
Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows’ Methane Emissions by 99% - RickJWagner
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/gamechanging-pink-seaweed-reduces-cow-emissions/
======
goodalgae
My company is currently working to grow Asparagopsis Taxiformis, here in the
US, for this purpose.

I agree with comments that we have big issues to tackle in regards to methane
sinks failing, such as permafrost, and there are things to be said about
people moving en masse to plant based diets – but, the future will always be a
mix of tomorrow and today. Many people will still eat beef, and we need to
ensure we reduce the negative effects of raising cattle as much as possible.
We need a giant, mixed bag of tricks working in unison to slow the warming we
have caused over the last 100 years.

Luckily, current research is showing that – not only does AT nearly eliminate
methane from the bovine digestive process entirely when supplementing between
half and two percent of daily diet – we are seeing early indications in
research of some amazing additional benefits – improved milk production,
increased immunity, improved food conversion ratio (meaning you can feed
cattle less and have them pack on more protein). Studies are not finalized,
but what I have heard of them sounds very, very good.

My background is in tech (founded and exited a TechStars company and have had
a career in software and hardware startups) and my colleagues are in marine
biology and phycology (algae science). My hope is that by approaching this
problem from the perspective of a fast-iterating startup, we can get this
product to market faster than the traditional routes of academic timelines and
federal funding sources this industry is used to.

If you are an investor, beef serving restaurant owner, or in business related
to cattle raising and finishing and would like to find out more, please email
us at info+hackernews@goodalgae.com. And follow our newsletter for updates at
[https://goodalgae.com](https://goodalgae.com).

Cheers!

~~~
leipert
What is the feasibility of this, deploying it on a large scale?

I did some quick calculations on a napkin.

Apparently there are between 1 billion and 1.5 billion cows [0][1]. Let’s just
say 1.5 Billion.

In New Zealand the beef (dry cow) vs dairy cow ratio is almost 1:1 [2], but I
assume that countries like India have more dairy cows, so I just assumed that
60% percent of cows are dairy cows.

Apparently dry cows consume around 25 lb (11 kilogram) dry matter per day [3],
milking cows 25kg dry matter [4].

Let’s just assume that 1% of the dry matter needs to be replaced with the
algae, which is half of what the article mentions. That would mean, that we
need:

(1500 Million * 0.6 * 0.01 * 25kg) + (1500 Million * 0.4 * 0.01 * 11kg) = 291
Million kilogram = 291.000 metric tons of algae per day

Just the logistics alone is major feat to pull off, put on a yearly scale the
weight of these algae equals half of the trash produced in the US per year
[5].

[0]: [https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-
ranking-c...](https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-ranking-
countries-0-106905)

[1]: [https://www.drovers.com/article/world-cattle-inventory-
ranki...](https://www.drovers.com/article/world-cattle-inventory-ranking-
countries-fao)

[2]:
[https://teara.govt.nz/files/1_183_Beef_Ratios_0.pdf](https://teara.govt.nz/files/1_183_Beef_Ratios_0.pdf)

[3]: [http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/3154/how-much-forage-
doe...](http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/3154/how-much-forage-does-a-beef-
cow-consume-each-day/)

[4]: [https://albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/how-much-feed-
does-...](https://albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/how-much-feed-does-a-cow-
need-to-produce-1-litre-of-milk/)

[5]:
[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=291*365+million+kilogr...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=291*365+million+kilogram)

~~~
giarc
The US produces 912,358 tonnes of corn per day (or 900 million kg). I suspect
corn is much easier to grow than seaweed though. Just as a perspective.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States#Agriculture)

~~~
leipert
Mhm... Looking at the numbers again:

291,000 metric tons per day => ~ 106 Million metric tons per year.

In 2014 the world wide Aquatic Plants (which include ALL Macro-Algae)
production was around 27 Million tons [0].

[0]: [http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf](http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf),
page 24, table 7

