Science desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 3

Meat fillers

I know meat fillers are used to reduce production costs but why can't people make "meat" completely out of vegetables and sell it as meat? Wouldn't that reduce production costs even more, allowing only the rich to eat real animal meat while the poor eat imitation meat made from vegetables and vegetable fillers? 107.77.195.108 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those two groups is more likely to be doing physical work for a living, and thus more likely to need real animal protein in their diet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protein from non-meat sources can be just as good. Of course, your average veggie doesn't have much, but nuts/seeds and beans do. Getting your protein from seeds and nuts is rather expensive, except for peanuts, but then we have to worry about nut allergies. Beans are dirt cheap, though. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is sometimes a misperception. Back in the 70s there was a beef shortage or something. Johnny Carson said McDonald's was down to their last pound of beef. "Only enough for 6 million hamburgers!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My fave is this comment allegedly from a McD's exec: "I would like to disprove this rumor that we use worm meat in our burgers. We've researched the matter thoroughly, but decided not to use worm meat, since it's more expensive than beef." StuRat (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict)Meat fillers are NOT merely to reduce costs. Fillers such as breadcrumbs are added to meat products like meatballs and hamburgers because it affects the texture and flavor of the final product. General consensus is these are required for a particular quality of final product, an "all meat-meatball" sounds great in practice, but things like breadcrumbs and eggs actually make them better. If you are buying unprocessed meat, truth in labeling laws in most jurisdiction requires certain labeling standards, for example "ham" is sold under different names depending on the particular additives in it. Some are added for flavor, some are added for shelf-life, but none of them is added merely to sell you something that is "not ham". See here for example. They do make meat substitutes for vegetarians, and have for decades, by the way. --Jayron 32 17:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, my mother's meat loaf recipe calls for bread crumbs [and eggs]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it should, because meatloaf without breadcrumbs is mealy, tough, and flavorless. --Jayron 32 17:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd WP:OR personally agree, but maybe these paleo diet folks would beg to differ. They use weird things like almond meal [1] in their mealoaf, and claim it's tasty. BUt your point is apt: sometimes additives are for cost reasons, but often they are used to enhance flavor/texture. Here [2] is some good info on meat additives from the USDA, including a nice glossary of terminology. One common meat additive not mention yet is dried whey. Am I the only one pondering a ref desk meatloaf page? We could all add our recipes. I put tons of grains and veggies in mine. We could put in a sandbox or something :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to browse our List_of_meat_substitutes. In many parts of the world, and at many times in history, it is true that meat was largely so expensive only the rich could eat it. Our article on macrobiotic diet says "During the Edo period in Japan peasants were not allowed to eat meat and had a diet based on staples of rice and soybeans", though I just added a ^{[citation needed]} tag to that claim. Indian cuisine is often meatless for many people even in the modern day, in part due to cost. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And as a further point, meat substitutes are almost universally more expensive than meat. So the proposal that we force poor people to eat veggie burgers so there's more delicious meat for all the rich people doesn't hold water. Here's a 30 ounce pack of veggie burgers for $9.79 That's $5.22 per pound. Here's a pound of ground chicken for $2.69. Here is a grocery story selling 93% lean ground beef for $4.39 per pound. That's the good stuff. So, why again are we spending more to give poor people meat substitute when real meat is cheaper? --Jayron 32 17:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat comparing apples and oranges, as the veggie burgers are pre-portioned and generally don't need cooking, just warming. Thus, you should compare them with more expensive pre-cooked beef burger patties, not bulk, uncooked meat. Also, the current high prices for veggie burgers are partially because they are a specialty item. When they become more mainstream, economies of scale and competition should bring the price down. StuRat (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

