"Initial tests have people saying it even tastes like beef," Digital Trends reportsinquiring minds want to know...did the people know they were eating poop burgers before the first bite?
However, on a larger scale, we are on a space station. Earth. It may be massive, but it is not infinite- we must conserve what we have to allow future generations to have it too.
-Penguin
It's the same amino acids, lipids and micronutrients that you'd find in regular meat. You just need to keep all the nasty bacteria that love to live in the cow's intestine out of it, and make sure that the cow isn't sick (it'll show up in the raw materials).you're so far out in left field sometimes...they're not talking cow feces there penguinhead...it's feces in general, from the sewage systems...the soybeans that poop extract is mixed with has more nutritional value pound for pound...and it's much less expensive. consider the fact that if we ever get to the point where we have to eat poop extract, there won't be anything else edible to bind it with to make it more palatable. and it seems you didn't note in your effervescent wisdom, that in order to produce the poo needed for that extract, something has to be ingested and digested...and the diminishing returns makes it not highly sustainable in the long term.
It's no different from taking your own urine, boiling it, filtering it, and then drinking the left over water. Think of it as pulling out the good stuff, and you'll realize that it's recycling, not eating actual feces. To elaborate, imagine that you are a Nutrient Bender; you have the power to move any nutrient telekinetically. If you lifted the good stuff out of a turd, it wouldn't actually look bad at all. It would be the same thing that you'd find in a steak. Furthermore, you're still eating what used to be feces when you eat 'real' meat because of decomposers.
If you really want to get freaky, you are eating the cooled remains of highly radioactive fusion explosions. Now put that in your reactor and melt it.
You guys need to relax, real meat is just as dangerous if mishandled. If properly done, meat made from the nutrients extracted from feces would be no different from meat grown on animals. It's just recycling, and it allows us to reuse things that would usually be lost as waste. This isn't some hippie's dream, this is a great step forward in creating a sustainable food supply.
Rock on Doctor Mitsuyuki, your work will not be appreciated for a long, long time.
:salute
-Penguin
It's the same amino acids, lipids and micronutrients that you'd find in regular meat. You just need to keep all the nasty bacteria that love to live in the cow's intestine out of it, and make sure that the cow isn't sick (it'll show up in the raw materials).
It's no different from taking your own urine, boiling it, filtering it, and then drinking the left over water. Think of it as pulling out the good stuff, and you'll realize that it's recycling, not eating actual feces. To elaborate, imagine that you are a Nutrient Bender; you have the power to move any nutrient telekinetically. If you lifted the good stuff out of a turd, it wouldn't actually look bad at all. It would be the same thing that you'd find in a steak. Furthermore, you're still eating what used to be feces when you eat 'real' meat because of decomposers.
If you really want to get freaky, you are eating the cooled remains of highly radioactive fusion explosions. Now put that in your reactor and melt it.
You guys need to relax, real meat is just as dangerous if mishandled. If properly done, meat made from the nutrients extracted from feces would be no different from meat grown on animals. It's just recycling, and it allows us to reuse things that would usually be lost as waste. This isn't some hippie's dream, this is a great step forward in creating a sustainable food supply.
Rock on Doctor Mitsuyuki, your work will not be appreciated for a long, long time.
:salute
-Penguin
It's the same amino acids, lipids and micronutrients that you'd find in regular meat. You just need to keep all the nasty bacteria that love to live in the cow's intestine out of it, and make sure that the cow isn't sick (it'll show up in the raw materials).
It's no different from taking your own urine, boiling it, filtering it, and then drinking the left over water. Think of it as pulling out the good stuff, and you'll realize that it's recycling, not eating actual feces. To elaborate, imagine that you are a Nutrient Bender; you have the power to move any nutrient telekinetically. If you lifted the good stuff out of a turd, it wouldn't actually look bad at all. It would be the same thing that you'd find in a steak. Furthermore, you're still eating what used to be feces when you eat 'real' meat because of decomposers.
If you really want to get freaky, you are eating the cooled remains of highly radioactive fusion explosions. Now put that in your reactor and melt it.
You guys need to relax, real meat is just as dangerous if mishandled. If properly done, meat made from the nutrients extracted from feces would be no different from meat grown on animals. It's just recycling, and it allows us to reuse things that would usually be lost as waste. This isn't some hippie's dream, this is a great step forward in creating a sustainable food supply.