~~~
badestrand
Current production shouldn't matter and the sea is huge - if the algae are
uncomplicated to grow I don't see any reason why there should be a limit to
future production.

~~~
TendOcean
You mean other than the fact that techniques for efficiently growing such
amounts of seaweed do not exist? Of the amount produced globally today, 90%
comes from China, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines and that production is all
very labor intensive and done in locations and using methods that are simply
not applicable to the United States.

There is a huge about of R&D needed to get any of this to scale. Some of it is
already underway.

------
alphakappa
There are many planet saving discoveries like these. There's also a catch,
which is why the planet hasn't been saved yet.

> “If we’re able to work out how to scale up the seaweed to such a level to
> that can feed all of the cows and the sheep and the goats around the world,
> then it’s going to have a huge impact on the climate;

And there you go. That's the hard part that you cannot just hand-wave away.

You also have to wonder what the impact of growing all this seaweed (or
harvesting it) to feed the planet's bovine population will be. In the end, the
problem is due to the massive scale of human consumption on this planet. The
mitigation might be just as bad when you consider the scale at which you have
to produce the 'better' solution.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
From an environmental perspective, it's easier to directly consume fruits,
vegetables and nuts yourself, rather than have an animal do the same, then eat
the animal. That doesn't address the human appetite for animal proteins, but
there is beyond meat.

~~~
fooker
You can not grow enough fruits, vegetables and nuts to feed the human
population without severe deforestation. Also, agriculture uses up pretty much
most of the obtainable drinkable water.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I'm also sceptical that the recently proposed diets of fruits, vegetables and
nuts actually work out. AFAICT it's an outstanding problem in nutrition
science concerning how many of the calories in nuts that humans are able to
digest. And yet it seems like the proposed diets just assume "all calories are
equal". I've seen reports from journalists who have tried following those
diets saying they were constantly hungry.

~~~
dasd99
> I've seen reports from journalists who have tried following those diets
> saying they were constantly hungry.

This is the inherent problem of journalism - they need sensational results,
otherwise the majority of folks wouldn't be bothered to read their journalism.

My 2 cents on this topic: I'm 10+ years vegan and everything is good, it's
just no clickbait-worthy story...

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Oh, I'm not saying you can't live as a vegan. But the criticism of these diets
is they prescribe X grams of this, Y grams of that, and use those numbers to
compute a global environmental impact. If the X and Y are both underestimates
compared to what an adult needs, then so is the impact.

------
hannob
Skeptical science remark:

This whole "if cows eat seaweed that'll vastly reduce their carbon footprint"
is based on a single study with 12 cows.

If you take into consideration that especially small, never replicated studies
often don't hold up to scrunity the next thing to do is not to ask how to
produce the seaweed. The next reasonable step would be to try to replicate
this study in a larger sample (and probably also with a larger variety of cow
breeds).

~~~
strainer
"is based on a single study with 12 cows."

Its not - most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly
informed and misleading.

A quick scholar search shows _numerous_ studies broadly agreeing with the one
featured here, including the seaweeds effects on sheep digestion and microbial
and metabolic details:

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane)

~~~
MiroF
> most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed
> and misleading.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this! Seems very popular and common
in forums like HN and Reddit, but less so elsewhere.

~~~
TravHatesMe
I would prefer being skeptical instead of blindly accepting things. This
behavior will instigate another to provide evidence or a counter-argument.
This makes for great discussion, in most cases I think it is healthy.

~~~
MiroF
Aren't you just blindly accepting the skeptical response?

What did you learn from this great conversation:

OP: This study has never been reproduced!!!!

Response: Uh, yes it has.

~~~
TravHatesMe
OP's comment casts doubt on the validity of the article's conclusions. Maybe
OP didn't look into it as much as others. The response to OP reaffirms the
validity and sways my skeptical mind. I enjoyed both comments; indeed good
discussion.

------
PopeDotNinja
My inner child was disappointed to learn that cow farts are not the major
source of bovine methane emissions. But saying cow burps is stilly pretty
funny.

[https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-
so...](https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-
belching-or-cow-flatulence/)

~~~
barking
I'm disappointed too! I was going to ask if this might work for us humans.

------
chrisbolt
Previous posts:

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

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17036221](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17036221)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18385384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18385384)

------
tunesmith
I saw some math once... not sure how correct it is, but it was something like
given the co2-equivalent emissions of methane, even if all cows simply
disappeared tomorrow, it would still only take care of about 5% of our global
GHG emissions. So if that's true it wouldn't really be a gamechanger.

Still worth doing though (the seaweed, not the mass slaughtering)! And if
everyone plants 350 trees then maybe we'll get somewhere.

~~~
esotericn
Some variant of this same comment is on every single thread about this here.

We need to tackle all of the "only 5%" issues.

~~~
nightski
Or transportation + electricity which is nearly 60% in the U.S.

