Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps • Hacker News Board

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#51

Post by athenot » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:17 PM UTC

noetic_techy wrote: post #43

But does it change the taste of the meat? This is the real question and a deal breaker for many. Grass fed meat is gamy than grain fed/finished, so I can imagine seaweed imparts an fishy taste to the fat and probably to the milk also.

That gives a whole new meaning to "surf and turf"... :)

All jokes aside, I wonder how they account for the extra salt that's in seaweed. I know cows usually have salt licks to supplement salt and other minerals; perhaps seaweed can supply all that's needed in terms of minerals?

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#52

Post by resters » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #30

This is a perfect example of why "sin taxes" like the proposed tax on meat[1][2] to fight climate change are a bad idea. You need to tax the externality (greenhouse gas emissions), not an activity which currently causes such emissions, because then you don't have any incentives left (such as in this case) for industries to reduce those emissions. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/meat-tax... 2. h…

Great point about taxing the externalities. Also, I think that elected officials with the livestock facilities in their jurisdictions should be required to live (or spend a significant amount of time) downwind of the facilities.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#53

Post by jakobegger » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #30

This is a perfect example of why "sin taxes" like the proposed tax on meat[1][2] to fight climate change are a bad idea. You need to tax the externality (greenhouse gas emissions), not an activity which currently causes such emissions, because then you don't have any incentives left (such as in this case) for industries to reduce those emissions. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/meat-tax... 2. h…

Some externalities are hard to tax. For example, consumption of red meat probably increases cancer risk [1]. We can't introduce a tax on cancer, but we still want to reduce the occurrence of cancer, so all that's left is taxing red meat.

[1]: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#54

Post by notable_user » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:26 PM UTC

jayalpha wrote: post #32

zwieback wrote: post #21

I wonder if it affects the flavor of the milk.

For sure it does. People in Europe pay a premium for "high mountains cow milk" ("Alpenmilch"). I had the impression that US milk has no taste but always thought it's just in my mind. But when I was in Colombia I met a guy from Switzerland who studied in Canada and said:"Oh wow, the milk here really tastes good like in Europe. Not like in Canada." So the milk in Europe and North America must indeed taste different. It…

Milk is pasteurized differently in the US vs Europe. I’d bet that has the most impact on taste.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#55

Post by freedomben » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:27 PM UTC

jakobegger wrote: post #53

avar wrote: post #30

This is a perfect example of why "sin taxes" like the proposed tax on meat[1][2] to fight climate change are a bad idea. You need to tax the externality (greenhouse gas emissions), not an activity which currently causes such emissions, because then you don't have any incentives left (such as in this case) for industries to reduce those emissions. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/meat-tax... 2. h…

Some externalities are hard to tax. For example, consumption of red meat probably increases cancer risk [1]. We can't introduce a tax on cancer, but we still want to reduce the occurrence of cancer, so all that's left is taxing red meat. [1]: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

What about letting people make their own choices without trying to social engineer them, which is essentially forcing our values onto them?

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#56

Post by SwellJoe » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:28 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #40

Joe-Z wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the remaining sin being treating animals like a commodity, making them suffer, driving them around in crowded conditions for hundreds of miles... It‘s not just the environment that suffers from our industrialized way to produce meat

That's another good example. Tax that, and you create an incentive to either eat "dumber" meat like fish instead of pigs, or meat where you've avoided the "sin" altogether. Such as lab-grown meat.

So, why would that be a negative outcome?

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#57

Post by soperj » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

Joe-Z wrote: post #33

avar wrote: post #30

This is a perfect example of why "sin taxes" like the proposed tax on meat[1][2] to fight climate change are a bad idea. You need to tax the externality (greenhouse gas emissions), not an activity which currently causes such emissions, because then you don't have any incentives left (such as in this case) for industries to reduce those emissions. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/meat-tax... 2. h…

Of course the remaining sin being treating animals like a commodity, making them suffer, driving them around in crowded conditions for hundreds of miles... It‘s not just the environment that suffers from our industrialized way to produce meat

I feel the same way about vegetables. Cutting down in the prime of their life, and shipping them to stores across the country packed in crates. It's unconscionable.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#58

Post by cycrutchfield » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:30 PM UTC

noetic_techy wrote: post #43

But does it change the taste of the meat? This is the real question and a deal breaker for many. Grass fed meat is gamy than grain fed/finished, so I can imagine seaweed imparts an fishy taste to the fat and probably to the milk also.

Fishy? More like umami.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#59

Post by SwellJoe » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #16

hsnewman wrote: post #13

So the clarification is "from their burps". What does it do to the greenhouse gas emissions from their farts?

or getting the seaweed there, or growing enough seaweed

Growing and delivering the seaweed is among the smallest problems to solve. The animal agriculture industry already involves growing and shipping billions of pounds of feed. This is just a different type of feed, and it is seemingly only needed in tiny quantities, so it will be dwarfed by other expenses related to raising cattle for consumption.

The only thing missing is a profit motive...without taxes and regulations that internalize those external environmental costs, there's no motivation for cattle producers to add even this small cost.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#60

Post by asdff » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

LoSboccacc wrote: post #27

beachy wrote: post #19

Really interesting, and potentially highly relevant to New Zealand where our many cows and sheep make up about a third of our emissions. Since cows produce quite variable emissions it sounds quite credible that some out of the box thinking like feeding seaweed could actually work in cutting emissions. > ( https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/greenhouse-gases/... ): Measurements of methane emission rates on shee…

this news has made the run once a year since I was in high school https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257589662_Methane_p... so there's something to it that doesn't add up. either the economics of producing enough algae make it infeasible, or other factors come into play like milk/meat taste or even what to do with pastures if they aren't used for pasturing, it's not like you can grow stuff there.

Basic economics. There's no reason why farmers should switch to more expensive feed even if its better for the environment or cows. At least near term they will end up selling the same meat for a higher price to compensate for the feed, will sell less meat due to the price, ultimately hurting profits, and the plan will be scorned until it's abandoned. It doesn't even matter that seaweed is cheap and resource-light to farm, nor does it matter that only a small amount of this compound needs to be put in the feed. Shareholders will not tolerate more overhead unless forced.

This is the perfect place for government action to incentivize switching to this kind of feed, be it subsidy or tax break. Pollution is sadly profitable, and corporations need to be either fined for polluting or incentivized for reducing pollution; shareholders rarely see beyond quarterly profits, let alone the great economic consequences of pollution a century down the line.