BYND Beyond Meat out of main

[jerry33]

Thank you Jerry. But I bet you it is a carbohydrate and not a protein. -- Just guessing here since it comes from algae. And algae remove carbon from the atmosphere if I recall correctly.

The Western diet has way too much protein as it is. And as far as I know, seaweed grows pretty rapidly. (and I believe the seaweed for agar is farmed, not harvested wild--might be wrong about that though).

 

[cpa]

The Western diet has way too much protein as it is. And as far as I know, seaweed grows pretty rapidly. (and I believe the seaweed for agar is farmed, not harvested wild--might be wrong about that though).

Which sorta brings us full circle, Jerry! Just what is fake food? If a naturally-occurring substance like seaweed is reformulated through a chemical process, and it is added to other foods to provide flavor, texture, body, or anything else, is this or is this not fake food?

 

[jerry33]

Which sorta brings us full circle, Jerry! Just what is fake food? If a naturally-occurring substance like seaweed is reformulated through a chemical process, and it is added to other foods to provide flavor, texture, body, or anything else, is this or is this not fake food?

I don't believe I've used the term "fake food". The processed food that causes problems is high in sugars, salts, saturated and trans fats, with little fibre. Much of your diet should consist of whole grains (once you start grinding your own grain to make bread, etc. you'll never go back to store bought flour), lentils and beans, vegetables (Sweet potatoes and yams vs regular potatoes is an example of an easy change to make a meal healthier), and some fruits.

Items like gelatin are really a small part of any dish that uses gelatin.

The Harvard Healthy Eating Plate is a good place to start. It's main issue is that it still talks about "servings". And most things that aren't all that healthy need to be ingested either regularly and/or in large quantities to cause issues--unless you have allergies but that's a different topic. Unfortunately, the supermarket is full of processed and sugary foods, so it's very easy to eat them regularly and in large quantities. To make it worse, if you look at the serving size on the nutritional information it's often about 10% of what a person would normally eat (no one eats three potato chips and stops).

The usual excuses:
I don't have time. It takes me about two hours to cook a meal. However, if I cook a large batch, it still takes two hours but I've cooked enough for a few days.

There are only two (or one) of us so there is a lot of wasted food. If you cook a large batch, you'll use all the ingredients so no waste. Many things can be frozen and eaten later.

Now baking bread takes three to five hours, but most of that time is just waiting. There's maybe 30 minutes of active cooking plus ten minutes to wrap the bread for freezing. I make a dozen loaves at a time which lasts about 24 days.

Now it does help if you have some real equipment so the cooking is fun rather than a chore:
1 A wall oven so you don't have to bend over (Bluestar is what I have)
2. A copper sink, single bowl, with ledges, cutting board, and colander holder. (keeps the mess in the sink and practically no cleanup). (Rachiele in our kitchen)
3. A very good mixer (Ankarsrum is what I have)
4. Grain mill (KoMo is what I have)
5. A very good knife (such as a nakiri) and a couple of stones to keep it sharp
6. A pressure cooker (so you don't have to soak the beans. MultiPot 9-in-1 is what I have)
7. An induction cooktop (uses 80% less energy and is very controllable)
8. A good set of pots and pans (Fissler works very well, some of the others, like All-Clad have flimsy bottoms that warp under heat). You don't need very many. one of Each 10qt pot 7qt pot 12" pan, 5qt pan, 7qt pasta pentola
9. Three or four full size baking sheets
10. Four or five full size cooling racks
11. Large strainer and a set of small strainers
12. Pizza peel
13. Digital thermometer
14. Digital cooking scale
15. 9x5 bread loaf pans (12 of these)
16. 13qt mixing bowls (3 minimum)
17. 20qt mixing bowl (1)
18. Several sizes of glass prep bowls. 3-6 of each
19. Spice grinder

 

[tander]

If you go back in time, man has exploited, not created, the byproducts from farming and ranching. Read some history. People were poor. People needed to squeeze every possible use from a dead animal or plant to survive. The uses for these byproducts were not ginned up by some savvy business person; rather they were put to use out of necessity. Gradually over time, businesses evolved to take these byproducts and convert them into finished goods to be sold to others.


