5 ms·

Discussed last year hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 I was very skeptical whether this

Discussed last year hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498 I was very skeptical whether this is scalable as up to two percent of the cows feed needs to be replaced with the sea weed and we simply do not produce sea weed at scale yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20713552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20713552 The TL;DR was: in order to supply 1.5 billion cows with the seaweed we might need up to 291.000 metric tons of algae per day. ~ 106 Million metric tons per year. In 2014 the world wide Aquatic Plants (which include ALL Macro-Algae) production was around 27 Million tons [0]. I would argue that the most effective way to reduce cattle emissions is to get rid of cattle. (Which is hard, I love beef and cheese). Maybe “seaweed beef and dairy” will be a premium product but I doubt it will solve the problem on scale. [0]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf, page 24, table 7

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
I eat kangaroo, it tastes great and is all wild harvested. Has anyone tried farming roo outside of Australia? Often wondered about the viability.
- leipert 6y ago
  There are also deers and stuff here in Europe. ;) But I assume that wild animals are just available at a fraction of what people (want to) consume every year.
  - sampo 6y ago
    > There are also deers Deer are ruminants, too. There is no a priori reason to assume that their digestive system should produce any less methane than that of cows, when they break down cellulose.
- danielheath 6y ago
  They’re hard to farm, because they can clear a 3m fence.
awerawerawrjhui 6y ago
> I would argue that the most effective way to reduce cattle emissions is to get rid of cattle. I agree, but as a former vegan I'm aware that there's an approximately 0% chance of getting a majority of the world's population to give up beef and dairy. The future has to be with lab-grown meat. I know the technology is still nascent, but if we ever get it right then it has the potential to be one of the most transformative inventions in human history. I'm not sure how we can save the climate without it.
- leipert 6y ago
  My partner is vegetarian / borderline vegan. It definitely had an impact on my diet as well. I don’t want everyone to become vegan or not consume dairy or meat anymore. Just reduce, reuse, recycle. Be more thoughtful about what you consume and how often. Try out alternatives. If I eat beef once per week, once per month, I also am looking forward to and enjoying it way more than if I eat it every day.
- 1234fdsazxcv 6y ago
  This is market forces at work. Regulations and environmental science used to help to define the rules of the market are really a useful way to allocate resources. Worry less about telling people what they should do. Instead, think about how we can construct market rules to incentivize good behavior. At least that's my two cents. It's fun to talk to friends about how to fix the world with a central planning mindset but there are a lot of smart people out there. Let them do their thing. Today's fads (lab grown meat) may or may not work out. Maybe the best solution hasn't come along yet.
- bttrfl 6y ago
  "I'm not sure how we can save the climate without it [lab-grown meat]." Why? It doesn't seem logical at all - I'm pretty sure there are more efficient and healthier ways to feed humans and it seems that the main reason for making lab-meat is to cater to our current habits and tastes. Maybe that's important enough, but perhaps you have more pros?
- jl6 6y ago
  The great thing about adopting a more plant-based diet is that you don’t have to go 100% plant-based to still make a difference. 90% plant-based gives you 90% of the benefit. As long as people are on a path to reducing animal product consumption, we might just be OK.
fiblye 6y ago
Seems like if we can manufacture the active chemical (bromoform) without seaweed, it'll be much more scalable. Then there's also an even crazier idea: create a massive sea in the middle of Australia and use that for seaweed farming.
- ghostDancer 6y ago
  And at the same time we retire a lot of CO2 from atmosphere.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kortex 6y ago
  Bromoform & co. is rather volatile and toxic. The nice feature about seaweed in this case is it has bromoperoxidase pathways, so the halomethanes are produced in low concentrations and bound in (I presume) cell membranes until digested, releasing it right where it's needed, in the fermenting stomach. You'd have to engineer a digestible slow release halomethane source. Or just...grow it. How hard can it be to scale seaweed farming?
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > How hard can it be to scale seaweed farming? Really hard, trust me. Coastal areas and sea platform tend to have a high level of occupation.
davegardner 6y ago
This is partially addressed in CSIRO's FAQ: https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/faq/ https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/faq/ In summary, FutureFeed is working with several external suppliers to establish production. They expect to be able to improve the crop production over time. One thing of note is significant reductions can be achieved with quite a low ratio of seaweed in the feed. Specifically they report that recent feedlot trials demonstrated over 95% methane reduction with seaweed inclusion at 0.20% of OM in the ration.
- leipert 6y ago
  That is actually amazing! I just hope that it can be scaled and will be affordable. I would still argue that we should look into reducing our consumption, as other environmental impacts like water consumption are still considerable. Anyhow: A step in the right direction!
- wodenokoto 6y ago
  What happens to that methane? Or maybe more accurately, what happens to the building blocks of that methane. Those numbers do not show that we are reducing the output of methane by reducing the input of methane, but that the process itself is generating less methane from basically the same input.
  - twic 6y ago
    There is no input of methane. The cows eat cellulose, and bacteria in their gut break the cellulose down into small molecules, including methane. Reduction in methane production can come from a reduction in the amount of cellulose broken down, or an increase in the production of other small molecules. The other small molecules in question seem to be what are called "volatile fatty acids" (VFAs), which i think are more or less the same as "short-chain fatty acids" [0], and they're good for the animal. Acetate and propionate are two main VFAs. A study on sheep [1] found that "Sheep fed Asparagopsis had a significantly lower concentration of total volatile fatty acids and acetate, but a higher propionate concentration.". If there's less methane and also less VFAs, then i assume less cellulose is being broken down. But more of the carbon from it is going into VFAs. It would be good to have a study like this in cows. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-chain_fatty_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-chain_fatty_acid [1] https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/an15883 https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/an15883
pvaldes 6y ago
> In 2014 the world wide Aquatic Plants (which include ALL Macro-Algae) production was around 27 Million tons. I can add something about that. Most algae production is Chinese and brown macroalgae. Brown and red algae are really different creatures. It seems that brown are not even seen as plants currently and have moved to kingdom protista (something that could explain their strange flagellated spores), whereas reds are still plants, I think. They are so far away phylogenetically, that is not reasonable to be interchangeable just because they are both "algae". Expecting a Phaeophycea having the same effect in cows as a Rhodophyta, would be like expecting Geraniums have the same chemical properties as tuberculosis. We most probably would have: either none effect Y or a different effect X, still unknown Second thing: Lets assume for a moment that the effect would be the same. Those 27 million tons do not exist. Of those 27 tons, around half are brown macroalgae, but -very important- this is probably fresh weight. Macroalgae are not sold fresh, they must be dried before to reach the market. Therefore we would't have a production of 15 million tons of brown algae. What we really would have is 4 million tons of dried brown algae to feed 1.5 billion of cows, that is a worse situation Therefore we would need to start growing algae as crazy somewhere. We have three options. 1) At the sea We would need to make room in extensive coastal areas, (some of those protected areas with a high biodiversity) to grow Asparagopsis. Distroying valuable coastal areas that support coastal cities, to grow just sheeps would be increasing the risk and putting all of our eggs in the same basket economically. If the wool market sinks and the fisheries were turned into auxiliar activities around wool's industry, there are not other activities that could act as a buffer and save the day. Not to mention than extensive farmers employ much less workers than fisheries. 2) In tanks As the ocean is a place with a million of unpredictable variables and trophic chains we probably would prefer to do it in laboratory. So we need to build many and learn how to do it. That is more easier to say than to do, because Asparagopsis is just one of two forms in a complex life cycle (the other was called Falkenbergia). So we need to learn how to grow two algae in one. Can be done? Yes, but is several levels much more complicated that just trowing some seeds in a field and see fodder grow. 3) In other countries We could also save ourselves all the headaches and left it to experts (i.e. import it). A few red algae are cultured in several Asian countries, specially Japan but they are seen as culinary delicacies and they control the amount of algae put in the market to keep prices high. So using it to make wool maybe would be like selling 100 dollar bills at 15 cents each. Not a really economically viable activity. Is unclear how including cows in aquaculture would disturb the market or the geopolitics. I would expect an increase in the actual Chinese hunger of buying or silently grabbing as many sea bottom areas as they can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So... All of that, without mention the carcinogen aspect, that is also very troubling.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

