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

111–120 of 322 posts

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

#111

Post by twic »

pvaldes wrote: post #103
twic wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect Yes - your "still" suggests to me you think that it is a mystery (apologies if i misunderstand), whereas i believe it is reasonably well understood - it's bromoform, aka tribromomethane, which inhibits methanogenesis in bacteria [0]. So it is indeed a chemical weapon. > Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire l…

Thanks for the info. It seems that tribromomethane is classified as a persistent carcinogenic, toxic by contact and also water soluble. Not good. That moves the discussion further, to a totally different, much darker, scenery: "Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that will cause canker if eaten" . I wonder what government agency would approve a known carcinogenic as okay to be used in meat production and how the…

What is the purpose of Australia if not dangerous biological experiments at massive scale?

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

#113

Post by wil421 »

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…

Cows do not eat 100% packaged food if they eat any at all. In fact, 80% of what cows eat cannot be eaten by humans.[1] If you could add seaweed to drastically reduce emissions not would be a win for everyone.

> They learned that most cow diets contain the following:

Grass: More than 50 percent of cow feed is actually grass (farmers call it hay and silage). While people often think dairy cows are fed a high-grain diet, in reality they eat the leaves and stems from corn, wheat and oats far more often than they are eating grain, like corn kernels.

Grain: Dairy cows do eat some grain, which usually makes up less than one-quarter of their diet. Some has been grown specifically for cows, and other types have been recycled after food or beverage production -- like barley that has been used first to brew beer.

The rest of a cow’s diet includes ingredients like almond hulls, canola meal (the leftovers from producing canola oil), citrus pulp (the leftovers from making orange juice and other beverages) and more. Here’s the cool thing: These products, which were once thrown away, are actually good for cows. Cows can “unlock” the energy and nutrients in these products that would otherwise go to waste.

[1] https://www.usdairy.com/news-articles/do-dairy-cows-eat-food...

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

#114

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

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…

> eating those directly instead

I would but: all the meat alternatives here in Tasmania are more expensive than beef!

The only thing that gets a pass is tofu at $8.00 a kg, which is competitive with chicken and imported Basa.

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

#115

Post by kerno »

pvaldes wrote: post #44

I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect, and that the plan has some severe loopholes Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? Wild seaweeds are harvested and sold for several purposes: 1) To make agar-agar. A substance that is used…

Production of the required quantity of seaweed is still a challenge, however the diet is not 100%. The seaweed only needs to be added a supplement to the existing diet. >2% to [1]https://futurefeednews.com/the-science-behind-futurefeed-asp... [2]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293800275_The_red_m...

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

#116

Post by dannyw »

chii wrote: post #72
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.

I’ve been cooking with and eating plant based meat every once in a while for a year now. I don’t even think about it. It’s meat to me now.

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

#117

Post by kortex »

kolinko wrote: post #65
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 assume that the only reason people eat meat is either sociological or physical workout. You have multiple subsets of population that may find it more difficult to quit meat than the others. For women (especially pregnant), meat is a source of Iron. For people with adhd, there is a correlation with meat eating (and we can assume causation as well, since adhd is genetic). Meat is a source of vitamins that have been…

> For people with adhd, there is a correlation with meat eating

> I get occasional cravings so high that I could kill anyone who would want to prevent me from eating meat.

lightbulb moment

I would love to cut down on meat consumption for ethics/sustainability/health, but it's almost like my body knows it runs better on it. I get extra cranky, foggy, and tired if I don't have a pretty dense protein meal early in the day, ideally red meat. Can't do legumes due to allergies. Even like whey protein isn't the same as meat.

My iron levels are fine. Maybe it's one of the amino-adjacent compounds, like creatine?

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

#118

Post by pvaldes »

twic wrote: post #111
pvaldes wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the info. It seems that tribromomethane is classified as a persistent carcinogenic, toxic by contact and also water soluble. Not good. That moves the discussion further, to a totally different, much darker, scenery: "Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that will cause canker if eaten" . I wonder what government agency would approve a known carcinogenic as okay to be used in meat production and how the…

What is the purpose of Australia if not dangerous biological experiments at massive scale?

Well, you have a point there. Wouldn't be the tenth time.

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

#119

Post by chii »

czottmann wrote: post #80
chii wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That's a highly subjective statement ... I'm not missing anything.

exactly. You can do it. But based on empirical observation of what is happening in the world, there are more people who choose to eat meat rather than the existing substitutes.

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

#120

Post by chii »

dannyw wrote: post #116
chii wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I’ve been cooking with and eating plant based meat every once in a while for a year now. I don’t even think about it. It’s meat to me now.

My recent observations of HN is that many here take their own experience, and extrapolate that they are common and therefore anybody else could've also done it, and would be willing to.

But there's empirical evidence that not many people want to stop eating meat. Look at how few vegetarians there are, compared to non-vegetarians. Do you really think those people don't know it's possible to live healthily as vegetarians?

Post reply on HN