National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre

[delilah]

This looks like it is going to be significant enough to warrant its own thread.

£38m being spaffed on the back of a lie; that cows cause climate change.

National alternative protein innovation centre launches

Cultured meat, insect-based proteins and proteins made by fermentation could soon be a sustainable and nutritious part of our diets, thanks to new UKRI funding.

www.ukri.org

 

[delilah]

Hutton to co-lead a new UK-wide centre to develop planet-friendly alternatives to animal proteins

We will co-lead a £38m UK-wide centre which could soon see alternatives to animal proteins made from plants, fungi and algae.

www.hutton.ac.uk

Helping alternative proteins go mainstream for a sustainable planet

A £38m centre dedicated to developing acceptable and planet-friendly alternatives to animal proteins is to be headed up by the University of Leeds.

environment.leeds.ac.uk

The James Hutton Institute to co-lead a new UK-wide centre to develop planet-friendly alternatives to animal proteins - Advanced Plant Growth Centre

The James Hutton Institute has announced its role in co-leading a new £38m UK-wide centre which could develop alternatives to animal proteins.

apgc.org.uk

Imperial co-launches UK centre for tasty, affordable meat alternatives | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Imperial has co-launched the National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre (NAPIC) to develop tasty, planet-friendly animal protein alternatives.

www.imperial.ac.uk

Helping alternative proteins go mainstream for a sustainable planet

The University of Sheffield will co-lead a new £38 million centre to develop planet-friendly alternatives to animal proteins that could soon be a sustainable and nutritious part of our diets.

www.sheffield.ac.uk

 

[box]

Sounds legit. Can't wait to eat me some insect based protein

38 million......I'd love to get a seat on that gravy train.

 

[yellowbelly]

What has the country come to?

There still maybe some hope left - how many will find this..

..more appealing than this?..

 

[Johnnyboxer]

I like asparagus

 

[som farmer]

this isn't new, going back to school days, 60/70's, the big 'new' food source to feed the starving population, was based on growing yeasts and fungi, that never took off, but l expect its not buried to deep, as it looked 'possible'.

then along came 'insects', as a food source, that's been smouldering away for probably 50 years, never quite 'catching' on, but again, looks 'possible'.

guvs and nutty professors, have been searching the globe, for a 'cheap' way to grow protein for years, presumably for when us, down beaten farmers, cannot feed the populations, and to be honest, they should be.

perhaps they fail to realise, they can grow protein, its called broiler chicken !

forget all the bullshite that clouds the 'climate change', which is just a dustbin full of manipulate data, there is an argument that we do need a cheap food source, other than traditional farm foods. Yeasts, fungi and insects could well fill that demand.

but that is for decades, centuries into the future, the here and now, means we can produce the required amount of food, big surplus if waste was controlled.

all the 'alternative' food sources available today, l expect would be more damaging than sensible farming.

methane from farting cows, reduces yr on yr. It has a 'shelf life' of 12yrs, global cattle numbers are reducing, so their farting is.

soy, almond, and cereal based 'milk' products, growing them, is probably more damaging than milking 'proper' cows, and ways are being found, to reducing the number of farts per day. Almond growing, has turned huge areas of California into virtual desert, soya based food, is reducing rain forest etc. A lot of people just assume you can swap livestock, and plant cereals in their place, they cannot, a lot of land is not suitable to grow cereals.

one has to admit, the vegi/vegan's, have really produced a fantastic advertising regime, to promote their deranged gospel. Way more effective, than the promotion of 'proper' food.

and its all based on twisted, and manipulated data.

 

[vantage]

If, and it’s a big IF, they dropped the animal agriculture is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gases, then it would be fair enough.
At the moment that isn’t going to happen, but the truth will out eventually , because we’ll keep hammering away.

 

[yoki]

There still maybe some hope left - how many will find this..

..more appealing than this?..

It may surprise you!

 

[Jonp]

Makes you wonder what energy source would be used to grow these alternative proteins and what energy source will be used to build the required infrastructure to grow these proteins. Ruminants have developed a pretty good energy to protein conversion system over the last few thousand years from.....free energy.
These people aren't trying to save the planet, they see an opportunity to make money.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

This looks like it is going to be significant enough to warrant its own thread.

£38m being spaffed on the back of a lie; that cows cause climate change.

National alternative protein innovation centre launches

Cultured meat, insect-based proteins and proteins made by fermentation could soon be a sustainable and nutritious part of our diets, thanks to new UKRI funding.

www.ukri.org

Like an awful lot of what UKRI funds it'll lead to very little, except keeping a few more academics in research grants for a couple of years. Taxpayers being taken for mugs, once again.

