Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

goodnewsnetwork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 409 posts

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

#231

Post by stephenr »

stephenr wrote: post #34
alphakappa wrote: post #3

There are many planet saving discoveries like these. There's also a catch, which is why the planet hasn't been saved yet. > “If we’re able to work out how to scale up the seaweed to such a level to that can feed all of the cows and the sheep and the goats around the world, then it’s going to have a huge impact on the climate; And there you go. That's the hard part that you cannot just hand-wave away. You also have to…

It’s simple really. After global warming causes sea levels to rise, the cows will be underwater anyway, they can just find their own seaweed to eat. Problem solved!

REALLY? Someone flagged this?

Fucking hell HN, you need to chill.

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

#232

Post by neuronic »

rubber_duck wrote: post #228
blue_devil wrote: post #198

More of a philosophical perspective here: The eco-systems on Earth have evolved over a long time. Without bias against scientific progress, why do we think we can "solve" this without going down a slippery slope of creating another problem? When is comes to complex systems that we don't completely understand, maybe the simplest solution is to just restore the system, that is "give up" on cows as human feed.

Restoring what system - nature is not some harmonious place where everything just works and people came and ruined it - there were plenty of extinction events prior to humans, evolution can lead to dead ends and get stuck at local minima. It doesn't optimize for a lot and collects garbage allong the way (eg. eye optic nerve blind spot) Man made climate change is showing us how vulnerable we are to changes in the Eart…

His point still stands. You cannot just hope to disturb a complex system and expect a linear outcome.

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

#233

Post by neuronic »

irjustin wrote: post #17
lazyguy wrote: post #11

This sounds extremely unhealthy for the cows.

where did you get this? i haven't read anything towards this end.

He gets this from nowhere and just proceeds to nonchalantly throw in stupid remarks in a debate that he doesn't like. It's an attempt to derail the discussion about proper solutions.

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

#234

Post by avip »

hannob wrote: post #172

Skeptical science remark: This whole "if cows eat seaweed that'll vastly reduce their carbon footprint" is based on a single study with 12 cows. If you take into consideration that especially small, never replicated studies often don't hold up to scrunity the next thing to do is not to ask how to produce the seaweed. The next reasonable step would be to try to replicate this study in a larger sample (and probably als…

Even more skeptical remark:

Effects of nutrition on livestock methane production have been studied for over 20 years now. We have methane reduction results from both in-vivo and in-vitro research. What varies is the numbers (99%, 50%, 15%?). Replication is always welcome but I believe we have enough sound science to move into more industry/engineering efforts.

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

#235

Post by leipert »

goodalgae wrote: post #26

My company is currently working to grow Asparagopsis Taxiformis, here in the US, for this purpose. I agree with comments that we have big issues to tackle in regards to methane sinks failing, such as permafrost, and there are things to be said about people moving en masse to plant based diets – but, the future will always be a mix of tomorrow and today. Many people will still eat beef, and we need to ensure we reduce…

What is the feasibility of this, deploying it on a large scale?

I did some quick calculations on a napkin.

Apparently there are between 1 billion and 1.5 billion cows [0][1]. Let’s just say 1.5 Billion.

In New Zealand the beef (dry cow) vs dairy cow ratio is almost 1:1 [2], but I assume that countries like India have more dairy cows, so I just assumed that 60% percent of cows are dairy cows.

Apparently dry cows consume around 25 lb (11 kilogram) dry matter per day [3], milking cows 25kg dry matter [4].

Let’s just assume that 1% of the dry matter needs to be replaced with the algae, which is half of what the article mentions. That would mean, that we need:

(1500 Million * 0.6 * 0.01 * 25kg) + (1500 Million * 0.4 * 0.01 * 11kg) = 291 Million kilogram = 291.000 metric tons of algae per day

Just the logistics alone is major feat to pull off, put on a yearly scale the weight of these algae equals half of the trash produced in the US per year [5].

[0]: https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-ranking-c...

[1]: https://www.drovers.com/article/world-cattle-inventory-ranki...

[2]: https://teara.govt.nz/files/1_183_Beef_Ratios_0.pdf

[3]: http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/3154/how-much-forage-doe...

[4]: https://albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/how-much-feed-does-...

[5]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=291*365+million+kilogr...

