Synthetic meat

[Excited Penguin]

Most ranchers don't own the cattle, their pastures are temporary accommodations (mostly overwintering) for much, much larger operations that cut production costs by letting cows eat grass and mill around for once in their miserable lives.  They really don't give a fuck when push comes to shove.  They'll cover their pastures with -anything- that's meets the final row in their financial projections..or nothing at all. 

I think that many ranchers, today, would breathe a sigh of relief if there was some reason that livestock for consumption became less of a temptation.  The risk is phenomenal, the reward is honestly and artificially minimal...but when you're scrutinizing the numbers it's hard to say no to meat..here for example.  Alternative land use is a subject of keen interest right now, and in most cases if you aren't wholly invested into the meat production monolith (and,importantly, to their standards of scale)...then your acreage is probably going to be more productive (fiscally and physically) doing anything else.  Just letting the grass grow for feed is more viable between 5 and 50 acres.  

What's happening now is that ranchers are taking an absolute bath in support of a meat production system that many have severe objections to from almost every possible angle.  The pitch is enticing, year after year people jump in, and year after year they find themselves selling pieces of their land..hilariously, pieces that often become competitors, further diluting the pool of success.   Limiting the temptation that leads those guys to ruin would almost certainly result in them making better choices for themselves and as regards land use.  

Meat processors would be up in arms.  Ranchers, only insomuch as their fortunes seem to them, in the present, to hinge upon the existence of the former.  The animals aren't the only thing being exploited on the range.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe staying on topic and relating these blocks of text to it in a tangible way might help.

[paulpablo]

First part, correct.  I'm talking about it in a very mysterious manner because I don't know if there will be any consequences or what they would be.
Second part, no I'm not saying anything like that.

We're talking hypothetically about meat identical to that of animals in every relevant way as in taste, constituency, look, feel and so on. The only difference being that one is grown in a living animal and the other is grown in the laboratory - which if you take in account all the other factors involved is a meaningless difference, aside from the fact that one is unsustainable, unethical and unhealthy and the other isn't, at least in theory. Beyond that, we're merely talking about the likelihood of achieving that hypothetical scenario in reality, which clearly people are working to do right now and they already have much to show for it.

I don't know if the meat is identical to that of that grown on a living animal, I'd have to research the facts more and have more sources than the CEO of the company who grows the meat.

[The Grand Nudger]

I was actually discussing something Pablo had mentioned EP, that ranchers, as their main competitors...would be opponents.  In truth, it's not ranchers but meat processors who would be their main competitors (and opponents).  Ranchers are very keen to get out from under those guys.

My response to you is a few pages back.  Got buried in a quick flurry.

[Excited Penguin]

We're talking hypothetically about meat identical to that of animals in every relevant way as in taste, constituency, look, feel and so on. The only difference being that one is grown in a living animal and the other is grown in the laboratory - which if you take in account all the other factors involved is a meaningless difference, aside from the fact that one is unsustainable, unethical and unhealthy and the other isn't, at least in theory. Beyond that, we're merely talking about the likelihood of achieving that hypothetical scenario in reality, which clearly people are working to do right now and they already have much to show for it.

I don't know if the meat is identical to that of that grown on a living animal, I'd have to research the facts more and have more sources than the CEO of the company who grows the meat.

He didn't start off as a CEO. He's a cardiologist who got interested in this area and subsequently sought out investment for his ideas - and got it. 

That being said, I did say we're talking about a hypothetical given our little knowledge on the topic. Still, I think the podcast I provided is informative enough for anyone even mildly interested.

[Excited Penguin]

I was actually discussing something Pablo had mentioned EP, that ranchers, as their main competitors...would be opponents.  In truth, it's not ranchers but meat processors who would be their main competitors.  

My response to you is a few pages back.  Got buried in a quick flurry.

That's fair and just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of anything related to forum activity. I'm accusing you of not making the effort and taking the time to present your opinions/information in a more digestible manner.


As for what you're talking about, even though I still can't easily make the connection with anything being discussed, be it by pablo or anyone else, I do think I learned something about it by watching Last Week Tonight's coverage of this issue.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry that I can't word good and stuff?

Two things are contributing to that.  One, this subject is not well served by brevity, by being digestible...and two....I'm a sustainable ag activist.

(post 17, btw...when you're done bitching about my sentence structure and word count )

[Excited Penguin]

I'm sorry that I can't word good and stuff?

Two things are contributing to that.  One, this subject is not well served by brevity, by being digestible...and two....I'm a sustainable ag activist.

I'm a little skeptical that you can't explain things better than you do right now, but at the same time you're not obligated to do it either. I'm just sorry for the price any discussion involving you and the average person has to pay for it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fact is that a steak is muscle tissue. Muscle tissue that has never exerted energy will feel different to the mouth, I'd imagine. The fact that there's probably not going to be any variation in texture or grain or flavoring, which is what you have in naturally-grown meat, is going to make eating artificially-grown meat a different experience altogether.

So 80% might like the idea of eating it, but whether it would deliver the steak-eating experience, I'm highly doubtful.

[Excited Penguin]

The fact is that a steak is muscle tissue. Muscle tissue that has never exerted energy will feel different to the mouth, I'd imagine. The fact that there's probably not going to be any variation in texture or grain or flavoring, which is what you have in naturally-grown meat, is going to make eating artificially-grown meat a different experience altogether.

So 80% might like the idea of eating it, but whether it would deliver the steak-eating experience, I'm highly doubtful.

Actually, you are going to have variation in all of those things and experiments have been conducted and the muscle tissue reacts to stimulants exactly like that taken form live animals. Excuse my poor phrasing, but I think you get the gist.

The fact of the matter is, I repeat, this form of vitro meat would/will be identical to "natural" meat, except for the fact that you can actually manipulate it to be even better, by adding certain kinds of beneficial fats to it, for example.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's awfully vague, lol.

The technology of in vitro meat is fascinating, however....it lacks an application -other- than marketing to ideological interests. This makes it seem, to me, to be wasteful of resources, and shortsighted.