A protein possibility for the "oil we eat:" the in-vitro meat beast!

Animal rights group PETA recently announced a $1 million reward for the first person to make in-vitro meat (leading Bruce Sterling to dub them "People for the Ethical Treatment of Alien Lumps of Flesh").

While PETA's aim here seems to be to be to publicise their opposition to the consumption of animals (as shown in the quote below), there is another angle to this story which is perhaps more interesting for those interested in energy issues - which comes back to "the oil we eat."

"Why is PETA supporting this new technology? More than 40 billion chickens, fish, pigs, and cows are killed every year for food in the United States in horrific ways. Chickens are drugged to grow so large they often become crippled, mother pigs are confined to metal cages so small they can't move, and fish are hacked apart while still conscious — all to feed America's meat addiction. In vitro meat would spare animals from this suffering. In addition, in vitro meat would dramatically reduce the devastating effects the meat industry has on the environment.

"Of course, humans don't need to eat meat at all—vegetarians are less likely to get heart disease, diabetes, or various types of cancer or become obese than meat-eaters are—and a terrific array of vegetarian mock meats already exist. But as many people continue to refuse to kick their meat addictions, PETA is willing to help them gain access to flesh that doesn't cause suffering and death...."


The Oil We Eat

The link between oil and gas production and agriculture is one that should be well understood by now - and has been covered by a diverse range of writers including Dale Allen Pfeiffer (Eating Fossil Fuels), Richard Manning (The Oil We Eat), Stuart Staniford (Food To 2050), Sharyn Astyk (Is Relocalization Doomed ?) as well as my review of Herman Kahn's book "The Next 200 Years" (The Fat Man, The Population Bomb And The Green Revolution).

While I don't want to restart the debate about "reversalists", I think its worth looking at where a large amount of the grain we produce goes - meat production.

Feeding grain to livestock

Corn, wheat and rice prices have all soared in recent years - this has been attributed to a number of factors, including:

- rising input prices for fertiliser, pesticides and diesel fuel
- the use of grain to produce biofuels
- adverse weather events like the Australian drought significantly reducing production
- commodity funds and other speculators on the markets
- "hoarding" and export restrictions being put in place (particularly for rice)
- productive land being built over by expanding cities
- increasing demand for grain courtesy of an increasing population
- increasingly affluent consumers in Asia increasing their meat consumption

While there is a lot of debate about which factors are the dominant ones in the price rises that have occurred so far, it seems clear that reducing demand would go some way to keeping prices down, and that finding alternative sources of protein would be one way of achieving this.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN publishes a World Food Outlook in May and November each year. The November 2007 edition shows that about a third of the grain produced (750Mt) is used as animal feed - compared to around 350 Mt that was used for biofuels (hat tip to Kiashu for providing the data).

  2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Change: 2007/08
over
    estim. f'cast 2006/07
  million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE        
Production 2 051.4 2 009.4 2 108.9 5.0
Trade 246.6 255.4 251.5 -1.5
Total utilization 2 037.6 2 062.4 2 105.0 2.1
Food 982.5 997.5 1 008.7 1.1
Feed 748.7 735.9 739.6 0.5
Other uses 306.4 329.0 356.6 8.4
Ending stocks 471.4 428.0 427.0 -0.2
   
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS  
Per caput food consumption:        
World    (kg/year) 152.2 152.7 152.6 -0.1
LIFDC    (kg/year) 156.9 157.2 157.0 -0.1
World stock-to-use ratio  % 22.9 20.3 20.2  
Major exporters' stock-to-disappearance ratio % 19.2 15.0 13.5  

Another 101 Mt of oilseeds (out of 404 Mt total) is turned into "oil meals and cakes", which is primarily eaten by livestock.

It is worth noting that not all of the animals fed end up on our dinner plates (or in hamburger wrappers) - dairy cattle are also included here and their milk production is another output from the use of these agricultural commodities.

