
Seaweed in Cow Feed Reduces Methane Emissions Almost Entirely - ryan_j_naughton
https://foodtank.com/news/2017/06/seaweed-reduce-cow-methane-emission/
======
Mister_X
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because right now the West
coast from San Francisco North to at least Fort Bragg, has been suffering a
kelp die off of great proportions.

No one is quite sure whats going on, but apparently due to climate change, or
at least warmer ocean water from further South that we've had for the last 5
or more years, has caused the kelp to die off at a rapid rate, to the point of
denuding whole sections of ocean bottom.

The whole sea urchin industry has been devastated, and those folks received
Federal Disaster funds last year to make it through this year, but things are
still bleak.

It's as big a catastrophe as the Australian coral die off, yet it's not
getting much press here in the USA.

~~~
briandear
No one knows what’s going on, so climate change is the default blame?

But actually, California Fish and Wildlife DO know what’s going on:

“Environmental stressors included impacts from a toxic algae bloom off the
Sonoma coast in 2011, a widespread sea star disease in 2013 that was followed
by an explosion in the sea urchin population, and the warm water conditions
that have persisted offshore since 2014. In 2014 and 2015, coastal water
temperatures along the West Coast rocketed upwards due to a combination of
oceanographic features: the “Warm Blob” in 2014, combined with a strong El
Niño that began in 2015.”

[https://cdfwmarine.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/perfect-storm-
de...](https://cdfwmarine.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/perfect-storm-decimates-
kelp/)

Climate change seems like a religion. “We don’t know why x is happening, so
we’ll just say it’s God’s will.” That’s about the most anti-science attitude
possible and it’s being embraced by people who purport to care about science.
But, in the case of California kelp, we actually do know what is happening and
it has nothing to do with long term climatic events — the warm water was due
to cyclical ocean activity: La Niña and that combined with a sea star disease
and toxic algae caused this problem. And notice, the problem didn’t exist in
2010. So global warming for hundreds of years, but it had little impact on
kelp until just magically in 2015 — that was the tipping point for kelp? This
is the sort of nonsense that makes me detest the global warming crowd. Clearly
global warming isn’t the cause of the California kelp issue, yet, predictably,
that issue gets added into the propaganda machine.

Let’s say climate change isn’t the cause of Absolutely Every Natural
Phenomenon.. but there are those that would make policy as if it were. A half
degree rise in temperature — assuming that is actually true, isn’t going to
cause a massive kelp die-off, considering Pacific ocean temperatures fluctuate
by far more dramatic amounts routinely due to El Niño/La Niña. The ocean is
far more resilient. Pollution is a far more dire danger. Chemical runoff,
trash dumping — far more toxic to the ocean than anything else.

But, it easier just to spout “climate change” and the “woke” folks will just
nod knowingly, actual causation or proof be damned. And we just continue along
the socially acceptable path of blaming capitalism for all the world’s
problems without actually doing much to solve anything.

~~~
torstenvl
TFW your climate change denialism goes so far off the deep end that you
_literally_ claim that _warmer water_ in the most _global_ of the oceans isn't
related to global warming...

~~~
colechristensen
Climate change isn't the weather. It isn't one year or several years, it's a
trend over decades or centuries or millennia.

Do you know what's normal? Abnormal weather. Exceptional circumstances happen
all the time, weather conditions do not follow a bell curve.

I am not at all denying climate change, but you can never point to an event
and shout about it. It's a long term statistical trend, not a few coincidental
events. It's one variable out of many that cause every weather event.

Warmer water is absolutely not related to climate change when you're talking
about small scale short term events.

