BYND Beyond Meat out of main

[Swampgator]

Data follows, but the top level look is that sunlight energy turns into plant calories, which are converted into flesh growth on animals. Obviously there is an efficiency loss at each step along the way. The lower on the food chain you go, the less wasteful you'll be. In feedlot agriculture, they refer to the conversion ratio as a Feed Conversion Ratio, of FCR. Beef has an FCR of 6:1 or higher. Nutrition density varies, of course, between dry feed and live weight gain, but in most cases they use FCR at the feedlot, so the grain of choice is dried corn. From a caloric perspective (recognizing that calories are not the only measure of nutrition, but are the measure of energy conversion), an ounce of dried corn has about 110 calories, and an ounce of ground beef (80%) has about 71 calories. So in this case, our non-water inputs are 6*110 calories (660) of corn to achieve 1*71 calories (71). That's extremely inefficient, but of course it is. Cattle ruminate. They move, they live. They expend energy, and they cannot be 100% efficient at conversion.

What hasn't been included in this is the amount of water needed to grow an ounce of ground beef (112 gallons) vs corn (8 gallons). What else? Waste ponds, meat refrigeration and storage, spoilage waste (which is much higher with meat) and animal transportation.

One oz of ground beef contains 6X the protein and fat of corn. And protein from plant is only absorbed at a rate of 2/3 that of protein from meat. So practically speaking even in your example corn is only twice as water efficient as beef at a nutritionally equivalent par level.. But, corn does not contain the essential nutrients that beef does. There is no B12 for example in corn. B12 is essential for humans. So plant based animal products need to be fortified chemically. Have you calculated the costs of those additions upstream of the Beyond process? Additionally, corn is deficient in essential amino acids like lysine. So even if protein levels are matched to beef, the protein quality is inferior for human consumption.
Now as for corn finished beef vs pasture raised, that is a whole other can of worms. But grass fed is definitely less resource wasting than corn finished, and the nutritional profile of grass fed beef is far superior to grain finished beef, especially the omega 3/6 ratio.

Calories are a terrible measure of nutritional content. If all that maters were calories we could all sit around and drink coca cola all day to meet our nutritional needs. Sadly, some do.

 

[Swampgator]

It reads as an attempt to discredit an individual (me, in this case) under the guise of a compliment. “Don’t see a need to question any of your concrete premises” is a long way from “believe a little too strongly in your beliefs [sic],” would you not agree?

Fair enough. Apologies.

 

[ohmman]

One oz of ground beef contains 6X the protein and fat of corn. And protein from plant is only absorbed at a rate of 2/3 that of protein from meat. So practically speaking even in your example corn is only twice as water efficient as beef at a nutritionally equivalent par level.. But, corn does not contain the essential nutrients that beef does. There is no B12 for example in corn. B12 is essential for humans. So plant based animal products need to be fortified chemically. Have you calculated the costs of those additions upstream of the Beyond process? Additionally, corn is deficient in essential amino acids like lysine. So even if protein levels are matched to beef, the protein quality is inferior for human consumption.
Now as for corn finished beef vs pasture raised, that is a whole other can of worms. But grass fed is definitely less resource wasting than corn finished, and the nutritional profile of grass fed beef is far superior to grain finished beef, especially the omega 3/6 ratio.

Calories are a terrible measure of nutritional content. If all that maters were calories we could all sit around and drink coca cola all day to meet our nutritional needs. Sadly, some do.

Yeah, I definitely recognize that we need another metric that takes a more full approach to nutrition in order to get a legitimate conversion comparison, which is why I added this part.

From a caloric perspective (recognizing that calories are not the only measure of nutrition, but are the measure of energy conversion)

I certainly don't expect that corn would be what would replace the meat in our diet, I only used it because it's what is mostly fed to cows for the 6:1 metric. The better comparison is a subset of vegetables that we'd actually eat, and how much water/energy went into those, with human conversion being part of the measure as well. I don't think anything like that exists at this point, but I could be wrong.

I do believe it's going to be difficult to raise beef efficiently and sustainably, though. The piece that I linked in my post is from the beef industry, and they talk about the fact that they're well behind on FCR just due to the fact that cows are ruminants and that'll always be a barrier.

