Print 60 comment(s) - last by BillyBatson.. on Aug 13 at 8:45 PM

He wants to use plant-based agriculture

Lab-grown meat may not sound as appealing as the real thing, but tech giants like Google's Sergey Brin have done it in an effort to find viable ways of feeding the world's population, and Microsoft is looking to do something similar. 

According to a new report from The Washington Post, Microsoft co-founder and chairman Bill Gates wants to back plant-based animal product replacements. The idea is to use plant-based agriculture, which uses fewer resources than the production of meat. 

Gates has already kick started this idea by investing in Hampton Farms, which is a food startup that makes plant protein-based substitutes for eggs.

The reason Gates wants to make plant-based versions of meat is because raising livestock traditionally has a vast impact on the environment. Beef farming has been criticized for increasing methane emissions, since cows are ruminants fermenting food during digestion and producing carbon gases as a waste byproduct. In fact, five percent of carbon dioxide emissions and forty percent of methane emissions come from beef farming. 

Traditional farming also requires a lot of land and water, and with the human population constantly growing; the traditional way just won't feed 9 billion people. Hence, lab-grown meat will serve as a substitute for the real deal. 

Google co-founder Sergey Brin has already made a $332,000 investment in lab-grown meat, which has been developed and tested. The end result was a hamburger with 20,000 muscle fibers cultured from the stem cells of living cows. The big issue is that the stem cells need fetal bovine serum in order to complete the process, and the serum costs $250 per liter -- requiring as many as three cow fetuses for the liter. 

Those who've tried the artificial meat have described it as close to the real thing and "cake-like." 

The project was led by researchers at the Maastricht Univ., The Netherland's biggest international college. 
"When you see how these cows are treated, it's certainly something I'm not comfortable with," said Brin. "[While the synthetic alternative] is really just proof of concept right now, we're trying to create the first cultured beef hamburger.  From there I'm optimistic that we can really scale by leaps and bounds."

Source: The Washington Post

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sounds great to me
By tayb on 8/7/2013 12:03:28 PM , Rating: 3
Beef farming is not sustainable long term. It takes up too much land, produces too much negative side effects, and costs too much food. There is a significant net loss of overall food supply to farm for beef.

It's incredibly expensive to grow right now but as populations increase and the availability of land does not increase the price for beef farming via cattle is going to rise rapidly anyway. If they can get the kinks worked out and solve mass production problems this is the only viable long term solution for beef. So long as people such as Brin and Gates continue funding these projects I have no doubt they'll solve these problems within 30-50 years. And we'll be much better off for it. Cut methane emissions, free up massive amounts of land for more productive developments (food or otherwise), and increase food supply all at the same time.

And at the end of the day the people who have tested this didn't have all that much to complain about. If the biggest critiques for the first generation product was a lack of salt in the cooking and the beef being too lean I would say they have done a pretty damn good job. Most people probably could not taste the difference and I'm sure over time they can produce different flavors with more or less fat.

This is great stuff. The kind of stuff we HAVE to do to sustain a growing population. The earth isn't getting any bigger.

RE: Sounds great to me
By tdktank59 on 8/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds great to me
By tayb on 8/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great to me
By DrizztVD on 8/7/2013 1:03:50 PM , Rating: 4
Gee, tough question. I suppose they'll live in the wild just as every other animal on this planet does?

Not the domesticated varieties no. They have been bred to be slow, bulky and juicy. You can try and re-introduce them into the wild, be my guest. The lion population will thank you, after they chewed off the very last bone from the last survivor of the herd.

No, the problem isn't that we should be giving up everything to make space for the growing population in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. Those countries need to be made to deal with their population growth problems. If we can reduce the world population size with birth control to about 5 Billion and then get everyone up to a good economic level. That would be perfect. But hey, don't ask me how to go about doing that.

RE: Sounds great to me
By TSS on 8/7/2013 4:15:56 PM , Rating: 3
Kill them all.

