protein efficiencies, beef vs. soy

Looking for info on the relative efficiency of beef vs. soy:

for a given mass of ingested protein (assume for the moment that soy and beef are equivalent in protein value/completeness etc.) how much beef do you need to eat vs. how much say tofu (what's the relative protein density) ?

More interestingly, how much soy do you need to feed the cow to produce that quantity of beef ? (vs. how much soy does it take to produce that quantity of tofu ?)

I.e. how much more efficient is it to feed humans with soy directly rather than using cows as an intermediate protein transport ? (No, I don't think of them that way)

Need this for a little project of mine, and asking here may be quicker than fishing myself.

Answers and pointers both appreciated, TIA

of some variety or doing the leg work on this project your own damn self. What is this, HomeworkUnderground?

:dunce:

...isn't an issue with us veggies...:-)

but couldn't find one. I figured the demographics here might pop an answer... Didn't want to take it to GD yet...

how much protein do people really *need*. . .


Not sure if this what you're looking for (came from wiki)

Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) is a method of evaluating the protein quality based on the amino acid requirements of humans. The PDCAAS rating is a fairly recent evaluation method (it was adopted by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1993) and emerged due to weaknesses in earlier evaluations of protein quality, such as the Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) and the Biological Value (BV).

A PDCAAS value of 1 is the highest, and 0 the lowest. Some ratings of commons foods include:

soy (1.0),
egg white (1.0),
casein (1.0),
milk (1.0), whey (1.0),
beef (0.92),
kidney beans (0.68),
rye (0.68),
whole wheat (0.54),
lentils (0.52),
peanuts (0.52),
seitan (0.25).



Also here's a link you may find of interest:

http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/AnimalvsVegetable.htm

The Great Animal Versus Vegetable Protein Debate What Is The Best Protein For Muscle Growth?

:)

soy is so efficient that where it is grown is called "agricultural desert" -- no other plants, animals, wildlife can survive, not even any little songbirds on the telephone wire along the road, soy is truly death

cows are indeed inefficient enough that other plants and animals can co-exist, i have been in many superb birding areas where cows were grazed, an outstanding one in idaho is where the ferruginous hawks are nesting quite densely (for hawks) on platforms

everywhere that soy is grown is dead -- including an expanding swath of brazil and the former amazon/pantanal -- and it can never come back because the life there has been exterminated even down to the insects

this is not the case for cattle, altho cattle are certainly problematic

efficiency is a fine thing in getting some office papers typed up to a dead line, it's a bad thing in growing food

look into such things as permaculture etc. that seem on the face of it inefficient

before you write anything that promotes soy, get off your bike, get out of the city, and drive out into the lands where soy is grown such as northern mississippi, soy fields are just unbelievable for the awfulness and desolation!

you will be shocked and horrified, and you will never again make a casual habit of allowing this food into your diet after you see with your own eyes what it does to the land

despite the claims on that carton of soy milk, soy (and corn) are modified, not natural products, yes, they claim to be organic, anything is organic that contains carbon compounds, chain-smokin whiskey-spewing widow-vomitin-on ann coulter is technically "organic" but you probably wouldn't want her in your body :-)

Organic in the chemistry sense does mean that an item contains carbon, however the organic standards for food are just a bit stricter than that. ;) Certainly much of the soy and corn grown in this country is GMO, however most of that is also grown for animal feed. Soy products marketed to vegetarians and vegans are almost all organic and thus non-GMO, however a great deal of GMO corn and soy are fed to factory farmed animals grown for human consumption and most processed foods marketed to people on the Standard American Diet (SAD) contain GMO corn or soy or thier derivatives.

The problem with soy and corn fields (and I've seen a shitload of both, thanks to visiting my kid's relatives in rural Northwest Ohio) is that they're geneticly modified for reststance to Roundup and other pesticides, allowing farmers to use rediculous quantities of those poisons at great detriment to the rest of the landscape but without killing thier crop. Combine that with the usual drawbacks of monoculture and a landscape dominated by the few flora and fauna that can survive those threats is what results. Blame Big Ag, blame the factory farms that feed that shit, but don't blame the veg*ns, we eat a whole lot less of that crap than the rest of you.

PS You know what the soy grown on former Amazon rain forest is used for? Cattle feed.

I grew up and live in Illinois, the #1 soy producing state in the nation. I grew up surrounded by corn and soy fields and it has never looked like a desert or desolated in any way. For decades, every year, the same fields rotate between corn and soy. Illinois has some of the richest farm land in the world and it hasn't turned into a desert yet. Lots of other animals and plants are here.

