Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens are celebrating that feeding algae to cows which breaks down into the organo-halide Bromoform seems to drastically reduce their flatulence of powerful greenhouse gasses. But the toxicology description of Bromoform suggests the need for a lot more caution before implementing this measure on a large scale.
Clearing the air: who should do the most to tackle climate change?
By Nicole Hasham
4 August 2018 — 11:37pmIn the balmy waters off Queensland’s coast grows a red algae that promises to help rescue the planet.
Sprinkled into the feed of cows, trials show the super-seaweed can all but eliminate greenhouse gas emissions produced by their burps and flatulence.
But the algae – Asparagopsis taxiformis – has never been farmed at scale. Scuba divers must painstakingly pluck it from the ocean. As research founder Rob Kinley of the CSIRO says, the challenges of commercial production are immense.
“The potential is global … but the barrier is the supply of seaweed. The scale of that is monstrous,” Kinley said.
“Every country wants to improve their environmental footprint from agriculture … what we need to do is come up with a massive supply.”
…
Tracking down the study;
The red macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis is a potent naturalantimethanogenic that reduces methane production duringin vitro fermentation with rumen fluid
Robert D. Kinley, Rocky de Nys, Matthew J. Vucko, Lorenna Machado and Nigel W. Tomkins
CSIRO Agriculture, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University,Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia.
BMACRO-Centre for Macroalgal Resources and Biotechnology, College of Marine and Environmental Sciences,James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia.CCorresponding author. Email: rob.kinley@csiro.auAbstract.
Livestock feed modification is a viable method for reducing methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Ruminant enteric methane is responsible approximately to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Some species of macroalgae have antimethanogenic activity on in vitro fermentation. This study used in vitro fermentation with rumeninoculum to characterise increasing inclusion rates of the red macroalga Asparagopsis taxiformis on enteric methaneproduction and digestive efficiency throughout 72-h fermentations. At dose levels at 1% of substrate organic matter there wasminimal effect on gas and methane production. However, inclusion at 2% reduced gas and eliminated methane production inthe fermentations indicating a minimum inhibitory dose level. There was no negative impact on substrate digestibility for macroalgae inclusion at 5%, however, a significant reduction was observed with 10% inclusion. Total volatile fatty acids were not significantly affected with 2% inclusion and the acetate levels were reduced in favour of increased propionate and, to alesser extent, butyrate which increased linearly with increasing dose levels. A barrier to commercialisation of Asparagopsis isthe mass production of this specific macroalgal biomass at a scale to provide supplementation to livestock. Another area requiring characterisation is the most appropriate method for processing (dehydration) and feeding to livestock in systems with variable feed quality and content. The in vitro assessment method used here clearly demonstrated that Asparagopsis caninhibit methanogenesis at very low inclusion levels whereas the effect in vivo has yet to be confirmed.
From the full study;
… It is known that the antibacterial defence mechanism of Asparagopsis is predominantly a result of the secondary metabolite bromoform (CHBr3) naturally present in themacroalgal biomass (Paul et al.2006). Bromoform is similar chemically and in antimethanogenic potency to that of bromochloromethane (BCM; CH2BrCl). In previous in vivo experiments investigating enteric CH4 abatement, BCM induced abatement in Brahman steers of 93% and 50% after separate 28 and 90 days feeding regimes, respectively (Tomkinset al.2009). However, BCM has been banned from manufacture and use in Australia due to its contribution to ozone depletion. The mode of action of BCM was described previously asinhibition of the methanogenic pathway at the final step by inhibition of the cobamide-dependent methyl transferase stepin release of CH4(Denman et al.2007). In that study inhibition of methanogenesis occurred immediately however the methanogen populations were only found to be reduced after several hours,thus the observed lag in the population decline suggested that the inhibition of methanogenesis directly affected growth of methanogens. They also commented that BCM would be removed from the rumen due to ruminal flow and unless it was replaced CH4 inhibition would decline …
Read more: Same link as above
The following from the toxicology description of Bromoform on Wikipedia caught my eye.
… The substance may be hazardous to the environment, and special attention should be given to aquatic organisms. Its volatility and environmental persistence makes bromoform’s release, either as liquid or vapor, strongly inadvisable.