~~~
holografix
“Exceptional circumstances happen all the time”. Yeah it’s called an oxymoron.

~~~
iopq
If one billion events happen in a day, then some one-in-a-billion event is
likely to happen every day.

Some of them, like a coin landing perfectly sideways will just go on Youtube.
Some of them will end up in the news.

------
rmason
With an ag background I've been following this story for a long time. It has
excited enough interest in America that trials are underway, I believe off the
coast of Maine to grow red algae but I can't find the link.

But they've already had luck growing red algae off the coast of the Hawaiian
island of Molokai. I've been to Molokai and although there's a lot of farmland
there it's laying idle. Most of the land was used previously by Dole I believe
to raise pineapple's.

I was scheming with some fellow agronomists at the time what we could grow
profitably. Most of the former workers commute presently to Maui and work in
the hotels. It would be hilarious to me if the entire farming industry ended
up taking place off the coast.

[https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/side-algae-hawaiian-
farmers...](https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/side-algae-hawaiian-farmers-sell-
seaweed-seashore)

~~~
ehsankia
Can anyone provide a sense of scale and impact if these results were to hold
and if the majority of the world beef production were to switch to it?

My understanding is that around half of the world's greenhouse gas comes from
livestock. Would it mean that this could cut our emissions by half? Would it
be therefore much more cost efficient to have the government invest is growing
and distributing red algae than whatever we're currently spending money on? Do
we have a sense of how much it would cost to produce that much seaweed?

~~~
abainbridge
> My understanding is that around half of the world's greenhouse gas comes
> from livestock

That's not right. The highest number I've been able to find for the whole of
agriculture is 24% of world greenhouse gas emissions.

[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-
emiss...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
data)

About 25% of that is methane from livestock
([http://old.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/greenhouse-gas-
emissi...](http://old.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/greenhouse-gas-emissions-
from-agriculture-and-land-use_12b0#))

So livestock is about 6% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

~~~
konschubert
One also has to consider that the methane decays over a matter of decades.
Other than CO2, which stays in the atmosphere until it is taken out.

So, even if methane takes a big share in current greenhouse emissions, its
share in the accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be lower.

The climate change it causes is temporary. (Disregarding runaway effects.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane)

~~~
skosch
Decades – we don't have decades to fix this.

Also, it decays into CO2, so to claim that its effects are temporary is
misleading. On top of that, as long as the carbon is in a CH4 bond, it traps
at least 20× as much radiation. Please don't dismiss the significance of
methane emissions.

~~~
Jach
How many years do we have to fix this then? Alternatively, at what point will
activists start saying we passed the point of no fix and give up their
activism?

~~~
skosch
Here you go:
[https://croadsworldclimate.climateinteractive.org/](https://croadsworldclimate.climateinteractive.org/)

Honestly dude, rise above the cynicism (if that's how you meant to come
across). You're a goddamn adult, and a well-educated engineer at that. Your
current standard of living is at risk because of climate change (also millions
of lives in poorer countries, but whatever). Spend 10 seconds on a Google
search. "Activists" don't owe you any answers.

Never forget, despite what the sensationalists will tell you, climate change
is very much fixable. Clean energy and better land management can and will get
us there – and eventually, maybe in 200 years, we'll sequester enough carbon
to get back to 350ppm. The question is about _what happens in the meantime_ :
if we act fast, we'll _only_ get decades of food insecurity, war, and
displacement, mostly in poorer countries [2]. If we delay further, we'll
simply see much worse, and at home as well. But the "point of no return"
rhetoric is nonsense and does nothing but paralyze people.

By the way, one of the easiest and fastest ways to catalyze at-scale solutions
would be a revenue-neutral carbon tax at the source, effectively internalizing
the social costs of climate change and letting the free market do its thing.
(Look up "fee and dividend"; lots of folks are working on this already.)

[1] unless we hit some really unlucky runaway feedback loop, which is
possible. [2] plus the disease epidemics and terrorism that come along with it
– we don't live on an island.

~~~
Jach
You're the one writing phrases like "we don't have decades to fix this". How
is one supposed to interpret that as anything but "point of no return"
rhetoric, especially in light of that rhetoric actually being used with some
frequency for the last few decades? I agree it's not helpful rhetoric, so
maybe I should have aimed my comment at alarmists who use the rhetoric but who
haven't fully embraced that it's too late, instead of the more general
activists.

