IPOs: Beyond Meat or Beyond CRAZY!?

[Midpack]

Oh, that's an easy one.
https://www.cannibalcreek.com.au

View attachment 31936

That reply was a little too quick and easy?

But funny nonetheless...

 

[braumeister]

You are warped!

Nicest thing I've been called in a long time!

 

[MichaelB]

That reply was a little too quick and easy?

But funny nonetheless...

Not the first time he’s posted about that product. For all we know there’s a real life effort to bring it to market, and he’s on the PR team. . Besides, anything with “green” in the name already has millennials support.

 

[Hamlet]

I'm not sure local grass-fed beef are any happier about their outcomes than slaughterhouse animals, and how is that better for the environment? It still takes excessive amounts of water and feed per pound of protein vs other protein sources whether they live at Daisy Hill Farms or a Cargill facility.

Again, I'm only saying there is no benign choice.

I think there is a moral difference between eating an animal that was given a decent life outside eating what it is built to eat and the monstrosity that is our factory farming system. Yes, they both die in the end, but frankly every living thing does. The life we give them matters.

There is also an environmental difference between raising cattle on pasture and raising them on grain, corn, and soy. Pasture sequesters carbon - tilling farmland to raise crops release it. It is extremely environmentally wasteful to use tilled crops as the primary feed for animals that normally eat grass, IMO.

Note that I’m not getting on a high horse here. I eat plenty of McDonald’s burgers. But they are worse for the environment ( and my health ) than other options.

 

[MichaelB]

You are warped!

Not the first time he’s posted about that product. For all we know there’s a real life effort to bring it to market, and he’s on the PR team. . Besides, anything with “green” in the name already has millennials support.

I saw Braumeister’s Soylent Green but missed the Cannibal Creek. Together they’re even better. Not just warped, but gourmet warped! Is there a word for that? Channeling Hannibal Lecter.

So, if the Soylent Green is made from a vegetarian, should the wine be different than from a carnivore? A nice crispy Chablis with the veggie vs a Pinot Noir with the carnivore?

 

[RAE]

I think there is a moral difference between eating an animal that was given a decent life outside eating what it is built to eat and the monstrosity that is our factory farming system. Yes, they both die in the end, but frankly every living thing does. The life we give them matters.

There is also an environmental difference between raising cattle on pasture and raising them on grain, corn, and soy. Pasture sequesters carbon - tilling farmland to raise crops release it. It is extremely environmentally wasteful to use tilled crops as the primary feed for animals that normally eat grass, IMO.

+1, I totally agree. Also, the environmental impact of growing all that corn and soybean (and rapeseed, etc) acreage (the way it is mostly grown these days, using tons of chemical fertilizer, herbicide, GMO seed, etc) is undoubtedly far worse for the environment than the impacts from grazing cattle on grassland. The "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico is supposed to be larger than ever this year, mostly as a result of all that fertilizer (and topsoil, etc) flowing down the Mississippi River into the Gulf. So if you think you are being environmentally responsible by eating meatless meals (involving things made from corn, soybeans or rapeseed/canola), you might want to rethink that. Now, if your meatless meals involve mostly vegetables from your garden or your local farmers market (rather than the fake meat burgers, and things like that), that's a different story.........

 

[Beststash]

Also, the environmental impact of growing all that corn and soybean (and rapeseed, etc) acreage (the way it is mostly grown these days, using tons of chemical fertilizer, herbicide, GMO seed, etc) is undoubtedly far worse for the environment than the impacts from grazing cattle on grassland.

I agree with you that Corporate farming, GMO's, and all that goes along with it is terrible for the environment. A good example of foolishness is the federal mandate to blend ethanol into gasoline along with generous tax credits and subsidies to corn growers and ethanol blenders. It also established targets, increasing annually, for biofuels in the national fuel mix. The mandate diverts 40% of America’s corn crop away from the food supply. The ethanol mandate costs you money at the gas pump for no reason other than to line the pockets of corn farmers, who already benefit from billions of $$$ of federal farm subsides. The mandate is stupid policy and ought to be repealed.

