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

Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

foxbusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 205 posts

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#101

Post by snicky »

warent wrote: post #43
droopyEyelids wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that humans are going to think of a more efficient way to turn energy and matter into food in the next century. We could potentially alter the animals into something that would be hard to recognize, but that'll be an evolution of animal husbandry, not something that will leave us bewildered at animals. What do you see that indicates we're going to make massive leaps beyond what animal life has al…

plants have higher protein and less sodium than meat on avg. Although they do have a lower amino acid count and calorie count, that just means a more diverse plant based diet is in order. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

Less sodium, yes. More protein? Of course not. Lean meat contains around 20-25% of protein. Do you know of any plant that could compare?

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#102

Post by jimmywanger »

sanswork wrote: post #78
jimmywanger wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly. We can't consume most plants directly, and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time).

Right so we replace the production of the plants we can't consume directly with ones we can. It's not like we're forced to produce non-consumable plants. We do it because we need to feed the consumable animals.

> we replace the production of the plants

You make that sound like swapping out a machine on a production line. For some places, you simply can't grow plants that we can consume directly.

A lot of land doesn't receive enough water/sun, has poor soil, or is on such a steep slop that cultivating it is not worth the effort. The most efficient use of that land would be grazing land.

As for being "forced to produce non-consumable plants", we are. We can't eat the entire bell pepper plant. We're producing stems, leaves, and roots as byproducts, things that animals actually can eat.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#103

Post by AVTizzle »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #92

This is just shareholder value. Scaling meat has so many problems, but if you can sell fake meat at meat prices suddenly there is so much more profit margin to be returned to shareholders. I do not believe for 1 second that Tyson cares about health, environments, farmers or the well being of animals. > "We just got to the point last year where the consumer is demanding [the elimination of antibiotics in the food chai…

>"I do not believe for 1 second that Tyson cares about health, environments, farmers or the well being of animals."

I haven't followed Tyson - is there something they've done in recent history that has particularly contributed to the skepticism? Or is this more general "all corporations-are-evil" skepticism?

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#105

Post by 1123581321 »

notyourwork wrote: post #54
sethbannon wrote: post #9

Animal agriculture seems to me like one of those things that in 50 to 100 years people will look back on with bewilderment. "You mean you birthed whole animals, let them grow for two years, fed them all the while, just to kill them, chop up their remains, and ship that to people?" Plant based protein and maybe even more so cultured/clean meat (e.g. http://www.memphismeats.com/ ) seem likely to totally replace how we…

"You mean you planted that whole acreage with seed, let them grow, watered and fertilized them all the while, just to cut them down, chop them up and ship that to people?"

"Why should salt suffer?"

(http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/napoleon-of-nott...)

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#106

Post by arcticbull »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #94
arcticbull wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon footprint for meat is significantly higher because you have to grow the plans and feed it to the animals, and moving up a trophic level is usually ~10% efficient. It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly.

Certain lands cannot support human edible plants, but can be used for grazing. Suddenly non-productive land can be producing meat.

Fair enough, I don't think it has to be all or nothing, and I think that the percentage of meat consumed can and should drop dramatically.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#107

Post by soheil »

kranner wrote: post #86
soheil wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then 50 to 100 years after that people will look back on with bewilderment. "You mean you planted whole seeds, let them grow for months, watered them all the while, just to kill them, chop up their leaf, and ship that to people?" Plants are alive too.

Are they as sentient? Do they suffer as much? I don't think there is reason to believe these things.

Animals shouldn't suffer either if they're raised right. I also don't see how putting a bullet through a cow's head somehow causes any suffering.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#108

Post by sanswork »

jimmywanger wrote: post #102
sanswork wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right so we replace the production of the plants we can't consume directly with ones we can. It's not like we're forced to produce non-consumable plants. We do it because we need to feed the consumable animals.

> we replace the production of the plants You make that sound like swapping out a machine on a production line. For some places, you simply can't grow plants that we can consume directly. A lot of land doesn't receive enough water/sun, has poor soil, or is on such a steep slop that cultivating it is not worth the effort. The most efficient use of that land would be grazing land. As for being "forced to produce non-co…

Right so that land becomes unproductive land and can return to its natural state or be used for other needs. And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society.

You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#109

Post by agitator »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #94
arcticbull wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon footprint for meat is significantly higher because you have to grow the plans and feed it to the animals, and moving up a trophic level is usually ~10% efficient. It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly.

Certain lands cannot support human edible plants, but can be used for grazing. Suddenly non-productive land can be producing meat.

Genetically Engineer the plants to grow in those conditions, boom.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#110

Post by nightski »

arcticbull wrote: post #44
cmdrfred wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we all lived in 3 foot by 7 foot cubes it would cost a great deal less to heat our homes as well. Just because a more optimal way to do things exist doesn't mean anyone actually wants to do it. I enjoy eating meat, thus I will continue to do so.

The difference is one's uncomfortable, the other you're just used to. Plants are no less tasty, they're just different. I eat meat too, I'm just saying.

Meat is extremely tasty but I am not going to just eat meat. Similarly with vegetables, I love cauliflower and broccoli but at the end of the day I need variety.

Just because one is very tasty doesn't mean it makes the other any less desirable.

On the same topic, it's ironic how we lump "meat" into a single category. How the animals are raised and fed has a huge effect on the flavor and taste of the meat.

If McDonalds hamburgers disappeared I wouldn't even notice. If I am not able to buy grass fed ribeye from a local farm I'd be very disappointed.

Post reply on HN