~~~
sak5sk
It's pretty clear that the HN crowd wants to solve a mute problem with
bioengineering and hacking. The ACTUAL problems, you know, the stuff that's so
daunting that few startups will ever take on - well, we burry our heads in the
sand. Any mention of this fact gets you downvoted.

The same story with energy generation. HN has a big crush on nuclear.
Nevermind that nuclear takes decades to approve and to build out - time that
we just don't have. But hey, as long as we can feel good about it, right?

~~~
solveit
> Nevermind that nuclear takes decades to approve and to build out - time that
> we just don't have. But hey, as long as we can feel good about it, right?

A big part of this is bitterness over the way nuclear energy has been treated.
We used to have decades, we spent billions upon billions on renewables while
demonizing nuclear energy, and now we don't have decades. Hell, it's very
likely that we'd have fusion by now if all that money and effort was
redirected to fusion research.

~~~
redwall_hp
Yep. We had decades of time. We put those decades into what amounts to a
boondoggle, with wind and solar and vague hopes that efficiency of generation
and storage technology would just materialize with no real clear path. So we
have basically nothing to show for the last 50 years.

We could have invested in replacing fossil fuels with extant nuclear
technologies and put a huge dent in the problem. And put more research into
fusion, which is still subjected to a painful lack of funding that is the
biggest roadblock to its eventual viability.

~~~
imtringued
The problem with renewables is that we are not deploying enough of them. I
don't see how you can say that we have nothing to show for the last 50 years.

The EU gets 55% of electricity from nuclear + renewables.

[https://www.dw.com/image/42390018_401.png](https://www.dw.com/image/42390018_401.png)

Germany is playing on hard mode by shutting down it's nuclear power plants and
the added renewables far exceed what little capacity they have shutdown so
far.

[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-
power-production-germany-1990-2018-1.png?itok=glXOK-fm)

------
darawk
I feel like I read this same story once a year or so for the past 5-6 years.
Why hasn't this been commercialized yet?

~~~
moultano
No commercial incentive to do so. If we had any effective climate regulation,
you'd see these things rapidly put into practice.

~~~
lazyguy
regulation can't change reality.

It's about as realistic as having congress declare the world flat.

~~~
moultano
We can measure methane emissions per farm from space. If there were fines for
emissions, it would get fixed quickly.
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-
satellit...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellites-
that-can-pinpoint-methane-and-carbon-dioxide-leaks/)

~~~
majinuub
I'm more of the opinion that rewarding the reduction of emissions would work
better than punishing the production of emissions.

------
blue_devil
More of a philosophical perspective here: The eco-systems on Earth have
evolved over a long time. Without bias against scientific progress, why do we
think we can "solve" this without going down a slippery slope of creating
another problem? When is comes to complex systems that we don't completely
understand, maybe the simplest solution is to just restore the system, that is
"give up" on cows as human feed.

~~~
rubber_duck
Restoring what system - nature is not some harmonious place where everything
just works and people came and ruined it - there were plenty of extinction
events prior to humans, evolution can lead to dead ends and get stuck at local
minima. It doesn't optimize for a lot and collects garbage allong the way (eg.
eye optic nerve blind spot)

Man made climate change is showing us how vulnerable we are to changes in the
Earth ecosystem - instead of putting our heads in the sand and hoping
everything goes back to the way it was while we pray to the weather gods we
could actually figure out ways to engineer our environment and become more
resilient to such changes.

If we are so sensitive to climate change what would happen in another
Chicxulub impactor scenario - another global extinction ? Not to mention much
more probable global disasters like disease outbreaks.

~~~
neuronic
His point still stands. You cannot just hope to disturb a complex system and
expect a linear outcome.

~~~
abraae
You also can't choose inaction over at least attempting to get things back to
a known stable state by reversing the base factors (greenhouse gas
concentrations).

------
rmason
Research takes time. There are researchers trying to grow the stuff on both US
coasts. This articled details some of what is being done. They hope to test
some of seaweed on cows at UC Davis soon.

