I applaud your skill and dedication and the cause to which it is being applied
but
please, for the animals' sake, don't rush to implement interference in a system that is 100m+ years old before you have seen its effect on several generations of animals
Microbiomes are not toys
I assumed so, the question is whether you can measure enough of the zillions of interactions to be certain that you are not engineering a line of animals producing fine meat while internalising the horrific conditions they currently "live" under on feedlots
The basic answer is to eat WAY less meat
Can you clarify what you mean here? From the context of your post it sounds to me like you’re worried about the effect of microbial interactions on what the cow absorbs from them.
so when we start modifying the gut, either deliberately or through the foods we eat, that affects a whole lot of other systems, I'd hate to think that the animal's mental health pays for our less destructive meat
I'm more interested in the relationship between the gut biome and the rest of the animals system. We know that our own gut and brain are connected and each influences the other, including mood and mental health
As one who has seen my cows grieve over a dead calf, their state of mind matters a lot
The core of our approach is redirecting H2 from CH4 production to fatty acid production. From what I know of neurotransmitter metabolism by the gut, this chiefly involves amino acid metabolic pathways, which we are not concerned with. I only know of one mouse study looking at fatty acids.
I am exploiting them and abusing them by… trying to figure out how to make their burps less toxic for the atmosphere? Is this your line of thinking, bud
Great article. I rolled my eyes when I saw the headline, thinking "oh god another kelp article". But I was so relieved when I saw that, not only was it not about kelp, you pointed out the impossibility of scaling that "solution" 👏
I am not skeptical about your reasearch, but skeptical about how it's beeing used.
Using Bovaer or similar, do reduce how much methane cows produce. It does however not change how much they eat and how much land needed to grow food to the animals.
It does not motivate farmers to allow cows .......
One potential knock-on effect of our technology is that diverting hydrogen to fatty acids will result in less plant biomass required to feed an animal, which will result in less land use per animal.
Another problem with Bovaer: the 30% reduction in methane only lasts 2.5 hours and the overall methane reduction is only 7% over the life of the animal!
I am in a debate about bovaer and am looking for something I can use to show that this overall lifetime reduction is only 7%.
Can you help me find a paper or an article that can help me document this?
If not, then have a great day 😀
It looks like the 7% figure is from here and just in grazing dairy cows, see slide 13. It does look like Bovaer is actually plenty more effective than that - 30% reduction over 12wk in growing beef cattle and 7-22% over 24hr in grazing/dry dairy cows https://assets.gov.ie/277380/af9217b6-3ca0-47e9-8c79-8125d35f4688.pdf
We're hoping it reduces methane production in the gut permanently. I don't know how much less they'll eat or exactly how it'll affect the quality or quantity of the final products, only that theoretically it will make them eat less and not affect quality or quantity much!
We see this already in cows, a study from 2017 showed that the community of gut microbes seem to reduce methane production while still maintaining yield and we see a shift in SCFAs. Getting this to happen more reliably would be a a huge step forward. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5313486/
I reality, politicians just drop to pasure-raise them. Just put them in factories.
This is not in any way to blame your research, just to say politicians suck huge!
...open air. Where I live, Denmark, we have decided to use bovaer, and in order to secure enough uptake, we can put the cows in factories.
We then drop to grow food to the cows here, since manure kills our oceans. Instead we decide to import much more soy from rain forest areas.
Dispiriting to see such brilliant minds working to mitigate the effects of an industry that would not survive were it not enjoying huge subsidies from govts around the world.
Instead, tax animal farming at levels commensurate with the damage it does to the planet, our health and the animals
But we aren't. Do you have any concerns that your (scientifically excellent) work is not inadvertently creating a sense that we can keep eating beef because science will ride to our rescue in the end?
We can and should radically decrease our exploitation thereof. There are a number of industries and number of societal needs for which I think it’s not possible to fully eliminate it, though.
The veterinary feed industry (especially needs for captive obligate carnivores that cannot be released) as well as the dietary needs of people who require meat in their diet for health reasons (who are not numerous, but do exist) are the two that come to mind immediately.
There are specially formulated vegan foods for the most common of captive obligate carnivores (felis silvestris catus). Since that is possible, it seems strange that we cannot discover a way to do the same for the tiny percentage of humans that are thought to require meat for health reasons.
Yes, I’ve heard. I am extremely loath to extrapolate results from a small animal domesticated over thousands of years to larger wild ones. Humans, being omnivores, would be easier to deal with.
I’m not going to tell you it’s impossible because nobody knows that answer, and I hope someone tries.
I tried that. Seemed to work for me but it was expensive. I think it's the Taurine that we're largely missing and that has huge knock on effects on bile health and poor Glutathione synthesis. Had to keep a psudocarnivore diet & high protein keto or i'd get bad inflammation and leg Paralysis.
This is a solution aimed at pasture-raised cattle (90% of cattle), whom are not generally accessible by methods that have to be continuously applied like these.
I understand. I figured you were looking at some kind of transferable inoculation. I'd be curious how durable the gene engineered bacterium is across generations vs taking some cows and doing that process instead. I figure you're letting it spread thru herd as they graze & expect it to be passed on.
Comments
it's the Law
but
please, for the animals' sake, don't rush to implement interference in a system that is 100m+ years old before you have seen its effect on several generations of animals
Microbiomes are not toys
The basic answer is to eat WAY less meat
As one who has seen my cows grieve over a dead calf, their state of mind matters a lot
Now do rice 😁
Using Bovaer or similar, do reduce how much methane cows produce. It does however not change how much they eat and how much land needed to grow food to the animals.
It does not motivate farmers to allow cows .......
Can you help me find a paper or an article that can help me document this?
If not, then have a great day 😀
Also: How much less will they eat, and does that affect the quality or quantity of the final products?
This is not in any way to blame your research, just to say politicians suck huge!
We then drop to grow food to the cows here, since manure kills our oceans. Instead we decide to import much more soy from rain forest areas.
Instead, tax animal farming at levels commensurate with the damage it does to the planet, our health and the animals
A bit like CCS and oil consumption?
I’m not going to tell you it’s impossible because nobody knows that answer, and I hope someone tries.