Why companies are racing to build the biggest bug farm(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Why companies are racing to build the biggest bug farm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/11/12/biggest-insect-farm-record/
77 comments
Livestock are highly optimized mobile nutrient concentrators and animal husbandry is an inconceivably ancient, nearly universal tradition. In traditional practice, they collect nutrients in environments where human-edible crops aren't possible or efficient, can synthesize essential nutrients not available in local crops, and can store and supply nutrients when crops or stockpiles fail.
All of those things are valuable and ecologically low-impact ways to provide resiliency to total human food supply.
The motivating factor for stuff like this is not meat consumption itself, but the problems invented by industrial meat production, which falsely promises cheap, uniform meat to everyone everywhere -- promises just as falsely made by industrial agriculture. The idea of scaling industrial agriculture to displace industrial meat production (yours) is not really all that different than what's suggested in the article. It's still just a patchwork fix to a much bigger problem, which is that industrially producing Modern Western Diet for the entire world is an unsustainable idea in itself.
If you want to advocate an environmentally conscious social change, it'd be to restore more geographically appropriate menus and not worry about whether people in (say) mountainous arid climates are eating local meats that could have been replaced by diesel-freighted Digicorn 3.0 shipped from Iowa.
All of those things are valuable and ecologically low-impact ways to provide resiliency to total human food supply.
The motivating factor for stuff like this is not meat consumption itself, but the problems invented by industrial meat production, which falsely promises cheap, uniform meat to everyone everywhere -- promises just as falsely made by industrial agriculture. The idea of scaling industrial agriculture to displace industrial meat production (yours) is not really all that different than what's suggested in the article. It's still just a patchwork fix to a much bigger problem, which is that industrially producing Modern Western Diet for the entire world is an unsustainable idea in itself.
If you want to advocate an environmentally conscious social change, it'd be to restore more geographically appropriate menus and not worry about whether people in (say) mountainous arid climates are eating local meats that could have been replaced by diesel-freighted Digicorn 3.0 shipped from Iowa.
> It’s amazing to me that as a society we’re so attached to animal protein that we’d rather farm bugs than just eat vegetables.
Hold up, are you suggesting consumers want to buy processed grasshopper-protein over of processed vegetable-protein because they're so very emotionally attached to it coming from a squirming insect?
That seems like quite an unnecessary reach.
Surely a much simpler answer is that those options are simply not the same when it comes to culinary-science and/or manufacturing requirements.
Hold up, are you suggesting consumers want to buy processed grasshopper-protein over of processed vegetable-protein because they're so very emotionally attached to it coming from a squirming insect?
That seems like quite an unnecessary reach.
Surely a much simpler answer is that those options are simply not the same when it comes to culinary-science and/or manufacturing requirements.
I'm not saying this justifies the ethical problems and environmental impact, but I think we cannot dismiss the emotional significance that meat-eating has to many cultures.
Cooking is a major way in which families bond and connect with their ancestors. Traditional cuisine in Italy, France, the American South, etc. all prominently feature meat.
I remember talking to my mother about the ethical issues of animal farmimg once (we're both meat-eaters). She looked like she was going to cry as I explained to her that all the recipes she'd learned from my grandmother and then lovingly cooked for us for years were rooted in dystopian animal misery and environmental destruction.
I have huge respect for vegans and vegetarians. From a moral point of view, you folks are doing the right thing. That said, I'm more interested in reducing my meat intake and sourcing meat from hunters and small-scale local ranchers than I am interested in eliminating my own meat intake.
Cooking is a major way in which families bond and connect with their ancestors. Traditional cuisine in Italy, France, the American South, etc. all prominently feature meat.
I remember talking to my mother about the ethical issues of animal farmimg once (we're both meat-eaters). She looked like she was going to cry as I explained to her that all the recipes she'd learned from my grandmother and then lovingly cooked for us for years were rooted in dystopian animal misery and environmental destruction.
I have huge respect for vegans and vegetarians. From a moral point of view, you folks are doing the right thing. That said, I'm more interested in reducing my meat intake and sourcing meat from hunters and small-scale local ranchers than I am interested in eliminating my own meat intake.