Ask yourself how we managed our daily lives before electricity--before mass manufacturing--before the Industrial Revolution. We cobbled together our existence by utilizing every possible component of a dead animal or plant. We needed clothing. We needed light at night. We needed to wash ourselves and our clothes. Circa 1910 my grandmother would still harvest every possible part from a draft animal or other barnyard animal that had died. She made candles so they could have some light at night. This was cheaper than buying kerosene. She cleaned and scrubbed, then cleaned and scrubbed some more to make sausage casings from the small intestine. She made a crude sausage that was cured with salt and/or smoke that could be stored for several months safely. And, yes, she even made her own soap.
--Yes people exploited it, exactly, to a point where it doesn't make sense anymore. It may have started with necessity, or even innovation, but there is a reason we don't use candles or kerosene lights anymore. The gasoline from your Grandma's time was just a surplus byproduct of all the kerosene being used. There is a different between not wasting one of your draft animals in 1910, when and where making soap was cheaper or more convenient than buying it, and the billions of industrialized livestock in 2019 and ordering over the internet. Just because that's how they did it in 1910 doesn't mean it makes sense now. You're Grandma probably wouldn't been able to use the amount of waste that is created today, that's where the savvy businessmen come in. Things change with time and scale.

Your description of the lumber mill business illustrates the difference between waste and a byproduct. For years, that sawdust and bark just sat around as waste. There was no use for those materials, and it was too expensive to dispose of them. When modern lumber techniques figured out uses for this waste, it became a byproduct. And that was a good thing!
--By definition, if there is a surplus of something it becomes less valuable until it is waste...or until someone comes up with another use or refinement for it, which is a good thing, sometimes, at least in the short term. The bark and sawdust etc was originally more valuable because lumber mills didn't churn out as much wood as they do now, and what byproducts they had were put into boilers that powered the mills, sold as firewood, and any excess was dumped in rivers/oceans or burned. When people stopped burning and dumping it, that's when it started pilling up or going in landscaping etc. By products can be a good thing, especially in the short term, but in the long term it's not usually a good idea. For example dog food has historically been made from he waste of human food. Not a big deal if you're letting your dog clean the excess food off your plate. But if you're scraping entrails off a slaughterhouse floor, shipping it someplace else, adding?, and putting it in a can to be fed to a dog months or years later is that really a good idea? Convenient for people at least.

I submit to you that throughout history, man has rarely wasted any part of an animal that was killed for food.

Yes we are pretty good at coming up with by-products. But that doesn't mean there aren't ramifications for filling our stomachs or gas tanks with it, or that economic sense always equals sense for our health. Isn't it better to "waste" a part of an animal than to create some lousy product from it? My Grandpa grew up eating SPAM and butter daily, maybe that's all they could afford, or it was just more convenient or habit, or just plain tasty. Either way he had diabetes, 3 heart attacks, open heart surgery...

 

[ohmman]

Now it does help if you have some real equipment so the cooking is fun rather than a chore:
1 A wall oven so you don't have to bend over (Bluestar is what I have)
2. A copper sink, single bowl, with ledges, cutting board, and colander holder. (keeps the mess in the sink and practically no cleanup). (Rachiele in our kitchen)
3. A very good mixer (Ankarsrum is what I have)
4. Grain mill (KoMo is what I have)
5. A very good knife (such as a nakiri) and a couple of stones to keep it sharp
6. A pressure cooker (so you don't have to soak the beans. MultiPot 9-in-1 is what I have)
7. An induction cooktop (uses 80% less energy and is very controllable)
8. A good set of pots and pans (Fissler works very well, some of the others, like All-Clad have flimsy bottoms that warp under heat). You don't need very many. one of Each 10qt pot 7qt pot 12" pan, 5qt pan, 7qt pasta pentola
9. Three or four full size baking sheets
10. Four or five full size cooling racks
11. Large strainer and a set of small strainers
12. Pizza peel
13. Digital thermometer
14. Digital cooking scale
15. 9x5 bread loaf pans (12 of these)
16. 13qt mixing bowls (3 minimum)
17. 20qt mixing bowl (1)
18. Several sizes of glass prep bowls. 3-6 of each
19. Spice grinder

View attachment 430078

While I very much enjoy your list, I miss seeing a quick nod to a cast iron skillet, a dutch oven, and a wok. A rice cooker is a nice addition as well, though the pressure cooker likely doubles as one.

 

[jerry33]

While I very much enjoy your list, I miss seeing a quick nod to a cast iron skillet, a dutch oven, and a wok. A rice cooker is a nice addition as well, though the pressure cooker likely doubles as one.

