Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 302 posts

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#41

Post by shireboy »

frankbreetz wrote: post #12

"Transportation of the processed or unprocessed seaweed should be kept to a minimum, so cultivation in the region of use is recommended specially to avoid long-haul shipping." "Asparagopsis taxiformis, (red sea plume or limu kohu) formerly A. sanfordiana, is a species of red algae, with cosmopolitan distribution in tropical to warm temperate waters."[0] This seems to be a pretty big hurdle to overcome. Either all the…

Also, agricultural runoff can be an issue for oceans. I think that’s mostly fertilizer, but I have to imagine a large scale beef operation near the ocean could have runoff consequences.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#42

Post by Eric_WVGG »

j-pb wrote: post #22
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is easy, cheap, and only mildly inconvenient. Feed cattle some seaweed.

The seaweeed is not a full on substitute for the refular feed. You still have the climate, land, and water impact of the majority of the feed. You're also stil stuck with the huge water requirements, antibiotic resistence, disease, and animal cruelty. You're advocating for a reduction of at most 50% of the harmfull effects. But going 100% is trivial, so why not do it?

Because I like solutions that are possible, and I can't think of many things more difficult than changing people's behavior.

We can't even convince the public to wear face masks in public and that vaccines are safe, and you're telling me that it would be trivial to make everyone go vegan? Even discussing this is pointlessly filling the atmosphere with more CO2.

I actually happen to think that our civilization will inevitably become vegetarian, but it won't happen within my lifetime, and in the meantime, some scientists have found a cheap way to reduce methane emissions. That's awesome! Stop pissing on their work.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#43

Post by paulcole »

j-pb wrote: post #6

I guess everything helps, but we put so much effort into the problems with easy solutions, that could be invested into the difficult stuff. Livestock contributes to 15% of all greenhouse gasses. But the solution is easy, cheap, and only midly inconvenient. Going vegan. This has the added benefit of protecting threatened ecosystems in the rainforrest and seas. We could then spend that energy on the difficult stuff. Fa…

> I guess everything helps

This is a dangerous attitude. While technically true it gives everyone an easy cop out to avoid making real substantive change.

Some things help and some things help.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#44

Post by YorickPeterse »

vuln wrote: post #30
Robotbeat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shipping by electrified rail is one option. Efficient and potentially 100% clean.

Where are you getting the electricity to power the rail?

Oh I don't know, how about: solar, wind, nuclear, hydro; plenty of ways to power a railway network without the need for fossil fuels.

The real challenge here is likely governments simply not wanting to invest in this.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#45

Post by rhinoceraptor »

j-pb wrote: post #6

I guess everything helps, but we put so much effort into the problems with easy solutions, that could be invested into the difficult stuff. Livestock contributes to 15% of all greenhouse gasses. But the solution is easy, cheap, and only midly inconvenient. Going vegan. This has the added benefit of protecting threatened ecosystems in the rainforrest and seas. We could then spend that energy on the difficult stuff. Fa…

How will we fix the topsoil damage caused by industrial monocropping without grazing animals? We only have a few decades left before our petrochemical dependent agricultural system will be impossible to sustain.

Also, rebuilding topsoil with grazing animals has a side benefit of being a carbon sink.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#46

Post by j-pb »

CarelessExpert wrote: post #33
j-pb wrote: post #6

I guess everything helps, but we put so much effort into the problems with easy solutions, that could be invested into the difficult stuff. Livestock contributes to 15% of all greenhouse gasses. But the solution is easy, cheap, and only midly inconvenient. Going vegan. This has the added benefit of protecting threatened ecosystems in the rainforrest and seas. We could then spend that energy on the difficult stuff. Fa…

This reasoning is flawed in the same way recycling is flawed: it puts all the responsibility on individuals to change their behaviour rather than government or industry using their greater leverage to change the system itself. And it'll work just as well. If you want to stop people eating meat, the solution is to tax it so that the price of the good reflects its true cost. But that ain't gonna happen. So the least we…

What makes you think that it's not going to happen?