$3.99 for 12 ounces of fake ground beef, not the burger kind, but just bulk fake meat That's $5.32 per pound. The questions of economy of scale and luxury nature of vegetarian foods are valid, but then again, so is the beef issue. The reason why 93% lean beef is more expensive than 80% lean beaf isn't because it costs more to produce; its that people are willing to pay more for it. In actuality, many of the higher fat-content beefs are made from the scraps of more expensive cuts (like tenderloin), whereas the lower-fat beef tends to come from cheaper cuts (like plate). So there's that at play in meat pricing as well. See here, fast forward to 1:00 or so. --Jayron 32 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some pre-cooked burger patties, for comparison: [3]. That's US$61.65 for 10.21 lbs, or US$6.04 per pound. And that's food service rates, not retail pricing. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, " For example, boneless chicken breasts cost an average of $3.27 per pound nationwide, while tofu sits around $2 to $2.50 per pound, and dried beans clock in around $1.39 per pound. Boneless pork averages $3.90 per pound, ground beef is at $3.27 and choice steak costs about $6.86 per pound. " [4]. Maybe not the greatest source, but vegetarians can easily spend less than omnivores at the grocery store. Here's another article from Time on that [5]. It is true that specialty products made to closely simulate meat are expensive, but tofu, beans, and gluten are all very cheap. Seitan is rather expensive on the grocer's shelf here in the USA, but it's trivial to make at home for well under a dollar per pound. Here's some discussion of that [6]. From a scholarly perspective this paper [7] has lots of fascinating data on efficiency of meat production over time, surges in meat consumption worldwide, and other associated factors. They say that "[If we could use plants to replace] 25% of protein content of ground meat and processed meat products this use would lead to a net savings (after taking into account the mass of plant protein that would have to produced or modified as a substitute) of about 70 Mt of concentrated grain feed. " (emphasis mine). While agricutlural law, subsidy, economies of scale all complicate things, there's no denying that producing protein is more efficient with plants than animals. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but irrelevant. The OP didn't ask for tofu or dried beans. They asked about meat substitutes. Which are different than tofu or dried beans. Being true doesn't mean it answers the question. The world is full of true things. They don't all answer the OP's question about the use of meat substitutes for punishing poor people for being poor so that rich people can keep all the meat for themselves. --Jayron 32 23:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure millions to billions of people on Earth consider tofu to be a meat substitute, including our fine article on the topic. It clearly includes seitan too ( Did you read or even skim when you linked it?! I am talking about well-known things that are well-known to be considered as meat substitutes in vegetarian cuisines, or so I thought). Beans are perhaps more debatable, but many sources (e.g. [8]) include beans as a plant-based high protein meat substitute. You don't have to treat tofu and beans as meat substitutes, but lots of people do.SemanticMantis (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billions of people consider tofu food in its own sake, and aren't trying to substitute anything with it. --Jayron 32 02:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with that, in fact tau foo is almost definitely more commonly thought of as simply food of it's own sake than a meat substitute. I recall an IP made a similar point on the article talk page a few years back on the differing way it's viewed by many East and South East Asians compared to the way it's often viewed by the West. But I don't see what any of this has to do with the issue especially since you were the first one to say "True, but irrelevant". The fact that it can be "meat substitute" (the term you used) is relevant to the OP's question and to its use in any analysis of costs. The fact it doesn't have to be a meat substitute doesn't change the fact it can be. I don't think a simple kg to kg comparison is really a great comparison since a lot of forms of tau foo tend to have a much higher water concentration than meat but this doesn't change the basic point that it's not irrelevant but your point does seem to be. I'd note that a number of vegetarian and vegan advocates think promoting stuff as meat substitutes is a bad idea and people should instead be encouraged to think of legumes and other plant protein sources as food in their own right etc, but this is a different point. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I can't see the link the vege burger patties above probably since (from previous experience) jet.com uses some sort of geolocation based content limitation but I'd note that at least here in NZ, it isn't uncommon that such things mostly use legumes of some sort as their protein based.
I also don't really understand the dismissal of the cost issue. Yes it's obviously true that economies of scale and consumer demand influences prices on all sides. Hence why chicken feet can be more expensive than chicken breast per kg in places like China but in other places they may have just been thrown away. But meat already has high levels of economies of scale while meat substitutes often do not. In fact in a number of developed countries there are agricultural subsidies which apply to some levels of both meat and plant production but can often come out with greater benefit [9] [10] [11] [12]
Hence why many economists agree that using substanially (not necessarily completely) replacing meat including for protein perhaps with a reduction of protein consumption would be more efficient i.e. cheaper although there is dispute over how much [13] [14] [15], something SemanticMantis mentioned. And these normally aren't considering possible other cost advantages like reduced health costs. As we've mentioned before the other common suggested alternatives are Single-cell protein or Entomophagy.
This doesn't mean that anyone is advocating punishing poor people by banning them from eating meat, but I'd note the OP didn't actually say anything like that. Jayron32 is the one who bought up costs so can't complain about a fair analysis of the issue of whether it would actually be a more cost effective solution.
A more common proposal is to selectively reduce or even eliminate subsidies to meat production in the developed world, perhaps even indirect subsidies (like those towards grains which are just used to feed animals). More controversial may be a tax on meat [16]. If you're a libertarian than you're likely to oppose anything but a wholesale elimination of subsidies and such selective taxes. But if you're not and accept government intervention in support of environmental goals etc, than it's not entirely clear that such proposal are inherently worse than plenty of other such governmental interventions. Especially since the current situation partially arose as an indirect effect of a government intervention.
For example, are heavy taxes on petrol and cars, including such things as congestion charges combined with subsidies and time incentives towards public transport evil because they punish poor people by forcing them to use public transport instead of personal cars? This all seems OT anyway since the OP didn't clearly state what they were proposing. The issues of costs is relevant but as I've said this means a wholesale consideration and not just a simplistic one.
Nil Einne (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those cost comparisons above are rather silly. Boneless meat is more expensive than meat with the bone in because you're paying someone to remove the bones. For instance, it's much more cost effective to buy a whole chicken and remove all the meat yourself than it is to buy boned chicken breasts. Also, in some situations such as Hill farming in the UK, the only way to use the land efficiently for food production is to use it to produce meat or milk. And it's more cost effective if you are willing to use more of the animal than just the good quality cuts. I bought a haggis last week for UK£2.40 (US$2.95) and it was enough for three meals when served wth potatoes and vegetables. Richerman (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we compare foods where the end-state is as close as possible ? Regarding bones, since veggie burgers don't have them, that would mean we would compare to meat with the bones removed. Also, terrace (agriculture) is one option for growing plants on steep hills. Probably not cost effective for large-scale agriculture, but perhaps could compete for "artisan" crops, like heirloom tomatoes. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"why can't people make "meat" completely out of vegetables and sell it as meat?" Because that would be fraud (or whatever the local legal term is for passing off something as something else). Iapetus (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One def of "meat" is "the main portion", such as "the meat of a nut" or even "the meat of the proposal". But labeling some food item as "meat", without further specification, would be odd and probably illegal. Although the British do appear to have a meal called "boiled meat": [17]. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mincemeat pie has been running on meat pie's good name for centuries. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 does nothing! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mincemeat originally had actual meat. But either way, it's gross. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowel movement after a break from eating

