A couple of years ago I came across Tjeerd Veenhoven's palm leather[0][1]. It is probably not quite as super-durable as pure leather, but still quite incredible given how simple it is to produce (basically, soak a palm leaf husk in a water/glycerine solution for a few days), and given that it is mainly made from what used to be waste materials.

Sadly it seems the products based on it did take off enough for it to become a thing (especially since he seemed to be doing his best to also ensure the local economy of the places where this material would be produced would benefit from it). The project got turned into a foundation that tries to support a local economy and design community, so who knows, it might make a comeback in a few years[2].

More recently Veenhoven has been developing pigments from discarded tulip flower heads[3], and fabrics based on algae[4].

[0] http://www.tjeerdveenhoven.com/portfolio_page/palm-leather/

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo7Zfw8eLso

[2] http://www.tjeerdveenhoven.com/portfolio_page/wishful-doing-...

[3] http://www.tjeerdveenhoven.com/portfolio_page/tulip-pigments...

[4] http://www.tjeerdveenhoven.com/portfolio_page/algaefabrics/

Won't that leather still get used elsewhere? I don't think many animals are reared with the primarry intent of producing leather but rather becouse of our high meat demand and we can't make one without the other.

Then we should start consuming them. Javanese & Minangkabau people of Indonesia does.

Prepared properly, they have jelly-like texture and taste earthy. Great in soup and spicy dishes.

Fresh from farm: https://imgur.com/05LFWnq

Final product before cooking: https://imgur.com/tqICpVR

Or stop eating meat. Probably a better choice.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade or two, once synthmeat is good enough to take over the market. Various breeds of cattle will likely go extinct, and the same social opprobrium that will wipe out the market for "real" meat will presumably affect leather goods as well.

When synthetic meat becomes good enough there'll still be loads of people who'll say it's inferior to the real thing. Apart from that I believe a happy cow is better than no cow so sustainable and environmentally-friendly livestock farms still have a reason to exist.

Well, already you have "loads of people" claiming that kobe beef is better than regular beef (or that the black iberian pig is better than other kinds of pig). Yet, since meet from those animals is expensive, in practice the vast majority of meat doesn't come from these species.

It can be identical with synthetic vs natural meat. Price can make the difference, and we can still reduce massively the amount of livestock we breed (e.g. make the farms more environmentally-friendly through regulation)

>"Well, already you have "loads of people" claiming that kobe beef is better than regular beef (or that the black iberian pig is better than other kinds of pig). Yet, since meet from those animals is expensive, in practice the vast majority of meat doesn't come from these species.

Having just been on vacation in Malaga (highly recommended), Jamon Iberico Bellota -- the highest-quality ham from acorn-fed black iberian pigs -- is absolutely, genuinely so superior to lesser hams that it's not even funny. There is just no comparison.

It also costs at least €130/kg even the smallest local ham stores, so yes it is prohibitively expensive, you can expect to pay at least twice that for the genuine stuff, if you're not in Andalusia.

How much of the taste is because the diet, and how much is because of the breed? Who knows, but I think it's a combination.

> how much is because of the breed

The genetics of the "iberian black pig" are different in a surpsiging way. Studies have shown that their meet contains a lot more monounsaturated fats (The good oil, like olive oil) than other pigs. When raised on acorn and free-roaming, their bodies carry out more endogenous lipolysis. So it's considered a healthy meat to consume (and is raised sustainably to boot).

[0] https://www.uco.es/dptos/prod-animal/economia/dehesa/salud.h... [1] http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/1/22/pdf

It is and there are official classifications for that. Ibérico is about the race, pata negra (black paw) being a best subclass name that expanded to anything first class. If a Spaniard says you are pata negra, it's actually good, not an indictment on your feet higiene :)

Bellota (acorn) the diet. You can find intermediate categories like "50% raza ibérica" or "recebo" for both.

Oh yes, I got a very thorough explanation and examples from a very dedicated ham shop owner. It was a bit of a lazy afternoon, so he took the time to properly school us on every detail and the classification system.

If you're ever in Malaga, hit up Azabache in the old part of town. One hell of a shop for ham and cheese and a bit of seafood.

Kobe beef doesn't really affect the consumption of other beef in a material way not just because it's much more expensive, but (probably mainly) because it's available in very limited quantities and all but impossible to obtain in most parts of the world. Its supply is simply too limited to affect demand for other meats in any appreciable way.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your overall point, though.

Living in Spain, the ham does taste a lot better from black Iberian pigs.

> I believe a happy cow is better than no cow

Considering that most of US beef comes from factory farms, the concept of the "happy cow" is nearly mythological. Given the choice, I would rather not exist than play those odds.

Totally agree! There are no happy cows in farming. btw the cows that are killed for meat are babies, killed well before their natural lifespan.

unfortunately a lot of cows are raised and killed just for leather! (I think for high end uses like purses, etc.). I don't have an a source for this handy but have heard it from industry experts.

Still needs to be tanned and dyed. With the same products. As a lot of the problem with the leather is that tanning products and inks are poisonous, IMHO probably is not a solution for this problem. Mycelium is more porous than leather (probably), so it could absorb more product.

But I could be wrong. Just speculating. Better than plastic for sure if enough strong and can be certified non-allergenig or a cause of asthma.

A lot of the benefit hopefully comes from reducing the carbon footprint that would have gone into a cow.

That cow will still be raised unless the higher cost of the meat (via a lower demand for leather due to mycelium) drives down demand (for meat).

For now. But it removes yet another barrier to consume less cows. Humanity solves problems step by step. It's ok if it takes a century.

I don’t think we have a century to solve the problem with greenhouse gases.

A lot of the problem with the leather is that you have to kill cows, lambs, etc. for fashion.

