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

91–100 of 322 posts

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

#91

Post by jazzabeanie »

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…

In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. My own experience confirms this. I've seen many cattle farms around Queensland - some with low stocking density and no deforestation, others very poorly managed with no trees at all or full of invasive species.

It's not as simple as eating meat = bad, but that's the message most people are getting. If they respond by stopping eating meat, then great - not the best choice, but a step in the right direction. If they respond by stopping to care where their food comes from then not so great.

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

#92

Post by twic »

wodenokoto wrote: post #47
davegardner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What happens to that methane? Or maybe more accurately, what happens to the building blocks of that methane. Those numbers do not show that we are reducing the output of methane by reducing the input of methane, but that the process itself is generating less methane from basically the same input.

There is no input of methane. The cows eat cellulose, and bacteria in their gut break the cellulose down into small molecules, including methane. Reduction in methane production can come from a reduction in the amount of cellulose broken down, or an increase in the production of other small molecules.

The other small molecules in question seem to be what are called "volatile fatty acids" (VFAs), which i think are more or less the same as "short-chain fatty acids" [0], and they're good for the animal.

Acetate and propionate are two main VFAs. A study on sheep [1] found that "Sheep fed Asparagopsis had a significantly lower concentration of total volatile fatty acids and acetate, but a higher propionate concentration.". If there's less methane and also less VFAs, then i assume less cellulose is being broken down. But more of the carbon from it is going into VFAs.

It would be good to have a study like this in cows.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-chain_fatty_acid

[1] https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/an15883

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

#94

Post by dkrudy »

Hold up its the disgusting things we're feeding cattle that's contributing to their immense environmental impact? HUH. Maybe someday we'll realize that raising them in feedlots on 100% processed packaged food made from things like how they forage in nature is most of the problem as well, and if you raise them in distributed networks so they interact with their ecosystem instead of trampling it, and then not have to ship them 1000 miles to consumers, their emissions, and environmental impact DROPS. Maybe then we'll start putting the chain together, and realize that its not beef itself, but rather the high fat, low vitamin, amalgamation of beef we now usually consume, due to these practices is what is ACTUALLY unhealthy for us to eat.

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

#95

Post by fit2rule »

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…

>overshoot, which leads to collapse

Imagine, in 50 or so years, a fairly substantial human colony is established on another planet, and it figures out how to become self-sustaining.

This self-sustenance act is what we need to refine - not the going to Mars bit, of course - but what I am trying to say is that the pressure is on to find self-sustaining ways to feed humans (hint: grow local or gtfo) at the very high end of the privileged technologically elite spectrum of the human misery scale, i.e. SpaceX versus the slums.

If we can get to Mars and sustain, we can change the way humans on Earth live, in extraordinary ways. I'd even be willing to wager a bet that in 100 years, ones sovereign citizenship is going to be irrelevant - what will count, is whether you can make water towers into rocketships.

(I don't see SpaceX as a rich mans game - I truly believe its a human response to the human disaster you talk about. If we can move manufacturing and food production into space, we may very well have a chance to turn things off in 100 years, and let Mother Earth just grow again ..)

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

#96

Post by tarsinge »

tarsinge wrote: post #26
1234fdsazxcv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reason we had to switch away from that. The crop rotation cycle isn't an efficient use of land. Synthetic fertilizers exist for a reason -- the human race wants and needs an excess of food. No one wants to switch to a model of food scarcity.

The point is that if the food is not meat we need like up to 75% less crops, which is completely attainable without synthetic fertilizer.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

The figure given is 77% of agricultural land is used for livestock

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

#97

Post by thesimon »

giantg2 wrote: post #75
czottmann wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And often killing the domestic production in that country, because they can't compete with the highly subsidized import.

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

#98

Post by fit2rule »

cik wrote: post #28
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…

At the end of the day this is signalling. We all know that the best thing we can do is eat a local, veg-friendly (vegetarian/vegan) diet. That also doesn't mean that people are going to do it, or can. But at least it's one form of a step in the right direction. War doesn't have to be waged and won in a single battle. Every little step helps if it truly reduces emissions.

> signalling

True fact, Australia is a terrible polluter. One of the top 10 worst polluters, per capita, of any of the worlds nations.

Getting the cows on sea cabbage is going to be great, but Australia still needs to do something about its coal and refinery emissions issues.

Feels good, though, for Australians to be 'first' at something. For some reason this is important.

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

#99

Post by kickling »

giantg2 wrote: post #73
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.

I disagree, it depends on the lifestyle of the person. The richest 10% are responsible for 52% of carbon emissions[1]. If the only way to have a good life is to live like the richest 10% (or 50%) one could say we are too many people, but that does not have to be true, especially not in the future.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...

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

#100

Post by Neil44 »

dkrudy wrote: post #94

Hold up its the disgusting things we're feeding cattle that's contributing to their immense environmental impact? HUH. Maybe someday we'll realize that raising them in feedlots on 100% processed packaged food made from things like how they forage in nature is most of the problem as well, and if you raise them in distributed networks so they interact with their ecosystem instead of trampling it, and then not have to s…

I understand that what the cows eat has a large effect on the taste of the milk, so if the cows are milkers that’s an issue to be overcome.
Post reply on HN