 

[SageBrush]

It is an opinion piece, but there are 42 citations

The basic science of insulin resistance is older than me, and unlike you I have read a good portion of it rather than copy/paste as an appeal to authority like you are doing here.

I should have guessed, between your ignorance of the simplest concepts related to to AGW and the "medical professional" label you attach to yourself, that you would be a quack promoting medical rubbish. Go ahead and shoot for 3/3: tell us your stance on vaccines.

 

[Swampgator]

Yeah, I definitely recognize that we need another metric that takes a more full approach to nutrition in order to get a legitimate conversion comparison, which is why I added this part.

I certainly don't expect that corn would be what would replace the meat in our diet, I only used it because it's what is mostly fed to cows for the 6:1 metric. The better comparison is a subset of vegetables that we'd actually eat, and how much water/energy went into those, with human conversion being part of the measure as well. I don't think anything like that exists at this point, but I could be wrong.

I do believe it's going to be difficult to raise beef efficiently and sustainably, though. The piece that I linked in my post is from the beef industry, and they talk about the fact that they're well behind on FCR just due to the fact that cows are ruminants and that'll always be a barrier.

Yes it will for the meat production industry. They are incentivized to maximize yield without regard to nutritional value or sustainability.
The beef market is shifting though, and more and more people are willing to pay for pasture finished beef. And That is sustainable. Can it feed the whole world? No. But there are lots of animal protein other than ruminants. Chickens, eggs, fish, etc. Eggs in particular are cheap and probably the best source of overall nutrition you can buy for the money.

 

[Swampgator]

The basic science of insulin resistance is older than me, and unlike you I have read a good portion of it rather than copy/paste as an appeal to authority like you are doing here.

I should have guessed, between your ignorance of the simplest concepts related to to AGW and the "medical professional" label you attach to yourself, that you would be a quack promoting medical rubbish. Go ahead and shoot for 3/3: tell us your stance on vaccines.

And you are now on ignore. Tool.

 

[SageBrush]

Yeah, I definitely recognize that we need another metric that takes a more full approach to nutrition in order to get a legitimate conversion comparison, which is why I added this part.

Actually, you do not.

Humans require somewhere in the range of 40 - 60 grams of protein a day, so about 200 Cal of their daily consumption of 1500 - 200 Cal.
Since around 3/4 of the daily consumption can be any calorie you care to eat the inefficiency of fed lot cattle stands out as a HUGE waste of resources and source of pollution.

 

[Swampgator]

Just want to make clear post 246 was directed to Sagebrush and not ohmann

 

[ohmman]

Beyond meat is a small part of a larger, well funded (by agri) Eat Lancet movement. Lots of participants. Overall goal is to reduce global meat consumption to almost zero. By ANY means necessary.

I've done some research on EAT-Lancet, and I don't think I can get behind this statement. For starters, Beyond's pre-IPO funding has a wide variety of sources (Crunchbase lists them) including Tyson foods, who participated heavily in a number of rounds. They certainly don't have a stake in reducing global meat consumption to almost zero by ANY means necessary.

EAT-Lancet doesn't really appear to be a movement, as far as I can tell. The report and recommendations may be spawning a movement, but I'm having a hard time finding anything that resembles that. Funding for the EAT report came from a single source, and the members of the commission don't look suspect to me. They've all got excellent credentials as far as I can tell.

The idea that the recommendations in the report will be adopted beyond a small portion of the population seems far-fetched to me. It certainly won't happen voluntarily, and some nudge techniques may help but only marginally. I saw that the WHO was dissatisfied with the ability of emerging nations to adopt this kind of diet, and I agree. It seems difficult to scale.

I spent a bunch of time reading criticisms of the report, hoping to get something that resembled a serious critique of the methodology, but didn't come away with anything convincing. There are many that try to attack some of the commission members for having already recommended low-meat diets, but that's not a criticism that makes sense to me. The epidemiological data appears to support that assessment. There are other criticisms that attack the field of nutritional epidemiology because most of the field relies on observational studies which cannot establish causation. Sure, but what's the alternative? Guesswork?

I admit that I have a negative bias against the Lancet thanks to the damage they've done by publishing the Wakefield nonsense decades ago. I do realize they're pretty well respected these days, but the reverberations from that publication are still being felt today.

