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

291–300 of 322 posts

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

#291

Post by shafyy »

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…

Globally, GHG emissions from livestock agriculture make up between 1/4 and 1/3 of all GHG emissions (depending on the source, but here's a good one: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food). And this does not take into account CO2 sequestered by land that is already converted to cultivated land (i.e. not natural vegetetation) - so the potential of additionally sequestering carbon is much higher.

That's right that Australia doesn't have a lot of natural forests, but even there natural vegetation is better at sequestering carbon than land that has been converted to be used for agriculture. But if you look at this map here [0], you'll see that Western Europe, South America, Southern Africa and South East Asia all have great potential to capture CO2 if we let the natural vegetation regrow.

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

No it's not. Furthermore, from a protein and nutrition stand-point, the plants we grow today are enough to feed the whole world.

0: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4.epdf?shar...

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

#292

Post by belorn »

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.

Given a year on grass and 6 months on feedlot, that already mean that they only use 33% compared to a factory farmed one that only eat grain. A pretty large gain for the climate.

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

#293

Post by pvaldes »

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.

> As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area

Exact. Soy monocultures are devastating for environment, is an evil league respect to pastures, that still hold thousands of species. Soy fields have one species for Km and Km. Period.

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

#294

Post by pvaldes »

contingencies wrote: post #256
sethammons wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Cholesterol is also linked directly with testosterone production in men, If I remember correctly

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

#295

Post by nicoburns »

tassl wrote: post #277
nicoburns wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not entirely true. There is a whole movement around boycotting palm oil for example, just as there is with beef. It certainly could be more widely supported. It's worth noting that a lot of the soy from deforested areas also goes towards feeding livestock. The soy that humans eat (or drink) tends to be more more ethical on average.

Not because of deforestation, but because threats to orangutans. Most of the food animals eat is not human-grade, and a big part of it are by products of food for human consumption it would not be used anyways.

> Most of the food animals eat is not human-grade, and a big part of it are by products of food for human consumption it would not be used anyways.

Food grown in deforested rainforests often isn't human grade because, stripped of the natural forest ecosystem, the land often doesn't have the nutrients to support high-quality agriculture. Don't you think pretty awful that we destroy some of natures most important ecosystems to make room for poor quality agricultural land?

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

#296

Post by nicoburns »

pvaldes wrote: post #293
tassl wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area Exact. Soy monocultures are devastating for environment, is an evil league respect to pastures, that still hold thousands of species. Soy fields have one species for Km and Km. Period.

Pastures in areas that are naturally grassy is fine. Pastures that have been created by deforesting the Amazon are not at all ok (Brazil is the worlds largest exporter of beef - not all of that is Amazonian land, but a lot of it is).

Soy is often grown in deforested rainforest areas too. But as a sibling comment says, only 6% of soy goes towards direct human consumption. The rest is for animal feed.

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

#297

Post by tremon »

tarsinge wrote: post #96
tarsinge wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That land use figure includes grazing areas, not just crop fields.

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

#298

Post by mmm_grayons »

triyambakam wrote: post #275
mmm_grayons wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't believe there's anything wrong with killing animals for food, I just like my dog more as a pet. I don't believe there's something morally wrong about killing one's pet for food, either.

I am not claiming you said so. But you've rather affirmed again, you have an emotional attachment to your dog, so you won't eat it, so your moral framework is emotional based and is logically inconsistent

No, I seem to not be communicating my thoughts properly. My moral framework is, "killing animals to eat is okay." I have no issues with it. My preference is to keep my pet alive because I do not need him for food and I like him better as a pet. I didn't say I wouldn't eat him: I would have no moral issues killing him for food, though I probably wouldn't much like it. If not for the fact that animals that die of natural causes aren't very tasty, I'd probably eat him when he died.

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

#299

Post by saagarjha »

slothtrop wrote: post #224
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There's nothing partisan in choosing to eat meat, unless you choose to make a partisan issue. As it stands, livestock are a significant contributor towards global CO₂ emissions, and going in with the mindset that "this isn't useful unless innovation and policy changes come about" is the same as saying that it's not worth worrying about a car purchase because you have loans already that are difficult to pay off.

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

#300

Post by potiuper »

valgor wrote: post #272

It is amazing the levels people go to in order to make something evil less evil. Just stop eating cow and drinking milk! Get some tofu and oatmilk. Many problems are solved, not just the methane emissions problem.

Would love to without the Roundup
Post reply on HN