3 ms·

Seems like just growing seaweed won't be enough though. You'd have to grow it _in close proximity to the cows_, otherwise there are other greenhouse gases that

by m0zg 7y ago

Seems like just growing seaweed won't be enough though. You'd have to grow it _in close proximity to the cows_, otherwise there are other greenhouse gases that will be emitted before the cows can eat it. It's also unclear to me what this means in terms of water consumption, and therefore sustainability. I'd be curious to hear how (if at all) these issues could be addressed.

bacon_waffle 7y ago
Doesn't this seaweed grow in the sea? As far as I understand, the main water concerns as relate to cows, are about freshwater for growing fodder.
- mateodelnorte 7y ago
  This seaweed does grow in the sea, obviously, however there isn't nearly enough of it in the sea to provide for the US (or worldwide, for that matter) cattle market. Further, this particular seaweed is presently undomesticated – which means that of the various types of algal cultivation methods (rope culture, tumble culture, etc) no one has quite gotten down the best means of getting stable growth out of the strain. This is what we are working to do.
  - bacon_waffle 7y ago
    I meant that adding seaweed to a cow's diet seems unlikely to increase the demand on our limited fresh water supply. AFAIK, there's no risk in running out of seawater.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  If you grow it in the sea, you're creating the transportation problem the poster was complaining about.
  - bacon_waffle 7y ago
    Sure, but that only leads to a fresh water problem if the chosen "solution" to the transportation problem is to grow seaweed inland. From the article: "When added to cow feed at less than 2% of the dry matter, this particular seaweed completely knocks out methane production.".
  - TendOcean 7y ago
    The "Transportation problem" can easily be overstated. If we assume AT is grown offshore to avoid the well-recognized conflicts of near-shore, then harvested material needs to get to shore for some form of processing and subsequent shipping to where the cows are. Given the super efficient nature of shipping goods over water (at least at low speed) at least the water portion of that route would be of little concern. Technologies are under development specifically for this purpose. A bigger problem may be where AT can be farmed, since it is not native to US waters (except Hawaii) and permitting agencies are understandably strict about introductions.
mateodelnorte 7y ago
We aim to grow close to consumption.
- bacon_waffle 7y ago
  From your comment mentioning this seaweed not being domesticated, I'm wondering what the development process looks like. Are you starting by trying to grow undomesticated seaweed in a completely artificial setting, is the first step to domesticate the seaweed in the sea, something else?
mateodelnorte 7y ago
An additional thing to consider is that not all greenhouse gases are created equal. You can find any number of articles to cite as source that methane is 20 to 30 times worse for the atmosphere in causing warming than carbon dioxide. https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2014/03/26/a-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-than-co2-methane-emissions-will-leap-as-earth-warms-nature/ https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2014/03/26/a-more-poten...
- AtomicOrbital 7y ago
  Water vapor is by far the biggest green house gas
  - comicjk 7y ago
    This is true but not very informative. Each greenhouse gas absorbs heat at different wavelengths, with no single gas covering the spectrum. Adding CO2 or methane increases heat absorption, even in air that's saturated with water vapor.
- m0zg 7y ago
  I've run the numbers and it looks like all cattle on earth emit something like 150MT of methane per year. Multiplied by 20 (to get CO2 equivalent), that's 3GT. That's about 8% of the yearly total CO2 emissions (37GT). Certainly not negligible, but not earth shattering either. For comparison, per-capita CO2 emissions in the US are 16.5 metric tons. Per cow methane emissions are about 100kg per year or 2-3 tons in CO2 equivalent.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    8% for the sake of what amounts to a flavour in your mouth is pretty earth shattering. Consider: would you spend 8% of your entire financial budget on beef? On an income of $30K, say, you'd spend $2400 on beef, ignoring all other food and other expenses? I'd even flip it around - take a random person off the street, in the UK, say, and tell them you'll give them 2 grand a year to stop eating beef. How many people do you think would take you up on that who don't even care about the environment? It's stark raving bonkers.
malloryerik 7y ago
Even if the seaweed were shipped in trucks over distance you'd likely still have a large net benefit as only a small amount of seaweed needs to be added to the cattle's diet in order to prevent methane emissions.

