AFAIK garlic does too. But the solution creates another problem because of higher nitrous oxide (n2o) concentrations. Which is much worse for the climate.
Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
261–270 of 282 posts
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost quit beef due to the info in Cowspiracy in which I believe they pointed out that if everyone were to switch to grass fed beef there would literally not be enough grassland to support it (this is probably true, with the assumption that various plant crops continue their unsustainable land footprint). However, having seen also "The Magic Pill" on Netflix, I've concluded the optimal solution is probably more, hea…
So you chose to keep eating beef, because you think it's possible to create sustainable beef, even though the beef you do eat is not sustainably sourced? How is it possible to product carbon capture, if all the grass is being consumed by cattle who then either exhale it or get eaten by humans who exhale it?
I understand the skepticism. I actually try to eat grassfed beef where budgetary constraints allow. In my opinion, grassfed beef today is the most sustainable land -based option given that the person consuming it is fat adapted. If eaten it in the traditional American diet of steak, potatoes, often beer, and bread, the result of this is a less efficient metabolism, the net result of which is more unsustainable agriculture because the person is going back to relying in part on intensive plant agriculture. I have an answer to the exhalation question, which I think is important to understand. The hydrocarbons generated by photosynthesis in the grass go into the cow, become protein and fat in the cow, and then go into the human, and become a hydrocarbon based store of energy. Most of the result of the use of this store is energy, heat, and two biproducts (H2O and CO2) (the efficiency ratios here matter and they are favorable in both healthy cows and humans). As long as we have a human/animal population on earth, we will have a system that produces energy (muscle movement and neurons firing), heat (waste from the inefficiency of our neuro-muscular-skeletal system) and CO2 and H20. The question, which I think grassfed beef addresses, is what is the most efficient way to take sunlight, water, and CO2, and convert that into energy for the human/animal population to use? To this I'd add in my optimal system we actually address the dual-threat type problems of overfishing and ocean acidification, and encourage sustainable harvesting of smaller fish with population management controls (ie sardines and anchovies).
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#263My partner is studying the effects of cow grazing on various greenhouse gas things, and the amount of data you need to get/the number of times you need to replicate before policy makers are willing to step in, is really quite substantial. I showed this article to her last year when it popped up, and she said "show me a large sample size and replicate it stateside and then I'll start caring." harsh, but I think that's…
Also, "they found it reduced methane production by more than 99 percent in the lab." In the lab? On "bacteria found in the stomach of cows"? That's a long way off from what the title suggests; this research is definitely still valuable, but I think we do scientific reporting a disservice when we make much bolder claims than the actual science bears out. Lab studies != actual cows eating stuff
Lab studies ~= spherical cows eating stuff
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#264For a moment this was the best news I had read in years, until I noticed the story is a year old and the research paper[1] is two years old. Hopefully there has been some progress in the past years but if that were the case we would should have seen another headline by now. At least I haven't. Normally 2 years wouldn't be much time to go from a research paper to production. But this appears to be a simple solution to…
Is there any immediate economic incentive to adding algae into feed? Wouldn't you agree that markets don't deal effectively with many or most commercial endeavors' unwanted side effects (negative externalities), and so authorities often need to step in when market failure causes damage? In this case, if the science is real, a global treaty would seem in order to simply mandate the effective use of seaweed in cow feed…
One potential economic incentive is that feeding cows algae produces a nutritionally higher quality meat; one much higher in beneficial Omega-3 fatty acids vs the current high Omega-6 meat produced from grain fed cows.
There is at least one company approaching it from that angle. [http://www.omega3beef.com/]
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
One also has to consider that the methane decays over a matter of decades. Other than CO2, which stays in the atmosphere until it is taken out. So, even if methane takes a big share in current greenhouse emissions, its share in the accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be lower. The climate change it causes is temporary. (Disregarding runaway effects.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
Decades – we don't have decades to fix this. Also, it decays into CO2, so to claim that its effects are temporary is misleading. On top of that, as long as the carbon is in a CH4 bond, it traps at least 20× as much radiation. Please don't dismiss the significance of methane emissions.