What? You know damn well that's the only awnser when talking population control or reduction. You're going to end up either forcefully sterilizing people or forcefully terminating their lives.

You can do what the chinese did, institute a 1 child policy. My mother always said "better the world start with yourself" so why doesn't america implement this policy? I'm sure you people are OK with the goverment telling you how many kids you can and cannot have, as you seem to wish it on others.

Oh the USA is not a third world country? Your financials say otherwise. But granted, if it isn't now, it certainly will be if africa or china develops to "first world" status. After all, the only reason you're rich now is because they are poor. If they are as rich as you, you are as poor as them.

No. The problem isn't the amount of people, the earth could handle 15 billion people with little problem. The problem is Accesability to food.

The US is a net exporter of food. Heck, my country with it's 17 million residents is the second largest agicultural exporter in the world! It's not that we don't know how to grow massive quanities of food. It the people in africa having to be able to afford shipping all that food to their country.

If we'd set up some massive irrigation projects in africa, use the humantairian aid we're already sending soley for that purpouse and all world hunger would virtually be gone. Know why that doesn't happen? Because if africa becomes a net exporter of food, they will directly compete with the USA and indeed, my own country. This means that unless we can offer lower prices, people will buy african food, lowering our income, lowering our standard of living, and in the end, causing famine here because we cannot afford to grow the food anymore.

The problem isn't food. The problem is what we humans consider valueble. Right now, we consider digital bits stored on a specific computer far more valueble then human life. That's what we call "money". If you don't have the right bits and bytes you can just go fuckin starve.

Good luck getting food in a "first world" country if you don't have any money. The only place you'll get it is in jail after you've been put there for preventing starvation, i mean, stealing other people's property.

RE: Sounds great to me
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2013 2:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
Cows would not survive in the wild.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2013 3:04:18 PM , Rating: 1
Cows would not survive in the wild.

Sure they would. Mankind has wiped out most of their natural predators. As long as they have a food and water source, which they would naturally, there's nothing stopping their populations from growing.

Cows aren't all that different than buffalo if you think about it, for the purposes of this topic. And it was said back in pioneer times, buffalo herds were so massive they covered entire landmasses.

RE: Sounds great to me
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2013 3:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Cows have plenty of natural predators where I live. They also have probably the lowest intellect of any mamal. A buffalo can actually run and protect itself.

Plus, you put a cow in the wild and people will hunt it.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2013 3:33:14 PM , Rating: 1
Nature finds a way man. Herds mitigate predators quite nicely. Cows with poor traits will die off, while those with ideal ones will pass those traits on. Adaptation and all that good stuff.

It's not like mankind invented the cow lol. They would do just fine on their own, they did before.

RE: Sounds great to me
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2013 3:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but current meat and dairy cows are extremely different from wild cattle. I've spent too much time around cows to think they are smart enough to survive anywhere but the mildest places. If I haven't said it before, they are incredibly dumb.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great to me
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2013 4:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Cows are like Down Syndrome mixed with Alzheimer's mixed with two strokes mixed with severe head trauma mixed with progressivism.

That's why they are so tasty.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Digimonkey on 8/7/2013 4:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why do we have to free the cows again? We could just have a limited number. There would still be a demand for real cow meat and dairy products.

India will still remain an issue regardless of going to synthetic beef though.

RE: Sounds great to me
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2013 4:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
We could just keep raising cows like we do now.

RE: Sounds great to me
By JonnyDough on 8/8/2013 12:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Without people, the wolves that we have reintroduced to national parks would quickly become predator 1.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Skywalker123 on 8/9/2013 8:06:46 AM , Rating: 3
Dude, ALL animals are incredibly dumb. Wtf? You think intelligence has a thing to do with survival?

you're right, you've made it thus far and you're dumb as a rock

RE: Sounds great to me
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/7/2013 4:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
They also have probably the lowest intellect of any mamal.
I don't know, TesterGuy sure puts up a good challenge to that notion.

