A comparison...

[tweety]

Here is another way of looking at this. The cost of any product or service is a reflection of the cost of the energy that went into creating that product or service. Every step of the way, from the direct energy or fuel for mining, growing, processing and transporting to the indirect, the employees, engineers, accountants, lawyers, advertisers etc. wages all of which goes to buy energy or products made with or from energy etc. At the root of the economy, we don't pay the earth to yield its bounty, we extract energy from it, and convert it into work and use that to make useful products. Even the cost of that energy is a reflection of the amount of energy it takes to get it into a useful format.

If you accept that, then the fact that fake meat costs multiple times more per kg, indicates that there is much more energy (directly or indirectly) that went into producing it than actual meat. Yet it is being marketed as an environmentally friendly alternative. For those who still "believe" that CO2 is bad, what are the full cycle CO2 emissions of fake meat? Total water use? How much more finite fossil fuels are being consumed to create a product to make it cost that much more? Beef can be( key word being can) produced using virtually no fossil fuels, can the same be said about fake meat?

Considering the demographic this is being marketed to, both consumer and producer look a lot like hypocrits.

Big difference between profitability of a product versus COP.

Enviro:

The team discovered that the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, and has 99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a quarter pound of U.S. beef. That means a 41-square-foot plot of land can produce just one beef burger for every 15 Beyond Burgers.

A spokesman for the brand explained that, by this assessment, Americans switching from beef to plant-based patties would be the equivalent of taking 12 million cars off the road for an entire year–or saving enough electricity to power 2.3 million homes.

Or:

While producing a Beyond Burger requires 99% less water, 93% land, 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 50% less energy than a 1/4lb beef burger, one Impossible Burger has been shown to save the equivalent of 75 square feet of land, half a tub of bathwater and 18 miles of emissions in a car, compared to a burger made from cows.

ARE THEY BETTER FOR THE EARTH?

Experts say reducing overall red meat consumption would be better for the planet. Beef is considered taxing on the environment because of the resources it takes to grow crops to feed cows. Cows also produce the greenhouse gas methane, mostly through burps .

Christopher Field, who is at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and who knows the founder of Impossible Foods, noted people don't have to give up meat entirely to make a difference, and that pork and chicken have much smaller environmental footprints than beef.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I am basing my assumptions on the prices today. If in the future those prices end up lower than beef, then my assumptions are wrong, and perhaps this is entirely collusion and monopoly today.

Otherwise, it is much like the renewable energy industry, as long as the end user costs continue to be higher than fossil fuels, one can only draw the conclusion that the EROEI is worse than fossil fuels

Time will tell, but I'm thinking that the analysis presented above is not considering the full life cycle of both. If it were, fake meat would be pennies compared to real meat.

[grassfarmer]

.... and that pork and chicken have much smaller environmental footprints than beef.

Talk about dumb statements.

The industrial pig or chicken that lives in a building it's whole life with all the electricity needed to cool/heat/light it, the materials needed to build the barn, every feed of it's life delivered to it mechanically - often grown provinces away using fossil fuel based agriculture. The fertiliser, spray, fuel, machinery and environmental impact of monoculture agriculture. Then there is the negative environmental impact of air and water pollution of concentrating animals so densely and the costs of hauling away and spreading the manure.
Neither species can have any beneficial impact by grazing land and sequestering carbon as they are housed and aren't ruminants.

You should maybe just have stopped at the claim that "pork and chicken have smaller footprints."

[furrowtickler]

this one explains a lot ..

[shtferbrains]

The field of course - where these cattle are being fattened.
[ATTACH]4584[/ATTACH]

Compared to the alternative
[ATTACH]4585[/ATTACH]

Two can play at this game and arguably those in primary ag production have never before had a better opportunity to influence the general public the way they do now through social media. I've had posts on Facebook shared over 100 times and videos viewed over 20,000 times. We're not all dumb in agriculture.

Is that a recent pasture seeding in the top pic?

Lots of Vetch.

[furrowtickler]

[grassfarmer]

Is that a recent pasture seeding in the top pic?

Lots of Vetch.

No was about 10 years old - takes a long time for that cicer to establish. Once it's there it lasts for ever apparently.

[tweety]

I am basing my assumptions on the prices today. If in the future those prices end up lower than beef, then my assumptions are wrong, and perhaps this is entirely collusion and monopoly today.

Otherwise, it is much like the renewable energy industry, as long as the end user costs continue to be higher than fossil fuels, one can only draw the conclusion that the EROEI is worse than fossil fuels

Time will tell, but I'm thinking that the analysis presented above is not considering the full life cycle of both. If it were, fake meat would be pennies compared to real meat.

So are you saying every product is priced according to the energy it takes to produce it? uhhhhh No. My buddy grows shrimp - for rich people in very upscale restaurants. Let me tell you, energy in has nothing to do with 100 some dollar a pound shrimp.

Yes, if a farmer sold it, it would be pennies compared to real meat. But real businesses aren't like farmers, they really like to make money.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So are you saying every product is priced according to the energy it takes to produce it? uhhhhh No. My buddy grows shrimp - for rich people in very upscale restaurants. Let me tell you, energy in has nothing to do with 100 some dollar a pound shrimp.

Yes, if a farmer sold it, it would be pennies compared to real meat. But real businesses aren't like farmers, they really like to make money.

Eventually, yes. As I said, to begin with, if this manufacturer has a monopoly, they will charge whatever the market will bear, which also has a lot to do with recouping R and D costs, which ultimately come down to energy spent designing/creating the product in the first place. In a functioning free market, if this manufacturer is making massive profits, someone else will always see the opportunities for profit, and undercut the first, and so on until the price approaches the cost of production.

And now, I'm off to do research into growing $100/lb shrimp, since I think I can grow and sell them for $80 and still make a hefty profit, until Grassfarmer reads this and starts producing them for $60...

[tweety]

No matter what, its going to put a serious dent in the beef market.

[makar]

Urbanites are stupid but also of limited income, will be interesting.