[The Washington Post] An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate #feed #seaweed


Kim Chaffee
 

All,

Commercial seaweed production for livestock feed is taking off.  The climate benefits and economics look promising.  Could biochar producers demonstrate synergistic benefits to these new seaweed producers by adding biochar to their seaweed feed?  It might be worth a research trial.

Kim


An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate 


Scientists have discovered that feeding seaweed to cows significantly reduces the amount of methane they produce and burp into the atmosphere, while also helping them produce more milk and grow bigger on less feed. When grown in the ocean, seaweed helps to filter the water, making the idea of farming seaweed to feed to cows a win-win for the environment and farmers.

By Tatiana Schlossberg


https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/11/27/climate-solutions-seaweed-methane/


Download The Washington Post app.




Rick Wilson
 

Kim, I have to believe that harvesting seaweed and delivering it to livestock has to be very expensive? And you have to consider where the livestock is and where the seafood is, not a lot of overlapping supply envelope. Do you think biochar is more cost effective than biochar?

Do you think that biochar is effective as seaweed at reducing methane emissions and improving feed efficiency?  

I have to believe the producing biochar locally, from collected waste, perhaps receiving a tipping fee, would make more economic sense?

Heather Norbert from University of Nebraska is the point person leading efforts to quantify the impact of feeding biochar to beef cows, this lady is a rock star.
It is becoming apparent that biochar reduces methane emissions from cows while increasing feed efficiency.  I’ve attached some recent articles supplied by her for the groups reference. 

Rick Wilson



On Nov 27, 2020, at 10:33 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:

All,
Commercial seaweed production for livestock feed is taking off.  The climate benefits and economics look promising.  Could biochar producers demonstrate synergistic benefits to these new seaweed producers by adding biochar to their seaweed feed?  It might be worth a research trial.
Kim

An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate 

Scientists have discovered that feeding seaweed to cows significantly reduces the amount of methane they produce and burp into the atmosphere, while also helping them produce more milk and grow bigger on less feed. When grown in the ocean, seaweed helps to filter the water, making the idea of farming seaweed to feed to cows a win-win for the environment and farmers.
By Tatiana Schlossberg






mikethewormguy
 

Kim,

My sense is that it would be interesting to blend kelp meal and biochar to improve the overall health of the cow, as well as, reduce methane.

Brown algae, ascophylum nodosum (kelp) contain similar methane reducing bromine compounds found in the red algae discussed in the article..

Kelp, fresh and meal, have a long history of being fed to livestock for general health purposes.

Kelp meal is readily available in bagged quantities by the pallet.

my 2 cents,

Mike

 





Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Ron Larson
 

  Rick and List

I’ve read this moderately carefully - because I see enteric methane release to be a serious global problem.   If biochar got rid of 80% of the CH4, we’d be selling a lot of biochar - and I’d be very happy.  But at 20%, I think these and other papers are saying the benefits are largely for the ranchers and dairies.  And the biochar producers.   But maybe not for the climate?

Is it possible that the (many) groups that are urging less beef are going to start also fighting the biochar industry?

My reading of the data says that the main benefit of biochar is to get the cattle to market sooner.  That the daily release of CH4 per cow is about the same.  Am I correct?  (Talking about all the papers - not just this one.)

Two of the six tables contain a column called “Y/N”.   Can someone give me a definition for that quantity?  None in the paper except that it means yes-no,  and I can’t see a pattern.

Ron



On Nov 27, 2020, at 11:53 PM, Rick Wilson via groups.io <rick012@...> wrote:

Kim, I have to believe that harvesting seaweed and delivering it to livestock has to be very expensive? And you have to consider where the livestock is and where the seafood is, not a lot of overlapping supply envelope. Do you think biochar is more cost effective than biochar?

Do you think that biochar is effective as seaweed at reducing methane emissions and improving feed efficiency?  

I have to believe the producing biochar locally, from collected waste, perhaps receiving a tipping fee, would make more economic sense?