> It’s amazing to me that as a society we’re so attached to animal protein that we’d rather farm bugs than just eat vegetables.
I think we generally feel equally strong attachments to almost every facet of behavior that is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. We're animals and we evolved to want to do certain behaviors. Birds want to fly, moles want to dig, lions want to hunt.
If anything, we should be surprised that our society can remove us so far from the obvious fact of our animal nature that we consider these behaviors surprising. We're omnivores and meat is calorie dense. Of course we like eating it, just like we like exploring, sex, grooming each other, eating fresh fruit, etc.
Apes gonna ape.
That doesn't mean we have to do these things. But it should certainly be entirely unsurprising that we want to do them.
I think we generally feel equally strong attachments to almost every facet of behavior that is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. We're animals and we evolved to want to do certain behaviors. Birds want to fly, moles want to dig, lions want to hunt.
If anything, we should be surprised that our society can remove us so far from the obvious fact of our animal nature that we consider these behaviors surprising. We're omnivores and meat is calorie dense. Of course we like eating it, just like we like exploring, sex, grooming each other, eating fresh fruit, etc.
Apes gonna ape.
That doesn't mean we have to do these things. But it should certainly be entirely unsurprising that we want to do them.
It is critical for optimal human health that we eat large quantities of meat.
Food is not fungible. Proteins are not fungible. Fats are not fungible.
There are dozens of chemically and metabolically significant differences between what you get when you eat vegetables vs fruits vs bugs vs chicken vs beef. Protein uptake ratios, SFA/MUFA/PUFA ratios, indigestible protein (chitin etc.) ratios, etc.
It is, quite simply, not feasible to maintain the standard of health and vitality that I personally require while eating vegetables (or bugs).
> Is meat addictive like sugar?
No, it's addictive like water.
> Are meat and sugar so overwhelmingly pleasurable to us
Sugar is pleasurable because it's an unnatural hyperstimulus that we aren't well-adapted for. Meat is pleasurable because it's one of the most nutritious possible foods for humans (perhaps second only to milk). It's not a hyperstimulus at all; your body is accurately reflecting its nutritional value.
Food is not fungible. Proteins are not fungible. Fats are not fungible.
There are dozens of chemically and metabolically significant differences between what you get when you eat vegetables vs fruits vs bugs vs chicken vs beef. Protein uptake ratios, SFA/MUFA/PUFA ratios, indigestible protein (chitin etc.) ratios, etc.
It is, quite simply, not feasible to maintain the standard of health and vitality that I personally require while eating vegetables (or bugs).
> Is meat addictive like sugar?
No, it's addictive like water.
> Are meat and sugar so overwhelmingly pleasurable to us
Sugar is pleasurable because it's an unnatural hyperstimulus that we aren't well-adapted for. Meat is pleasurable because it's one of the most nutritious possible foods for humans (perhaps second only to milk). It's not a hyperstimulus at all; your body is accurately reflecting its nutritional value.
> a huge proportion of grain grown now goes to feed animals.
That doesn't mean that humans want to eat those grains, even if they were to consume the same kinds of grains.
You've probably noticed that human-grade grains are considerably more expensive. It is in the interest of the farmer to produce those higher quality grains for the sake of profitability, but sometimes the Mother Nature just doesn't play nice.
Sometimes all you can produce is animal-grade food. Being able to also capture those calories helps feed the large and growing human population.
That doesn't mean that humans want to eat those grains, even if they were to consume the same kinds of grains.
You've probably noticed that human-grade grains are considerably more expensive. It is in the interest of the farmer to produce those higher quality grains for the sake of profitability, but sometimes the Mother Nature just doesn't play nice.
Sometimes all you can produce is animal-grade food. Being able to also capture those calories helps feed the large and growing human population.
> So rather than reduce the animal protein in our diets, we’re determined to farm insects to supplement it.
