Food in a Mars colony
James W
colonists might be, if a settlement were built on Mars with today's
technology.
I know that there are proposals for aquaponic systems growing fish and
vegetables, using LEDs tuned to specific wavelengths for the
plantlife, and growing cuts of meat from stem cells. But, for the
sake of argument, we'll set those aside, for the most part.
I think that Zubrin's ideas in "The Case For Mars" make sense for an
initial base: vegetables (perhaps grown hydroponically or
aquaponically, or in some kind of soil), mushrooms, and maybe fish (he
suggested tilapia).
But, it seems to me, once Mars exploration has gone beyond a base and
moved into settlement, colonists may want to expand a bit (of course,
they might decide not to).
What occured to me was that a colony-sized base, there might be space
and desire to start, say, planting fruit (and nut?) trees, perhaps
dwarf varieties. Trees would also have the advantage of allowing the
introduction of livestock, in the form of chickens (which could be
used for both meat and eggs). Other livestock might also be possible
even in the limits of a Mars settlement, perhaps rabbits. Probably
not cows, but goats or sheep may even be possible early on.
Beyond livestock and trees, the only thing that occured to me an
expansion to early greenhouses might allow for more cereal crops,
which could be used for breadstuffs of various kinds--I'm not sure how
extensively they would be used early on. (And barley, of course, can
be used to make beer.... though probably not if NASA is running the
show.) The last idea I had, and the one I'm least sure of, might be
honeybees (which would, like the poultry, benefit from orchard
plantings).
So.... anyone have any thoughts on this? Any other suggestions?
(I suppose this line of discussion may also apply to lunar settlements
or space stations).
--
James W.
Mike Williams
>What occured to me was that a colony-sized base, there might be space
>and desire to start, say, planting fruit (and nut?) trees, perhaps
>dwarf varieties. Trees would also have the advantage of allowing the
>introduction of livestock, in the form of chickens (which could be used
>for both meat and eggs). Other livestock might also be possible even
>in the limits of a Mars settlement, perhaps rabbits. Probably not
>cows, but goats or sheep may even be possible early on.
Yes, I'd always thought poultry, rabbits and pigs to be the first
livestock to take to a new planet.
Poultry of various species first, because they have the advantage that
you can transport them as eggs without the need for any fancy birthing
technology. During the period when poultry is all the meat that's
available, I think the colonists would appreciate an occasional duck,
goose or turkey to break the chicken monotony.
Rabbits with a bit of care about their housing. Rabbits are skilled
escape artists. You do not want them burrowing out and allowing the air
to escape, but for efficiency you might well want to give them access to
an area where you are growing grass directly in regolith. I suspect that
if you choose the right species of grass, you might be able to grow it
in Martian sunlight, so I was thinking of a big greenhouse with a metal
or concrete base, with a layer of regolith over the base, with grass and
rabbits and geese.
Pigs, because of the larger livestock, they're the easiest to raise in a
restricted space.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
I've my doubts about a relatively standard greenhouse
if you can call on that can hold an atmosphere standard.
Perhaps a relative small fusion reactor as the
core of the base to power both heat and electricity.
And then underground tunnels or underberm building
to house lights and plants.
Alternately,computer directed reflectors to concentrate
the sun light into windows that take the light into a
shielded building.
Chickens are a good idea as I dimly recall they
more radiation resistant than humans. So if a
greenhouse as envisioned is possible they
might better bets.
If plant could be made to be radiation resistant
then it could be harvested and processed by
sheep or goat that under shielding.
Further on when the economy reach some scale
deep drilling may possibly and provide hydrocarbon
feed stocks provided the planets geochemical
history was favorable in the past for abundant
life. Alternately, if the abiotic theory is correct
their may still be methane and other hydrocarbons
available for the drilling. With that scenario,
a low cost industrial mean of oxygen production
method would be useful. Mars could be
a "Sarah Palin world" where the society would
drill baby drill and burn baby burn all for
a better environment and the CO2. Though I
suppose Freon or one of its kin, might
put in uber production to warm the planet.
Ozone layer be damned as there is none
to start with.
I doubt humans on Mars would ever be terraformed
to the extent of having a fully shirt sleeve environment.
If man goes to Mars, he'll need to take earth with him........Trig
Tim Little
> Perhaps a relative small fusion reactor as the core of the base to
> power both heat and electricity.
I think you forgot the premise: "if a settlement were built on Mars
with today's technology". Make it a fission reactor.
I have strong doubts about pigs and rabbits being the earliest
meat-producing animals. Both are inefficient sources of food compared
with their own food consumption. Poultry tends to do better due to
the greater efficiency of production of eggs during their lifespan.
Furthermore, eggs are a very versatile cooking ingredient.
So I'd say chickens (mostly hens) would come earlier.