 

[Clive]

Like an awful lot of what UKRI funds it'll lead to very little, except keeping a few more academics in research grants for a couple of years. Taxpayers being taken for mugs, once again.

yep ! it’s shocking how much grant cash is utterly wasted

 

[JockCroft]

this isn't new, going back to school days, 60/70's, the big 'new' food source to feed the starving population, was based on growing yeasts and fungi, that never took off, but l expect its not buried to deep, as it looked 'possible'.

then along came 'insects', as a food source, that's been smouldering away for probably 50 years, never quite 'catching' on, but again, looks 'possible'.

guvs and nutty professors, have been searching the globe, for a 'cheap' way to grow protein for years, presumably for when us, down beaten farmers, cannot feed the populations, and to be honest, they should be.

perhaps they fail to realise, they can grow protein, its called broiler chicken !

forget all the bullshite that clouds the 'climate change', which is just a dustbin full of manipulate data, there is an argument that we do need a cheap food source, other than traditional farm foods. Yeasts, fungi and insects could well fill that demand.

but that is for decades, centuries into the future, the here and now, means we can produce the required amount of food, big surplus if waste was controlled.

all the 'alternative' food sources available today, l expect would be more damaging than sensible farming.

methane from farting cows, reduces yr on yr. It has a 'shelf life' of 12yrs, global cattle numbers are reducing, so their farting is.

soy, almond, and cereal based 'milk' products, growing them, is probably more damaging than milking 'proper' cows, and ways are being found, to reducing the number of farts per day. Almond growing, has turned huge areas of California into virtual desert, soya based food, is reducing rain forest etc. A lot of people just assume you can swap livestock, and plant cereals in their place, they cannot, a lot of land is not suitable to grow cereals.

one has to admit, the vegi/vegan's, have really produced a fantastic advertising regime, to promote their deranged gospel. Way more effective, than the promotion of 'proper' food.

and its all based on twisted, and manipulated data.

I fully agree with all you say.


Hey lets not write off the insect protein one.

Now all the huge amount off wasted/waste foodstuff's used as a feedstock for maggots and bugs would greatly reduce that waste. Don't know how you harvest them but for a few millions I am sure could come up with a viable solution.

There is another feedstock could come from Biosolids, greatly reducing river pollution. Even deadstock.

Waste not, want not.

But dammed sure I won't be trying any of it.

 

[gatepost]

Academia making sure their wages are payed for the next 3 years, It's an industry, doesn't matter if there is no result, I've been involved in one or two over the years, and in the end you realize that every one else in the pyramid is getting the dosh while you supply the basis for research for nowt, usually the job just sort of fizzles out with out anyone noticing much

 

[ski]

What's the feedstock for all these 'proteins' because although I know I'm incredibly stupid you can't get a product without some inputs and I doubt they will find anything better at converting undigestible grass (to us) to high quality digestible protein.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Like an awful lot of what UKRI funds it'll lead to very little, except keeping a few more academics in research grants for a couple of years. Taxpayers being taken for mugs, once again.

The problem is, 'their' £38 million depends on them perpetuating the myth that livestock are a causing climate change.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

The problem is, 'their' £38 million depends on them perpetuating the myth that livestock are a causing climate change.

That's why they* have people like Guy Poppy working to f**k livestock farmers over from the inside in organisations such as Red Tractor. Yep, Poppy sits on the RT board as their scientific adviser for agricultural and food science. At the same time he also happens to be the deputy chair of the UKRI's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (which funds this National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre) and the big boss at the UKRI-funded Transforming UK Food Systems Programme.

*"they" being "those with vested interests"

 

[LFA]

What has the country come to?

There still maybe some hope left - how many will find this..

..more appealing than this?..

Oh yes, now you’re talking, rib on the bone washed down with a bottle of,what looks like, Sheppy’s and a bit of home grown veg on the side, perfect.
You can keep your cricket briskets, thank you very much.

 

[Muddyroads]

“Would sir like some of our new fermented protein?”

“Yes please waiter”. “Oh, excuse me waiter, what gas is emitted by the fermentation process?”

“Well that would be carbon dioxide sir.”

 

[delilah]

That's why they* have people like Guy Poppy working to f**k livestock farmers over from the inside in organisations such as Red Tractor. Yep, Poppy sits on the RT board as their scientific adviser for agricultural and food science. At the same time he also happens to be the deputy chair of the UKRI's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (which funds this National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre) and the big boss at the UKRI-funded Transforming UK Food Systems Programme.

*"they" being "those with vested interests"

Email sent to Prof Poppy and the other key people in NAPIC.

 

[orchard]

This from Chris Smaje's blog might be useful:

So, this recent article is another rather starry-eyed piece heralding the bright future for Solein, the protein powder manufactured from bacteria by the Finnish company Solar Foods. What’s interesting about it is that it gives a few facts and figures about the company’s production processes, presumably derived from the company itself, which corroborate figures I provided in my book Saying NO to a Farm-Free Future.
The article suggests that Solar Foods’ new factory can produce a maximum of 160 tonnes of Solein annually, and that it uses an average 7,000 MWh of electricity to do so. Assuming a top-end figure of 70 percent digestible protein content (there are reasons to think the true figure is less), that translates to this calculation:
7,000,000 kWh / 160,000 kg / 0.7 = 62.5 kWh per kg protein
This is pretty close to the 65.3 kWh/kg that I calculated in Saying NO… and nearly four times more than the 16.7 kWh/kg figure that George Monbiot gave in his influential book Regenesis that promoted the method.
It’s clear that the 62.5 kWh/kg figure only covers some of the energy costs of the process. It excludes, for example, the energy needed to capture and supply carbon dioxide to the process – as well as, presumably, other inputs and infrastructure costs. It also involves dividing an average by a maximum figure. So all in all the 62.5 kWh/kg figure is certainly an underestimate, but it sets a floor for the prodigious energy costs of the process.