6 ms·

For 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

For 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 an urgent problem so it's hard to be patient. [1] https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/43225/ https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/43225/

malloryerik 8y ago
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. I hope all governments move on things like this, but ultimately, international agencies like the WTO should be, excuse me..., beefed up to deal with these kinds of issues that affect the entire planet and all of its inhabitants.
- acchow 8y ago
  > Is there any immediate economic incentive to adding algae into feed? You can charge more for it? Many consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally-friendlier options now.
  - graeme 8y ago
    1. That would only affect a small portion of the global market 2. You'd have verification problems, same as with a lot of things now claimed to be organic/free range/etc but aren't really in the sense people expect
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      There are already people intentionally buying beef straight from producers, to ensure that it's "grass fed". If warming enthusiasts cared as much about this issue as these paleo dieters do about avoiding flavorful beef, they could do the same. As you say, the effect would be small, but why would that stop anyone from doing it?
      - graeme 8y ago
        Oh I reread the thread and saw you were only addressing whether there is an immediate incentive. Yes, you're right, there certainly would be one, and it probably could be organic/paleo level successful. Probably doing it privately successfully would help rally support for an eventual law.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    I'm sure some genius could come up with a marketing campaign around "Fartless Beef". Here, I'll give it a try: "Think outside the butt."
- slavik81 8y ago
  A carbon tax or cap and trade system would create such an economic incentive.
  - vlovich123 8y ago
    What's to discourage the cattle owner from claiming their cows produce no methane due to seaweed use & then collecting the cap and trade/carbon tax benefit while not bothering with the seaweed? More broadly, how does cap and trade/carbon tax measure the footprint of a business in the first place? I've found no material on the subject but my guess is that they do it based on the power plant/fuel you're using & how much energy your using. Not sure how they measure gases as a byproduct of industrial processes but maybe that's minuscule?
    - slavik81 8y ago
      The possibility of an IRS audit would discourage lying about it. If you're claiming to be feeding your cattle seaweed, you're going to have to buy it. Just like any other business expense, you'll need receipts. And once you have the seaweed feed, you might as well use it. To be honest, I'm not sure how the emissions measuring is done, but I think it's handled on the supply-side for fuel and electricity in existing implementations. Suppliers just pass on the cost of taxes. For direct agricultural emissions from cattle, you could probably use an estimate based on the average emissions per cow, and provide a deduction based on feed. Maybe with an exemption for small farms.
      - gowld 8y ago
        Farmers could buy their seaweed from Acme Agrisupply, SuperKelp(TM) "made with 100% seaweed" (3% seaweed by weight, 97% corn filler), which costs 1/10th the price of real seaweed.
    - Alex3917 8y ago
      > how does cap and trade/carbon tax measure the footprint of a business in the first place Satellites, sensors on Google street view cars, etc. https://www.ted.com/talks/fred_krupp_what_if_we_tracked_methane_from_space_and_hit_the_brakes_on_climate_change/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/fred_krupp_what_if_we_tracked_meth...
- crispweed 8y ago
