Posted on 03/06/2013 12:48:35 PM PST by Red Badger
The next time youre about to bite into a hamburger, take a moment to consider the resources that went into making it. In a recent Solve for X talk, Andras Forgacs laid out all the statistics, and explained how tantalizingly close we are to a more sustainable method of meat production. Basically, humanity may soon be 3D printing meat instead of growing it in an animal.
Forgacs starts by explaining just how costly a single quarter-pound beef patty is to produce. For that one serving, 6.7lbs of grains, 600 gallons of water, and 75 square feet of grazing land were used. Now multiply that by 1000 to find your (approximate) impact the average American eats over 220lbs of meat each year. Additionally, at least 18% of greenhouse gas emissions are due to meat production. All this for one burger?
As economic opportunities continue to lift populations around the world into the middle class, demand for meat is rising. With 7 billion people on the planet, we are sustained by 60 billion land animals. When the population hits 9 billion somewhere around 2050 we would need 100 billion land animals. That would be ecologically devastating, so something has to change.
Advances in bioengineering have been able to produce meat analogs, but the process has always been stupendously expensive, and the results were only passable. It turns out that its actually very difficult to match the taste and texture of animal muscle tissue by growing cells in the lab. The marbling of fats and connective tissue is integral to the experience of eating a burger.
Applying 3D printing to artificial meats could be the answer, according to Forgacs. If you take tissue engineering and add in some 3D printing, you get the burgeoning field of bioprinting. Researchers are working with cell aggregates as the medium in bioprinting (as opposed to plastics in regular 3D printing). Layer after layer of cells can be laid down to more closely resemble the genuine article. Researchers can basically build a block of muscle that never lived.
So maybe its going to be possible to make artificial meat that feels and tastes like the real deal, but what about cost? Well, Forgacs concedes that it does still cost a few thousand dollars to make a pound of meat in the lab. Unless youre seeking the most expensive burger in the world, thats no good. Still, the cost of real meat is inevitably going up and the printed stuff will become cheaper as economies of scale kick in. The process right now is taking place in a research lab, not a large production facility.
Printed meats will eventually become cost-competitive with the dead animal kind. Until then, we may all have to take a closer look at what were eating.
"Mmmmmmmm, 3D Printed Meat."
I dunno, Picard never had much good to say about the food from the replicators. Ketchup and A-1 sales will skyrocket.
I’m not going to pay attention until I can get a neat synthahol on the holodeck.
Print me a cheeseburger, please, and a side of fries............
Bunk.
Steak, yes.
Burger, no.
LOL, Steve Miller is going to have to update “Living in the USA”
“Somebody print me a cheeseburger.”
That is just SO WRONG...
Soylent Green?
To get a good burger, you have to have a minimum of fats to make it nicely flavorful and run-down-your-arms juicy........
Not really, this ‘meat’ never lived.............
you mean no more horsemeat at the local drivethru burger palace?
is NOTHING sacred anymoe!?
Who has the ‘Foodie’ ping list?..........
Soylent Green?
I never understood the object behind ‘synthahol’. What good is it if it doesn’t make you drunk?...........
Eh...no thanks. Since we’ve already got all kinds of animals made of meat running around I don’t see the need to make fake meat.
Would spaghetti have to go through the shredder first?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.