[https://phys.org/news/2019-05-cultivate-seaweed-slashes-
gree...](https://phys.org/news/2019-05-cultivate-seaweed-slashes-greenhouse-
emission.html)

~~~
philipkglass
_For several months, Smith has been experimenting in her lab with cultivating
the seaweed to, among other things, maximize concentrations of bromoform—the
compound that blocks the production of methane in cows, sheep, goats and other
ruminant animals._

 _" This is the sporophyte," she said at her lab in La Jolla, holding one of a
dozen flasks filled with the red algae, dancing in aerated seawater. "In this
case, the bubbles are not as vigorous, allowing these puff balls to get
bigger._

 _" By just manipulating nitrogen and phosphorous, we have already seen that
we can double the concentrations of bromoform in just a week," she added._

As commenters have noted previously, it seems like using synthetic bromoform
would be cheaper and more scalable. The rest of the seaweed appears to be
incidental to the methane suppression. But maybe there are regulations about
introducing new cattle feed additives that you can sidestep by mixing whole
algae into the food. Or maybe they're already developing this with consumer
branding/marketing in mind; "seaweed" sounds better than "bromoform."

------
sc4les
But not water usage, land usage, suffering for sentient beings, transport of
feed, waste of human food for feeding etc etc

~~~
rimliu
I am pretty sure that growing rice requires land, water, and transport. And I
do not think cows eat human food nor humans would be very pleased to eat what
cows eat.

~~~
sc4les
What cows eat? Ah you mean soy. Nah we can’t use that. Would be a shame if the
cow used 10x the amount of calories to grow before we eat it when we could eat
the crops instead and make your comment look uninformed

~~~
eMSF
How could I truthfully mean soy by "what cows eat", when around here, soy only
makes up 1-2% of cattle feed.

You're cutting all the corners available by adding up the fact that you've
heard soy being fed to cattle to them only eating soy.

------
asteli
Question from the peanut gallery:

The gut bacteria in a cow digest components of the animal's food
preferentially and excrete methane. If you knock those bacteria out, does the
stuff the bacteria would have eaten get excreted by the cow? If so, do the
organisms that digest it external to the cow emit greenhouse gases?

~~~
mklarmann
Actually by knocking out the bacteria, they can see a slight uptake (5%) in
feed efficiency of the cows. So part of it is put into fat and muscle.

------
chiefalchemist
Let's not forget:

\- Producing cows is resource-intensive. Water and feed could be used more
effectively elsewhere.

\- Consumption of red meat and dairy is generally unhealthy.

\- Runoff from cow "pastures" is effectively pollution.

Encouraging less use of cows because of their impact on climate change was a
win on a number of levels. Not any more.

~~~
stronglikedan
> Consumption of red meat and dairy is generally unhealthy.

That could be said about anything. Everything is generally unhealthy if done
in excess. Moderate amounts of red meat and dairy is fine (and delicious).

~~~
chiefalchemist
Perhaps. The keyword is moderate. However, based on historic levels there are
plenty of people well past moderate.

~~~
stronglikedan
I'm just pointing out that your statement, as it stands, is false, and letting
you know why that is so.

------
majinuub
While this is pretty cool, I have a couple reservations. How do you scale this
up so that it can make a measurable impact?

What incentive is there for ranchers to get the seaweed for their cattle? I
imagine that getting the feed or the seaweed itself would result in more
overhead costs. Is there a subsidy for lowering emissions that would make
getting this worthwhile?

Also I can't help but wonder how the seaweed affects the microbiome of the
cows in the long term. It does kill the microbes that make methane. IIRC,
microbes are pretty much essential for cow digestion. Are the microbes that
this seaweed kills essential for digestion or some other purpose?

------
mklarmann
There is a similar product made from garlic, that is encapsulated so it just
doesn't wash out with the cows saliva, that has a similar effect. You need
about 50kg of it per cow, and it kills the methane producing bacteria. Yet the
issue (which they no not fully communicate publicly, but one of the lead
scientists told me in private), I guess is the same as with the seaweed. It is
not all about reducing methane. We need to do a CO2eq calculations, which
includes nitrous oxide at a much higher factor.

And there is much more of this GHG coming out of the treated cow. Which almost
cancel the methan reduction effect.

~~~
DennisP
Does the garlic cause methane reduction by the same mechanism as the seaweed?

~~~
mklarmann
This study [1] does indeed not reference N2O. So this make me suspicious:

The garlic study [2], states: "Garlic contains allicin, diallylsulide,
dialyldisulfide and allyl mercaptan, which affect rumen methanogens,
decreasing rumen CH4 and acetate production and increasing rumen propionate
and butyrate production (Busquet et al., 2005)."

Allicin is not referenced in the sea-weed study. One would have to study the
exact mechanism [3], to be conclusive.