RE: Sounds great to me
By JonnyDough on 8/8/2013 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
The dumbest mammals are human beings. We're the only one that destroys the environment, morphs viruses and bacteria that plague us into something even worse, and kills each other in such a way that threatens our own existence.

RE: Sounds great to me
By stilltrying on 8/7/2013 9:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
I dare you to hit a cow in your car. Let them go free, so we can hit every damn one of the stupid ones sitting out in the middle of the road. Whether daylight or nighttime, I guarantee that many will be hit and killed along with many people.

RE: Sounds great to me
By retrospooty on 8/7/2013 12:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Ok... so where are cows going to go if we are not eating them?"

Cloud storage... Where else ;)

I don't see how its unsustainable anyhow. It's been around a long time. If population grows much more, I could see this as growing in popularity as an additional source, but not as a replacement for real/natural meat.

RE: Sounds great to me
By toffty on 8/7/2013 3:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
Domesticated cows would probably go extinct.

But that's only on species of cow. Per year the extinction rate is about 0.01%/year or about 10,000 species a year.

Sure one extinction may be a tragety; one in ten thousand is a statistic.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds great to me
By tayb on 8/7/2013 12:38:10 PM , Rating: 3
Better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than press "Post Comment" and remove all doubt.

Heh, who are we kidding, there was never any doubt.

RE: Sounds great to me
By shmmy on 8/7/2013 1:34:32 PM , Rating: 1
The troll strikes again.

Once again you conservatives fail to see the big picture because you are too short sighted, or just ignorant. (Its not normal for me to use labels, but I decided to fight fire with fire. I think it is funny that you (and other Fox News watching mouth breathers) need to use them so you can automatically discredit a group of people based on your own small minded and ignorant ideals. Just so that you can justify your own silly thoughts of a past that will never be present, and does not work everywhere)

The United States is not the center of the universe. Many countries do not have the resources to provide beef at a reasonable cost to the general public. Right now in South America (that's the big chunk of land to our south with a bunch of "minorities" on it) is cutting down rain forest to create land for cows to feed. (thats a bad thing)

Simple facts about cows
Cows require 100's of gallons of water that many areas can not provide. They also produce methane that is something like 9x stronger of a green house gas then C02. (ICE emissions) Only in the past few years have farms started to harness the solid waste of cows to produce fuel and power their farms, however most farms do not do that so the gas just escapes into the atmosphere. (also a bad thing)

Enjoy living in ignorance jerk. :)

To save me from writing another post on a side note. What will we do if we stop eating cows? STOP BREEDING THEM! We breed our cows, they do not just roam free and reproduce on their own. If we stopped breeding them the large population would die off at some point.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great to me
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2013 3:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
There are so many square miles of arable land, as well as farmable land in places like Patagonia, Alaska and Canada that are not being used at all.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Ammohunt on 8/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great to me
By FaaR on 8/7/2013 8:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Lol modern civilization hasn't even existed for ONE century yet, much less several. You'll have to wait for the 2050s to celebrate the first centennial for something that somewhat approximates life of today.

Oh and btw, plenty of signs of peaking, if you just bother checking for them instead of holding hands over your mouth, eyes and ears in a speak/see/hear no evil monkey-style.

So in other words, Reclaimer typing out of his rear end again, as usual! ;)

RE: Sounds great to me
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/7/2013 12:56:06 PM , Rating: 3
And you are saying that growing vegetables take less land and produces no side-effects? You think that vegetable farming is cheap and has no environmental impact?

Look at the differences in land space required for the following:

Cattle ranch
Chicken farm
Pig farm
Vegetable (corn, wheat, soybean, etc) farm
Dairy farm

Which are larger? How often do you see cattle ranches, chicken/pig farms or dairy farms taking up 1000-2000 or more acres? How much fertilizer do you think it takes to fertilize a 2000+ farm? For environmental impact what about pesticides use so all those crops are not eaten by bugs. What about all the diesel fuel the farm equipment needs to run?

