Hacker News Reader

Comment by malloryerik | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

the incentive is trivially simple. free seaweed. im assuming there is fiber, and at least some nutrients in seaweed, but no farmer is going to turn down free food. to me it seems like it would be very similar to alfalfa/hay.

not sure what that would cost, or if that much can be produced however. also, dairy farmers at least care very much about the ratios of various feedstocks, so the assumption about nutrition is important.

A carbon tax or cap and trade system would create such an economic incentive.

What's to discourage the cattle owner from claiming their cows produce no methane due to seaweed use & then collecting the cap and trade/carbon tax benefit while not bothering with the seaweed?

More broadly, how does cap and trade/carbon tax measure the footprint of a business in the first place? I've found no material on the subject but my guess is that they do it based on the power plant/fuel you're using & how much energy your using. Not sure how they measure gases as a byproduct of industrial processes but maybe that's minuscule?

The possibility of an IRS audit would discourage lying about it. If you're claiming to be feeding your cattle seaweed, you're going to have to buy it. Just like any other business expense, you'll need receipts. And once you have the seaweed feed, you might as well use it.

To be honest, I'm not sure how the emissions measuring is done, but I think it's handled on the supply-side for fuel and electricity in existing implementations. Suppliers just pass on the cost of taxes. For direct agricultural emissions from cattle, you could probably use an estimate based on the average emissions per cow, and provide a deduction based on feed. Maybe with an exemption for small farms.

Farmers could buy their seaweed from Acme Agrisupply, SuperKelp(TM) "made with 100% seaweed" (3% seaweed by weight, 97% corn filler), which costs 1/10th the price of real seaweed.

If a farmer were going to defraud the carbon tax system, what would they do with the seaweed they paid for?

Sell it to another farmer.

> how does cap and trade/carbon tax measure the footprint of a business in the first place

Satellites, sensors on Google street view cars, etc.

https://www.ted.com/talks/fred_krupp_what_if_we_tracked_meth...

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

You can charge more for it? Many consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally-friendlier options now.

1. That would only affect a small portion of the global market 2. You'd have verification problems, same as with a lot of things now claimed to be organic/free range/etc but aren't really in the sense people expect

There are already people intentionally buying beef straight from producers, to ensure that it's "grass fed". If warming enthusiasts cared as much about this issue as these paleo dieters do about avoiding flavorful beef, they could do the same.

As you say, the effect would be small, but why would that stop anyone from doing it?

Oh I reread the thread and saw you were only addressing whether there is an immediate incentive. Yes, you're right, there certainly would be one, and it probably could be organic/paleo level successful. Probably doing it privately successfully would help rally support for an eventual law.

I'm sure some genius could come up with a marketing campaign around "Fartless Beef".

Here, I'll give it a try: "Think outside the butt."

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?

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.

This particular iodine compound is effective precisely because it kills methanogenic gut bacteria. Given that those bacteria are a normal part of cows' gut flora, it's reasonable to worry that killing them might be bad for the cows, and would be surprising if it was good for them.

Although, of course, it might be! That's why the only way forward is to test it empirically.

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.

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

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

Ditto. Iodine and Magnesium have eliminated my asthma and had other positive effects - no sugar crashes two hours after eating for example.

Or just legislate that feed manufacturers must add the algae?

Sadly, I fear legislators won't do that until there's an economic advantage for their supporters. So they need some magnates to be convinced, and buy up the production before they go ahead.

Why would legislators make regulations that just save the planet but don't make them rich? /s

There couldn't possibly be any unintended side effects of that...

There are ways to mitigate unintended side effects. Start with a small small number of farms, AB test with no seaweed, small amounts of seaweed, medium amounts of seaweed, large amounts of seaweed, also AB test on which Farmers know which sample they are getting, iterate next year on results with larger number of Farmers. Buy insurance to compensate Farmers if the seaweed kills them. Discover why they died. Iterate with solution (if possible) or cancel (if seaweed always results in eventual death). Continue to keep large population of seaweed free cattle to mitigate possibly of extinction via unexpected long term consequences of seaweed.

Agriculture is already heavily regulated and inspected in terms of such things at least in the EU, owing to the fact that farmers get most of their income from subsidies and these are predicated on various terms.

Of course, it would be much simpler to just stop the nonsensical subsidies of environmentally and ethically disastrous ag products like beef...

> owing to the fact that farmers get most of their income from subsidies

Where on earth do people get these beliefs?

Depends on how you count, and if "income" is "revenue" or "profit".

~$200B/yr in subsidies in USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill

$990B/yr food GDP in USA: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...

In my country it's 50+ %. While the EU paid direct cash subsidies are high, they only scrape the surface making up about 25% of the subsidies.

On top of the EU sibsidies there are direct national subsisidies and a wide spectrum of indirect national and EU level subsidies like export, pension, environmental, protectionist import duties, etc. And yes, beef production gets a similar share of subsidies as other types of farming.

I can't find good europe wide stats. I may have overgeneralized and the average may be under 50%. But the subsidies are still very high.

Yes, farmers can sell their own use of seaweed additive as carbon "offsets". Environment-conscious businesses buy these credits to become effectively carbon neutral.

One potential economic incentive is that feeding cows algae produces a nutritionally higher quality meat; one much higher in beneficial Omega-3 fatty acids vs the current high Omega-6 meat produced from grain fed cows.

There is at least one company approaching it from that angle. [http://www.omega3beef.com/]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com