"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.
Not it doesn’t, and that was basically industry propaganda: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/13/seaweed-cow-feed-trial-fails-methane-reduction-australia
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.