Submitted by celebratedrecluse in Vegan

Report claims.

If true, this is huge. There are many reasons how mass agribusiness of livestock harms the environment, and specifically contribute to climate collapse, however the production of methane is one of the biggest problems.

While this is probably a good technology to make use of, it will also further justify (greenwashing) the destruction of habitat and rainforest lands for expansion of animal agriculture activities, as well as the unsustainable use of finite petrofertilizers to enable such wasteful industries, among other major problems created by the agribusinesses of flesh. Because, now, it's ok it doesn't produce much methane.

This shows the limits of reducing environmental issues to greenhouse emissions alone. Climate collapse is fueled by a holistic degradation of human relationship with the non-human world, and there are phenomena somewhat disconnected from the climate which are still hugely problematic for living things. The problem is with culture and mode of economy, something that will always be out of reach of purely technocratic fixes.

5

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

catachresis wrote

Nah. The first time I heard seaweed and cattle emissions this I did the math and it turns out to feed cows enough seaweed to reduce their emissions the world’s supply of seaweed to be exhausted in a few days.

Title is also misleading because total cattle emissions are greater than just their farts. Transportation, deforestation, etc.

This might be useful in the future for the jerks that need their steak and refuse to eat vat-grown meat.

6

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I feel you really didn't read my post

4

catachresis wrote

I did read your post. What made you think I didn’t? I largely agree with your perspective. I was just adding my own perspective on the topic.

5

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

"Total cattle emissions"

I didn't say that, I clearly wrote bovine methane emissions, which is a great deal more specific. English is not my first language, so I try to be careful with how I write things, and it can be momentarily frustrating when someone misquotes me after I've already tried to be precise enough to avoid a "well actually" type comment. It's not a big deal though, I got over it

3

nulloperation wrote

Your perspective is more relevant than the article.

Dr Battaglia said a happy by-product of producing less methane was that the energy then stayed in the animal.

"Instead of going into producing methane, other microbes come along and then produce the good things, the fatty acids and things, that the animal goes on to produce milk or meat with," he said.

I wonder why this isn't also considered as a human nutritional supplement also? Less farting, more ... meat? Like, useful for people who want to bulk up, perhaps?

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

Perhaps, although what appears to be happening is that the gut microbiota are decimated, leading to less methane production and more anabolic processes. The excess calorie's worth of growth is allocated disproportionately to lipid storage, plus there is the languishing of the animals in constricted spaces with no chance for exercise, so there are health consequences for that. I imagine psychologically it is probably not pleasant for the animals either?

3

nulloperation wrote

plus there is the languishing of the animals in constricted spaces with no chance for exercise, so there are health consequences for that.

Oh yes. I only meant the seaweed eating. Not saying it's be okay to enclose anyone in small spaces, human or not.

although what appears to be happening is that the gut microbiota are decimated

That doesn't sound too healthy, no. I hope this food supplement won't hurt the cows.

4

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

Indeed, it would be interesting to learn more how it works. Perhaps I am wrong, and it is not unhealthy for the patients.

3