by m0zg 7y ago

bacon_waffle 7y ago

Doesn't this seaweed grow in the sea? As far as I understand, the main water concerns as relate to cows, are about freshwater for growing fodder.

mateodelnorte 7y ago
This seaweed does grow in the sea, obviously, however there isn't nearly enough of it in the sea to provide for the US (or worldwide, for that matter) cattle market. Further, this particular seaweed is presently undomesticated – which means that of the various types of algal cultivation methods (rope culture, tumble culture, etc) no one has quite gotten down the best means of getting stable growth out of the strain. This is what we are working to do.
- bacon_waffle 7y ago
  I meant that adding seaweed to a cow's diet seems unlikely to increase the demand on our limited fresh water supply. AFAIK, there's no risk in running out of seawater.
daveFNbuck 7y ago
If you grow it in the sea, you're creating the transportation problem the poster was complaining about.
- bacon_waffle 7y ago
  Sure, but that only leads to a fresh water problem if the chosen "solution" to the transportation problem is to grow seaweed inland. From the article: "When added to cow feed at less than 2% of the dry matter, this particular seaweed completely knocks out methane production.".
- TendOcean 7y ago
  The "Transportation problem" can easily be overstated. If we assume AT is grown offshore to avoid the well-recognized conflicts of near-shore, then harvested material needs to get to shore for some form of processing and subsequent shipping to where the cows are. Given the super efficient nature of shipping goods over water (at least at low speed) at least the water portion of that route would be of little concern. Technologies are under development specifically for this purpose. A bigger problem may be where AT can be farmed, since it is not native to US waters (except Hawaii) and permitting agencies are understandably strict about introductions.

mateodelnorte 7y ago

We aim to grow close to consumption.

bacon_waffle 7y ago
From your comment mentioning this seaweed not being domesticated, I'm wondering what the development process looks like. Are you starting by trying to grow undomesticated seaweed in a completely artificial setting, is the first step to domesticate the seaweed in the sea, something else?

mateodelnorte 7y ago

An additional thing to consider is that not all greenhouse gases are created equal. You can find any number of articles to cite as source that methane is 20 to 30 times worse for the atmosphere in causing warming than carbon dioxide. https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2014/03/26/a-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-than-co2-methane-emissions-will-leap-as-earth-warms-nature/ https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2014/03/26/a-more-poten...

AtomicOrbital 7y ago
Water vapor is by far the biggest green house gas
- comicjk 7y ago
  This is true but not very informative. Each greenhouse gas absorbs heat at different wavelengths, with no single gas covering the spectrum. Adding CO2 or methane increases heat absorption, even in air that's saturated with water vapor.
m0zg 7y ago
I've run the numbers and it looks like all cattle on earth emit something like 150MT of methane per year. Multiplied by 20 (to get CO2 equivalent), that's 3GT. That's about 8% of the yearly total CO2 emissions (37GT). Certainly not negligible, but not earth shattering either. For comparison, per-capita CO2 emissions in the US are 16.5 metric tons. Per cow methane emissions are about 100kg per year or 2-3 tons in CO2 equivalent.
- esotericn 7y ago
  8% for the sake of what amounts to a flavour in your mouth is pretty earth shattering. Consider: would you spend 8% of your entire financial budget on beef? On an income of $30K, say, you'd spend $2400 on beef, ignoring all other food and other expenses? I'd even flip it around - take a random person off the street, in the UK, say, and tell them you'll give them 2 grand a year to stop eating beef. How many people do you think would take you up on that who don't even care about the environment? It's stark raving bonkers.

malloryerik 7y ago

Even if the seaweed were shipped in trucks over distance you'd likely still have a large net benefit as only a small amount of seaweed needs to be added to the cattle's diet in order to prevent methane emissions.