If just impact of "grazing" was all that was involved it wouldn't be such a huge impact but that does not even begin to take into account the impact of beef production. From what I read livestock production may have a bigger impact on the planet than anything else.

 

[audreyh1]

I think there is a moral difference between eating an animal that was given a decent life outside eating what it is built to eat and the monstrosity that is our factory farming system. Yes, they both die in the end, but frankly every living thing does. The life we give them matters.

There is also an environmental difference between raising cattle on pasture and raising them on grain, corn, and soy. Pasture sequesters carbon - tilling farmland to raise crops release it. It is extremely environmentally wasteful to use tilled crops as the primary feed for animals that normally eat grass, IMO.

Note that I’m not getting on a high horse here. I eat plenty of McDonald’s burgers. But they are worse for the environment ( and my health ) than other options.

That’s the way I see it. Humans have been raising livestock for feed about as long as they’ve been farming grains - up to about 12,000 years ago. Before that humans hunted and trapped for their meat/animal protein. Both involved killing animals for food. Some religions (Judaism, Islam) even have rituals for humane (or somehow less traumatic) killing of livestock. But obviously most livestock is raised to be food. We prefer to buy meat from growers that give their animals a better life if we can. Not so easy in this day and age of mass food production. But we’re not going to stop eating animal protein.

And I’ve started avoiding all grains and modern seed oils. I also prefer not to eat animals that are forced to eat grains when that is not their natural food.

P.S. We absolutely do not eat McDonald’s hamburgers, and haven’t eaten a fast food restaurant burger in decades. Generally haven’t eaten at a fast food chain for anything but the rare breakfast taco for eons.

 

[NW-Bound]

Oh, that's an easy one.
https://www.cannibalcreek.com.au

View attachment 31936

The town Cannibal Creek in Victoria, Australia, was renamed Garfield in honor of the 20th US President. Current maps still show a Cannibal Creek, and a Mount Cannibal.

On the Web, it is claimed that the names came from the dingoes killing and eating domestic dogs.

So, the source of the name is not as romantic as I first assumed.

 

[RAE]

If just impact of "grazing" was all that was involved it wouldn't be such a huge impact but that does not even begin to take into account the impact of beef production. From what I read livestock production may have a bigger impact on the planet than anything else.

Well, that's debatable, and it's somewhat complicated (with regard to raising cattle on grasslands). This is from Wikipedia:

Environmental effects of grazing can be positive or negative, depending on the quality of management,[20] and grazing can have different effects on different soils[21] and different plant communities.[22] Grazing can sometimes reduce, and other times increase, biodiversity of grassland ecosystems.[23][24] A study comparing virgin grasslands under some grazed and nongrazed management systems in the US indicated somewhat lower soil organic carbon but higher soil nitrogen content with grazing.[25] In contrast, at the High Plains Grasslands Research Station in Wyoming, the top 30 cm of soil contained more organic carbon as well as more nitrogen on grazed pastures than on grasslands where livestock were excluded.[26] Similarly, on previously eroded soil in the Piedmont region of the US, pasture establishment with well-managed grazing of livestock resulted in high rates of both carbon and nitrogen sequestration relative to results obtained where grass was grown without grazing.[27] Such increases in carbon and nitrogen sequestration can help mitigate greenhouse gas emission effects. In some cases, ecosystem productivity may be increased due to grazing effects on nutrient cycling.[28]

It's clear that grazing animals and grasslands evolved together. Grasslands are adapted to, and need periodic disturbance (from things like fire or grazing) to flourish. Feces from grazing animals fertilizes the soil naturally. Virtually all natural grassland ecosystems across the world include (or included at one time) one or more species of large grazing animals. Grass is the natural food for these animals (not corn or soybeans).

Cattle are of course not "native" grazing animals like bison, but still, they have some of the same effects on grasslands, if the number of cattle on a unit of land is not excessive, and if responsible practices such as rotational grazing are used (which tends to mimic the way native herbivores would move around a grassland).