I didn't list 100% of everything. A close look at the picture would reveal a rice cooker And I do have some cast iron items that get used occasionally. I've found the 12" pan works as well as a wok as long as you move the food in and out of the pan and your cooktop is capable of really heating up the pan.

 

[mspohr]

I didn't list 100% of everything. A close look at the picture would reveal a rice cooker And I do have some cast iron items that get used occasionally. I've found the 12" pan works as well as a wok as long as you move the food in and out of the pan and your cooktop is capable of really heating up the pan.

Glad to see you have an induction cooktop. I've recently started using one and love it. Much better heat control and more efficient. No nasty baked on spills, either.

 

[mspohr]

New plant-focused diet would ‘transform’ planet’s future, say scientists

New plant-focused diet would ‘transform’ planet’s future, say scientists

The first science-based diet that tackles both the poor food eaten by billions of people and averts global environmental catastrophe has been devised. It requires huge cuts in red meat-eating in western countries and radical changes across the world.

Globally, the diet requires red meat and sugar consumption to be cut by half, while vegetables, fruit, pulses and nuts must double. But in specific places the changes are stark. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines.

The diet is a “win-win”, according to the scientists, as it would save at least 11 million people a year from deaths caused by unhealthy food, while preventing the collapse of the natural world that humanity depends upon. With 10 billion people expected to live on Earth by 2050, a continuation of today’s unsustainable diets would inevitably mean even greater health problems and severe global warming.

 

[cpa]

New plant-focused diet would ‘transform’ planet’s future, say scientists

New plant-focused diet would ‘transform’ planet’s future, say scientists

The first science-based diet that tackles both the poor food eaten by billions of people and averts global environmental catastrophe has been devised. It requires huge cuts in red meat-eating in western countries and radical changes across the world.

Globally, the diet requires red meat and sugar consumption to be cut by half, while vegetables, fruit, pulses and nuts must double. But in specific places the changes are stark. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines.

The diet is a “win-win”, according to the scientists, as it would save at least 11 million people a year from deaths caused by unhealthy food, while preventing the collapse of the natural world that humanity depends upon. With 10 billion people expected to live on Earth by 2050, a continuation of today’s unsustainable diets would inevitably mean even greater health problems and severe global warming.

I agree with what you are advocating. There is no doubt we need to wean ourselves from unhealthy food and red meats and replace those foods with fruits, vegetables, and other plant products.

But, (you knew this was coming! ) these studies and articles never discuss the mechanics of increasing production that all these plants will require. Do the scientists and researchers know and can calculate the acreage that it will take to grow all these crops? Do they know the labor requirements, storage requirements, fertilizer and chemical requirements, etc.? Growing food takes a lot of money. Farmers are businessmen just like other businessmen.

If we disregard row crops, growing food is intensive--really intensive. When people think about how food is grown, they recall the vast fields of corn, wheat, soybeans, and other row crops that are ubiquitous in the Midwest. They see U-Pick fruit orchards. They do not see fields of asparagus, artichokes, cruciferous vegetables, lettuce, and other foods that require work every single day until the crop is harvested. Have you ever picked strawberries? I have, and after 15 minutes, I want to quit!

Moreover, prices for fruits and vegetable are not set on some commodity exchange. Sometimes the growers have contracts. Sometimes the growers are part of cooperatives. Sometimes there is a daily market price offered by the packers, and if the spot price is too low, the farmer has a choice to disc up the crop, not pick the fruit and let it fall to the ground, sweep it up and sell it for cattle feed (true), or gamble that the price rises tomorrow or the next day. Growers receive deductions from the packer if their products are not up to grade, size, appearance, or chemistry. I have had clients contract for canning tomatoes and they produce a bumper crop. Well, the contract called for 15,000 tons at $65/ton. He produced nearly 19,000 tons. The cannery refused the additional 4,000 tons despite the farmer being required to pay to harvest the fruit, not to mention pay for all the cultivation costs.

Farming is a risky business.

If there is a good story by ag economists who have contemplated all theses variables, I would be eager to read it!

 

[mspohr]

I agree with what you are advocating. There is no doubt we need to wean ourselves from unhealthy food and red meats and replace those foods with fruits, vegetables, and other plant products.

But, (you knew this was coming! ) these studies and articles never discuss the mechanics of increasing production that all these plants will require. Do the scientists and researchers know and can calculate the acreage that it will take to grow all these crops? Do they know the labor requirements, storage requirements, fertilizer and chemical requirements, etc.? Growing food takes a lot of money. Farmers are businessmen just like other businessmen.

