in the local hotel comes from Poland. There's foreign meat all over the place.
I'd tarrif the hell out of meat imports if I was in charge.

gozunda · 22-02-2019 1:57pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

...

You'd swear it's nothing but tree hugging hippies running the Irish meat industry the way your going on. Next you'll tell us there powering the meat factory's on unicorn poop.

"Meat factories" :eek: I knew it cows are artificial - something I've suspected all along! And it was your disbelief at the detail of how deranged importing of highly processed junk food from the US which elicited my reference about Unicorns and fairy dust.

Ok we get it - you reckon that the 'I cant believe it's an impossibility frankenberger' product is the best thing since sliced bread.

This even though you haven't tried it and you wont believe anyone else who has pointed out why it's not all cracked up to what the manufacturers claim lol.

Ok thanks for that....

MrMusician18 · 22-02-2019 1:59pm

gozunda wrote: »

What is your point? Get rid of mechcanisation? So I guess for you to live sustainably you have given up your car etc, no longer use public transport, grow and consume your own food and use no fossil fuels whatsoever? Well done you..

Ths fact is Ireland historically and today has always been a net exporter of agricultural produce because what we produce is largely based on a relativly low input grassland system

Btw I see you are trotting out the usual bullskite. Antibiotic use etc is strictly regulated and used primarily for animal welfare purposes under the direction of the DOA and veterinarians.

If you're worried about herbicides and pesticides - go and take a look at what is used in the cultivation of soybeans which are processed into those lovely impossible bergers.

At the end of the day - local consumption of primary foodstuffs such as beef is a hell of a lot more sustainable than importing highly processed junk food from the US. End of story.

My point is you can't claim that Irish agriculture is sustainable, relatively low input or not. I can accept that the Irish system is more sustainable than others, but thats it. A head in the sand attitude about the change that's coming (typified by some posters here) will see a lot left behind.

When we look at technologies like plant based meat analogues as well as lab grown meat it's easy to understand why farmers would be so dismissive of them, it's an obvious threat to the existing market. The changes that are only on the horizon now need to be prepared for not ignored. Dismiss this as highly processed US junk food at your peril.

Irish farming needs to be looking for it's new market, be that in energy crops, beef analogue feedstocks or other inputs, in a post animal reared beef landscape

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 2:00pm

There's nobody in the thread has tried it.

my3cents · 22-02-2019 2:03pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's nobody in the thread has tried it.

We don't need to to know that its not as environmentally friendly as the hype would have it.

drunkmonkey · 22-02-2019 2:10pm

my3cents wrote: »

We don't need to to know that its not as environmentally friendly as the hype would have it.

It's made like beer, some of the posters above have no idea how the soy based product is created. They assume it's industrial farming it's not if they bothered to check out the facts. One vat of the Heme can make 20,000 burgers. No tractors required.

emaherx · 22-02-2019 2:40pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's made like beer, some of the posters above have no idea how the soy based product is created. They assume it's industrial farming it's not if they bothered to check out the facts. One vat of the Heme can make 20,000 burgers. No tractors required.

So no energy input in any part of it's creation or chemical usage..... Unicorn poop?

emaherx · 22-02-2019 2:43pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

My point is you can't claim that Irish agriculture is sustainable, relatively low input or not. I can accept that the Irish system is more sustainable than others, but thats it. A head in the sand attitude about the change that's coming (typified by some posters here) will see a lot left behind.

When we look at technologies like plant based meat analogues as well as lab grown meat it's easy to understand why farmers would be so dismissive of them, it's an obvious threat to the existing market. The changes that are only on the horizon now need to be prepared for not ignored. Dismiss this as highly processed US junk food at your peril.

Irish farming needs to be looking for it's new market, be that in energy crops, beef analogue feedstocks or other inputs, in a post animal reared beef landscape

How can you claim such a thing when you have already proven you know vert little about Irish animal agriculture?

MrMusician18 · 22-02-2019 2:52pm

emaherx wrote: »

Please tell me more about all these antibiotics we use. I keep hearing about it from people who know nothing about farming but have not seen any supporting evidence.

Also herbicides and pesticides use would be low in animal agriculture compared to plant based farming.

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?

Buford T. Justice XIX · 22-02-2019 2:57pm

Upstream wrote: »

I told you about how cows can help soils sequester carbon and so can help reverse global warming. (Can help, not will help, it comes down to management practices and people's choices) and you didn't believe me, so I don't think you're ready to believe in unicorns just yet

Did you think I was making that up?

