Live data from Hacker News

Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

goodnewsnetwork.org

391–400 of 409 posts

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

#391
post #336
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That works up to a certain point, since the production is limited by the area of naturally occurring grasslands. When all the grassland is used, forests are cleared. Today, grazing is responsible for 80% of all deforestation in the Amazon [1].

[1] https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/ama...

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

#392
post #43

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.

Humans cannot get or synthesize all of the amino acids from a plant diet.. we need animals or chemistry.

Algae provide all the essential proteins [1].

[1] https://www.antenna.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AspectNut_...

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

#393

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.

I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be—not universally, anyway. Diet and nutrition are also complex systems—moreso for some of us in the population. I've written this out a number of times before so I'm just going to link my last comment on the subject. I feel the need to speak up for people with similar conditions for whom simply cutting out a crucial part of our diet is not resolved. https://new…

Point taken. But obviously these companies are looking to serve the market at large, not niche populations; millions of people consuming beef regularly (average American 83 kg/yr, average German 57 kg/yr etc), not to speak of the meat that is thrown away every day.

Such solution perpetuate a mindset where instead of admitting we have crossed a line where the planet cannot sustain our beef habit, we're looking for a way to justify not weaning ourselves off it.

Can anyone honestly believe that growing algae for cows won't affect the world's already disturbed ocean eco-systems?

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

#394
post #219

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.

That's obviously the most elegant, best solution. But the time for such is long past. It's clear that humanity will not stop consuming, and expecting endless growth. At least for a few generations. In the short term, we need any win we can get, even if there are risks.

>> It's clear that humanity will not stop consuming

What makes it clear? An abundance of incentives to consume it (availability, price, taste), and no disincentives to not?

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

#395
An economy investing in feeding pets premium chow and cows antifart food is one heading into an eventual ditch. Keep drinking the coolaid.....

Either glibal warming ia bullshit or cleancowfarts are the equivalemt of clean coal. Take your pick....in either case youre looking at massive long term malinvestment from which there is no return.

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

#396
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it certainly seems like a farfetched bandaid for a very inefficient food source (no matter how you view it)

It's not all that inefficient for what it is. Just look at how expensive products like Beyond Meat are, and they don't even come that close in terms of taste and nutrition.

> It's not all that inefficient for what it is

I'm not even sure what that means. "for what it is"?

As I said, it is inefficient from so many different angles. Water footprint, feed-to-food conversion, environmental externalities, land usage etc. Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default.

> Just look at how expensive products like Beyond Meat are, and they don't even come that close in terms of taste and nutrition.

Not sure how this is relevant, but meat alternative are becoming cheaper and cheaper and will continue to due to economies of scale. Also, "the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has >99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of U.S. beef."[1]

Lastly, taste is subjective, but many people are really enjoying Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat. Also, the point isn't to make something more nutritious, the point is to make a viable alternative to meat that doesn't have all the inefficiencies mentioned above (and less killing of conscious things is great too).

1. http://css.umich.edu/publication/beyond-meats-beyond-burger-...

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

#397
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not all that inefficient for what it is. Just look at how expensive products like Beyond Meat are, and they don't even come that close in terms of taste and nutrition.

> It's not all that inefficient for what it is I'm not even sure what that means. "for what it is"? As I said, it is inefficient from so many different angles. Water footprint, feed-to-food conversion, environmental externalities, land usage etc. Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default. > Just look at…

> Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default.

Beef is quite nutritious and tasty. While technically you might be able to feed people on what cows are fed, that would be a very poor living indeed. Food isn't all about efficiency, unless maybe you're living barely above subsistence.

> Not sure how this is relevant, but meat alternative are becoming cheaper and cheaper and will continue to due to economies of scale.

Perhaps, but I think it's equally likely that it'll stay an overpriced niche product, just like the stuff that came before it.

> Also, "the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has >99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of U.S. beef."[1]

Yet, it's more expensive, so there clearly other inefficiences in that process. In any event, cows aren't just burgers. Those "milk alternatives" aren't really cheaper either. There's no "vegan steak".

We can put a price on greenhouse emissions. We produce energy to meet demand, not the other way around. We don't need to have cattle farming in water scarce areas. We have more than enough land. I'll stick with beef.

