Can We Fight Climate Change By Bioengineering a Better Cow? (msn.com) 113
One of Slashdot's most-visited stories of all time was the 2016 story asking: Can Cow Backpacks Reduce Global Methane Emissions?
"Enteric fermentation," or livestock's digestive process, accounts for 22 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, and the manure they produce makes up eight percent more, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency... Methane, like carbon, is a greenhouse gas, but methane's global warming impact per molecule is 25 times greater than carbon's, according to the EPA.
Cow methane still "heats the Earth more than every flight across the world combined," the Washington Post added today, reporting on a new $30 million genetic engineering experiment undertaken by the Innovative Genomics Institute and the University of California at Davis.
Its mission: to transform a cow's gut so it no longer releases methane. Using tools that snip and transfer DNA, researchers plan to genetically engineer microbes in the cow stomach to eliminate those emissions. If they succeed, they could wipe out the world's largest human-made source of methane and help change the trajectory of planetary warming... The average cow produces around 220 pounds of methane per year, or around half the emissions of an average car; cows are currently responsible for around 4 percent of global warming, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization...
Scientists envision a kind of probiotic pill, given to the cow at birth, that can transform its microbiome permanently...
The current project doesn't target only a particular cow species — it takes aim at the microbiome itself, offering a solution that could apply to all of them. Brad Ringeisen, executive director at the genomics institute, cut his teeth running biotechnology at the U.S. defense research agency DARPA, which helped pioneer transformative innovations including the internet, miniaturized GPS, stealth aircraft and the computer mouse. "I'm taking the DARPA mentality here," he said. "Let's solve it for all cows, not just a fraction of the cows." ...]
"There's no reason a cow has to produce methane," Ringeisen said. So what if scientists could just ... turn it off?
"I personally think this is the one that can make the biggest impact in the world," Ringeisen said. "Say you could wave a magic wand and eliminate all those emissions."
The article says that currently the scientists are feeding red-seaweed oil to a cow to measure the changes, to prepare for their final goal: "replicate those changes with gene editing." (They're using machine learning to reassemble the hundreds of pieces of each miccroorganism's DNA, so they can understand which changes they need to make with their early-intervention probiotic.) Such a probiotic could also improve a farm's productivity. Cows can lose up to 12 percent of their energy through burping up methane; other ruminants, like sheep and goats, also lose energy in this way. "If there is a way to redirect that hydrogen and convert it into milk, meat, wool — it would be much more accepted by farmers," said Ermias Kebreab [a professor of animal science at UC-Davis].
Early treatments will be tested on the cows at Davis, with researchers tracking their burps to evaluate the drop-off in methane emissions. There is still a long way to go. While scientists have proved that they can gene-edit microbes, researchers have so far only shown that they can edit a small fraction of the microbes in the cow gut — or the human gut, for that matter. Institute researchers are developing microbial gene-editing tools, even as they are mapping the species of the microbiome. They are building the plane while flying it.
The teams have received enough funding for seven years of research. The project started last year, and they hope to have a trial treatment ready for testing in cows in the next two years.
Cow methane still "heats the Earth more than every flight across the world combined," the Washington Post added today, reporting on a new $30 million genetic engineering experiment undertaken by the Innovative Genomics Institute and the University of California at Davis.
Its mission: to transform a cow's gut so it no longer releases methane. Using tools that snip and transfer DNA, researchers plan to genetically engineer microbes in the cow stomach to eliminate those emissions. If they succeed, they could wipe out the world's largest human-made source of methane and help change the trajectory of planetary warming... The average cow produces around 220 pounds of methane per year, or around half the emissions of an average car; cows are currently responsible for around 4 percent of global warming, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization...
Scientists envision a kind of probiotic pill, given to the cow at birth, that can transform its microbiome permanently...
The current project doesn't target only a particular cow species — it takes aim at the microbiome itself, offering a solution that could apply to all of them. Brad Ringeisen, executive director at the genomics institute, cut his teeth running biotechnology at the U.S. defense research agency DARPA, which helped pioneer transformative innovations including the internet, miniaturized GPS, stealth aircraft and the computer mouse. "I'm taking the DARPA mentality here," he said. "Let's solve it for all cows, not just a fraction of the cows." ...]