I'm fully on-board with planetary engineering projects. Those require
engineering work and capital more than activism, though.

Do you want to make a prediction on the accuracy of whatever climate model you
like (we can use the one you linked if you prefer) for what the temperature
increase will be in 2 years, 7 years, and 12 years? We can record it at
[https://predictionbook.com/](https://predictionbook.com/)

~~~
nielsole
Climate change is mostly no binary event. There is the risk of runaway
effects, and possible extinction (though unlikely) but luckily we haven't hit
those yet.

The political 2 degree goal is damage control. Climate models are complex and
impacts harder to predict the more you divert from the current situation.

At 2 degrees the costs to society (social costs of carbon) far outweigh the
mitigation costs. To hit the 2 degree target we have to act swiftly "we don't
have decades to fix this" we are not (yet) at a "point of no return"

As green house gases are currently an externality, there will be no capital
without activism.

I am too young to look back decades, but my understanding was that the "we
don't have decades to fix this" guys in the 80s and 90s were more about
running out of oil(and that turned out to be no problem as rising prices make
more expensive extraction feasible) and that climate change as a concern only
really started in the 90s (even though known long before that). And there are
already damages that could have been prevented by acting swiftly in the 90s.
We could have reached e.g. a 1.5 degree target. So the "we don't have decades
to fix this" rethoric is fitting as ever.

------
louprado
For a moment this was the best news I had read in years, until I noticed the
story is a year old and the research paper[1] is two years old. Hopefully
there has been some progress in the past years but if that were the case we
would should have seen another headline by now. At least I haven't.

Normally 2 years wouldn't be much time to go from a research paper to
production. But this appears to be a simple solution to an urgent problem so
it's hard to be patient.

[1]
[https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/43225/](https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/43225/)

~~~
malloryerik
Is there any immediate economic incentive to adding algae into feed?

Wouldn't you agree that markets don't deal effectively with many or most
commercial endeavors' unwanted side effects (negative externalities), and so
authorities often need to step in when market failure causes damage?

In this case, if the science is real, a global treaty would seem in order to
simply mandate the effective use of seaweed in cow feed.

I hope all governments move on things like this, but ultimately, international
agencies like the WTO should be, excuse me..., beefed up to deal with these
kinds of issues that affect the entire planet and all of its inhabitants.

~~~
crispweed
As other posters have said, it seems like it can be tricky to incentivise
cattle owners to add algae to their feed, check this has actually been added,
in proportions that have the desired effect, and so on.

But how about if governments provide subsidised feed centrally, instead, with
the algae added?

~~~
phkahler
What if it turns out to make healthier cows? I'm not just making that up, I
think it will probably have a positive effect - cows need iodine too! Not sure
if it's enough to sway farmers.

~~~
dig-doug
Can't believe this comment is the only mention of iodine in both the thread
_and_ the article. I supplement iodine daily and it's honestly changed my
life.

~~~
louprado
Which supplement you are taking and where are you buying it ?

~~~
Raphmedia
Get some blood work done before adding supplements to your diet. Creating an
imbalance is even worst.

------
lloydde
How is that the article’s title and did any of the comments on seaweed read
the article? It was the experiment with red algae, not the seaweed experiments
that “reduces methane emissions almost entirely”.

> _Kinley and De Nys tested 20 different species of seaweed on bacteria found
> in the stomachs of cows. They discovered seaweed reduced methane production
> by up to 50 percent, depending on the amount administered. But methane
> reduction at notable levels required high doses of seaweed, almost 20
> percent by weight of the sample. This large percentage of seaweed would be
> difficult to implement outside of the lab and would likely have a negative
> effect on cow’s digestion._

> _When the researchers tested a species of red algae called Asparagopsis
> taxiformis that grows off the coast of Queensland, Australia, they found it
> reduced methane production by more than 99 percent in the lab. In addition,
> it only required a dose of less than 2 percent to work effectively._

~~~
slavik81
Seaweed is a colloquial term for macroalgae. Asparagopsis taxiformis is a red
macroalgae.

