You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I think that the Mars colony, rather than going to all the trouble of producing real meat is much more likely to follow the lab meat option:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -meat.html
Another 20 years of development of this technology and it will probably be ready for implementation on Mars. One plus of course is that you won't have to deal with the issue of muscle wastage in animals in the low gravity environment on Mars (it's one thing to get humans to exercise and wear weighted suits - quite another trying to get animals to do that!).
Mars might actually bring in laws to prevent animal exploitation - with only animals allowed to roam freely and live a "wild existence" being culled for meat.
That introduces another issue - hunting would be pretty dangerous in a pressurised air environment...perhaps we would see the return of bow and arrow and spear?
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Was there any meantion of time to product, costs to produce and setup overhead amounts needed for each growing cycle....
Offline
I am not sure "growing cycle" is quite the right term. More like a production process. I do know that part of the problem is that to get meat-like "muscle" you need to stress the lab meat in the same way animal muscle gets stressed. So it is definitely a complex process.
On Mars, though, even if your lab meat burger cost 100 dollars it might be worth it if it costs 500 dollars to import one from Earth or 1000 dollars to provide a domed structure within which to raise cattle.
I do recall the meat is v. expensive now...we are talking thousands of dollars per burger but that is prior to mass production.
Was there any meantion of time to product, costs to produce and setup overhead amounts needed for each growing cycle....
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Obviously the author is not in touch with reality regarding the cost and infrastructure required for this project. Based on my experience with
growing genetically engineered proteins, the cost would certainly exceed that of importing and caring for various livestock. The current level of production is mere grams of most GMO products for a final product, although doing the modification of seeds is done differently. There is just TOO MUCH TO GO WRONG in this approach. Bringing all the necessary amino acids to Mars in order to grow synthetic meat is a pathetic idea. Just serve up the aminos in a shake and be done with it.
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-08-27 10:14:57)
Offline
Quoting the article linked in the initial post
While generating one calorie from beef requires 23 calories in feed, Memphis Meats plans to produce a calorie of meat from just three calories in inputs.
That's the key thing. Don't get me wrong, I eat meat. But we have an exponentially increasing population on planet Earth. Population has already grown far beyond what can be supported by hunter-gatherer. Agriculture is absolutely necessary to support the population. In fact, world population has already grown so much that traditional agriculture with horse-drawn plows and seeds from 2 thousand years ago will not produce enough food. We require genetically modified foods, chemical fertilizers, and heavy machinery such as combine harvesters and tractors. We're rapidly approaching food production limit using these techniques.
And to make matters worse, in the US, corn is used to produce vehicle fuel. Using corn to produce ethanol is not efficient. I've argued to use biodiesel, per acre it's a lot more efficient. Mr. Diesel produced his engine to allow farmers to grow fuel on their farm; this was to allow them to move from horses or other animals to modern industrial equipment. Today diesel engines are too finely tuned to use vegetable oil directly, but biodiesel is produced by treating vegetable oil with lye (sodium hydroxide) and methanol. Canola was developed for optimal growth in Canada's climate, so I argue to grow that here. I want a single device about the size of a shed that would take canola seeds directly from the combine harvester, process them to produce vegetable oil. Then take some canola straw, ferment to produce methanol. Take some more canola straw, burn as the heat source to distill methanol. Then percolate water through the ash to produce lye. There are all your inputs. the same device would then process those to produce biodiesel. The process removes glycerine from vegetable oil, so the byproduct is high glycerine soap, used as the base for fancy hand-made soap. The farm could either use that themselves, or sell it as an additional product. Design the shed with a solar panel, small windmill, and battery so the shed is entirely self-sufficient. Size this to produce all the fuel a single farm needs for all its heavy equipment. That would disconnect agriculture from the petroleum industry. That means food prices will not be affected by oil prices. Two major farm equipment manufacturers have already merged: Case and International Harvester are now known as Case IH. They already produce tractors, combine harvesters, etc fuelled by 100% biodiesel.
Biodiesel has a problem: when winter temperatures are too cold, it gels, won't flow through fuel lines. "Cloud point" is the temperature where it clogs a fuel filter. Soybean biodiesel cloud point is +1°C, pour point is 0°C. Canola cloud point is 0°C, pour point -9°C. That means if you redesign the fuel filter, you can use 100% canola biodiesel down to -9°C. You can blend biodiesel with petroleum diesel, the colder outside temperature is, the more petroleum diesel you need. The electric utility in this province (Manitoba Hydro) does this with all their vehicles. B20 blend of soy biodiesel and No. 1 diesel has a cloud point of -31.8°C. But farms don't operate below -9°C, they operate in summer. Some biodiesel uses "dirty" cooking oil from restaurants, so it includes animal fat. Tallow cloud point is +12..+17°C, pour point is +6°C. So this argues for farm equipment to use pure biodiesel made from seed, not used cooking oil.
Some who argue to ensure we have enough food for the planet's growing population have argued against using food crops for vehicle fuel. I just argued in favour of biodiesel. It's far more efficient than corn, but does still take agricultural land. And canola requires nitrogen fertilizer, and a lot of it.
The point of this post is food production for an ever increasing planetary population. We can't continue the way do things now. We have to find ways to produce more food on less land. Producing 1 calorie of meat from 3 calories of inputs instead of 23, is a great way to improve efficiency.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-08-27 16:40:46)
Offline
Sorry guy's but I am being reminded of a shock movie of the early 70's in one soylent green....where the supply of protein matching the known production can only come from yup you guessed it "human corpses".....where yesterday grampa and grandma becomes food in your future....
If the energy use was truely so low then I would agree but its still got along ways to go with there fuzzy numbers....
Offline
It doesn't take much to seriously reduce the cloud point of diesel fuel. The best additive I found for doing so in 21 years of ranching in Wyoming is pure Toluene. My John Deere tractors had 35 gallon fuel tanks or a reason: that's a daily work shift running the engines at maximum power output. They had a fuel consumption of ~ 4 gph doing heavy work, and not just being driven around. In the winter in Wyoming, even using #1 Diesel was problematic at zero degrees F, or -20 degrees C. I found by experiment that addition of ~ 1 quart of pure Toluene to the fuel generally solved the problem down to minus 20 degrees F or even lower with a bit more Toluene. On Mars, Toluene can be synthesized from the CO2 atmosphere. Other point is Toluene is 100% miscible with diesel fuel, and probably with biodiesel.
Offline
Pages: 1