Printable View
3D-printed steak.
<video controls autoplay loop> <source src="https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/3dprinted_steak.mp4" type="video/mp4"> Your browser does not support the video tag. </video>
Previously:
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...171#post195690
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...527#post128047
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...479#post151140
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...082#post145226
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...270#post142020
I think I'll stick with real cows
I've been desensitized to the idea of vat meat and near meat because it's been a common world-feature and sometimes plot point in science fiction for a couple of decades, but was hesitant to try much of it because early fake meat is disgusting. Some of the newer stuff is genuinely tasty on its own merit. Specifically Beyond meat brand. The faux hamburger is good, and their spicy breakfast sausage is killer with scrambled eggs. It's not the same as real meat, so it's not a substitute in that context, but it is a viable substitute in that has much of the characteristics and satisfaction quality of real meat.
Neil
Absolutely. A&W has Beyond Meat burgers. It sounded super gross, but one day I caved and gave it a shot and was hooked. The Beyond Meat burgers are way better than the regular meat burgers. It's pretty much the only thing I buy at A&W now. It's probably clogging my arteries a little less too, so that's always good.Quote:
Originally Posted by sossol
I'd give one of these Redefine Meat things a try. Although I do question why they're using 3D printers. It seems to be endemic with inexperienced new engineering grads. Shoehorn 3D printers into EVERYTHING, particularly if it'll bottleneck the entire business. 3D printing is insanely slow and should never be used for production. Why not injection mold these at 400x the throughput?
I'm guessing, based on how the cooked "steak" looked, they are 3D printing to get a fibrous texture more closely akin to the real thing. My problem with the Impossible sorts of meat are that they aren't any healthier than real meat, and I wonder, what with all the processing, if they aren't generating more issues through pollution and waste. Personally, I'm looking forward to meat that's actually meat, but no animals are involved, which has just gotten FDA approval. I've thought that was a great idea ever since I read a scifi story back in the '60s that featured a moon colony that had labs dedicated to growing meat from various cell lines to feed the crew.Quote:
Originally Posted by nova_robotics
+1 I absolutely agree there.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdurand
This stuff might be more successful if they stopped trying to brand it as a new kind of meat.
When will these bloody idiots STOP trying to improve on natureQuote:
Originally Posted by Jon
That could be called Super Spam. But the SPAM people might be offended. :smash:
Soylent Green took place in 2022...
Why is it that "vegetarians" want food that does taste or texture like meat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon
That stuff definitely doesn't look like meat. Looks like it has the consistency of wet bread. It looks more like some sort of cake. The Beyond Burgers aren't really meat like either. Extremely soft, way different texture. As a meat simulant I give them a C. However... they can stand on their own right as a tasty food. I legitimately like the taste of them better than the beef patties. I eat a chicken burger three or four times a week. I have a beef burger maybe every other week. I'd take a beyond burger over either of them. But they are quite expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by neilbourjaily
...but I'm looking it up now and the things have a lot of salt. Maybe the health benefits are overstated.
There is actually a meal replacement product called Soylent. Apparently it got banned in Canada. The Youtube videos of people trying it are absolutely hilarious. Apparently it gives you noxious, near continuous gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by IntheGroove
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQsoN6pYY0U
It's all those Silicon Valley lunatics. From the people who brought you "blood boys," which is apparently actually a thing. Really rich crazy people buy blood transfusions from young healthy people. Steve Jobs thought that his fruitarian diet meant that his body no longer produced mucus, so he no longer had to bathe (spoiler: he was wrong). He also used to soak his feet in the company toilets because it felt good. Lots of stories like that. Those people are crazy.
Okay one more then I'm done. This guy is hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUCm403rkBk
Steve had pancreatic cancer. No cure yet known...
He had an very rare, very treatable pancreatic cancer that was caught early during a kidney stone procedure. He had a high probability of recovery but chose to avoid Western medicine and treat his operable cancer with acupuncture and a diet of fruit. The guy's overwhelming arrogance got him killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by IntheGroove
My question is, if the animals that are farmed for food where no longer needed what would happen to them?
Their natural habitats are various types of farms, some open range, some feed lots etc etc. without being farmed for the end product there is very little point in there existence, are they the zoological specimens of the future or very expensive to own pets? “Remember a calf is for life, not just for Christmas!”
Will the museums be displaying animal husbandry equipment and supplies of a bygone era where common sense was still used? Modern technology is supposed to be good for the human race but I often wonder if it’s actually aiding devolution.
The biggest problem with using domesticated animals for food is that the scale of modern operations makes them huge polluters. Remember, we didn't generally eat meat in the quantities we do these days, so a few farmyard animals could keep a family fed, and small scale farms could feed a large number of people 50 years ago or so, when meat consumption was half what it is now. Today, most meat production is on an industrial scale with correspondingly industrial levels of pollution of the land, water, and air. Add to that, the wholesale destruction of rainforests for pasture land, the amount of fertilizer and water inputs it takes to grow feed crops, and the amount of fuel expended in all the processes, and you have an industry that's not sustainable in the long term the way it operates today. The devolution that occured wasn't moving away from conventional meat sources, but the attempt at scaling small farms to industrial sizes to try to both benefit from economies of scale and meet demands for product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skun Knuckles
I don’t know where you get your information from or what your life experiences are but they seem to be a lot different to mine. The company my father did his apprenticeship with as a butcher in the 1930’s had a huge multi story processing plant that was established in the late 1800’s, the meat they processed came from various abattoirs on the outskirts of the city of which there where many, there have been many large scale meat processing operations globally for centuries and they are well documented. All that has little to do with my original question, but your diatribe has raised another question, if grown for meat livestock are taken out of the equation and a huge amount of resources such as fuel, fertiliser etc are channeled into growing and processing alternative food sources will it be any less polluting than growing and processing livestock feed?Quote:
Originally Posted by schuylergrace
There are many mouths to feed on this planet, and there are many problems associated with doing so, if more time was spent on improving existing practices rather than trying to reinvent what has taken thousands of years to achieve I think we would arrive at a better outcome sooner.
Beef has one of the worst feed conversion ratios around. To get one unit of food energy from beef, that cow has to eat around 15 units of plant energy. Chicken is much better at around 3-to-1. So if you had farmland and were growing a crop, lets say that crop could directly feed 100 mouths. If you were to take that crop and use it to feed chickens, your land could now feed 33 people. If you were raising cows, with that same farmland you could now feed 7 people. If food becomes scarce, you would be starving 93 of the original 100 people by raising cows. You're throwing away over 90% of the food energy. So yes, it's extremely polluting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skun Knuckles
I'm sorry you thought of my response as a diatribe. It wasn't intended that way. And I grew up on our family farm, where we grew most of what we ate, as well as more to sell, and I have many connections to various parts of the farming industry. I wasn't saying industrial farming is new. Ever since man first started farming and raising livestock, he has tried to find ways to make the process more efficient, to the point where we are today. The issue isn't farming, but the scale we do it on now and the way we accomplish that scale. And raising animals for meat is generally a very inefficient proposition, considering the amount of inputs that are needed to raise one pound of meat versus one pound of beans, for example. That doesn't mean I'm giving up meat anytime soon, though. We just need to find better ways to produce it, and the original post was showing one possible option. And it wouldn't hurt any of us to eat more vegetables while foregoing some of the meat we consume.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skun Knuckles