Artifical Meat and science fiction

Artificial meat is a topic usually left to science fiction writers (see Kornbluth & Pohl, H Beam Piper, Samuel R Delany, Frank Herbert, Rudy Rucker or John Brunner for some examples), with a "meat beast" (or some other form of artificial protein produced in a vat) gracing the bowels of many spaceship kitchens and basements of remote arcologies, where raising livestock isn't an option.

Soylent Green is probably the example that comes most readily to mind, but this isn't really appropriate, as that meat wasn't artificially grown of course.

Where's the beef ? Is anyone seriously trying to make this stuff ?

Science fiction isn't usually meant to be predictive, so its surprising to see this sort of idea being (somewhat) seriously considered here on Earth in the present.

While PETA may or may not just be performing a publicity stunt, there does appear to be some research underway in this area, which is known as "In vitro meat".

There are basically two approaches for producing in vitro meat; loose muscle cells and structured muscle, with the creation of structured muscle being far more challenging than the former.

According to Wikipedia:

Muscles consist of muscle fibers, long cells with multiple nuclei. They don't proliferate by themselves, but arise when precursor cells fuse. Precursor cells can be embryonic stem cells or satellite cells, specialized stem cells in muscle tissue. Theoretically, they can be relatively simple to culture in a bioreactor and then later made to fuse. For the growth of real muscle however, the cells should grow "on the spot", which requires a perfusion system akin to a blood supply to deliver nutrients and oxygen close to the growing cells, as well as remove the waste products. In addition other cell types need to be grown like adipocytes, and chemical messengers should provide clues to the growing tissue about the structure. Lastly, muscle tissue needs to be trained to properly develop.

A number of teams are actively pursuing the cultivation of in vitro meat.

In 2001, dermatologist Wiete Westerhof from the University of Amsterdam and businessmen Willem van Eelen and Willem van Kooten announced that they had filed for a worldwide patent on a process to produce in vitro meat. A matrix of collagen is seeded with muscle cells, which are then bathed in a nutritious solution and induced to divide. They have now set up the InVitroMeat Foundation to promote the idea.

Jon Vein of the United States has secured a patent for the production of tissue engineered meat for human consumption, where muscle and fat cells would be grown in an integrated fashion to create food products such as beef, poultry and fish.

A group at the University of Maryland has participated in some experiments for NASA looking to grow meat during space flight, and is also looking to develop processes for terrestrial application. This group of researchers started the non-profit organization New Harvest, with the goal of promoting development of in-vitro meat. They claim cultured meat in a processed form, like sausage, hamburger, or chicken nuggets may become commercially available within several years.

In April 2005, a research project into cultured meat started in The Netherlands. It is carried out under the lead of Henk Haagsman at the University of Amsterdam, the Eindhoven University of Technology and Utrecht University, in cooperation with sausage manufacturer Stegeman. The Dutch government granted a two million euro subsidy for the project. In Amsterdam the culture medium is studied, while the University of Utrecht studies the proliferation of muscle cells and the Eindhoven university will research bioreactors.

A tissue engineer at the Medical University of South Carolina has proposed a countertop device similar to a bread maker that would produce meat overnight in your kitchen.

In recent weeks we have even had the world's first international conference on manufacturing meat.

Advocates for in vitro meat claim it is safer, healthier, more humane and less polluting to produce - as well as being one way of adapting to rising demand for food and constraints on the supply of inputs to traditional industrial agriculture. But one question remains, should a commercial meat production process ever be put into action - can we get past the "yuck" factor ?

Cross-posted from Peak Energy

There's a wonderful scifi story by Arthur C Clarke where the meat produced in vats turns out to be one almost everyone today, regardless of religion or lack of it, would be reluctant to eat... :)

The important question, though, is what's in the "nutrient solution"? It may be that vat-grown meat wouldn't reduce the required inputs much. Logically it should reduce the required inputs because you're only supporting the meat, not the bones, brain, blood and guts - but then, it might need more concentrated stuff.

For example, according to The Rapid Growth of Human Populations, one-third of the world's wild fish catch goes to farmed fish. According to this powerpoint presentation, wild fish catch is about 76Mt, and farmed fish are 36Mt. So if 25Mt of wild goes to help produce 36Mt farmed, the net gain is actually 11Mt.

