• Kayel@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Land use is the main contributor. The OP article is knot great. Seaweed only helps with methane. Still, good.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m all for lab grown meat if it can taste even 90% the same as real meat and have the same benefits.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        My only problem with lab grown meat, is what if it actually ends up using more resources and energy then raising a cow or chicken?

        What happens if lab grown meat is so successful that say chickens or cows go extinct? That’s an interesting idea. I feel like that could be a Black mirror episode.

      • Vegoon@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Would you be good with Bezos saying

        I’m all in for robots if they work as fast as humans and are cheaper than the slave wage I pay them now

          • Vegoon@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But it is cheaper to hire slaves and let them piss in bottles, so you have to accept that as long as robots are not cheaper and faster. As long as robots are not 90% as fast and cheap as humans.

      • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did you read the article you posted?

        "Australian trial of seaweed cow feed fails to achieve hoped-for methane cuts

        Longest trial so far of supplement derived from red seaweed produced 28% less of the greenhouse gas – a much smaller reduction than in previous studies."

        So, not as much as the 97% in the shorter trials, but 28% is certainly statistically significant, and doesn’t really fall under the category of “industry propaganda.” They also used less seaweed for this trial and used a breed not tested before, along with an open air sampling process, while other trials had been indoor, sealed environments. Even if other breeds had the same weight gain issue (no evidence of that so far) and needed to wait longer until slaughter it’s still a 19% reduction.