"There's no reason a cow has to produce methane," Ringeisen said. So what if scientists could just ... turn it off?
"I personally think this is the one that can make the biggest impact in the world," Ringeisen said. "Say you could wave a magic wand and eliminate all those emissions."
The article says that currently the scientists are feeding red-seaweed oil to a cow to measure the changes, to prepare for their final goal: "replicate those changes with gene editing." (They're using machine learning to reassemble the hundreds of pieces of each miccroorganism's DNA, so they can understand which changes they need to make with their early-intervention probiotic.) Such a probiotic could also improve a farm's productivity. Cows can lose up to 12 percent of their energy through burping up methane; other ruminants, like sheep and goats, also lose energy in this way. "If there is a way to redirect that hydrogen and convert it into milk, meat, wool — it would be much more accepted by farmers," said Ermias Kebreab [a professor of animal science at UC-Davis].
Early treatments will be tested on the cows at Davis, with researchers tracking their burps to evaluate the drop-off in methane emissions. There is still a long way to go. While scientists have proved that they can gene-edit microbes, researchers have so far only shown that they can edit a small fraction of the microbes in the cow gut — or the human gut, for that matter. Institute researchers are developing microbial gene-editing tools, even as they are mapping the species of the microbiome. They are building the plane while flying it.
The teams have received enough funding for seven years of research. The project started last year, and they hope to have a trial treatment ready for testing in cows in the next two years.
Need to start by bioengineering a better human (Score:2)
Re:Need to start by bioengineering a better human (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, the typical hubris of man, thinking they need the world to change for them instead of changing to fit the world themselves.
No wonder nature tries to cull us.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you can realize that there are fewer bovine animals around now than 100 years ago.
The real problem with methane emissions is elsewhere - the use of the fossil "natural gas" is one of the major problems. It could be remedied to a large extent by not pushing it through pipes and sending it into home but instead use it directly to generate electricity.
At the same time you'd remove one main fire hazard from many homes.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to pry my gas stove top from my cold dead hands....
I like to cook, and gas is still the BEST way to cook.
When you see pro kitchens switching to electric/induction, gimme a call....till then, I prefer to use what the pros use.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to pry my gas stove top from my cold dead hands....
I like to cook, and gas is still the BEST way to cook.
When you see pro kitchens switching to electric/induction, gimme a call....till then, I prefer to use what the pros use.
Fire is the best way to cook and you gas latecomers are prancing about declaring your supremacy over electric while us fire users are wondering why you're so scared of soot and ash.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I agree really....
I have my wood burning offset smoker outside for BBQ as well as my lump charcoal burning Big Green Egg XL grill for most all other grilling needs.
They just don't fit indoors...so, I use the gas stovetop when I have to cook indoors.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Bioengineering a human that doesn't desire to eat meat would be good. The food supply chain to support animal food produce is huge. Would be good if there were better meat-free fast food meals that didn't suck. I don't mean a meat-like vegetarian option, just vegetables that are not salted or cooked to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a human that doesn't believe politician conspiracy theories and respects democracy...
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be that as there will always be some element of tribalism... That'll be a difficult one to engineer out.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a human that doesn't believe politician conspiracy theories and respects democracy...
Like all those people did on January 6th?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let's just change product marketing, that will be much easier for sure!
Re: (Score:3)
I tried asking my super green friend about a more environmentally friendly meat source and all I got was crickets.
rain dance (Score:2, Funny)
It's a well-known fact that Indian rain dances were very effective in bringing rain. The best way to fight climate change is to dance.
Score: 1, Insightful (Score:2)
Story of my life. I still know I don't trust GMO's in my diet - and what if in the process we make them vulnerable to some currently innocuous parasite, bacillus or virus? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to go vegetarian just yet.