Thus, fish available for human consumption are not 76Mt wild + 36Mt farmed or 112Mt, but 51Mt wild + 36Mt farmed or 87Mt.

Who knows about the inputs to this vat meat? We'd have to see some proper write-ups of it, rather than just enthusiastic news pieces.

Local teenager did work experience at a trout farm. He said he couldn't wash off the stink of oil from sea mackerel used to hoodwink the trout to eat grain pellets. Some caged salmon farming around the Tas coast uses probiotics and is exposed to heavy metal plumes from upriver mines. I suspect calories/fossil inputs << 0.1 the EROEI of most foods.

We're all supposed to be healthier if we restrict our animal protein to 100 grams a day or somesuch. I'm thinking a plate of stewed turnips topped with a fish eyeball. The way things are going with global meat consumption the Japanese will have a taller basketball team than us.

Dunno about synthetic meat but the global livestock herd should be greatly reduced, with particular emphasis on cutting out grain feeding. OK maybe a few oats for Melbourne Cup runners. Rather than just a source of meat (wool, leather, recreation etc) I think hoofed animals should be moved around a lot. They could reduce the fire hazard of park land near suburbs and turn roadside weeds into manure for the garden. We'd get used to seeing flocks of animals swarming down the street. After all soon there won't be so many cars.

It's late, I'm not going to look this up, but I think that the ~100 gm calculation comes down to nutrient balances.

Your "average" adult, excretes a certain amount of nitrogen per day... the breakdown products of cellular metabolism. To replace that, a source of nitrogen is needed. Protein is the richest source of N in the omnivores diet. To provide all the nitrogen requirements while maintaining the requisite balance of essential amino acids (ie those we can't make) a minimum of just over 100 gm of high quality protein is required. Eggs are a good source. But then you miss out on those good fish oils. And every diet needs just a little fat.

NB These calculations are for adults. Growing children are a different story.

Like anything, over consumption bad, under consumption bad. A little bit of everything.

The book, Omnivores Dilemma is a reasonable read. PETA probably hates it.

Okay everyone a reality check.

Ruminant animals (like cows) have multiple stomachs that act as fermenters to digest cellulosic plant material. They evolved as grazing animals that can digest and get energy out of material that most animals (mono gastric, one stomach animals) can't use. Modern feed lots have substituted grains (mostly corn) to improve weight gain and feed efficiency for profit reasons in beef and milk herds. It makes meat and milk faster, and until recently, cheaper than allowing cows to graze grass the way their physiology was designed to do.

I don't disagree that most westerners could use less meat in our diet. That misses the point however that meat has been historically cheap because grain has been historically cheap. This has produced an over supply of meat in western countries (keeping the price low) that is produced in a non sustainable way. Putting more grazing animals back on pasture lands rather than, say growing pasture land for cellulosic ethanol, could help moderate the rise in meat prices and encourage farmers to be good stewards to the land.

There are many studies out of the University of Wisconsin that high intensity rotational grazing practices are both good for the animals and good for the soil. But these approaches are labor intensive and only scale so far. They are not competitive with enormous feed lots when grain prices are low.

So my point is don't try to take the animal out of the equation but change the farming equation so that more sustainable practices have an advantage. Food and grain prices may be doing this already but it would be nice to have a concerted policy for planning. Lastly, westerners probably eat too much meat but much of the world doesn't get enough meat protein, but that is an economic problem (distribution of resources) that I don't have a solution for no matter how meat protein is created.

Great exmple of the absolute facile rubbish that certain members of society now have time to waste on thanks to the fossil fuel supported inputs to the rest of their lives. Peak oil is going to make factory farming unviable in pretty short order so I think we will all be forced to reduce the amount of meat we eat anyway. It won't be replaced with this sort of hi tech mush which probably needs a source of animal protein in the nutrient mix.

