Science Blog

Science news straight from the source

Navigation

  • Topics
    • Aerospace
    • Animals
    • Anthro and Archaeology
    • Bio and Medicine
    • Brain and Behavior
    • Business and Economy
    • Computers and Electronics
    • Education and Outreach
    • Energy and Environment
    • Geoscience
    • Internet and Communication
    • Media and Entertainment
    • Nanotech, Chem and Materials
    • Physics and Numbers
    • Security and Defense
    • Software
    • Space
    • Transportation
  • Reader Blogs
  • Commerce
  • Register/Login
  • RSS
Home Murderless Meat = $1 Million
  • Contact
  • Home
Google

Recent Comments

  • older women, younger men
  • ADDICTS ARE EVERY LEVEL OF SOCIETY EVEN,...
  • my opinion
  • Does this mean...
  • Another Top Ranking
more

Reader Blogs

  • Spine-Relaxing Chairs Invented
  • City Council To Recognize Physics Students For Solving Stephen Hawking Mistake
  • Cystic Fibrosis – Axentis Pharma Initiates Clinical Trial for Lung Infections
  • Mysterious Disc Found
more

Is There a Bioengineer in the House?

Submitted by Renaisauce on Thu, 2008-04-24 10:19.

We actually could use some professional consultation in this discussion. In the mean time...

My understanding of the problem of the grain/grass issue is that the cow digestive system really isn't designed for grain and can't digest it well, so the muscle can't get the same nutrients (even though it beefs up quicker). It isn't so much a chemistry issue as it is a compatibility issue. I am in favor of animals being fed what they should be eating. Including us.

Also, if we've been getting vitamins the wrong way for the last 40 years, I think that it is time for that to improve.

I don't really think we'd ever get stem cell-grown meat to be exactly like actual animal meat. And you're right, exposure to grass and grain and whatever would probably change cell chemistry (as would exposure to dung, disease, pesticides, water pollution and prions).

But in the case of stem-cell created chicken flesh, I don't know that we really need to. We just have to fill the major dietary niche. If the people eating it are missing out on higher levels of anti-oxidants and vitamins because what they're eating didn't eat plants, then they should go ahead and eat plants. Does anyone know what percentage of our daily nutritional intake of anti-oxidants is supplied by meat? I'm asking.

Here's why I don't have a problem with this idea at all. We're at the verge of taking human stem cells and turning them into bladders, livers and hearts. Everyone thinks this is a great idea. Grow your own organs! No more waiting on transplants! The idea is that those organs will be put in your body to keep you alive and to interact with your body chemistry.

Why, then, should I believe that we can create a functioning 4-chambered human heart, and not a chicken bicep that I could ingest? And not only that, but it could be delicious? That it could even...taste like chicken?

But again, most of this is conjecture. When they actually grow it up, they'll do a thorough comparison between the two and then we can argue about its relative merits. My feeling is that with growing population, world hunger, and the environmental concerns of livestock, the desire for "alternative food" may get to the point that alternative fuel is at today. Somebody is going to do this, and whoever does it will become very wealthy.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Copyright, Science Blog.
Think. It's not illegal yet. Read our Privacy Policy.
RoopleTheme