Climate change good news: cutting methane in cow burps
October 30, 2021 9:58 AM Subscribe
A small dairy has been part of the first successful commercial trial for a novel way to reduce methane in cow burps by mixing seaweed into the cattle's feed.
Not a self-post. this dairy is local to me--I am just a fan and customer.
Not a self-post. this dairy is local to me--I am just a fan and customer.
This is great news! I've read about some early research on this; I didn't know Straus Family Creamery was conducting a trial. I imagine it'll take a looot of seaweed to feed to all the cattle we have in the US, though, even if it only takes a small fraction of the cow's diet. There are a lot of cows.
posted by Mister Cheese at 10:27 AM on October 30, 2021
posted by Mister Cheese at 10:27 AM on October 30, 2021
I imagine it'll take a looot of seaweed to feed to all the cattle we have in the US, though, even if it only takes a small fraction of the cow's diet. There are a lot of cows.
The trick will most likely be genetically engineering a new breed of fast-growing kelp (most kelp grows ridiculously fast and it's already been linked to carbon control) which contains the genetic material from the red seaweed which lowers methane emissions, since red seaweed is limited to tropical waters and potentially an invasive species.
posted by mightygodking at 10:42 AM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
The trick will most likely be genetically engineering a new breed of fast-growing kelp (most kelp grows ridiculously fast and it's already been linked to carbon control) which contains the genetic material from the red seaweed which lowers methane emissions, since red seaweed is limited to tropical waters and potentially an invasive species.
posted by mightygodking at 10:42 AM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
Why do you know that information?
posted by firstdaffodils at 11:29 AM on October 30, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 11:29 AM on October 30, 2021
I have a hard time seeing this as good news. The ocean is having enough problems without becoming yet another resource for factory farming. Kelp becoming a commodity to feed dairy cows or beef cattle to help sustain and greenwash that industry could be disastrous.
If farms get into aquaculture and locally producing kelp on land that could mitigate my fears about unintended consequences, but strip mining and harvesting kelp from natural kelp beds would absolutely devastate local marine habitats that are already struggling with rapidly warming ocean temperatures and acidification.
posted by loquacious at 11:39 AM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
If farms get into aquaculture and locally producing kelp on land that could mitigate my fears about unintended consequences, but strip mining and harvesting kelp from natural kelp beds would absolutely devastate local marine habitats that are already struggling with rapidly warming ocean temperatures and acidification.
posted by loquacious at 11:39 AM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm an investor in this area so I'm paid to follow the research and have Opinions.
I think Asparagopsis is being massively hyped. It has fundamental problems. This news is another example of that hype.
First up, this is not peer-reviewed science. This is a company facing huge emissions costs and looking for an answer. So there's your first source of obvious bias.
Secondly, 24 cows for seven weeks? To know the animal health implications, we need to study many more cows for their whole lives. No-one's done that yet.
Thirdly, what did this do to milk production or animal growth? They don't say. If it didn't reduce milk production then they would have said. Therefore it reduced milk production.
Fourthly, 100 grams of seaweed per day per cow. There's 90 million cattle in the USA alone, so that's three million tonnes of seaweed per year. If that's wet weight then that means increasing the global seaweed harvest by 30% just for the US. If that's dry weight then that means more than doubling the global seaweed harvest.
Fifthly, yes we can grow this in controlled conditions instead of wild harvest. Will that be commerically viable? Remember when we'd all be growing algae for biofuels? That didn't happen, coz growing three million tonnes of seaweed is annoyingly expensive.
Sixthly, farmers are allowed to feed seaweed to cattle because it is "natural". But here's the thing - most of the seaweed is irrelevant. The methane-reducing effect comes because seaweed contains a chemical called bromoform. Yes, that's chloroform with the chlorine replaced with bromine. Bromoform is just as nasty - it drastically changes the microbe populations in their rumen. To avoid having to grow all that expensive seaweed, we could just feed cattle bromoform - except that would be illegal as it's an irritant, ozone depleter, and probably carcinogen. Yes, it makes no sense that you can feed bromoform to cattle if it is in seaweed but not if it isn't.
Seventhly... I could go on but I'm getting to the end of this cup of tea. In short, hell no.
posted by happyinmotion at 12:17 PM on October 30, 2021 [33 favorites]
I think Asparagopsis is being massively hyped. It has fundamental problems. This news is another example of that hype.