Now let's look at what it takes to turn these crops into synthetic meat. What chemicals do you need to add to those vegetables to make them simulate meat protein? Who has done the long term studies on what effects these additives will have on the population? When I say long-term I am talking about 20-50 year studies. All that can be done today with this technology is to do short term studies and extrapolate (guess) what the long term health effects would be.

Your last statement is the key to solving this.

The kind of stuff we HAVE to do to sustain a growing population. The earth isn't getting any bigger.

The problem is you are looking at it from the wrong direction. We should be working toward reducing our population rather than enabling it to get even larger. Problem is that humanity is pretty poor at accepting or implementing controls on its basic desire to reproduce.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2013 2:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is you are looking at it from the wrong direction. We should be working toward reducing our population rather than enabling it to get even larger. Problem is that humanity is pretty poor at accepting or implementing controls on its basic desire to reproduce.

Population growth rates for several advanced nations are currently at all time lows, some in the negative like the UK. America is at 1%, it's lowest in decades.

World population growth is hovering around 1.8%. Also extremely low.

And you're talking about population controls, euthanasia (presumably), and our population problem? There IS no problem.

I just don't understand why you people need to parrot this incorrect talking point over and over again. Do you even do research, or just take whomevers word for it?

And the good news is as more and more nations become developed, growth rates will slow even more due to healthcare availability, contraceptive access, and more people in good economic situations choosing to have smaller families.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Etsp on 8/7/2013 3:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
Euthanasia is not a form of population control. It damn well never should be. It should be the last resort of the already dying who are in pain, or those who are so physically disabled they have nothing to live for (locked-in syndrome as an example).

You assume that a typical democrat would think that euthanasia is an acceptable method of population control.

I think you need to start talking to democrats in your area face to face instead of arguing with them on the internet. Look for common ground. Your perspective of the left is totally inaccurate, and it's causing you to become an extremist.

Are there people who call themselves democrats that would support euthanasia as population control? Probably. There are crazy extremists everywhere, especially on the internet where they can be loud all out of proportion.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2013 5:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
oops my bad. I meant to type eugenics, I don't know why "euthanasia" came out. Sorry. WTF can't we have an edit feature already!?

But really? That's all you had to say in response? I would rather people focus on all the facts I brought up in terms of land usage and populations growth rates, instead of ideology.

I think you need to start talking to democrats in your area face to face

You assume I don't, why?

Your perspective of the left is totally inaccurate

My perspective COMES from the Left and the things they profess. It's not my fault their views don't put them in a flattering light.

Look for common ground.

Unfortunately that is exceedingly difficult. I happen to think the Constitution still matters, and should be enforced. I believe in liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, and a limited federal Government.

RE: Sounds great to me
By JonnyDough on 8/8/2013 12:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, mostly with your last paragraph. We need to reduce our numbers to a more sustainable number. We don't need to use up every last acre of nature in our quest to meet the demands of growth. People need to understand a few things:

1) We are animals also.

2) We are top of the land food chain, and as such we have a duty to control our own numbers if we wish to sustain ourselves and protect other species - which we rely on. We even get medicines from poisonous creatures that live in a single we really need to realize that nature provides for us and we didn't create jack crap without it, so we must protect it. We rise from nature, and so does everything that we invent. Without nature, we do not exist. We cannot live with nothing but farmland. Even our farms depend on nature for sustainability. Bees, clean water, and trees all play a part in producing a good crop. Trees block wind, water must be clean for plants, and bees pollinate. Without the ecological cycles in nature none of this is possible. We have to recognize the turning point from early development of a largely untapped wilderness to an overdeveloped urban sprawl, and scale back when necessary to find a balance of both - for nature, but also for our own sustainability.

RE: Sounds great to me
By TheEinstein on 8/7/2013 12:59:29 PM , Rating: 4
clearly you do not get around much.

I drive the Continental 48 and Canada. The vastness of our two nations is incomprehensible to you. There are vast fields with nothing but grass growing on them, vast acres and miles of piss poor forests.

