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%

#301

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 11:24 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…

deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce.

Most deforestation is to grow crops. Cows generally eat grass unless they have no other options.

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

#302

Post by jazzabeanie » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 11:42 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…

I'm not claiming most Australian cattle aren't given feed. I'm claiming it's possible to get beef that was raised almost exclusively on grass that was grown on land that is unsuitable for crop production. (Hint: I have 10s of kilos of it in my freezer)

> In terms of the environmental impact, "caring where your food comes from" is truly, qualitatively nothing compared to stopping eating meat. Why are you trying to push this message?

Caring about where your food comes from is the driver behind avoiding meat for a lot of people. If people don't care about the impacts of the food they eat you will never convince them to stop eating meat. Not sure why you have a problem with this message.

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

#303

Post by happyjack » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

I own Scottish Highlanders and with our regenerative grazing plans (we are grad fed AND finished), we are a net carbon sink.

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

#304

Post by slothtrop » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 12:35 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #299

slothtrop wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> As it stands, livestock are a significant contributor towards global CO₂ emissions

Correct.

> going in with the mindset that "this isn't useful unless innovation and policy changes come about"

Curbing methane emissions by including seaweed in the feed is useful and proactive. Blaming consumers is not.

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

#305

Post by lxmorj » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #202

lxmorj wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure. We need to quietly change the math behind the scenes by internalizing externalities legally - long enough for green tech to get enough investment dollars to be cheaper than dirty tech even if those rules change later. This is mostly already happened with solar / wind power, though we need some imp…

> Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure True, but if people who otherwise realize the necessity of the change are unwilling to subject themselves to any inconvenience, what hope do we have of ever making the kinds of organized societal changes that are necessary? If you are unwilling to make a tiny change like reducing your meat consum…

I completely disagree. Individual restraint will not do the trick. Your limited time and energy is better spent working on creating mandatory, systemic behavior change. It is not hypocritical to, for example, vote for closing tax loopholes while using the very same.

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

#306

Post by lxmorj » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #289

lxmorj wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure. We need to quietly change the math behind the scenes by internalizing externalities legally - long enough for green tech to get enough investment dollars to be cheaper than dirty tech even if those rules change later. This is mostly already happened with solar / wind power, though we need some imp…

> self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups We don't need self-imposed austerity measures. Just end the meat & dairy subsidies.

Absolutely. There are some many direct and indirect subsidies (fossil fuels, defense, farm) that actively encourage and reward actions with huge negative externalities.

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

#307

Post by three_legs » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

mmm_grayons wrote: post #298

triyambakam wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 natur…

> I would have no moral issues killing him for food, though I probably wouldn't much like it.

You wouldn't much like the taste, or the act of it?

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

#308

Post by pkphilip » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 2:44 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #226

pkphilip wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

All sorts of livestock is used - not just cattle. Goat manure, for instance, is very good in some circumstances and is quite expensive.

As with everything, all things have to be done in moderation. A certain acreage of land can only support so many plants, animals and humans.

I was only countering the narrative that livestock=evil because it damages the environment based on one single parameter - methane emissions.. which is also something that is being addressed by different types of feeds etc.

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

#309

Post by three_legs » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:23 AM UTC

mmm_grayons wrote: post #298

triyambakam wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 natur…

So you have no emotional attachment at all to your dog? What benefit then do you get from your dog?

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

#310

Post by chii » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:46 AM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #185

zucked wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You at least see how hypocritical that is, right? The Western world got to fulfill our gluttonous desires -- now, when it comes time for the developing world to get their turn at the table, we wag our fingers and say "Sorry, that's bad for the planet!"

I don't see the hypocrisy. We did stuff one way. then we learned new stuff about how we do stuff, so we decided that we should change. It's fairly normal for an individual to grow and learn from their mistakes, why do you have to call "hypocrite" when it's time for the society to grow?

The OP is lamenting that western countries got to enjoy the fruits of their emissions. The cost, however, is externalized.

Now that developing nations have started to get richer, western nations cannot say that they ought to now make a sacrifice and stop consuming meat, because doing so _is_ hypocrisy.