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

221–230 of 302 posts

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

#221

Post by thealienthing »

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…

I never knew/considered this. I wanted to clarify something. What you mean when you say that there is no cycle in the burning of fossil fuels, do you just mean that it is a net positive gain of carbon in the atmosphere because the carbon did not originate from the atmosphere? Plants can still process the carbon put there by the burning of fossil fuels but there is an excess because that carbon does not originate from living things? I guess I’m just trying to clarify that there isn’t something about the carbon from fossil fuels that makes it impossible for plants to consume it.

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

#222

Post by fred_is_fred »

hinkley wrote: post #217
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…

> 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. All of modern agriculture and food science has been about turning inedible calories into edible ones (think: cooking meat with wood, baking bread).…

The Haber process which you mentioned is really key here. It uses a lot of natural gas - more interesting than cow methane might be using nitrogen fixing bacteria or crop rotation (legumes) to reduce it's usage.

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

#223

Post by Robotbeat »

airhead969 wrote: post #174
Robotbeat wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The best way to do it for cars IMHO is to add SUVs (etc) to the EPA fuel economy standards, double the minimum efficiency standard, and adjust the penalties for inflation from when it was first introduced. The EPA fuel economy standards actually poll really well (compared to gas taxes).

Then, like you say, require EVs as soon as possible.

In more detail, I’d say reinstate the EV credit, but make it per-mile range instead of per kWh (and make the benefits for the first 50 miles like 3-4x that for the next 200 miles... and make the latter credit only eligible if there’s 100kW charging capability... and make the total incentive up to $10,000, which is roughly the inflation adjusted original EV credit). Then after 4-5 years, require all new cars/trucks to at least have a plug, followed by all new cars/trucks having to be pure electric 5 years after that. Adjust the credits for inflation and simultaneously Phase out the credits for plugs once they’re required and then pure electric once that is required. Once most vehicles on the road have a plug, introduce higher carbon tax on fuel until it reaches at least $1-2/gallon (and then require all fuel to be synthesized for direct air capture CO2). After 15 years of the first mandate, start outlawing internal combustion engine vehicles on the road or requiring punitive registration fees. And transition road taxes to miles and weight-based about 5-10 years after the mandates start to bite. Keep electricity prices low by subsidizing clean electricity and then ratcheting up the CO2 taxes.

The aim should be to provide a strong carrot incentive well before a stick incentive. Carrots pill better than sticks. And the stick incentives don’t get enough political support until they only apply to a minority of people.

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

#224

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

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…

> By contrast, when we dig up oil and burn it, there is no cycle. It's a one way street.

It’s also a cycle, the period takes some million years though.

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

#225

Post by pmayrgundter »

titzer wrote: post #190
bpodgursky wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't true. The Eastern half the US was heavily deforested by colonization, but that's really not true in the midwest. It was prarie. There are actually a lot of researchers who believe that the Native peoples were keeping the forests back via controlled burns, since grassland is better for hunting and agriculture, and the forests have regrown substantially _since_ most of the indigenous people died via dis…

Go argue with historians, if you like: https://blog.history.in.gov/tag/forestry/

Indiana is the beginning of the Eastern forests. Prairie starts in Illinois and extends over most of the Midwest and runs North/South along the Rockies well into Canada and down to Texas, New Mexico.. nice map: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgrass_prairie#/media/Fil...

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

#227

Post by asciimo »

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…

> You may be surprised to learn that cattle herd size has remained relatively stable over time.

Absolutely surprised. Do you have science to back up this claim? ... That goes back more more than a couple decades?

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

#228

Post by mattnewton »

tengbretson wrote: post #109
eigenket wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point relies on the assumption that the cattle are out eating grass (or other plants) which would naturally be growing and rotting without human intervention. This is kinda not true. Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef [1]. 80% of the global soybean crop is used to feed livestock [2]. A lot of these soybeans are grown on land that used to be rainforest. Your comparison should…

Surely its clear that if the soybeans aren't growing in the field that something else that grows, dies and decomposes would be.

Something like a forest with large trees that lock up carbon for many years, and a lack of commercial fertilizer (which uses natural gas).

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

#229

Post by asciimo »

pavedwalden wrote: post #201
headbee wrote: post #193

Article from Wired on why algae isn't the silver bullet it's marketed as: https://www.wired.com/story/carbon-neutral-cows-algae/ Essentially, it's only useful for pasture raised cows (soy and corn fed feedlot cows already produce a fraction of the methane) and there's no practical way to add algae to pasture raised cows' diets. They also speculate that cows' microbiomes will adapt to the algae.

Thanks for supplying the fact-check I was looking for. I think I've been seeing headlines about this "discovery" for over a decade, always presented as if it's a promising new technique but obviously there must be some reason it hasn't caught on by now.

"I can keep eating steak because Science is about to solve that problem..."

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

#230

Post by Doji »

thealienthing wrote: post #221
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…

I never knew/considered this. I wanted to clarify something. What you mean when you say that there is no cycle in the burning of fossil fuels, do you just mean that it is a net positive gain of carbon in the atmosphere because the carbon did not originate from the atmosphere? Plants can still process the carbon put there by the burning of fossil fuels but there is an excess because that carbon does not originate from…

Yes that's right, plants can't tell the difference between a carbon atom which came from fossil fuels, and a carbon atom which came from an animal. It's all mixed together / fungible. Nevertheless, there's an important distinction here, because emissions from food are fundamentally limited by how much food we can produce, so it's carbon balanced on an extremely short time horizon. Meanwhile fossil fuel emissions are uncoupled from any sort of sequestration, and if it balances on any time horizon at all it will be a very very very long one.
Post reply on HN