The world is no where near maxing food out. If we were closer some forests would be replaced with Apple trees, Pear Tree's and the likes. If we were yet closer then we would capture water with condensation in the humid south and transport it via pipe to the Midwest where we could grow so much more foods.

If we got closer yet then we could farm the world. Right now most of the world is not under farm. In fact only a very small portion is under farm. Further we could make yards into personal gardens.

We are so far from any sort of running out of space or of food as to beggar YOUR imagination.

RE: Sounds great to me
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2013 3:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
You dont even have to reduce the number of the trees in the world to feed everyone.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2013 3:18:33 PM , Rating: 1
You dont even have to reduce the number of the trees in the world to feed everyone.

Sure you do! Aren't you reading these wacko Liberals posts? Entire rainforests have been and are being cleared, as we speak, to make room for farming!!!


RE: Sounds great to me
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2013 3:27:23 PM , Rating: 3
While the rainforests are dwindling, it is being done in an innefective and poorly regulated way. I mean, how much soy are they growing in Brazil?

RE: Sounds great to me
By w8gaming on 8/7/2013 10:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there are still plenty of unused lands all over the world. But still, the food price has been skyrocketing and economist is blaming there is not enough food output to meet rising demand as the cause. And those unused lands with nothing but grass or wild jungle? They might be serving some ecological functions for wild life. In my view it is always best to start and plan early instead of ignoring the population issue until there is riots in the street. But as others have noticed, the population growth in most of the first world country is actually close to zero at the moment, high population growth actually comes from poorer countries and there are political barrier to solve issue such as this. But still, how would meat farming a good answer to this problem? Trying to make artificial food seems to be trying to address the root cause in the wrong way. Artificial food is a good solution to space exploration problem, not really about population growth.

RE: Sounds great to me
By FITCamaro on 8/7/2013 12:59:48 PM , Rating: 3
The only thing raising the price of beef right now is ethanol and ridiculous "emissions" regulations (because even crap needs to be regulated now).

On what basis is beef farming not sustainable? The land use? America has a crap ton of unused land. Try looking at a damn population map. Less than 10% of land in the US is being used by the population. We have plenty of room to let cows roam.

Food costs? You don't have to feed cows anything other than grass. They do to fatten them up quicker. And again because of ethanol, they are resorting to things like candy to feed them because actual feed is getting so expensive. More cows in the US would lessen the need for fattening them up faster than grass allows.

We produce plenty of food to feed the world. Even with liberals ending farming in places like California to save a non-indigenous fish. All we need to do is lower the price of fresh water using nuclear power and desalinization plants. Know what that means? Jobs. But those are evil unless its a government job to this administration.

RE: Sounds great to me
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2013 2:21:19 PM , Rating: 3
Fun fact: America (and other developed nations) throw away annually about half (50%) of all meat sold/delivered.

Half! Let that sink in for a minute in regards to the discussion.

Humans only occupy about 1% of the land mass on Earth. The amount of land required to keep us fed is infinitesimally small. Population growth rate? Just 1.1%!

Yet here we have Liberals rehashing the same failed ideological assaults dating back to the 1950's about population growth, humans running out of land, and the inability to feed our numbers. ALL of these have been proven wrong and wrong again. Anyone using these talking points is a certifiable moron and should be ignored.

If you want to eat artificial meat, fine, just do it and shut up. But don't sit here and make a political statement about it. And don't use outright lies and fabrications to back them up.

RE: Sounds great to me
By cfaalm on 8/7/2013 6:04:59 PM , Rating: 3
Fun fact: America (and other developed nations) throw away annually about half (50%) of all meat sold/delivered.

It has even been stated in a documentary (The Taste Of Waste) that the waste of food in developed countries (USA and Europe mainly), if well distributed, could more than feed the ones in hunger now. So right now there isn't a shortage problem as well as a distribution problem. Now before we go on producing more food, we'd better find a way to get it to the right place.