There are other things that can go wrong here. Just sayin', is all. This is (until we know a lot more about genetics and specifically bovine genetics) a really bad idea.
Re: Do you want to eat that meat or drink that mil (Score:4, Informative)
That's reassuring. (Score:2)
I'll still wait and see if it does anything bad to the people that eat it - and there's way more than just the potential to poison our food that concerns me. What if we inadvertently introduce a pathogen (or provide an opportunity for an existing pathogen) to enter our food supply?
If they were talking about increasing the food yield or decreasing the cost, this might make sense - and even then, I'd just as soon you tested it on someone else for a long time.
Re: That's reassuring. (Score:2)
Eat bugs (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No (Score:1)
If you think cows are the problem then you need a new career.
Re: No (Score:1)
Thatâ(TM)s what Iâ(TM)m thinking. Cows have been around for 10 thousand years and all the sudden they are causing global warming. Something doesnâ(TM)t add up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No (Score:2)
More cows now than ever.
Just stop eating cows.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the headline was misleading. Not unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh thats fine.
Its not like the gut microbiom plays a very important role for the health and well-being of mammals.
Or that it regulates nutrient and energy uptake, facilitating digestion of complex food items.
Neither does it affect an animals overall productivity.
Your right, lets just messe with their microbiome, shouldnt be a problem...
How about compare to burning fossil fuels (Score:3)
instead of steaks. I'm betting there is way more pollution from coal plants and cars than cows. I'm not looking, I don't care that much.
Re: (Score:1)
instead of steaks. I'm betting there is way more pollution from coal plants and cars than cows. I'm not looking, I don't care that much.
Why bother comparing? Just because something is a smaller contributor than something else doesn't mean it disappears. Climate change doesn't give a fuck how you want to abuse statistics.
I don't think cows are at the tipping point. (Score:3, Funny)
Go bull y the air travel people. Meanwhile I got milk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cows are also raised locally.
Re: I don't think cows are at the tipping point. (Score:2)
More cows in the Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
I like to eat, but don't really care if I fly.
Thats like saying I care about living and surviving, but don’t really care if I have 20th or 21st Century technology to do it.
The need for flying, can transform from a luxury to a necessity in an instant. It’s the entire reason certain organizations sponsor what is commonly known as angel flights.
Re: (Score:2)
but I would rather we Moo ve on reducing airplane use first. I like to eat, but don't really care if I fly.
Gotchya. We'll get the only person in the world working on the climate change problem to switch to addressing air travel. Good steer mate. I was beginning to worried that we were putting our one resource on solving the wrong problem.
No. (Score:1)
You fight climate change by: 1) lowering the population count, 2) cutting useless traveling and 3) export of useless goods: coffee, banana, mango etc. all year round all over the globe ... Read more (quality) books!
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge . . . (Score:2)
. . . "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
You volunteering to go first?
Re: (Score:2)
. . . "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
You volunteering to go first?
The main step in reducing the population is to have fewer children than the five children per female that we had in the 1950s (world average, when the population was exponentially expanding), so, sure, I'll volunteer.
Have fun with that. Let me know how that works. (Score:2)
Re: "If they would rather die," said Scrooge . . . (Score:2)
It's the cows that are the problem, not people.
Re: (Score:2)
We already engineered it (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, we can engineer them further if we want. That doesn't mean we won't produce a new problem along the way.
But we didn't apply CRISPR techniques to it. (Score:2)
You want to breed for the desired characteristics, go for it. We've got computers now to help; we can even train AIs to improve what we already know how to do (and have done before). We can probably breed any characteristic you like, but it might just take a few years or even decades.
These guys are talking about creating a GMO. That's not something we've been doing for millennia. Just ask yourself seriously, "what could possibly go wrong?" I think you'll find the list fairly extensive.
Re: (Score:2)
We've already had very real impacts on the cows that we've been breeding. As but one direct result of what we've done we have a breed that almost never delivers new calves on its own safely.
Yes there is plenty to go wrong, and I'm not adv
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with them stems from what we've already done to them.