Rock on Doctor Mitsuyuki, your work will not be appreciated for a long, long time.
:salute
-Penguin
you're so far out in left field sometimes...they're not talking cow feces there penguinhead...it's feces in general, from the sewage systems...the soybeans that poop extract is mixed with has more nutritional value pound for pound...and it's much less expensive. consider the fact that if we ever get to the point where we have to eat poop extract, there won't be anything else edible to bind it with to make it more palatable. and it seems you didn't note in your effervescent wisdom, that in order to produce the poo needed for that extract, something has to be ingested and digested...and the diminishing returns makes it not highly sustainable in the long term.
might make a good animal feed or at best emergency survival rations.
I know that he was referring to feces in general, but I used a cow as an example.Issue is taste and smell and the fact that it came out your butt. Thats a huge issue because its all about the mental thoughts on the whole subject. People won't be willing to do it because of the mental limitations. Or something along the lines of that. You get my point.....
Yes, the returns do diminish since no system is 100% efficient, but as of right now, ours is 0% effcient since we throw it all away after it passes through our system just once. Furthermore, we could use his technique to give nutrients to those who cannot eat, and use it to create growth media for bacteria cultures. Not only that, but the field of artificial meat could use this to great advantage, seeing as it could use waste to build new meat.
This is like discovering oil- there were no cars or plastics at first, it seemed pointless, but now look what we can do with it. In addition, why would this be used for emergency rations only? If we could use waste to augment the nutritional value of regular food, we'd be a step closer to solving world hunger.
Strictly speaking, if you took all the nasties out (dead red blood cells, diseases), you could eat your own feces without issue.
-Penguin
I know that he was referring to feces in general, but I used a cow as an example.
Yes, the returns do diminish since no system is 100% efficient, but as of right now, ours is 0% effcient since we throw it all away after it passes through our system just once. Furthermore, we could use his technique to give nutrients to those who cannot eat, and use it to create growth media for bacteria cultures. Not only that, but the field of artificial meat could use this to great advantage, seeing as it could use waste to build new meat.
This is like discovering oil- there were no cars or plastics at first, it seemed pointless, but now look what we can do with it. In addition, why would this be used for emergency rations only? If we could use waste to augment the nutritional value of regular food, we'd be a step closer to solving world hunger.
Strictly speaking, if you took all the nasties out (dead red blood cells, diseases), you could eat your own feces without issue.
-Penguin
I know that he was referring to feces in general, but I used a cow as an example.you need to stick with your toy soldiers or whatever it is that you do, science is not your forte. do i have to point out that the biosphere you live in has been around since long before humans? without human interference/destruction, the biosphere is a self sustaining system...everything living organism contributes to the next generation, from birth to death. every organism produces waste and that waste is recycled in some manner naturally, not with human science. it's very obvious with your wikipedia knowledge that you neglected the idea of fertilizer...look up milorganite so you can get a basic understanding of how poop should be recycled.
Yes, the returns do diminish since no system is 100% efficient, but as of right now, ours is 0% effcient since we throw it all away after it passes through our system just once. Furthermore, we could use his technique to give nutrients to those who cannot eat, and use it to create growth media for bacteria cultures. Not only that, but the field of artificial meat could use this to great advantage, seeing as it could use waste to build new meat.
This is like discovering oil- there were no cars or plastics at first, it seemed pointless, but now look what we can do with it. In addition, why would this be used for emergency rations only? If we could use waste to augment the nutritional value of regular food, we'd be a step closer to solving world hunger.
Strictly speaking, if you took all the nasties out (dead red blood cells, diseases), you could eat your own feces without issue.
-Penguin
Milorganite is an organic nitrogen fertilizer produced by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Popularized in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s, it consists of processed sludge from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Jones Island Waste Water Treatment Plant. It’s name comes from the combination of “Milwaukee,” “organic” and “nitrogen.”
Milorganite contains microbes that have digested nutrients from the sewage stream along with added iron, used to strip phosphorus from the waste water flowing into Lake Michigan.
That’s right friends, this 100% organic fertilizer product is processed poop!
Actually you're incorrect once again. Our poop DOES get recycled in the whole scheme of things. This is Earth.. EVERYTHING gets recycled (except for what we send out into space). No we might not be eating our own poop but our poop DOES work its way back into the environment where it feeds some bacteria.. which then feed some plants.. which then feed some animals.. when then feed us. It's all part of the circle of life, or were you deprived of Disney movies as a kid?
