Live data from Hacker News

Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

goodnewsnetwork.org

151–160 of 409 posts

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#151
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cows are much better at extracting nutrients from, say, grass than humans are. In places where nuts, vegetables, fruits aren't available, meat may be a more environmentally friendly choice.

> Cows are much better at extracting nutrients from, say, grass than humans are. That's because we human cannot digest grass due to the lack of the proper mictobiote, but most cows in the modern world aren't fed with grass anymore but instead with soy, corn or other kind of high-nutrients food (for which we human are totally equiped to eat).

That just means the inefficiency is in the feed used and the farming practices, not in the animal.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#152

I saw some math once... not sure how correct it is, but it was something like given the co2-equivalent emissions of methane, even if all cows simply disappeared tomorrow, it would still only take care of about 5% of our global GHG emissions. So if that's true it wouldn't really be a gamechanger. Still worth doing though (the seaweed, not the mass slaughtering)! And if everyone plants 350 trees then maybe we'll get so…

I'm not sure your number is correct. It's more like 20%.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#153
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear that the HN crowd wants to solve a mute problem with bioengineering and hacking. The ACTUAL problems, you know, the stuff that's so daunting that few startups will ever take on - well, we burry our heads in the sand. Any mention of this fact gets you downvoted. The same story with energy generation. HN has a big crush on nuclear. Nevermind that nuclear takes decades to approve and to build out - tim…

> Nevermind that nuclear takes decades to approve and to build out - time that we just don't have. But hey, as long as we can feel good about it, right? A big part of this is bitterness over the way nuclear energy has been treated. We used to have decades, we spent billions upon billions on renewables while demonizing nuclear energy, and now we don't have decades. Hell, it's very likely that we'd have fusion by now i…

Yep. We had decades of time. We put those decades into what amounts to a boondoggle, with wind and solar and vague hopes that efficiency of generation and storage technology would just materialize with no real clear path. So we have basically nothing to show for the last 50 years.

We could have invested in replacing fossil fuels with extant nuclear technologies and put a huge dent in the problem. And put more research into fusion, which is still subjected to a painful lack of funding that is the biggest roadblock to its eventual viability.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AT can do this for bovines, I wonder what the health benefits for us could be

Reducing methane emissions is not a health benefit.

The parent comment mentions also additional effects like increased immunity.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> early indications in research of some amazing additional benefits – improved milk production, increased immunity, improved food conversion ratio What are the chances the gains here might be on the order where we could stop dosing cattle with antibiotics?

Basically none. We will continue to dose cattle with antibiotics as long as there is additional gain from doing so, regardless of how profitable cattle without antibiotics are.

So you're saying if farming antibiotic free cattle is twice as profitable as today, and farming antibiotic cattle is loss making, farmers are still going to farm antibiotic cattle? You know farms are businesses, they are motivated by money.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing methane emissions is not a health benefit.

But it's a proxy for inferring reduced gut distress. So it's not an unreasonable thing to wonder about.

Is it actually or is it just not liking farts and rationalizing reducing them?

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#157
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been to the grocery store much lately, and a Wendy's and McDonald's are within bicycling distance. I'll go to them once or twice a day often nowadays. When I first moved out, eating out so much would have felt like an intolerable budget failure, but I've found myself caring less and less over time. I try to stick to just the burgers, not soda or fries often. The jalapeno bacon fries at Wendy's have been an…

If you are going to eat out all the time, try to make it places that use whole foods like real chicken breast in their burgers. At least you're not getting all the processing guff that ends up in processed meat blends. Also give Japanese, Korean or Thai cuisines a go. You can eat pretty healthy and still eat out constantly with a lot of East/South East Asian cuisines.

What is the "guff" that goes into a chain fast food burger?

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mechanism is mostly understood, but not perfectly. Most people know that a cow has multiple stomachs. The second stomach is called a rumen. A cow chews it's cud (essentially big mashes of grass and grain, which a stomach cannot digest). This cud is passed through the first stomach and into the rumen, which contains beneficial, digestive bacteria. The bacteria in the rumen essentially ferment the cud and make comp…

What about creating bromoform directly in a lab? Is that possible? If so, then direct application to the feed wouldnt require en massed sea farming.

Sigma Aldrich sells a kilo of pure bromoform for about $300. I’m sure bulk bromoform is much cheaper.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#160
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, essentially they are poisoning the cows ever so slightly?

In the sense that humans eating capsaicin are poisoning themselves slightly; and not the sense in which humans drinking alcohol are poisoning themselves slightly. It’s such a different order of magnitude that there’s a qualitative, not just quantitative, change in the body’s response.

Hmmkay, I was just wondering what the downsides are. After all, that sounds too good to be true.
Post reply on HN