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

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mhm... Looking at the numbers again: 291,000 metric tons per day => ~ 106 Million metric tons per year. In 2014 the world wide Aquatic Plants (which include ALL Macro-Algae) production was around 27 Million tons [0]. [0]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf , page 24, table 7

Current production shouldn't matter and the sea is huge - if the algae are uncomplicated to grow I don't see any reason why there should be a limit to future production.

You mean other than the fact that techniques for efficiently growing such amounts of seaweed do not exist? Of the amount produced globally today, 90% comes from China, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines and that production is all very labor intensive and done in locations and using methods that are simply not applicable to the United States.

There is a huge about of R&D needed to get any of this to scale. Some of it is already underway.

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

#399
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not all that inefficient for what it is I'm not even sure what that means. "for what it is"? As I said, it is inefficient from so many different angles. Water footprint, feed-to-food conversion, environmental externalities, land usage etc. Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default. > Just look at…

> Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default. Beef is quite nutritious and tasty. While technically you might be able to feed people on what cows are fed, that would be a very poor living indeed. Food isn't all about efficiency, unless maybe you're living barely above subsistence. > Not sure how this is r…

> Food isn't all about efficiency

This thread you have been commenting on is talking about efficiency...

> I think it's equally likely that it'll stay an overpriced niche product

You say, ignoring that the opposite is happening

> Yet, it's more expensive, so there clearly other inefficiences in that process

It's still currently expensive because of the sunk cost of R&D. Now it's just about demand and scale which are both there and growing.

Your arguments are weak. All you have is "it's more expensive" and "It's tasty". Keep your head in the sand.

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

#400
post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your are taking mostly food that can be directly fed to humans and instead feeding it to another animal which is later consumed. It's inefficient by default. Beef is quite nutritious and tasty. While technically you might be able to feed people on what cows are fed, that would be a very poor living indeed. Food isn't all about efficiency, unless maybe you're living barely above subsistence. > Not sure how this is r…

> Food isn't all about efficiency This thread you have been commenting on is talking about efficiency... > I think it's equally likely that it'll stay an overpriced niche product You say, ignoring that the opposite is happening > Yet, it's more expensive, so there clearly other inefficiences in that process It's still currently expensive because of the sunk cost of R&D. Now it's just about demand and scale which are…

> This thread you have been commenting on is talking about efficiency...

Yes, but this kind of raw input efficiency isn't the only consideration when it comes to food. There would still be plant-based products that are more efficient to grow than other plant-based products. Apples are cheaper to grow than Oranges, which is exactly what this comparison of food for livestock against food for people is.

Beef production is 100% efficient at producing beef. Milk production is 100% efficient at producing milk.

You just claim these alternatives are "more efficient", yet they are more expensive, they do not taste quite like beef, nor do they have the same nutritional profile. They're more efficient on some metrics, some of which are irrelevant to us.

> You say, ignoring that the opposite is happening

It's not clear that the opposite is happening. There's a lot of media buzz around Beyond Meat or Impossible Burger (and their IPOs). Their initial output was tiny, so naturally it can currently grow fast. This is the hype phase. We'll see how it works out in a few years.

> It's still currently expensive because of the sunk cost of R&D.

I doubt that. Those companies are in their growth phase and they're burning lots of capital. This is not the time to pay back on R&D.

It's rather that their processes are not mature, that they're simply trying to figure out their markup, and/or that they have lots of other overhead that beef producers do not have. For instance, would you not count the marketing budget as an "inefficiency"?

> Your arguments are weak.

Well, alright. I think your "efficiency" argument is weak. It's pretty much irrelevant to our economy. Just look at how cheap beef is. Shockingly cheap, in fact. It could easily tolerate price increases. Even if plant-based meat replacements were significantly cheaper, they probably wouldn't displace a lot of demand for beef. Rather, they'd displace demand for vegetarian/vegan products.

Those countries where meat is relatively more expensive, where efficiency is more important, those already have a rich cuisine based on plant-based products. They already have their own "fake meat" made out of for example Tofu. In my experience, that stuff is already superior to crappy Western products made for vegetarians.

Post reply on HN