MO has corn, grain, cattle, hog, soy-you name it. And the only reason why some areas look like deserts (yes, soy fields are included) is because we've had low rain counts for a number of years.

Yep, we're on the verge of a drought. The parched, desert look is from lack of rain and not from crop production. (Though I do hate driving by the Frankenstein crops. They just don't look natural in the first place.)

Then get back to me on this, k?

If going Vegan or Veg, I highly reccomend brown rice and black beans - together they form a complete protein and add a bunch of much needed fiber as well. Also consider lentils and rice, or Ezekiel Bread.

It's based on the ideal protein needs not of humans but of rats. Scientists figured out that the protein profile of a chicken egg reflected the amino acid balance that led to the best growth in rats but did not check to see if the same profile was needed for human nutrition before popularizing the idea.

The main popularizer of the complementary protein method of vegetarian eating, Frances Moore Lappe, pretty much re-wrote Diet for Small Planet in a later edition to reflect current understanding that not all of the needed amino acids must be consumed at the same meal and that all one really needs to do to get all that they need is to eat a varied plant-based diet.

Specifically, Arginine.

Eat lentils, black beans and you've got it.

Also, Eggs are the BEST source of protein out there. Better than beef, milk or chicken.

That's the idea, that people don't have to get all thier amino acids in a single meal, and that just eating a varied diet over the course of the day fills in the gaps.

Eggs are highly allergenic, high in cholesterol and saturated fats. Soy is a good source of protein, as are most legumes. Hemp is a good source too, but most Americans eat more protien than they need anyhow (even vegetarians and vegans.)

I have to disagree with you on this one. I think we don't eat enough protein.

The problem is we eat too much fat, and saturated fat at that. And too much sugar.

High protein, high fiber, low sat-fat, moderate unsaturated fat, high vegetable diets are the healthiest way you can go.

Eggs are high in all those things, but if you just eat egg whites you are eating a superfood. Lentils and nuts are also superfoods.

It may take me a bit, I just moved and half my crap is still in boxes.

But there is also a school of thought that says most Americans are lacking in lean muscle, which tends to burn more fat in a resting state than no lean muscle and weekly cardio.

The more lean muscle you have, the better off - that is - unless you are too bulky.

But 1.5 grams of protein per lb of body weight per day is best.

And...it can be done with vegan cooking!

Nuts, lentils, black beans, and yes, even soy are great sources of good protein.

estimates for the correct amount of protein in the human diet range from roughly 5- 12.5% of dietary calories from protein. The typical american eats more than 15% protein. The excess is rather hard on the kidneys and tends to throw off the blood chemistry and cause the body to excrete calcuim to correct the imbalance. In the typical american diet where much this protein comes from animal tissues, this is also associated with an increased risk of cancer.

Protein insufficiciency is almost unheard of in those who are consuming sufficient calories, the only human staple food that has too little protein to prevent it is that casava root, eaten in some parts of sub-saharan africa. In the first world, protein insufficiency is almost always associated with severe health problems preventing ingestion or proper absorption of food or an eating disorder.

Most Americans don't drink enough water - which is essential in any high-protein diet.

True - you can survive without a ton of protein, but can you thrive? Can you be your healthiest?

Most research these days is pointing to lean protein over carbs for the bulk of nutrients.

(extremely active people may need more, but that's true of everything) The subsistence level appears to be closer to 2.5 - 5% though as I said it's hard to pin down because it so rare to see people who have protein deficiencies without severe caloric deprivation or grave health problems.

I've been a vegan for 15-16 years now. I'm under doctor's orders to cut my protein intake a least in half because I get too much.

For most people, eating too much protein is no big deal. For me it happens to be. According to my doctor and the nutritionist she consulted, Americans tend to get up to 6x the protein they need. The only way people lack protein is if they are on a starvation diet or eat nothing but starchy junk food.

In response to your earlier posts, yes it's a kidney issue, and no it's not because of lack of water intake. I drink 2-3 liters a day of water, plus some other drinks through-out the day.

There are a number of foods that aid in the digestion of protein. Brewers Yeast is one...

I try to eat at least 190 grams of protein a day. If I don't, I start getting really skinny and I lose muscle tone. I also work out 5 days a week, so maybe I'm not the best example

I would guess so.