> Alternately, if the abiotic theory is correct their may still be
> methane and other hydrocarbons available for the drilling.
That seems very unlikely. I suspect any hydrocarbons (and/or
carbohydrates) would have to be synthesized from carbon dioxide and
water, either by biological processes or industrial. At least around
the poles, there are huge amounts of both in the ice caps (though
little sunlight).
> With that scenario, a low cost industrial mean of oxygen production
> method would be useful.
Either process would give oxygen as a byproduct, but both those or any
other means of producing oxygen on Mars would be energy-intensive.
- Tim
Bryan
> So.... anyone have any thoughts on this? Any other suggestions?
> (I suppose this line of discussion may also apply to lunar settlements
> or space stations).
>
> --
> James W.
A few ideas, from a cell biologist (i.e. me):
Initial diets would probably be largely vegetarian. There are issues
(particularity with pulses - beans, soy, etc), but its the easiest to
implement and gets you the most food for energy consumed. The issues
I mention are phytoestrogens; these estrogen-like compounds are
immunosuppressive, may cause cancer (or aggravate it) and are known to
cause birth defects in male children. Unfortunately, in a veg diet
they are hard to avoid as the very plants which are high in protein
are also the plants which produce the most of these compounds.
An option that comes up from time-to-time amongst us biologist types
(usually in the context of saving the 3rd world from hunger) is an
algae that has been genetically engineered to produce everything we
need from our food. The nice thing is that raising it on mars could
be pretty low tech; many algae do well at mars-like light intensities,
and a low-tech parabolic reflector could easily increase mars lighting
to something more appropriate should the engineered algae need higher
light density. If its good enough to save the 3rd world, it should be
good enough to get a mars colony going - and it would have the
advantage of being an efficient CO2 capture/O2 generator to boot.
The first meat source would be unlikely to be anything we
conventionally raise here on earth - the energy required (in terms of
feed) is excessive, even for chickens, rabbits or other small
animals. Insects, small fish (anchovies), or small crustaceans are
far more likely as you get more protein per unit of feed than with
other animals. These animals can be raised at very high densities,
are amongst the most efficient in turning feed into meat, and have a
very short birth-to-dinner-plate time (meaning the amount of
consumable meat you can produce per unit of time is higher). These
animals also have the advantage that their eggs can be frozen and
thawed when animals are needed, making them ideal for long storage -
something that cannot be done even with chicken eggs. These animals
are also more amenable to current genetic engineering technologies,
making it easier for us to fiddle with them.
You could even conceive of linking the above food animals to some sort
of parallel biotech process - i.e. grow a hydrogen-producing algae or
bacterium to make H2 (or a CO2 fixing one to get O2, or a plastic-
synthesizing one, etc), and then use that algae/bacterium to your feed
animals (obviously after you've extracted what you want from it
first). This would make small crustaceans or fish particularity
attractive, as many of them consume this kinda stuff straight-up - you
wouldn't even need to purify or pelletize the algae first. You could
even use sterilized human waste to feed the algae - a disgusting but
efficient use of your limited resources.
"Franken meat" is another possibility, although that tech is not
really there yet. Today, cell culture requires serum (usually from
cows) and quite expensive media. Until a viable replacement is
available artificial meat is a ways off. That said, I think you could
easily make the case for artificial meat, all you need is some sort of
genetically engineered plant that produces a seed (or fruit, etc) that
contains all of the growth factors and lipids normally found in media.
Just my $0.02
Bryan
SolomonW
> I have strong doubts about pigs and rabbits being the earliest
> meat-producing animals. Both are inefficient sources of food compared
> with their own food consumption. Poultry tends to do better due to
> the greater efficiency of production of eggs during their lifespan.
> Furthermore, eggs are a very versatile cooking ingredient.
>
> So I'd say chickens (mostly hens) would come earlier.
I suspect that they will be vegetarians although one interesting proposal
is for insects to be used instead of meat.
Dorothy J Heydt
Raise insects and feed them to the chickens?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Luke Campbell
> So.... anyone have any thoughts on this? Any other suggestions?
> (I suppose this line of discussion may also apply to lunar settlements
> or space stations).
To westerners, insects seem unpalatable, but they are a good source of
meat and efficient at turning plants into meat (much more so than
anything warm blooded). There are a number of species which we
already have extensive experience rearing for pet food - domestic
crickets, Zoophoba mealworms, Tenebrio mealworms, and lobster
roaches. These would be easy to transport and raise. If you bring
honeybees for pollination, you could also grow waxworms for food.
Luke
Greg Goss
How about ham-ster?
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
Suzanne Blom
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:KrKIn...@kithrup.com...