Protein is really important for our diets. Many adults even in the first world are not getting enough of it. It's not some "luxury" macromolecule the we should just consume less of (like sugar). Most peoples diets (at least in the US) have too many carbs and sugars (plants) and not enough protein (meat). You can get the protein you need from plant based sources, but you have to be really intentional about it and work hard at it. Meat contains every nutrient your body needs besides vitamin C.
Protein is really important for our diets. Many adults even in the first world are not getting enough of it. It's not some "luxury" macromolecule the we should just consume less of (like sugar). Most peoples diets (at least in the US) have too many carbs and sugars (plants) and not enough protein (meat). You can get the protein you need from plant based sources, but you have to be really intentional about it and work hard at it. Meat contains every nutrient your body needs besides vitamin C.
This sounds like letting perfect be the enemy of good. Insect protein would be a new addition to the protein supply and the food supply. It would provide an additional alternative to meat. It might actually reduce the demand for meat, which would be good. I guess I don't see why the option of insect protein would be bad. In fact, it seems it would be good.
My understanding has been that genetic traits common in Asia make processing plant proteins much more efficient, and that without those traits, uptake is always suboptimal. That said, I've read that arthropod protein has much the same problem.
At the very least, you'd think more people would be willing to, say, keep a consistent meat consumption of 50% their current level.
> So rather than reduce the animal protein
Dont forget the meat lobby and the government incentives in place. Its not just driven by consumers
Dont forget the meat lobby and the government incentives in place. Its not just driven by consumers
Animals can be very useful workers that fertilize and till the soil to make vegetable growing more productive. Bugs are probably best used as a supplement to the diet of chickens. WP article is paywalled so I haven't read it.
A long food chain is a good food chain.
I'd guess it's something "deeper" since humans wouldn't have existed without meat.
I will not eat the bugs, but I would eat fish or poultry that has been raised on insect protein. It's an interesting use case because fish farms (for common non-herbivore fish species) are traditionally fed on fish meal, which means that the protein is ultimately coming from the ocean one way or another.
I wonder if [plants -> bugs -> fish -> human] is more or less efficient than just traditional [plants -> {cows, pigs, sheep, goats}]. Also, the bug protein could be an additive to mostly plant based diets for traditional farm animals.
I wonder if [plants -> bugs -> fish -> human] is more or less efficient than just traditional [plants -> {cows, pigs, sheep, goats}]. Also, the bug protein could be an additive to mostly plant based diets for traditional farm animals.
Beef production (as well as meat produced from sheep and goats) is one of the most environmentally costly ways of producing food, because of methane emissions [0]. I don't imagine substituting bugs for grass would make much of a difference there.
I myself would quite happily try a bug-derived Beyond Meat burger or similar.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221214-what-is-the-lowe...
I myself would quite happily try a bug-derived Beyond Meat burger or similar.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221214-what-is-the-lowe...
I thought that this methane emission was easily counteracted by some food additive, was it seaweed?
EDIT: yes, it was:
https://www.qub.ac.uk/Research/case-studies/seaweed-suppleme...
EDIT: yes, it was:
https://www.qub.ac.uk/Research/case-studies/seaweed-suppleme...
Good point. But there are questions around the long-term safety of seaweed additives. And how many farmers would pay for seaweed while methane is free to emit?
Well, you can make it mandatory, the same way some countries require cattle vaccination, and other things. In the end it should be more acceptable to general public than just forbidding them to eat beef. And the seaweed shouldn't be too expensive, after all it is "weed".
And with more research they possibly could isolate that one tiny chemical substance from seaweed that does all the work here, and synthesize it, so we can produce it cheaply?
And with more research they possibly could isolate that one tiny chemical substance from seaweed that does all the work here, and synthesize it, so we can produce it cheaply?
>easily counteracted
No, it's not easy.
This requires specific kinds of seaweeds to be effective, the species grows only in warm places(so not close to where we tend to keep cows) and it is not grown in large quantities yet, nor is the impact of doing that known.
We are quite some time away from doing this large scale.
No, it's not easy.
This requires specific kinds of seaweeds to be effective, the species grows only in warm places(so not close to where we tend to keep cows) and it is not grown in large quantities yet, nor is the impact of doing that known.