Ah a breath of sanity! If we're that worried about animals and fish, etc., which we'd not have to be if we're get our own population down, and if we don't want to eat nice creatures like chickens and cows and pigs, then we really ought to get over our cultural taboos about eating bugs.

Bugs look cute but they are basically little robots. There's really no soul to a bug, more of a flow-chart. There's not "anyone" there to wrong, in eating a bug. And generally they're tasty, a real treat. As non-Western cultures will attest. And you can raise them at home. They're not generally smelly or messy, and their manure can be used on the garden.

These high-tech "solutions" are BS,

... WTF?

Or we could just eat less meat. Billions of people eat very little, and manage not to keel over instantly.

I don't think we need eat roaches. But if that's your thing, by all means go for it.

Without wanting to encourage our doomer friends above, I feel the need to point out that some people do eat bugs - in Cambodia I saw people snacking away on fried spiders and roaches quite happily.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=fried++spider&m=text

Truly whoever manages to perfect such a process will have created something new and useful for society. Alas, I may never be around to see it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go prepare my Quorn sandwiches for work tomorrow.

:-)

I was going to mention Quorn (mushroom based stuff) but decided it was drifting a little too far away from the topic...

Just on the Quorn... we can get an idea of what might be required to produce this kind of "food". All the inputs are highly refined.

I'm not saying it's more or less energy intensive than intensive meat production... but let's not assume that becuase it's fungus grown on glucose + growth medium it is.

And of course, in the US, the glucose comes from...?

There are quite a few vegetable protein sources that are near complete - maybe complete?.

Quorn loses my vote since:

They put egg in it - so it must be crap on its own
Its damn expensive
Horrendous packaging overheads etc.

I can't blame them though for trying to increase their sales. It tastes OK. Really the public should embrace this stuff.

So where is:

QUINOA

Nutritionally, quinoa might be considered a supergrain - although it is not really a grain, but the seed of a leafy plant that is distantly related to spinach. Quinoa has excellent reserves of protein, and unlike other grains, is not missing the amino acid lysine, so the protein is more complete (a trait it shares with other 'non-true' grains such as buckwheat and amaranth). It contains a good supply of complex carbohydrate and it is low in fat. Quinoa contains more iron than other seeds and grains and contains high levels of potassium and riboflavin, as well as other B vitamins. It also contains folic acid and vitamin E. It is also a good source of magnesium, zinc, copper, and manganese. It is gluten free.

Information provided by Dr Joan Ransley, Lecturer in Nutritional Epidemiology, University of Leeds

http://www.vegsoc.org/cordonvert/articles/quinoa.html

http://www.realseeds.co.uk/grains.html

The info out there is published by 'enthusiasts' or suppliers.

Solid science published on this is damn hard to find. There is presumably little in the way of research, or maybe the info is so straightforward that no research is necessary.

FWIW, my observation is that some people survive well on a meat free diet, others lose health.

I have never seen a table published of what plant combinations add up to complete protein. All you see repeated is 'beans and toast' add infinitum.

Can anyone supply this data?

For the past 25 years or so there has been a debate, largely confined to the vegetarian community, about whether "protein complementarity" makes sense as a practical nutritional concept at all. There's no question that you need all the "essential amino acids" and that plants have these amino acids, which can't be manufactured by the body and are thus "essential" in the diet, in differing quantities. The question is whether this matters, because even the amino acids in the least quantity in (say) corn are still supplied in sufficient quantity to meet the minimum requirement.

Check out this flyer which I wrote years ago:
http://compassionatespirit.com/protein.htm

I did calculations some 25 years ago and came to the conclusion that at the current U. S. requirements for each of the amino acids, almost all plant foods (if consumed exclusively and alone to provide all your calories) would give you both enough protein and enough of all of the amino acids. Among vegetarian advocates Dr. John McDougall is the most prominent supporter of this position.

The more traditional position, advocated by the American Dietetic Association and others, is that protein complementarity is needed but not at the same meal. As far as I know, there is no particular evidence to support this, it is just maintained because the idea, adopted by "Diet for a Small Planet," that "protein complementarity" is necessary for plant foods, is the traditional one and it has never become hot enough an issue to be debated. I am fairly confident that if this were to happen, the whole concept as a practical issue would disappear.

