If seaweed eliminates methane it likely will affect some gut bacteria more than others. We would not blindly swallow antibiotics affecting what is happening in our gut. There will be side effects one way or another - usually the more effect the more side effect. Seaweed is worth studying and has promise but I'm skeptical when it comes super food claims.
If i read it correctly the paper says the effect comes through bromoform contained in the algae, which inhibits the enzymes participating in the methane production.
It's only fed in sub-toxic amounts to the cows I don't think it bio-accumulates, so the meat should be safe for consumption.
in other words, it has nothing to do with antibiotics.
There probably isn't an incentive to reduce methane emissions for farmers right now though, right? We'd have to pass regulations mandating a reduction, or an emissions tax or something.
In Europe a country is fined if it doesn't meet it's targets. The measurement of emissions includes agriculture and is a big problem for some countries. So if they can monitor and prove that this method will reduce emissions then I think they will consider it.
No, and that's not going to happen soon. But companies can start marketing their products as carbon neutral and selling them at a premium at retailers like Whole Foods.
The biggest producers are and will always be the mass market stuff, though. Who cares if 1% of beef is produced carbon neutral? It's nice, but it makes no tangible difference. Sadly this method of encouraging better behaviour won't work unless a costco or a mcdonalds, for some insane reason, wants to cut their profit margin and buy more expensive beef.
Like how it would be insane of McDonald's to unilaterally agree to use cage-free eggs?
If seaweed eliminates methane it likely will affect some gut bacteria more than others. We would not blindly swallow antibiotics affecting what is happening in our gut. There will be side effects one way or another - usually the more effect the more side effect. Seaweed is worth studying and has promise but I'm skeptical when it comes super food claims.
If i read it correctly the paper says the effect comes through bromoform contained in the algae, which inhibits the enzymes participating in the methane production. It's only fed in sub-toxic amounts to the cows I don't think it bio-accumulates, so the meat should be safe for consumption. in other words, it has nothing to do with antibiotics.
Wouldn't it be better/cheaper just to make and feed the cows some bromoform ?
The biggest producers are and will always be the mass market stuff, though. Who cares if 1% of beef is produced carbon neutral? It's nice, but it makes no tangible difference. Sadly this method of encouraging better behaviour won't work unless a costco or a mcdonalds, for some insane reason, wants to cut their profit margin and buy more expensive beef.
The worst move the environmental movement did is let the environmentally sensitive product be associated with consumption by a rich liberal urban elite. Until someone can fix this and disassociate ecological efficiency from the limousine liberal, these programs are unfortunately going to only be marginal. Minimizing environmental externalities can't be seen as optional. Lots of reasonable things increase cost - such…
Yes agree, just look at canned tuna. How is it acceptable to sell products that kill dolphines? Yet "dophin friendly" is treated as a marketing thing. It is like having a note saying "no kittens strangled" on a bottle of milk. It would be better to require objective ethical discolsure upfront on products. So you have "child labour may have been used" alongside the fat content and ingredients.
Does that require the cows to be entirely fed on the seaweed or does it work as part of a mixture? Edit: found the paper: https://sci-hub.ac/10.1071/AN15576 According to figure 2 it looks like 2-10% of the feed is sufficient to achieve near-total methane reduction and <5% does not negatively affect digestibility, so 2-5% is the sweet spot.
Since this is aimed at environment efforts, I would ask how much 2-5% reduction in feed is in acres of land dedicated to farming and usage of pesticides. To my knowledge, seaweed farm are considered quite eco firendly, not size constrained, and don't need pesticides.
The biggest producers are and will always be the mass market stuff, though. Who cares if 1% of beef is produced carbon neutral? It's nice, but it makes no tangible difference. Sadly this method of encouraging better behaviour won't work unless a costco or a mcdonalds, for some insane reason, wants to cut their profit margin and buy more expensive beef.
The worst move the environmental movement did is let the environmentally sensitive product be associated with consumption by a rich liberal urban elite. Until someone can fix this and disassociate ecological efficiency from the limousine liberal, these programs are unfortunately going to only be marginal. Minimizing environmental externalities can't be seen as optional. Lots of reasonable things increase cost - such…
Consumer product prices will always race to the bottom. Environmental protections with non-zero costs will therefore always take a back seat to a more competitive price.
I agree in principle with your sentiment; however, I have yet to come up with an alternative which does not involve strong environmental legislation. Which, in the US at least, is only likely to happen after it's too late, if ever.
The biggest producers are and will always be the mass market stuff, though. Who cares if 1% of beef is produced carbon neutral? It's nice, but it makes no tangible difference. Sadly this method of encouraging better behaviour won't work unless a costco or a mcdonalds, for some insane reason, wants to cut their profit margin and buy more expensive beef.
I agree with you. I'd rather see faster, broader action. But it's not happening soon. But instead of waiting around ask your butcher if they can purchase a "zero carbon" cow (or better yet go vegan/vegetarian :)), don't buy mass market stuff with huge carbon footprints (this Christmas I'm mostly giving food or other things). I used to think the "your wallet can change corporate behavior" line of reasoning at the end…
Asking your butcher for "zero carbon" cow is pointless, I agree, it is also the equivalent of attempting to avoid buying things with "huge" carbon footprints (like everything that has plastic on it which is pretty much everything useful), much like buying in artisanal shops, or asking for "grass fed beef" or "free range eggs", it is all highly inefficient which is a problem with our growing population. They are all labels often as meaningless as "organic". The vegan and vegetarian options are rather more efficient and simple ways to achieve the same thing with the added benefit of not torturing animals for no good reason other than a particular taste. Once meat is gone from your diet that's it, no debating whether this you're buying has a huge carbon footprint or not, or simply lying to yourself with the zero carbon, dolphin friendly, free range, organic or grass fed labels. I know the usual argument, you're never going to get people to stop eating meat, but then again how are you going to get everyone to care for these labels (which usually carry a higher price in them)? and more over, policing that these labels are actually true?. Think about it, even in the futuristic scenario of populating Mars, are we really going to carry cattle with us, I think it is time to leave it behind.
Does that require the cows to be entirely fed on the seaweed or does it work as part of a mixture? Edit: found the paper: https://sci-hub.ac/10.1071/AN15576 According to figure 2 it looks like 2-10% of the feed is sufficient to achieve near-total methane reduction and <5% does not negatively affect digestibility, so 2-5% is the sweet spot.
Since this is aimed at environment efforts, I would ask how much 2-5% reduction in feed is in acres of land dedicated to farming and usage of pesticides. To my knowledge, seaweed farm are considered quite eco firendly, not size constrained, and don't need pesticides.
Your knowledge is all correct (I researched leaving tech to farm seaweed).