EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:49 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:33 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:53 pm
Posts: 49
Currently it costs $ 330,000 but it will probably be much cheaper. It uses less resources than livestock and hopefully it will but Factory Farms out of business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqjW-MfzRNo

So, vegetarians, will you eat this?

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:14 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
If it costs $330,000.00 how is it using less resources since the cost of resources is a significant portion of the costs?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:22 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If it costs $330,000.00 how is it using less resources since the cost of resources is a significant portion of the costs?


But what does that figure mean?
It costs $330,000.
What does that mean? WHAT costs $330,000?

And will it cost anything to the streams and rivers as current meat production does? Will it fart in the same way as 30,000 cows would, all clustered together as they are? Will it have to be branded? Will it need antibiotics?

What will be the cost to the environment?

One clearly needs more information .....

I probably wouldn't eat it though, just as I steer away from veggie dogs and t-bone steaks alike. Yukkers!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:15 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If it costs $330,000.00 how is it using less resources since the cost of resources is a significant portion of the costs?


But what does that figure mean?
It costs $330,000.
What does that mean? WHAT costs $330,000?


I assume a small quantity of the grown meat.

Quote:
And will it cost anything to the streams and rivers as current meat production does?


Cell growth is water dependent, so it would have a proportional impact on water supplies.

Quote:
Will it fart in the same way as 30,000 cows would, all clustered together as they are?


No, but it will be very energy dependent.

Quote:
Will it have to be branded?


I doubt it since it is contained at all times, but there may be genetic trackers added in production.

Quote:
Will it need antibiotics?


No, clean rooms would limit that need.

Quote:
What will be the cost to the environment?


A lot on the large scale production.

Quote:
One clearly needs more information .....


Yes, and the information on scalability is critical.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:02 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:53 pm
Posts: 49
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If it costs $330,000.00 how is it using less resources since the cost of resources is a significant portion of the costs?


R&D


Quote:
Quote:
And will it cost anything to the streams and rivers as current meat production does?


Cell growth is water dependent, so it would have a proportional impact on water supplies.


I think he was referring to excrement going into the water supplies.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:20 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
GoGreenCO wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If it costs $330,000.00 how is it using less resources since the cost of resources is a significant portion of the costs?


R&D


Wouldn't the R&D costs be separate?


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And will it cost anything to the streams and rivers as current meat production does?


Cell growth is water dependent, so it would have a proportional impact on water supplies.


I think he was referring to excrement going into the water supplies.


Probably, but the loss of water flow downstream could be even more expensive.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:40 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:53 pm
Posts: 49
Wayne Stollings wrote:
GoGreenCO wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If it costs $330,000.00 how is it using less resources since the cost of resources is a significant portion of the costs?


R&D


Wouldn't the R&D costs be separate?



I'm guessing no, since the reason why medicine is so expensive is due to the experiments that they did over again. But I think technology probably had a play.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cell growth is water dependent, so it would have a proportional impact on water supplies.


I think he was referring to excrement going into the water supplies.


Probably, but the loss of water flow downstream could be even more expensive.


50% of our water supply currently gfoes to cattle. So it probably would reduce that too.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:11 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
GoGreenCO wrote:
I think he was referring to excrement going into the water supplies.


Well, it wouldn't be excreted at least. You still have to deal with cellular waste products, however, especially if we're talking large scale tissue cultures and bioreactors.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
GoGreenCO wrote:
50% of our water supply currently gfoes to cattle. So it probably would reduce that too.


Water isn't required to grow tissue in vitro? You are familiar with the science of cell biology, are you not?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:45 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:59 pm
Posts: 1348
As a vegan I don't think I would participate knowing it has come from an animal source.

'to look into an animals eyes and see whether fear or intrepidity exists.To look deep enough is like looking at oneself'. Then one acknowledges we are living the same whole.

Mothy

Tastebuds create as much hurt and division as religion.

mothy.