------
pbiggar
I recently heard about Russian cosmonauts eating a lot of dill to counteract
farting. It's apparently called a carminative, and seaweed is a carminative
too.

~~~
askvictor
Interesting, but I believe that methane emissions from cows are burps rather
than farts, and there's a lot more fermentation going on in a cow's rumen than
in our guts, so there might be some other mechanism at play here. Or perhaps
not.

~~~
jammi
OTOH, aren't farts just unreleased burps that passed into the intestines.

~~~
askvictor
I think in humans burps are a release of swallowed air, while farts are gasses
produced by fermentation in the intestines. Ruminants OTOH have a fermentation
chamber (rumen) as the first part of their digestive system (their first
'stomach'). Other animals have different fermentation strategies.

------
WheelsAtLarge
Unfortunately, there are fishermen that are no longer able to make a living
because they have depleted the fish in the area they fish, so now they are
looking for a new way to make a living. Farming seaweed seems to be a possible
alternative to fishing. We'll be seeing a lot more stories about how great
seaweed is as the industry starts to make a market for it.

Feeding cattle grass will reduce the methane just as much as seaweed, I bet.
The problem is that the majority of cows are fed a diet of corn, which is
cheap relative to grass, which does not appeal to their digestive system so
therefore we get a lot of methane out of the whole process. What I see here is
somebody trying to sell seaweed as an additive. But the reality is that if you
fed cows the proper feed, grass, then we wouldn't have the big problem with
methane.

Edit- Update, seems like grass is a bigger methane producer when digested by
cows. The problem is the pollution created to produce and transport the corn.
I was going by old info.

Here's a link.

[http://newzealmeats.com/blog/grain-fed-vs-grass-fed-beef-
gre...](http://newzealmeats.com/blog/grain-fed-vs-grass-fed-beef-greenhouse-
gas-emissions/)

~~~
rocqua
> Feeding cattle grass will reduce the methane just as much as seaweed, I bet.

From the article, it only takes a few percent of seaweed in the cow diet to
reduce methane. I'd guess the same doesn't hold for grass. Cows that get to go
into a pasture probably get a few percent of grass.

------
shwin
My partner is studying the effects of cow grazing on various greenhouse gas
things, and the amount of data you need to get/the number of times you need to
replicate before policy makers are willing to step in, is really quite
substantial.

I showed this article to her last year when it popped up, and she said "show
me a large sample size and replicate it stateside and then I'll start caring."

harsh, but I think that's where we are with this kind of thing.

~~~
shwin
Also, "they found it reduced methane production by more than 99 percent in the
lab."

In the lab? On "bacteria found in the stomach of cows"?

That's a long way off from what the title suggests; this research is
definitely still valuable, but I think we do scientific reporting a disservice
when we make much bolder claims than the actual science bears out.

Lab studies != actual cows eating stuff

~~~
lovemenot
Lab studies ~= spherical cows eating stuff

------
dghughes
There is a big industry in seaweed harvesting carrageenan is extracted from it
to use as a thickener it's used in ice cream and other products.

The 2014 study mentioned is from my region the Atlantic Veterinary College.
There was a large Irish Moss industry here years ago but most of it has
switched to Asian markets with cheaper labour and tropical climate.

Although there may soon be a glut of seaweed and any cattle farmers may be in
luck. It seems carrageenan is the flavour of the month toxin everyone is now
trying to avoid (of course it's harmless).

~~~
gowld
[https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/138/3/469/4670224](https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/138/3/469/4670224)

says carageenan is harmful.

