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

311–320 of 322 posts

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

#311

Post by mmm_grayons »

three_legs wrote: post #309
mmm_grayons wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm saying that an emotional attachment doesn't affect whether I believe it's moral to kill him. It causes me to place a higher value on my dog such that I value him more alive as a pet than dead as food. Were I starving, I'd value him more dead as food. This value doesn't change whether or not it's moral to kill him.

As an analogue, I might have a car I like. The car could be worth more to me than its fair market value because of an emotional attachment, and that may mean I prefer not to sell it. If I'm in dire need of money, however, I'd probably sell it anyway.

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

#312

Post by stjohnswarts »

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.

Sure but soy beans are about 10x-20x more energy efficient than cattle at feeding humans so much less deforestation. Skip the middle man and eat your veggies and beans.

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

#313

Post by pkphilip »

danimal88 wrote: post #187
pkphilip wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sustainable farming, livestock plays a very crucial role. This is particularly true for organic and natural farming. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/organic-live... So looking at a single metric (methane emissions) doesn't do this topic justice. Also, live stock grazing (if done properly) can also be a method of regreening environments. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/though-forests-burn-agrofo.…

The regenerative ag conversation is really overhyped. Its a way to justified the continuation of an industry plagued by environmental issues and ethical issues. The numbers don't work out in terms of how much land would be needed to effectively use regenerative ag at anything close to current meat consumption and there is still no agreement on whether it actually even works, mostly just meat industry advocates sittin…

We have 100s of farmers that we personally work with - some of them with less than 2 hectares of land, who are using livestock to help in their agriculture. Without livestock they will be paying through their nose for biofertilizer and other inputs.

They sell male calves and older cattle and also eggs, chicken etc. But not much else.

In all likelihood these farmers probably do far less damage to the environment and also "consume" far less plastic packaging and produce far less non-recyclable waste than the average person living in an apartment in a city. Also, the overall pollution per person in the household of a farmer is likely a lot less as well.

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

#314

Post by pvaldes »

redisman wrote: post #270
pvaldes wrote: post #44

I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect, and that the plan has some severe loopholes Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? Wild seaweeds are harvested and sold for several purposes: 1) To make agar-agar. A substance that is used…

> Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? This is funny FUD. Are you aware of the circumstances that most cows are raised in right now? Chaining them down to a concrete slab for their whole lives and pumping them full of antibiotics and hormones is all kosher but feeding them…

> Are you aware of the circumstances that most cows are raised in right now? chained for their whole lives, sad cow, sad cow, blah, blah

Sorry but I don't recognize your caricature. Is a little different in the reality, in my experience.

And by the way, I was not talking about morality, I was talking about metabolism. Asparagopsis is only one, among many other species of algae. Therefore you can expect several (more than one for sure) different collateral effects on bovine gut if you feed the cows a mix of marine algae

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

#315

Post by Gabriel_Martin »

danimal88 wrote: post #187
pkphilip wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sustainable farming, livestock plays a very crucial role. This is particularly true for organic and natural farming. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/organic-live... So looking at a single metric (methane emissions) doesn't do this topic justice. Also, live stock grazing (if done properly) can also be a method of regreening environments. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/though-forests-burn-agrofo.…

The regenerative ag conversation is really overhyped. Its a way to justified the continuation of an industry plagued by environmental issues and ethical issues. The numbers don't work out in terms of how much land would be needed to effectively use regenerative ag at anything close to current meat consumption and there is still no agreement on whether it actually even works, mostly just meat industry advocates sittin…

If we're really looking to "leave no trace" on the land as much as we can, that could definitely include a roaming head of 100m bison or so IMO. The way they interact with the carbon cycle could be a net positive.

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

#316

Post by gridlockd »

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 consider soy unfit for human consumption unless specifically prepared, and even then it should not be a staple.

A cow can turn soy into highly nutritious and palatable food, so the resource usage is justified.

Having said that, if you want to eat like an antique slave, be my guest. Have a pint of Soylent(tm), it’s on me.

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

#317

Post by newtwilly »

gridlockd wrote: post #316
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 consider soy unfit for human consumption unless specifically prepared, and even then it should not be a staple. A cow can turn soy into highly nutritious and palatable food, so the resource usage is justified. Having said that, if you want to eat like an antique slave, be my guest. Have a pint of Soylent(tm), it’s on me.

Do you have any arguments to back that up?

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

#318

Post by gridlockd »

newtwilly wrote: post #317
gridlockd wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider soy unfit for human consumption unless specifically prepared, and even then it should not be a staple. A cow can turn soy into highly nutritious and palatable food, so the resource usage is justified. Having said that, if you want to eat like an antique slave, be my guest. Have a pint of Soylent(tm), it’s on me.

Do you have any arguments to back that up?

I do not need arguments to support my opinion that most soy products are garbage. I have tasted most of them and that is my verdict. Exceptions include soy sauce and miso.

There is also some research that suggests soy is unhealthy, but since I am not interested in a debate on the validity of such research, I will not link to any of it.

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

#319

Post by setr »

nicoburns wrote: post #295
tassl wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ecosy…

It seems to me the scenario really would like

1. Deforest land, for some purpose at most tangentially related to agriculture (presumably to use the wood)

2. Land becomes fairly useless; find most productive usage possible

3. Animal agriculture / grazing fields

That is, I doubt land is being specifically destroyed for this purpose -- there's enough available land to simply use as-is... unless it's already been destroyed as a byproduct of other activity.

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

#320

Post by dunefox »

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…

> If they respond by stopping eating meat, then great - not the best choice, but a step in the right direction

How is that not the best choice?

Post reply on HN