It's already happening to such a degree that diary and meat farmer interest groups are HEAVILY lobbying the EU, to make it as difficult as possible for replacement products.

We might as well put our efforts into cleaning up these roadblocks/corruption to a brighter future.

And why can't we do both?

Expect individuals to go vegan, expect governments to support the development of vegan substitutes. Have people take the bike instead of cars more often, but have a carbon tax on flights.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#47

Post by 52-6F-62 »

j-pb wrote: post #25
bookmarkable wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is not going to go vegan. Humans eat meat. No greenhouse argument will ever change this. This is worthwhile research, as is cultured meat and other options. Evolving the tech of raising and cultivating animal protein to eat is important work.

Habe you tried the latest substitutes? Artificial chicken based on pea proteins has become virtually indistinguishable from real chicken.

I have.

I can't eat a lot of fats due to a bad pancreas, but I'm also B12-deficient and anemic. Doc asked me to eat more red meat on occasion, so I try to about once a week.

As an attempt at an alternative, I tried one of the popular substitutes. I tried it before my ... "pancreatic situation" was known to me. It made me sick for days. Vomiting, other digestive issues I won't list, and incredible abdominal pain and sourness of my stomach resulted.

I've even seen similar reports in various Vegan forums.

Those substitutes are filled with canola (and other) oils to add body, flavour, and characteristic "juiciness".

I'm intrigued by lab-grown meat, but those pea and soy meat substitutes are not viable. They're not even close to a viable substitute. Eating a steak or some bone marrow once a week or so keeps me feeling like I'm an alive human being, which I have to say is nice having been close to the alternative.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#48

Post by etu »

account4mypc wrote: post #20
j-pb wrote: post #6

I guess everything helps, but we put so much effort into the problems with easy solutions, that could be invested into the difficult stuff. Livestock contributes to 15% of all greenhouse gasses. But the solution is easy, cheap, and only midly inconvenient. Going vegan. This has the added benefit of protecting threatened ecosystems in the rainforrest and seas. We could then spend that energy on the difficult stuff. Fa…

eating less meat is a good idea, but why go to zero? how about eat beef up to once a week or smth like that? i think making a point more extreme than necessary motivates people to disagree with you

So you say that it's more extreme to eat beans than to raise animals by feeding them beans to then slaughter them to eat them?

I've read somewhere recently that you need 16kcal of feed to produce 1kcal worth of chicken. That's a 16 times loss in efficiency that requires a lot of plants to feed to the chicken that could have been consumed by humans.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#49

Post by j-pb »

paulcole wrote: post #43
j-pb wrote: post #6

I guess everything helps, but we put so much effort into the problems with easy solutions, that could be invested into the difficult stuff. Livestock contributes to 15% of all greenhouse gasses. But the solution is easy, cheap, and only midly inconvenient. Going vegan. This has the added benefit of protecting threatened ecosystems in the rainforrest and seas. We could then spend that energy on the difficult stuff. Fa…

> I guess everything helps This is a dangerous attitude. While technically true it gives everyone an easy cop out to avoid making real substantive change. Some things help and some things help .

Yeah, don't cop out, go vegan then ;)!

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#50

Post by paulcole »

ReadFList wrote: post #35
airhead969 wrote: post #4

This is like improving ICEs to enable their continued existence. To what end? How about eliminating meat ag altogether since it's a waste of resources, a significant component of man-made climate change, a pandemic risk, a major source of pollution, driver of deforestation, and poses a threat to antibiotic resistance? But no, the typical rationalizations include: "Muh cheezburger is muh freedom. I can eat whatever I…

How about we keep eating locally produced meat because it's healthy, far more than those "fake" meats that are no more than vegetable oils, estrogen from soy and the likes, and chemicals to add flavour, and instead reduce waste? Do you really think that the increase in vegetable prodution would not have any environmental impact? We grow them out of the air? And ICE should continue to exist to make sure we stop at the…

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/

> Results of recent population studies suggest that soy has either a beneficial or neutral effect on various health conditions

Post reply on HN