We are quite some time away from doing this large scale.
All of these "beef is bad for the environment" articles are written by vegan activists, seventh day adventists, or other extremist groups who have a political agenda against meat.
The amount of methane emissions from all beef agriculture today is within a factor of like 3 of the natural methane emissions from American bison prior to colonization of the Americas.
All of these analyses completely ignore the base rate of methane emissions in the absence of cattle, whether from preexisting natural ruminants, from e.g. the fungal decomposition of plant matter that would have occurred on grasslands anyway, or from "meat substitutes".
Even if the methane emission was 10x the absurdly inflated figures that anti-meat extremists try to claim, it would still be overwhelmingly worth it for me to consume it for the health benefits. It would be better for society to spend Manhattan-Project-plus-NASA levels of our GDP on methane catalysis/capture technology, if it were actually necessary, than to stop eating ruminant meat.
The amount of methane emissions from all beef agriculture today is within a factor of like 3 of the natural methane emissions from American bison prior to colonization of the Americas.
All of these analyses completely ignore the base rate of methane emissions in the absence of cattle, whether from preexisting natural ruminants, from e.g. the fungal decomposition of plant matter that would have occurred on grasslands anyway, or from "meat substitutes".
Even if the methane emission was 10x the absurdly inflated figures that anti-meat extremists try to claim, it would still be overwhelmingly worth it for me to consume it for the health benefits. It would be better for society to spend Manhattan-Project-plus-NASA levels of our GDP on methane catalysis/capture technology, if it were actually necessary, than to stop eating ruminant meat.
Ah yes, the famously extremist BBC and their vegan agenda.
Even ignoring the environmental issues, high consumption of red meat has been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes. Processed meats even more so. [0] But I imagine you'd call Harvard Medical School extremist too?
[0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-bee...
Even ignoring the environmental issues, high consumption of red meat has been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes. Processed meats even more so. [0] But I imagine you'd call Harvard Medical School extremist too?
[0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-bee...
If you think the BBC is apolitical, you are frankly a fool. The author of that piece is a specialist in churning out low-information articles on various progressive concerns for low-information readers. https://muckrack.com/isabelle-gerretsen/portfolio
> high consumption of red meat has been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes
The epistemic value of current nutrition "science" is less than garbage. It's one of the worst-replicating fields that claims to be scientific.
Did you even read the article you linked, or did you just do something like google "red meat bad" and copy/paste the first link? If you actually read it, you should be saying to yourself, "huh, sounds like they don't really have very strong evidence".
> high consumption of red meat has been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes
The epistemic value of current nutrition "science" is less than garbage. It's one of the worst-replicating fields that claims to be scientific.
Did you even read the article you linked, or did you just do something like google "red meat bad" and copy/paste the first link? If you actually read it, you should be saying to yourself, "huh, sounds like they don't really have very strong evidence".
The methane emissions from farming do not matter in the slightest anyway. They can only release what they already absorbed from their feed. We should stop adding more ghg to the atmosphere that hasn't been there for millions of years, allowing the carbon cycle to continue with that ghg currently in atmosphere does no harm.
The people crying about this are simply serving an agenda of people who want to force the average citizen to eat bugs to make literal pennies more in profit for them and their family. It's absurd. We won't do anything about climate change by stopping agriculture, it will simply ruin food supply.
The people crying about this are simply serving an agenda of people who want to force the average citizen to eat bugs to make literal pennies more in profit for them and their family. It's absurd. We won't do anything about climate change by stopping agriculture, it will simply ruin food supply.
But if the cows were not there, what they eat would not be cultivated in dire circumstances. Instead that place would sequester carbon. And even if it would not be allowed to sequester it would largely be emitted as co2 and not methane which is a lot less potent greenhouse gas.
None of that matters. Plants only sequester carbon that was already in the atmosphere and it goes right back into it when they die. Methane breaks down to CO2 in a number of months/years and has no effect on geologic timescales.
The only solution to climate change is to stop introducing carbon that was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago. Championing causes like 'you need to eat the bugs' is not a productive use of time and does nothing to change the status quo in the end.