Heather Norbert from University of Nebraska is the point person leading efforts to quantify the impact of feeding biochar to beef cows, this lady is a rock star.
It is becoming apparent that biochar reduces methane emissions from cows while increasing feed efficiency.  I’ve attached some recent articles supplied by her for the groups reference. 

Rick Wilson



On Nov 27, 2020, at 10:33 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:

All,
Commercial seaweed production for livestock feed is taking off.  The climate benefits and economics look promising.  Could biochar producers demonstrate synergistic benefits to these new seaweed producers by adding biochar to their seaweed feed?  It might be worth a research trial.
Kim

An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate 

Scientists have discovered that feeding seaweed to cows significantly reduces the amount of methane they produce and burp into the atmosphere, while also helping them produce more milk and grow bigger on less feed. When grown in the ocean, seaweed helps to filter the water, making the idea of farming seaweed to feed to cows a win-win for the environment and farmers.
By Tatiana Schlossberg





<Nebraska Beef Report_Biochar.pdf><Translational Animal Science_Biochar.pdf>


mikethewormguy
 

Rick

Do you know if the salt used in the research diets was just sodium chloride or sea salt which contains bromine.....?

The biochar used in this study was softwood pine char.  Would hardwood char have the same effect.

Mike






Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Rick Wilson
 

Ron, I agree that if your goal is to reduce methane emissions, you are now wowed by these reports (I read 10%+ CH4 reduction kind of number).

The Y/N is some relative statistical measure, which I did not mind meld with.  Agree it is confusing.

My perspective, we need to find some place in the biochar value chain where capitalistic profits are generated, so that biochar enters the ecosystem.  Growing larger cattle and making more money per steer is one possibility. 

I personally am not optimistic that anyone is going to pay for methane reduction.  If there is some government mandate, or carbon credits, of course 80% reduction will make things happen.
So we are left with capitalism to drive behaviors. 

The consistent themes in these two papers is that Digestibility of the feed increased.  At the same time, methane production decreased.  Methane production consumes a lot of the feedstock Energy.
So the argument is the steers are making greater use of the feed they take in.  
Body weight gain, and carcus data (fat) are not available, but if we were we could claim larger (and more valuable) steers.

IF, the steers get larger, the farmer buys biochar, feeds them to the steer, makes money from larger animals, the biochar producer makes money and stays in business, and all that biochar ends up in the manure which ends up in the soil.

And we know that biochar causes a carbon sequestration acceleration function in the soil.

QED

Rick


On Nov 28, 2020, at 10:35 AM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

  Rick and List

I’ve read this moderately carefully - because I see enteric methane release to be a serious global problem.   If biochar got rid of 80% of the CH4, we’d be selling a lot of biochar - and I’d be very happy.  But at 20%, I think these and other papers are saying the benefits are largely for the ranchers and dairies.  And the biochar producers.   But maybe not for the climate?

Is it possible that the (many) groups that are urging less beef are going to start also fighting the biochar industry?

My reading of the data says that the main benefit of biochar is to get the cattle to market sooner.  That the daily release of CH4 per cow is about the same.  Am I correct?  (Talking about all the papers - not just this one.)

Two of the six tables contain a column called “Y/N”.   Can someone give me a definition for that quantity?  None in the paper except that it means yes-no,  and I can’t see a pattern.

Ron



On Nov 27, 2020, at 11:53 PM, Rick Wilson via groups.io <rick012@...> wrote:

Kim, I have to believe that harvesting seaweed and delivering it to livestock has to be very expensive? And you have to consider where the livestock is and where the seafood is, not a lot of overlapping supply envelope. Do you think biochar is more cost effective than biochar?

Do you think that biochar is effective as seaweed at reducing methane emissions and improving feed efficiency?  

I have to believe the producing biochar locally, from collected waste, perhaps receiving a tipping fee, would make more economic sense?