~~~
dghughes
Here's Dr. Joe Schwarcz opinion as well, specific to carrageenan in chocolate
milk: [http://montrealgazette.com/technology/science/the-right-
chem...](http://montrealgazette.com/technology/science/the-right-chemistry-
carrageenan-in-chocolate-milk-is-no-cause-for-concern)

------
okreallywtf
Serious question, what incentive is there for this to be done on a large scale
by anyone?

The EPA is being systematically dismantled and the official line of the
government (or at least, those in charge of the government) is that climate
change is not man made. If it is just a natural process, how could our food
systems have any impact on it?

I can't imagine how this wouldn't add at least some costs to feed prices, and
my guess is farmers are operating on razor thin margins already. Without some
government regulations that put a price on greenhouse gasses why would anyone
implement this except on boutique scales?

~~~
Rhinobird
>... dairy farmer named Joe Dorgan inadvertently conducted an experiment on
his herd in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Dorgan noticed cows that grazed on
washed-up seaweed in paddocks along the shore were healthier and more
productive ... and found the new diet saved him money and induced “rip-roaring
heats,” or longer cycles of reproductive activity.

~~~
okreallywtf
Thats great, but it only saved him money because it washed up right on his
shore. It saves a small farmer money to let their cows graze on lush green
pastures that they need to keep eaten down anyways but that doesn't mean that
letting cows graze on lush pastures saves the industry money overall. In
general its going to cost more more than likely to get seaweed into the supply
chain. Its a race to the bottom, it has to be cheaper than subsidized corn
which almost nothing is.

------
tomglynch
How does a discovery like this take place? There must be so many crazy facts
like this that have not yet been discovered, and able to make the world a
better place. I'm guessing it started out as a hunch and snowballed into a
study. Is there a way we can speed up the world's crazy thought ecosystem to
promote sharing information that will lead to more discoveries like this?

~~~
lobster_johnson
It says right there in the article -- a coastal farmer discovered that the
cows grazing on nearby seaweed were healthier and had more active periods of
heat. A subsequent study found that it also had an effect on methane
production.

------
TimesOldRoman
Where does the methane go? Does the hydrogen and carbon just move to the dung
and meat? Genuinely curious.

------
qume
Im bitterly disappointed that greenhouse gas emissions from livestock rarely
enter conversation with people who care about climate change, so this is nice
to hear it being discussed. Even better something which helps.

Im curious however if anyone here knows if the gas is switched from methane to
something else or it just isn't produced in the first place and exits the
animal as solids and liquids?

~~~
ams6110
I would suspect it doesn't matter. If the cow doesn't produce methane in its
digestion process, it will be produced when the cow excrement biodegrades.

------
std_throwaway
Does the methane get released after the cow has finished digestion and the
manure is left to rot? The carbon has to go somewhere if it's not turned into
methane inside the cow.

~~~
mchannon
Apparently most bovine-sourced methane comes from the burp part of the cycle
rather than the fart. Manure may actually come in third when it comes to
methane and the cow.

Like humans (86%!), I suspect most carbon that passes through a cow is exhaled
as carbon dioxide.

~~~
std_throwaway
> I suspect most carbon that passes through a cow is exhaled as carbon
> dioxide.

That would mean that the cow gets higher nutritional value and can needs less
food.

------
shanev
Can this study be done with the cow feed just being plain old grass? There’s
lots of anecdotal evidence showing grass fed cows don’t produce much methane,
thereby making pasture raised meat environmentally friendly. Yet there doesn’t
appear to be many studies on it for whatever reason. Everything is focused on
corn-based cow feed.

~~~
lasc4r
I believe grass fed cattle produce more methane actually.

~~~
adenta
Source?

~~~
justwalt
Here’s one that I found: [https://www.carbonbrief.org/grass-fed-beef-will-not-
help-tac...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/grass-fed-beef-will-not-help-tackle-
climate-change)

~~~
lucideer
That article says the study found that grazed beef release more carbon than
the carbon offset by soil sequestration. It doesn't say it releases more
carbon then grain-fed, and actually, while I haven't read the source study,
the general implication in the article seems to lean toward grazed beef
releasing less than grain-fed (just not, according to the researchers, enough
less to be carbon-neutral).