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

#236

Post by tmalsburg2 »

solveit wrote: post #207
hannob wrote: post #172

Skeptical science remark: This whole "if cows eat seaweed that'll vastly reduce their carbon footprint" is based on a single study with 12 cows. If you take into consideration that especially small, never replicated studies often don't hold up to scrunity the next thing to do is not to ask how to produce the seaweed. The next reasonable step would be to try to replicate this study in a larger sample (and probably als…

You're absolutely right, but the effect size is pretty damn impressive and I expect this to at least partially replicate.

In a small sample, the observed effect needs to be large in order to cross the threshold for statistical significance. It could still be a fluke and the true effect zero or even negative.

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

#237

Post by Accacin »

Avamander wrote: post #205
Accacin wrote: post #200

Disclaimer: I'm plant-based, and of course biased. What would it take people to realise that eating meat is just not good for the environment and rather than going through all these 'fixes', just stop eating meat? We're getting to the point where we're going to have to sacrifice some 'comforts' IMO.

> We're getting to the point where we're going to have to sacrifice some 'comforts' IMO. Why can't those comforts we "sacrifice" be cruises, gasoline/diesel cars and all advertising? My point being that saying "we're going to have to make some sacrifices" and pointing at someone else never works unless the person pointing has a lot of power to enforce it.

> Why can't those comforts we "sacrifice" be cruises, gasoline/diesel cars and all advertising?

This is only my opinion, but cutting out meat is incredibly easy. If you're in an area with no public transport then it's hard to stop driving your car especially if your livelihood depends on it.

It's just a lot of time and money trying to fix the meat industry when the solution is 'stop'.

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

#238

Post by beachy »

neuronic wrote: post #232
rubber_duck wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restoring what system - nature is not some harmonious place where everything just works and people came and ruined it - there were plenty of extinction events prior to humans, evolution can lead to dead ends and get stuck at local minima. It doesn't optimize for a lot and collects garbage allong the way (eg. eye optic nerve blind spot) Man made climate change is showing us how vulnerable we are to changes in the Eart…

His point still stands. You cannot just hope to disturb a complex system and expect a linear outcome.

You also can't choose inaction over at least attempting to get things back to a known stable state by reversing the base factors (greenhouse gas concentrations).

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

#239

Post by barry-cotter »

benj111 wrote: post #166
barry-cotter wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong. A burger is bread, meat and vegetables, maybe with some cheese or another meat. Between carbohydrates, protein and some vegetables an all burger diet is unlikely to lead to any noticeable health effects compared to a normal Western diet. Fries are vastly worse for you than burgers or pizza, whether you’re looking at macronutrients alone or tracking vitamins and minerals as well. http://www.businesspund…

A burger doesn't have enough veg for a healthy diet, I'd be amazed if its better than the average western diet. I'm thinking a generic McDonalds burger here with a wilted piece of lettuce, a slice of tomato and some gherkins. You could probably construct a healthy veg burger, I have no idea where you'd buy one. Something like subway seems like a better bet.

I didn’t say it was better, I doubt it would be worse. You vastly overestimate how much variety, or vegetables, are necessary to maintain health. The following are nutritionally complete; if you eat them you will not get any deficiency diseases, potatoes and milk, rice and beans, peanut butter and bread. Note that they all include a source of carbs and protein, like burgers. Hell, as long as you eat fatty meat you can eat nothing but meat with no ill effects on health. Over the course of a day you’d get enough lettuce and tomato to stave off deficiency diseases, and that neglects ketchup, otherwise known as concentrated tomato.

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

#240

Post by beachy »

maxdamantus wrote: post #57
moultano wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they aren't the biggest part of the problem, but the difficulty is that we have to solve the whole thing. Carbon emissions need to get to zero and then go negative. That means ideally we need solutions for every contributor, no matter how small.

I agree that cows are an issue that should be looked into, but ultimately cows themselves aren't causing more carbon to be taken from the ground and left in the atmosphere indefinitely (the issue is that methane is a greater contributor to the greenhouse effect over carbon dioxide, per unit carbon), so presumably in this case it's a matter of keeping methane levels below a certain amount rather than reversing carbon…

Cows are carbon to methane convertors.

AFAIK, although methane dissipates more quickly (good in the longer term) it has a more powerful effect in the shorter term.

So the rationale while we are stick deep in the shit is not too think so much of the long term, but just to survive the short term - i.e reduce the methane.

Post reply on HN