But on the plus side a leather jacket can last a lifetime. And they cost mid-hundreds to low-thousands for a decent one so people aren’t buying as many of them as they would a $15 plastic / polyester throwaway jacket from wal mart.

Presumably we're killing the cows and lambs for fashion AND food? Even if we stopped using animal leather materials tomorrow, I doubt it would put much of a dent in the industry.

(For the record I'm all for eating meat, but I agree that beef is unsustainably bad for the environment compared to other animal options like poultry and eggs.)

But leather subsidises the cost of raising animals for meat so reduced demand for it should raise the price of beef. Ideally that would encourage people to eat less beef, and eat more sustainable meats (or no meat at all).

If livestock ranchers cannot sell the skins as leather, they can sell them as cracklings. Or as parchment. Or as gelatin. Or as pet food. Or as fertilizer.

As long as the demand for some product causes the animal to be raised, the undesirable parts will become by-products.

A competitor for leather would depress the price of animal leather, which would tend to raise the price of meat, probably disproportionately for the best cuts. Forelegs, brains, and chitterlings would go up a few cents a pound, while tongues and tenderloins would go up by dollars per pound.

That might encourage people to eat less meat, but it might also encourage them to substitute the cheaper cuts of meat--which include the skins. Rawhide soup, anyone?

It wouldn't put a dent in the industry at all. We raise and kill cows for their meat, not their skins. Their skins are just a handy byproduct. Eliminating the cow-leather market won't change that at all; it might make beef slightly more expensive (I imagine most of the cost of leather is in the processing, not the raw hide), but that's not going to affect beef consumption.

If we mostly eliminate beef (in favor of artificially-grown beef, for instance, which might be a reality in 10-20 years), that'll make cowhides much, much more expensive, so people simply won't be getting leather car seats, leather coats, etc., except maybe for extremely high-end markets.

Putting personal preference (taste, price, etc.) aside, I'm curious what other reasoning is behind your position of being "all for eating meat" (if any)?

I'm assuming here that by mentioning it in the same sentence as you say beef is bad for the environment, you are talking about being for meat production on a global scale, and not just for your personal preference.

yes I too would like to know the reason for being "all for eating meat". I think most reasonable people wouldn't eat meat (provided reasonable food alternatives) if they got to know the animals and how much they suffer. (just like most Americans would refuse to eat dogs or cats)

> ... the problem is that we have to kill cows for fashion

This is a false problem.

Clothes are more than fashion. Leather extracted from dead animals is a big ally against animal cruelty and I'm not trolling. Lets remember why we use it. It saves millions of worker humans from having horrible injuries, painful deep cuts and mutilations.

Could workers rely equally in mycelium for not losing a finger or a leg by a saw if they stumble?

Is mycelium flammable? When I'm using an arc welding torch I want to wear a solid >1mm leather apron. If something goes wrong, leather will save my arms and body from a severe burning. Can filosophy or whisful thinking do the same for me?.

I would not hire a vegan worker if they stubbornly refuse to wear protective clothes arguing that we have pleather that "looks the same" (and burns like gasoline). Would be really irresponsible on my part to hire them.

> on the plus side a leather jacket can last a lifetime, vs polyester throwaway...

100% agree with this

Firemen haven't worn leather as primary protection for a very long time. In fact, I wear a fireman's Kevlar turnout when I weld.

I wear leather gloves, but wouldn't hesitate to use a knitted Kevlar alternative, especially since it would insulate much better.

I'm not very familiar with non-leather options for welding, but looking around I see fire proofed cotton and kevlar based garments as alternatives. Would you not be willing to hire a vegan welder if they provided their own protective gear that wasn't leather?

Here are some options I've seen but I really have no idea if they're good enough:

* https://www.amazon.com/Ironclad-HW6X-04-L-Heatworx-Heavy-Glo...

* https://www.amazon.com/ThxToms-932%C2%B0F-Resistant-Kevlar-G...

* https://apparelsolutionsinternational.com/products/fr-covera...

To me, the question is not whether the alternatives would be as good as leather but would be a good enough alternative to leather.

I wear Kevlar, but I'll note one great advantage to leather: it abrades and tears somewhat like skin and doesn't really catch like woven Kevlar can. If you're welding, you're likely also in the vicinity of spinning things, like cutting and grinding disks.

Obviously, it all comes down to balancing needs and risks. I just thought I'd point out how you can meet or exceed one requirement (flameproofing) but potentially create a new risk in the process.

> Would you not be willing to hire a vegan welder if they provided their own protective gear that wasn't leather?

It depends of what she/he consider protective gear. Kevlar is fine. Anything that is regulated, lawful, well tested, reliable and covered by the assurance is fine. Those new materials can't still be trusted at the same level and you don't want to be the first to discover in your company that they are acid permeable or burn like a torch when react with some chemical

To let some of your employees work with a lower protection against accidents than other employees, would be negligent and easily prosecutable in court. The non-vegane parents of a vegane killed in an accident would not doubt a second to sue you in this case.

Reported feb 2017, with shutdown of the district ("no exceptions") slated for mar 31, 2017. So what happened, did it shut down and move to the new park that has waste treatment, etc?

I came across fish leather at a market recently. It is very durable and interesting in appearance. I don't know that it is cheaper or less dirty, but it could be. http://thefishleather.co

Is dirty in its own way, but more sustainable for sure.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Urine-Tanned-Salmon-Leather/

the alternatives will probably be more dirty when you factor in energy, waste, non-biodegradable plastics, etc.

"dirty" isn't really well-orderable. It depends on what you're worried about. Chromium toxicity is definitely a huge problem with current leather production, as well as atmospheric effects and water use from raising cattle.