It just kills me how people actually believe that what we don't reuse gets wasted. That just isn't true in the whole scheme of things. I'm not against recycling but when it costs more to recycle than to just produce new then one has to wonder if there is any real benefit to it...
you need to stick with your toy soldiers or whatever it is that you do, science is not your forte. do i have to point out that the biosphere you live in has been around since long before humans? without human interference/destruction, the biosphere is a self sustaining system...everything living organism contributes to the next generation, from birth to death. every organism produces waste and that waste is recycled in some manner naturally, not with human science. it's very obvious with your wikipedia knowledge that you neglected the idea of fertilizer...look up milorganite so you can get a basic understanding of how poop should be recycled.
you want to solve world hunger, figure out how to economically turn desert into fertile land...don't try to sell fertilizer as food.
just so you don't miss it with your less than stellar reading, this is a description of milorganite.
Let's keep personal attacks out of this.penguin, telling the truth is not a personal attack...if i had said something like "you're a blithering idiot" that would be a personal attack...get the idea?
You are correct in stating that given constant sunshine and heat from the earth, the biosphere is self-sustaining. However, you conveniently neglected to mention what happens when six-and-a-half billion people all try to get fed. First off, you've got soil erosion from overtilling, acid rain from processing, and desertification from irrigation. However, there is another important aspect. When we eat food, we're indirectly taking nutrients from the soil, and putting them through our bodies. However, we don't complete the "circle of life" in that we just dump most of it out to sea in the form of sewage. This leads me to my next point.
So we're just dumping nutrients from the soil into the sea, and they don't return quickly enough if at all. What this means is that we're depleting our terrestrial stores of nutrients, while adding more to the ocean. This doesn't help the ocean, either, especially in the case of nitrogen runoff, which creates huge algal blooms that result in dead zones. Dead zones are massive swaths of de-oxygenated ocean, where higher lifeforms cannot be sustained. We've created an imbalance, and ignoring it will not make it go away.
-Penguin
Your notion of our waste being recycled into terrestrial ecosystems is sadly mistaken. We don't bring our wastes back into the fields, but rather spill them out into the ocean. Unless we start eating algae, doing that won't help agriculture.
you need to stick with your toy soldiers
this pseudo science you keep spouting is giving intelligent people a headache...as easy as it is for you, stick with fiction...that's your forte, since you seem to like pulling inaccurate facts out of your hat.
Unfortunately, that's a load of crap (pun intended). I used to do water treatment, which included waste disposal plants. After they extract the solids, they re-treat the water to the point that it's cleaner than the water pulled from rivers or wells THEN release it. All of the solids are disposed of by other methods. One popular method is to use it as fertilizer for sod fields.
You should really check your facts before having a "diarrhea of the mouth" attack (again, pun intended).
I'm just throwing this out there... We had this technology at school. The cafeteria food tasted like oscar. I thought the corn burgers were odd... :rofl:rofl
Normally, the deserts shift somewhat, and over millions upon millions of years, they can spread far. However, what we are seeing is rapid desertification, not the glacerlike process that allows animals to adapt. Take the 'Dust Bowl', a clear result of overgrazing leading to desertification.are you seriously that lost? where did you get that load of absolute b.s. from, a dr. suess science book? the dust bowl era of the u.s. was caused by poor farming practices and an extended drought, not over grazing...even wikipedia should have that right...and it absolutely did not nor is currently leading to desertification...in case you missed it with your genius, all of the areas affected have been fertile farmland for the last 60+ years.
Unpolluted rain has a pH of 5.7, because of volcanic eruptions and other releases of CO2. However, the acid rain you hear about is many hundreds of times that level. Below 5 pH, fish eggs will not hatch, and even lower levels will kill adult fish.again, more dr. seuss science...acid rain, acid snow and acid fog are nowhere near acidic to the tune of "hundreds of times" the level of rain you would find in the most remote unpopulated region on the planet...heavily industrialized areas with dense population tend to have higher levels of acidic atmospheric moisture than non industrialized areas as low as approximately ph 2.0 at some point in history (i think it was in 70s)...but right now the average is believed to be around 4.6. volcanic rifts in the ocean floor with sea life around them are far more acidic than anything humans have done after 160 years of rapidly increasing industrialization...parts of the amazon river have a ph of around 4.5-4.7 and there are plenty of fish species that live and breed in it...there goes your theory of fish habitation in acidic water.
