"To put that in perspective, Solar Foods explains that the newly-built factory’s bioreactor can grow the same amount of Solein protein per day as a 300-cow dairy farm would produce milk protein"
Is your complaint that they don't specify the micro-organism?
Well they say "Solein, protein out of thin air, is not a plant nor an animal. It originates from a natural, non-modified, single-cell organism" so my guess is that the specific micro-organism is a trade secret to protect their business, not because it's like, people. But you could always email them to ask. Maybe it is people.
The problem as I understand it with bacteria as food is they have too much nucleic acid. When eaten this produces uric acid (from the purines) and the fear is an excess of that could lead to gout and kidney stones.
Cheese can be a problem for gout; yoghurt not so much because it isn't as protein dense. The "biggies" for gout are seafood, red meat and turkey, red wine and beer (generally best to avoid alcohol) and legumes. I've also found that high sugar diets are bad including fresh fruit and juices.
I imagine that cheese and yogurt are significantly less than 100% bacteria. I couldn't find any easy numbers, but if I had to guess, it's less than 10% by mass for cheese.
It might be like the biofuel from C. necator where it expels the output into the surrounding fluid so it can be harvested without the bacteria needing to be most of the final product. Although, they do mention "macronutrient composition of the cells" so maybe it is the whole bacteria included.
I'm somewhat curious how this compares energy-wise to other carbon capture technologies. When the byproduct is food, you could justify using it for that purpose even if quite inefficient, as you can save the energy that would otherwise be used to produce that food.
The carbon isn't captured if it's released somewhere else in the cycle: in this case it will be released after it's eaten.
Nothing in the article mentioned the nutrition of the product. It seems only to have been used in snack bars and chocolate blocks which is "sometimes food".
Yeah that's what I was thinking: 2 birds with one stone. However much CO2 removal is taking place, it's gotta be better than not having it taking place. My question would be: if we were to produce enough of this stuff to replace, say, Soy protein then would we need additionl CCS or CDR?
> My question would be: if we were to produce enough of this stuff to replace, say, Soy protein then would we need additionl CCS or CDR?
The global per capita CO2 production is under 5 tons per year [1] so assuming people ate 5 kg of the stuff a day and it was pure carbon by mass, it'd be a bit more than third of the CO2 emitted.
You really want to trust some random internet comment with this? Maybe wait a few months (or years) before trying some strange synthetic experimental food.
People have different reactions to different kinds of proteins. So just asking is a good idea to see what the general reaction or opinion is. You don't need to follow it just but information is information bad or good.
The competition isn't animal farming. The competition is soy beans. Replacing animals with a vegan alternative is an economic problem in that chicken is incredibly cheap to produce. And a social problem, because bacon tastes good and whole countries full of people need to be taught otherwise.
It’s not “competition” it’s another protein source being added to the market. I might think it’s a stretch to even say Beyond Burgers are competing with beef.
Adding non-animal protein sources to the market will lower the demand of animal proteins in aggregate when people consume them.
I disagree. The product is extremely similar to processed soy beans. Anything you can do with it, you can already do with soy beans. Adding what is essentially a new variety of soy bean onto the market will not affect demand for animal proteins one iota (unlike, say, Quinoa when it hit western supermarkets). Even if it can be produced cheaper than soy beans, that will mean cheaper animal feed and cheaper meat.
"Solein is 65-70 % protein, 5-8 % fat (primarily unsaturated fats), 10-15 % dietary fibres and 3-5 % mineral nutrients. The macronutrient composition of the cells is very similar to that of dried soy or algae. Solein provides iron, fibre and B vitamins.
While protein is found in both plant and animal-based foods, edible proteins are not all the same. They are made up of different combinations of amino acids and are characterised by the ratio and amount of essential amino acids they have.
Solein contains all of the nine essential amino acids that are required by the human body."
The FDA wouldn't let them label it with any protein if it wasn't complete. We already have a laundry list of CO2 consuming creatures that are complete protein sources. And theirs is new and proprietary. So it's gotta be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-cell_protein#Microorgan...
Protein is listed in the nutrition facts all over the world. What GP is saying is that for Solein to be advertised and labeled as a protein it has to be a complete protein. This seems fairly accurate believable, but I know there are protein powders that are not complete proteins (typically not sold in grocery stores though)
If it has a similar profile to soy or algae like they claim it is a complete protein, or else that’s a false statement.
Presumably it would be from ammonia, fixed artificially, just as it often is with crops grown the ordinary way. It would probably convert the nitrogen to protein more efficiently.
I meant the proximate energy source. Are the organisms photosynthetic? Or is solar energy converted to something else? For example, is PV used to make electricity that then powers the microorganisms (by providing them with reduced metal ions they can oxidize)? Or is a chemical energy source synthesized, say methanol as was used for ICI's Pruteen (although that process sourced the methanol from natural gas)?