Either way, I definitely don't see their connection to Beyond, nor do I see anything about using ANY means necessary to reduce global meat consumption to zero. That certainly implies violence, and this is merely a well funded report as far as I can tell. I'm happy to read anything concrete (no opinion pieces, paleo zealot pages, beef industry newspapers, please) to expand my understanding. And if you can show me the Beyond tie-in, which I couldn't find, I'd appreciate it.

 

[S'toon]

I've done some research on EAT-Lancet, and I don't think I can get behind this statement. For starters, Beyond's pre-IPO funding has a wide variety of sources (Crunchbase lists them) including Tyson foods, who participated heavily in a number of rounds. They certainly don't have a stake in reducing global meat consumption to almost zero by ANY means necessary.

EAT-Lancet doesn't really appear to be a movement, as far as I can tell. The report and recommendations may be spawning a movement, but I'm having a hard time finding anything that resembles that. Funding for the EAT report came from a single source, and the members of the commission don't look suspect to me. They've all got excellent credentials as far as I can tell.

The idea that the recommendations in the report will be adopted beyond a small portion of the population seems far-fetched to me. It certainly won't happen voluntarily, and some nudge techniques may help but only marginally. I saw that the WHO was dissatisfied with the ability of emerging nations to adopt this kind of diet, and I agree. It seems difficult to scale.

I spent a bunch of time reading criticisms of the report, hoping to get something that resembled a serious critique of the methodology, but didn't come away with anything convincing. There are many that try to attack some of the commission members for having already recommended low-meat diets, but that's not a criticism that makes sense to me. The epidemiological data appears to support that assessment. There are other criticisms that attack the field of nutritional epidemiology because most of the field relies on observational studies which cannot establish causation. Sure, but what's the alternative? Guesswork?

I admit that I have a negative bias against the Lancet thanks to the damage they've done by publishing the Wakefield nonsense decades ago. I do realize they're pretty well respected these days, but the reverberations from that publication are still being felt today.

Either way, I definitely don't see their connection to Beyond, nor do I see anything about using ANY means necessary to reduce global meat consumption to zero. That certainly implies violence, and this is merely a well funded report as far as I can tell. I'm happy to read anything concrete (no opinion pieces, paleo zealot pages, beef industry newspapers, please) to expand my understanding. And if you can show me the Beyond tie-in, which I couldn't find, I'd appreciate it.

SHHH! Next you'll be debunking Agenda 21 and that'll cause him anxiety.

 

[mspohr]

US Dietary Guidelines Committee Urged to Drop Dairy Food Group, Slash Meat Recommendations

“Decades of research have shown that shifting to a plant-based diet provides an array of health benefits in chronic disease prevention and promotes healthy growth at all stages of life, including pregnancy and lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes,” Sherene Chou, a dietitian

“As mentioned in his testimony, when it comes to some diseases, it’s not our DNA, it’s our dinner.” Adams first adopted a plant-based diet in 2016 after he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and lost his eyesight as a result. During his time in office, Adams—who regained his eyesight within three weeks of eschewing animal products—has introduced a wealth of plant-based initiatives,

 

[S'toon]

US Dietary Guidelines Committee Urged to Drop Dairy Food Group, Slash Meat Recommendations

“Decades of research have shown that shifting to a plant-based diet provides an array of health benefits in chronic disease prevention and promotes healthy growth at all stages of life, including pregnancy and lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes,” Sherene Chou, a dietitian

“As mentioned in his testimony, when it comes to some diseases, it’s not our DNA, it’s our dinner.” Adams first adopted a plant-based diet in 2016 after he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and lost his eyesight as a result. During his time in office, Adams—who regained his eyesight within three weeks of eschewing animal products—has introduced a wealth of plant-based initiatives,

Diabetes isn't caused by eating meat.

It's caused by eating carbs.

 

[mspohr]

Diabetes isn't caused by eating meat.

It's caused by eating carbs.

Not just carbs:
Other type 2 diabetes risk factors include the following:

• High blood pressure
• High blood triglyceride (fat) levels
• Gestational diabetes or giving birth to a baby weighing more than 9 pounds
• High-fat and carbohydrate diet
• High alcohol intake
• Sedentary lifestyle
• Obesity or being overweight

Also fat... animal fat... leads to fat people... and diabetes

 

[Kenz]

We all need to eat healthier with a more whole foods plant based diet.
That means less meat, dairy, eggs and cheese.
There is an obesity epidemic that is leading to increases in high blood pressure, heart disease and cancer.
People are having heart attacks at younger ages today. Switching to plant based meat can help.
Eat healthy and get some regular exercise. Ride a bicycle to work, school or for fun.
A few small changes in your life can make a difference.