Heather Norbert from University of Nebraska is the point person leading efforts to quantify the impact of feeding biochar to beef cows, this lady is a rock star.
It is becoming apparent that biochar reduces methane emissions from cows while increasing feed efficiency.  I’ve attached some recent articles supplied by her for the groups reference. 

Rick Wilson



On Nov 27, 2020, at 10:33 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:

All,
Commercial seaweed production for livestock feed is taking off.  The climate benefits and economics look promising.  Could biochar producers demonstrate synergistic benefits to these new seaweed producers by adding biochar to their seaweed feed?  It might be worth a research trial.
Kim

An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate 

Scientists have discovered that feeding seaweed to cows significantly reduces the amount of methane they produce and burp into the atmosphere, while also helping them produce more milk and grow bigger on less feed. When grown in the ocean, seaweed helps to filter the water, making the idea of farming seaweed to feed to cows a win-win for the environment and farmers.
By Tatiana Schlossberg





<Nebraska Beef Report_Biochar.pdf><Translational Animal Science_Biochar.pdf>



Kelpie Wilson
 

Rick,
It is not just bigger steers. It is less mortality. Mortality is a huge problem in feedlots. Every dead animal is a loss of $1500 or more. The study in Alberta found a drastic decrease in animal mortality. Char improves animal health. If you are eating beef, don't you want it to come from a healthy steer, not one that is sick from the unnatural diet and crowded conditions found in a feedlot?
-Kelpie
--
Email: kelpiew@...
Mobile: 541-218-9890
Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson


Rick Wilson
 

Hi Kelpie, yes I’ve heard that reduced mortality is a benefit from using biochar.  Is the Alberta study available?
Hope you are well!
Rick

On Nov 30, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Kelpie Wilson <kelpiew@...> wrote:

Rick,
It is not just bigger steers. It is less mortality. Mortality is a huge problem in feedlots. Every dead animal is a loss of $1500 or more. The study in Alberta found a drastic decrease in animal mortality. Char improves animal health. If you are eating beef, don't you want it to come from a healthy steer, not one that is sick from the unnatural diet and crowded conditions found in a feedlot?
-Kelpie
--
Email: kelpiew@...
Mobile: 541-218-9890
Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson


Teel, Wayne
 

Kelpie and Rick,

 

So how much biochar is needed to do this?  I have heard 1%, but am not sure if that is volume or weight of feed.  If 1% by weight and a steer eats 40lbs/day (18 kilos) then over the course of 6 months in the feedlot, about the average time a steer spends in the lot, you would need 72 pounds of biochar (180 days x 0.4 pounds).  If a feedlot has 10,000 animals at any given time, that is 4000 lbs/day or 720,000 pounds over 180 days.  Biochar Now in Colorado charges over $200/cubic yard, and I don’t know how heavy that is, but is far less than a ton.  I have measured the density of my biochar at 0.27g/cubic cm, so a cubic yard would be 456 pounds.  That would $877/ton and you need 36 tons over 6 months, or about $31,500 for the biochar.  Do you think this is economically viable?  I suspect that depends on how many steers you save, how much extra weight they gain, and if you can even find a reliable source of biochar close by.  A feedlot in Colorado might be the place to start?

 

Wayne

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kelpie Wilson
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:41 PM
To: Biochar Group <main@biochar.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [The Washington Post] An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Rick,

It is not just bigger steers. It is less mortality. Mortality is a huge problem in feedlots. Every dead animal is a loss of $1500 or more. The study in Alberta found a drastic decrease in animal mortality. Char improves animal health. If you are eating beef, don't you want it to come from a healthy steer, not one that is sick from the unnatural diet and crowded conditions found in a feedlot?