I have this knack of creating friends over seven years and losing them in one sentence. =D>

To take a beast as a friend one ventures on moral ground that most are unfamiliar with.

Mothy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:28 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
GoGreenCO wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wouldn't the R&D costs be separate?



I'm guessing no, since the reason why medicine is so expensive is due to the experiments that they did over again. But I think technology probably had a play.


I really doubt the logic behind these assumptions.


Quote:
50% of our water supply currently gfoes to cattle. So it probably would reduce that too.


I doubt that 50% of our water supply goes to cattle too.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wulv.html

During 2005, withdrawals were an estimated 2,140 Mgal/d, or 2,390 thousand acre-feet per year. (All 2005 water use information is from the report Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005.) Livestock withdrawals were less than 1 percent of total freshwater withdrawals and 1 percent of total freshwater withdrawals excluding thermoelectric power. Groundwater was the source for 60 percent of total livestock withdrawals. Estimated total livestock withdrawals for 2005 were 8 percent less than in 2000.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:06 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:53 pm
Posts: 49
Wayne Stollings wrote:
GoGreenCO wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wouldn't the R&D costs be separate?



I'm guessing no, since the reason why medicine is so expensive is due to the experiments that they did over again. But I think technology probably had a play.


I really doubt the logic behind these assumptions.



Explain.


Quote:
Quote:
50% of our water supply currently gfoes to cattle. So it probably would reduce that too.


I doubt that 50% of our water supply goes to cattle too.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wulv.html

During 2005, withdrawals were an estimated 2,140 Mgal/d, or 2,390 thousand acre-feet per year. (All 2005 water use information is from the report Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005.) Livestock withdrawals were less than 1 percent of total freshwater withdrawals and 1 percent of total freshwater withdrawals excluding thermoelectric power. Groundwater was the source for 60 percent of total livestock withdrawals. Estimated total livestock withdrawals for 2005 were 8 percent less than in 2000.


I'll take your source for this. However, I think they aren't telling the whole picture, since irrigation, and water given to grain contribute.
mothy wrote:
As a vegan I don't think I would participate knowing it has come from an animal source.
y.


Everything came from an animal one way or another. Soil is created by the excrement of worms, and much of it is the decomposition of dead animals.

I guess you will never accept blood donations.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:04 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
GoGreenCO wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
GoGreenCO wrote:

I'm guessing no, since the reason why medicine is so expensive is due to the experiments that they did over again. But I think technology probably had a play.


I really doubt the logic behind these assumptions.



Explain.


The assumption of the reason for high cost of medicine with nothing to support the premise and the recent history of less than accurate statements in similar a vein. Thus, I doubt the logic behind the conclusion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:28 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:53 pm
Posts: 49
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=18892

Quote:
For instance, only one out of every ten thousand discovered compounds actually becomes an approved drug for sale. Much expense is incurred in the early phases of development of compounds that will not become approved drugs. In addition, it takes about 7 to 10 years and an average cost of 500 million dollars to develop each new drug. This money is spent before the FDA approves the drug, and if the drug is not approved, the company loses the money.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Test tube Meat.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:41 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
GoGreenCO wrote:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18892

Quote:
For instance, only one out of every ten thousand discovered compounds actually becomes an approved drug for sale. Much expense is incurred in the early phases of development of compounds that will not become approved drugs. In addition, it takes about 7 to 10 years and an average cost of 500 million dollars to develop each new drug. This money is spent before the FDA approves the drug, and if the drug is not approved, the company loses the money.


This has no effect on medicine other than NEW drugs, which cost more than generic drugs for this reason.


According to this all prescription drugs account for 10% of all healthcare spending and that includes the high number of generic drugs which have had the investement repaid.


http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/0 ... s.dropping

While prescription drug spending accounts for 10 percent of all health care spending in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for prescription medication make up a much larger percentage of individual health spending, particularly among low-income people with public insurance and those with chronic conditions such as diabetes.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group