------
giocampa
Would this work also for... Ehm a friend of mine?

~~~
GW150914
Jokes aside, this won’t reduce flatulence, just methane. Most humans don’t
have methanogen bacteria in their guts anyway, so it wouldn’t matter.

------
himom
Even so, animal ag still uses lots of land, water, risks pollution of air and
water, pandemic and antibotic resistance.

~~~
jgh
probably easier to get animals to eat kelp than to get humans to stop eating
animals.

------
tomohawk
Perhaps they should study the nutritional impacts of the resulting beef before
they get too far with this. Grass fed beef is much tastier and much more
nutritious than feed lot fed beef.

Does feeding the seaweed reduce the need for using antibiotics required when
feeding corn to cattle? That would be a real win.

~~~
rocqua
In what sense is grass fed beef more nutritious? It's a rather nebulous term,
hence my question.

~~~
tomohawk
Eating grass provides better nutrition for the cattle, and the meat ends up
with more nutrition such as omega 3s.

[https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-
disease...](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-
disease/expert-answers/grass-fed-beef/faq-20058059)

In a feed lot, cattle are fed a diet that practically requires antibiotics to
keep them alive long enough to slaughter.

~~~
learc83
They mostly use antibiotics to promote growth. Feed lots increase risk of
disease because cattle are closer together, but their diet doesn't really have
anything to do with the use of antibiotics.

------
emmelaich
From 2017.

Previously on HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12998395](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12998395)

------
go_prodev
> Asparagopsis produces a compound called Bromoform (CHBR3)

Which is an animal carcinogen according to Wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromoform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromoform)

------
agentultra
I stopped eating meat for climate reasons; methane production from cattle
being a major factor. Glad to see that there might be a solution to that
problem.

~~~
devmunchies
until climate change starts reversing, its probably safe to continue your
trend.

------
wollstonecraft
Bromoform kills methanogens.

~~~
HillaryBriss
interesting info about Bromoform from Wikipedia:

 _Bromoform is the main trihalomethane produced in beachfront salt water
swimming pools with concentrations as high as 1.2 ppm (parts per million).
Concentrations in freshwater pools are 1000 times lower. Occupational skin
exposure limits are set at 0.5 ppm._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromoform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromoform)

i wonder if any of the bromine winds up in the cow's milk or meat

~~~
John_KZ
Also there's no info on the nutritional uptake of the cows. Killing the
methane-producing bacteria could potentially mean killing the digestive
powerhouse of the animal.

~~~
the8472
It does not kill the methane-producing bacteria, it just inhibits a specific
enzymatic pathway.

------
jjtheblunt
Not raising supernatural numbers of cows for murder also eliminates the
problem within a few decades...which i mention because it's plausible the
world is moving this way. [ For the cows, I hope so, and for things to be
learned in sustainable nutrition as well. ]

------
sgroppino
Maybe it helps with heath and safety... I know, old news, but I can't resist:

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25922514](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-25922514)

------
deejbee
Does anyone know if there is any research on WHY this algae acts in this way?
Would it be possible to either synthesise the chemical compound(s) involved,
once identified without having to farm it?

~~~
jessaustin
It's really easy to grow algae. I have to clean it out of stock tanks
constantly. Usually it's green, but if I leave a tank alone long enough the
red will take over. This is fresh water mixed with cow saliva and some plant
matter, but presumably it would be just as easy with salt water? Chemical
processes typically produce CO2, due simply to their energy requirements.

------
sunstone
Sure, but have you tasted the milk? It really tastes off.

~~~
inteleng
How could you possibly know this?

~~~
sunstone
Because I am known for knowing things I cannot possibly know.

