Australian 'super seaweed' supplement to reduce cattle gas emissions wins $1m international prize

Authored by abc.net.au and submitted by Litvi
image for Australian 'super seaweed' supplement to reduce cattle gas emissions wins $1m international prize

A company commercialising a CSIRO-developed, seaweed feed product, which slashes the amount of greenhouse gases cattle burp and fart into the atmosphere, has won a $1 million international prize for its work reshaping the food system.

Key points: Methane emissions from livestock make up about 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions

Methane emissions from livestock make up about 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions A CSIRO-developed seaweed product that reduces greenhouse gases produced by cattle has won a $1 million international prize

A CSIRO-developed seaweed product that reduces greenhouse gases produced by cattle has won a $1 million international prize Future Feed says it will use its winnings to help First Nations communities generate income from the product

CSIRO-affiliated company Future Feed said it would use its Food Planet Prize winnings to create an international commercial fund to help First Nations communities generate income from cultivating and selling the seaweed.

According to the science agency, methane emissions from livestock make up around 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and one cow produces on average as much gas emission as one car.

"As a greenhouse gas, methane is about 28 times more potent in terms of global warming potential than carbon dioxide and lasts much longer in the atmosphere," the CSIRO said on its website.

Like taking '100 million cars off the road'

Future Feed director and CSIRO scientist Michael Battaglia said that when added to cattle feed, the product, which contains Australian 'super seaweed' Asparagopsis, virtually eliminated methane from the animals' bodily emissions.

"We know that just a handful [of the product] per animal per day, or 0.2 per cent of their diet can virtually eliminate 99.9 per cent of methane," Dr Battaglia said.

He said the potential for the product to reduce the world's greenhouse gas footprint, if commercialised, was massive.

"We think we can tackle the dairy and the feedlot part of that pretty simply, which may be 5 megatons in Australia and globally 500 megatons of emissions," Dr Battaglia said.

"That's equivalent to taking 100 million cars off the road.

"But in the long run, if we can start to think about ways to deliver this into grass-fed sectors, the impact is 10 to 100 times more than that."

The seaweed Asparagopsis almost eliminates methane gas from cattle if put in their feed. ( Supplied: Future Feed )

Dr Battaglia said the product was well on the way to being sold on the Australian market.

"We're doing the tests, figuring out the quality assurance processes," he said.

"We're hoping to start to see the first low-carbon products in the market by the end of this year, or early next year, and really start to give consumers that option for the milk and the meat that they like that has a reduced environmental footprint."

He said the company was already working with a number of industry growers, including First Nations groups in South Australia, to grow the seaweed at scale.

"We have agreements between the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation involving the Narungga Nation Aboriginal peoples, and a seaweed-growing company CH4," Dr Battaglia said.

"The intent [is] to develop commercial-scale Asparagopsis cultivation and processing to generate maximum benefit for the Narungga people."

Once on the market, the feed could significantly reduce the carbon footprint of meat and dairy products. ( Supplied: Michele Hamilton )

Dr Battaglia said with the prize's extra funding, they would expand the initiative globally.

"We plan to set up a commercialisation fund for First Nations peoples around the world to be engaged in the production of the seaweed so they can get livelihoods as well as provide the ongoing seaweed supplies," he said.

In awarding the prize from a pool of more than 600 entries, the Food Planet Prize judges noted the product's positive social impacts.

"The technology could also have indirect benefits, including filtering detrimental nutrients in ocean water and creating alternative incomes in developing countries where fisheries are in decline," Dr Battaglia said.

For Future Feed's chief scientist Rob Kinley, the project has been a passion for more than a decade.

Dr Kinley first began looking into how seaweed affected cows' digestive systems while in Nova Scotia, Canada, after a local farmer noticed their cows grew better near the coast.

Rob Kinley says the benefits of the seaweed were discovered almost by accident. ( Supplied: Future Feed )

Dr Kinley then began a quest to find out why, which led him to Australia and, eventually, the Asparagopsis species.

"There's an ingredient in the seaweed that stops the last little process on the way of producing methane from the little microbes that produce it," Dr Battaglia said.

Dr Battaglia said a happy by-product of producing less methane was that the energy then stayed in the animal.

"Instead of going into producing methane, other microbes come along and then produce the good things, the fatty acids and things, that the animal goes on to produce milk or meat with," he said.

