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

Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

goodnewsnetwork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 409 posts

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#251

Post by cmroanirgo »

reportgunner wrote: post #247

I'm missing an "of something" after the 99%. It might the case that 99% in the title is actually 0.0001% of all cows in the world. It does not make sense to use % without knowing what is the total, the number carries no information whatsoever.

From the article:

> Even a small amount of the seaweed in a cow’s diet was shown to reduce the animal’s gases by 99%.

and

> When added to cow feed at less than 2% of the dry matter, this particular seaweed completely knocks out methane production. It contains chemicals that reduce the microbes in the cows’ stomachs that cause them to burp when they eat grass

The 99% is relating to the gases emitted by a cow eating this seaweed vs not eating the seaweed.

> if Australia could grow enough of the seaweed for every cow in the nation, the country could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 10%.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#252

Post by stinos »

asteli wrote: post #215

Question from the peanut gallery: The gut bacteria in a cow digest components of the animal's food preferentially and excrete methane. If you knock those bacteria out, does the stuff the bacteria would have eaten get excreted by the cow? If so, do the organisms that digest it external to the cow emit greenhouse gases?

I also wonder what effect this whole thing has on the cow. IIRC in humans there are even links between (lack of/bad) gut bacteria and certain diseases. So it seems at least worth it figuring ouf how this affects cows, imo.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#253

Post by 6d6b73 »

rabbitonrails wrote: post #136
tr3ndyBEAR wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AT can do this for bovines, I wonder what the health benefits for us could be

Reducing methane emissions is not a health benefit.

It is if you're on the receiving end of the methane emissions :)

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#254

Post by maxdamantus »

beachy wrote: post #240
maxdamantus wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that cows are an issue that should be looked into, but ultimately cows themselves aren't causing more carbon to be taken from the ground and left in the atmosphere indefinitely (the issue is that methane is a greater contributor to the greenhouse effect over carbon dioxide, per unit carbon), so presumably in this case it's a matter of keeping methane levels below a certain amount rather than reversing carbon…

Cows are carbon to methane convertors. AFAIK, although methane dissipates more quickly (good in the longer term) it has a more powerful effect in the shorter term. So the rationale while we are stick deep in the shit is not too think so much of the long term, but just to survive the short term - i.e reduce the methane.

> although methane dissipates more quickly

Dissipates more quickly than what? Optimally, the cows would simply release carbon in the form of carbon dioxide rather than methane, since then you simply have a sustainable cycle:

Carbon dioxide is in the air. The carbon dioxide turns into grass. Some of the grass is used as an energy source by the cow, releasing the carbon dioxide back into the air. Some of the grass is used to make up the body mass of the cow, which is then used as an energy source by humans, releasing the carbon dioxide back into the air.

The point is that the carbon dioxide always ends up back where it started, so there's nothing inherently unsustainable. It's equivalent to growing a tree and then burning it (releasing carbon dioxide) to make use of the stored energy captured from the Sun. Humans and cows breathe out the carbon dioxide after the chemical energy is used.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#258

Post by algorias »

chrisco255 wrote: post #203
mercutio2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not how climate balance works. There used to be a relatively stable equilibrium in the climate. There have always, and will always, be many mechanisms contributing to the overall total radiative forcing. We can’t reduce how much water vapor is in the atmosphere very easily. But methane, we can. It doesn’t matter that methane has low partial pressure. What matters is the total radiative forcing, and every mole…

It doesn't matter if it has a strong effect at the molecular level if it exists in miniscule quantities 4 orders of magnitude less than water vapor while not trapping any part of the light spectrum that is not already captured by H2O and CO2. It has negligible, near zero effect at present. Sorry, if you factor the 20x factor for methane heat retention times .00017 it's the equivalent of increasing the amount of water…

Well, here's an analogy: If you have $1000 salary and $900 of fixed expenses (+ $100 of disposable income), then a reduction of just 10% in your salary reduces your disposable income by 100%. A reduction of 20% in your salary puts you deep into the red and will eventually make you homeless.

Climate is like your budget. There's a lot of factors flowing into it, and even a very small change (e.g. 0.1% additional water vapor) can flip the sign on the total balance. Sorry, but your argument about the magnitude of the problem is just wrong.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#259

Post by Seldaek »

leipert wrote: post #235
goodalgae wrote: post #26

My company is currently working to grow Asparagopsis Taxiformis, here in the US, for this purpose. I agree with comments that we have big issues to tackle in regards to methane sinks failing, such as permafrost, and there are things to be said about people moving en masse to plant based diets – but, the future will always be a mix of tomorrow and today. Many people will still eat beef, and we need to ensure we reduce…

What is the feasibility of this, deploying it on a large scale? I did some quick calculations on a napkin. Apparently there are between 1 billion and 1.5 billion cows [0][1]. Let’s just say 1.5 Billion. In New Zealand the beef (dry cow) vs dairy cow ratio is almost 1:1 [2], but I assume that countries like India have more dairy cows, so I just assumed that 60% percent of cows are dairy cows. Apparently dry cows consu…

Sounds like we need to start researching the effects of eating US trash on cow methane emissions. There might be a synergy here.

Re: Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99%

#260

Post by mumblemumble »

solveit wrote: post #221
Etheryte wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a small sample and a large effect doesn't mean you're guaranteed at least some effect on a large sample. If anything, a very large effect is more likely to indicate a flaw in your method.

Yes, but effect sizes are relatively harder to hack/screw up (knowingly or otherwise) than p-values. My totally anecdotal impression is that findings showing large effect sizes seem to replicate better than findings showing highly significant effects.

Giant effect sizes are easy to hack in biological sciences. All you have to do is conduct an in vitro study.

Like they did in this paper.

Post reply on HN