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%

#251

Post by rewq4321 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

tassl wrote: post #239

nicoburns wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the beef you're eating was raised on a deforested area (anything from a big fast-food chain almost certainly was) then that's still pretty unethical though. I agree it doesn't mean that beef is inherently unethical. But people will need to be willing to accept higher prices in order to make it ethical.

As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area. Or eating mostly anything with sugar, canola oil or palm oil. But people don't ask those to be in non deforested areas, and they don't ask to increase the price to make sure soil is not destroyed by monocrop cultivation.

For reference, only about 6% of soybeans grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption.[0] Most goes to feeding animals that are used for human consumption.

[0] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans

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

#252

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #203

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…

> cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production This doesn't really matter - it's about the fact that the cattle are eating crops that could have more efficiently been directly turned into food. Unless you're claiming most Australian cattle aren't given feed? (Hint: pretty much all cattle are given feed, even the "free-range" ones) > If they respond by stopping eating meat, then great - not the best…

This is at least a step in the positive direction.

A quick Google tells me that soy has a yield of 2.81 metric tons per hectare, and seaweed has a yield of ~20 metric tons per hectare. Depending on how much of the feed can be replaced by seaweed additive, it's another arrow in the quiver to reduce the environmental impact of food production, the same way that cheap solar and wind don't displace the need for energy efficiency.

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

#253

Post by andrekandre » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #95

spodek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the difference between a space colony and earth is that on earth we have a global economic system that demands infinite growth, and high disparity between producer countries vs consumer countires, which is the opposite sustainability

just look at how many articles about how we generate more food than we know what to do with, yet people still starve or go hungry all around the world, or the vast differences between what is called the "global south" vs "north"

i highly doubt we need a colony on another planet to teach earth how to be sustainable; the problem is the existing system refuses to change fast enough to make a difference

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

#254

Post by rewq4321 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

tassl wrote: post #238

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…

> 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. Quite a bit. Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers. That's usually hidden in data by using total weight, b…

> Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers.

This is incorrect. Humans can and do eat soybean meal. About 98% of soybean meal is used for animal feed and only 1% is used to produce food for people.[0] For soybeans as a whole, only about 6% grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption.[1]

> Ahhh... No, thanks. It will also be vastly worse for my health.

The peer-reviewed science we have suggests that higher soy consumption correlates with increased lifespan and positive health outcomes. Can I hazard a guess that you think MSG is bad for your health too? These are antiquated views.

> "So far, the evidence does not point to any dangers from eating soy in people, and the health benefits appear to outweigh any potential risk. In fact, there is growing evidence that eating traditional soy foods such as tofu, tempeh, edamame, miso, and soymilk may lower the risk of breast cancer, especially among Asian women. Soy foods are excellent sources of protein, especially when they replace other, less healthy foods such as animal fats and red or processed meats. Soy foods have been linked to lower rates of heart disease and may even help lower cholesterol."

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/soy-and-cancer-risk-our-e...

[0] https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go

[1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans

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

#255

Post by czottmann » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #119

czottmann wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here in Germany meat is often cheaper than vegetables, which is insane. Subsidies are to blame. Get rid of those and see what happens.

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

#256

Post by contingencies » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 6:00 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.

This is common. Vegetarian diets are much harder for sexually mature aged women than men, because of monthly blood and therefore iron loss.

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

#257

Post by mmm_grayons » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

triyambakam wrote: post #214

bamboozled wrote: post #204

This is a small and positive win it seems, why do many disgruntled ? People get very passionate about our food source being the cause for climate change but really, what about the real ultimate more severe causes? Fracking, mining, burning coal and oil ? Nuclear and renewables makes these things obsolete, but we still need food. Edit: Want to add I’m fully onboard with the east less meat crowd and minimising deforest…

There's no need to focus on just one. However people are passionate about advocating for eating a plant based diet because it is so easy, relatively speaking. Getting fracking to stop at even just one site is a lot of work, but getting more and more people to stop eating animal products, because it's directly within their own control, is simple. Many are also passionate about it because there are other benefits that…

> you wouldn't eat your dog, so why eat a pig that is of equal awareness and intelligence?

For what it's worth, I probably wouldn't eat my dog, but I'd eat a dog with no reservations.

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

#258

Post by rewq4321 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

tassl wrote: post #248

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…

> Livestock agriculture is the leading driver of climate change AND biodiversity loss. I am pretty sure that's not correct, not even close [1]. Transportation is the main driver of gas emissions (28%) followed by electricity production (27%) and industry (22%). Agriculture (livestock and crop) is In most countries, livestock can graze in areas where cultivations cannot happen (Australia is a good example iirc) and ca…

According to this[0] Our World In Data article, which is based on 2018 data, livestock (including fisheries) produces about 15% of all emissions, assuming that animal-based products account for about a third of the supply chain costs of the food industry:

Total food emissions: 26%

Direct livestock + fish: 31% of that 26%

Due to livestock land use: 16% of that 26%

Due to crops for animal feed: 6% of that 26%

Due to supply chain (1/3 of total): (18/3)% of that 26%

Total: ((31+16+6+(18/3))/100)*0.26 = 15.34%

And according to this[1] Our World in Data article, transport makes up about 16.2% of emissions.

The analyses can differ depending on how far you "travel up the chain" of production, but it appears that transportation and animal agriculture are within the same ball-park, plus or minus 5% perhaps.

> Most of the food livestock consume are leftovers of human-grade crops.

This is incorrect. Most livestock feed is soy, and humans can and do eat soybean meal. About 98% of soybean meal is used for animal feed and only 1% is used to produce food for people.[2] For soybeans as a whole, only about 6% grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption.[3]

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

[2] https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go

[3] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans

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

#259

Post by mmm_grayons » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

shafyy wrote: post #209

bamboozled wrote: post #204

This is a small and positive win it seems, why do many disgruntled ? People get very passionate about our food source being the cause for climate change but really, what about the real ultimate more severe causes? Fracking, mining, burning coal and oil ? Nuclear and renewables makes these things obsolete, but we still need food. Edit: Want to add I’m fully onboard with the east less meat crowd and minimising deforest…

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…

Well, you can't just "let nature reclaim land", people own that and you can't force them to turn it into a nature preserve. There's a huge violation of private property rights implicit in your proposition.

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

#260

Post by marcusjt » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 6:11 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.

“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.” "I support Population Matters because I think if we keep on growing, we’re not only going to damage nature, but we’re likely to see more and more inequality and human suffering." “One thing you can say is that in places where women are in charge of their bodies, where they have the vote, where they are allowed to dictate what they do and what they want, whether it’s proper medical facilities for birth control, the birth rate falls.” “The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us.” “As I see it, humanity needs to reduce its impact on the Earth urgently and there are three ways to achieve this: we can stop consuming so many resources, we can change our technology and we can reduce the growth of our population.” "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we controlled the population to allow the survival of the environment."

- Sir David Attenborough, naturalist and broadcaster, Population Matters Patron (born 1926)

From https://populationmatters.org/quotes