No the biggest problem is we breed them. Our breeding efforts haven't increased methane emissions from any other natural breed of cow. The fundamental issue of gut microbe remains the same. Cows shat and burped a millennia ago, they are shitting and burping now. They ate grass then, we're feeding them grass now.
The only thing that really has changed is the volume.
Re: (Score:2)
They ate grass then, we're feeding them grass now.
You're only partially correct there. The majority of cows raised in the US primarily are fed corn. They generally start on corn until they reach a certain "finishing" weight, at which point they move to grass. Guess when they produce most of their methane? The dairy cows are fed almost exclusively corn because it is more nutrient-dense (and less expensive per hectare) than grass, which allows them to produce milk more quickly and less expensively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beef largely comes from male calves fattened at speed... not cows.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that the cow feed is often mixed with the shredded remains of other cows that aren't marketable for human consumption, basically turning cows into unwitting cannibals. Feeding a herbivore meat from rejects of their species, what could possibly go wrong?
They stopped doing that after mad cow disease spread. https://www.fda.gov/animal-vet... [fda.gov] basically if the cow isn't fit for human consumption or isn't very young they are no longer allowed to feed it to other cows. In most of the world they banned feeding ruminants animal protein entirely and those left over cows and up in cat or dogfood instead.
Re: (Score:3)
absolute utter bullshit!
Not at all. Firstly they give it a cute name: "Meat-Bone-Meal" or MBM. Secondly it was largely a contributor to the outbreak of mad cow disease. Finally, the practice was so common that most countries had to enact laws to stop it (of the back of the mad cow disease outbreak).
Seaweed at 2% of fodder completely abolished CH4 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seaweed at 2% of fodder completely abolished CH (Score:4, Funny)
So far, almost every Slashdot comment about this article moans about bioengineered cows. Maybe they didn't read the article or don't understand. Thanks for posting the one relevant comment.
I followed your link and read the paper. Quite interesting. Of course, the carbon that was in the CH4 has to go somewhere, and they do not completely explain it. CO2 production went up, so methane was in part more thoroughly oxidized, but other comments implied that short chain fatty acids or sugars might have been generated and absorbed, so a benefit to the cow as well as the environment. It is not a carbon cancellation technology, but a benefit.
And for those who misunderstood the article, they are modifying the diet or the germs in the gut, not the cows per se. Elsie is not being GMO'ed.
Leave that to the folks at GLIBIE - the Gary Larson Institute of Bovine Intestinal Engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not like the microbiom is important for nutrient absorbtion, energy uptake or general health of mammals.
It's not like cow microbiomes would ever get into (Score:2)
Lab meat (Score:2, Insightful)
Why engineer a new cow when you can do away with it completely?
We need to get better at making meat in a vat.
Re:Lab meat (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course Beyond Meat is not vat grown meat as the above was discussing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why engineer a new cow when you can do away with it completely?
Fixing the problem at a source is easier than changing behaviour of consumers. Yes I posted this right after hosting a massive BBQ at my place today.
Maybe, just maybe, if we produce meat in a vat, that tasted as good as a cow, and costs the same as a cow I'd consider making the switch. But we are comically far away from that point. On the flip side we've had great successes already bioengineering away the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
But can we send the vat of meat to non-arable land to forage for grass?
Re: Lab meat (Score:2)
Meat is unhealthy.
Just stop eating meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are omnivores and are evolved to eat meat. We often eat too much, and could make healthier choices, but giving up meat comes with a lot of issues that just aren't worth it to most people.
Re: Lab meat (Score:2)
Many people are stupid.
The Starbucks CEO (Score:3, Informative)
Reel in some of these CEO, pop-star, and politician shenanigans first, before you fuck with my steak over climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
One arsehole is a minor contributor to climate change compared to and entire global industry. But I get it, it's easier to blame other people than accept a change that could affect you in some way.
Can you imagine if this Starbucks CEO was Chinese? OMG the emissions we could blame on that one person would be grand!
This whole premis is BS! (Score:1, Interesting)
A blade of grass emits the same amount of compounds regardless of where it decomposes, whether in a cow's stomach or the fields were it grew and died.
Just. Stop. With the "Cows are gonna cause global warming and kill us all" line. That cows eat and concentrate the emissions due to decomposition makes no more or less emissions compared to millions of blades of grass decomposing throughout the millions of square acres of grass fields. It is still just dead grass decomposing.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirk.. [www.cbc.ca]
Wetlands, landfills, & cows [Re:This whole pre (Score:4, Informative)
A blade of grass emits the same amount of compounds regardless of where it decomposes, whether in a cow's stomach or the fields were it grew and died.
No. Anaerobic decomposition produces methane, while aerobic decomposition produces only carbon dioxide and water. Yes, it depend son where it decomposes.
...She said that it's important to note that methane is not released by the cows themselves, but the bacteria in their gut. Similar bacteria also exist in the environment and produce methane in wetlands, rice fields and landfills.
Accurate. But most grass doesn't grow in wetlands, rice fields, or landfills. You are, however, right that these are indeed also sources of methane. Wetlands contribute an amount of methane roughly the same as the amoun produced by cows.. However, cows are pretty much under human control, so it's a lot easier to work on reducing the methane emissions from cows than that from wetlands.
(Landfills are also under human control, and there is significant effort [slashdot.org] to reduce emissions from landfills as well)
Errata Re:Wetlands, landfills, & cows (Score:2)
"significant effort to reduce emissions from landfills" should have had the link https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q... [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
this is beneath /. please close your account; it's bad enough with the russian bots and the few trumptards.
Re: (Score:2)
A blade of grass emits the same amount of compounds regardless of where it decomposes, whether in a cow's stomach or the fields were it grew and died.
Completely and utterly false. The way something decomposes matters a lot, and cows are spectacularly bad at it.
"Cows are gonna cause global warming and kill us all" line.
No one has said they are going to kill us all, stop being hysterical. Cows are a problem to be addressed. They are not the sole source of climate change.
Just. Stop.
That's our line. Your UID is low enough that you should be credited with a base intelligence. Stop letting your generation down.
Re: (Score:2)
> Completely and utterly false.
even more, it's udderly false! :_)
Re: This whole premis is BS! (Score:2)
If you have fewer cows, then you raise less feed (alfalfa, corn, soy, etc.)
Engineering for the wrong metric (Score:2)
Can We Fight Climate Change By Bioengineering a Better Cow?
You are engineering for the wrong metric if that metric is not taste, or cost.
You would spend your time better engineering a sun shade to put into orbit.
Idiocracy (Score:1)
When the fuck will these people accuse cattle farts/burps of being an agent for anthropic global warming? Are they really that dumb? When we are all down to eating worms, tardigrades, or just grass, won't the wild bison population, hippopotamus, gnu or whathever the fucking big ruminant who take over also emmit so called "greenhouse gasses"? If these people are so worried about the environment, removing themselves from the global warming, greenhouse-gas-emmiting pool would be extremely benefical. And they
Re: Idiocracy (Score:2)
Vegetables.
Not animals.
Re: (Score:2)
It says right in the summary:
> "Enteric fermentation," or livestock's digestive process, accounts for 22 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, and the manure they produce makes up eight percent more
So 30% of all methane in the US is from livestock.
Not 2%. Not 2.5%. 30%. Of a very potent greenhouse gas.
And that's just from their digestion, there's also all the land cleared for them, and all the food grown. Something like 70-90% of all soy and corn grown in the US is to feed livestock.
And that's just the
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, 30% of methane. A big scary number taken completely out of context to scare people against the healthiest food you can eat and an animal which can have nearly every part of it used for something after slaughtering. What matters is overall impact, not impact of an individual component (methane). From the same EPA, the overall impact of the entire agriculture industry is 10%. Of that 10%, half is from using electricity to power buildings and tools, so the agriculture industry produces 5% of USA emiss
First things First... (Score:2)
The Very Same People (Score:1)
These are the same people who scream like a mashed cat if you leave a footprint in a swamp. Now they want to permanently alter the physiology of an entire species so they can advance their cash-grab political scam.