As nations across the world prepare for next year's COP 26 Glasgow Climate Change Conference, pressure to lower agricultural emissions across the globe is mounting.

A recent Technical University of Munich study found "social and environmental costs" of emissions were "currently not considered in the cost structure of farmers or the subsequent food chain".

Find more local news Tell us your location and find more local ABC News and information

Looking at German agriculture, it found "other market participants, future generations, and the natural environment" were bearing the cost of meat prices, which did not reflect their cost.

Last year Meat and Livestock Australia said it believed a zero carbon footprint was possible nationally by 2030, and the sector had already significantly slashed emissions.

It said from 2005 to 2016, the beef industry had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 60 per cent.

Saintbaba on December 19th, 2020 at 00:31 UTC »

Oh cool. I read an article about this phenomenon like three or four years ago, and i'd been hoping to see widespread commercial applications of it ever since, but hadn't until now. Glad to see it getting some traction.

autotldr on December 18th, 2020 at 22:10 UTC »

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot)

"There's an ingredient in the seaweed that stops the last little process on the way of producing methane from the little microbes that produce it," Dr Battaglia said.

"Instead of going into producing methane, other microbes come along and then produce the good things, the fatty acids and things, that the animal goes on to produce milk or meat with," he said.

A recent Technical University of Munich study found "Social and environmental costs" of emissions were "Currently not considered in the cost structure of farmers or the subsequent food chain".

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: produce#1 cost#2 emissions#3 meat#4 methane#5

ILikeNeurons on December 18th, 2020 at 22:10 UTC »

Last year Meat and Livestock Australia said it believed a zero carbon footprint was possible nationally by 2030, and the sector had already significantly slashed emissions.

That leaves the remaining sectors. And it's no mystery what needs to happen there.

The consensus among scientists and economists on carbon pricing§ to mitigate climate change is similar to the consensus among climatologists that human activity is responsible for global warming. Putting the price upstream where the fossil fuels enter the market makes it simple, easily enforceable, and bureaucratically lean. Returning the revenue as an equitable dividend offsets any regressive effects of the tax (in fact, ~60% of the public would receive more in dividend than they paid in tax) and allows for a higher carbon price (which is what matters for climate mitigation) because the public isn't willing to pay anywhere near what's needed otherwise. Enacting a border tax would protect domestic businesses from foreign producers not saddled with similar pollution taxes, and also incentivize those countries to enact their own. And a carbon tax accelerates the adoption of every other solution. It's widely regarded as the single most impactful climate mitigation policy.

Conservative estimates are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost us 10% of GDP over 50 years, starting about now. In contrast, carbon taxes may actually boost GDP, if the revenue is returned as an equitable dividend to households (the poor tend to spend money when they've got it, which boosts economic growth) not to mention create jobs and save lives.

Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest (it saves lives at home) and many nations have already started, which can have knock-on effects in other countries. In poor countries, taxing carbon is progressive even before considering smart revenue uses, because only the "rich" can afford fossil fuel in the first place. We won’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels without a carbon tax, the longer we wait to take action the more expensive it will be. Each year we delay costs ~$900 billion.

It's the smart thing to do, and the IPCC report made clear pricing carbon is necessary if we want to meet our 1.5 ºC target.

Contrary to popular belief the main barrier isn't lack of public support. But we can't keep hoping others will solve this problem for us. We need to take the necessary steps to make this dream a reality:

Build the political will for a livable climate. Lobbying works, and you don't need a lot of money to be effective (though it does help to educate yourself on effective tactics). If you're too busy to go through the free training, sign up for text alerts to join coordinated call-in days (it works) or set yourself a monthly reminder to write a letter to your elected officials. According to NASA climatologist and climate activist Dr. James Hansen, becoming an active volunteer with Citizens' Climate Lobby is the most important thing you can do for climate change, and climatologist Dr. Michael Mann calls its Carbon Fee & Dividend policy an example of sort of visionary policy that's needed.

§ The IPCC (AR5, WGIII) Summary for Policymakers states with "high confidence" that tax-based policies are effective at decoupling GHG emissions from GDP (see p. 28). Ch. 15 has a more complete discussion. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax. According to IMF research, most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider economists with expertise in climate economics, economists with expertise in resource economics, or economists from all sectors. It is literally Econ 101. The idea won a Nobel Prize. Thanks to researchers at MIT, you can see for yourself how it compares with other mitigation policies here.

/r/ClimateOffensive

/r/CitizensClimateAUS