> Also, it decays into CO2…
If that carbon was already in the biosphere that’s mostly, fine long term. I worry a lot more about the carbon we keep adding to it, that wasn’t in the equation.
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#266There is a big industry in seaweed harvesting carrageenan is extracted from it to use as a thickener it's used in ice cream and other products. The 2014 study mentioned is from my region the Atlantic Veterinary College. There was a large Irish Moss industry here years ago but most of it has switched to Asian markets with cheaper labour and tropical climate. Although there may soon be a glut of seaweed and any cattle…
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/138/3/469/4670224 says carageenan is harmful.
Here's Dr. Joe Schwarcz opinion as well, specific to carrageenan in chocolate milk: http://montrealgazette.com/technology/science/the-right-chem...
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I have studied this issue extensively. I personally know Jon Holcomb, the vacuum inventor. First, to dispel any myths. There is zero funding for this effort. It also takes a solid month of effort to clear a football field sized area. Compare that speed to the breeding cycle of the invasive urchin species boom and you have a very ineffective method of population control. Although his efforts were innovative. Jon wi…
I'm confused. (I literally mean it, I'm not advocating anything). If the urchins were dying off, I can understand why that would devastate the urchin divers, but why would a boom in urchins put them out of business? Why aren't the urchin divers doing the vacuuming and making more money than ever from a bumper crop of urchins?
There two species involved. From the linked article:
"Compared to red urchins ... [purple urchins are] smaller, less meaty and not worth fishing for. And they're voracious eaters of kelp."
https://www.kqed.org/science/1357320/scientists-and-fisherme...
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGW skeptics, like evolution and spheroid Earth skeptics are their own audience, no one else is really bothering to tailor their speech to them. We’ve entered the casually dismissive phase of the relationship. The ROI for dealing with people who are in denial is rarely positive after all.
"AGW skeptics" just want a sincere conversation based on science. Like one would say, what about the effects of water vapor on climate change? And pointing out, you can't come to a conclusion and when it is disproven, cherry pick facts to fix your conclusion. It just doesn't work this way. So is it a sincere conversation or what? There's no point to engage with people who aren't honest about the science. Name calling…
"AGW skeptics" just want a sincere conversation based on science.
Twenty years ago, maybe. Today it’s like your racist uncle who always wants a “reasonable discussion about immigration” that would make a National Front member blush. You can’t blame the rest of us for figuring out the game and refusing to play.
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused. (I literally mean it, I'm not advocating anything). If the urchins were dying off, I can understand why that would devastate the urchin divers, but why would a boom in urchins put them out of business? Why aren't the urchin divers doing the vacuuming and making more money than ever from a bumper crop of urchins?
There two species involved. From the linked article: "Compared to red urchins ... [purple urchins are] smaller, less meaty and not worth fishing for. And they're voracious eaters of kelp." https://www.kqed.org/science/1357320/scientists-and-fisherme...
After vacuuming up a bunch of purple urchins, would it be possible to alter their DNA to be more like that of red urchins? Then release those genetically modified urchins back into the ocean to pass their “red-shifted” traits into the greater purple urchin population.
I realize there are plenty of ethical issues surrounding an attempt at genetically modifying an entire species. Perhaps doing so would be irresponsible? It’s not my area of expertise.
Re: Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying that the kelp weren't devastated by those 3 things, I'm saying that the resulting devastation is not permanent. Funding especially is an addressable issue; Patagonia, for example, donates to kelp restoration activities in SoCal and would presumably donate to similar efforts in NorCal if asked.
Sure, nothing is permanent - but the question is can the recovery happen in enough time that it doesn't have a devastating effect on the ecology and on the humans that live around there in human-time? Say we push too far and endanger our species - we're doomed, but the planet will recover just fine. It has plenty times before over billions of years.
"The ecology" is fine, it's just different now.