Hopefully this will be seen as a biology question and not be seen as a request for medical advice.

I was unwell a few days ago and didn't eat for two days, nothing at all. My stomach was grumbling like crazy and although it 'felt' empty (my intestines actually, lower in my torso, to clarify) I had no appetite. I didn't feel nasueous or have stomach problems before or during the days I was unwell.

When I did start eating after the two days, I had a couple of small meals and my stomach seemed to pass this straight through rather quickly to 'the other end'. I won't go into the details, but my intestines went into overdrive almost as soon as I ate the the meal, and I'm pretty sure the first meal passed in 4 hours from mouth to you know where.

Maybe it was a stomach bug, but assuming it wasn't, would my body pass through the food for a particular reason? To keep up peristalis if that's the correct term for the intestines?

Apolgies if anyone was having a meal reading this, I'd appreciate a reply though thanks. 95.144.115.10 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No diagnosises. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sory, but to clarify, I'm not asking for a diagnosis, my question was a bit long-winded. What I'm asking is if there is a reason why the digestive system would go into overdrive after not eating for two days, and then having a meal. Purely from a biological point of view 95.144.115.10 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is normal. The timing of the contractions that drive peristalsis vary according to several factors, including the type of food, general health and various pharmaceutical interventions, but they're independent of the content filling (see chyme). However the speed of transit does vary, as the same contractions will cause faster transit (from simple mechanics) into an empty intestine.

Faster transit reduces the time for the reabsorbtion of water, so the stool may also be softer or even watery.

It should all settle down within a couple of meals. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Andy Dingley I hadn't heard of chyme before. However you said peristalsis is independent of the content filling, so it just gets into the intestines from the stomach faster? That would make sense in my case for the rumbling stomach after eating, but not the 'transit time'. Sorry, as someone with little education in biology but a general interest in it I was interested. Also I'm not sure why StuRats answer below was 'blocked'?

The emptying of the stomach into the small intestine is driven by contractions within the stomach and what is largely hydrostatic pressure acting through the pylorus or valve. [18] is fairly accessible. Beyond this, transit through the long length of the small intestine (then the large intestine and colon), is by peristalsis and a travelling wave of contraction - that's the aspect that depends on mechanical behaviour and contraction / transit depending on content, rather than the stomach (which empties when it decides to contract). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Andy Dingley, I haven't read the full article you linked, but it looks easy enough for me to understand, for the most part 95.144.115.10 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not for those who are eating.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are your certain it was the new food coming out ? Unless it contains something easy to track, like corn kernels, it might just have pushed out what was already there from before you were sick. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tissues in the body regeneration after 7 years

I have heard that all the cells in the body replace themselves after 7 years. I wonder how this impacts injuries that traditionally have healed slowly or not at all due to limited blood flow or other factors such as partial tendon tears, ACL tears, meniscus tears, and labrum tears in the hip or shoulder. Do these tissues also spontaneously regenerate themselves and "heal" after 7 years?--Sara203040 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should clear up any misunderstandings that you have expressed: "Red blood cells live for about four months, while white blood cells live on average more than a year. Skin cells live about two or three weeks. Colon cells have it rough: They die off after about four days. Sperm cells have a life span of only about three days, while brain cells typically last an entire lifetime (neurons in the cerebral cortex, for example, are not replaced when they die)." from HERE also see THIS. "There's nothing special or significant about a seven-year cycle, since cells are dying and being replaced all the time. It's not clear where this myth began; perhaps some well-meaning but innumerate person simply added up the all the lifespans of the body's various types of cells and (mistakenly) assumed that all the cells are renewed after seven years." 64.170.21.194 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that when the atoms and molecules in the body are replaced may not match when cells are replaced, either because replaced cells are built using components from dead cells, or because live cells have components replaced while still living. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can also tell you that I have had problems with my meniscus and ACL on my left knee my whole life. I had an experimental surgery, but to this day it's still a huge handicap. Some things the human body cannot heal, due to trauma and/or genetic variables. 64.170.21.194 (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading this "7 year replacement" thing for the first time in a Karl May children's book (in the Winnetou/Old Shatterhand series). These fiction books were written in the 19th and early 20th century, not by a scientist but by a German prisoner, so they might not count as a reliable source here on WP. This myth keeps popping up every now and then. Not sure if the myth should be attributed to Karl May, he may have picked it up himself. Jahoe (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]