The only solution to climate change is to stop introducing carbon that was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago. Championing causes like 'you need to eat the bugs' is not a productive use of time and does nothing to change the status quo in the end.
peterpost2(1)
>All of these "beef is bad for the environment" articles are written by vegan activists, seventh day adventists, or other extremist groups who have a political agenda against meat.
[Citation needed]
Most soil for where nowadays cattle grace farm is not anaerobic so not sure how that could work with methane emissions. Also about 90 percent of the food that cattle eat doesn't come from there but from south America where conditions are clearly different. Animal farming is incredibly inefficiënt and the health claims are dubious at best.
[Citation needed]
Most soil for where nowadays cattle grace farm is not anaerobic so not sure how that could work with methane emissions. Also about 90 percent of the food that cattle eat doesn't come from there but from south America where conditions are clearly different. Animal farming is incredibly inefficiënt and the health claims are dubious at best.
> [Citation needed]
Why do you think posting something like this is a valuable use of anyone's time? What are you expecting here, an article that exactly restates my claim? If such an article existed, would you even read it or take it into account? There are only two possibilities here, neither of them good:
1. You are looking for an "authoritative" source making exactly the claim I'm making, so you can outsource your entire thought process to someone else. Besides being extremely risky, this also precludes you from ever absorbing a novel or semi-novel conclusion that isn't widely known enough to have an NYT article written about it or something.
2. You are arguing in bad faith, trying to waste my time finding a "citation" that inevitably you would find some excuse to ignore in any case.
The proper response here is to say "huh, that's interesting, maybe I should check on that claim next time I see something from the USDA, or maybe I could google it for 5 seconds".
Lucky for you, here is a convenient source so you can turn your brain off. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251
Why do you think posting something like this is a valuable use of anyone's time? What are you expecting here, an article that exactly restates my claim? If such an article existed, would you even read it or take it into account? There are only two possibilities here, neither of them good:
1. You are looking for an "authoritative" source making exactly the claim I'm making, so you can outsource your entire thought process to someone else. Besides being extremely risky, this also precludes you from ever absorbing a novel or semi-novel conclusion that isn't widely known enough to have an NYT article written about it or something.
2. You are arguing in bad faith, trying to waste my time finding a "citation" that inevitably you would find some excuse to ignore in any case.
The proper response here is to say "huh, that's interesting, maybe I should check on that claim next time I see something from the USDA, or maybe I could google it for 5 seconds".
Lucky for you, here is a convenient source so you can turn your brain off. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251
You broke the site guidelines extremely badly with this post. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, and we've already had to warn you many times. I don't want to ban you, but if you keep doing this, we'll eventually have to.
Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules going forward? We'd appreciate it.
(Btw, the parent comment also broke the site guidelines, which ask people to omit internet tropes such as "citation needed", and I've replied to them too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300759. But they didn't get aggressive the way your comment did, and that's a big difference.)
Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules going forward? We'd appreciate it.
(Btw, the parent comment also broke the site guidelines, which ask people to omit internet tropes such as "citation needed", and I've replied to them too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300759. But they didn't get aggressive the way your comment did, and that's a big difference.)
There if a third option: Namely, that extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. If you cannot supply it you are simply doing unsubstantiated talk.
Furthermore I know a number of people who study Biogeomorphology who fall in none of the categories you listed and also have posted similar articles thereby disproving your claim.
>Lucky for you, here is a convenient source so you can turn your brain off. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251
That is not proof that all beef = bad for environment articles are written by vegan activists, seventh day adventists, or other extremist groups who have a political agenda against meat.
Just that the seventh-day advertist church has had influence on diet. Which is a much much smaller claim.
Furthermore I know a number of people who study Biogeomorphology who fall in none of the categories you listed and also have posted similar articles thereby disproving your claim.
>Lucky for you, here is a convenient source so you can turn your brain off. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251
That is not proof that all beef = bad for environment articles are written by vegan activists, seventh day adventists, or other extremist groups who have a political agenda against meat.
