Food from Microorganisms

[jamesadrian]

We eat and drink in order to obtain lipids, carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, water, and dietary fiber. Water farms of artificial sea water or artificial lake water could cultivate microorganism such as photosynthetic plankton (phytoplankton) and many others. A variety of microorganisms could get us all of the kinds of nutrients that we need without the weather risks and with potentially lower expense.

Problems include getting things we do not need. For instance, diatoms (a kind of phytoplankton) are dependent upon cadmium for some of their enzymes. Cadmium is toxic to humans. Most people have 61 types of elements in our organs and blood. We only need 28. The water-soluble inorganic compounds we use to grow food, whether in land farms, water farms, or hydroponic farms, are not often restricted to those containing only these 28 elements.

The biochemical challenge for water farms cultivating microorganisms is separating the types of nutrients effectively and inexpensively. Some species have coverings that are indigestible. Some have a high ratio of DNA to protein. It would be nice to find a chemical, electrochemical, or other process that separates the seven categories of nutrients in a continuous process.

These are my central concerns. I have written a bit more about it here: http://www.futurebeacon.org/nutrients.htm

I am new to the forum. Your comments on what is of interest and what the contraints should be are very welcome.

Thank you for your help.

Jim Adrian

contact information removed

Edited December 1, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine

[EdEarl]

Spirulina is already farmed for human consumption.

[jamesadrian]

Spirulina is already farmed for human consumption.

EdEarl,

 

Thank you for this very informative link. Spirulina looks like a wonderful choice. My next task is to determine whether it has any dependencies upon elements that are toxic to humans. My searhes for that kind of information have been slow. Is there souce better than random searches for this sort of thing?

 

There is another issue I wish to ask about. Is it generally recognized that eating proteins does nothing good for us until we hydrolize those proteins? People are sometime "alergic" to foods and sometimes get sick - I think from the proteins. The worst case I can think of is the human equivalent of Mad Cow disease. In my mind, it is possible that proteins are merely a risk that we must take in order to obtain their amino acids. Is this the currrent view?

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Jim Adrian

Advertising removed by moderator

Edited December 1, 2013 by Phi for All
advertising removed

[John Cuthber]

Given the number of bacteria in your gut (i.e. more than the number of cells in your body) I think it's fair to say that we already derive quite a lot of our nutrition from micro-organisms.

 

What I'm less sure about is the practicality of deriving much of out food from them directly.

 

I'd also like to see the evidence for this

"Most people have 61 types of elements in our organs and blood. We only need 28. "

[EdEarl]

Previously I didn't mention yeast, yogurt, mushrooms, cheese, and buttermilk, which are also the product of microorganisms, and there are others, I think, for example whatever is responsible for tofu. Some people also eat a few species of algae.

[jamesadrian]

Given the number of bacteria in your gut (i.e. more than the number of cells in your body) I think it's fair to say that we already derive quite a lot of our nutrition from micro-organisms.

 

What I'm less sure about is the practicality of deriving much of out food from them directly.

 

I'd also like to see the evidence for this

"Most people have 61 types of elements in our organs and blood. We only need 28. "

 

John,

 

This article http://www.futurebeacon.org/nutrients.htm has some references.

 

I intend to separate the nutrients in microorganisms and use them to construct foods of various tastes and textures.

 

I am still interested in the issue I asked about before: "Is it generally recognized that eating proteins does nothing good for us until we hydrolize those proteins? People are sometimes "alergic" to foods and sometimes get sick - I think from the proteins. The worst case I can think of is the human equivalent of Mad Cow disease. In my mind, it is possible that proteins are merely a risk that we must take in order to obtain their amino acids. Is this the current view?"

 

 

Jim Adrian

Edited December 1, 2013 by jamesadrian

[John Cuthber]

 

 

This article http://www.futurebeacon.org/nutrients.htm has some references.

 

Indeed, but not any relevant ones.

What evidence do you have for only 61 elements in the body?

 

There is one link I could find to the wiki page about tungsten and a couple of things about silica.

