Only a small part of the animals feed needs to be seaweed and thankfully it is one of the easiest and fastest growing organisms on the planet. So it’s extremely cheap for the industry to adopt compared to losses related to carbon taxes and loss of market share.
Knowing a potential solution is not the same as solving a problem, unless you are performing an academic exercise.
Do not worry.
When enough pressure is applied on the farmers thanks to people like you , the solution (seaweed) we have found will be implemented. We have already done the difficult part and found a solution to the problem.
I am also strongly reassured that XSS is a solved problem when using content security, and climate change has been solved by mass reforestation efforts.
The difficult part of a technical solution is not inventing it (although those are rightfully hard problems); the real challenge is in driving adoption of the solution.
The industry will push back on this solution for a broad range of reasons:
1. Cost - what is the cost of both the supplement and the labour required to administer it, or the differential on unfortified vs. fortified feeds.
2. Marketing - how will you communicate to folks that they should do this?
3. Customer Satisfication - does the supplement meaningfully affect any of the metrics for customer satisfaction (flavour, texture, etc of the meat).
4. Availability - retooling and spinning up the aquaculture required to produce the supplements
5. Viability - what is the ecological impact of the proposed seaweed solution, and is it a net positive.
I spent a chunk of my career as a researcher, developing protoypes and proof of concept stuff. One of the greatest things of that time in my career was developing something to 80% and throwing it over the fence, which let me ignore all of that hard work and call my project a win. One of the worst things is that out of that multi-year period of experimentation almost none of the work I did actually yielded unique products or improvements (although the tools I built did drive improvements to address issues and flaws found).
Assuming that you did the research, your work was definitely successful in finding a solution. You have not solved the problem, and the hard work is very much ahead.
I say that only as it seems you have added paragraphs in all of your previous comments to retroactively protect yourself from points I later raised in my replies and you also seem to have deleted your paragraph that enough seaweed was not being produced and so you believe the problem is not solved.
Seaweed production is in line with current demand. When the market places enough pressure on Farmers to adopt the solution then seaweed production will naturally increase. Seaweed is one of the easiest and fastest growing organisms in the world.
Your most recent arguments regarding Marketing etc being a problem. You are scraping the barrel now looking for problems.
Net zero is not satanic enough?
It is odd that you are so hellbent on finding additional problems and moving the goalposts on this. When billions of people in the world are starving.
Seaweed is one of the the easiest and fastest growing organisms in the world and there have been many threads here pushing for it to even be used as food for humans.
No. The concern is about the overall impact of the aquaculture required to scale this seaweed feed supplements production to have a meaningful impact on the methane production from livestock. If you ramp up seaweed production, and reduce methane, but the overall process (aquaculture, processing, distribution) produces anything but than a net negative in GHG emissions, then the only value of the process is greenwashing cattle ranching.
I am not hellbent on finding additional problems, the point is that a lab based solution doesn't solve the problem, and most of your comments have ignored the very real market realities. I would also wager that your opinions are not necessarily grounded in reality - I chatted with my brother, who was a pig farmer for nearly two decades and is still involved in agriculture in both farming and ranching, and my cousin who runs a very large ranch in Manitoba. Some of the concerns I brought up in my previous point about market pushback are summaries of the questions and concerns they raised, although they both thought it was really interesting because they are both especially interested in sustainable farming practices.
Switching gears because you moved the goalposts, nothing I have said has anything to do with starvation or hunger. Since you brought it up, it is almost absolutely certain that building technology that mitigates, partially or wholly, the environmental impact of cattle farms actually exacerbates world hunger. The simple reason that is that the labour and resources that go into producing meat for human consumption would produce significantly more human consumable calories if we shifted those to plant based alternatives (up to and including feeding people seaweed).
So you are putting forward the argument and problem - that we are currently omnivores and we should not be eating meat , due to environmental concerns and because it lowers the quantity of food we can produce overall.
You are saying it would be better if we all became vegans, so that higher quantities of food could be produced.
You think this is the solution.
The problem with going to an extreme position like you have done is that people will overall get sick from this unnatural diet.
We see thousands of people on Reddit have cured their “incurable auto immune” diseases by going carnivore and not ingesting any plants. After they previously ate too much plants and damaging their intestinal lining resulting in natural plant toxins created by plants to stop insects eating them , pesticides , fungicides, herbicides , glysophate etc leaking from the gut into their blood causing the cykotine response by the immune system and a build up of these toxins around the body (joints mostly with specifically it being the knees for rheumatoid arthritis and such).
Meat is clean of toxins as like in our own body , the animals bodies keep the blood clean of it , any toxins in the blood would cause the animal itself to get sick.
This is not the case at all regarding plants which are full of an assortment of toxins.
We have proof from thousands of individual case reports and published medical papers now that plants are making people sick. The medical establishment simply has not yet put all the findings together or discussed it properly.
Have some common sense. Vegans are sickly, weak and over time they turn into cucks (our personality Is just a manifestation of our physical state). Carnivores are strong, fit predators.
You’re talking about marketing problems , that’s a real marketing problem for you. Try selling this vegan and bugs diet to the masses. These are secondary problems (marketing) that don’t really have a place in our discussion.
You see thousands of people on Reddit carrying on about being carnivores, I'll raise you 9% of India's population being vegan (that would be more than 125 million people), and another 40% of the population of India being some type of vegetarian. Find better data for your claims about the health impacts of not eating meat.
One other thing -
> Meat is clean of toxins as like in our own body
Uh huh. That's why farms routinely send meat to labs routinely to test for parasites and diseases, and mercury is a huge problem when consuming fish.
> Carnivores are strong, fit predators.
Eating meat does not make a predator; in the context of diet, if you are not hunting for your prey, you are a scavenger, consuming the remains of others kills (unless you think those Redditors you cited stalking the aisles of your local supermarket for the best deals counts as hunting).
The only reason I responded to this was because someone else might accidentally read your garbage post and be swayed by it.