Just that the seventh-day advertist church has had influence on diet. Which is a much much smaller claim.
Bugs are very common additives to chicken feed in smaller farms. Not sure about commercial operations. As a backyard chicken owner, meal worms are a regular thing I feed to my chickens.
I keep a compost pile going in my chicken run to supplement the chickens food. They can't survive on only bugs though, there's a lot of minerals they need that come directly from plants. Some people may be surprised to learn that chickens will eat just about anything, including you.
>I wonder if [plants -> bugs -> fish -> human] is more or less efficient than just traditional [plants -> {cows, pigs, sheep, goats}]. Also, the bug protein could be an additive to mostly plant based diets for traditional farm animals.
The trick here is that the bugs can (at least at the current scale) be fed using food waste which almost certainly makes it more efficient
The trick here is that the bugs can (at least at the current scale) be fed using food waste which almost certainly makes it more efficient
What if ground crickets were added to like 75% ground beef? You'd never know and it be healthier and have less impact on the environment.
I'd wait until some longer term studies come out on the meat. Humans have no tradition of eating them (edit: looks like i was wrong on this point). I'm not conceived it's healthier and I'm totally convinced the people pushing it don't care about us.
I'd also like to see the ultra-wealthy social planners eat bugs, at least at the opulent summits where they plan it for our class of people. As long as they're eating steaks it's a bad look (same as them owning yachts, taking a private plane to an event then biking the last two blocks and talking about how private car ownership needs to be abolished).
I'd also like to see the ultra-wealthy social planners eat bugs, at least at the opulent summits where they plan it for our class of people. As long as they're eating steaks it's a bad look (same as them owning yachts, taking a private plane to an event then biking the last two blocks and talking about how private car ownership needs to be abolished).
> Humans have no tradition of eating them
Bugs are very common food in Asian, African and South American cultures.
Edit: I also remember seeing some ant stuff in Mexico. And I’ve read about indigenous cultures in Australia and North America also having insects as part of their food. I’m sure if I look for it, I’ll find something on European cultures as well. Modern food is just a representation of food that got commercialized, but in reality human diet used to be much more varied than we are used to seeing now.
Bugs are very common food in Asian, African and South American cultures.
Edit: I also remember seeing some ant stuff in Mexico. And I’ve read about indigenous cultures in Australia and North America also having insects as part of their food. I’m sure if I look for it, I’ll find something on European cultures as well. Modern food is just a representation of food that got commercialized, but in reality human diet used to be much more varied than we are used to seeing now.
[deleted]
I wasn't aware of that. Are they similar and eaten as a significant source of protein?
Yes. There’s plenty of YouTube channels exploring this if you’re interested.
https://youtu.be/nZ3Zc1DJOgY
https://youtu.be/nZ3Zc1DJOgY
"Humans have no tradition of eating them"
Of course they do. Try some survival courses, our ancestors ate everything, they could stomach. Only (or mostly) the western culture stopped doing it for whatever reason.
"If you think eating insects is gross, you may be in the cultural minority. Throughout history, people have relished insects as food. Today, many cultures still do."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/eating-bu...
Of course they do. Try some survival courses, our ancestors ate everything, they could stomach. Only (or mostly) the western culture stopped doing it for whatever reason.
"If you think eating insects is gross, you may be in the cultural minority. Throughout history, people have relished insects as food. Today, many cultures still do."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/eating-bu...
The same cultures that recoil from eating bugs also pay top-dollar to eat shrimp, crab, and lobster, the latter of which used to be considered garbage food unfit to be served even to prisoners.
Cultural value plays a major role even with traditional kinds of food. Tuna was considered garbage catch in the US, only good for cat food, until sushi became popular, and tuna became premium, on par with trout.
"Entomophagy has a long and rich history in human culture. In fact, insects have been a part of human diets for thousands of years, with evidence of their consumption found in prehistoric archaeological sites." [0]
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10455489/
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10455489/
Also chiming in on the insects bit: most mass produced food can contain insect remnants (among other things).
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in...
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in...
Humans eat bugs for a very long time, and are doing that right now. Read a bit about bugs in native Central African and South American cuisines.