The rate of growth is dropping, but that doesn't mean the population hasn't stopped rising. As an analogy, a car that is slowing down is still moving forward.
I do not think that is true. Many nations have birthrates under the magical 2.1 required for population maintenance. I have not seen stats that say we are something like 2.6->2.5.
This site[0] says Global birthrate is around 17.3. However, it has been dropping ~1% a year. It was 19.3 in 2014 and today it is 17.3. So indeed growing more slowly, but a strong trendline downwards.
OP said: growth is declining in response to the copy about an “ever growing population”
I said: we will add about 3.5b then level off, implying that the population, for all intents and purposes, is ever growing
You said: but maybe it’s not 3.5b!
I said: in the context of “ever growing” what’s the difference?
I stand by that comment. Adding 2.5b in the next 26 years or 4.5b can both be considered “ever growing”.
That the population level will dramatically level off at that point is not in dispute.
Absent some extinction level event which will render solar foods ability to produce protein irrelevant I really don’t see why the choice of model has an impact on my point.
Props to the marketer who wrote this article and never once said what organism it is. Do the investors even know?
My guesses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_bioreactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-cell_protein#Microorgan...
Apparently a hydrogen-oxidising bacterium known as Cupriavidus Necator, per https://allfed.info/images/pdfs/Food_in_space_from_hydrogen_...
(I would never have found this before AI search)
It says that it's a biorecator:
"To put that in perspective, Solar Foods explains that the newly-built factory’s bioreactor can grow the same amount of Solein protein per day as a 300-cow dairy farm would produce milk protein"
Is your complaint that they don't specify the micro-organism?
Yes. Bacteria? Fungi? Yeast? Algae? GMO hybrid of all four? It's weird. Are they even going to tell the customers? I didn't find a single clue online.
Well they say "Solein, protein out of thin air, is not a plant nor an animal. It originates from a natural, non-modified, single-cell organism" so my guess is that the specific micro-organism is a trade secret to protect their business, not because it's like, people. But you could always email them to ask. Maybe it is people.
Solein Green
Human stem cells are pretty easy to make now, so...
Solein Green
The problem as I understand it with bacteria as food is they have too much nucleic acid. When eaten this produces uric acid (from the purines) and the fear is an excess of that could lead to gout and kidney stones.
Why isn’t this a problem with cheese or yogurt?
Cheese can be a problem for gout; yoghurt not so much because it isn't as protein dense. The "biggies" for gout are seafood, red meat and turkey, red wine and beer (generally best to avoid alcohol) and legumes. I've also found that high sugar diets are bad including fresh fruit and juices.
I imagine that cheese and yogurt are significantly less than 100% bacteria. I couldn't find any easy numbers, but if I had to guess, it's less than 10% by mass for cheese.
Wouldn’t you do a lot of processing to anything made out of bacteria? Are nucleic acids hard to remove?
NileRed extracts DNA from strawberries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SGmDBZyqY8
It might be like the biofuel from C. necator where it expels the output into the surrounding fluid so it can be harvested without the bacteria needing to be most of the final product. Although, they do mention "macronutrient composition of the cells" so maybe it is the whole bacteria included.
I'm somewhat curious how this compares energy-wise to other carbon capture technologies. When the byproduct is food, you could justify using it for that purpose even if quite inefficient, as you can save the energy that would otherwise be used to produce that food.
The carbon isn't captured if it's released somewhere else in the cycle: in this case it will be released after it's eaten.
Nothing in the article mentioned the nutrition of the product. It seems only to have been used in snack bars and chocolate blocks which is "sometimes food".
Yeah that's what I was thinking: 2 birds with one stone. However much CO2 removal is taking place, it's gotta be better than not having it taking place. My question would be: if we were to produce enough of this stuff to replace, say, Soy protein then would we need additionl CCS or CDR?
> My question would be: if we were to produce enough of this stuff to replace, say, Soy protein then would we need additionl CCS or CDR?
The global per capita CO2 production is under 5 tons per year [1] so assuming people ate 5 kg of the stuff a day and it was pure carbon by mass, it'd be a bit more than third of the CO2 emitted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
CO2 is mostly oxygen, so I think your math is a bit off.
My question as someone that used to suffer from gout attacks till I started using medicine does anyone know is this protein good or bad for gout
You really want to trust some random internet comment with this? Maybe wait a few months (or years) before trying some strange synthetic experimental food.
People have different reactions to different kinds of proteins. So just asking is a good idea to see what the general reaction or opinion is. You don't need to follow it just but information is information bad or good.
I hope it will be success. Factory farm has been too cruel to animals.
The competition isn't animal farming. The competition is soy beans. Replacing animals with a vegan alternative is an economic problem in that chicken is incredibly cheap to produce. And a social problem, because bacon tastes good and whole countries full of people need to be taught otherwise.