-Kelpie

--

Ms.Kelpie Wilson
Wilson Biochar Associates

Email: kelpiew@...
Mobile: 541-218-9890

Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson


Rick Wilson
 

Wayne, the studies seem to triangulate around an optimum of 0.8% of feed dry weight.   Rick

On Nov 30, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Teel, Wayne <teelws@...> wrote:

Kelpie and Rick,
 
So how much biochar is needed to do this?  I have heard 1%, but am not sure if that is volume or weight of feed.  If 1% by weight and a steer eats 40lbs/day (18 kilos) then over the course of 6 months in the feedlot, about the average time a steer spends in the lot, you would need 72 pounds of biochar (180 days x 0.4 pounds).  If a feedlot has 10,000 animals at any given time, that is 4000 lbs/day or 720,000 pounds over 180 days.  Biochar Now in Colorado charges over $200/cubic yard, and I don’t know how heavy that is, but is far less than a ton.  I have measured the density of my biochar at 0.27g/cubic cm, so a cubic yard would be 456 pounds.  That would $877/ton and you need 36 tons over 6 months, or about $31,500 for the biochar.  Do you think this is economically viable?  I suspect that depends on how many steers you save, how much extra weight they gain, and if you can even find a reliable source of biochar close by.  A feedlot in Colorado might be the place to start?
 
Wayne
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kelpie Wilson
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:41 PM
To: Biochar Group <main@biochar.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [The Washington Post] An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate
 
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Rick, 
It is not just bigger steers. It is less mortality. Mortality is a huge problem in feedlots. Every dead animal is a loss of $1500 or more. The study in Alberta found a drastic decrease in animal mortality. Char improves animal health. If you are eating beef, don't you want it to come from a healthy steer, not one that is sick from the unnatural diet and crowded conditions found in a feedlot?
-Kelpie
-- 
Email: kelpiew@...
Mobile: 541-218-9890
Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson



Frank Strie
 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 6:51 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [The Washington Post] An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate

 

Wayne, the studies seem to triangulate around an optimum of 0.8% of feed dry weight.   Rick



On Nov 30, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Teel, Wayne <teelws@...> wrote:

 

Kelpie and Rick,

 

So how much biochar is needed to do this?  I have heard 1%, but am not sure if that is volume or weight of feed.  If 1% by weight and a steer eats 40lbs/day (18 kilos) then over the course of 6 months in the feedlot, about the average time a steer spends in the lot, you would need 72 pounds of biochar (180 days x 0.4 pounds).  If a feedlot has 10,000 animals at any given time, that is 4000 lbs/day or 720,000 pounds over 180 days.  Biochar Now in Colorado charges over $200/cubic yard, and I don’t know how heavy that is, but is far less than a ton.  I have measured the density of my biochar at 0.27g/cubic cm, so a cubic yard would be 456 pounds.  That would $877/ton and you need 36 tons over 6 months, or about $31,500 for the biochar.  Do you think this is economically viable?  I suspect that depends on how many steers you save, how much extra weight they gain, and if you can even find a reliable source of biochar close by.  A feedlot in Colorado might be the place to start?

 

Wayne

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kelpie Wilson
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:41 PM
To: Biochar Group <main@biochar.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [The Washington Post] An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Rick, 

It is not just bigger steers. It is less mortality. Mortality is a huge problem in feedlots. Every dead animal is a loss of $1500 or more. The study in Alberta found a drastic decrease in animal mortality. Char improves animal health. If you are eating beef, don't you want it to come from a healthy steer, not one that is sick from the unnatural diet and crowded conditions found in a feedlot?

-Kelpie

-- 

Email: kelpiew@...
Mobile: 541-218-9890

Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson

 


Rick Wilson
 

Thanks Frank, very impressive!  How deep is the market?  Best, Rick

On Nov 30, 2020, at 1:29 PM, Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

These links  may assist in the volume and reasons why char-line FeedChar is successfully used in Austria / Europe  
https://www.char-line.com/au/futterkohle/futterkohle-fuer-kaelber
 
 
 
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 6:51 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [The Washington Post] An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate
 
Wayne, the studies seem to triangulate around an optimum of 0.8% of feed dry weight.   Rick


On Nov 30, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Teel, Wayne <teelws@...> wrote:
 
Kelpie and Rick,
 
So how much biochar is needed to do this?  I have heard 1%, but am not sure if that is volume or weight of feed.  If 1% by weight and a steer eats 40lbs/day (18 kilos) then over the course of 6 months in the feedlot, about the average time a steer spends in the lot, you would need 72 pounds of biochar (180 days x 0.4 pounds).  If a feedlot has 10,000 animals at any given time, that is 4000 lbs/day or 720,000 pounds over 180 days.  Biochar Now in Colorado charges over $200/cubic yard, and I don’t know how heavy that is, but is far less than a ton.  I have measured the density of my biochar at 0.27g/cubic cm, so a cubic yard would be 456 pounds.  That would $877/ton and you need 36 tons over 6 months, or about $31,500 for the biochar.  Do you think this is economically viable?  I suspect that depends on how many steers you save, how much extra weight they gain, and if you can even find a reliable source of biochar close by.  A feedlot in Colorado might be the place to start?
 
Wayne
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kelpie Wilson
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:41 PM
To: Biochar Group <main@biochar.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [The Washington Post] An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate
 
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Rick, 
It is not just bigger steers. It is less mortality. Mortality is a huge problem in feedlots. Every dead animal is a loss of $1500 or more. The study in Alberta found a drastic decrease in animal mortality. Char improves animal health. If you are eating beef, don't you want it to come from a healthy steer, not one that is sick from the unnatural diet and crowded conditions found in a feedlot?
-Kelpie
-- 
Email: kelpiew@...
Mobile: 541-218-9890
Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson
 



Rick Wilson
 

Ron, responding to your 11/29 10.05 pm note.

The Winders paper makes the claim that biochar reduces methane production. It is true they show a P value of 0.13, which a good statistician would not consider statistically significant (preferring a value of < 0.05)
They probably assert significant because the observation was corroborated by the Hansen, Long, and Saleem references.

The tough part, improvements on the order of 10-15% may not be large enough for a commercial grower to see it, given you have to take averages, similar to biochar in soils. 

I’m not sure why you believe there will be more cattle, heavier ones perhaps?

Obviously feed lots do not do the environment, or the animals, much of a favor.  Just like monoculture / tilling / chemical fertilizer farming.  
Changing these practices, is tough.  
If your livelihood depended in it, you would personally not be keen to shut down your operations for several years while you transition, and pull the rug out from under your ability to pay your mortgage and send your kids to college.
That is the problem. ..

Rick

On Nov 29, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Tom;
       I am again bounced from the list.  Got a message immediately after sending this, saying in part:
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 510 5.1.1 Your email address, rongretlarson@..., is not subscribed to that group. To subscribe, send an email to main+subscribe@Biochar.groups.io, or visit https://Biochar.groups.io/g/main

Rick Hoekstra
Sorry.  Message meant for a different Rick.  I wasn’t paying attention to what my computer was doing.  I think I just hit reply

Rick. Wilson
Tom will fix.  You have advance notice.

Ron


On Nov 29, 2020, at 10:05 PM, Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Rick;  cc list

Down below,  you said (my emphasis) :  "At the same time, methane production decreased"

But the paper said:  "In the current trial, with all three treatments analyzed, CH4 production was not statistically reduced. However, CH4 reported as g/d and g/kg DMI tended (P ≤ 0.13) to be reduced by biochar inclusion, 9.1% and 8.4%, respectively, when analyzed as two treatments, with and without biochar in the diet. 

So I am confused on how much CH4 is really reduced.  It seems likely there will be more cattle - hence more CH4, not less.  

I am fully supportive of using this as a market for helping advance biochar,  but I don’t want to hear advocates of fewer cattle blame biochar for there being more cattle.

Are you suggesting that the extra char in the manure (and therefore extra NPP) always balances out more cattle?

My main point is that those now rearing cattle - and concerned about CH4, should  be able to find new income streams with combined biochar - ernegy - NPP and land value increases.  Cattle owners should be thinking of biochar in much larger quantities.

QED?

Ron

On Nov 29, 2020, at 2:18 PM, Rick Wilson via groups.io <rick012@...> wrote:

Ron, I agree that if your goal is to reduce methane emissions, you are now wowed by these reports (I read 10%+ CH4 reduction kind of number).

The Y/N is some relative statistical measure, which I did not mind meld with.  Agree it is confusing.

My perspective, we need to find some place in the biochar value chain where capitalistic profits are generated, so that biochar enters the ecosystem.  Growing larger cattle and making more money per steer is one possibility. 

I personally am not optimistic that anyone is going to pay for methane reduction.  If there is some government mandate, or carbon credits, of course 80% reduction will make things happen.
So we are left with capitalism to drive behaviors. 

The consistent themes in these two papers is that Digestibility of the feed increased.  At the same time, methane production decreased.  Methane production consumes a lot of the feedstock Energy.
So the argument is the steers are making greater use of the feed they take in.  
Body weight gain, and carcus data (fat) are not available, but if we were we could claim larger (and more valuable) steers.

IF, the steers get larger, the farmer buys biochar, feeds them to the steer, makes money from larger animals, the biochar producer makes money and stays in business, and all that biochar ends up in the manure which ends up in the soil.

And we know that biochar causes a carbon sequestration acceleration function in the soil.

QED

Rick


On Nov 28, 2020, at 10:35 AM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

  Rick and List

I’ve read this moderately carefully - because I see enteric methane release to be a serious global problem.   If biochar got rid of 80% of the CH4, we’d be selling a lot of biochar - and I’d be very happy.  But at 20%, I think these and other papers are saying the benefits are largely for the ranchers and dairies.  And the biochar producers.   But maybe not for the climate?

Is it possible that the (many) groups that are urging less beef are going to start also fighting the biochar industry?

My reading of the data says that the main benefit of biochar is to get the cattle to market sooner.  That the daily release of CH4 per cow is about the same.  Am I correct?  (Talking about all the papers - not just this one.)

Two of the six tables contain a column called “Y/N”.   Can someone give me a definition for that quantity?  None in the paper except that it means yes-no,  and I can’t see a pattern.

Ron



On Nov 27, 2020, at 11:53 PM, Rick Wilson via groups.io <rick012@...> wrote:

Kim, I have to believe that harvesting seaweed and delivering it to livestock has to be very expensive? And you have to consider where the livestock is and where the seafood is, not a lot of overlapping supply envelope. Do you think biochar is more cost effective than biochar?

Do you think that biochar is effective as seaweed at reducing methane emissions and improving feed efficiency?  

I have to believe the producing biochar locally, from collected waste, perhaps receiving a tipping fee, would make more economic sense?

Heather Norbert from University of Nebraska is the point person leading efforts to quantify the impact of feeding biochar to beef cows, this lady is a rock star.
It is becoming apparent that biochar reduces methane emissions from cows while increasing feed efficiency.  I’ve attached some recent articles supplied by her for the groups reference. 

Rick Wilson



On Nov 27, 2020, at 10:33 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:

All,
Commercial seaweed production for livestock feed is taking off.  The climate benefits and economics look promising.  Could biochar producers demonstrate synergistic benefits to these new seaweed producers by adding biochar to their seaweed feed?  It might be worth a research trial.
Kim

An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate 

Scientists have discovered that feeding seaweed to cows significantly reduces the amount of methane they produce and burp into the atmosphere, while also helping them produce more milk and grow bigger on less feed. When grown in the ocean, seaweed helps to filter the water, making the idea of farming seaweed to feed to cows a win-win for the environment and farmers.
By Tatiana Schlossberg





<Nebraska Beef Report_Biochar.pdf><Translational Animal Science_Biochar.pdf>






Geoff Thomas
 

I hope everyone is remembering the comments of Stephen Joseph on this issue, and the Videos of Doug Pow done quite some years ago,first one -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JPoItRWYSQ (it is easier to just google Doug Pow to get the whole range of his work).

Sure it wasn’t invented in America, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

On 28 Nov 2020, at 4:53 pm, Rick Wilson via groups.io <rick012@...> wrote:

Kim, I have to believe that harvesting seaweed and delivering it to livestock has to be very expensive? And you have to consider where the livestock is and where the seafood is, not a lot of overlapping supply envelope. Do you think biochar is more cost effective than biochar?

Do you think that biochar is effective as seaweed at reducing methane emissions and improving feed efficiency?  

I have to believe the producing biochar locally, from collected waste, perhaps receiving a tipping fee, would make more economic sense?

Heather Norbert from University of Nebraska is the point person leading efforts to quantify the impact of feeding biochar to beef cows, this lady is a rock star.
It is becoming apparent that biochar reduces methane emissions from cows while increasing feed efficiency.  I’ve attached some recent articles supplied by her for the groups reference. 

Rick Wilson



On Nov 27, 2020, at 10:33 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:

All,
Commercial seaweed production for livestock feed is taking off.  The climate benefits and economics look promising.  Could biochar producers demonstrate synergistic benefits to these new seaweed producers by adding biochar to their seaweed feed? It might be worth a research trial.
Kim

An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate 

Scientists have discovered that feeding seaweed to cows significantly reduces the amount of methane they produce and burp into the atmosphere, while also helping them produce more milk and grow bigger on less feed. When grown in the ocean, seaweed helps to filter the water, making the idea of farming seaweed to feed to cows a win-win for the environment and farmers.
By Tatiana Schlossberg





<Nebraska Beef Report_Biochar.pdf><Translational Animal Science_Biochar.pdf>


Geoff Thomas
 


On 1 Dec 2020, at 4:52 pm, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:

I hope everyone is remembering the comments of Stephen Joseph on this issue, and the Videos of Doug Pow done quite some years ago,first one -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JPoItRWYSQ (it is easier to just google Doug Pow to get the whole range of his work).

Sure it wasn’t invented in America, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

On 28 Nov 2020, at 4:53 pm, Rick Wilson via groups.io <rick012@...> wrote:

Kim, I have to believe that harvesting seaweed and delivering it to livestock has to be very expensive? And you have to consider where the livestock is and where the seafood is, not a lot of overlapping supply envelope. Do you think biochar is more cost effective than biochar?

Do you think that biochar is effective as seaweed at reducing methane emissions and improving feed efficiency?  

I have to believe the producing biochar locally, from collected waste, perhaps receiving a tipping fee, would make more economic sense?

Heather Norbert from University of Nebraska is the point person leading efforts to quantify the impact of feeding biochar to beef cows, this lady is a rock star.
It is becoming apparent that biochar reduces methane emissions from cows while increasing feed efficiency.  I’ve attached some recent articles supplied by her for the groups reference. 

Rick Wilson



On Nov 27, 2020, at 10:33 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:

All,
Commercial seaweed production for livestock feed is taking off.  The climate benefits and economics look promising.  Could biochar producers demonstrate synergistic benefits to these new seaweed producers by adding biochar to their seaweed feed? It might be worth a research trial.
Kim

An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate 

Scientists have discovered that feeding seaweed to cows significantly reduces the amount of methane they produce and burp into the atmosphere, while also helping them produce more milk and grow bigger on less feed. When grown in the ocean, seaweed helps to filter the water, making the idea of farming seaweed to feed to cows a win-win for the environment and farmers.
By Tatiana Schlossberg





<Nebraska Beef Report_Biochar.pdf><Translational Animal Science_Biochar.pdf>



Geoff Thomas
 


On 1 Dec 2020, at 4:52 pm, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:

I hope everyone is remembering the comments of Stephen Joseph on this issue, and the Videos of Doug Pow done quite some years ago,first one -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JPoItRWYSQ (it is easier to just google Doug Pow to get the whole range of his work).

Sure it wasn’t invented in America, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

On 28 Nov 2020, at 4:53 pm, Rick Wilson via groups.io <rick012@...> wrote:

Kim, I have to believe that harvesting seaweed and delivering it to livestock has to be very expensive? And you have to consider where the livestock is and where the seafood is, not a lot of overlapping supply envelope. Do you think biochar is more cost effective than biochar?

Do you think that biochar is effective as seaweed at reducing methane emissions and improving feed efficiency?  

I have to believe the producing biochar locally, from collected waste, perhaps receiving a tipping fee, would make more economic sense?

Heather Norbert from University of Nebraska is the point person leading efforts to quantify the impact of feeding biochar to beef cows, this lady is a rock star.
It is becoming apparent that biochar reduces methane emissions from cows while increasing feed efficiency.  I’ve attached some recent articles supplied by her for the groups reference. 

Rick Wilson



On Nov 27, 2020, at 10:33 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:

All,
Commercial seaweed production for livestock feed is taking off.  The climate benefits and economics look promising.  Could biochar producers demonstrate synergistic benefits to these new seaweed producers by adding biochar to their seaweed feed? It might be worth a research trial.
Kim

An unusual snack for cows, a powerful fix for climate 

Scientists have discovered that feeding seaweed to cows significantly reduces the amount of methane they produce and burp into the atmosphere, while also helping them produce more milk and grow bigger on less feed. When grown in the ocean, seaweed helps to filter the water, making the idea of farming seaweed to feed to cows a win-win for the environment and farmers.
By Tatiana Schlossberg





<Nebraska Beef Report_Biochar.pdf><Translational Animal Science_Biochar.pdf>



Einar Stuve
 

Hi
In Europe biochar are allowed as animal feed, and I believe that biochar as a feed additive is the biggest market for biochar. The biochar relives the gut on most farmed animals. The animals need to be productive and we feed them as much as they will eat. This often gives loose manure and trouble with the digestion. A small amount of biochar in the cereal for chicken, turkey, pigs, milking cows, calves and beef cattle relive the gut by binding some toxins, that cause the diarrhea. The beauty is that the extra cost for the individual farmer is relatively small, since the biochar amount is small. The farmer gets more healthy animals and this pays for the biochar. The other good part is that the biochar is still unchanged and will improve the quality of the manure as a fertilizer and soil improver. 

In Norway the farmer associations have made a contract with the government to cut CO2e emissions with 5 000 000 tons of CO2e within 10 years. The farmers have 8 measures on a list they will give priority. Number one is to introduce a climate calculator for every individual farm. This will help us understanding our own production and identifying what we have to do on our own farm to achieve the goals. Biochar is also on the list of focus areas. The Norwegian Biochar association are now working with the farmers association how to implement biochar in the climate calculator


Rick Wilson
 

MIke, I do not know if the research diets used sea salt.  Do you think bromine is important? Rick


On Nov 28, 2020, at 7:56 PM, mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy@...> wrote:

Rick

Do you know if the salt used in the research diets was just sodium chloride or sea salt which contains bromine.....?

The biochar used in this study was softwood pine char.  Would hardwood char have the same effect.

Mike






Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone



mikethewormguy
 

Rick,

It is a question I have.  It is the bromoform molecule that appears to be an active ingredient in red algae for methane disruption.

Phytonutrients is an interesting area to study in livestock health and metabolism.  

Am curious if there is a synergistic nexus between wood chars and phytonutrients by living in the world of .and. rather than .or.  .....

Mike.


Rick Wilson
 

Mike, I see the claim, over 90% reduction in methane.  It's hard to believe given the magnitude of the reduction. 
Do you know if there are any studies published in peer-reviewed journals that speak to the magnitude of improvement?

Rick

On Dec 1, 2020, at 6:51 PM, mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy@...> wrote:

Rick,

It is a question I have.  It is the bromoform molecule that appears to be an active ingredient in red algae for methane disruption.

Phytonutrients is an interesting area to study in livestock health and metabolism.  

Am curious if there is a synergistic nexus between wood chars and phytonutrients by living in the world of .and. rather than .or.  .....

Mike.