Beyond Meat Burger and Impossible Burger 2.0

[unclemick]

Sorry, that article didn’t make much sense to me. Sure, these companies may be successful with their product. I don’t think that means the beef industry is going away any time soon. The US beef industry actually hasn’t grown in decades in terms of heads of cattle. Americans eat far more chicken now. As long as I have a supply of grass fed beef, I’m happy. That at least is more available these days. People can’t eat grass, but cattle and sheep can.

Don't forget the Bison! We get some from a place near Belton, MO.

heh heh heh - Also bought the cookbook. Wife won a contest (church cookoff) for her Bison chili.

 

[audreyh1]

Don't forget the Bison! We get some from a place near Belton, MO.

heh heh heh - Also bought the cookbook. Wife won a contest (church cookoff) for her Bison chili.

Oh yeah, bison too!

 

[daylatedollarshort]

But again, if I have a burger once or twice a month, does it really matter?

The recent U.N. Climate report has a chart on various diets that may help combat global warming and how much each one reduces greenhouse gas emissions here.

 

[Winemaker]

The recent U.N. Climate report has a chart on various diets that may help combat global warming and how much each one reduces greenhouse gas emissions here.

Now you did it. Throw global warming/greenhouse gases into a thread discussing a healthy/unhealthy, processed/unprocessed, fake/real, centuries old/brand new, tasty/no taste, low fat/high fat protein source.

Waiting for whether it can be heated by solar/renewable/cheaper/carbon fueled power.

 

[ERD50]

The recent U.N. Climate report has a chart on various diets that may help combat global warming and how much each one reduces greenhouse gas emissions here.

Thanks, that is an interesting chart.

Later, after more coffee, I may try to see if I can bring that down to a personal level - would changing, say a majority of my meals to meat-less, or low meat make any signification difference? IOW, how do those numbers compare to our other carbon 'budget (transportation, HVAC, making the stuff we use), etc). Yes, every little bit helps, but as has been pointed out by MacKay, it only helps a little bit.

Then there is water and land resources, etc, but still interested in the scale. I just don't know at this point.

-ERD50

 

[joeea]

Later, after more coffee, I may try to see if I can bring that down to a personal level - would changing, say a majority of my meals to meat-less, or low meat make any signification difference? IOW, how do those numbers compare to our other carbon 'budget (transportation, HVAC, making the stuff we use), etc). Yes, every little bit helps, but as has been pointed out by MacKay, it only helps a little bit.

Your implication is correct - nothing you do individually ever makes a real difference on a national or global scale.

So, by that reasoning, eat whatever you prefer, don't attempt to help the environment, don't bother to vote, don't take a stand on anything, etc, etc.

 

[ERD50]

Your implication is correct - nothing you do individually ever makes a real difference on a national or global scale.

So, by that reasoning, eat whatever you prefer, don't attempt to help the environment, don't bother to vote, don't take a stand on anything, etc, etc.

That was not my implication at all. Your assumption that I'm approaching it in such a cavalier and selfish method is actually quite insulting. I probably care more about the environment than most 'greenies', who don't bother to actually think through the implications of their flag waving, their 'look at me, I'm so green' preaching, while not bothering to consider 'unintended consequences'.

I wanted to break it down to a personal level to understand if we ALL did it (or some reasonable subset of ALL, clearly not everyone will go full veggie), what affect could it have? It's hard to grasp the 'big numbers', personalizing it is a way to make it meaningful. Now, is that OK with you?


So I've only just started to try to break it down, and guess what? It's complicated!

I'll try to follow up a bit later, wanted to get this reply out first

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
The recent U.N. Climate report has a chart on various diets that may help combat global warming and how much each one reduces greenhouse gas emissions here.

Thanks, that is an interesting chart.

Later, after more coffee, I may try to see if I can bring that down to a personal level - would changing, say a majority of my meals to meat-less, or low meat make any signification difference? IOW, how do those numbers compare to our other carbon 'budget (transportation, HVAC, making the stuff we use), etc). Yes, every little bit helps, but as has been pointed out by MacKay, it only helps a little bit.

Then there is water and land resources, etc, but still interested in the scale. I just don't know at this point.

-ERD50

OK, so as I just posted - it's complicated!


I started with water consumption, from corn to beef to plate. Wow, there are a lot of meaningless numbers thrown around out of context. I have a long way to go to make sense of them, and probably won't even try at this point, but here are a few things worth thinking about:

Some of the bogus numbers just talk about conversion of X pounds of corn to a pound of beef, but then erroneously apply it to a 1300# slaughter weight, and appear to assume that they are fed only corn (not true!).

But much (all?) of that first 750# is gained on pasture that is unsuitable for crops (the kind I saw on our way to the Grand Canyon). If we didn't have that beef to eat from pasture land, wouldn't that require additional grain for human consumption? People can't eat grass, so maybe this is actually an efficient and environmentally friendly use of this pasture land? Or it at least offsets some of the assumptions?

And there are other products from that beef, the hide, fat and bones used in industrial processes, etc.

And not all grain feed is straight from the field, it is a by-product:

In ethanol production from corn, approximately one-third of the corn grain ends up as cattle feed. This feed has no value to humans but makes an excellent cattle feed.

I don't think I'm up to putting in the effort to sort that all out, lots of moving pieces. Maybe "carbon footprint" will be a bit easier? OK, maybe it is, but I also am taking these numbers at face value, so let's see...

Carbon Footprint Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems

says that "http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet

On average, U.S. household food consumption emits 8.1 metric tons of CO2e each year. The production of food accounts for 83% of emissions, while its transportation accounts for 11%.

and

A vegetarian diet greatly reduces an individual’s carbon footprint, but switching to less carbon intensive meats can have a major impact as well.
For example, replacing all beef consumption with chicken for one year leads to an annual carbon footprint reduction of 882 pounds CO2e.

882# against 8.1 metric tons is a reduction of ~ 22% (IOW, we still have 78% of the carbon footprint of food).

There is an interesting chart there of the CO2e for a serving of various foods. While veggies & grains are far lower than meat, chicken and pork are already so much lower than beef that it is a bit of diminishing returns. If you already have about a 5:1 reduction by going from beef to chicken or pork, then a further 10x reduction with plants is only a few % overall. And cheese, eggs, milk are about in-line with pork & chicken (rough numbers).

I just noticed, no mention of fish?

Going bigger picture-wise, I found (and have not verified these numbers against other sources):

https://www.ccfpd.org/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/Facts_Chart.pdf

The average US household produces 7.5 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.

So if (big if) their methodology is consistent, that makes for about:

15,000 < household annual # of CO2e
3,960 < household annual # of CO2e from food
26.40%
25.00% < a WAG at food CO2e reduction if went to plant/grain
6.60% < so maybe a 6~7% reduction in overall personal carbon footprint?

Significant, but not huge either (and these numbers could be pretty far off).

So many assumptions in there, like the use of pasture and ethanol and other waste used to produce beef. Transportation, processing? But I think the take away here is that moving from beef to chicken, pork, dairy, may do near as much good as going plant-based. And that is probably more realistic for more people? And the reality is, it is better to get a large % of people to make some significant change, than to count on a small % of people making a big change. And of course, the numbers would be different for grass finished beef.

Bottom line for me? I dunno. I have not done any real analysis, but off the top of my head, most of our dinner meals are chicken, pork, fish, the occasional vegetarian-based meal (because we like it, no other reason). We certainly don't avoid beef, but now that I think about it, we don't really eat that much either. We cook burgers occasionally (2x a month?), have steak maybe that often, the occasional beef roast? Very occasional pot roast, ox tail soup, etc. Gee, really not that much beef, less than I thought. Rarely ever have any beef for breakfast (might cook up some left over steak with an egg). I'll think about it, but I doubt that I'll really make any changes, as the impact seems pretty minimal considering the amounts involved.

If anyone wants to shoot for better numbers, have a go at it!

But I think the OP was really more interested in what people think of these based on flavor, and leave the environmental and other stuff as a personal decision. I get it. And I'll repeat what I said earlier, that for me, personally, I'm not looking for any veggie dish to replace meat, I like to enjoy a veggie dish on its own, for what it is. DW makes a really nice 'mexican-spiced lasagna' that is all veggie, and I really like her bean-patty 'burgers', which I don't view as a replacement for a meat burger, I just like them.

Now, all this talk has me craving a nice juicy grilled real-beef burger! Kind of counter to the thread, but what the heck!

-ERD50

 

[sengsational]

Wow! Facts! Very interesting collection of information. Great work!

 

[ransil]

Wow! Facts! Very interesting collection of information. Great work!

same facts people that cant decide if eggs are good for you or not, guess it goes to who is paying that day.


climate change ??....need more data 200 years is not enough

 

[audreyh1]

Of course there are many alternate views on livestock and environment:

Many people continue to think avoiding meat as infrequently as once a week will make a significant difference to the climate. But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein* from their diets, they would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent. According to our research at the University of California, Davis, if the practice of Meatless Monday were to be adopted by all Americans, we’d see a reduction of only 0.5 percent.

......Moreover, not all plant parts are edible or desirable. Raising livestock is a way to add nutritional and economic value to plant agriculture.

As one example, the energy in plants that livestock consume is most often contained in cellulose, which is indigestible for humans and many other mammals. But cows, sheep and other ruminant animals can break cellulose down and release the solar energy contained in this vast resource. According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock.

The world population is currently projected to reach 9.8 billion people by 2050. Feeding this many people will raise immense challenges. Meat is more nutrient-dense per serving than vegetarian options, and ruminant animals largely thrive on feed that is not suitable for humans. Raising livestock also offers much-needed income for small-scale farmers in developing nations. Worldwide, livestock provides a livelihood for 1 billion people.

* Note that is ALL animal protein, so would include dairy, butter, eggs, no milk for children, etc. Basically no livestock at all.
https://theconversation.com/yes-eat...nt-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Waiting for whether it can be heated by solar/renewable/cheaper/carbon fueled power.

I do that, too! Right now I just have my thermal cookers, but once I get a biomass stove and solar oven I can make my vegan meals using zero electricity or gas.

 

[Midpack]

Of course there are many alternate views on livestock and environment:

* Note that is ALL animal protein, so would include dairy, butter, eggs, no milk for children, etc. Basically no livestock at all.
https://theconversation.com/yes-eat...nt-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968

The water usage to produce a pound of beef was the alarming environmental issue for us, more than emissions. I think fresh water is going to become even more scarce worldwide than it's already become. There are lots of links on both topics, though I noted the national meat association says otherwise.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

The water usage to produce a pound of beef was the alarming environmental issue for us, more than emissions. I think fresh water is going to become even more scarce worldwide than it's already become. There are lots of links on both topics, though I noted the national meat association says otherwise.

The meat industry is of course going to have their own experts try to confuse the issue. They aren't going down without a fight. But in non-profit and government panels of experts on global warming and nutrition science, there is very little disagreement on what is a healthy diet for humans and well as the planet.

Also from The Conversation -
Confused about what to eat? Science can help

 

[audreyh1]

But in non-profit and government panels of experts on global warming and nutrition scientist, there is very little disagreement on what is a healthy diet for humans and well as the planet.

Sorry, but there are still huge disagreements about what is a healthy diet for humans. Let alone whether whichever diet might be healthier for the planet, is even healthy for humans. A self-appointed panel of "experts" can't provide this end all declaration of what diet is best for "every" human based on shaky epidemiological evidence, especially if there is strong personal bias involved.

 

[unclemick]

Ok Ok Let me now toss into the mix my left handed, INTJ ish, and to be continued thought which I sort of co opted from a white haired Aussie on U Tube.

Whole Earth Model. Remembering my 30 years in New Orleans(outside the levee) I hung on the spaghetti model(U S Boat) or the hurricane ensemble cluster of computer models as to where the hurricane was going, strength, etc. Got gradually better over the decades.

So the model from 1978 needs to get pushed with more sensors, satellite imagery, updates, etc., on a continuous basis.

heh heh heh - Pssst Stefen-Boltzman. Grin.

 

[ERD50]

The water usage to produce a pound of beef was the alarming environmental issue for us, more than emissions. I think fresh water is going to become even more scarce worldwide than it's already become. There are lots of links on both topics, though I noted the national meat association says otherwise.

Yes, there are lots of links. And lots of ways to analyze it.

On another forum, a few years back, the subject came up and I did some analysis of some of the water per # of beef that I saw in some links.

I was raised on a farm that finished cattle for slaughter. We grew most of our own feed, and nothing was irrigated. We'd get cattle at ~ 800# and I'm pretty sure they were all pastured on those dry, sparse, seemingly endless pastures I saw in NM and AZ. So they probably had no grain up to that point.

I did the calculation based how much water they drink each day, how many days it took to get them to ~ 1300# slaughter weight, the yield on that after butchering, and I came nowhere near the figures I saw. I don't mean rounding or approximation errors, I mean like an order of magnitude or more.

In my earlier attempt, I found some sources for the amount of irrigation used for corn, but we'd need to know how much corn was directed to cattle production. I've never seen irrigation for corn in the Midwest, we rely on Mother Nature. Maybe some irrigation is used for seed corn, that's a higher value crop. Maybe I'm just not aware of some of it. A lot of corn is grown for ethanol.

I wonder if some of these sources aren't including the natural rainfall that the crops use. Who knows?

Bottom line, I wouldn't accept any numbers from any links if I couldn't also take a pretty good stab at understanding their methodology.

As I also mentioned earlier, it gets even more complicated with the grazing of that cattle out on dry pastures. We get to turn something inedible for humans (dry grass) into a valuable (and delicious) protein.

I was willing to take it on faith that eating plant based must be far more efficient use of resources, since obviously there are inefficiencies in converting plants to meat, and then eating the meat. But as I consider all these complexities, I'm less certain that it is that big a deal, especially for the limited amount of beef we eat (and that's not really even trying to limit our beef intake, it just works that way - we like pork and chicken and fish too!).

To take that to the somewhat silly extreme, why don't we just lay in a field, eat dirt and any bugs that crawl in our mouths, and open our mouths when it rains? Eliminate the 'middle-man', the plant. Silly, yes - that's just to make the point that maybe we should not look at meat as only a waste of resources, but as a way to convert some of the resources we have to a different form, in the similar way to a plant.

I realized we could add an occasional skirt steak meal to my previous list of the occasional burger and steak. But we are still talking maybe 6 beef dinners a month?

I also need to try some of the grass-fed beef, not sure I've ever had any, or really concentrated on the difference. Seems some people don't care for it?

And for the metaphor-pun fans, maybe there are bigger fish to fry? Maybe corn-to-ethanol? I dunno. As I said, it's complex.

-ERD50

 

[Mmm Rrr]

I went to Qdoba this week and had a mini Impossible bowl. I wouldn't ordinarily order ground beef at a Mexican restaurant (usually go for either carnitas or chicken), but I did enjoy it. Rice, beans, queso, the meat like Impossible product, and toppings. I wouldn't have been able to tell it wasn't seasoned ground beef if I had not known. Actually I might have - no gristly or tendony bits - the reason I don't especially like ground beef! Anyway, I would eat it again.

I was going to order the regular Impossible bowl and was shocked to see that it would have been 910 calories. Then I checked and their regular bowl with ground beef is 920 calories. The mini was plenty for me.

 

[eroscott]

I went to Qdoba this week and had a mini Impossible bowl. I wouldn't ordinarily order ground beef at a Mexican restaurant (usually go for either carnitas or chicken), but I did enjoy it. Rice, beans, queso, the meat like Impossible product, and toppings. I wouldn't have been able to tell it wasn't seasoned ground beef if I had not known. Actually I might have - no gristly or tendony bits - the reason I don't especially like ground beef! Anyway, I would eat it again.

I was going to order the regular Impossible bowl and was shocked to see that it would have been 910 calories. Then I checked and their regular bowl with ground beef is 920 calories. The mini was plenty for me.

We don't have many Qdoba's around here but the other day my family went to Burger King and ordered the Impossible Whoppers and 1 regular Whopper to split it parts as a taste test. The Impossible was pretty impressive in taste and texture. I'd order it again. Pretty big deal if it can be successful and inventory/supplies holds up at BK. After that a few big groceries chains or CostCo may carry them.

 

[explanade]

We don't have many Qdoba's around here but the other day my family went to Burger King and ordered the Impossible Whoppers and 1 regular Whopper to split it parts as a taste test. The Impossible was pretty impressive in taste and texture. I'd order it again. Pretty big deal if it can be successful and inventory/supplies holds up at BK. After that a few big groceries chains or CostCo may carry them.

Impressive in comparison to the Whopper or impressive compared to a good, non fast-food burger?

 

[Aerides]

Impressive in comparison to the Whopper or impressive compared to a good, non fast-food burger?

this is the info i'm looking for:

to me, i rate burgers:

1 - burger i cook at home from a good fresh food place (fresh market or made with your own ground chuck from your own market type thingy)
2 - sit in restaurant burger - j alexanders, higher end place (where i might just as well get a steak)
3 - sit in burger place ala shake shack, burger fi
4 - fast food ala big mac whopper
5 - frozen box pack grocery store

if impossible ranks only in the 4-5 category, it's eh...if it can rival 1-3 then, oh hello.

 

[Midpack]

^^ Of course the patty itself is key, but a quality burger is more than just the patty - especially today’s “gourmet burgers” with tons of exotic toppings. I’d say the Beyond Meat or Impossible Burger would slot in as a 2-3 on your scale. The point is, it’s meant to be a drop in for a good quality beef patty, but it’s not a 1 on your scale IME (nor does it cost like a 1). Properly cooked with a quality bun and toppings, a Beyond Beef burger can be excellent. I’ve introduced several devoted carnivore friends to Beyond Meat and Impossible burgers and they’ve all said ‘if you hadn’t told me, I wouldn’t have known it wasn’t beef. I’d order that again.’

Again, you can ruin a Beyond Meat or Impossible burger just as you can any beef burger. Overcooked, as mine was a Red Robin, the alt burgers aren’t at all appealing any more than an overcooked beef burger. And people who sample an overcooked alt burger undoubtedly walk away uninterested in another. Sad.

I cook Beyond Meat burgers to an internal 155-160F, ideal IME (and the package instructions recommend 160F).

 

[RAE]

As long as I have a supply of grass fed beef, I’m happy. That at least is more available these days. People can’t eat grass, but cattle and sheep can.

+1. No fake, ultra-processed pseudo-meat for me, thank you.

 

[Just_Steve]

My DW slipped a Beyond Meat burger in on me without my knowledge, I bit into it and first thing I said was this is good but it's not beef. I would have never gussed veggie burger.

 

[eroscott]

Impressive in comparison to the Whopper or impressive compared to a good, non fast-food burger?

Good question. We compared it to a fast-food burger at the time as I indicated and thought the taste was on par with the regular whopper. It was different but still good. I don't think you can/should expect the exact same taste. The texture and look good for a thoroughly cooked (but not burnt) burger.

The comparison to a medium cooked thicker burger some may do at home would not work. Medium well probably. I don't eat burgers medium like I would a steak.

When we were talking while taste testing we discussed how it is somewhat hard to get a real taste test with the bun and condiments flavors mixed in ... of course that is a reasonable test since that is how you eat them. My kid mentioned just to bite/nibble the edge of the hamburger since you can get more of the 'meat' and a little bun but less condiments. That worked well and I still found the flavor good.

Would like to try them at home on the BBQ or smoker.