However, these questions are off topic.
I did check my facts, and I found that not all sewage can be treated this way. However, upon closer examination, I've noticed that it also depends on the amount of toxins (such as heavy metals and chemicals with names that professional linguists balk at) from industry that are included in the sewage. In some cases, it is minimal, in other cases (such as industrial farming) the amount is astonishing. It's not a silver bullet, but it'll help a great deal.
-Penguin
I did check my facts, and I found that not all sewage can be treated this way. However, upon closer examination, I've noticed that it also depends on the amount of toxins (such as heavy metals and chemicals with names that professional linguists balk at) from industry that are included in the sewage. In some cases, it is minimal, in other cases (such as industrial farming) the amount is astonishing. It's not a silver bullet, but it'll help a great deal.
-Penguin
For crying out loud, keep a civil tone.Maybe he's just trolling at you Penguin :lol
Dustbowl:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl) Before you claim that my research is inaccurate, look at the citations.
Again, you claim to have command of scientific fact, but when you look it up, your claims just don't add up. For instance, you can clearly read this statement on the Wiki page: If the government hadn't instituted soil conservation programs, then the Great Plains would be the Great Desert.
You do realize that pH is on a logarithmic scale, right? Rainwater with an acidity of 5.7 almost 100 times as acidic as pure water. If you go from 5.7 (that's normal rainwater without any human interference) to 4.6, the water is now ten times more acidic. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH#Applications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH#Applications)
If you give life time to adapt, then yes, it will be able to survive. The problem here is not the specific level, but the change in the level. If you took those hydrothermal vents that you spoke of and suddenly raised their pH, all the organisms would die.
-Penguin
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl(http://www.free-smiley-faces.de/puking-Smiley_Smilie-kotzend/www.free-smiley-faces.de_puke-smiley_smilie-kotzen_01_400x400.gif)
Maybe he's just trolling at you Penguin :lolno, actually i'm waiting for some sign of the self proclaimed "genius" to show up...so far all i see is "misquote wikipedia" :lol
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
It's no different from taking your own urine, boiling it, filtering it, and then drinking the left over water.
penguin i assure you i am in now way playing devil's advocate, you have done here in this discussion what you have repeatedly done in other discussions, spout b.s. as if you know what you're talking about when it's all clearly misquoted wikipedia reference.
i read the entire article including the reference on desertification. you are now stating overgrazing of the land merely "contributed" to the dust bowl, when your first reference to the dust bowl very specifically stated...
when the text you quoted very plain terms states...
nowhere does it state that overgrazing (40 years before the dust bowl event) even "contributed" to the dust bowl event, either in the quoted sentence nor before or after. and a more prolonged drought would indeed have turned the source areas of the dustbowl into desert as there would not have been enough preciptation to put better farming practices into place. if that isn't clear enough, then try reading it again in it's full context.
don't make me dig up every instance you made that claim, because i will.
nowhere have i put words into your mouth, you specifically stated...
then you decided that this statement is correct...
according to your own referenced chart, the "average" acidity of acid rain as researched over several decades, can be 10 to 1,000 times more acidic than basic rain water with a ph of 5.7, and it depends on the area where the preciptation is being measured. if you used more resources, you would have seen that. like i said in my previous response, there is no such thing as "pure water". ph levels of water around the globe vary greatly, therefore the term "pure water" is simply water without any liquid or solid additives, which doesn't truly exist. you would have been better off using "treated tap water" with an average ph of 7 as the base line.
you tend to garner bits and pieces of information then make generalized statements as fact, and that is what gets you into trouble. your entire series of diatribe in this discussion has been done in that manner. and when someone corrects you and you somehow realize the error, you ignore it and make another erroneous generalized statement.
How have I misquoted? You keep claiming that, but I don't see any evidence of it.you're kidding right?
You are right, I read deeper into the article and changed my position. I cede that point. I was mistaken.if any of this is true, then you indeed misquoted. particularly regarding the dust bowl era. or are you still trying to maintain that overgrazing caused the dust bowl and desertification? or that fish or even sea life cannot live and breed in acidic water? or that raw highly polluted sewage is indiscriminantly being dumped across the planet?
Before I launch another spiel, what exactly are we debating at this point?eating recycled poop combined with soy beans. again, not a sustainable food source due to many factors. nutritive value marginal as the soy beans it is mixed with has a higher nutritional value alone.