For example: Why is it that, as a rule of thumb, people that make money make
it in real estate?

Why is it that all the pictures of the sun are orange but the sun is not
orange?

Why exactly, is it that people prefer gas ranges to electric ranges?

Why is it that horoscopes are demonstrably false but thermodynamics is
demonstrably true?

Why is it that heat rises but it's cold in the mountains?

I have the answers but you have only the questions.

------
Mister_X
I'll be the heretic then... how about you all eat less beef, easy solution to
the "problem". And no, I'm not a vege-anything. Just to prove it, here's a
great song by the Reverend Horton Heat, that I used to play on my radio show.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQynViAF6Ds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQynViAF6Ds)

~~~
Mister_X
Minus 1? Crimney... it's a good song. Guess I should have posted a link to
fart song, eh

~~~
lolsal
The score is low because it contributes nothing of value to the discussion.

------
astannard
Does it work on humans too? Just asking for a friend

~~~
ronwen
Haha, I was thinking the same thing.... < toot >

------
elbear
I wonder: would there be any negative side-effects on the cows? Another way of
putting it: is methane production in the gut of the cow a consequence of a
useful process or is it something the cows can live without?

Another question to ponder: would seaweed farming at such scale have negative
consequences?

~~~
jsilence
cows can not digest the cellulose ingredient in grass. essentially they foster
anaerobic bacteria in their stomach which digest the cellulose. the cows live
off the bacteria and their byproducts.

there are several different microbiobial paths from cellulose to methane with
stages including acetic acid, acetone and hydrogen. depending on the
conditions in the cow some of these paths are prefered or not.

I do not know whether not producing methane is bad for the cow in the long
run. I guess it is not, given that the farmer mentioned in the aeticel has
been feeding them the algae for a longer period of time.

~~~
ummonk
I wonder whether the bacteria survive in the cow stomachs when the cows are
only being fed kelp, and (if they don't, what happens to the cow if it is
switched back to a grass diet?).

------
ChuckMcM
I have some Japanese friends who have recommended seaweed as a treatment for
flatulence. That they have this working at 99% in livestock is pretty amazing.
If you could get sheep and cows onto this sort of program it would be a huge
deal.

------
dopamean
Honest question here. Didn't we already know this? I am nearly certain that I
heard about the benefits of putting certain types of seaweed in cow feed to
affect methane when I was in high school nearly 20 years ago.

------
donatj
Serious question, could there be any way to instead capture said methane and
use it for fuel? I feel like if the farms could make a decent buck off
capturing it there’d be more incentive than say paying for seaweed.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Yes, but it seems to need a surgical insertion into one of the cows stomachs
so is probably dangerous / expensive.

[https://phys.org/news/2008-07-cow-backpacks-methane-
gas.html](https://phys.org/news/2008-07-cow-backpacks-methane-gas.html)

~~~
logfromblammo
Fistulation surgery isn't all that dangerous or expensive. The major expense
is in keeping the rumen port clean and the cow healthy and free from infection
afterward. It's a significant amount of work and consumable supplies, that has
to be done by a human worker, every day, for as long as the cow has the port.

Granted, a gas port should be smaller than one large enough to stick your hand
through, and pull stomach contents out of, but even so, an entire herd of
ported cows would not be able to pay for the additional ranch hand work
necessary to keep them alive. You need a port-cleaning and health-monitoring
robot, at minimum.

------
antiics
What's the best way to investment exposure to agricultural seaweed?

~~~
adventured
Most of the largest seaweed producers are unlisted in terms of public stock
exchanges, such as Dalian Kowa Foods which is China's largest producer, or
Seaweed Harvest Holland in Europe.

You could always start your own backyard seaweed production business:

"Meet the new US entrepreneurs farming seaweed for food and fuel"

[https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2017/jun/29...](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2017/jun/29/seaweed-farms-us-california-food-fuel)

------
eloff
So this begs the mildly racist question, do Japanese people fart? Can they
light their farts on fire? Maybe not if the seaweed in the diet kills off
methane producing bacteria.