If we disregard row crops, growing food is intensive--really intensive. When people think about how food is grown, they recall the vast fields of corn, wheat, soybeans, and other row crops that are ubiquitous in the Midwest. They see U-Pick fruit orchards. They do not see fields of asparagus, artichokes, cruciferous vegetables, lettuce, and other foods that require work every single day until the crop is harvested. Have you ever picked strawberries? I have, and after 15 minutes, I want to quit!

Moreover, prices for fruits and vegetable are not set on some commodity exchange. Sometimes the growers have contracts. Sometimes the growers are part of cooperatives. Sometimes there is a daily market price offered by the packers, and if the spot price is too low, the farmer has a choice to disc up the crop, not pick the fruit and let it fall to the ground, sweep it up and sell it for cattle feed (true), or gamble that the price rises tomorrow or the next day. Growers receive deductions from the packer if their products are not up to grade, size, appearance, or chemistry. I have had clients contract for canning tomatoes and they produce a bumper crop. Well, the contract called for 15,000 tons at $65/ton. He produced nearly 19,000 tons. The cannery refused the additional 4,000 tons despite the farmer being required to pay to harvest the fruit, not to mention pay for all the cultivation costs.

Farming is a risky business.

If there is a good story by ag economists who have contemplated all theses variables, I would be eager to read it!

Here's a related article that asserts farmers can and will adapt:
True cost of cheap food is health and climate crises, says commission

The commission said most farmers thought they could make big changes in five to 10 years if they got the right backing.

“Farmers are extraordinarily adaptable,” said Sue Pritchard, director of the RSA commission and an organic farmer in Wales. “We have to live with change every single day of our lives.

“We are really keen that farmers feel they are in the driving seat and that they can be a force of change. At the moment, a lot of farmers feel beleaguered and that they have become the bad guys. But without sustainable, secure and safe farming in the UK, we will not survive.”

Prof Joanna Price, the vice-chancellor of the Royal Agricultural University, said: “The report paints an honest picture of the challenges and sets out some bold ideas to address them. We strongly agree that farming can be a force for positive change and that rural communities can thrive as a powerhouse for a green economy.”

 

[jerry33]

Here's a related article that asserts farmers can and will adapt:
True cost of cheap food is health and climate crises, says commission

The commission said most farmers thought they could make big changes in five to 10 years if they got the right backing.

“Farmers are extraordinarily adaptable,” said Sue Pritchard, director of the RSA commission and an organic farmer in Wales. “We have to live with change every single day of our lives.

“We are really keen that farmers feel they are in the driving seat and that they can be a force of change. At the moment, a lot of farmers feel beleaguered and that they have become the bad guys. But without sustainable, secure and safe farming in the UK, we will not survive.”

Prof Joanna Price, the vice-chancellor of the Royal Agricultural University, said: “The report paints an honest picture of the challenges and sets out some bold ideas to address them. We strongly agree that farming can be a force for positive change and that rural communities can thrive as a powerhouse for a green economy.”

Good plan, but it assumes small and medium farmers, not corporate farms.

 

[cpa]

Good plan, but it assumes small and medium farmers, not corporate farms.

Jerry is right. Five to forty acres can probably handle much of the increase in demand.

But farming (at least here in the Valley and along the coasts) is section after section of ground with different crops at different times of year. Then, what happens when Mr. Developer offers a farmer $85,000/acre for his quarter-section that is now two miles from a new development? That $13 million (less taxes) is probably enough to retire on.

Seventy years ago, the most fertile ground with ideal growing conditions was in the Santa Clara Valley. Small farms were everywhere. Stone fruit and truck crops covered the area from Gilroy to Redwood City and Fremont. There were a couple canneries and dozens of packers.

Then, well, we know what happened. Where did the farmers go? To the desert over the coast range to the San Joaquin Valley. Farm land was super cheap. Water, not so much as time passed.

 

[SageBrush]

But, (you knew this was coming! ) these studies and articles never discuss the mechanics of increasing production that all these plants will require.

The alternative is being a farmer in a dust bowl

 

[JRP3]

But, (you knew this was coming! ) these studies and articles never discuss the mechanics of increasing production that all these plants will require.

Why do you think there would be an increase in plant production?

cattle, in addition to other feedlot animals like chickens and pigs, are consuming 70 percent of the grain grown in the U.S.

