Tag: meat

manufactured burgers

in vitro meat

In vitro meat. Image from the New York Times

Last week, the New York Times brought news of an upcoming burger taste test in London. Scientists have been hard at work developing new lab grown meat that they hope to turn into hamburger patties.

Dr. Post, one of a handful of researchers in the field, has made strides in developing cultured meat through the use of stem cells — precursor cells that can turn into others that are specific to muscle, for example — and techniques adapted from medical research for growing tissues and organs, a field known as tissue engineering. (Indeed, Dr. Post, a physician, considers himself first and foremost a tissue engineer, and about four-fifths of his time is dedicated to studying how to build blood vessels.)

Yet growing meat in the laboratory has proved difficult and devilishly expensive. Dr. Post, who knows as much about the subject as anybody, has repeatedly postponed the hamburger cook-off, which was originally expected to take place in November.

His burger consists of about 20,000 thin strips of cultured muscle tissue. Dr. Post, who has conducted some informal taste tests, said that even without any fat, the tissue “tastes reasonably good.” For the London event he plans to add only salt and pepper.

But the meat is produced with materials — including fetal calf serum, used as a medium in which to grow the cells — that eventually would have to be replaced by similar materials of non-animal origin. And the burger was created at phenomenal cost — 250,000 euros, or about $325,000, provided by a donor who so far has remained anonymous. Large-scale manufacturing of cultured meat that could sit side by side with conventional meat in a supermarket and compete with it in price is at the very least a long way off.

The scientists hope to be able to preview the meat in a taste test sometime this year.

eating meat helped our brains evolve

From Christopher Wanjek in the Washington Post:

At the core of this research is the understanding that the modern human brain consumes 20 percent of the body’s energy at rest, twice that of other primates. Meat and cooked foods were needed to provide the necessary calorie boost to feed a growing brain.

One study, published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined the brain size of several primates. For the most part, larger bodies have larger brains across species. Yet humans have exceptionally large, neuron-rich brains for our body size, while gorillas — three times as massive as humans — have smaller brains with one-third the neurons. Why?

The answer, it seems, is the gorillas’ raw, vegan diet (devoid of animal protein), which requires hours upon hours of eating to provide enough calories to support their mass.

Researchers from Brazil, led by Suzana Herculano-Houzel, a neuroscientist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, calculated that adding neurons to the primate brain comes at a fixed cost of approximately six calories per billion neurons.

For gorillas to evolve a humanlike brain, they would need an additional 733 calories a day, which would require two more hours of feeding, the authors wrote. A gorilla already spends as much as 80 percent of the tropics’ 12 hours of daylight eating.

Tell your vegetarian friends to chew on that.

how much meat did cavemen eat?

It turns out that cavemen might not have chomped away on gigantic bison burgers as we often think.  It had been estimated that protein intake made up 60-80 percent of the caveman’s diet.  A new study suggests that this is wrong as only about 45 percent of the modern diet consists of protein. And that is protein of any type, not just from meat.  From Scientific American:

 [M]any studies estimate that between 60 and 80 percent of the prehistoric human diet came from proteins, with most of that from animal sources.

That was surprising because no more than 45 percent of modern diets come from protein of any type.

That contradiction led O’Connell to wonder if the offset was wrong because it relied on animal estimates, not humans.

To find out, her team took human blood samples from a study where scientists meticulously re-created people’s usual diets, measured exactly how much they ate over a week, and took precise samples of each meal. By comparing the nitrogen isotope ratios in the food and human blood samples, they were able to estimate how much heavy nitrogen the human body stores. (They then extrapolated their estimate for blood samples to human hair and to bone.)

Previous estimates based on animal studies were too small and thus inflated how much animal protein our ancient ancestors ate, she said.

Instea
“We are suggesting that animal proteins would be less important overall and that’s particularly true for interpretations of Neolithic farmers,” she said. “What that would mean is that they are having more of a balance of animal and plant proteins in their diet, suggestive of a mixed existence strategy.”d, the first farmers, who lived around 12,000 years ago, likely ate no more than 40  to 50 percent of their protein from animal sources. Those people ate a diet more similar to subsistence farmers in modern-day India or China, O’Connell said. Hunter-gatherers from the Paleolithic period also ate less meat, she added.

//psockapa.net/4/4535925