> In article <TbHBm.6436$sz7....@newsfe10.ams2>,
> SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>>On 12 Oct 2009 00:42:40 GMT, Tim Little wrote:
>>
>>> I have strong doubts about pigs and rabbits being the earliest
>>> meat-producing animals. Both are inefficient sources of food compared
>>> with their own food consumption. Poultry tends to do better due to
>>> the greater efficiency of production of eggs during their lifespan.
>>> Furthermore, eggs are a very versatile cooking ingredient.
>>>
>>> So I'd say chickens (mostly hens) would come earlier.
>>
>>I suspect that they will be vegetarians although one interesting proposal
>>is for insects to be used instead of meat.
>
> Raise insects and feed them to the chickens?
>
the main source of hydrocarbons as well. I think bees would be the first
animal species.
Dorothy J Heydt
Particularly if you're growing something like alfalfa or clover
to feed them. It's not good for the bees, over the long term, to
feed them nothing but sugar syrup.
Jens Egon Nyborg
> In article <s_adnYvb7-HAWHnX...@posted.localnet>,
> Suzanne Blom <sue...@execpc.com> wrote:
>> "Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>> news:KrKIn...@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <TbHBm.6436$sz7....@newsfe10.ams2>,
>>> SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12 Oct 2009 00:42:40 GMT, Tim Little wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have strong doubts about pigs and rabbits being the earliest
>>>>> meat-producing animals. Both are inefficient sources of food compared
>>>>> with their own food consumption. Poultry tends to do better due to
>>>>> the greater efficiency of production of eggs during their lifespan.
>>>>> Furthermore, eggs are a very versatile cooking ingredient.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd say chickens (mostly hens) would come earlier.
>>>> I suspect that they will be vegetarians although one interesting proposal
>>>> is for insects to be used instead of meat.
>>> Raise insects and feed them to the chickens?
>>>
>> Baby bees are entirely edible, making bees a two-fer. With wax, they become
>> the main source of hydrocarbons as well. I think bees would be the first
>> animal species.
>
> Particularly if you're growing something like alfalfa or clover
> to feed them. It's not good for the bees, over the long term, to
> feed them nothing but sugar syrup.
>
Bee larvae need a source of protein to grow.
On Earth they are fed slightly processed pollen by the adults.
Suzanne Blom
> In article <s_adnYvb7-HAWHnX...@posted.localnet>,
> Suzanne Blom <sue...@execpc.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>>news:KrKIn...@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <TbHBm.6436$sz7....@newsfe10.ams2>,
>>> SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 12 Oct 2009 00:42:40 GMT, Tim Little wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have strong doubts about pigs and rabbits being the earliest
>>>>> meat-producing animals. Both are inefficient sources of food compared
>>>>> with their own food consumption. Poultry tends to do better due to
>>>>> the greater efficiency of production of eggs during their lifespan.
>>>>> Furthermore, eggs are a very versatile cooking ingredient.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd say chickens (mostly hens) would come earlier.
>>>>
>>>>I suspect that they will be vegetarians although one interesting
>>>>proposal
>>>>is for insects to be used instead of meat.
>>>
>>> Raise insects and feed them to the chickens?
>>>
>>Baby bees are entirely edible, making bees a two-fer. With wax, they
>>become
>>the main source of hydrocarbons as well. I think bees would be the first
>>animal species.
>
> Particularly if you're growing something like alfalfa or clover
> to feed them. It's not good for the bees, over the long term, to
> feed them nothing but sugar syrup.
>
grain.
Dorothy J Heydt
Beans will do. Anything with flowers that have to be pollinated,
making the bees necessary in the first place. And I still don't
think you'd want to eat the bees. Pick off the dead ones and
feed those to the chickens, ok. But the bees are being much more
useful as working animals than as meat.
Johnny1a
All true, but any Martian settlement done in the reasonably near-term
future will very probably be created by and staffed by at least a
significant number of Westerners. That doesn't mean they won't adapt
to the realities and necessities of their new environment, but it does
mean that some adaptations, advantageous or not, will come more
reluctantly than others.
Wayne Throop
:: of meat and efficient at turning plants into meat (much more so than
:: anything warm blooded). There are a number of species which we already
:: have extensive experience rearing for pet food - domestic crickets,
:: Zoophoba mealworms, Tenebrio mealworms, and lobster roaches.
: All true, but any Martian settlement done in the reasonably near-term
: future will very probably be created by and staffed by at least a
: significant number of Westerners. That doesn't mean they won't adapt
: to the realities and necessities of their new environment, but it does
: mean that some adaptations, advantageous or not, will come more
: reluctantly than others.
If the goal is to get protein in the diet, wouldn't it be more efficient
still to eat (an appropriate selection of) the plants directly? It *is*
possible to get all the required amino acids at the very least thataway,
is it not? And gengineered critters smaller (and hence easier to ignore,
and likely easier to simulate more textures) than crickets and mealworms
seem reasonably likely.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw