Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80% • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by fogihujy » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

jurip wrote: post #68

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What about Antarctica" is the most straw man argument possible when talking about food sourcing.

As a more realistic example, I think you can buy locally grown tomatoes in Finland all year round these days, or if not at least pretty close to it. A large portion of them are grown in Närpes, where day length dips below 5 hours in December. Keeping those greenhouses lit and warm is in no way ecological.

The guys in Närpes has an impressive thing going, but they're simply an excellent example on how you can produce things locally if you have a lot of space and cheap electricity available. That doesn't automatically mean it's more efficient in regards to CO2 emission, so you're pretty much proving the grandparent's point; they could probably grow food on Antarctica too.

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

#142

Post by piva00 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #128

chii wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vegetaria…

> heathly as vegetarians Worth noting that being vegetarian does not necessarily equal healthy. There are plenty of vegetarians who are just eating mac and cheese. My sister, when in high school, became iron anemic due to poor food choices while being vegetarian.

That is quite obvious, you can be unhealthy with any kind of diet if you are nutrient poor...

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

#143

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

kickling wrote: post #99

giantg2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... 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...

As societies become developed the resource consumption will increase. That metric of richest 10% includes the global population making over $35k - generally people living a modern lifestyle. Other countries are moving toward this modern lifestyle too. Look at India's and China's development over the past few decades - electronics, vehicles, air conditioning, etc. I don't see people willingly giving up those things.

The concern over CO2 is only a small part of the issue. You have the mining, refining, manufacturing, trash, housing, etc. Arable land is shrinking, trash output is high and takes up land, water scarcity is expected to be a major issue in the next 30 year - especially for agricultural areas like the western and middle of the US that use groundwater faster than it replenishes.

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

#144

Post by rbg246 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #137

ajmurmann wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. I'm not sure how that makes anything better. It will still require more carbon emissions than growing elsewhere. In fact raising cattle in a spot like you describe still well require growing the feed elsewhere. Wouldn't it be much better to just eat the soup or other crop directly, sa…

> In fact raising cattle in a spot like you describe still well require growing the feed elsewhere. No. Feeding bovine meat cattle with commercial crops is uneconomical. It only happens as a small complement to the main diet or in emergencies. Nearly all of the cattle food grows on the terrain where they are created.

I drive past fields of legumes in western Victoria out near Horsham that gets shipped up to Queensland to feed feedlot cattle.

It's certainly not insignificant

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

#145

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

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…

It's not upon release. It's upon 2 decades of release.

Upon release that number is much higher, in the 100s of times, and after two decades it's close to zero.

Anyway, no, don't expect a large impact from this alone. Most of the methane emissions happen on the fossil fuel extraction and processing, not on agriculture. But it's something, and as a bonus it improves every other kind of efficiency too.

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

#146

Post by bparsons » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

hexbinencoded wrote: post #130

How is this any different from hybrid vehicles still burning FF? Yes, it makes it slightly better, but eating certain protein sources is a choice, whereas transportation infrastructure is an economically-limited choice. Animal ag still causes: - climate change - inefficient allocation of calories and fresh water - water, air, and ground pollution (lakes of poo, runoff into rivers) - pandemic and other zoonotic diseas…

Australia is not going to ban meat consumption any time soon. It is a positive step that they are at least bothering to try and mitigate huge potential sources of GHG emissions.

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

#147

Post by caiobegotti » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

hexbinencoded wrote: post #130

How is this any different from hybrid vehicles still burning FF? Yes, it makes it slightly better, but eating certain protein sources is a choice, whereas transportation infrastructure is an economically-limited choice. Animal ag still causes: - climate change - inefficient allocation of calories and fresh water - water, air, and ground pollution (lakes of poo, runoff into rivers) - pandemic and other zoonotic diseas…

If given two choices them being "stuck in discussions 'cause major perfect changes on a global scale are really hard and complicated to implement" and "anything that helps even if just a bit is welcome, incrementally we go further" I would pick the latter any day. The software patch culture in modern society should work better than unreal expectations with the type of education the average human being gets around the world.

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

#148

Post by thinkcontext » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

jazzabeanie wrote: post #91

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…

Its quite rare for beef cattle to be 100% range raised.

Beef cattle generally start out in rangeland or pasture where they eat grass with supplementary grain feed for a year or so. Then they get moved to an extremely dense feedlot or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation where they are fed mostly grain based feed for the next 6 months or so.

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

#149

Post by hexbinencoded » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

ajharrison wrote: post #136

hexbinencoded wrote: post #130

How is this any different from hybrid vehicles still burning FF? Yes, it makes it slightly better, but eating certain protein sources is a choice, whereas transportation infrastructure is an economically-limited choice. Animal ag still causes: - climate change - inefficient allocation of calories and fresh water - water, air, and ground pollution (lakes of poo, runoff into rivers) - pandemic and other zoonotic diseas…

Yep yep and yep. But people these days “but mah bacon!”

I love bacon, burgers, hot dogs, fillet mignon, and porterhouse too, but I don't eat them because they're suicidal and omnicidal choices, like slurping down 256 oz. of HFCS, smoking 6 packs a day, or weighing 200 kg.

If there were really good Impossible Bacon, I would go for it.

We need alternatives that don't create more externalities than they solve, whether that means cultured means or substitutes.

Furthermore, I think you're right in the underlying sentiment in that we need leadership to make tough, "austerity-like" choices to outlaw certain things that are leading us towards certain doom because most people won't change unless they're dragged kicking-and-screaming. Easter Island had trees, North America had megafauna, the ancient world has slyphium and those are all gone now because of humans.

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

#150

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

crispyporkbites wrote: post #110

giantg2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... 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.

Nope, that's not a problem. And in 100 years the global population will be shrinking anyway, but resource consumption will still be going up.

We're at 8 billion now and expected to peak around 11-12 billion. Even 25% increase in basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing would have a substantial impact. Especially if you couple that with shrinking arable land and projected water scarcity. Then add in the desire of developing nations for modern living - cars, travel, airconditioning, electronics, etc.