Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–538 of 538 posts

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#531

Post by cies »

saagarjha wrote: post #448
cies wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Also the scale of the "3rd party damage" is humongous in case of bio-industry. Many millions of animals per day are having the life squeezed out of m. Abortions need supervision, paperwork, a studied persons decision. Slaughterhouse killing of often done by immigrants, unable to find any better work. Where the embryo can potentially harm the mother, the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative i…

> the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives We kill them because in doing so they have a positive impact on our lives.

I understand that. And that's what sets it apart from the embryo-killings. Live farm animals prove no danger, live embryos (to some extend) do pose a danger to women

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#532

Post by cies »

craftyguy wrote: post #478
cies wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it certainly looses from straight up beans or lentils. It will straight up win from a regular burger though. Talking health here. Nothing to back it up, just common sense about cholesterol and different fats.

I think the above argument is based on environmental impact: processed meat vs processed veggie thing to look like mean Both require, well, processing. I would assume the meat one requires more energy to make.

Both environmental and health were mentioned already.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#533

Post by JoeAltmaier »

yorwba wrote: post #57
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You go ahead and spend your money on that stuff. But in a free market, soy-based protein is going to be a hard sell.

According to TFA, the Impossible Burger 2.0 has reached parity with meat-based burgers. It seems unlikely that they'll just stop innovating, so they might eventually produce a soy-based burger that tastes better than meat at the same price. If that happens, it's game over for meat.

We have them in local joints - at a 50% premium. Not gonna take over at that price.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#534

Post by cannonedhamster »

mises wrote: post #523
1024core wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All beef is grass fed period. Some are finished at the end with corn or other dense grains (your soy patties). Visit the Harrison Ranch (on I-5, south-east of SF), and see for yourself how they're treated.

I am not sure about california, but I can confirm that Texas beef is essentially all grass-fed. This is from observation and from speaking with ranchers I know. Grass-fed also has a better taste, in my opinion.

There is nowhere near enough grass to feed nearly all Texas cattle to marketable size in Texas. Nearly all commercial cattle are bred and born in Mexico from US genetic stock and transferred to the US for fattening with cattle feed because it is cheaper to breed in Mexico and feed in the US. Last I checked only about 3% of US beef was fully grass fed. So it's fully possible you know some grass fed ranchers, but it's unlikely that the second biggest export in Texas is possible without massive amounts of cattle feed. Grass fed beef tasting better is subjective but the costs associated with the process appear to dictate that to consumers it's something they are willing to pay for.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#535

Post by cannonedhamster »

mises wrote: post #524
spacemanmatt wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to include all the energy that went into feeding the cow over the period of its life.

Except much beef is raised on grass. Some of that isn't even watered. This is effectively solar-based.

It's more efficient to ship grain than cattle, and most cattle still requires feed to get to market size. The whole mythos behind cattle drives was to get them to a location for slaughter and shipping. The same exact thing you said about cattle is the same as grains, except cows require more water external to the grass.Cows also require maintenance above what crops typically do as well. Ranchers are very good at what they do, however it's still a ton of work. Farming is slowly becoming significantly more automated, which is a good thing as less people are interested in becoming farmers.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#536

Post by mikekchar »

gadders wrote: post #527
mikekchar wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only need one girl to replace the previous one. If you keep more than one, then your herd size increases (which you usually don't want).

Well I guess if you're at maximum capacity you wouldn't want additional female calves, but I would imagine some of those could be sold.

I have a friend who had a beef cow farm (which is slightly different, but close enough). Basically, you goal in building a herd is to strategically breed the best cows that you can. When you start, you buy some cows. Depending on what you are doing, you may or may not keep a bull yourself (you might artificially inseminate the cows, or pay for the services of a bull). Generally speaking you inbreed the cows, looking to develop specific traits that you want and occasionally breed your cows with a bull that you don't own for specific purposes (essentially improving the blood line). Once you have your initial cows, you almost never buy another one -- you just pay to breed with a higher quality bull. There are obvious exceptions, but that's the general rule.

It takes time to breed a herd of cattle. My friend had an outbreak of foot and mouth and he lost his whole herd one time. It took years and years and years to build it back up. At best you can double your herd size every year. In practice, though, some cows don't produce a calf every year. Also, there are cows that you don't want because they don't have the traits you want. But once you have the herd size you want, it is a steady state thing.

I tried to find some place to find the volume of cattle traded that's not destined for slaughter, but the data doesn't exist. It seems that dairy cows are traded mostly via want ads on the internet these days. Here's a typical site that specializes in it: https://www.dairylivestockservices.com.au/stock-for-sale/ Notice how all of the livestock is fully grown. That's because these are livestock from failed farms. I don't think anybody sells calves because there just isn't a market for it. You can't sell calves for meat either, because as I mentioned earlier, it's not economical (the price for a meat calf going to slaughter is only $125!)

It is sad to think about it, but the reality is that milk production necessarily relies on the death of cows to stay economical. If we drank a lot less milk and were willing to pay maybe 10x the price for it, then you could change that fairly easily. However, it's just not possible at anywhere near the price point we have for food right now.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#537

Post by jki275 »

mikekchar wrote: post #482
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sadly if everyone did this it would probably mean we would only see cows, sheep etc in zoos, rather than grazing in fields." Eh, not really, as cows and sheep and goats still provide valuable resources. Milk and wools, for example. I'm guessing lots of other things can be taken as they die naturally - leathers and stuff from bones and pet foods and whatnot. Sure, we could eventually engineer ourselves out of needing…

I assume virtually everyone knows but I'll be pedantic anyway: if one wants to reduce the number of animals killed, the milk industry not immune. A cow's natural lifespan is 18-22 years (according to google). The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 4-6 years. A dairy cow has between 2-4 calves in that time. Only 1 is needed for replacement, meaning that for each dairy cow in the herd, you kill a calf every second year…

If it's a male calf, it's almost always castrated and raised for meat (there's no difference in the "distribution of meat" on a dairy cow, simply that others are bred to make more), if it's a female it's normally raised to put into the milking herd. The cows that become too old to milk effectively are sold for slaughter as well, the new females are their replacements.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#538

Post by staplers »

ldh wrote: post #221
staplers wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People cheer while it's novel (like television, social media) but our children will hate it and feel cheated out of real nutrition by 'manufactured food'.

Most of the meat they eat now comes from factory farms, you can't get much closer yo manufactured food than that.

Then don't eat factory farmed meat, and don't eat lab grown fake meat. There are more than two options.
Post reply on HN