What is this, protein for ants? There needs to be at least three times as much!
1 Like
I don’t have any blood-sugar issues so I don’t get too concerned with sugar from whole/dried fruits. I’d rather have a bit of that over the sugar alcohol crap.
It’s a $1 a bar average from Costco, sometimes they run rebates that knock off 25%.
I have made beef jerky on my pellet smoker - its pretty easy to do and I am sure even those smaller electric ones would do just fine. A year ago eye of round was like 3.49 a pound and for $20 I could pretty much cover the entire grill, but that has doubled since then so I backed off making it regularly. You can control the amount of sugar, and you can make it with regular salt instead of sodium nitrite. It should be good in the fridge for two weeks or split up the batch and put it in the freezer if you don’t get through it.
1 Like
When it comes to protein bars, always avoid any bar that has hyrdrolysed collagen as a protein source.
Its the crappiest source of protein you can possibly have (they use it as cheap filler).
I recently got a smoker and am also saddened by beef prices.
We get a good portion of a deer each year which, pre-smoker, would last us for the entire year. We ripped through most of it in two months before consciously slowing down.
I really need to get over it though. So i make a giant batch of jerky once a month and it costs me an extra $25. I have unlimited (for me) jerky. I’ll blow $300 a year on other things that I won’t really think about.
1 Like
Problem is, jerky is seafood to me. See food, eat it.
Now realistically if I always had jerky I would eventually tire of it.
But based on weeks of me having jerky, if I made enough to have jerky always on hand, back of envelope I’d easily spend over $2,500/year on just jerky. Based on 1 pound of pre-cook meat per day.
Like anything else, the novelty will wear off. That was kind of my problem - I’d buy packs with two eye of round in them, about 5 pounds usually, and the first few times that lasted two weeks, but I started throwing out more than I liked and wasn’t organized enough to keep some in the freezer and it fizzled out. Talking about it though is renewing my interest as it has been about a year since I last made some, so weekend project.
1 Like
cross post from study fraud thread
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/02/climate/glyphosate-roundup-retracted-study.html
maybe it’s not such a great idea to bathe our ready-to-harvest wheat (USA) in Roundup just to dry it out faster for processing.
the journal failed to notice in peer review that studies showing connections to cancer were simply not included. monsanto sponsored studies are golden though. this should have been caught in peer review and denied publication. instead, industry has its way for the last 25 years while relying on a review paper that is straight up fraud. monsanto ees wrote part of the paper and were not disclosed as authors.
i’m so grateful that the pharmaceutical industry, journals, researchers, and regulators are above such collusion and fraud. their doctors and scientists aren’t unduly influenced by any base motives. your pills and shots are all good, safe and effective.
“The 2000 paper, a scientific review conducted by three independent scientists, was for decades cited by other researchers as evidence of Roundup’s safety. It became the cornerstone of regulations that deemed the weedkiller safe.
But since then, emails uncovered as part of lawsuits against the weedkiller’s manufacturer, Monsanto, have shown that the company’s scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the study.”
“In the emails, Monsanto employees praised each other for their “hard work” on the paper, which included data collection, writing and review. One Monsanto employee expressed hope that the study would become “‘the’ reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety.” The pharmaceutical giant Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion.”
“Laboratory tests first flagged potential risks posed by exposure to glyphosate as far back as the early 1980s, and soon after, studies of Midwestern farmers exposed to herbicides started to show an increase in certain cancers. A U.S.-backed effort to eradicate coca fields in Colombia by spraying glyphosate from planes onto hundreds of thousands of acres of cropland led to widespread reports of illnesses among residents.
The 2000 paper declaring glyphosate safe was published against that backdrop.”
“The retraction points to a wider problem of research secretly funded by industries like tobacco and lead, said David Rosner, co-director of the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia University. “Shading the science to favor the corporate interest,” he said, was likely “the rule rather than the exception.” Journals needed to “press scientists more forcefully to identify conflicts of interest,” he said. “Huge financial interests are at stake.””
“What was surprising, they said, was that other researchers continued to cite the 2000 paper even after the emails were disclosed in litigation, starting in 2017. “This paper has been one of the most cited papers ever written on the topic of glyphosate safety,” Professor Oreskes said.”