Now, I would agree that trying to raise enough cattle on grasslands to feed 11 billion people (or anywhere close to that number) is not going to work, as there is not nearly enough land for that, for one thing. But that doesn't mean that raising cattle on grasslands (responsibly, and on a reasonable scale) is a bad thing, or that it has huge negative environmental impacts, because it doesn't. I would argue that it is a more natural and more responsible way to raise cattle than feeding them GMO corn and soybeans in a huge CAFO feedlot.

I would never suggest that raising cattle on grasslands is the answer to feeding 11 billion people, because it's not. I would argue that there is no good solution as to how we can do that without massive environmental impact/destruction (regardless how we try to do it). The bigger question is do we really want to live in a world with that level of environmental destruction.

 

[NW-Bound]

It is interesting how people mask food with fake flavors, colors, labels, and sweeteners.
I ask myself, would a lion eat Beyond Meat, would a bee drink diet soda? Hell no.

Would my DH eat Michelina's $10/10, hell yes. Food science at its finest! I'm looking at the protein content, not worth it in this world or the next. Yikes.

Hmmm... I am sure a pig can eat Michelina's Chicken Fettuccine year round because it is an omnivore. I wonder if a lion's digestive system can handle carbohydrate. Similarly, a bee would die of malnutrition from the artificial sweetener that has no calories.

Would these animals know the food is bad for them and not eat it? I think they probably spurn it because of the smell or taste.

But humans and pigs would not have a problem, and dig right in. And I am not convinced the above food is a health hazard to them either. They are not called omnivore for nothing.

Now, if we can change human genes so that we can digest hay and plant pulp and fiber, we can move lower in the food chain and live directly off the land. That would be cool.

 

[cyber888]

The Momentum will take this to $300+ .. with only 11 million shares. Their sales is $210 million, but Barclay's forsee this market at $140 Billion ..

As for the product, there's a lot of mis-information here coming from the Meat Lobby. It is Fake News about it having not so good chemicals. The meat and fast food lobby group CCF (Center for Consumer Freedom) is sponsored by Meat companies like Tyson Food, and they have been exposed by Rachel Maddow as fake and doing Astroturfing. CNBC ask them who funded their research, and the poor girl said "I don't know .. I just work in Research" .. clearly a smear campaign against Beyond Meat means the Meat companies are threatened big time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education

So when you hear that Beyond Meat has some not so good chemicals, it is a big smear campaign by the Meat and Fastfood companies.


Beyond Burger is a certified NON-GMO product. Unlike the Impossible Burger, it does not contain Soy (so no Hexane). It has non-GMO Canola oil. Their Canola oil is 'Expeller Pressed" and not extracted by 'chemical solvents'.

Aside from being 'Soy Free'. They are also 'Gluten Free'.

Beyond Meat has No Competition as a Meatless Burger that taste like a real burger, as it is the only only one that is Non-GMO, Soy Free and Gluten Free burger.

I've done some research, because my wife and I eat it. I'm not a Vegan, but I want to lower my cholesterol .. and I like that it taste like a real burger.

I laugh when people say 'I'd rather eat a Fastfood burger than this chemical burger'. The fast food burgers have tons of Meat Fillers called red slim, and soy is a big filler .. which contains hexane and cancerous chemicals. So if you eat any Fastfood burger .. there's 100x more dangerous chemicals that leads to cancer. I'd rather eat Steak than fast food burger LOL.

Lastly, eating cow takes a heavy toll on carbon footprint. Tyson Food, Cargill, etc. are the largest toxic polluters in the world .. much more than Exxon Mobile and Shell. Even eating grass-fed cow will still take a toll on pollution. This is why many analysts like Barclay view Beyond Meat as sustainable and is not a fad stock. You can read how toxic Meat producers are:

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/...ds_linked_largest_toxic_dead_zone_us_history/

 

[joeea]

I'm not against fish farming, it's just that for Tilapia, they can live in very concentrated settings that I found a bit unsettling. Perhaps I'm just a hypocrite though, since commercial chicken farming does about the same on land and I ignore it and love chicken.

Be careful not to watch a documentary about commercial chicken factories. Or sausage factories. Or any commercial food production for that matter.

 

[joeea]

Beyond Meat has No Competition as a Meatless Burger that taste like a real burger, as it is the only only one that is Non-GMO, Soy Free and Gluten Free burger.

LOL!

That's like saying Impossible Burger has no competition as a meatless burger that tastes like real burger because it's the only one that has the word Impossible in its name.

 

[RAE]

So when you hear that Beyond Meat has some not so good chemicals, it is a big smear campaign by the Meat and Fastfood companies.

Beyond Burger is a certified NON-GMO product. Unlike the Impossible Burger, it does not contain Soy (so no Hexane). It has non-GMO Canola oil. Their Canola oil is 'Expeller Pressed" and not extracted by 'chemical solvents'.

Aside from being 'Soy Free'. They are also 'Gluten Free'.

Beyond Meat has No Competition as a Meatless Burger that taste like a real burger, as it is the only only one that is Non-GMO, Soy Free and Gluten Free burger.

Jut to be complete, here is the full list of ingredients in the "beyond burger":

The Beyond Burger contains:

Water, Pea Protein Isolate, Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Contains 2% or less of the following: Cellulose from Bamboo, Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Natural Flavor, Maltodextrin, Yeast Extract, Salt, Sunflower Oil, Vegetable Glycerin, Dried Yeast, Gum Arabic, Citrus Extract (to protect quality), Ascorbic Acid (to maintain color), Beet Juice Extract (for color), Acetic Acid, Succinic Acid, Modified Food Starch, Annatto (for color).

I guess people can decide for themselves whether they want to eat something like that or not. As for me......I'll pass.

​

 

[Bestwifeever]

I noticed "pea milk" (like the "pea protein" that seems to be the prime ingredient of this meatless hamburger) at the grocery story and it brought out the five-year-old in me and made me laugh.

 

[NW-Bound]

Jut to be complete, here is the full list of ingredients in the "beyond burger":

The Beyond Burger contains:

Water, Pea Protein Isolate, Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Contains 2% or less of the following: Cellulose from Bamboo, Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Natural Flavor, Maltodextrin, Yeast Extract, Salt, Sunflower Oil, Vegetable Glycerin, Dried Yeast, Gum Arabic, Citrus Extract (to protect quality), Ascorbic Acid (to maintain color), Beet Juice Extract (for color), Acetic Acid, Succinic Acid, Modified Food Starch, Annatto (for color).

I guess people can decide for themselves whether they want to eat something like that or not. As for me......I'll pass.

​

Not a food chemist, but I suspect that all the above ingredients exist in natural food. If so, any danger of these substances would be in their concentration, rather than the presence.

 

[Lsbcal]

I don't pay much attention to these kinds of stocks but this Damodoran is pretty good at analysis:

With my story, which I believe reflects an upbeat story for the company, the value that I obtain for its equity is $3.3 billion, yielding a value per share of about $47. At the end of June 10, when I completed my valuation, the stock price was close to $170, well above my estimated value. What the stock dropped almost $41 on June 11 to $127/share, it still remained over valued.

Link: Musings on Markets

 

[Rianne]

Similarly, a bee would die of malnutrition from the artificial sweetener that has no calories.

No really, a bee won't go near a diet coke or fake sugar. They do buzz around my hairspray until they figure out that's chemical stuff too.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I don't pay much attention to these kinds of stocks but this Damodoran is pretty good at analysis:



Link: Musings on Markets

How dare you talk about IPOs in general? This thread is about FOOD...geez, didn't you read the OP? Oh wait...

 

[NW-Bound]

There are already too many people, and as we focus on how to feed more people, we will just end up with even more people.

Well, poor and hungry people have more kids. Rich and [-]fat[/-] comfortable people are too busy having fun to have kids.

We want more people to be rich and comfortable.