4 ms·

I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect, and that the plan has some severe loopholes Raising cattle in a regular

I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect, and that the plan has some severe loopholes Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? Wild seaweeds are harvested and sold for several purposes: 1) To make agar-agar. A substance that is used (among other purposes) as a gut filler without calories in slimming diets and treatments for obesity. 2) As source of medical compounds. Seaweed, specially the red ones, have evolved a battery of chemical weapons to survive its many grazers. They are used to make antibiotics So, the lack of methane emission... is maybe because the gut microorganisms that released methane have been killed after giving the cattle a cocktail of antibiotics?. The problem is that cattle needs special gut microorganisms for surviving. They can not process cellulose into sugar without it. How can be (competitively) raised a cow that can not eat plants anymore? In a diet of fish or meat? This is a serious point that should be explored, in my opinion. If this cows don't grow muscle fast enough (and will produce milk with a funny flavor), all the project is doomed from the start. On the other hand there is an environmental impact to take in mind, seaweed is related with fisheries and marine production. Kelp grows really fast, but I had seen experiments removing other species of brown seaweed in some tidal rocks and it seems that it takes decades to return. As seaweed has an economical value, either the farmers buy it at a higher price, or import if from the country that cultures million tons of seaweed each year (China). They could have problems to assure enough cheap seaweed for the cattle. The cow meat raised in seaweed would be more expensive and with more waste and fuel consumption. Would increase also the dependency of third countries and external policies (that sometimes are not specially nature friendly), and wouldn't be so much sustainable as we think.

tankenmate 6y ago
The North Ronaldsay sheep[0] survive on a wholly seaweed diet and they are ruminants, so it is definitely possible (albeit with copper metabolism enzyme issues) for a ruminant to live on just seaweed. Also, CSIRO have been doing ag research since it's inception (over 100 years ago), so I'm sure they have tested this particular seaweed's impact on bovine digestion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ronaldsay_sheep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ronaldsay_sheep
- pvaldes 6y ago
  Very interesting. I see that is smaller than the other races, is more vulnerable to predators, have health issues if moved to pastures, and produces less wool (being smaller) and meat with a high iodine content. This supports my former idea that there are serious obstacles to scale this solution to continental areas with the purpose of feeding people. > I'm sure they have tested it Would be interesting to see their results and publications about that, then.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    The fact that there is a displaced goal here, is not a good signal. When I hear about methane problem caused by cattle I see always people blaming cows. I'm just wondering... If cows are the problem, why they are doing research in sheep? Is a different animal, with a different gut arrangement, producing a totally different dry faeces that are much less troublesome as cow faeces are. I'm not expert in methane releasing, but if the results are than 'sheep release less methane than cows', or that 'small sheep release less methane than big sheep'... well; suddenly I does not feel so much revolutionary as before. How many years were they trying unsuccessfully to sell this concept?
    - tankenmate 6y ago
      North Ronaldsay sheep aren't an experiment, they've been kept that way since sometime between the 9th and 15th century.
rorykoehler 6y ago
>Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. It would only take 18 months to find out. Hardly insurmountable.
twic 6y ago
> I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect Yes - your "still" suggests to me you think that it is a mystery (apologies if i misunderstand), whereas i believe it is reasonably well understood - it's bromoform, aka tribromomethane, which inhibits methanogenesis in bacteria [0]. So it is indeed a chemical weapon. > Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? Well, we'll find out! There is an argument, with in vitro evidence, that stopping methanogenesis will increase animal nutrition, because the carbon that would have been lost as methane is available to make vital fatty acids instead [1]. There are studies on real animals which look good [2]. But it's only by trying it at scale that we'll really know. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299274346_Identification_of_bioactives_from_the_red_seaweed_Asparagopsis_taxiformis_that_promote_antimethanogenic_activity_in_vitro https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299274346_Identific... [1] https://animalmicrobiome.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42523-019-0004-4 https://animalmicrobiome.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/... [2] https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/research-and-development/ https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/research-and-developmen...
- pvaldes 6y ago
  Thanks for the info. It seems that tribromomethane is classified as a persistent carcinogenic, toxic by contact and also water soluble. Not good. That moves the discussion further, to a totally different, much darker, scenery: "Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that will cause canker if eaten". I wonder what government agency would approve a known carcinogenic as okay to be used in meat production and how they will avoid to be sued immediately by the consumer associations. > Well, we'll find out! Find what?, how to be able to increase canker risk to meat eaters? I have the feeling that this is not a wise idea. Not even if the cattle would grow much faster.
  - twic 6y ago
    What is the purpose of Australia if not dangerous biological experiments at massive scale?
kerno 6y ago
Production of the required quantity of seaweed is still a challenge, however the diet is not 100%. The seaweed only needs to be added a supplement to the existing diet. >2% to <10% has been found to be effective in eliminating methane emissions. [1]https://futurefeednews.com/the-science-behind-futurefeed-asparagopsis-taxiformis/ https://futurefeednews.com/the-science-behind-futurefeed-asp... [2]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293800275_The_red_macroalgae_Asparagopsis_taxiformis_is_a_potent_natural_antimethanogenic_that_reduces_methane_production_during_in_vitro_fermentation_with_rumen_fluid https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293800275_The_red_m...
redisman 6y ago
> Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? This is funny FUD. Are you aware of the circumstances that most cows are raised in right now? Chaining them down to a concrete slab for their whole lives and pumping them full of antibiotics and hormones is all kosher but feeding them seaweed instead of corn? Hold on there.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Are you aware of the circumstances that most cows are raised in right now? chained for their whole lives, sad cow, sad cow, blah, blah Sorry but I don't recognize your caricature. Is a little different in the reality, in my experience. And by the way, I was not talking about morality, I was talking about metabolism. Asparagopsis is only one, among many other species of algae. Therefore you can expect several (more than one for sure) different collateral effects on bovine gut if you feed the cows a mix of marine algae