The idea that vegetarians/vegans MUST eat certain types of foods together just doesn't hold any water. Sorry.

and am regretting it as I write this :evilgrin: <- fire and umm, brimstone reference

It is a superfood, but any fuel must release exhaust ;)

apart from the other excellent replies to your comment, I did think I recently heard that soy provided the complete amino acid complement, just like meat. I.e. apart from how much you need to eat, you weren't automatically missing anything.

Tofu chili (with the beans WELL cooked) works for me. Tofu or tempeh masala/curry also. Yummah.

Tofu is not. Anyway, protein combination is found to be a myth. Provided you eat an assortment of food, you'll get all the amino acids you need. We now know that you don't need to eat them at the same meal.

The poster is incorrect. Not only that, but the digestability amino acid score is almost equal. That, a better bioavailability and it's lacking cholesterol makes it the champ, hands down.

Plus, nobody's getting colon cancer or having a heart attack from eating soy.

If you're going vegan, black beans/lentils + brown rice can give you all the carbs and protein you need for the meal. Add in a vegetable salad w/olive oil and you've got a damn near perfect meal.

And of course, if you're vegetarian and can eat eggs, egg whites are the BEST protein you can eat, hands down.

good to know! thanks!

IN fact the yolks have less protein than the whites.

the yolk is not unhealthy as some perceive, and total egg prtein in about 6.5 grams and i think 3 from the yolk


if you just dont like the taste, then sure, dont eat it

The yolk is loaded with vitamin E.

I usually make scrambled eggs with 2 parts egg beaters (which is made from egg whites and yellow dye) and 1 real egg.

my body is allergic to dietary starch.

i basically eat a "caveman's diet".

to that the amount of soy you're likely to regurgitate before holding some down, I'd wager that beef would win hands (or hooves) down. Not to mention that eating beef is enjoyable, while eating soy is essentially an exercise in masochism.

There are amazing vegan restaurants out there that even carnivores like. Now if you had some half-assed cooked tofu then yeah, soy sucks. But not as much as beef.

The newer products are certainly light years more tasty than the stuff out in the 70's when my mom was trying to get us to eat soy burgers. Our family still jokes about how horrible they were.

My biggest problem with soy today, is that one of my kids is allergic and it's so pervasive, it seems like its in so many processed foods. Soy has been identified as one of the 8 (?) major allegens, right up there with peanuts and shellfish. Not for us, thanks.

There's one in every crowd!

i haven't found any soy products that i would happily consume.
the stuff is just gross.

I think that there are folks driving Hummers that think the same thing.

Just sayin'

Try preparing it differently, buying a good cookbook, etc.

i'm not interested in preparing it differently.

i'd much rather eat meat or fish...and i do.

i find soy to be totally unappealing and unappetizing in any form...

except perhaps as sauce- with a touch of wasabi blended in, and on top of a nice piece of sashimi, and a bit of pickled ginger.

Some folks would rather drive a Hummer, finding a Hyundain to be totally unappealing.

i'd definitely pick a hummer over hyundai for that very reason.
and that i'm tall and long-legged.

At least you're honest.

I do like soy so we don't have to argue about that. But I know many who don't, saying that it's the taste they don't like. Truthfully, it's not about the taste-it's the texture.

I've made meals for friends w/ tempeh, not telling them what it was. They really liked it mixed into sauces and such.

IMO, (and I am no expert) I really think it's about the texture. Maybe the people who don't like soy should be introduced to other forms besides the classic tofu that most associate w/ soy products.


(And, before we argue this point-I know that there is more to soy than tofu but most think of it as only the congealed mass that they see sold in a tub in the health food section.)

this backs anything up.

Let's recap the post...

"taste is more important to me than efficiency."

Now, again?

turns them off. The dieticians I've worked with in the past have said the same thing-most people claim to not like the taste. When they actually describe why they don't like soy it has nothing to do w/ the taste-it's usually the texture.

They say that, for most people, the enjoyment of food is not really about the taste. It all comes down to smell and texture first, then finally the taste. As humans we really have a limited amount of what we can and cannot taste.

I understand what he is saying-most people say something similar about soy. But I also back you up on how it's prepared can make all the difference. It goes both ways. Most people would be pleasantly surprised by it if they didn't know that was what they were eating.

If you put ground in a sauce, disguising it as ground beef w/ a heavy sauce (like a spaghetti sauce heavy with garlic and basil) they would never know the difference.

It's all in what they associate it with. They hear soy, they think only one thing-a congealed mass sold in a tub. Really that mass is all about the texture. It could be made to taste exactly the same as any number of things but all they think of is the texture. Disguise it in other forms and other textures-they'll eat it and not even know to gripe about it.