Please cite some actual evidence rather than just posting a link to your own page

In effect you have just told me "it is true because I have written it down somewhere else" and that's frankly an insult to my intelligence.

[jamesadrian]

Indeed, but not any relevant ones.

What evidence do you have for only 61 elements in the body?

 

There is one link I could find to the wiki page about tungsten and a couple of things about silica.

Please cite some actual evidence rather than just posting a link to your own page

In effect you have just told me "it is true because I have written it down somewhere else" and that's frankly an insult to my intelligence.

 

This is my mistake. I don't know how the link was omitted from the final version, but here it is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

 

 

I am still interested in the issue I asked about before: "Is it generally recognized that eating proteins does nothing good for us until we hydrolize those proteins? People are sometimes "alergic" to foods and sometimes get sick - I think from the proteins. The worst case I can think of is the human equivalent of Mad Cow disease. In my mind, it is possible that proteins are merely a risk that we must take in order to obtain their amino acids. Is this the current view?"

 

 

Jim Adrian

Edited December 1, 2013 by jamesadrian

[jamesadrian]

Previously I didn't mention yeast, yogurt, mushrooms, cheese, and buttermilk, which are also the product of microorganisms, and there are others, I think, for example whatever is responsible for tofu. Some people also eat a few species of algae.

 

EdEarl,

 

Thank you for these suggestions.

 

Some kinds of yeast (not brewer's yeast or bakers yeast) are rumored to contain vitamin B 12, which is not in spirulina. Eventually, I will need to know a mix of microorganisms that will best serve human nutrition.

 

I have seen the term "fermentation" used to mean the cultivation of microorganisms, but its widest usage seems to be the production of products excreted by the microorganism. I am avoiding that. I would like to separate the grown microorganisms into protein, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, minerals, and in some cases dietary fiber. Then I would like to hydrolize the protein to obtain amino acids.

 

Amino acids have distinctive and differing tastes. Combinations of them can produce quite a variety. Carbohydrates also provide taste options.

 

I am convinced that if this level of food processing is done on things we grow in water farms or hydroponic farms without including everything in the periodic table in the feed stock, people would become healthier.

 

Vendors of fertilizer and plant food who can deliver feed stock limited in this way will have a competitive advantage.

 

Any chemical or process information helpful to these ends would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you for considering this.

 

 

Jim Adrian

[John Cuthber]

From that wiki page, with the point emphasised.

"The average 70 kg adult human body contains approximately 3 x 1027 atoms and contains at least detectable traces of 60 chemical elements."

 

The fact is that, if you look hard enough all the elements with the possible exception of the short lived radioactive ones can be found in the body (including the inert gases).

 

It's just a matter of doing good enough analytical chemistry to detect them

 

I accept that many of them serve no purpose and are just "along for the ride" and some are toxic.

However you need to realise that people have evolved to put up with traces of all the elements (and a wholelot of toxic compounds too) so there' is littl merit in trying to remove, for example, the last part per trillion of arsenic.

 

Not only that, the job is pretty much futile.

What do you plan to feed these microbes with?

If, fore example, you plan to feed them ammonium phosphate (commonly used as a nutrient) I have bad news for you.

Given enough time and trouble, I can probably find measurable quantities of things like arsenic in that stuff.

 

So, your idea is essentially flawed.

it's pointless (you can improve a lot of human lives much more successfully for less money and effort)

and it's technically doomed because your microbes will always have traces of toxic materials in them, just like normal food does.

[Endy0816]

Nutritional yeast is the common term for yeast produced for direct consumption.

 

Grown via fermentation and then pasteurized so you can digest them. B-12 may or may not be added after that.

 

Main issues I saw were obtaining the proper purity levels and the necessity of providing nutrition for them.(Investigated them for potential self-grown vegan food and/or survivalist food.)

 

Different forms of SCOBY's(Symbiotic Colony of Bacteria and Yeast) are also "edible" in the sense that you can eat them, not that you will really want to. Can be grown at home though with useful fermented products.

 

 

Possibly liquid meals are an area you can investigate. I think the processing level is still low, but might get you in the ball park of what you want.