I would emphasize that you DO need all of the essential amino acids and you CAN be protein deficient, just that as a practical matter protein balancing is not necessary. If you're getting enough calories, you're getting enough protein unless you're an alcoholic, eating nothing but cassava, something like that. If you're getting enough protein, your proteins are balanced unless you're eating mostly grapes or some other foods. The easiest way to be protein deficient is not to get enough calories. I managed to do this once myself, without knowing it, when I first became a vegan.

http://compassionatespirit.com/vegetarianism-and-genetics.htm

By the way (citations in my book "A Vegetarian Sourcebook"), they have done studies in which they fed people diets of corn alone, potatoes alone, wheat alone, or rice alone. These diets are not adequate for other reasons (like not enough vitamin C, for example) and so you would not want to eat such a diet on a regular basis. However, they were protein adequate and provided all the amino acids.

Keith Akers

Many thanks, that is very useful information.

Yes - thanks for those comments.

Regarding potatos, I vaguely remember some spud advocates claiming man can live on potatos alone.

Random links - its the year of the potato
http://www.potato2008.org/en/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0507/p17s02-hfes.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/can-the-potato-save-the-world.ph...

I had a feeling this post (from Peak Energy) was going to make it over to TOD today. Well done Gav.

I pretty much restrict myself to chicken and occasionally ham and fish these days. As I understand it, its red meat that's the real problem. Putting aside the cruelty factor, battery farmed chickens are actually a pretty efficient way of producing protein.

Cattle waste an enormous amount of the energy in the grain they eat through body heat and methane gas emissions in burps and flatulents (the energy in manure is usually recovered as fertilizer). Cattle methane emissions are a major source of green house gases and global warming; this no BS. Same is true of many animals grown for food.

Then a lot of diesel and natural gas is wasted in refrigerating and transporting meat.

"Diet for a Small Planet" of the early 1970s summed it up pretty well. The solution of course is to eat the grain, or sprout it for more vitamins and protein. Sprouting is easy and fun, and sprouts are tasty :).

Then to make the energy waste stuff worse, many "modern" cultures take human "waste" and dump it into rivers. Human urine and feces make good fertilizer, why dump them into the rivers, damage estuaries, and disperse good fertilizer into the ocean? In the old days, in the dark of night, the outhouse hole in the ground was filled with water and the stuff was pumped out onto the fields for fertilizer-- called "night soil."

Uh oh, I see another problem. Peak oil and peak natural gas are here now, and very soon we will not have the diesel and electric power needed to treat sewage effluent. Untreated fecal matter will be dumped directly into the rivers. Those people living down stream will be drinking water that has a very high bacteria count. Most people will get serious intestinal infections, and worse. Without antibiotics, a lot of people will be very sick and many will die. No BS. One wonders, how did we come to waste good fertilizer in a manner that will soon kill millions of us?

It's not just cattle that waste a lot of energy eating grain. Hogs and chickens do the same. The wasted energy has to be replaced with imported oil at a much higher price.

My nemesis is the hog factory of which there are six within a 3 mile radius of my house. The stench is horrific in the summer if the wind is from the wrong direction.

Those who oppose ethanol for environmental and EROI reasons don't seem to understand that the corn will then be used for animal feed, either in the U.S. or abroad. What is the EROI of a pig, cow or chicken? It makes ethanol look like a bonanza.

I've read several comments posted at The Oil Drum stating that human urine and feces make good fertilizer. I wonder, though -- doesn't all of the various medications that people ingest contaminate this type of fertilizer? And what about disease -- bacteria and viruses from sick people could end up in the food stream this way. Or is that not possible? I don't recall anyone addressing either of these, and I really have no idea. Can anyone speak to that?

How about the book "The Humanure Handbook" by Joseph Jenkins?