  As other posters have said, it seems like it can be tricky to incentivise cattle owners to add algae to their feed, check this has actually been added, in proportions that have the desired effect, and so on. But how about if governments provide subsidised feed centrally, instead, with the algae added?
  - beojan 8y ago
    Or just legislate that feed manufacturers must add the algae?
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Sadly, I fear legislators won't do that until there's an economic advantage for their supporters. So they need some magnates to be convinced, and buy up the production before they go ahead. Why would legislators make regulations that just save the planet but don't make them rich? /s
    - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
      There couldn't possibly be any unintended side effects of that...
      - Can_Not 8y ago
        There are ways to mitigate unintended side effects. Start with a small small number of farms, AB test with no seaweed, small amounts of seaweed, medium amounts of seaweed, large amounts of seaweed, also AB test on which Farmers know which sample they are getting, iterate next year on results with larger number of Farmers. Buy insurance to compensate Farmers if the seaweed kills them. Discover why they died. Iterate with solution (if possible) or cancel (if seaweed always results in eventual death). Continue to keep large population of seaweed free cattle to mitigate possibly of extinction via unexpected long term consequences of seaweed.
  - fulafel 8y ago
    Agriculture is already heavily regulated and inspected in terms of such things at least in the EU, owing to the fact that farmers get most of their income from subsidies and these are predicated on various terms. Of course, it would be much simpler to just stop the nonsensical subsidies of environmentally and ethically disastrous ag products like beef...
- ahartman00 8y ago
  "Is there any immediate economic incentive to adding algae into feed?" the incentive is trivially simple. free seaweed. im assuming there is fiber, and at least some nutrients in seaweed, but no farmer is going to turn down free food. to me it seems like it would be very similar to alfalfa/hay. not sure what that would cost, or if that much can be produced however. also, dairy farmers at least care very much about the ratios of various feedstocks, so the assumption about nutrition is important.
- bagacrap 8y ago
  Yes, farmers can sell their own use of seaweed additive as carbon "offsets". Environment-conscious businesses buy these credits to become effectively carbon neutral.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- gehwartzen 8y ago
  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/ http://www.omega3beef.com/]
ppeetteerr 8y ago
Either we impose a gas credit system on the cattle industry or, more likely, governments subsidize dairy farmers that use algae in their feed. Either way, there is no financial incentive to produce less methane. It will require regulation
- BatFastard 8y ago
  Which means it won't happen for at least 3 more years.
- schiffern 8y ago
  >Either way, there is no financial incentive to produce less methane. There is a distinct thermodynamic incentive to reduce methane, because the methanogenic bacteria are "eating" the energy that the cow would otherwise absorb. This translates directly into a financial incentive, because the cows require less feed. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d58/15b6d22d81070c173f6281434dd213a557c7.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d58/15b6d22d81070c173f6281... >Methane is a by-product of the microbial fermentation of carbohydrates in the diets of ruminant animals. Because cattle can lose about 6% of their dietary intake energy as CH4, substantial research to estimate this production and to reduce CH4 emissions has been completed (Johnson and Johnson, 1995).