[1]:
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085289)

[2]: [http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2858/effect-of-
garlic-...](http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2858/effect-of-garlic-oil-
on-methane-production-in-lactating-buffalo/)

[3]:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714447/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714447/)

------
dillonmckay
Do grass-fed cows produce less methane than corn-fed cows?

~~~
whenanother
how about all that antibiotics they are being fed as well? this could be a man
made problem.

------
Hitton
That's cool, but let's not forget that methane stays in atmosphere only for 12
years. That means that if methane production stays constant, it doesn't
actually increase amount of methane in atmosphere. Therefore I think that
reducing production of greenhouse gases with longer longevity should be
preferred.

~~~
danmaz74
You don't need to prefer one or the other. We should do both.

------
Accacin
Disclaimer: I'm plant-based, and of course biased.

What would it take people to realise that eating meat is just not good for the
environment and rather than going through all these 'fixes', just stop eating
meat?

We're getting to the point where we're going to have to sacrifice some
'comforts' IMO.

~~~
Avamander
> We're getting to the point where we're going to have to sacrifice some
> 'comforts' IMO.

Why can't those comforts we "sacrifice" be cruises, gasoline/diesel cars and
all advertising? My point being that saying "we're going to have to make some
sacrifices" and pointing at someone else __never __works unless the person
pointing has a lot of power to enforce it.

~~~
Accacin
> Why can't those comforts we "sacrifice" be cruises, gasoline/diesel cars and
> all advertising?

This is only my opinion, but cutting out meat is incredibly easy. If you're in
an area with no public transport then it's hard to stop driving your car
especially if your livelihood depends on it.

It's just a lot of time and money trying to fix the meat industry when the
solution is 'stop'.

------
m23khan
I always thought that part of problem with huge methane emission from
livestock maybe due to what we feed them. Perhaps their stomachs are not meant
to eat primarily grass and the types of plants we typically allow them to eat.

Maybe other types of plants and crops should be fed instead.

------
reportgunner
I'm missing an "of something" after the 99%. It might the case that 99% in the
title is actually 0.0001% of all cows in the world. It does not make sense to
use % without knowing what is the total, the number carries no information
whatsoever.

~~~
cmroanirgo
From the article:

> _Even a small amount of the seaweed in a cow’s diet was shown to reduce the
> animal’s gases by 99%._

and

> _When added to cow feed at less than 2% of the dry matter, this particular
> seaweed completely knocks out methane production. It contains chemicals that
> reduce the microbes in the cows’ stomachs that cause them to burp when they
> eat grass_

The 99% is relating to the gases emitted by a cow eating this seaweed vs not
eating the seaweed.

> _if Australia could grow enough of the seaweed for every cow in the nation,
> the country could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 10%._

~~~
reportgunner
> Even a small amount of the seaweed in a cow’s diet was shown to reduce the
> animal’s gases by 99%.

So if the cow eats seaweed it will also reduce any other gases produced by
said cow ? does this apply worldwide or to cows in a specific area ? How about
other animals that produce methane, is this applicable to them too ?

> When added to cow feed at less than 2% of the dry matter, this particular
> seaweed completely knocks out methane production. It contains chemicals that
> educe the microbes in the cows’ stomachs that cause them to burp when they
> eat grass

Is reducing these microbes healthy for the cow ? Won't it lead to shortening
life span of a cow and therefore leading to requiring more cows ?

> if Australia could grow enough of the seaweed for every cow in the nation,
> the country could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 10%.

Does this mean methane gas from cows represent 10.1% of greenhouse gas
emissions of the country ? (i.e. reduced by 99% from 10.1% to 0.1% ?) How does
the seaweed get to the cows ? Wouldn't this mean more dependency on trucks to
bring the seaweed to the cows ?

And the million dollar question - how many % of the world's methane gas
production does Australia represent ?

------
logfromblammo
Could we skip a step and just eat manatee steaks?~

Perhaps we could get the same benefit by feeding the whole herd seaweed for a
month, then put everyone but the fistulated cow back on regular feed, and just
mix her rumen contents into it?

------
benj111
Will this increase digestive efficiency also? Ie will you be able to feed the
cattle less, or is this something that cows just wont be able to digest?