The hypocrisy could bend space-time.
Hey (Score:1)
The bullshit jokes write themselves.
cows are not the problem. (Score:1)
Feedlots are rhe problem.
Feedlots feed cattle lots of grains and sugars especially corn and molasses that are not part of their natural diet. This causes digestive upset and thus lots of gas.
grass-fed cattle living and grazing on natural pastures do not emit anywhere close to the amount of gas that feedlot cattle do.
So, this is a man-made problem, not a cattle made problem.
Feedlots are disgusting and inhumane and cause illness in both cattle and the people that eat the meat. Feedlots were a backwards ste
Reference story (Score:2)
Enchanted Village, A E van Vogt
Outdated Science (Score:5, Informative)
A recent paper did a more complete model of the /grass fed/ cattle and when integrating the cattlebeast, its dung, the microbes, fungus, and plants it fertilizes, and the carbon those deposit - grazing cattle on land is slightly greenhouse-gas negative.
Basically it's healthy food and not a problem under any warming model, no matter how whacky their parameters.
The corn-fed, feedlot cattle are a different thing. Massie (a farmer himself, as well as a professional engineer) has been sponsoring the PRIME Act for years to improve local regenerative food but corrupt big-food lobbyists always block it.
They should be the target of activism, not ranchers.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be the target of activism, not ranchers.
Ranchers whose cattle spends time on feedlots are part of the problem no matter how you or they feel about it.
Couldn't hurt (Score:2)
Crap.. (Score:2)
Can We Fight Climate Change By Bioengineering a Be (Score:2)
No
Unintended consequences? (Score:2)
Given how important the human gut microbiome is to health - or lack thereof - it's easy to imagine that messing with a cow's microbiome might lead to animals that are more susceptible to disease or that otherwise have a higher mortality rate. The opposite effect is also entirely possible - but someone needs to check on it before proceeding.
Also, BSE - 'mad cow disease' - is thought to begin in the small intestine of cows. What if significantly altering the microbiome somehow increases the incidence of BSE?
Collect the methane instead of getting rid of it (Score:2)
We've already seen multiple projects about collecting biomethane.
Re: (Score:2)
The methane comes mostly out of the hole that food goes into. You're going to need to engineer a cow with a methane-only hole if you want to capture the methane. GLWT.
Maybe you could do it with roofed feedlots? But the volume of gases which will necessarily be involved becomes impractical to separate.
Re: (Score:2)
Just need to put in a valve and flap, so food down opens the flap, but back pressure opens a release valve and blocks the flap.
Hmm, I know some people that could really use this . . .
Cow farts are natural, but Starbucks CEO flying... (Score:2)
Sounds like Beano for cows (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were referinbg to the comic. I was wondering how Dennis was involved.
No need (Score:2)
Stop eating cows or their animal gland secretions.
Bracing for the vegans to attack (Score:2)
Fewwer humans (Score:2)
magically means fewer cows, less demnd on resources or energy, less pollution...
But NOOOOO... let's try and bio-engineer our way out of this instead of, you know, doing the far simpler, more responsible thing... simply stop breeding with carefree abandon and being responsible.
No. Slowing birthrates do not make this point moot. Too little too late.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read (Score:2)
Just to "fight climate change", something that naturally is unfightable, they are proposing genetically engineering the species on the planet to make them have fresher farts?
Christ. It would be a better idea to try and just ban volcanoes?
How about genetically engineering Humans to need to hump less? Or perhaps have strict controls on when Humans can have a hump or not? I'd say never before the age of 21 and only when mandated by the government department that will need to be created, totally apolitical,
Plant-based diet is obvious for improving climate (Score:2)
"I burn my finger when I touch the hot stove. Maybe we should engineer a cooler stove?"
It's amazing how people will do everything except address root causes of an issue.
Meat is terrible for the environment, not great for health, to say nothing of the animal suffering it perpetuates.