In the U.S., 36 percent of corn crops being used to feed livestock. Soy is also commonly used in feed, with 75 percent of global soybean crops being fed to livestock.

How Planting Crops Used to Feed Livestock is Contributing to Habitat Destruction

 

[cpa]

Why do you think there would be an increase in plant production?



How Planting Crops Used to Feed Livestock is Contributing to Habitat Destruction

Yield.

 

[mspohr]

Jerry is right. Five to forty acres can probably handle much of the increase in demand.

But farming (at least here in the Valley and along the coasts) is section after section of ground with different crops at different times of year. Then, what happens when Mr. Developer offers a farmer $85,000/acre for his quarter-section that is now two miles from a new development? That $13 million (less taxes) is probably enough to retire on.

Seventy years ago, the most fertile ground with ideal growing conditions was in the Santa Clara Valley. Small farms were everywhere. Stone fruit and truck crops covered the area from Gilroy to Redwood City and Fremont. There were a couple canneries and dozens of packers.

Then, well, we know what happened. Where did the farmers go? To the desert over the coast range to the San Joaquin Valley. Farm land was super cheap. Water, not so much as time passed.

There appear to be large inefficiencies in our food system. In the US, about 50% of the food we grow goes to waste. Should be lots of opportunity for improvement here.
Food waste: alarming rise will see 66 tonnes thrown away every second

Americans waste 150,000 tons of food each day – equal to a pound per person

 

[jerry33]

There appear to be large inefficiencies in our food system. In the US, about 50% of the food we grow goes to waste. Should be lots of opportunity for improvement here.

Do we know what constitutes waste food that make up the 50%? That is. If I eat an orange or banana, the peels go to the composts heap. Is that waste? Cook spinach or other greens and the ends of the stems also go to the compost heap. Is that waste?

Obviously, if I only have a 30 g of flour left after making dough and throw it into the compost because it's not enough to save and will be stale by the time I bake next, that's waste. And once in a while the fruit I get from the store turns out to be not so good, so that's waste. In particular, apples have a tendency to be nice and red on the outside but brown and rotten on the inside (sans or avec worms).

 

[mspohr]

Do we know what constitutes waste food that make up the 50%? That is. If I eat an orange or banana, the peels go to the composts heap. Is that waste? Cook spinach or other greens and the ends of the stems also go to the compost heap. Is that waste?

Obviously, if I only have a 30 g of flour left after making dough and throw it into the compost because it's not enough to save and will be stale by the time I bake next, that's waste. And once in a while the fruit I get from the store turns out to be not so good, so that's waste. In particular, apples have a tendency to be nice and red on the outside but brown and rotten on the inside (sans or avec worms).

Food waste is food that is grown and then thrown away. A lot of it occurs in the food distribution system when there is food with cosmetic defects or just too much food so it can't be sold. Grocery stores throw away a lot of food that they can't sell due to oversupply or (again) cosmetic defects. Restaurants throw away a lot of food. They cook too much and throw away the excess at the end of the day. (Starbucks dumpsters are great for finding good food) Finally, at home, people throw away leftover food or food that just gets old. (No, your banana peel does not count as food waste.)

 

[jerry33]

Food waste is food that is grown and then thrown away. A lot of it occurs in the food distribution system when there is food with cosmetic defects or just too much food so it can't be sold. Grocery stores throw away a lot of food that they can't sell due to oversupply or (again) cosmetic defects. Restaurants throw away a lot of food. They cook too much and throw away the excess at the end of the day. (Starbucks dumpsters are great for finding good food) Finally, at home, people throw away leftover food or food that just gets old. (No, your banana peel does not count as food waste.)

Okay, just asking. If we through away a 500 g a month, that would be a lot. (I've pretty much stopped buying apples, unless I'm going to make an apple cobbler or something.)

I've eaten a few things at Starbucks (mostly on trips when that was the only thing available), and have come to the conclusion that Starbucks and good food don't belong in the same sentence without a negative qualifier

 

[tander]

Okay, just asking. If we through away a 500 g a month, that would be a lot. (I've pretty much stopped buying apples, unless I'm going to make an apple cobbler or something.)

I've eaten a few things at Starbucks (mostly on trips when that was the only thing available), and have come to the conclusion that Starbucks and good food don't belong in the same sentence without a negative qualifier

A couple years ago I heard someone say that Starbucks is the new McDonald's, seems about right. I did notice they had bananas for sale last time I went to Starbucks, and McDonalds sells apple slices now so it's not all bad I guess.