 

[SageBrush]

Diabetes isn't caused by eating meat.

It's caused by eating carbs.

A better answer for Type 2 diabetes is that it is caused by excess caloric intake leading to obesity. Calories are fungible

 

[S'toon]

Not just carbs:
Other type 2 diabetes risk factors include the following:

• High blood pressure
• High blood triglyceride (fat) levels
• Gestational diabetes or giving birth to a baby weighing more than 9 pounds
• High-fat and carbohydrate diet
• High alcohol intake
• Sedentary lifestyle
• Obesity or being overweight

Also fat... animal fat... leads to fat people... and diabetes

Animal fat doesn't lead to heart disease or diabetes.

That's the theory Ancel Keys promoted, based on exceedingly flawed and purposely misleading studies. This lead to the low-fat movement, which put sugar in "low fat" food products instead of fat. This made things worse.

Yes, overeating food in general will cause weight gain, but excess calories is not the same as fat.

If you eat a plant based diet, and the intake is mostly carbs, you will get diabetes.

There are peoples out there whose traditional diet have always been high fat diets, and have lead perfectly healthy lives until we white folks came along and introduced carbs to their diets.

 

[JRP3]

There are peoples out there whose traditional diet have always been high fat diets, and have lead perfectly healthy lives until we white folks came along and introduced carbs to their diets.

I hope you don't mean the Inuit. “The Eskimo Myth” | NutritionFacts.org

 

[SageBrush]

I certainly don't expect that corn would be what would replace the meat in our diet

Swampy's argument is a straw man because no rational argument against eating animals suggests a corn only diet. A healthy diet is a mixture of vegetables, grains, legumes, seeds and nuts. The notion that meat is needed to meet protein requirements has been debunked, and debunked, and debunked again. The general physiology goes like this: about 10% of caloric intake should be protein. That is a very low bar to meet in a balanced vegetarian diet. People would have to work at it to end up with less than 20% protein calories.

For example, the following are protein calories per total calories:
Wheat Flour 11.5 %
Lentils 31.4 %
Tofu: 43 %
Peas: 27%
Corn: 14%
Refried beans: 24.6 %

The only "trick" here is to realize that candy is not part of a balanced diet. If it is only consumed to cover exercise above and beyond the BMR + 20% or so, protein from the balanced diet is more than adequate.

The other red herring often bandied about (swampy again!) falls into the general category of "protein quality." Suffice it to say that a balanced, varied diet renders the question moot.

 

[SageBrush]

Animal fat doesn't lead to heart disease or diabetes.

** cough **

 

[SageBrush]

I hope you don't mean the Inuit. “The Eskimo Myth” | NutritionFacts.org

Yep.

If the Omega 3 fatty acid story has merit it would be more along the lines of "how is it that the Inuit live past 30 years old on that miserable traditional diet ?"

The entire side-show of high fat diets, from Inuit to Atkins, has a little biochemisty at its core: humans store energy as triglycerides (TG) composed of one glycerol moiety and three fatty acids. One glycerol (aka 'carb') is only about 4% of the total energy in the TG, and without it TG cannot be made or stored. Here is the thing though, that anybody who has tried an Inuit or Atkins diet learns very quickly: consumption of that low a level of carbs makes for a cuisine few can tolerate for any length of time given a choice.

This same fallacy is playing out today with regards to cholesterol: it is only atherogenic in the context of lipoproteins, which require protein and TG to synthesize. The only 'small' problem is that people who are eating larger amounts of cholesterol are also eating more than adequate amounts of TG for the lipoprotein synthesis that follows and subsequent atherogenesis.

People should ignore the distractions and keep the diet story simple:
Calories are mostly fungible
Excess leads to obesity
Obesity leads to a whole host of problems that can be summed up as: Americans are one sick people.
Second, animal consumption is atherogenic.

As for animal 'agribusiness,' that is simply a highly wasteful, polluting and amoral practice that is as repulsive as it is idiotic.