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

71–80 of 322 posts

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

#71

Post by pkphilip »

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…

For sustainable farming, livestock plays a very crucial role. This is particularly true for organic and natural farming.

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/organic-live...

So looking at a single metric (methane emissions) doesn't do this topic justice.

Also, live stock grazing (if done properly) can also be a method of regreening environments.

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/though-forests-burn-agrofo...

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

#72

Post by chii »

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…

> continuing to demand products

the demand will always be there. Humans like to eat meat. I doubt very many will give up the privilege, esp. when others are not.

So any solution that improves the production of meat should be a good outcome. Ideally, lab grown meat (of the same quality and taste as from a cow) with low emissions is the best, but we aren't anywhere near that level of tech yet.

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

#73

Post by giantg2 »

czottmann wrote: post #48

That's great and all, but it's fighting symptoms , not the underlying problem. The underlying problem isn't cows emitting methane, the problem is too many people indoctrinated with the idea of eating all the animals, all the time. The amount of land, energy and ressources in general spent on producing way too many animals for eating is unreasonable.

"... the problem is too many people indoctrinated with the idea of eating all the animals, all the time."

The problem is there are too many people. Even if a person isn't eating meat, they still use a vast amount of other resources, especially if they adhere to a modern lifestyle.

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

#74

Post by adventured »

spodek wrote: post #54
wodenokoto wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whole milk: 24% That is a crazy high efficiency, when you think about it. A quarter of all food this animal receives through its entire life ends up as milk. The rest is used for growing cells, keeping it alive and warm, moving around. Back of the napkin says that I've eaten my bodyweight in food in less than 2 months.

Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for the green revolution and understood the misguidance of efficiency as a strategy better than anyone. As a tactic it works under the strategy of managing population, as he said in his acceptance speech: > "The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can…

> Luckily, have examples like Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, who helped lower their population growth from around 7 children per couple to below 2 through voluntary means -- think the opposite of China's One Child Policy -- leading to greater stability and abundance.

South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines follow the same general population decline curve from the 1960s to now, that Thailand has followed. They all began at close to the same change rate circa 1960, all between 2.9% and 3.3%. Thailand's drop has been more pronounced since 2000 than Vietnam, however that can properly be attributed to the huge difference in standard of living between the two (the decline in Thailand matches the decline also seen in South Korea).

Did most countries in Asia have their own Mechai Viravaidya? They all simultaneously drop from 1960 onward. Or is this person getting credit for something that was happening regardless and has a lot more to do with increased economic prosperity? Which is something we already know is the primary natural change agent for lowering population expansion. Thailand's GDP per capita skyrocketed after 2001, whereas eg Vietnam and the Philippines followed slower trajectories (until recently). Thailand actually saw an increase in its population growth change rate in the 1990s (1993-2001), before the economic boom that began in 2001 pushed it back down again. The population change rate in Vietnam and Thailand were nearly identical until Thailand's economic boom began in 2001 (also, Thailand's rate wasn't much lower than Indonesia circa 1998-2000, they've split both economically and on that pop change rate from 2001 forward).

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

#75

Post by giantg2 »

czottmann wrote: post #69
viraptor wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless someone's got an amazing idea how to change the mind of majority of population, deal with market changes of whole industry disappearing, deal with changes in the international markets, etc. ... I'm cool with spending some time managing the symptoms. The global change in food consumption and managing the pollution are not incompatible with each other. We can do one whole working on the other.

We could start by removing subsidies so the actual prices become clear. When the actual price of meat has to be paid in the stores there'd be a shift, I guess. Edit: grammar ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We could do that with all food too.

If you look at the subsidies, they are typically in grants/payments to farmers. When the produce is exported, we are essentially subsidizing a foreign country with our tax money.

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

#76

Post by chii »

prox wrote: post #58
tchalla wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the process to come up with the number for the right amount of animal eating?

You can perfectly live on eating meat once or twice a week. Especially if your job isn’t that physically demanding. You reduce meat consumption to 1/7 if you do so. If most of us did that a lot of problems would be moot.

> You can perfectly live on eating meat once or twice a week

but it wouldn't produce as much pleasure as eating meat every day. I dont think depending on people to be altruistic (and give up what pleasure they can get) is a good way forward.

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

#79

Post by pvaldes »

pvaldes wrote: post #70
tankenmate wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The North Ronaldsay sheep[0] survive on a wholly seaweed diet and they are ruminants, so it is definitely possible (albeit with copper metabolism enzyme issues) for a ruminant to live on just seaweed. Also, CSIRO have been doing ag research since it's inception (over 100 years ago), so I'm sure they have tested this particular seaweed's impact on bovine digestion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ronaldsay_she…

Very interesting. I see that is smaller than the other races, is more vulnerable to predators, have health issues if moved to pastures, and produces less wool (being smaller) and meat with a high iodine content. This supports my former idea that there are serious obstacles to scale this solution to continental areas with the purpose of feeding people. > I'm sure they have tested it Would be interesting to see their r…

The fact that there is a displaced goal here, is not a good signal.

When I hear about methane problem caused by cattle I see always people blaming cows. I'm just wondering... If cows are the problem, why they are doing research in sheep?

Is a different animal, with a different gut arrangement, producing a totally different dry faeces that are much less troublesome as cow faeces are.

I'm not expert in methane releasing, but if the results are than 'sheep release less methane than cows', or that 'small sheep release less methane than big sheep'... well; suddenly I does not feel so much revolutionary as before.

How many years were they trying unsuccessfully to sell this concept?

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

#80

Post by czottmann »

chii wrote: post #76
prox wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can perfectly live on eating meat once or twice a week. Especially if your job isn’t that physically demanding. You reduce meat consumption to 1/7 if you do so. If most of us did that a lot of problems would be moot.

> You can perfectly live on eating meat once or twice a week but it wouldn't produce as much pleasure as eating meat every day. I dont think depending on people to be altruistic (and give up what pleasure they can get) is a good way forward.

That's a highly subjective statement. I eat well, and enjoy my meals, and I only eat animals about once per week, if any. I'm not missing anything. (I'm not a full-on vegetarian, and certainly not vegan.)

_"Meat is delicious"_ is a mindset. _"It's not a full meal unless there's meat"_ is an arguably marketing-induced mindset.

Post reply on HN