Bromoform can be absorbed into the body by inhalation and through the skin. The substance is irritating to the respiratory tract, the eyes, and the skin, and may cause effects on the central nervous system and liver, resulting in impaired functions. It is soluble in about 800 parts water and is miscible with alcohol, benzene, chloroform, ether, petroleum ether, acetone, and oils. Its LD50 is 7.2 mmol/kg in mice, or 1.8g/kg. Bromoform is a confirmed animal carcinogen; (ACGIH 2004). Carcinogen category: 3B; (DFG 2004). …
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromoform
The study authors celebrate that Bromoform is not the closely related chemical BCM, which has been banned in Australia because of its ozone depleting potential. But Bromohalides, especially comparatively lightweight halides like Bromoform, are also a potential ozone risk. Having said that, there is substantial natural production of Bromohalides from the ocean, possibly from relatives of the algae which greens want to feed to cows.
It is possible all the Bromoform is broken down in the cow’s stomachs, that this known animal carcinogen doesn’t contaminate the beef in sufficient quantities to present a hazard to humans or to the cows themselves, that this persistent environmental toxin won’t end up poisoning the farmer’s fields, that we can overlook the ozone depleting potential of thousands of acres of fields slowly evaporating eliminated Bromoform into the atmosphere.
But all these potential issues should be carefully reviewed, before rushing this “solution” to reducing agricultural methane into mainstream production.
We all expect climate obsessed governments to be sensible about this, right?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“naturalantimethanogenic”
That alone was worth the read!
I’m going to start adding “ogenic” to strings of words to start sounding really scienciogenic.
You are a great one Eric for ridiculing solutions that try to mitigate the effects of climate change – sitting there in front of your computer as you criticise rather than contribute – because you do not possess the skill set.
Any ignoramus knows that the existing model of industrial meat production is unsustainable – as it is also becoming with crop production in terms of use of dimishing water resources. I suggest you watch this Vice report and then start thinking about some positive coverage of global solutions instead of the snide ctiticism that WUWT seems to promote:
https://youtu.be/QkPBam3qO34
really ivan?
i will agree CAFO and grain feeding cattle is stupid and should be stopped as should rBGH in dairy cows and hormone pellets in ears to “enhance growth”
but cattle running free to eat grass while keeping weeds and bushfire risk low is a good thing..
i had a horse n sheep on 3 acres
both died in the last yr
i am now knee high in grass n weeds that will take far more “polluting” means to control this year
and my tractor doesnt even process it so the dungbeetles get a feed either
ivan,
Yes, an ignoramus, as you demonstrate, knows many things.
Most of the things an ignoramus knows, as you demontrate even better, are wrong.
Ignorant is as ignorant does.
Keep on, ivan.
Ivan, as you should be aware reading my posts, I believe the solution to reducing CO2 emissions, if CO2 turns out to be a problem, is to duplicate the 1970s French nuclear programme on a global scale. Anything else is pointless, possibly lethal messing about.
Ivan,
It might interest you to know that the finest grazing lands in the world, the remaining Tall Grass Prairie regions of the US Great Plains, are too rocky to farm and thus have been spared the plow. We are depleting and wasting our farmland resources, growing corn for ethanol fuel.
Farmers have been turning to low till/no till agriculture to preserve what’s left of their soil from erosion, but that practice too often relies on the wonderfulness of Monsanto agri- chemicals (poisons.) Oh, joy.
Ps Around the world, the very best soils are typically the result of a sort of symbiosis achieved by centuries of grazing by ruminants.
oh ffs! if they want to use seaweed then kelps a lot better..for the cows
but at around 200$au per 20kg bag i doubt they will
and NO I didnt misquote the cost, 4 yrs ago it was 180 a bag at the local fodder store.
theres a talerpa taxifolia they want out of the westlakes marina in adelaide
maybe they should use that?
or maybe not.
ABC radio this week running hot with go vegan to save the planet
and also
lets let all our pets starve or die out to save the planet http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sciencefriction/
which with mandatory desexing to register any dog in sth aus now is well on the way to happening
a mongrel fluffy thing is now selling for 800 or more
decently bred dogs are 1k and up to 4k
Hmm….. This benefit is offset by this……
https://www.livescience.com/63252-climate-change-increases-vibrio-bacteria.html
Still confused, apparently pelletting US prime forest and shipping it to Europe to be burned in biomass power plants is green and ok, whereas rearing cattle, feeding it with crops and eating the cattle afterwards is considered the greatest green sin on earth.