~~~
HillaryBriss
i don't have an answer to your question. but Cooks Illustrated reports that
adding kelp to beans makes the beans easier to cook:

[https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/6385-flavoring-
drie...](https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/6385-flavoring-dried-beans-
with-seaweed)

~~~
askvictor
Not just cook, apparently the enzymes in kelp assist in digestion of the
beans. Which also causes less farts (bean farts are due to indigestible
proteins? Fibre? passing to the intestine and fermenting by the bacteria
there). So I wonder if this is a similar mechanism.

------
mklarmann
AFAIK garlic does too. But the solution creates another problem because of
higher nitrous oxide (n2o) concentrations. Which is much worse for the
climate.

------
r3vo
I'm sure that this is a dumb question, but is methane from cows a contributor
to global warming? Is that the significance of this study? Thanks.

~~~
mchannon
The dumbest questions begin with a disclaimer like the one used here.

Yes, methane, especially from cows and livestock, is a contributor to global
warming. Other sources of methane worthy of concern include oil and gas wells
(apparently they leak a lot) and other quasi-natural sources like the
breakdown of plant matter in forests (often because the forest is cleared).

Methane is far more potent than CO2 but also far shorter-lived. I would argue
in many ways it's far less of a concern because it doesn't interact with plant
and animal life to anywhere near the extent elevated CO2 levels do.

~~~
r3vo
Ok I assumed that was the case. Thanks for the clarification.

------
mrfusion
How is this possible though? What’s happening on the molecular level? And how
can we drastically change their digestion without harming them?

------
JohnJamesRambo
Why don’t they just feed the bromoform compound responsible for the activity?
Seems a lot easier than trucking seaweed all over the place.

~~~
wolfi1
ever heard of chloroform and its characteristics?

------
coss
Now that I think about it - it seems really silly that the solution to cow
methane emissions is eating less hamburgers.

------
Zaab1t
It would be interesting to know /what/ it is in Asparagopsis taxiformis that
has this effect

------
amingilani
Few stories make me as happy as this one did. Thank you OP. Hopefully in the
future I can enjoy a beef-steak guilt-free!

The cow methane problem is one that literally keeps me up at night. I kept
thinking about my inevitable switch to chicken and missing out on a
tenderloin.. and how my kids won't be able to eat like me.

~~~
lloydde
I feel ya and it would make my feel a little better about my meat treats, but
improving that end (pun) of the equation seems to be a smaller problem than
the energy required.

> _The findings, while expected, are quite sobering. Pork, chicken, dairy and
> eggs are equivalent within a factor of two when it came to their
> environmental burdens, the authors determined. But beef requires far, far
> more resources than any of those other protein categories. The team
> calculated that beef requires 28 times more land, six times more fertilizer
> and 11 times more water compared to those other food sources. That adds up
> to about five times more greenhouse gas emissions._

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/beef-uses-
ten-...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/beef-uses-ten-times-
more-resources-poultry-dairy-eggs-pork-180952103/#MrYKCCw0yPic3zIo.99)

~~~
circlefavshape
Pork and chicken require less land? Could that be because they're usually kept
in cages?

~~~
jsilence
no, it is because their food conversion ratio is better. that anaerobic
methane producing process cows are using is not very efficient.

------
Animats
Perhaps the SF bay's salt evaporators could be repurposed for growing algae.

------
enknamel
I've seen this posted many times. What's the outcome?

------
astannard
Does it work on humans too, just asking for a friend?

------
rdruxn
The original paper cited in this article is from 2016

------
alexserravidal
Good!

~~~
jmorapruna
Qualsevol parida

~~~
alexserravidal
Jijiji

------
odammit
Holy farts, that’s amazing!

------
aviv
As if we need more reasons to consume even more dead flesh...

