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

251–260 of 302 posts

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

#251

Post by xyzzy21 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #247
belorn wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The start of the carbon cycle is one which I have found to be very unpopular to discuss, and it has a direct connection to methane in the atmosphere. Artificial fertilizers is produce through a process which takes in natural gas as its primary ingredient. The process is also a major source for methane leaks, with a large variance in claimed contribution for the global methane pollution. For a large portion of the glo…

That fertilizer accounts for about 2% of global carbon output, but it does seem on track to be replaced with ammonia made from green hydrogen rather than steam reformed from fossil gas. Probably won't help with runoff issues though, as it'll be chemically identical, just with a lower carbon footprint.

Does that include all the supply chains required? You have to deal in EROEI not specific process steps.

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

#252

Post by wyre »

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.

Same. I would think at this point there would be companies focused on algae production for ruminants. AFAIK there is only one company in Australia that is doing this.

I haven’t read the Wired article yet but my critique is that there isn’t enough seaweed being farmed to adequately enrich a significant cattle population and all this headline does is relax self-judgement of environmentally-conscious meat eaters.

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

#253

Post by samuelbalogh »

Doji wrote: post #189
samuelbalogh wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's fair to treat deforestation as a local issue. Cattle production drives deforestation - whether it's in Brazil or the USA or China, doesn't matter, because we share the atmosphere. Three-quarters [of global deforestation] is driven by agriculture. Beef production is responsible for 41% of deforestation [...] https://ourworldindata.org/what-are-drivers-deforestation

I'm likewise unsure if it's fair to treat cattle production which did not engage in deforestation (perhaps located on the great plains or similar) the same as cattle production which did. However I find your argument interesting. I will spend more time brooding on it.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment!

It's true, not all cattle production can be held accountable for deforestation. For example, here in the UK, it's supposed to be a less carbon-intensive industry than in South America, because the grasslands on which cattle graze are good for little else - they are not really suited for crops. I agree on that point.

However (and from this point, it's speculation from my part), I am very skeptical about that grassland being grassland before agriculture arrived. Eg. was it part of the ancient forest that largely covered Britain? If so, it was indeed deforestation, only it was around 500-1000 years ago.

And this gives a whole other dimension to the discussion - we are OK with our deforestation here in Europe, because it happened a long time ago, but we are not OK with deforestation in Indonesia to produce palm oil (which WE consume) because it's happening now. Strangely, we are not that keen on re-forestation and we just want to push the burden to developing nations (a form of de-humanizing the poor, in my opinion).

I don't have any argument here, I just thought I would share my thoughts.

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

#255

Post by samuelbalogh »

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

This doesn't seem to be true, at all.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cattle-livestock-count-he...

This data goes back to 1962 and shows a trend. I suspect that if we had data from before the advent of industrial agriculture, that curve would tend to approximate lower and lower numbers as we go back in time.

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

#256

Post by thescriptkiddie »

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.

If we're going to continue to have cattle, pasture raised is the only way to do it. Feedlots are not just devastating to the environment, they are inhumane on a level that is difficult to even conceive.

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

#257

Post by ArkanExplorer »

briandear wrote: post #206
Tepix wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at India. There you have more than a billion people who don't eat cows.

How’s their carbon footprint?

More importantly: what is their CO2 efficiency? How much GDP and science do they output per unit of CO2?

India is close to Italy in Scientific output [1]: 1040 units vs 1104 respectively.

India's CO2e output is 2.62 billion tonnes, vs Italy 337 million tonnes.

India's GDP is $2.869trillion vs $2.004 trillion.

India's population is 1,336million vs Italy 60 million.

So, India consumes 7.7x the Earth's CO2 budget, but generates only .94x the scientific output and 1.43x the GDP.

Or put another way: the average Italian consumes 2.86x the CO2 as the average Indian, but generates 23x the scientific output and 15x the GDP.

Its really the 2nd and 3rd world who are flagrant wasters of the Earth's resources, not the developed world. Looking at CO2 on a per-capita basis is basically irrelevant.

The inescapable solution to climate change and resource degradation is population reduction of the 2nd and 3rd world to density and intensity levels seen in the 1st world, or perhaps even lower seeing as housing is typically unaffordable in most 1st world countries.

This would suggest a sustainable population of India of about 650 million - which was the population of the country as recently as 1977 [4].

[1] https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india [3] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/italy [4] https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/1977/

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

#258

Post by samatman »

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…

This is the wrong way to look at it.

Atmospheric forcing doesn't distinguish between "natural" and "unnatural" causes. Let's grant that methanogenesis from ruminant bellies has been a constant throughout history (unlikely, but as we'll see, irrelevant): that methane contributes a certain amount to the greenhouse effect.

That amount is non-trivial, because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and there are a lot of cattle out there. It does break down, but more is constantly being emitted: all of this is factored in to calculations giving cattle's contribution to warming.

A cheap mitigation which eliminates this source of methane is great news, because it reduces the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere: which is the only thing we care about, certainly not whether that gas is au naturale.

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

#259

Post by samatman »

Tepix wrote: post #135
beforeolives wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do if you want it to scale to large numbers of people. Affordable lab-grown meat (when we have it) and intermediate solutions like the one in this article (if it's indeed viable) actually work for everybody. Even if we assume that veganism is an okay choice for one's health, trying to convince people to go vegan won't get you very far.

Look at India. There you have more than a billion people who don't eat cows.

India isn't a great place to be looking if you don't want to see a bunch of cows.

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

#260

Post by snarf21 »

ArkanExplorer wrote: post #257
briandear wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How’s their carbon footprint?

More importantly: what is their CO2 efficiency? How much GDP and science do they output per unit of CO2? India is close to Italy in Scientific output [1]: 1040 units vs 1104 respectively. India's CO2e output is 2.62 billion tonnes, vs Italy 337 million tonnes. India's GDP is $2.869trillion vs $2.004 trillion. India's population is 1,336million vs Italy 60 million. So, India consumes 7.7x the Earth's CO2 budget, but g…

It is such an unpopular opinion but this is the answer. Humans are selfish. The earth can't sustain 8B+ people. Maybe 2B max with some technological advances for cleaner cars and other renewables.
Post reply on HN