I've been going through my "stack of stuff."  Unfortunately, this isn't my accumulated goodies for writing another book, but rather a hodge podge of interesting things over the last couple of years.  I love a clean desk, but I find it nearly impossible to keep it clean when the weather outside is nice.

             Teresa says you can tell what the weather's been like for the last few months by looking at the height of the stacks on my desk.   The one time of year when I normally clean things off is over the holidays, and this year was no exception.

             In my stack is a November 2019 The Economist article about a study published in the Journal of Cleaner Production.  Australian and New Zealand researchers discovered substantial decreases in methane from cows and sheep who ate as little as 1 percent of their diet in seaweed.  It seems that seaweed has antimethanogenic powers due to a compound called bromoform.

             The studies were done using the seaweed species Asparagopsis, which grows in that region.  Here at Polyface, we've been feeding the Icelandic seaweed ascophylum nodosum for more than 40 years as a mineral supplement.  I have no idea if the bromoform found in southern water seaweed is also found in northern water seaweed, but it's probably not a stretch to think this compound exists in both.

             This begs the question I ask of all the cow-haters out there:  "Which cow are you studying?"  Cows are not produced the same and this shows how consequential the difference can be with even a small variation in protocol.  This is why data sourcing matters.  No scientist has ever taken a methane sample from the cows on our farm.  Would the data points derived from our pastured cows be different than a cow locked in a Fresno feedlot eating GMO corn and soybeans?  Is it possible?  Does it matter?

             Whatever your position on climate movement, this is yet another confirmation that nature provides us with all the tools necessary to live abundantly without sacrificing ecology.  I suggest that instead of abundance requiring eliminating cows, can't we pick something better to eliminate?

             Like glyphosate?  Or anhydrous ammonia nitrogen fertilizer?  Or superphsophate chemical fertilizer?  Or factory farms?  Or cattle feedlots?  When it comes to deciding that we must sacrifice something to secure our survival, I can think of a lot of things to get rid of before we eliminate cows.

             How about you? What would you eliminate?

Big thanks to Kate Simon Lifestyle Photography for the image!