I apologize if this seems blunt and incurious, but I think I can speak for MANY people when I say: absolutely not.
Chances are you, and everyone youre speaking for, has likely surreptitiously already eaten many unsavory things
There's a big difference between eating trace amounts of stuff you can't totally eliminate (at least not easily) and making it a component on purpose.
[deleted]
Why? I have no problem with this.
There was an experiment done where they stood outside of a supermarket and asked people if they would buy dolphin friendly tuna only. The vast majority said yes. Then they compared that to actual sales and discovered that people basically voted with their wallets, with the vast majority picking the cheaper can of fish regardless of dolphin status
(Aside, dolphin friendly tuna is a scam, don’t believe it.)
(Aside, dolphin friendly tuna is a scam, don’t believe it.)
And this is also how we got Walmart and Amazon.
The discourse around the subject seems to be overwhelming disgust by the people who would be victimized by it and unending enthusiasm by the rich who would not be forced to eat bugs.
I think at this point it's sane to say that if this trend continues the only option left will be violence against the people pushing this (as well as their beneficiaries) onto broader society, if government will not step in to stop businesses from pursuing this agenda.
I think at this point it's sane to say that if this trend continues the only option left will be violence against the people pushing this (as well as their beneficiaries) onto broader society, if government will not step in to stop businesses from pursuing this agenda.
Replace "eat bugs" with "verb thing" and you've pretty much described the entire dynamic of class struggle spanning several centuries. The "verb thing" baseline has just shifted as humanity makes some progress.
Too late, if you're in the US. The FDA has an allowable level of insects or insect fragments in much of the food you eat. So you're probably getting a decent amount of insects and other things (probably best not to think about) in your food. A ground beef/insect blend only adjusts that ratio upward, and would be more transparent about it. Bon appetite, lol.
The amounts allowed by the FDA are restricted to certain food types, and vastly lower amounts than would be present if it were an intentional additive.
This is sad because it means they've checked the numbers and don't expect large scale animal farming to shrink. Was really hoping humanity might reduce its addiction to animal farming this century. We need better quality fruits and vegetables and more of them, as climate change continues to make farming more costly. Meanwhile animal farming continues to damage the environment and exacerbate climate change, all because we really like cheap burgers, fried chicken & eggs
" and in 91 (30.33%) cases, parasites were potentially pathogenic for humans"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6613697/
Not for me...
Not for me...
What are the common types of food waste that can be feed to insects but not directly to farmed animals?
I don't know what they use at industrial scale, but you can already do this at home scale.
Soldier fly larva will happily crunch away all the moldy or rotting household food waste you throw into a cold compost, but good luck getting a chicken to voluntarily eat much of it (and they'd probably get sick pretty often if they tried).
I assume industrial operations work essentially the same way, making use of the countless waste streams that livestock either won't consume or can't safely consume.
The bigger question for me is how they harvest at that scale. The hearsay I carry around in my head is that they just drown insect crops in chemical pesticide to harvest them, which I'm hoping is not the norm.
Soldier fly larva will happily crunch away all the moldy or rotting household food waste you throw into a cold compost, but good luck getting a chicken to voluntarily eat much of it (and they'd probably get sick pretty often if they tried).
I assume industrial operations work essentially the same way, making use of the countless waste streams that livestock either won't consume or can't safely consume.
The bigger question for me is how they harvest at that scale. The hearsay I carry around in my head is that they just drown insect crops in chemical pesticide to harvest them, which I'm hoping is not the norm.
> good luck getting a chicken to voluntarily eat much of it (and they'd probably get sick pretty often if they tried)
I've had a cold compost as a part of my backyard chicken coop for many years. All kitchen scraps, as well as all yard waste, ends up there. Moldy fruit, veggies, breads, literally everything including things like turkey carcass after Thanksgiving. I've never had a chicken get sick off it and the food scraps are quickly either consumed or dug into the pile, no rotting mess. Every spring I dig it all out for the garden. It works out great.
