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

171–180 of 302 posts

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

#171

Post by _ph_ »

j-pb wrote: post #29
account4mypc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why not go to zero? It's a bit like saying: "Reducing the amount of fossil fuel is a good idea, but why go to zero?"

There is no fundamental need to get energy from fossil fuels specifically, we just have to work at getting replacements for all scenarios.

Nutrition is an entirely different thing. First of all, it is a very fundamental cultural and personal thing. Meat and dairy products have an important nutritional value, which isn't easily replaced, especially not by local foods in many regions. And except for the fossil fuels used in farming (both for meat and plant production), it is carbon-neutral. The problem with it are rather matters of scale and over consumption, so yes, the idea to just reduce meat consumption sounds like a very good idea overall.

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

#172

Post by sampo »

graeme wrote: post #137
titzer wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since the methane released from cattle is continually degrading, it does not accumulate. That's like saying lakes are impossible because of rivers. If you look at historical methane concentrations in our atmosphere, they are already almost 3x of pre-industrial levels, and over 3x of mean historical levels over the past ~1 million years [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Is that from cow herd size increases or other causes? OP’s point was that with q fixed herd size the amount of methane accumulating in an atmosphere is stable. Lakes don’t grow and grow and consume the world.

Methane from human activities:

    Methane leaks from fossil fuel systems: 30%
    Methane from landfills: 20%
    Animal agriculture, including also manure management: 30%
    Plant agriculture: 15%
    Other: 5%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions

Plant agriculture is especially rice paddies, I guess.

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

#173

Post by titzer »

pharke wrote: post #159
titzer wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since the methane released from cattle is continually degrading, it does not accumulate. That's like saying lakes are impossible because of rivers. If you look at historical methane concentrations in our atmosphere, they are already almost 3x of pre-industrial levels, and over 3x of mean historical levels over the past ~1 million years [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

The wikipedia page you link to clearly shows that enteric fermentation accounts for 16% vs Coal and Oil at 19%. There is also another 36% anthropogenically produced methane in that chart so I think that easily accounts for the 3x increase without pinning it on cows. Interestingly rice cultivation contributes a whopping 12%.

It's like we got shot by a firing squad of 6 people and we're arguing about which one of them had the blank.

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

#174

Post by airhead969 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #36
HDMI_Cable wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, improving ICEs have been a massive help for mitigating climate change. Going from 60s muscle cars to current day hybrids has undoubtedly helped with NOx emissions. Adding algae to feed might not get rid of meat production altogether, but it is a good transitional step.

I suppose, but it has also enabled larger and larger vehicles compared to the small vehicles of the late 70s. SUVs have never been more popular. To defeat Jevons Paradox (where greater efficiency just means more of the thing is consumed, making it potentially even worse than before), you gotta electrify everything. Perhaps even meat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

SUVs are the dominant vehicles produced in the US. Many small- and mid-sized car lines have ceases production.

Tax engine displacement into oblivion and then require EVs.

Similarly, tax meat ag into oblivion and then outlaw it.

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

#175

Post by Doji »

greenshackle2 wrote: post #141
Doji wrote: post #125

A common misconception which I frequently see when this topic arises is the failure to distinguish carbon cycles and one-way carbon emission. You exhale carbon dioxide. However, this carbon dioxide comes from the carbon in the food you eat, and the food you eat obtained it from the atmosphere. Thus, it's a cycle. As a system (ignoring food transportation, deforestation, etc.) it's effectively carbon neutral. By contr…

> Additionally our planet was once host to wild ruminants like Buffalo Not at anywhere near the density you find in modern agriculture. Domesticated cattle and pigs alone are 15x the biomass of all wild mammals combined. Wild ruminants are somewhat insignificant compared to that. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

This article measures current biomass distribution. Given that Bison herds in North America has reduced from 60 million to 30 thousand, and I suspect other species have seen similar changes, I'm not surprised by the result.

Also as a point of nuance, I'd like to say that I'm sure we have actually increased biomass density. If we had not, our farms wouldn't be doing their jobs very well. I'm not trying to say no increase has occurred, simply that it is less than one might expect. Unfortunately I don't have exact numbers to back this up though. I wasn't planning on writing all this when I woke up today, and it's admittedly not my field. Here's to hoping more informed people take over!

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

Doji wrote: post #125

A common misconception which I frequently see when this topic arises is the failure to distinguish carbon cycles and one-way carbon emission. You exhale carbon dioxide. However, this carbon dioxide comes from the carbon in the food you eat, and the food you eat obtained it from the atmosphere. Thus, it's a cycle. As a system (ignoring food transportation, deforestation, etc.) it's effectively carbon neutral. By contr…

[deleted]

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

#177

Post by yboris »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #158
yboris wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's that American aim of being #1 ("exceptional") in ways like "ethically good" or "world leader taking the world into a better future"? Why is it now "well, others are doing bad things, we may as well pollute the shit of the planet too"?

> Why is it now "well, others are doing bad things, we may as well pollute the shit of the planet too"? Why is the burden on me? That's never been explained by all the climate religionists out there. When the west does something it's bad. When everyone else does it, they get a pass? We already did the industrial revolution. We already went through the long process. They have free wins - they don't need to design new…

The per-person consumption of electricity and oil - along with the CO2 emissions due to our lifestyle in the US is higher than just about every country in the world. WE are the ones that need to cut back.

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

#178

Post by VBprogrammer »

MsMowz wrote: post #113
valgor wrote: post #93

Not eating cows or drinking cow milk reduces your carbon emissions from cows 100%. You actually don't need technology or a start up to solve this issue!

This isn't true unless your substitute is to eat nothing.

There was an interesting TV show on British TV (apologies, my Google foo is not able to find the name at this moment in time) where they invited a number of people to eat dishes at a hypothetical restaurant, after each course the tallied the carbon emissions released in creating the dish.

Now obviously being a TV show they had to show some extreme examples but it was definitely interesting when things like imported asparagus dishes released more than the British beef dish. However, things like the wine were even more challenging, wine imported from Australia in bulk tanks was relatively ok, but wines imported after bottling (from Europe for example) where horrible because of the extra transportation.

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

#179

Post by valgor »

goda90 wrote: post #118
valgor wrote: post #93

Not eating cows or drinking cow milk reduces your carbon emissions from cows 100%. You actually don't need technology or a start up to solve this issue!

But how much does it reduce your total carbon emissions from all food sources? Any food source, animal or plant, can have a big impact if the agricultural practices involved are not sustainable. Destroying rain forests for palm oil plantations is arguably worse than raising cattle on pre-existing grasslands and using beef tallow in place of palm oil.

Reducing total emissions is another question.

Checkout the first graph on this site: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local?fbcli...

It shows how eating animals and animal products is far worse. So even if we don't immediately eliminate all carbon emissions, reducing our consumption of animals can have a huge impact.

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

#180

Post by bookmarkable »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #92
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.

>Humans eat meat I guess you meant "some humans eat meat", or else I cannot be human by your definition, and I sure look like one . But then, some* humans also kill each other, rape their children (etc). But no one was trying to describe what some humans do/did but what they should better do if we're trying to live in a peaceful and sustainable world. Why should we care that some people eat meat? I don't care that so…

Comparing child rape and murder to eating a dead chicken requires an impressive level of mental gymnastics.
Post reply on HN