I eat kangaroo, it tastes great and is all wild harvested. Has anyone tried farming roo outside of Australia? Often wondered about the viability.

leipert 6y ago
There are also deers and stuff here in Europe. ;) But I assume that wild animals are just available at a fraction of what people (want to) consume every year.
- sampo 6y ago
  > There are also deers Deer are ruminants, too. There is no a priori reason to assume that their digestive system should produce any less methane than that of cows, when they break down cellulose.
danielheath 6y ago
They’re hard to farm, because they can clear a 3m fence.

awerawerawrjhui 6y ago

> I would argue that the most effective way to reduce cattle emissions is to get rid of cattle. I agree, but as a former vegan I'm aware that there's an approximately 0% chance of getting a majority of the world's population to give up beef and dairy. The future has to be with lab-grown meat. I know the technology is still nascent, but if we ever get it right then it has the potential to be one of the most transformative inventions in human history. I'm not sure how we can save the climate without it.

leipert 6y ago
My partner is vegetarian / borderline vegan. It definitely had an impact on my diet as well. I don’t want everyone to become vegan or not consume dairy or meat anymore. Just reduce, reuse, recycle. Be more thoughtful about what you consume and how often. Try out alternatives. If I eat beef once per week, once per month, I also am looking forward to and enjoying it way more than if I eat it every day.
1234fdsazxcv 6y ago
This is market forces at work. Regulations and environmental science used to help to define the rules of the market are really a useful way to allocate resources. Worry less about telling people what they should do. Instead, think about how we can construct market rules to incentivize good behavior. At least that's my two cents. It's fun to talk to friends about how to fix the world with a central planning mindset but there are a lot of smart people out there. Let them do their thing. Today's fads (lab grown meat) may or may not work out. Maybe the best solution hasn't come along yet.
bttrfl 6y ago
"I'm not sure how we can save the climate without it [lab-grown meat]." Why? It doesn't seem logical at all - I'm pretty sure there are more efficient and healthier ways to feed humans and it seems that the main reason for making lab-meat is to cater to our current habits and tastes. Maybe that's important enough, but perhaps you have more pros?
jl6 6y ago
The great thing about adopting a more plant-based diet is that you don’t have to go 100% plant-based to still make a difference. 90% plant-based gives you 90% of the benefit. As long as people are on a path to reducing animal product consumption, we might just be OK.

fiblye 6y ago

Seems like if we can manufacture the active chemical (bromoform) without seaweed, it'll be much more scalable. Then there's also an even crazier idea: create a massive sea in the middle of Australia and use that for seaweed farming.

ghostDancer 6y ago
And at the same time we retire a lot of CO2 from atmosphere.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kortex 6y ago
Bromoform & co. is rather volatile and toxic. The nice feature about seaweed in this case is it has bromoperoxidase pathways, so the halomethanes are produced in low concentrations and bound in (I presume) cell membranes until digested, releasing it right where it's needed, in the fermenting stomach. You'd have to engineer a digestible slow release halomethane source. Or just...grow it. How hard can it be to scale seaweed farming?
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > How hard can it be to scale seaweed farming? Really hard, trust me. Coastal areas and sea platform tend to have a high level of occupation.

davegardner 6y ago

This is partially addressed in CSIRO's FAQ: https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/faq/ https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/faq/ In summary, FutureFeed is working with several external suppliers to establish production. They expect to be able to improve the crop production over time. One thing of note is significant reductions can be achieved with quite a low ratio of seaweed in the feed. Specifically they report that recent feedlot trials demonstrated over 95% methane reduction with seaweed inclusion at 0.20% of OM in the ration.