-Penguin
I am not attempting to maintain that overgrazing caused the dustbowl. I am maintaining that it had a part in it.<sigh> still wrong. consider if you will, that your theory based on what you believe you read in that wikipedia article does not factor on one thing. that prior to the rapid westward migration of european settlers, north american bison numbering in the estimated millions roamed the great plains area for millenia, and even their migratory grazing habits had no more effect than the grazing of domestic animals in the same area by the time the effects of poor farming practices and a severe drought created the dust bowl effects. now had massive herds of bison or domestic animals been present at the time the dust bowl event occurred, then it might be safe to assume their presence had some contributing factor, but that was not the case.
I can't find where I said that fish eggs will not hatch below 5 pH, nor can I find it on Wikipedia. I'm not denying that I said it, but I can't find it.i can't say i'm surprised...
Unpolluted rain has a pH of 5.7, because of volcanic eruptions and other releases of CO2. However, the acid rain you hear about is many hundreds of times that level. Below 5 pH, fish eggs will not hatch, and even lower levels will kill adult fish.
-Penguin
Back to the main point:once again, reading into the facts and coming up with dr. seuss science.
Feces actually contain around 50% of the original energy*, so using them to augment food or to grow artificial meat would be a vast improvement in efficiency that would not require any new farmland.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feces#Ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feces#Ecology)
-Penguin
After an animal has digested eaten material, the remains of that material are expelled from its body as waste. Though it is lower in energy than the food it came from, feces may still contain a large amount of energy, often 50% of that of the original food.[2] This means that of all food eaten, a significant amount of energy remains for the decomposers of ecosystems. Many organisms feed on feces, from bacteria to fungi to insects such as dung beetles, which can sense odors from long distances.[3] Some may specialize in feces, while others may eat other foods as well. Feces serve not only as a basic food, but also a supplement to the usual diet of some animals. This is known as coprophagia, and occurs in various animal species such as young elephants eating their mother's feces to gain essential gut flora, or by other animals such as dogs, rabbits, and monkeys.
<sigh> still wrong. consider if you will, that your theory based on what you believe you read in that wikipedia article does not factor on one thing. that prior to the rapid westward migration of european settlers, north american bison numbering in the estimated millions roamed the great plains area for millenia, and even their migratory grazing habits had no more effect than the grazing of domestic animals in the same area by the time the effects of poor farming practices and a severe drought created the dust bowl effects. now had massive herds of bison or domestic animals been present at the time the dust bowl event occurred, then it might be safe to assume their presence had some contributing factor, but that was not the case.
i can't say i'm surprised...
once again, reading into the facts and coming up with dr. seuss science.
humans do not eat animal feces let alone their own. you're associating the energy factors of feces from herbivorous animals with that of omnivores and carnivores. that stored energy comes from undigested plant material and the gastrointestinal enzymes contained within the feces. it is not the same biology as human feces or that of carnivorous animals. and, it would take more time than i am willing to spend getting you to understand the differences.
on it's own, the processed material cited in the original article is neither sustainable nor is its nutritional value very high without the proposed additive of soybeans which in themselves are highly sustainable in a variety of environments and the nutrional value as well as the cost is far better. why it's not blatantly obvious even with elementary math is a mystery. just looking at the feces portion. just for the sake of simplicity say a human eats 2 lbs of food and approximately 1/4 of that becomes waste. at an optimistic 50% nutritional value after processing without any source of additive to augement, a person would have to eat twice as much as he is capable of producing. a single person would die of starvation from eating just what his body expels in a very short time.
Aha, I get it now. However, to North American Bison is a poor example in that its populations would dwindle if the amount of grass became lower, unlike domesticated cattle.bison populations were no more affected by dwindling grazing land as free ranging domestic cattle. hard to believe i know but, before commercial farming, cattle were primarily fed on open range, and the bison could live on what the cattle didn't eat. read up on the era of the buffalo hunters, they were the cause for the near extinction of north american bison.
