4 ms·

There’s a type of seaweed you can feed to cows that eliminate their methane emissions, right? Something like 30% of water in the Western US goes to farming catt

There’s a type of seaweed you can feed to cows that eliminate their methane emissions, right? Something like 30% of water in the Western US goes to farming cattle feed. If you managed to replace that cattle feed with efficiently grown seaweed, couldn’t you kill two birds with one stone? Three if you replace that farmland with solar farms.

orev 4y ago
Growing seaweed is significantly more expensive than growing cattle feed (i.e. corn), and corn farming is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers. Corn fields also have the advantage that they can be very close to the fields where cattle are, so you don’t need to transport the feed as far as you would from the ocean (which would itself emit CO2). The methane reduction benefits also happen when only a small portion of the feed is replaced with seaweed, so it’s not the whole diet that becomes seaweed.
- myshpa 4y ago
  > growing seaweed ... more expensive than growing cattle feed ... heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers ... corn fields have the advantage ... can be very close to the fields where cattle are a] there's no other food that's worse from the climate and environment standpoint than beef & dairy [0][1] b] transport is usually a tiny fraction of food's carbon footprint ... "eat local" is ruse & big ag propaganda [2] c] seaweed is more expensive than corn because of subsidies? so take those subsidies from one of the most destructive industries and give it to seaweed. even if it's expensive now, it's because we plant corn and not grow seaweed. if more people would grow seaweed, the price would go down. there's no reason why it should be expensive other than there is more demand than supply now. d] big cost of those corn fields and pastures is deforestation and land use change, a factor which is often undercounted and overlooked [1] e] about 70% of seaweed naturally sinks to the bottom of the sea ... so even if we wouldn't be able to eat and use it all, it still make sense to grow it [3] [0] https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use [2] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local [3] https://phys.org/news/2019-08-seaweed-deep-carbon.html https://phys.org/news/2019-08-seaweed-deep-carbon.html
myshpa 4y ago
Replace that farmland with forests. Why? - we've cut those forests to have fields & pastures - protect biodiversity - stop extinction of wildlife - capture co2 - capture water, replenish ground water - biotic pump effect [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump] - stop droughts and dust storms - stop desertification Why not solar fields? An area of 254 km x 254 km (64516 km2) would be enough to meet the total electricity demand of the world [0]. We use 37 mil. km2 for animal agriculture [1]. [0] https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/inst... (page 25) [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  > we've cut those forests to have fields & pastures There are actually many who think that pre-industrial heavy forestation is an artifact of early humans killing off all the giant herbivores (mammoths, sloths, mastadons), and that the "default" state of much of the northen hemisphere is steppe/grasslands.
  - Nasrudith 4y ago
    I've heard the opposite happened, namely that the reason why Africa is so Savanah is because of mastery of fire and a 'prisoners dilemma' of arson vs rival bands. Of course this is all second hand. I suppose weirdly both could be true at once if the mass killings came before fire did.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    I'd like to read more, if you have sources. But I doubt that mammalian herbivores ever had the potential to permanently deforest vast areas. Few decades ago some farmers in africa lobbied for killing tens of thousands of elephants for their supposed destructive effects on vegetation. Since then we've learned that even with all thair trampling and gobbling their positive effects on flora outweight any perceived negatives.
roboticmind 4y ago
It doesn't significantly reduce emissions and certainly doesn't eliminate it. The numbers often touted for it are rather misleading as they miss how little it can change overall emissions > What’s more, feeding cattle algae is really only practical where it’s least needed: on feedlots. This is where most cattle are crowded in the final months of their 1.5- to 2-year lives to rapidly put on weight before slaughter. There, algae feed additives can be churned into the cows’ grain and soy feed. But on feedlots, cattle already belch less methane—only 11 percent of their lifetime output > Unfortunately, adding the algae to diets on the pasture, where it’s most needed, isn’t a feasible option either. Out on grazing lands, it’s difficult to get cows to eat additives because they don’t like the taste of red algae unless it’s diluted into feed. And even if we did find ways to sneak algae in somehow, there’s a good chance their gut microbes would adapt and adjust, bringing their belches’ methane right back to high levels. > All told, if we accept the most promising claims of the algae boosters, we’re talking about an 80 percent reduction of methane among only 11 percent of all burps—roughly an 8.8 percent reduction total https://www.wired.com/story/carbon-neutral-cows-algae/ https://www.wired.com/story/carbon-neutral-cows-algae/
- mikeg8 4y ago
  Not sure if this has been replicated or is being scaled up, but it looks promising at face value. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-beaches-to-burps-native-australian-seaweed-key-to-reducing-methane-emissions-from-cows https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-b...
  - roboticmind 4y ago
    That's still red seaweed ("FutureFeed’s solution uses a specific type of red seaweed"). It like other seaweed additive, can only really be used in feedlots where as mentioned above, only account for ~11% of emissions
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

orev 4y ago

Growing seaweed is significantly more expensive than growing cattle feed (i.e. corn), and corn farming is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers. Corn fields also have the advantage that they can be very close to the fields where cattle are, so you don’t need to transport the feed as far as you would from the ocean (which would itself emit CO2). The methane reduction benefits also happen when only a small portion of the feed is replaced with seaweed, so it’s not the whole diet that becomes seaweed.

