Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by roboticmind 1220 days ago
It doesn't significantly reduce emissions. 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/

3 comments

Anyone looking seriously at reducing the emissions from their steaks will over time realise that just eating less beef is easier. There's something kind of amazing about how the cattle industry tries to greenwash itself, since all it really does is remind the rest of us that we can also just live without them.
This article from Australia claims a 95% methane reduction using a native seaweed additive.

https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/from-b...

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
Thanks for the info! 8.8% still sounds like a lot, but definitely less than I was expecting.

Edit: Other sources from sibbling threads say it's much, much more than 8.8%.

They are not looking at *overall emissions* which is the exact reason why they are getting larger numbers. They are only looking the emission reduction in feedlots which is a major point of that article I cited