First up, this is not peer-reviewed science. This is a company facing huge emissions costs and looking for an answer. So there's your first source of obvious bias.
Secondly, 24 cows for seven weeks? To know the animal health implications, we need to study many more cows for their whole lives. No-one's done that yet.
Thirdly, what did this do to milk production or animal growth? They don't say. If it didn't reduce milk production then they would have said. Therefore it reduced milk production.
Fourthly, 100 grams of seaweed per day per cow. There's 90 million cattle in the USA alone, so that's three million tonnes of seaweed per year. If that's wet weight then that means increasing the global seaweed harvest by 30% just for the US. If that's dry weight then that means more than doubling the global seaweed harvest.
Fifthly, yes we can grow this in controlled conditions instead of wild harvest. Will that be commerically viable? Remember when we'd all be growing algae for biofuels? That didn't happen, coz growing three million tonnes of seaweed is annoyingly expensive.
Sixthly, farmers are allowed to feed seaweed to cattle because it is "natural". But here's the thing - most of the seaweed is irrelevant. The methane-reducing effect comes because seaweed contains a chemical called bromoform. Yes, that's chloroform with the chlorine replaced with bromine. Bromoform is just as nasty - it drastically changes the microbe populations in their rumen. To avoid having to grow all that expensive seaweed, we could just feed cattle bromoform - except that would be illegal as it's an irritant, ozone depleter, and probably carcinogen. Yes, it makes no sense that you can feed bromoform to cattle if it is in seaweed but not if it isn't.
Seventhly... I could go on but I'm getting to the end of this cup of tea. In short, hell no.
posted by happyinmotion at 12:17 PM on October 30, 2021 [33 favorites]
On the one hand, this doesn't surprise me - humans have their own issues with digestive gases of a different kind when eating dried beans, due to us not having enough of the gut enzymes that would effectively digest the oligosaccharides in most beans. And one way that people have come up with to combat that is to cook beans with a piece of konbu in the pot - konbu adds in some of those enzymes, as I understand, which help to break those oligosaccharides down. You don't actually eat the konbu with the beans - it's like a bay leaf, where you fish it out and throw it away once the food is done cooking and is ready to serve. So reading that seaweed helps with the gastric gases from another mammal doesn't surprise me.
On the other hand, though - happyinmotion's comment has pointed out to me that human and bovine digestive systems are pretty different, and a 1-1 comparison may not be wise. This particular kind of flatulence in people happens when there's something that your body isn't able to fully digest before it gets to your gut - and the bacteria in your gut dive in to finish the job, and those beasties are the ones who are producing the gas which fills up your gut, leaving you with the task of passing it. But - if I had four stomachs instead of just one, like a cow has, would I even have the same issue with not being able to digest that food fully before it got to the gut?
Also, is the bacteria in my gut the same as the bacteria in a cow's? We've only barely started to understand the role our own gut flora plays in our health, much less understand what it's like for other mammals. Does anyone even know if it is the same bacteria?
In short - I got all excited about this, then realized that maybe I shouldn't be.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:05 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, though - happyinmotion's comment has pointed out to me that human and bovine digestive systems are pretty different, and a 1-1 comparison may not be wise. This particular kind of flatulence in people happens when there's something that your body isn't able to fully digest before it gets to your gut - and the bacteria in your gut dive in to finish the job, and those beasties are the ones who are producing the gas which fills up your gut, leaving you with the task of passing it. But - if I had four stomachs instead of just one, like a cow has, would I even have the same issue with not being able to digest that food fully before it got to the gut?
Also, is the bacteria in my gut the same as the bacteria in a cow's? We've only barely started to understand the role our own gut flora plays in our health, much less understand what it's like for other mammals. Does anyone even know if it is the same bacteria?
In short - I got all excited about this, then realized that maybe I shouldn't be.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:05 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
Human and ruminant gut microbiomes are pretty different but we both have methanogens. Cattle has most of the methanogens in their rumen. That's the first stage of their digestive system, so the methane they make causes belching. For us, the methanogens mostly live much further along in our systems so they cause farts .
Asparagopsis affects the methanogens by reducing their activity. Different microbes then take over much of the digestion so the food still gets digested but with less gas production.
And yes, the microbes in cattle stomachs have evolved symbiotically with the cattle themselves. Changing the behaviour of those microbes will definitely change the health of those cattle, and vice versa.
posted by happyinmotion at 1:37 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
Asparagopsis affects the methanogens by reducing their activity. Different microbes then take over much of the digestion so the food still gets digested but with less gas production.