This will put away with the discussion on lab meat vs real cattle for now. Later on we will eventually face the question if we need such technology, if it is world population or living on Mars. Plant based protein or lab meat vs real cattle. If the new technology becomes economically feasible both will exist for some time to come.

RE: Sounds great to me
By w8gaming on 8/7/2013 10:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you expand the hunger issue to the whole world then it is not as simple as it is. Can United States make enough food to feed the whole world? The hunger issue really is a world problem, not just limited to a single country. You are correct to think that we are not running out of space for food that soon. Other problem will hit us sooner, and the most obvious problem is oil and energy. There is also issue such as drinkable water, raw materials etc. Food is merely one aspect of the population issue. A lot of lands are being converted to energy and biofuel purpose now which effectively reduce the amount of farmable lands available.

RE: Sounds great to me
By japlha on 8/7/2013 1:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's good to develop more efficient ways of making food. If we figure out how to colonize other planets or live in space then these methods could be useful. But without addressing population control it's a ticking time bomb.
Any kind of farming is unsustainable given a population that can grow without any restrictions. The population can be controlled by us or the planet will control it for us. I don't think we want the planet doing it.

RE: Sounds great to me
By HammerFan on 8/7/2013 2:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
so beef farming isn't sustainable to feed 10 billion people? Ok, probably so. Food yields per acre are the highest that they have ever been for just about every type of farming, and isn't likely to improve much going forward.

This development (assuming it makes it to commercial scale) will take that level a LOT higher. Here's the most important question about it that everyone seems to be missing: is that a good thing? Everyone assumes that it is, but picture this: If five to ten facilities in the world are producing protein for consumption (note, I did not say beef because this is NOT beef) and just ONE is eliminated through natural or man-made disaster, what does that do to the global food supply?

Beef farming will continue to exist in spite of this development because there will always be people who want the real thing. Its the same reason that I can sell finish-weight cows to local customers now at a premium over supermarket beef.

I do take issue with the "free up land for more productive developments" bit. I don't know if there's a study to reference for hard numbers, but in my experience farms that get sold are NOT used for agricultural purposes. Usually they are subdivided and turn into suburbia. Hardly a "productive" use of space.

Easily the largest threat to farming isn't technology. Its cost: someone wanting to get into farming usually can't afford it. A quick search indicates that the median price of farmland in Kansas (not where I live, I'm in VA) to be about $3k/acre. A small farm of about 100 acres @ $300k, plus equipment (50-200k, depending on what you're growing), plus buying a herd (or seed, fertilizer, etc), and you're pushing nearly $500k in capital expense. On a farm that size, you might make $50k/year gross (my number, based on this year's cattle sales). subtract recurring expenses (fuel, fertilizer, etc) and that number gets very small, very fast. Larger farms have a lower debt:income ratio, which is part of the reason corporate farms have become increasingly common.
source for land price:

Ironically, this technology might be just in time to stop a massive agricultural train-wreck compounded by the cost issue. Currently, the average age of a farmer in the United States is in the mid-50s. Who is going to replace them if nobody (except corporations) can afford it?

RE: Sounds great to me
By w8gaming on 8/7/2013 9:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
A more important problem is that Earth is not getting any bigger to sustain human population growth forever. It is not just meat, it is everything else such as energy usage, room to live, clean water to drink etc. While population growth is good for economy, but we might have to start thinking of how to create a society where low or even stagnant growth is the norm, with almost zero inflation but yet avoiding the wealth hoarding issue that come with it. A long term solution to the human population growth issue will likely have to come from space exploration or general awareness of how population growth is impacting our environment and future generations. Such key concepts may have to be educated to our youth in school.

Meanwhile, a simpler solution to solve the meat farming problem is just to eat more green and less cheeseburger.

RE: Sounds great to me
By brasstax on 8/8/2013 11:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
Red meat may not be most efficient way to feed the world, but I'm fairly sure the most efficient producers of beef are cows.

This seems more like a bleeding-heart project than a worthwhile humanitarian venture. If Protein for the masses is the goal, the sea is the obvious answer.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki