I think the study didn’t say what you think it does. The solid filtrate diet worked according to the summary, and doesn’t conflict with feed for chickens. There are vegan and vegetarian options of course, but saying they aren’t economic isn’t true.
“Economic” depends on the subsidies which exist regardless of the species of those organisms.
There are many studies on these conversion ratios, I just wanted to point at one that gets into the “waste promise” too.
Nothing is going to beat eating plants because plants are primary producers of calories, amino-acids, fats.
What is going to happen, especially in the Western places where meat is in large demand and large supply, is that subsidies for insect farming are going to sustain the usual vertebrate farming.
Okay, but the problem most people are worried about is how much food do they need to eat to get their needs met. Growing in a far denser manner doesn’t matter to people if chicken and bugs carry a higher load in the grocery store. So there’s a compromise there. And crickets look like they slot right into it. In other words you’re confusing Economic with Efficient. They aren’t always the same.
Efficiency is about physics. You can’t break the laws of physics. Economics are not physics and subsidies can go in many different directions.
If we plan on using the land to store carbon, to restore ecosystems and biodiversity, then land use and land use intensity will have to decrease, which will mean that we have make sure that land is used to feed people, not to feed food.
If you’re going to say “waste”, don’t bother. Waste firstly has to be reduced, and we need the rest for compost.
Your appeal to density works much like the bird CAFOs now in the face of HPAI. You think you’ve figured out a cheat, but, over time, it averages back down.
Not the hundreds of crickets.
Unlikely to be money. Raising insects is, by definition, raising animals. They need to eat too, along with shelter.
Ditch the crickets, eat the legumes. Legumes won’t run away. 🫘🫛
I think the study didn’t say what you think it does. The solid filtrate diet worked according to the summary, and doesn’t conflict with feed for chickens. There are vegan and vegetarian options of course, but saying they aren’t economic isn’t true.
“Economic” depends on the subsidies which exist regardless of the species of those organisms.
There are many studies on these conversion ratios, I just wanted to point at one that gets into the “waste promise” too.
Nothing is going to beat eating plants because plants are primary producers of calories, amino-acids, fats.
What is going to happen, especially in the Western places where meat is in large demand and large supply, is that subsidies for insect farming are going to sustain the usual vertebrate farming.
Okay, but the problem most people are worried about is how much food do they need to eat to get their needs met. Growing in a far denser manner doesn’t matter to people if chicken and bugs carry a higher load in the grocery store. So there’s a compromise there. And crickets look like they slot right into it. In other words you’re confusing Economic with Efficient. They aren’t always the same.
Efficiency is about physics. You can’t break the laws of physics. Economics are not physics and subsidies can go in many different directions.
If we plan on using the land to store carbon, to restore ecosystems and biodiversity, then land use and land use intensity will have to decrease, which will mean that we have make sure that land is used to feed people, not to feed food.
If you’re going to say “waste”, don’t bother. Waste firstly has to be reduced, and we need the rest for compost.
Your appeal to density works much like the bird CAFOs now in the face of HPAI. You think you’ve figured out a cheat, but, over time, it averages back down.