The point is-I know why he said what he said. His only experiences have probably been with one specific type of soy product. If he were offered something with a bit more texture he'd probably never know the difference.

And the comment about taste being more important than efficiency? Like I stated earlier-he stated that incorrectly. It's an experiment that many of us conducted in school-taste vs smell vs texture. If the sense of smell is blocked, your body relies on the texture of the food to decide whether it is enjoyable or not. Taste is the last thing your body thinks about.

If the texture were something that he agreed with and the smell were similar, he'd eat it and probably like it. The efficiency comment was just to stir your blood. Ignore that part. The real argument is making soy smell and feel like something a person truly likes to eat. The taste part is minimal. If you can do that then you will have a whole new generation of soy fans.

(on edit: the part I was backing him up on was "i haven't found any soy products that i would happily consume.
the stuff is just gross." It still goes back to smell and texture, not the taste. Make it palpable to him, heck-hide what it is like moms have forever and a day, let him eat it and then try to find the argument as why it's gross now.)

than if it were first converted to beef ?

I heard two stories recently. One was about "roundup-ready" GM seedstock, which made me puke.

The other was that the Amazon is being clearcut to plant soy, which I didn't know. To feed to cows. Which are shipped to feed rich white motherfuckers in the developed world. (Just like the remaining fish stocks in the ocean. Rich spoiled dumbasses who forgot what it means to work for a modest standard of living a while ago. Being a knowledge worker in an infotainment economy (like me) doesn't qualify, it's only surreal, including the cash flows in and out (but only the worst extreme of an economy which is generally fucked up in that regard).) Which made me so fucking mad it's mo-mo-mo-motivation to stop eating meat, period. (Apart from the abuse your meat suffers in factory farming, the prevalence of disease, and the basic bad karma.) And then do what we have to to stop the wasting of one of the planet's oxygen generators in the service of yet another unsustainable economy, the feeding of delicacies to the planet's rich and useless.

So, I did hear that the way soy agriculture is practiced in industrial farming, they 1. use GM seedstocks to create roundup-ready plants, which is absolutely disgusting. No wonder they create a wasteland. 2. Industrial farming methods don't give back to the land adequately, and neither do the methods used by indigenous farmers in the Amazon, so that the land gets depleted and needs to be either (artificially) fertilized or discarded and replaced with fresh clearcut.

So, is the answer small-scale farming ? Smart decentralized agriculture ? Certainly economies of scale are driving largescale centralized industrial agriculture, which is just as detrimental as other centralized pseudomonopolies in other markets. Detrimental to the long-term interests of the people, more detrimental than increased prices when economies of scale aren't present. (The bullshit that market forces are the alpha and omega and that it's "impossible" to structure prices to take long-term public interest into account (and prioritize it ahead of profit) needs to be stepped on. Seems like the solution is that profits will be a little smaller. So the fuck what - who's going to complain about that other than the holders of capital ? And they can be told that they are fulfilling the precepts of noblesse oblige and are satisfying the responsibility they have to their fellow citizens given their relative privileged position.)

The short version is, apart from the mechanics of forcing it to happen, what if current soy agriculture were retargeted to direct production of soy foods, rather than being used as animal feed for an obscenely unsustainable food source for the privileged world ? With the current land in use, how many more people would get their daily protein requirement from that direct soy food production than are currently getting it through the indirect path through conversion to beef ?

So if land use for soy agriculture were held constant, let's say, then apart from the decreased desolation of land due to now-missing animal herding, the level of environmental destruction would be held constant. For that constant destruction quotient, how many more people would be fed ?

No more famine. However the greed of Big Ag, Big Beef and Big Dairy wouldn't have it.

That, and it "tastes good" so, well, you know...fuck 'em, right? Folks don't like to hear that, so...let the flames begin.

Did you see my PM on the water usage to produce a pound of beef?
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/pimentel_water.htm

i'm going to continue to eat meat, as are most of those people i know.

(just a hint- holier-than-thou vegetarians are NOT the way to make a good impression...just sayin')

me how feeding the world is "holier than thou" and I'll be happy to listen.

Eat meat. Starving children depend on it.

Mark.

is what makes it particularly nauseating, and will ALWAYS make people tune you out.

"Eat meat. Starving children depend on it."

:eyes:

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/sc1.html


Challenge Question #1
How much water does it take to grow a hamburger?

Here's a real study:

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/pimentel_water.htm

Either way, it's shocking, isn't it?