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

Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

thecattlesite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 322 posts

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#11

Post by seanwilson »

How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce.

Animal farming creates vast damage because of how inefficient it is and seaweed won't address how much feed cows need or that the world is eating more and more meat as countries get richer:

> The energy efficiency of meat and dairy production is defined as the percentage of energy (caloric) inputs as feed effectively converted to animal product. An efficiency of 25% would mean 25% of calories in animal feed inputs were effectively converted to animal product; the remaining 75% would be lost during conversion.

> Whole milk: 24%

> Beef: 1.9%

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat...

All improvements are good, but I'd like to know if this is more than a distraction to make people feel better about continuing to demand products they know are damaging the environment (e.g. Amazon deforestation).

Industrial farmed animals aren't eating grass, they're eating crops like soy. If you find soy milk and soy-based meat alternatives decent for example, consider eating those directly instead of products from soy-fed cows - it'll be vastly better for the environment with seaweed or not.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#12

Post by fiblye »

leipert wrote: post #8

Discussed last year hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 I was very skeptical whether this is scalable as up to two percent of the cows feed needs to be replaced with the sea weed and we simply do not produce sea weed at scale yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20713552 The TL;DR was: in order to supply 1.5 billion cows with the seaweed we might need up to 291.000 metric tons of algae per…

Seems like if we can manufacture the active chemical (bromoform) without seaweed, it'll be much more scalable.

Then there's also an even crazier idea: create a massive sea in the middle of Australia and use that for seaweed farming.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#13

Post by svrtknst »

seanwilson wrote: post #11

How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Animal farming creates vast damage because of how inefficient it is and seaweed won't address how much feed cows need or that the world is eating more and more meat as countries get richer: > The energ…

Thats an interesting question for sure. Would need to be calculated against the current energy needs, hopefully an increase in seaweed feed leads to a decrease in soy bean farming.

I'd rather eat the seaweed or soy directly, but this could be an improvement.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#14

Post by davegardner »

leipert wrote: post #8

Discussed last year hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 I was very skeptical whether this is scalable as up to two percent of the cows feed needs to be replaced with the sea weed and we simply do not produce sea weed at scale yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20713552 The TL;DR was: in order to supply 1.5 billion cows with the seaweed we might need up to 291.000 metric tons of algae per…

This is partially addressed in CSIRO's FAQ: https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/faq/

In summary, FutureFeed is working with several external suppliers to establish production. They expect to be able to improve the crop production over time.

One thing of note is significant reductions can be achieved with quite a low ratio of seaweed in the feed. Specifically they report that recent feedlot trials demonstrated over 95% methane reduction with seaweed inclusion at 0.20% of OM in the ration.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#15

Post by leipert »

awerawerawrjhui wrote: post #10
leipert wrote: post #8

Discussed last year hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 I was very skeptical whether this is scalable as up to two percent of the cows feed needs to be replaced with the sea weed and we simply do not produce sea weed at scale yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20713552 The TL;DR was: in order to supply 1.5 billion cows with the seaweed we might need up to 291.000 metric tons of algae per…

> I would argue that the most effective way to reduce cattle emissions is to get rid of cattle. I agree, but as a former vegan I'm aware that there's an approximately 0% chance of getting a majority of the world's population to give up beef and dairy. The future has to be with lab-grown meat. I know the technology is still nascent, but if we ever get it right then it has the potential to be one of the most transforma…

My partner is vegetarian / borderline vegan. It definitely had an impact on my diet as well. I don’t want everyone to become vegan or not consume dairy or meat anymore. Just reduce, reuse, recycle. Be more thoughtful about what you consume and how often. Try out alternatives.

If I eat beef once per week, once per month, I also am looking forward to and enjoying it way more than if I eat it every day.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#16

Post by leipert »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #9
leipert wrote: post #8

Discussed last year hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 I was very skeptical whether this is scalable as up to two percent of the cows feed needs to be replaced with the sea weed and we simply do not produce sea weed at scale yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20713552 The TL;DR was: in order to supply 1.5 billion cows with the seaweed we might need up to 291.000 metric tons of algae per…

I eat kangaroo, it tastes great and is all wild harvested. Has anyone tried farming roo outside of Australia? Often wondered about the viability.

There are also deers and stuff here in Europe. ;) But I assume that wild animals are just available at a fraction of what people (want to) consume every year.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#17

Post by leipert »

davegardner wrote: post #14
leipert wrote: post #8

Discussed last year hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 I was very skeptical whether this is scalable as up to two percent of the cows feed needs to be replaced with the sea weed and we simply do not produce sea weed at scale yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20713552 The TL;DR was: in order to supply 1.5 billion cows with the seaweed we might need up to 291.000 metric tons of algae per…

This is partially addressed in CSIRO's FAQ: https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/faq/ In summary, FutureFeed is working with several external suppliers to establish production. They expect to be able to improve the crop production over time. One thing of note is significant reductions can be achieved with quite a low ratio of seaweed in the feed. Specifically they report that recent feedlot trials demonstrated over 9…

That is actually amazing! I just hope that it can be scaled and will be affordable.

I would still argue that we should look into reducing our consumption, as other environmental impacts like water consumption are still considerable. Anyhow: A step in the right direction!

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#18

Post by scns »

seanwilson wrote: post #11

How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Animal farming creates vast damage because of how inefficient it is and seaweed won't address how much feed cows need or that the world is eating more and more meat as countries get richer: > The energ…

Without excrement from animals you need synthetic fertilizer, whose production causes massive production causes massive environmental damage eg emissions and algae bloom.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#19

Post by cesnja »

scns wrote: post #18
seanwilson wrote: post #11

How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Animal farming creates vast damage because of how inefficient it is and seaweed won't address how much feed cows need or that the world is eating more and more meat as countries get richer: > The energ…

Without excrement from animals you need synthetic fertilizer, whose production causes massive production causes massive environmental damage eg emissions and algae bloom.

There's also the "classic" option, discovered some 200 years before synthetic fertilizers - crop rotation that includes some form of legumes. IMO with the current state of agriculture and food production we went into a local maximum that is very unsustainable and bad for the environment.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#20

Post by gerdesj »

headmelted wrote: post #3

Worth noting that methane is up to 84 times as damaging as CO2 in the atmosphere upon release. ( https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhou... ) That means that (ironically I guess) this has the potential to be just about the biggest bang-for-buck weapon we have against climate change in the next decade. I don't envy the researchers having to explain it to their kids later though. "What'd you do in…

"this has the potential to be just about the biggest bang-for-buck weapon we have against climate change in the next decade."

Now we only need to get cars 'n' lorries etc, ships and aeroplanes to eat the stuff and it's job done. Obviously, coal and gas fired power stations are already changing their diet and farting and belching less methane already.

The Great Barrier Reef is already de-bleaching and the Greenland icesheet has stopped melting.

Post reply on HN