It’s not “competition” it’s another protein source being added to the market. I might think it’s a stretch to even say Beyond Burgers are competing with beef.
Adding non-animal protein sources to the market will lower the demand of animal proteins in aggregate when people consume them.
I disagree. The product is extremely similar to processed soy beans. Anything you can do with it, you can already do with soy beans. Adding what is essentially a new variety of soy bean onto the market will not affect demand for animal proteins one iota (unlike, say, Quinoa when it hit western supermarkets). Even if it can be produced cheaper than soy beans, that will mean cheaper animal feed and cheaper meat.
They've launched in Singapore ... anyone had a taste?
According to https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/solein-protein-thin-air-first-... it has a subtle "savory" taste.
Is this a complete protein source? All 9 aminos?
If their website is to be believed, yes:
"Solein is 65-70 % protein, 5-8 % fat (primarily unsaturated fats), 10-15 % dietary fibres and 3-5 % mineral nutrients. The macronutrient composition of the cells is very similar to that of dried soy or algae. Solein provides iron, fibre and B vitamins.
While protein is found in both plant and animal-based foods, edible proteins are not all the same. They are made up of different combinations of amino acids and are characterised by the ratio and amount of essential amino acids they have.
Solein contains all of the nine essential amino acids that are required by the human body."
https://solarfoods.com/solein/
The FDA wouldn't let them label it with any protein if it wasn't complete. We already have a laundry list of CO2 consuming creatures that are complete protein sources. And theirs is new and proprietary. So it's gotta be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-cell_protein#Microorgan...
Really? In Australia Oats are labelled as having protein in the nutritional information but they are deficient in lysene.
Protein is listed in the nutrition facts all over the world. What GP is saying is that for Solein to be advertised and labeled as a protein it has to be a complete protein. This seems fairly accurate believable, but I know there are protein powders that are not complete proteins (typically not sold in grocery stores though)
If it has a similar profile to soy or algae like they claim it is a complete protein, or else that’s a false statement.
Australia (and Solar Foods for that matter) are not beholden to the American FDA.
Where does the Nitrogen come from?
Presumably it would be from ammonia, fixed artificially, just as it often is with crops grown the ordinary way. It would probably convert the nitrogen to protein more efficiently.
The interesting question is the energy source.
> solarfoods.com
It is in the name
I meant the proximate energy source. Are the organisms photosynthetic? Or is solar energy converted to something else? For example, is PV used to make electricity that then powers the microorganisms (by providing them with reduced metal ions they can oxidize)? Or is a chemical energy source synthesized, say methanol as was used for ICI's Pruteen (although that process sourced the methanol from natural gas)?
“Ever growing world population” - isn’t demographic growth in decline?
The rate of growth is dropping, but that doesn't mean the population hasn't stopped rising. As an analogy, a car that is slowing down is still moving forward.
I do not think that is true. Many nations have birthrates under the magical 2.1 required for population maintenance. I have not seen stats that say we are something like 2.6->2.5.
US is ~1.8
Korea is 0.78
That's not true for the world population yet, though!
Heh. Silly American thoughts.
This site[0] says Global birthrate is around 17.3. However, it has been dropping ~1% a year. It was 19.3 in 2014 and today it is 17.3. So indeed growing more slowly, but a strong trendline downwards.
Table copied and limited to the decades:
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/wor...You started with fertility rate and switched to birth rate. The world fertility rate is 2.4 so just a bit above the maintenance 2.1 level.
But in pretty much all developed countries the fertility rate is well below replacement rates and no signs of it levelling off.
In developed countries, more and more the norm is to not have children, or fewer of them later and later in live.
Personally I don't think it's a good thing when we start closing schools cause there's not enough children to attend them but that's just me.
Well, I don't think so. We, humans, are growing pretty fast - https://www.worldometers.info
We will add about 3.5b people in the next 26 years and then it will level off
According to some models... Why do you state predictions as though they are fact?
I said “about 3.5b”. In the context of a statement that we have an “ever growing population” does it really make a difference if it’s 2.5b or 4.5b?
Um... Yes!? That's +-1bln (the population of India) you're talking about. If you don't see a difference there, I don't know what to tell you
OP said: growth is declining in response to the copy about an “ever growing population”
I said: we will add about 3.5b then level off, implying that the population, for all intents and purposes, is ever growing
You said: but maybe it’s not 3.5b!
I said: in the context of “ever growing” what’s the difference?
I stand by that comment. Adding 2.5b in the next 26 years or 4.5b can both be considered “ever growing”.
That the population level will dramatically level off at that point is not in dispute.
Absent some extinction level event which will render solar foods ability to produce protein irrelevant I really don’t see why the choice of model has an impact on my point.
[dead]