You are correct in stating that humans do not consume their own feces, nor do they consume the feces of other species (except for this one particular type of coffee). Furthermore, I did not state that eating processed feces would be self-sustaining; I stated that it would improve efficiency. However, if humans were to isolate the useful chemicals from the feces and use them to augment the food supply (e.g., artificial meat growth mediums, or directly consuming the chemicals as pills) then efficiency would improve.pacman made more of an assertion that processed feces could be a self sustaining food source than you did. you stated that processed feces would be more sustainable than existing food sources. i hate to be the one to tell you this but, it's been known for 20 or so years that "artificial" enhancements to foods has lowered the nutritional value. corporations don't want the consumer market to know it. take corn for instance, what you get in the store now is not the same as it was at the turn of the 20th century, nor does it have the same nutritional value. tomatoes, oranges, wheat and many other types of produce have also been genetically altered over a period of time by humans in an effort to increase production and reduce crop loss from natural causes. the side effect has been greater volumes with less natural nutrional value than what was grown 100 years ago. meat is in the same boat, especially meat from commercial farms. hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, etc...
-Penguin
It's the same amino acids, lipids and micronutrients that you'd find in regular meat. You just need to keep all the nasty bacteria that love to live in the cow's intestine out of it, and make sure that the cow isn't sick (it'll show up in the raw materials).
It's no different from taking your own urine, boiling it, filtering it, and then drinking the left over water. Think of it as pulling out the good stuff, and you'll realize that it's recycling, not eating actual feces. To elaborate, imagine that you are a Nutrient Bender; you have the power to move any nutrient telekinetically. If you lifted the good stuff out of a turd, it wouldn't actually look bad at all. It would be the same thing that you'd find in a steak. Furthermore, you're still eating what used to be feces when you eat 'real' meat because of decomposers.
If you really want to get freaky, you are eating the cooled remains of highly radioactive fusion explosions. Now put that in your reactor and melt it.
You guys need to relax, real meat is just as dangerous if mishandled. If properly done, meat made from the nutrients extracted from feces would be no different from meat grown on animals. It's just recycling, and it allows us to reuse things that would usually be lost as waste. This isn't some hippie's dream, this is a great step forward in creating a sustainable food supply.
Rock on Doctor Mitsuyuki, your work will not be appreciated for a long, long time.
:salute
-Penguin
I did not state that feces would be a more sustainable alternative to traditional foodstuffs. I stated that it could be just as good nutritionally.Unless they intentionally try to kill us like the Chinese are with their plastic toys :noid
The rest of your post sounds a bit paranoid. Those who provide our food are not interested in killing us, they'd lose customers if not sleep as well. Genetically modified crops' real risk is their homogenity, if a bug were able to exploit a hole, we could lose millions of tons of food.
-Penguin
No, not really.
The original story is a hoax. The person and the company do not exist. The Japanese dubbed into the original video does not match the person talking. It's pathetic that a supposed "news" organization would help propagate an internet hoax. Japanese and Chinese have been making video hoaxes about each other like this for years now. This was likely made in Taiwan in response to an earlier hoax video about Chinese making cooking oil from sewer water.
No, not really.i can't help it, penguin's fault :lol
The original story is a hoax. The person and the company do not exist. The Japanese dubbed into the original video does not match the person talking. It's pathetic that a supposed "news" organization would help propagate an internet hoax. Japanese and Chinese have been making video hoaxes about each other like this for years now. This was likely made in Taiwan in response to an earlier hoax video about Chinese making cooking oil from sewer water.
i can't help it, penguin's fault :lolI heard a stupid rumor that the UFO at roswell was a german hover air craft. People will believe some crazy stuff :rofl
remember roswell...weather balloon then, poopburger now. :lol
Of, relating to, or characteristic of scholars or scholarship
What is a Scholarly Article or Book?http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/definition_boxes/scholarly_article.htm (http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/definition_boxes/scholarly_article.htm)
A scholarly article or book generally is based on original research or experimentation. It is written by a researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with a college or university. Most scholarly writing includes footnotes and/or a bibliography and may include graphs or charts as illustrations as opposed to glossy pictures. In addition, articles that appear in scholarly journals or book that are published by academic presses, are subject to a peer-review process, which means that other "experts" or specialist in the field evaluate the quality and originality of the research as precondition of publication. The peer-review (as opposed to editorial review) process is also one thing that sets scholarly journals apart from journals that may otherwise seem quite similar. Journals such as Foreign Affairs, for instance, are generally not considers "scholarly journals," because many of the articles are solicited by the magazine's editors; in addition many of the articles are written by policy-makers who may be expressing an informed view, but whose article may not be based on original research.
Scholarly research is typically published by a academic association or a university/academic press. In international relations and comparative politics, representative scholarly journals include Asian Survey, Comparative Politics, International Organization, International Security Studies, Journal of Comparative Politics, Journal of Democracy, and World Politics