3 ms·

1) It IS huge news. It's been reported pretty heavily. (Or at least, I've stumbled across this news many times from many different and mainstream sources. I sup

1) It IS huge news. It's been reported pretty heavily. (Or at least, I've stumbled across this news many times from many different and mainstream sources. I suppose it's possible that my filter bubble is making it seem like a bigger deal.) 2) What's the incentive for the farmer? The benefits are entirely externalized. Less methane is good for the planet, but paying to add seaweed to the feed is nothing more than an added case for the farmer. So if we wanted to roll this out, we'd have to provide publicly-funded incentives for farmers to do so.

zests 6y ago
There may be no incentive for the farmer but plenty of incentive for the scientist, the government and the philanthropist. My conclusions is that GHG from cattle is simply not as big of a deal as the environmentalists would make it seem. Another comment mentions that decaying grass also releases methane so I'm not even sure if there are any accurate numbers on the true effect of livestock on emissions.
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  re: decaying grass, it's a question of speed and cycles. All plants eventually decompose, but it happens at a much slower cycle than if we actively harvest it, feed it as grain, grow more where the original harvest was, etc. By speeding up the cycle, we end up with much more of it. Or at least that's my non-scientist take. We gotta remember that "greenhouse gases" aren't a bad thing. They're fundamental to making Earth hospitable for life. But there's a balance. When we speed up the "carbon cycle", we end up with too much of the stuff, which throws the whole system out of balance. But we could just as easily end up with too little some day in the future, which would cause us all sorts of other problems. As for whether we have truly accurate numbers for any of this, I too am skeptical. But it's early days for research in this area. One or two studies doesn't cut it, but that doesn't mean they're not onto something huge.

zests 6y ago

There may be no incentive for the farmer but plenty of incentive for the scientist, the government and the philanthropist. My conclusions is that GHG from cattle is simply not as big of a deal as the environmentalists would make it seem. Another comment mentions that decaying grass also releases methane so I'm not even sure if there are any accurate numbers on the true effect of livestock on emissions.

nickelcitymario 6y ago
re: decaying grass, it's a question of speed and cycles. All plants eventually decompose, but it happens at a much slower cycle than if we actively harvest it, feed it as grain, grow more where the original harvest was, etc. By speeding up the cycle, we end up with much more of it. Or at least that's my non-scientist take. We gotta remember that "greenhouse gases" aren't a bad thing. They're fundamental to making Earth hospitable for life. But there's a balance. When we speed up the "carbon cycle", we end up with too much of the stuff, which throws the whole system out of balance. But we could just as easily end up with too little some day in the future, which would cause us all sorts of other problems. As for whether we have truly accurate numbers for any of this, I too am skeptical. But it's early days for research in this area. One or two studies doesn't cut it, but that doesn't mean they're not onto something huge.