I've had a cold compost as a part of my backyard chicken coop for many years. All kitchen scraps, as well as all yard waste, ends up there. Moldy fruit, veggies, breads, literally everything including things like turkey carcass after Thanksgiving. I've never had a chicken get sick off it and the food scraps are quickly either consumed or dug into the pile, no rotting mess. Every spring I dig it all out for the garden. It works out great.
> The bigger question for me is how they harvest at that scale
What about just heating up or cooling down the space they're in beyond their tolerances?
What about just heating up or cooling down the space they're in beyond their tolerances?
Extreme temperature change could ruin the final products.
I'd flood the bioreactor with inert gas. Nitrogen ought to do it and we got plenty of it.
Edit: this company actually advertises that:
Pure nitrogen is used to control the growth rate before harvesting.
https://www.concoa.com/applications/bioreactors
I'd flood the bioreactor with inert gas. Nitrogen ought to do it and we got plenty of it.
Edit: this company actually advertises that:
Pure nitrogen is used to control the growth rate before harvesting.
https://www.concoa.com/applications/bioreactors
They're grown in factory conditions much like how we grow fish in closed synthetic systems.
Your concern isn't so much about how they do it, it's about the regulations and how well they end up being enforced.
Admittedly, humans have a poor track record for getting that stuff right the first go-'round
Your concern isn't so much about how they do it, it's about the regulations and how well they end up being enforced.
Admittedly, humans have a poor track record for getting that stuff right the first go-'round
Poop. But it already takes piles of infrastructure to handle.
Think about where you find maggots.
I would imagine that opportunistic, omnivorous eaters have a higher likelihood of passing a parasite over some insect that only feeds on live/fresh plant materials.
Animal proteins and fats are not fungible.
If you habitually eat large quantities of non-digestible insect proteins like chitin, it will in all likelihood severely damage your digestive system. Insects also have an extremely unfavorable protein:fat ratio, and any supplemental fat is likely to be other industrial fats like rapeseed oil, sunflower oil, etc. which have extremely poor chemical properties like {S,MU,PU}FA ratios.
If you habitually eat large quantities of non-digestible insect proteins like chitin, it will in all likelihood severely damage your digestive system. Insects also have an extremely unfavorable protein:fat ratio, and any supplemental fat is likely to be other industrial fats like rapeseed oil, sunflower oil, etc. which have extremely poor chemical properties like {S,MU,PU}FA ratios.
I thought it’s about software )
I just want to know how long until I can carve the genetically enlarged Thanksgiving grasshopper.
eating bugs is gonna be the new trend where wokies in Bay Area are gonna champion eating bugs together with tree barks, all in accordance to WEF’s studies and charters.
Ppl had been promoting Beyond Meat as meat replacement, and it tastes worse than dung
Ppl had been promoting Beyond Meat as meat replacement, and it tastes worse than dung
Humans have intentionally been eating insects as delicacies for as long as humans have existed. Every time the prime-number cicadas emerge there's long lines at shops serving them in various ways (commonly chocoalte covered, often other ways as well).
I'll trust your judgment on Beyond Meat vs dung. I'm sure you have much expertise on the nuances involved in dung's flavor, and certainly much much more experience than me in tasting it.
I'll trust your judgment on Beyond Meat vs dung. I'm sure you have much expertise on the nuances involved in dung's flavor, and certainly much much more experience than me in tasting it.
It’s amazing to me that as a society we’re so attached to animal protein that we’d rather farm bugs than just eat vegetables. If we stopped factory farming animals then we’d have more than enough food. We could grow a fraction of what we do now, on a fraction of the land, since such a huge proportion of grain grown now goes to feed animals. Everyone’s familiar with these arguments, of course.
So rather than reduce the animal protein in our diets, we’re determined to farm insects to supplement it. I know some people make this choice already, and others will do so in the future. Yet many people express immediate loathing at the idea, unapologetic about it.
Is meat addictive like sugar? We all know (for some definition of “we”) how bad regular, large doses of sugar are, yet continue to consume it. Are meat and sugar so overwhelmingly pleasurable to us that we’ll _as a society_ accept any cost for mass consumption of them?