myshpa 4y ago
> growing seaweed ... more expensive than growing cattle feed ... heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers ... corn fields have the advantage ... can be very close to the fields where cattle are a] there's no other food that's worse from the climate and environment standpoint than beef & dairy [0][1] b] transport is usually a tiny fraction of food's carbon footprint ... "eat local" is ruse & big ag propaganda [2] c] seaweed is more expensive than corn because of subsidies? so take those subsidies from one of the most destructive industries and give it to seaweed. even if it's expensive now, it's because we plant corn and not grow seaweed. if more people would grow seaweed, the price would go down. there's no reason why it should be expensive other than there is more demand than supply now. d] big cost of those corn fields and pastures is deforestation and land use change, a factor which is often undercounted and overlooked [1] e] about 70% of seaweed naturally sinks to the bottom of the sea ... so even if we wouldn't be able to eat and use it all, it still make sense to grow it [3] [0] https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use [2] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local [3] https://phys.org/news/2019-08-seaweed-deep-carbon.html https://phys.org/news/2019-08-seaweed-deep-carbon.html

myshpa 4y ago

Replace that farmland with forests. Why? - we've cut those forests to have fields & pastures - protect biodiversity - stop extinction of wildlife - capture co2 - capture water, replenish ground water - biotic pump effect [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump] - stop droughts and dust storms - stop desertification Why not solar fields? An area of 254 km x 254 km (64516 km2) would be enough to meet the total electricity demand of the world [0]. We use 37 mil. km2 for animal agriculture [1]. [0] https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/inst... (page 25) [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bpodgursky 4y ago
> we've cut those forests to have fields & pastures There are actually many who think that pre-industrial heavy forestation is an artifact of early humans killing off all the giant herbivores (mammoths, sloths, mastadons), and that the "default" state of much of the northen hemisphere is steppe/grasslands.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  I've heard the opposite happened, namely that the reason why Africa is so Savanah is because of mastery of fire and a 'prisoners dilemma' of arson vs rival bands. Of course this is all second hand. I suppose weirdly both could be true at once if the mass killings came before fire did.
- myshpa 4y ago
  I'd like to read more, if you have sources. But I doubt that mammalian herbivores ever had the potential to permanently deforest vast areas. Few decades ago some farmers in africa lobbied for killing tens of thousands of elephants for their supposed destructive effects on vegetation. Since then we've learned that even with all thair trampling and gobbling their positive effects on flora outweight any perceived negatives.

roboticmind 4y ago

It doesn't significantly reduce emissions and certainly doesn't eliminate it. The numbers often touted for it are rather misleading as they miss how little it can change overall emissions > What’s more, feeding cattle algae is really only practical where it’s least needed: on feedlots. This is where most cattle are crowded in the final months of their 1.5- to 2-year lives to rapidly put on weight before slaughter. There, algae feed additives can be churned into the cows’ grain and soy feed. But on feedlots, cattle already belch less methane—only 11 percent of their lifetime output > Unfortunately, adding the algae to diets on the pasture, where it’s most needed, isn’t a feasible option either. Out on grazing lands, it’s difficult to get cows to eat additives because they don’t like the taste of red algae unless it’s diluted into feed. And even if we did find ways to sneak algae in somehow, there’s a good chance their gut microbes would adapt and adjust, bringing their belches’ methane right back to high levels. > All told, if we accept the most promising claims of the algae boosters, we’re talking about an 80 percent reduction of methane among only 11 percent of all burps—roughly an 8.8 percent reduction total https://www.wired.com/story/carbon-neutral-cows-algae/ https://www.wired.com/story/carbon-neutral-cows-algae/

mikeg8 4y ago
Not sure if this has been replicated or is being scaled up, but it looks promising at face value. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-beaches-to-burps-native-australian-seaweed-key-to-reducing-methane-emissions-from-cows https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-b...
- roboticmind 4y ago
  That's still red seaweed ("FutureFeed’s solution uses a specific type of red seaweed"). It like other seaweed additive, can only really be used in feedlots where as mentioned above, only account for ~11% of emissions

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]