The medication issue is one of the reasons that recycled drinking water from sewerage plants is often rejected on health grounds. The water may be biologically fine to drink, but the chemical poisons introduced by the mountain of modern medicines that are currently consumed in the west is not necessarily taken out by treatment process. There are plenty of other things put into the sewerage system as well that may not make for good fertiliser once it comes out the other end.

There are composting toilet systems available which kill all the pathogens and provide an excellent compost mix for the garden but they are controlled by householders who know or should know exactly what the original inputs were.

I think the jury is very much on the side of continuing with centralised sewerage for overall health benefits than risking some of the waterborne diseases that come from improperly treated sewage. There may be ways to recover more nutrients at the plant and if Super phospahte gets any more expensive, some enterprising water authorities may start to look at this as a way to squezze a few more bucks out of the infrastructure. Happy eating.

GeoffC is spot on re the usefullness or otherwise of Homo Sapiens (in my book - Very Dangerous Monkey).

Merv_NZ,you would be well advised to read Cormac McCarthy's "The Road".Perhaps you then would not be so ready to flippantly dismiss a statement of the bleeding obvious.

I think McCarthy will be recognized as one of the most prescient of Western writers.Certainly "The Road" is the equal of Orwell's "1984"

Another chemical that water can have is cafinee. Some of the tea/coffee/soda does pass unproceesed by the body.

Humans waste an enormous amount of heat and energy and produce a whole heap of greenhouse gases, and they're generally good for nothing. Lets get to the root of the problem instead of messing around on the fringe.

Hi GeoffC

If we can get around the legal hassles, I'm sure that I could find a place for you in my compost heap. This will surely improve next year's pumpkin crop so that I can grow bigger and tastier pigs for the table of another "good for nothing" human.

LMFAO = laughing my - - off

I think this has already been done,guys.

http://www.foodfacts.info/mcrib/

Is that crackling?????.....mmmmmmm

whatever happened to the movement to make meat substitutes out of fungi, like yeast or mushrooms? Or even out of some kinds of algae? It could be flavored in various ways for people's appetites, and besides, I like the taste of mushrooms and yeast myself. Although things like oatmeal make the best soil for mushrooms, they can grow quite well using wood waste (like they do in the woods), so they would be much easier to "farm". A food like that would be a lot simpler to make than trying to cultivate masses of animal cells in an artificial medium, and would be much less susceptible to dangerous bacterial contamination. Bacteria would grow like crazy in a warm solution of animal cells.

Many of our fungi buddies are quite high in protein---
I am a avid mushroom hunter (Northern Cal), and eat wild mushrooms all winter, and am a member of the SF mycological society.
The English and the Americans are fungi phobic, which makes more for me!

Hightrekker - when I am back in the Bay Area, planning for next summer, let's get together! I love mushrooms but am afraid to pick and eat 'em at random, and in fact I have to suppress the childish glee found in kicking 'em over when found on a lawn or in the park.

My new "professional bum" lifestyle should give me real wealth, time, to do things and learn things.

One poster above mentioned a mushroom based meat substitute - Quorn :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn

Ah some one beat me to the Tempeh comment, Yes the Indonesians have been making tempeh, since moses was a boy. It is usually made from Soya Beams but it can be made from any fatty legume, Chick pea Tempeh is very delicious. When using a different bean you need to use a different culture. It is not unlike yogurt, which is also cultured. The main reason why we dont know about it is because it is regarded as poor peoples food and people are embarrassed to admit they eat it. If your rich you eat Water Buffalo Meat.

Fungi's position - take complex carbs (plant cell walls) and convert them into protein.

Research Oyster mushrooms. Note how straw can be converted into feed for livestock.

(And off the topic of fungi)
And as I can't make a comment on the main page:

Vat grown meat - I can see 2 issues.

1) Prions. If the vat becomes infected with prions - what will be the testing and cleaning process?

2) Virus infection. Examples of this is how batches of vaccine have been infected and made useless in the past years.

As oil becomes more and more expensive, a portion of the population of the U.S. and Europe will start walking and bicycling much more than before.

They may actually eat _more_ meat than when they were sedentary, especially if they want to build strength for possibly long 5x/week bicycle