Can anybody explain this discrepancy to me?
Climate extremists are at the
“we had to totally bomb the village to save it” stage of their dead end thinking.
In a similar vein I finally gave up reading a long winded SF book when the protagonist, in order to Earth from slr, built ultra high tech catapults to launch frozen blocks of sea water into orbit.
The energy budget alone made the “solution” crazy. But the act itself was so over-the-top destructively insane as to make me feel sorry for the author.
It was clear that the author represents the angry ignorance that climate fanatics are increasingly displaying.
So an interesting plot and compelling style was wasted on what became a predictable reactionary hate mongering rant.
Termites are a vital part of the ecosystem. They depend on methane producing bacteria in their gut to digest food and survive. One way to kill them is disrupt the methane producing bacteria in their guts. They cannot live without the bacteria in their guts.
Termites also eat dung, if I recall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/termites-are-guardians-of-the-soil.html
So in effect the climate extremists want to treat cattle with massive doses of a carcinogenic anti-biotic. And that antibiotic will kill termites (and possibly other insects) vital to the Earth’s environment. Also, how many people obsessed with “climate change” would be happy finding out their beef is now exposed to an antibiotic, and a carcinogenic antibiotic on top if that?
So once again climate extremists are pushing high risk low reward solutions to act out on their extremism.
Climate extremists are happy to destroy the Earth in order to save it from their delusional obsession.
Hadn’t thought of that – good spot.
Thanks. More and more it is clear that our climate concerned have few concerns about balanced or rational considerations.
The only thing for them is CO2/ghg and “climate”.
Oh how the poor cows suffer.and no, they don’t fart.
Horses fart – in no small part because, for some bizarre reason, their digestion system is best described as the ‘opposite way round’ to that of the cows.
Subsequently they exact much less nutrition from their food and why horse manure is so good for your garden and hence the phrase ‘Eat like a horse’. They really do have to eat masses more stuff to get the same benefit as a cow would do from the same diet.
If you really want to de-stress yourself about methane, simply turn the cows loose to find their own diet.
Contrary to the imaginings of super shit-hot high powered scientists and their teachings, cows are in fact very fussy eaters,
They only eat the bits of grass (the leaves) that minimise methane production.
IOW, DO NOT FORCE THEM to eat nutrient-free pap – cellulosic material, straw, seed heads etc
But how can you do that when human dietary science tells everyone that eating that sort of vegetable junk is supposedly good for you, Fibre fibre and more fibre.
Again, nutrient free diets create nutrient-free people espousing nutrient-free science, education and politics. (Hello Mrs May, how’s Brexit going along this bright sunny morn?)
The Ultimate Insult to the poor bovines comes from feeding them processed starch. In their case all that needs is for the husk of the seeds/grains to be broken. For us it requires to be cooked.
Those of a curious or skeptikal disposition, may wonder what diabetes looks like – apart from seeing streets full of paranoid a & obese zombies wandering around.
At your next barbie, before you throw that fat juicy steak onto the grill, check out the ‘marbling’ within that lump of meat.
THAT is Diabetes.
Marbled beef-steaks mean that that animal had advanced pre-diabetes or full blown actual when it died. Nice huh
The insult goes Full Galactic of course when you realise that, after those animals have been fed processed grains, have endured months of painful belly-ache and gas (due to the acidification of their guts – hence pleasantness like E-Coli 0157), most of that fat is cut off and thrown away.
Simply incredible – the very best bit is actually cut away and more often than not, burned. Usually to make hot water/heat within the abattoir.
Those animals easily have 1000 times the environmental intelligence that we do and they way they are treated makes me want to simultaneously cry AND do something that is beyond unspeakable to pathetic clowns like these.
So they also need to titrate the amounts carefully to achieve desired effects. It’s bizarre the way greens only love technology when it is impracticable as well as expensive and potentially harmful.
Gang Green, doing what they know best how to do; coming up with expensive, possibly environmentally dangerous as well as dangerous for humans, “solutions” to a non-problem. How else can you describe them except as criminally insane?
Why don’t the greenies just feed them all Bean-O???
