love foraging seaweed and eating it in a bunch of different things. large scale consumption of it is pretty difficult unless you're somewhere that conveniently has both a lot of good stuff locally and has a food culture that knows how to prepare it. cooking with eg kelp is not trivial. there are probably lots of interesting industrial and processed seaweed products that could be very good, especially the animal feed applications, but i think these kinds of articles overlook the very real problems associated with building cuisine from ingredients that aren't widely adopted.
Is algae the new kale?
141–150 of 320 posts
Re: Is algae the new kale?
#142Re: Is algae the new kale?
#143Only if the rich do it first. I won't eat bugs, lab grown meat, algae, or any other experimental food until the rich do it first, and do it consistently, not just once as a demonstration. My logic is simple. If the rich don't embrace an innovation, it tells me that the innovation is either not what it's cracked up to be, that it gives a poorer quality product than the traditional option, or that the rich think the in…
Algae isn't an experimental food; plenty of rich people eat sushi, for example.
If plenty of people are already doing it, why is the article titled with the question of whether we should start doing it?
It's because the article is talking about making it more of a primary source of nutrition. It isn't even the primary ingredient in sushi.
So, if the rich (and politicians) start eating it as a primary source of nutrition, then the commenter to whom you were replying might consider it similarly.
Re: Is algae the new kale?
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lentils and rice are a complete protein. While they don't provide 100% of the nutrients you need, if you throw in a few green vegetables you'll be absolutely fine. Crops use something like 1% of the resources to grow that meat does. It's not just about where carbon is stored, but land and water usage and where carbon is produced (cows fart. a lot.). Overall plant-based diets are far superior for the planet than meat-…
There is token research that creatine supplements are especially beneficial for vegans, and creatine isn't the only thing mostly found in animal-based foods. Given nutritional sciences has a history of being a rollercoaster ride, maybe it isn't the best idea to make wild claims which don't mirror how the world behaves at large. Water and land usage is also A: grossly overstated (you can't grow anything except grass o…
>A: grossly overstated (you can't grow anything except grass on most land)
The overwhelming majority of soy grown globally is fed to livestock. That's definitely does not fall under your category of "can't grow anything except grass on most land".
"More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products"
The proportion is lower for corn, but only because a huge chunk is being used for fuel. If we exclude that, it would still be the overwhelming majority.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/104842/corn_dom_use....
Re: Is algae the new kale?
#145All of the people who are saying they'd never eat it and will stick with their beef/chicken/pork are the same kind that said hell no to EVs. They'll die out and the world will adapt to a changing food economy just as we did with the changing fuel economy.
[deleted]
Re: Is algae the new kale?
#146Re: Is algae the new kale?
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere Except, it didn't? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... Just because you are just now noticing something common doesn't mean it recently became common.
I appreciate the effort to apply data. There are alternative facts, though: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=world+hunger%2...
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out a common statistical manipulation - extending an axis far longer than is at all relevant to the data, creating a misleading interpretation of a slope.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=world+hunger%2... is a much more readable and accurate graph.
Note how both are ~equivalent for a majority of the time, barring 1943 - 1951 (slight edge for food security) and 1960-1970 (larger lead for 'world hunger'). At 1970, food insecurity takes and maintains control.
This is likely because it - as discussed in the rest of the thread - encompasses more, and is a more useful term for scholarly discussion.
Re: Is algae the new kale?
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you know that cows can up cycle agricultural waste into protein? Human's can't eat corn stalks, for instance.
We could upcycle agricultural waste by returning it to the earth. Let it decompose and return nutrients to the soil.
We do that, after the cows are done with it.
Re: Is algae the new kale?
#149fucking no.
Re: Is algae the new kale?
#150I cannot understand how it is possible that the phrases like "food security" instead of "hunger" became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere. Genuine question, can someone explain that to me without resorting to some sort of conspiracy theories?
So, to clarify, I am not arguing that food insecurity and hunger are two separate things (even though to me it still sounds like some sort of newspeak). My question was more about the speed with which that term became deployed everywhere.
They are slightly different.
Hunger, in the strictest sense, is about a lack of calories.
This made sense as a metric to track, when the issue was almost entirely people who starved to death. Now however, first in the developed world and also in many developing countries the issue is also calorie quality, usually a lack of access to non-junk foods. You can now be both malnourished and obese.