Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99% • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by mklarmann » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #249

mklarmann wrote: post #246

There is a similar product made from garlic, that is encapsulated so it just doesn't wash out with the cows saliva, that has a similar effect. You need about 50kg of it per cow, and it kills the methane producing bacteria. Yet the issue (which they no not fully communicate publicly, but one of the lead scientists told me in private), I guess is the same as with the seaweed. It is not all about reducing methane. We ne…

Does the garlic cause methane reduction by the same mechanism as the seaweed?

This study [1] does indeed not reference N2O. So this make me suspicious:

The garlic study [2], states: "Garlic contains allicin, diallylsulide, dialyldisulfide and allyl mercaptan, which affect rumen methanogens, decreasing rumen CH4 and acetate production and increasing rumen propionate and butyrate production (Busquet et al., 2005)."

Allicin is not referenced in the sea-weed study. One would have to study the exact mechanism [3], to be conclusive.

[1]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[2]: http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2858/effect-of-garlic-...

[3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714447/

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

#332

Post by MiroF » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:26 PM UTC

strainer wrote: post #290

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…

"is based on a single study with 12 cows." Its not - most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. A quick scholar search shows numerous studies broadly agreeing with the one featured here, including the seaweeds effects on sheep digestion and microbial and metabolic details: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane

> most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this! Seems very popular and common in forums like HN and Reddit, but less so elsewhere.

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

#333

Post by joombaga » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

tmalsburg2 wrote: post #236

solveit wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the tendency when a study with a small sample size that show a large observed effect get performed on larger samples? Has it been studied?

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

#334

Post by hispanic » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #325

hispanic wrote: post #322

Man - cows eating seaweed is no more natural than cows eating corn. We need to stop bastardizing natural systems for our own comfort and convenience.

I mean, you know there are no 'cows' in the wild. We made cows from aurochs.

Point taken. "Bastardization" isn't black and white. It's measured in shades of grey.

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

#335

Post by TravHatesMe » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #332

strainer wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"is based on a single study with 12 cows." Its not - most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. A quick scholar search shows numerous studies broadly agreeing with the one featured here, including the seaweeds effects on sheep digestion and microbial and metabolic details: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane

> most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. I thought I was the only one who noticed this! Seems very popular and common in forums like HN and Reddit, but less so elsewhere.

I would prefer being skeptical instead of blindly accepting things. This behavior will instigate another to provide evidence or a counter-argument. This makes for great discussion, in most cases I think it is healthy.

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

#336

Post by ars » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

snak wrote: post #313

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #18

Earlier 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.

That's an interesting way to put it into words. In paper sounds like a really unefficient pipeline (vegetables -> animals -> humans). Thanks for that, made me reflect on how stupid it sounds but how common it is.

It's not really stupid, the idea is cows eat plant matter that humans can't eat. Cellulose mainly from grass and other plants.

They aren't eating the same plants that you eat.

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

#337

Post by coryfklein » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

hispanic wrote: post #330

coryfklein wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cows allowed near the ocean will naturally graze on seaweed.

Seriously? It's hard for me to picture cows wandering on a sandy beach. But, if true, I stand corrected - to a certain degree. Thanks.

> “Cows eat what’s available,” she says. In California, they eat almond hulls; in Georgia, they eat cottonseeds. Documented evidence attests to farmers in ancient Greece and 18th-century Iceland deliberately grazing their cows on beaches.

> It was, in fact, an ordinary farmer who hit upon the idea of supplementing cows’ feed with seaweed — not for the climate, but simply for his animals’ overall health. On the shores of Prince Edward Island in Canada, Joe Dorgan observed that his beach-paddocked cows got pregnant faster and produced more milk than his inland pastured cows.

From https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-c...

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

#338

Post by mikelyons » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:37 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #332

strainer wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"is based on a single study with 12 cows." Its not - most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. A quick scholar search shows numerous studies broadly agreeing with the one featured here, including the seaweeds effects on sheep digestion and microbial and metabolic details: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane

> most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. I thought I was the only one who noticed this! Seems very popular and common in forums like HN and Reddit, but less so elsewhere.

It's more of an "intellectually lazy ego indulgence" than true skepticism. It's a false skepticism. Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's part of being human. I'm often guilty of it and I don't think there are people who aren't. Getting a really rich definition of skepticism helped me make what I came to understand is a very important distinction. Link, In case anybody is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kzZdps9PG4

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

#339

Post by thinkcontext » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

lentil_soup wrote: post #242

throwaway3627 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet this is unfortunately, uncomfortably true. There are major behavioral changes needed that can't be left to incentives or voluntary changes when survival is at stake. ICEs, meat agriculture, airline travel, unconfined clinker manufacturing and fossil fuel extraction must end if we're to survive this climate emergency. In addition, Be/CCS must happen, such as ferrous ocean seeding and seaweed extraction for conta…

What's ICE, CCS, Be?

Internal Combustion Engine, cars.

Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration, most common type I've seen is burning wood or other biomass for energy, capturing the CO2 and pumping it underground so that it doesn't cause warming in the atmosphere.

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

#340

Post by mikelyons » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

TravHatesMe wrote: post #335

MiroF wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading. I thought I was the only one who noticed this! Seems very popular and common in forums like HN and Reddit, but less so elsewhere.

I would prefer being skeptical instead of blindly accepting things. This behavior will instigate another to provide evidence or a counter-argument. This makes for great discussion, in most cases I think it is healthy.

It's easy for what passes for a skeptical attitude to actually _be_ a blind acceptance. Whether of another implicit and unexamined paradigm that one is operating from, or just a dissonance-triggered knee-jerk. It's a very sneaky self-deception, false skepticism.