tankenmate 6y ago

The North Ronaldsay sheep[0] survive on a wholly seaweed diet and they are ruminants, so it is definitely possible (albeit with copper metabolism enzyme issues) for a ruminant to live on just seaweed. Also, CSIRO have been doing ag research since it's inception (over 100 years ago), so I'm sure they have tested this particular seaweed's impact on bovine digestion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ronaldsay_sheep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ronaldsay_sheep

pvaldes 6y ago
Very interesting. I see that is smaller than the other races, is more vulnerable to predators, have health issues if moved to pastures, and produces less wool (being smaller) and meat with a high iodine content. This supports my former idea that there are serious obstacles to scale this solution to continental areas with the purpose of feeding people. > I'm sure they have tested it Would be interesting to see their results and publications about that, then.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  The fact that there is a displaced goal here, is not a good signal. When I hear about methane problem caused by cattle I see always people blaming cows. I'm just wondering... If cows are the problem, why they are doing research in sheep? Is a different animal, with a different gut arrangement, producing a totally different dry faeces that are much less troublesome as cow faeces are. I'm not expert in methane releasing, but if the results are than 'sheep release less methane than cows', or that 'small sheep release less methane than big sheep'... well; suddenly I does not feel so much revolutionary as before. How many years were they trying unsuccessfully to sell this concept?
  - tankenmate 6y ago
    North Ronaldsay sheep aren't an experiment, they've been kept that way since sometime between the 9th and 15th century.

rorykoehler 6y ago

>Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. It would only take 18 months to find out. Hardly insurmountable.

twic 6y ago

> I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect Yes - your "still" suggests to me you think that it is a mystery (apologies if i misunderstand), whereas i believe it is reasonably well understood - it's bromoform, aka tribromomethane, which inhibits methanogenesis in bacteria [0]. So it is indeed a chemical weapon. > Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? Well, we'll find out! There is an argument, with in vitro evidence, that stopping methanogenesis will increase animal nutrition, because the carbon that would have been lost as methane is available to make vital fatty acids instead [1]. There are studies on real animals which look good [2]. But it's only by trying it at scale that we'll really know. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299274346_Identification_of_bioactives_from_the_red_seaweed_Asparagopsis_taxiformis_that_promote_antimethanogenic_activity_in_vitro https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299274346_Identific... [1] https://animalmicrobiome.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42523-019-0004-4 https://animalmicrobiome.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/... [2] https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/research-and-development/ https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/research-and-developmen...

pvaldes 6y ago
Thanks for the info. It seems that tribromomethane is classified as a persistent carcinogenic, toxic by contact and also water soluble. Not good. That moves the discussion further, to a totally different, much darker, scenery: "Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that will cause canker if eaten". I wonder what government agency would approve a known carcinogenic as okay to be used in meat production and how they will avoid to be sued immediately by the consumer associations. > Well, we'll find out! Find what?, how to be able to increase canker risk to meat eaters? I have the feeling that this is not a wise idea. Not even if the cattle would grow much faster.
- twic 6y ago
  What is the purpose of Australia if not dangerous biological experiments at massive scale?

kerno 6y ago

Production of the required quantity of seaweed is still a challenge, however the diet is not 100%. The seaweed only needs to be added a supplement to the existing diet. >2% to <10% has been found to be effective in eliminating methane emissions. [1]https://futurefeednews.com/the-science-behind-futurefeed-asparagopsis-taxiformis/ https://futurefeednews.com/the-science-behind-futurefeed-asp... [2]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293800275_The_red_macroalgae_Asparagopsis_taxiformis_is_a_potent_natural_antimethanogenic_that_reduces_methane_production_during_in_vitro_fermentation_with_rumen_fluid https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293800275_The_red_m...

redisman 6y ago

> Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? This is funny FUD. Are you aware of the circumstances that most cows are raised in right now? Chaining them down to a concrete slab for their whole lives and pumping them full of antibiotics and hormones is all kosher but feeding them seaweed instead of corn? Hold on there.

pvaldes 6y ago
> Are you aware of the circumstances that most cows are raised in right now? chained for their whole lives, sad cow, sad cow, blah, blah Sorry but I don't recognize your caricature. Is a little different in the reality, in my experience. And by the way, I was not talking about morality, I was talking about metabolism. Asparagopsis is only one, among many other species of algae. Therefore you can expect several (more than one for sure) different collateral effects on bovine gut if you feed the cows a mix of marine algae