And yes, the microbes in cattle stomachs have evolved symbiotically with the cattle themselves. Changing the behaviour of those microbes will definitely change the health of those cattle, and vice versa.
posted by happyinmotion at 1:37 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
General question - do cattle that eat only grass / have eaten grass their whole lives release the same levels of methanes as grain fed animals?
posted by Silvery Fish at 1:47 PM on October 30, 2021
posted by Silvery Fish at 1:47 PM on October 30, 2021
do cattle that eat only grass / have eaten grass their whole lives release the same levels of methanes as grain fed animals?
That's a bit complicated. Cattle emit more methane when they are eating grass than grain.
However, other factors matter when we are looking at the overall climate impact. Firstly, grain-fed animals grow to market weight faster and don't emit as much methane per animal sinply because they don't live as long. Secondly, growing and transporting all that grain has greenhouse gas emissions as well. Thirdly, there are emissions from manure as well as from animals. Controlling the emissions is easier with grain-fed animals than grass fed because you can collect it and treat it.
How that all adds up, I'm not sure. Farmers who feed with grass claim that they have lower emissions, per kg of meat. Farmers who feed with grain claim the same.
The easy answer, of course, is eating fewer animal products.
posted by happyinmotion at 2:39 PM on October 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
That's a bit complicated. Cattle emit more methane when they are eating grass than grain.
However, other factors matter when we are looking at the overall climate impact. Firstly, grain-fed animals grow to market weight faster and don't emit as much methane per animal sinply because they don't live as long. Secondly, growing and transporting all that grain has greenhouse gas emissions as well. Thirdly, there are emissions from manure as well as from animals. Controlling the emissions is easier with grain-fed animals than grass fed because you can collect it and treat it.
How that all adds up, I'm not sure. Farmers who feed with grass claim that they have lower emissions, per kg of meat. Farmers who feed with grain claim the same.
The easy answer, of course, is eating fewer animal products.
posted by happyinmotion at 2:39 PM on October 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
Interesting. I imagine there’s a good chance that incorporating seaweed into feed could change the health profile of beef, possibly including omega-3 content and iodine?
posted by bq at 6:04 PM on October 30, 2021
posted by bq at 6:04 PM on October 30, 2021
The ocean is having enough problems without becoming yet another resource for factory farming
The company that did this trial with the farm is growing the seaweed on land.
posted by pinochiette at 7:30 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
The company that did this trial with the farm is growing the seaweed on land.
posted by pinochiette at 7:30 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
There's already a much better alternative called "stop breeding and killing absolutely vast numbers of animals for entertainment and profit" - it also saves on water, land use and frees up extra food for humans.
posted by BinaryApe at 1:02 AM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by BinaryApe at 1:02 AM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
What happyinmotion said, and also what does the resulting milk taste like.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:40 AM on October 31, 2021
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:40 AM on October 31, 2021
Yikes peeps RTFA.
“Additional studies have demonstrated that the seaweed does not affect cow herd health, milk production, or the taste and chemistry of the milk.”
posted by bq at 12:40 PM on October 31, 2021 [1 favorite]
“Additional studies have demonstrated that the seaweed does not affect cow herd health, milk production, or the taste and chemistry of the milk.”
posted by bq at 12:40 PM on October 31, 2021 [1 favorite]
The peer reviewed study cited in the linked press release did find lower milk production in their group that received higher algae in their feed.
The potential of the macroalgae Asparagopsis to reduce methane emissions shown in in vitro studies was investigated in vivo using dairy cattle. Adding Asparagopsis at 0.5% of diet OM resulted in reductions of 26.4% in methane production, 20.5% in methane yield (adjusted for feed intake) and 26.8% in methane intensity (adjusted for milk production) without compromising milk yield or intake. Increasing the inclusion level to 1% resulted in reductions of 67.2% methane production, 42.6% methane yield, and 60.0% methane intensity. However, feed intake and milk yield were also reduced. Bromoform concentration in milk was not significantly different in cows that consumed macroalgae compared to control. Other mineral concentrations in milk may be increased so some processing may be necessary for Asparagopsis to be used as a feed additive effectively.posted by hydropsyche at 6:12 AM on November 2, 2021
« Older Clever, Those Salticidae | Organic Grooves on Vinyl from High and Low, Near... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:06 AM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]