leipert 6y ago
That is actually amazing! I just hope that it can be scaled and will be affordable. I would still argue that we should look into reducing our consumption, as other environmental impacts like water consumption are still considerable. Anyhow: A step in the right direction!
wodenokoto 6y ago
What happens to that methane? Or maybe more accurately, what happens to the building blocks of that methane. Those numbers do not show that we are reducing the output of methane by reducing the input of methane, but that the process itself is generating less methane from basically the same input.
- twic 6y ago
  There is no input of methane. The cows eat cellulose, and bacteria in their gut break the cellulose down into small molecules, including methane. Reduction in methane production can come from a reduction in the amount of cellulose broken down, or an increase in the production of other small molecules. The other small molecules in question seem to be what are called "volatile fatty acids" (VFAs), which i think are more or less the same as "short-chain fatty acids" [0], and they're good for the animal. Acetate and propionate are two main VFAs. A study on sheep [1] found that "Sheep fed Asparagopsis had a significantly lower concentration of total volatile fatty acids and acetate, but a higher propionate concentration.". If there's less methane and also less VFAs, then i assume less cellulose is being broken down. But more of the carbon from it is going into VFAs. It would be good to have a study like this in cows. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-chain_fatty_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-chain_fatty_acid [1] https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/an15883 https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/an15883

pvaldes 6y ago

> In 2014 the world wide Aquatic Plants (which include ALL Macro-Algae) production was around 27 Million tons. I can add something about that. Most algae production is Chinese and brown macroalgae. Brown and red algae are really different creatures. It seems that brown are not even seen as plants currently and have moved to kingdom protista (something that could explain their strange flagellated spores), whereas reds are still plants, I think. They are so far away phylogenetically, that is not reasonable to be interchangeable just because they are both "algae". Expecting a Phaeophycea having the same effect in cows as a Rhodophyta, would be like expecting Geraniums have the same chemical properties as tuberculosis. We most probably would have: either none effect Y or a different effect X, still unknown Second thing: Lets assume for a moment that the effect would be the same. Those 27 million tons do not exist. Of those 27 tons, around half are brown macroalgae, but -very important- this is probably fresh weight. Macroalgae are not sold fresh, they must be dried before to reach the market. Therefore we would't have a production of 15 million tons of brown algae. What we really would have is 4 million tons of dried brown algae to feed 1.5 billion of cows, that is a worse situation Therefore we would need to start growing algae as crazy somewhere. We have three options. 1) At the sea We would need to make room in extensive coastal areas, (some of those protected areas with a high biodiversity) to grow Asparagopsis. Distroying valuable coastal areas that support coastal cities, to grow just sheeps would be increasing the risk and putting all of our eggs in the same basket economically. If the wool market sinks and the fisheries were turned into auxiliar activities around wool's industry, there are not other activities that could act as a buffer and save the day. Not to mention than extensive farmers employ much less workers than fisheries. 2) In tanks As the ocean is a place with a million of unpredictable variables and trophic chains we probably would prefer to do it in laboratory. So we need to build many and learn how to do it. That is more easier to say than to do, because Asparagopsis is just one of two forms in a complex life cycle (the other was called Falkenbergia). So we need to learn how to grow two algae in one. Can be done? Yes, but is several levels much more complicated that just trowing some seeds in a field and see fodder grow. 3) In other countries We could also save ourselves all the headaches and left it to experts (i.e. import it). A few red algae are cultured in several Asian countries, specially Japan but they are seen as culinary delicacies and they control the amount of algae put in the market to keep prices high. So using it to make wool maybe would be like selling 100 dollar bills at 15 cents each. Not a really economically viable activity. Is unclear how including cows in aquaculture would disturb the market or the geopolitics. I would expect an increase in the actual Chinese hunger of buying or silently grabbing as many sea bottom areas as they can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So... All of that, without mention the carcinogen aspect, that is also very troubling.