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

91–100 of 302 posts

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

#91

Post by LegitShady »

j-pb wrote: post #75
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will we fix the topsoil damage caused by industrial monocropping without grazing animals? We only have a few decades left before our petrochemical dependent agricultural system will be impossible to sustain. Also, rebuilding topsoil with grazing animals has a side benefit of being a carbon sink.

For every m2 of top soil you repair with grazing animals, you deforest 10 m2 of rainforest to produce their feed.

What if you don't get your feed from the rainforest? I'm confused with the cause and effect of your statement.

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

#92

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

bookmarkable wrote: post #23
j-pb wrote: post #6

I guess everything helps, but we put so much effort into the problems with easy solutions, that could be invested into the difficult stuff. Livestock contributes to 15% of all greenhouse gasses. But the solution is easy, cheap, and only midly inconvenient. Going vegan. This has the added benefit of protecting threatened ecosystems in the rainforrest and seas. We could then spend that energy on the difficult stuff. Fa…

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 some people burn their own houses unless it threatens mine or my neighbors'.

In the future, we may well learn that people were eating meat and some continue to do so. Just like some people still commute by horse.

*I realized that the easiest way to curb climate change is simply to stop eating meat. I'm healthier and can cook more dishes than ever. Why would the world not go vegan? I can't find a good reason except "because I believe so". Then, again, more and more people become vegetarian so we can only bet.

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

#94

Post by eigenket »

gambiting wrote: post #61

There is an incredibly important part of this that I feel everyone is missing. The grass eaten by the cows would produce exactly as much methane if it was just left to rot. It's not as if cows somehow produce methane out of grass that would otherwise just....turn into dust? None of those studies take this into account, they all just measure what comes into a cow and what comes out, but no one takes into account the a…

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 shouldn't be cow vs grassland - it should be rainforest vs (cow + soybean + transport + processing).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#Types_of_cattle...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean

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

#95

Post by tw04 »

gambiting wrote: post #61

There is an incredibly important part of this that I feel everyone is missing. The grass eaten by the cows would produce exactly as much methane if it was just left to rot. It's not as if cows somehow produce methane out of grass that would otherwise just....turn into dust? None of those studies take this into account, they all just measure what comes into a cow and what comes out, but no one takes into account the a…

I don't think they're missing that at all. The cattle in question are eating feed (mainly corn) not grass.

Furthermore the grass in question likely wouldn't "decompose" like what I believe that's describing. It probably depends on where you're physically located, but in the north - grass grows for the duration of the season, until it eventually dries out in the fall to go dormant over the winter. I guess I haven't personally tracked that process but I would be very surprised if it's releasing methane in the same way that freshly cut grass left to decompose (via bacteria) would.

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

#96

Post by titzer »

zests wrote: post #74

I find this hard to believe. Here is my epistemic estimation: if this were legitimate, it would be huge news. I've been hearing about this for several years now but somehow it never amounts to anything. I would have expected large scale cattle studies by now but I have not seen any of those.

You find it hard to believe that a $66 billion beef industry doesn't want to completely overhaul its logistics and incur massive switching costs and larger overhead?

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

#97

Post by gruez »

BlackCherry wrote: post #70
gambiting wrote: post #61

There is an incredibly important part of this that I feel everyone is missing. The grass eaten by the cows would produce exactly as much methane if it was just left to rot. It's not as if cows somehow produce methane out of grass that would otherwise just....turn into dust? None of those studies take this into account, they all just measure what comes into a cow and what comes out, but no one takes into account the a…

But the cows eat the grass a lot faster than it would be rotting right? So wouldn't the speed of the methane entering the atmosphere be faster?

>But the cows eat the grass a lot faster than it would be rotting right?

Not really? Otherwise grass fields would piled up with grass several feet high.

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

#98

Post by nickelcitymario »

zests wrote: post #74

I find this hard to believe. Here is my epistemic estimation: if this were legitimate, it would be huge news. I've been hearing about this for several years now but somehow it never amounts to anything. I would have expected large scale cattle studies by now but I have not seen any of those.

1) It IS huge news. It's been reported pretty heavily. (Or at least, I've stumbled across this news many times from many different and mainstream sources. I suppose it's possible that my filter bubble is making it seem like a bigger deal.)

2) What's the incentive for the farmer? The benefits are entirely externalized. Less methane is good for the planet, but paying to add seaweed to the feed is nothing more than an added case for the farmer.

So if we wanted to roll this out, we'd have to provide publicly-funded incentives for farmers to do so.

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

#99

Post by danlugo92 »

j-pb wrote: post #6

I guess everything helps, but we put so much effort into the problems with easy solutions, that could be invested into the difficult stuff. Livestock contributes to 15% of all greenhouse gasses. But the solution is easy, cheap, and only midly inconvenient. Going vegan. This has the added benefit of protecting threatened ecosystems in the rainforrest and seas. We could then spend that energy on the difficult stuff. Fa…

Meat makes human healthy like no plant based protein does.

Also, in terms of non processed stuff, the highest protein-to-calories ratio is Chicken Breast, lentils don't even come close (if you need 180g of protein, chicken breast will cost you 800calories while lentils will 2400cal).

Now I'm not aware whether eating chicken contributes as much CO2 as beef, but if it doesn't, why not tell people to switch to chicken instead of plant based stuff.

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

#100

Post by gambiting »

matteuan wrote: post #84
gambiting wrote: post #61

There is an incredibly important part of this that I feel everyone is missing. The grass eaten by the cows would produce exactly as much methane if it was just left to rot. It's not as if cows somehow produce methane out of grass that would otherwise just....turn into dust? None of those studies take this into account, they all just measure what comes into a cow and what comes out, but no one takes into account the a…

Interesting, but still I don't think your comment is very relevant to this. Without cows we could have a forest instead of grass, instead of leaving it to rot. So if the number of cows remains constant you benefit from reducing methane emissions.

But that's an issue with where we feed the cows, isn't it?

For instance - cows are raised on many parts of moorlands in the UK, where they eat only the grass growing there. But if you removed the cows, the moors would be exactly as they are now - they cannot support forests or any other kind of vegetation, because they are basically solid rock with an inch of soil on top. I understand that on the "intensive farming" lots where cows are fed corn/hay specifically grown for them that doesn't really apply - but farmers do absolutely raise cows in such places where it makes no difference - even in the absence of cows or sheep you aren't going to have a forest there.

I understand this isn't potentially isn't helpful, but the problem is very nuanced - some cows are fed in such a way that their methane emissions are a net positive. But I'm also sure there are some where the emissions aren't positive at all, yet it's all bundled into the same "meat causes climate destruction" bandwagon.

Post reply on HN