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%

#221

Post by scoot » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

thinkcontext wrote: post #148

jazzabeanie wrote: post #91

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. 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.

The parent commenter is speaking specifically from experience in Australia.

Since CAFO is a USDA term, I assume your comment (or the source of it) relates to the USA.

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

#222

Post by slothtrop » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

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…

I don't think it's fair to call this a mere distraction when you account for the sheer impact of methane on climate change. Quibbling about energy efficiency is besides the point. Play around with this - https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=45&...

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

#223

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

jamil7 wrote: post #140

jazzabeanie wrote: post #91

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. 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…

> 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. 72% of all deforestation in Queensland and 94% in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas is a direct result of land clearing for beef production. Edit: One source was missing. https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforest... https://www.…

That doesn't negate the point that deforestation is not necessary, and may not be typical.

100% of deforestation could be for beef production, but 99% of beef production could be without deforestation.

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

#224

Post by slothtrop » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #129

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.

> 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. I guess that's why we're all doomed to a broken planet. As long as we keep using "well, no one else is going to change" as an excuse we'll inherit the world we deserve.

Placing the onus for all these problems squarely on the consumer is misguided and ineffective. Even if a large percentage of the population gave up meat, it would not be nearly sufficient to curb C02 emissions and prevent further climate change. Such that, both innovation and policy changes targeting the private sector are needed.

Reducing methane from cattle is important, finger wagging at consumers is a red herring that will deepen partisan divides.

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

#225

Post by shafyy » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

slothtrop wrote: post #215

shafyy wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the highest value target. Livestock agriculture is the leading driver of climate change AND biodiversity loss. It emits more GHG than all forms of transportation combined. Additionally, if we would let nature reclaim the land that's currently used for livestock agriculture, it has the potential to capture >100% of the CO2 emissions until 2050. Some recommended reading: https://blog.yeticheese.com/eating-local-h…

> This seaweed won't even start solving this problem. To the extent that the problem extends much further than level of consumption of cattle, that is true. But if widespread adoption of feed can effectively reduce methane emissions from cattle, as you said it targets one of the primary drivers - that's more than a start. This helps you visualize the impacts of various solutions, notice what happens when all other th…

Almost 80% of the usable land is used for livestock agriculture. In which other areas do you propose to increase trees and plants?

This seaweed additive they propose is a distraction. Even if it would work, it's a band-aid at best. The real, more simple, cheaper and healthier solution is to make meat and dairy from plants directly.

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

#226

Post by saagarjha » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

pkphilip wrote: post #180

cbernini wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about manure usage here, not meat consumption. You don't need cattle for regenerative agriculture. Compost can do just fine in this case. Also if you want to boost nitrogen on the soil you can do by using FAA (a KNF entry) based on fish, instead. Anyways, the second link you sent says that they have controlled grazing to prevent the cattle from destroying new growth. As the text says: plants can do it…

Overgrazing can and does cause problems but controlled grazing can actually fight desertification and has been used: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-livestock-gra... The organic and natural farming methods used in parts of Asia - especially India, utilizes livestock for much more than just manure. You should look up Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) by Subhash Palekar. Quoting from this site: https://…

From your article:

> with managed "strategic" herds of grazing vegetarians

This is “introduce a few grazing animals”, not “this will support the world’s cattle”.

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

#227

Post by pvaldes » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

lucioperca wrote: post #192

pvaldes wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A quarter of all food this animal receives through its entire life ends up as milk You are not doing the math well. Milk is 87% water, so we should include both, what the animal drank and ate. What you have after removing the water would be the real conversion factor (dried food to dried milk).

Lol, obviously this 24% is meant to be energy preserved (i.e. the joules or calories) when going over from the feeding to the milk.

> Lol, obviously this 24% is meant to be energy preserved

What 24%?

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

#228

Post by slothtrop » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:16 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…

> - climate change

This is the only relevant element, and it's largely contingent on Methane emissions. Therefore, drastically reducing emissions is not just "slightly better", particularly considering their impact on climate change.

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

#229

Post by slothtrop » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

jariel wrote: post #196

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…

We eat meat as part of our diet. So saying 'animals are the problem' is like saying 'human existence' is part of the problem. We ate meat before, we can continue to eat meat. What we need to do is fix the carbon problem, and possibly the 'too many people' problem.

> 'human existence' is part of the problem.

That's where I'd place it in the long-run. More people means more destruction of land and environment, regardless of increases in efficiency.

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

#230

Post by slothtrop » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

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

Fixed it for you.

Even without cattle we arguably rely on an "unreasonable" amount of resources. It's a moot and subjective point, more people means more encroachment and destruction of land, more resource extraction and more emissions. We all have an environmental footprint, one which is larger in the West; now multiply it.