Join Just a thought..
If divers had to get this stuff from deep under water.
So this stuff is grown under water, harvested under water.
Where does all the Co2 go that is generated pressurising the air for the divers?
More cowflop fakery.
Ruminants use fermentation to help break down coarse plant material.
Educated bozos with degrees and without common sense make the false assumptions that preventing ruminant flatulation somehow prevents plant material from composting naturally.
That plant material will decompose releasing methane, whether inside or outside of animals, is lost on blindered activists that misuse science to promote ignorance.
To set the record straight,Ruminants have methode microbes in there rumens and the microbes digest the cellulose in fodder and this is why methane is released when eating stems, hay and straw and any other fibrous plant material .
The bacteria move through to the next stomach and are absorbed into the blood stream .This is why cattle are far better converters of fodder to energy ie weight gain or milk production than horses.
When commencing feeding fodder beet to stock care has to be taken to slowly increase the ration as acidosis can result as the microbes in the gut have to multiply to digest the sugar rich bulbs and silage or hay should also be fed to supply fibre .
Whether the plant material is “digested” or decomposes external to ruminants through time, microbes and fungi, does not matter. CO₂ and methane are released through the decomposition process.
A point that ignores the facts that ruminants and other coarse fibrous plant eaters, e.g. Lagomorpha, convert foods indigestible to humans into concentrated and nutritious foods.
Of course, researchers feeding bovines concentrated pollutants is just the sort of fact that puts people off from consuming that meat.
OT: Nino trend turning to nuthinburger for now.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.201808.gif
looks like beef and dairy will soon be off the menu.
UC Davis is doing some good research in that regard, as in appropriate animal nutrition.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24085413
They also have shown that emissions from cattle is not worse than that from the transportation sector and that the issue was mischaracterized, only that did not get as publicized as much. I wonder why.
Does no one understand the carbon cycle?
Plants use CO2 from the atmosphere to grow. that CO2 returns to the atmosphere when they are eaten by animals and humans or just die and rot, the result is the same.
The whole premise of a threat from methane from livestock is ill founded.
• The GHG figures for methane are CO2 equivalent tons which is multiplied by 34.
• Methane is short lived in the atmosphere.
• The IR absorption spectrum of methane is already covered by the far more abundant water vapor. Increased methane results in no increase in IR absorption. It is already fully absorbed in the methane absorption spectrum.
• Methane production by animals is not restricted to livestock. Much of the plant material eaten by livestock would be consumed by insects and other wildlife and still produce methane.
• CO2 emissions cited in the process of livestock production are present in the production of all food. How much more or less may be produced in any given instance is highly variable and without clear comparative data the figures presented are meaningless.
This sounds great – it should really please all the animal activists, because to make it work on any sort of scale, farmers would have to move all free-range beasties into feedlots to receive their rations of CH4 inhibitors.
Back in the real world, it is just another useless bit of research by people who would be out of a job if the CAGW (I am so old-school) gravy train was to be derailed.
Anybody foresee the day when we all will have RFID chips implanted in our butts or up our rectums that would automatically purchase GHG offsets from our bank accounts every time we fart?
Much ado about nothing! They’re trying to solve something that isn’t a problem. It’s a lie, based on another lie, wrapped in yet another lie. Methane is volatile, which is why its concentration in the atmosphere is measured in parts per billion; it burns up in any flame, spark or lightning strike. GHG’s do NOT drive global temperature. And even if they did, they would only be giving us more life-giving warmth in an ongoing Ice Age (Hint: 2 “little” white things at the poles).
We should all be thankful for the warmth while we have it. Wishing to prove the Warming Alarmists wrong by having an increase in ice is insane. According to the work of W.S. Broecker (1998), the average interglacial duration is about 11,000 years, and our Holocene is already 11,600 or 17,000, depending on whether or not you count the massive warming before the Younger Dryas. And an end to the Holocene interglacial (not the warmest interglacial of the current Ice Age), would spell disaster for civilization and humanity — killing billions from severe lack of rain and starvation. Preparation for the cold is the most realistic solution. Ideally, we would want to end the current Ice Age (all permanent ice melted).
History has shown time and again that warming produces prosperity (Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm Periods) and cooling produces famines and societal collapses (Greek and Medieval Dark Ages, Little Ice Age).