> 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 (apol

> 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...