------
xmichael999
Ok so strange question, does this have an effect on humans as well? Do regular
sushi eaters fart less? (;

~~~
WhompingWindows
The seaweed is a specific kind of red seaweed that isn't used in sushi. The
seaweed contains compounds which tamp down specific microbe levels. I doubt
the exact same effect is occurring in sushi eaters, though a similar one
hypothetically could be.

------
SubiculumCode
I eat chicken mostly. Anyone know if chickend also contribute significant
methane?

------
cfv
You'd think beefmonger states would be tripping over each other to finance a
larger proper larger study if this made any sense. It completely nullifies the
environmental need to nerf their business. Something about it is just fishy.

------
danans
Does it work for people burps too? Asking for a friend.

------
cyborch
“if Australia could grow enough of the seaweed for every cow in the nation,
the country could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 10%”

Still not making a significant dent in how much damage is done by the meat
industry

------
kensai
Delicious news! Now we can have Wagyu everyday. :D

------
hispanic
Man - cows eating seaweed is no more natural than cows eating corn. We need to
stop bastardizing natural systems for our own comfort and convenience.

~~~
RosanaAnaDana
I mean, you know there are no 'cows' in the wild. We made cows from aurochs.

~~~
hispanic
Point taken. "Bastardization" isn't black and white. It's measured in shades
of grey.

------
madis
Pretty sure the microbes will shortly figure out how to survive in the gut
together with the red seaweed. This party won't last long

------
JordanFarmer
Psst... It's the iodine...

------
jjtheblunt
eating fewer cows also reduces collective cows' methane emissions

------
Jenz
Where does the methane go?

------
porky
and no other effects? only lower methane emissions?

------
ptah
where does the methane go? what is the tradeoff?

------
legohead
but can we address the water consumption?

~~~
baroffoos
If it can be grown in salt water like the name "seaweed" suggests then there
is no issue with water consumption.

~~~
legohead
I was referring to the water consumption needed to grow meat

------
lazyguy
This sounds extremely unhealthy for the cows.

~~~
irjustin
where did you get this? i haven't read anything towards this end.

~~~
neuronic
He gets this from nowhere and just proceeds to nonchalantly throw in stupid
remarks in a debate that he doesn't like. It's an attempt to derail the
discussion about proper solutions.

------
orasis
Transportation costs will make this a non-starter. Most of the cattle, in
North America at least, are no where near the oceans.

------
sak5sk
Is this even relevant anymore? I mean, with permafrost thawing and triggering
sudden soil collapse - forming lakes and bubbling up even more methane... to
what degree do cow methane emissions even matter when looking at the big
picture? I tried googling for some numbers but didn't find any concrete
credible sources other than "most methane comes from permafrost thawing"

~~~
irjustin
Seriously? [https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-
warming-m...](https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-
methane-CO2)

It wasn't even that hard to find one article. It might not be perfect, but you
can clearly keep going.

And yes, it's one facet. We won't solve our problems just by fixing this, but
your attitude definitely won't.

~~~
sak5sk
You just quoted an article with no credibility and zero comparison to natural
methane emissions. Mind reading before plugging links? That was the first
thing that came up for me in Google too, and the reason why I said what I did.

Edit: just looked up EPA website and found this:
[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-
gases#m...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-
gases#methane)

\- couple things to note: "50-65% of all methane emissions are caused by human
activity" \- I wonder how they define that though? Is feedback from human
activities that flows into natural-seeming emissions such as permafrost melt
considered natural? If it is, that's excluded from the 50-65% figure!

\- Other thing: "Natural gas and petroleum systems are the largest source of
CH4 emissions in the United States." \- 31%

\- Landfills - 16%, coal mining - 8%

That right there is 55% of human-caused methane and has nothing to do with
cows.

I'm not saying the solution should not include all of the sources, but to what
degree should we be worrying about cows vs. all that other crap? Shouldn't the
focus be on natural gas and petroleum emissions?

Edit 2: I don't appreciate your personal attack on my attitude. If questioning
sources and solutions that make the biggest impact is considered an attitude,
then forget all civil discussion. Why bother commenting?

~~~
irjustin
Agreed that link was not perfect hence the qualifying statement. You found
great links/data that allow you to ask the question of cows vs human methane
production. If you came across with that first, I think this would be
different.

If my statement came across as dismissive of discussion, it was because I felt
you were not willing to provide to the discussion. Your opening statement "Is
this event relevant anymore?" is a dismissive one.

My "attitude" reply is a response to that dismissive opening statement. You
may disagree with me on my interpretation, but I don't have enough karma to
downvote.

I am much more willing to discuss that now. What is the amount of the other
45% is cow methane? Is it a non-trivial amount?

~~~
ivanhoe
According to UN, all live stock together produces about 14.5% of total human-
caused GHG emission
[http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/)

