This argument isn’t convincing. By that guy’s own bio, he supports the CSIRO protein mission in Australia. Read the bio you linked and follow up - there are a whole bunch of non beef, non conventional proteins listed in his resume.
Anyway, the whole problem with lab grown meat from a chemical engineering perspective is that it has to be grown under clean room conditions like a pharmaceutical. Companies and people with pharmaceutical experience, precursor products, bioreactors would all benefit from lab grown meat taking off.
Find a bean salesman that is worried about the advent of lab meat and I’ll buy this line of argument. If you’ve discussed the substance of that article elsewhere please link.
The team used the emerging ‘net protein contribution’ concept to measure the quality and quantity of protein created by cattle compared to the protein they eat, looking at both grain-fed cattle and grass-fed cattle that may eat small amounts of grain.
They found typical Australian grain-fed beef production systems contribute almost twice the human- edible protein they consume, while grass-fed systems produce almost 1600 times.
It means the beef sector now has benchmark figures for the protein it contributes to the food supply, which will help track improvements and compare efficiency to other protein production systems when they are assessed using the method.
Red meat is often criticised as having a very large footprint, taking up land that could be used to grow crops for human food, or eating grain that humans could be eating instead, otherwise known as the ‘feed versus food debate’.
However, CSIRO livestock systems scientist Dr Dean Thomas said Australian beef production is efficient at converting both low quality protein in grains that humans can eat, as well as protein in grass that humans can’t eat, into high quality protein for human nutrition.
“Cattle are efficient upcyclers of grass and other feedstuffs not just in terms of the quality of protein they create. They contribute a greater amount of protein to our food system than is used in their production as well,” Dr Thomas said.
their own roadmap even has a disproportionate increase in meat production, and much of their plant based funding is going straight into the mouths of that cattle
if you want to read my previous posts, you can search it, im not going to research everything for you.
This argument isn’t convincing. By that guy’s own bio, he supports the CSIRO protein mission in Australia. Read the bio you linked and follow up - there are a whole bunch of non beef, non conventional proteins listed in his resume.
Anyway, the whole problem with lab grown meat from a chemical engineering perspective is that it has to be grown under clean room conditions like a pharmaceutical. Companies and people with pharmaceutical experience, precursor products, bioreactors would all benefit from lab grown meat taking off.
Find a bean salesman that is worried about the advent of lab meat and I’ll buy this line of argument. If you’ve discussed the substance of that article elsewhere please link.
re: supporting beef farming
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2021/December/CSIRO-sets-beef-benchmark-for-protein-production
https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/services/consultancy-strategic-advice-services/CSIRO-futures/Agriculture-and-Food/Australias-Protein-Roadmap
their own roadmap even has a disproportionate increase in meat production, and much of their plant based funding is going straight into the mouths of that cattle
if you want to read my previous posts, you can search it, im not going to research everything for you.