Insects can be our next primary food in the future .
Debate Rounds (3)
Walk The Talk,Sir!
Insects cannot be promising as our future foods (even U.N. campaigned for this). For example, crickets often trumpeted as our future foods. But the fact is not, according to a new study published in the journal PLOS ONE. When researchers raised crickets on several different diets and tried to see how much protein they could squeeze out of them, they got some disappointing results: just not a whole lot of protein.
In the experiment, researchers raised crickets on one of five different diets. They replicated each diet three time and harvested the crickets after two weeks. One group ate corn-, soy- and grain-based feed, while others survived on food waste or crop residue. The researchers measured how big the crickets grew and how much edible protein they produced.
Diet made a huge difference, the study authors found. Those that ate a diet of processed food waste had a feed and protein conversion rates no more efficient than that of chickens. Nearly all those fed straight food waste died before they could be harvested. And the most successful crickets were those that ate a grain-based diet similar to what most poultry eat. They had a 35% protein conversion rate, which is only slightly better than chickens.
We have Algae also as an alternative future foods. Scientists at Sheffield Hallam University used seaweed granules to replace salt in bread and processed foods. The granules provide a strong flavour but were low in salt, which is blamed for high blood pressure, strokes and early deaths. They believe the granules could be used to replace salt in supermarket ready meals, sausages and even cheese.
Beside that, Lab-Grown Meat can be also our primary option. The scientist proved that growing meat in a lab rather than slaughtering animals would significantly reduce greenhouse gases, along with energy and water use. Production also requires a fraction of the land needed to raise cattle. In addition it could be customised to cut the fat content and add nutrients.
BigIvan forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cathaystewie 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has provided no actual arguments or points to uphold his stance, and instead has resorted to calling people names and comical references like Shrek. Pro also forfeited the last round. Therefore, Pro loses on conduct and convincing arguments. Con did have noticeably more grammatical and spelling errors than Pro, so I will award that to spelling and grammar to Pro. Pro was the only one to provide the interesting argument that insects are insufficient in sustaining our nutritional needs and providing alternative solutions such as artificial meat and algae, and also cited sources and studies.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.