and no other effects? only lower methane emissions?
Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
271–280 of 409 posts
Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#272Let's not forget: - Producing cows is resource-intensive. Water and feed could be used more effectively elsewhere. - Consumption of red meat and dairy is generally unhealthy. - Runoff from cow "pastures" is effectively pollution. Encouraging less use of cows because of their impact on climate change was a win on a number of levels. Not any more.
Not any more? How come?
Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#273Skeptical 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…
Yup. There's plenty of boutique dairy farms within easy driving distance of rich colleges in the northeast (some of whom already have existing relationships with said colleges). I'm sure anyone who seriously wants to replicate the study would be able to find a farmer that will work with then to get an n value of a few hundred. It's not like you have to go somewhere remote to study cow farts.
Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just quoted an article with no credibility and zero comparison to natural methane emissions. Mind reading before plugging links? That was the first thing that came up for me in Google too, and the reason why I said what I did. Edit: just looked up EPA website and found this: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#m... - couple things to note: "50-65% of all methane emissions are caused by huma…
Agreed that link was not perfect hence the qualifying statement. You found great links/data that allow you to ask the question of cows vs human methane production. If you came across with that first, I think this would be different. If my statement came across as dismissive of discussion, it was because I felt you were not willing to provide to the discussion. Your opening statement "Is this event relevant anymore?"…
According to UN, all live stock together produces about 14.5% of total human-caused GHG emission http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#275Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#276My 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 consu…
it certainly seems like a farfetched bandaid for a very inefficient food source (no matter how you view it)
Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a small sample and a large effect doesn't mean you're guaranteed at least some effect on a large sample. If anything, a very large effect is more likely to indicate a flaw in your method.
Yes, but effect sizes are relatively harder to hack/screw up (knowingly or otherwise) than p-values. My totally anecdotal impression is that findings showing large effect sizes seem to replicate better than findings showing highly significant effects.
Excessively large effect sizes are a warning sign in and of themselves. A good article on this is here: [0] -- simply if the effect is too huge, it becomes incumbent on the researcher to explain why no-one has noticed this before. Methane is a gas with a distinct and noticeable smell. Seaweed is plentiful in many places cows are kept. If the effect was really as dramatic as claimed you'd expect that it'd be well known that letting cows eat seaweed made them less smelly, and the authors of the original study make no attempt to explain why this might be the case.
0: http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/07/impossibly-hungry-j...
Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can not grow enough fruits, vegetables and nuts to feed the human population without severe deforestation. Also, agriculture uses up pretty much most of the obtainable drinkable water.
I'm also sceptical that the recently proposed diets of fruits, vegetables and nuts actually work out. AFAICT it's an outstanding problem in nutrition science concerning how many of the calories in nuts that humans are able to digest. And yet it seems like the proposed diets just assume "all calories are equal". I've seen reports from journalists who have tried following those diets saying they were constantly hungry.
> I've seen reports from journalists who have tried following those diets saying they were constantly hungry.
This is the inherent problem of journalism - they need sensational results, otherwise the majority of folks wouldn't be bothered to read their journalism.
My 2 cents on this topic: I'm 10+ years vegan and everything is good, it's just no clickbait-worthy story...
Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
From an environmental perspective, it's easier to directly consume fruits, vegetables and nuts yourself, rather than have an animal do the same, then eat the animal. That doesn't address the human appetite for animal proteins, but there is beyond meat.
You can not grow enough fruits, vegetables and nuts to feed the human population without severe deforestation. Also, agriculture uses up pretty much most of the obtainable drinkable water.
The UN report [1] says that if the world population switches to a fully plant-based diet by 2050, accounting for the expected growth in population, we would actually use less land and less water as we do now. So we could in terms of land and water use. Or do you mean some other reason why this would be impossible?
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Appro...
Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%
#280My 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…
where does the methane go instead? there must be some trade off somewhere?
It is simply not produced. Methane is CH4. The carbon goes into CO2 instead (which is bad, but not as bad for the environment as methane).