Funny you should mention that...
https://twitter.com/agronomistag/status/1098590918087593984
And the actual paper that tweet is from...https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/content/Tilling-Grasslands-Immediately-Reduces-Soil-Health-Indicators
That's quite a good proxy for estimating the C losses from tilling soil for the crops used to make this fake burger. And it's also a good proxy to indicate the levels of C sequestration that grassland is capable of, once the fetishist vegan agenda goes out of fashion again.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So your acknowledging there's a problem and you know what's needed to fix it. That's great but do you think the UK, US and Brasil give a contintental how ethical we are.
The factory farms in the US and UK the cattle hardly know what grass is.

A huge proportion of US beef is derived from suckler cows grazing marginal lands and high altitudes where crops other than grass don't grow. So they would have been at grass, in most cases, for a minimum of 7 months before sale to fatteners. Again, a small bit of googling will confirm this.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 22-02-2019 3:00pm

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?

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?

gozunda · 22-02-2019 3:02pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

My point is you can't claim that Irish agriculture is sustainable, relatively low input or not. I can accept that the Irish system is more sustainable than others, but thats it. A head in the sand attitude about the change that's coming (typified by some posters here) will see a lot left behind.
...

You asked

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You haven't explained why (impossible burger) is not sustainable, or at a minimum less sustainable than traditional beef production. ..

And I answered and detailed how Irish beef production is a helluva more sustainable than importing highly processed junk food from the US.

It is of interest that you are now making judgements on the totality of Irish agriculture. May I ask as to where you have gained such incredible expertise?

It is evident that one of the main issues with these artificial burgers and lab grown meats is that they are being pushed by giant multi national interests who couldn't give a fig where or how they sourced their raw ingredients.

What is truly deeply concerning is that unfortunately some are swallowing the constant misinformation we are being fed. Just like the often repeated and false claim that animal agriculture was responsible for 51% of all ghg emissions. Not only has this been debunked - we have witnessed various other vested corporate interests pushing plant based products behind the recent EAT report. Then the Blue Horizon Corporation behind the cynical attempt to bribe the catholic church over lent etc etc etc.

It would be naive indeed not to believe that consumers are being targeted by these corporations - who are hell bent on securing a market share for their trade marked products worldwide. What you can be sure of is that they dont give a monkey's about locally sourced or healthy whole foods.

It remains the Irish landscape by its virtue of climate and topography is uniquely suited to animal agriculture. That's not going to change no matter what the propaganda being pushed or the highly processed products being marketed.

gozunda · 22-02-2019 3:08pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's nobody in the thread has tried it.

And yet you are the main one pushing it? #social influencer?

Upstream · 22-02-2019 3:08pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

My point is you can't claim that Irish agriculture is sustainable, relatively low input or not. I can accept that the Irish system is more sustainable than others, but thats it. A head in the sand attitude about the change that's coming (typified by some posters here) will see a lot left behind.

When we look at technologies like plant based meat analogues as well as lab grown meat it's easy to understand why farmers would be so dismissive of them, it's an obvious threat to the existing market. The changes that are only on the horizon now need to be prepared for not ignored. Dismiss this as highly processed US junk food at your peril.

Irish farming needs to be looking for it's new market, be that in energy crops, beef analogue feedstocks or other inputs, in a post animal reared beef landscape

We don't have our heads in the sand, we just see things differently, we see what's being pushed here, and we don't like it.

These things you call plant based meat analogues, we see as junk food.

Then you tell us we're not sustainable and to throw away our current methods of beef production. Where do we see this going? It means loading up on chemical fertilizers and pesticides and intensive industrial food production practices to produce what you call beef analogue feedstocks for big industrial corporations.

Why do you want us to do that?

Xcellor · 22-02-2019 3:10pm

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 · 22-02-2019 3:16pm

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 · 22-02-2019 3:21pm

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 · 22-02-2019 3:30pm

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 · 22-02-2019 3:33pm

briangriffin wrote: »

God your some gob****e

Thanks.

I'm not wrong though am I?

Buford T. Justice XIX · 22-02-2019 3:47pm

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 · 22-02-2019 3:48pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Thanks.

I'm not wrong though am I?

No you can be both things at once. Well done

emaherx · 22-02-2019 3:56pm

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 · 22-02-2019 4:03pm

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 · 22-02-2019 4:09pm

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

The Impossible Burger 2.0

Comments