malloryerik 8y ago

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. I hope all governments move on things like this, but ultimately, international agencies like the WTO should be, excuse me..., beefed up to deal with these kinds of issues that affect the entire planet and all of its inhabitants.

acchow 8y ago
> Is there any immediate economic incentive to adding algae into feed? You can charge more for it? Many consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally-friendlier options now.
- graeme 8y ago
  1. That would only affect a small portion of the global market 2. You'd have verification problems, same as with a lot of things now claimed to be organic/free range/etc but aren't really in the sense people expect
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    There are already people intentionally buying beef straight from producers, to ensure that it's "grass fed". If warming enthusiasts cared as much about this issue as these paleo dieters do about avoiding flavorful beef, they could do the same. As you say, the effect would be small, but why would that stop anyone from doing it?
    - graeme 8y ago
      Oh I reread the thread and saw you were only addressing whether there is an immediate incentive. Yes, you're right, there certainly would be one, and it probably could be organic/paleo level successful. Probably doing it privately successfully would help rally support for an eventual law.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  I'm sure some genius could come up with a marketing campaign around "Fartless Beef". Here, I'll give it a try: "Think outside the butt."
slavik81 8y ago
A carbon tax or cap and trade system would create such an economic incentive.
- vlovich123 8y ago
  What's to discourage the cattle owner from claiming their cows produce no methane due to seaweed use & then collecting the cap and trade/carbon tax benefit while not bothering with the seaweed? More broadly, how does cap and trade/carbon tax measure the footprint of a business in the first place? I've found no material on the subject but my guess is that they do it based on the power plant/fuel you're using & how much energy your using. Not sure how they measure gases as a byproduct of industrial processes but maybe that's minuscule?
  - slavik81 8y ago
    The possibility of an IRS audit would discourage lying about it. If you're claiming to be feeding your cattle seaweed, you're going to have to buy it. Just like any other business expense, you'll need receipts. And once you have the seaweed feed, you might as well use it. To be honest, I'm not sure how the emissions measuring is done, but I think it's handled on the supply-side for fuel and electricity in existing implementations. Suppliers just pass on the cost of taxes. For direct agricultural emissions from cattle, you could probably use an estimate based on the average emissions per cow, and provide a deduction based on feed. Maybe with an exemption for small farms.
    - gowld 8y ago
      Farmers could buy their seaweed from Acme Agrisupply, SuperKelp(TM) "made with 100% seaweed" (3% seaweed by weight, 97% corn filler), which costs 1/10th the price of real seaweed.
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > how does cap and trade/carbon tax measure the footprint of a business in the first place Satellites, sensors on Google street view cars, etc. https://www.ted.com/talks/fred_krupp_what_if_we_tracked_methane_from_space_and_hit_the_brakes_on_climate_change/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/fred_krupp_what_if_we_tracked_meth...
crispweed 8y ago
As other posters have said, it seems like it can be tricky to incentivise cattle owners to add algae to their feed, check this has actually been added, in proportions that have the desired effect, and so on. But how about if governments provide subsidised feed centrally, instead, with the algae added?
- beojan 8y ago
  Or just legislate that feed manufacturers must add the algae?
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Sadly, I fear legislators won't do that until there's an economic advantage for their supporters. So they need some magnates to be convinced, and buy up the production before they go ahead. Why would legislators make regulations that just save the planet but don't make them rich? /s
  - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
    There couldn't possibly be any unintended side effects of that...
    - Can_Not 8y ago
      There are ways to mitigate unintended side effects. Start with a small small number of farms, AB test with no seaweed, small amounts of seaweed, medium amounts of seaweed, large amounts of seaweed, also AB test on which Farmers know which sample they are getting, iterate next year on results with larger number of Farmers. Buy insurance to compensate Farmers if the seaweed kills them. Discover why they died. Iterate with solution (if possible) or cancel (if seaweed always results in eventual death). Continue to keep large population of seaweed free cattle to mitigate possibly of extinction via unexpected long term consequences of seaweed.
- fulafel 8y ago
  Agriculture is already heavily regulated and inspected in terms of such things at least in the EU, owing to the fact that farmers get most of their income from subsidies and these are predicated on various terms. Of course, it would be much simpler to just stop the nonsensical subsidies of environmentally and ethically disastrous ag products like beef...
ahartman00 8y ago
"Is there any immediate economic incentive to adding algae into feed?" the incentive is trivially simple. free seaweed. im assuming there is fiber, and at least some nutrients in seaweed, but no farmer is going to turn down free food. to me it seems like it would be very similar to alfalfa/hay. not sure what that would cost, or if that much can be produced however. also, dairy farmers at least care very much about the ratios of various feedstocks, so the assumption about nutrition is important.
bagacrap 8y ago
Yes, farmers can sell their own use of seaweed additive as carbon "offsets". Environment-conscious businesses buy these credits to become effectively carbon neutral.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gehwartzen 8y ago
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/ http://www.omega3beef.com/]

ppeetteerr 8y ago

Either we impose a gas credit system on the cattle industry or, more likely, governments subsidize dairy farmers that use algae in their feed. Either way, there is no financial incentive to produce less methane. It will require regulation

BatFastard 8y ago
Which means it won't happen for at least 3 more years.
schiffern 8y ago
>Either way, there is no financial incentive to produce less methane. There is a distinct thermodynamic incentive to reduce methane, because the methanogenic bacteria are "eating" the energy that the cow would otherwise absorb. This translates directly into a financial incentive, because the cows require less feed. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d58/15b6d22d81070c173f6281434dd213a557c7.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d58/15b6d22d81070c173f6281... >Methane is a by-product of the microbial fermentation of carbohydrates in the diets of ruminant animals. Because cattle can lose about 6% of their dietary intake energy as CH4, substantial research to estimate this production and to reduce CH4 emissions has been completed (Johnson and Johnson, 1995).