• Whirlybird
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s also much tastier.

    There are plenty of things that create more greenhouse gases that should be more thoroughly regulated than eating meat.

      • Kayel
        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
        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.