Evaluating the evidence for efficacy, and applicability of methane inhibiting additives fed to livestock
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•156 views
This presentation was given on May 18, 2022, by Roger Hegarty, New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGRC). The presentation was part of the "Scaling up feed additives & evidence for impacts" webinar, an Aim4Climate Ideation event. This event is coordinated by The Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, in parternship with: • New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGRC) • Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA) • The Gund Institute for Environment at the University of Vermont • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) • United States Agency for International Development (USAID) • Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) • Aim4Climate
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Evaluating the evidence for efficacy, and applicability of methane inhibiting additives fed to livestock
Similar to Evaluating the evidence for efficacy, and applicability of methane inhibiting additives fed to livestock (20)
More from Sadie W Shelton
More from Sadie W Shelton (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Evaluating the evidence for efficacy, and applicability of methane inhibiting additives fed to livestock
- 1. May 2022 Evaluating the evidence for efficacy, and applicability of methane inhibiting additives fed to livestock
- 2. Team Climate and Clean Air Coalition
- 3. Target and Objective Provide a concise summary of the evidence for efficacy, constraints and practical issues regarding feed additives under consideration for enteric methane mitigation For Policy Makers and players in the commercial pipeline (manufacturers, feed industry, livestock managers)
- 4. Context Lots of headlines Lots of concern Is today’s headline really the solution? A reasoned synthesis bridging from science to Government & industry
- 5. Product https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/116489 • Assesses 10 main additives • Covers proof of efficacy, co- benefits, availability & applicability • Solidly referenced • Largely based on meta-analyses
- 6. 3 High agreement & Limited evidence 4 High agreement & Medium evidence 5 High agreement & Robust evidence 2 Medium agreement & Limited evidence 3 Medium agreement & Medium evidence 4 Medium agreement & Robust evidence 1 Low agreement & Limited evidence 2 Low agreement & Medium evidence 3 Low agreement & Robust evidence Level of AGREEMENT Level of Evidence Confidence in Efficacy
- 8. What we know: Efficacy Additives Very High (>25% mitigation) 3-Nitrooxypropanol (Bovaer), Asparagopsis (dried) High (>15% - 25% mit.) Calcium nitrate Low (≤ 5% mitigation) Monensin (5), Essential oils (2) Direct Fed microbials (1-2), Saponins (1), Tannins (1), Biochar (1), Microalgae (1) What about MY product!!!!!!
- 9. General Concern? • Almost all results to date have had the additive included in the basal ration, NOT provided as a separate supplement that is given at intervals • Little evidence that suppressing methane by feed additive increases animal performance.
- 10. Implications ? 1. Develop delivery of additives in supplements, not in Total Mixed Rations 2. Large scale productivity trials detecting small productivity changes 3. New additives Development needs
- 11. Additive manufacturers SURVEY FINDINGS 8 manufacturers, 14 feed mills, 26 cattle managers
- 13. Cattle managers
- 14. • Recognize the limited range of effective additives • Little evidence of productivity gains from methane mitigation, this needs large well replicated studies • Feed producers and livestock mangers not informed of effective v ineffective options • No additives have been tested or targeted for the grazing system or with developing country focus Report downloadable at https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/116489 Take home messages
Editor's Notes
- Thanks for opportunity to present to you on this project that was funded by CCAFS and NZAGRC in support of the objectives of the LRG of the GRA
- Aside from NZAGRC and CCAFS the project also valued technical input from Agriculture & agrifood Canada and from US Aid LINI I just realised this was written before I discovered that the Climate and CleanAir Coalition are somewhere in the background and their logo should appear on front page at least
- You might say , “Lini” aren’t the enough reviews coming off the press on feed additives & methane” ???? & id say ‘yes” So its important to identify that our very specific target audience was policy makers and others who might have important financial stakes in the feed additive game; from additive manufacturers investing in new R&D to feed millers looking for what to put in new products and livestock farmers wanting to improve their carbon credentials. SO our aim was not a scientific review but (in bold) to deliver a concise summary of the evidence…..etc(read slide)
- The context for this is that there are a lot of headlines about livestock emissions And so a lot of livestock owners genuinely wanting to take action and do the right thing So for them the question is “is todays headline really the answer?” or is the something better or undisclosed problems? ~ I need the detail before I can invest…..and R&D agencies have the same thinking So our aim was to meet that need, to compile a reasoned synthesis that provided not only confidence in the efficacy being claimed, but also the broader issues that needed to be considered in making investments in development or use of products
- What we have come up with, and this has just been submitted today, is an assessment oF the 10 most considered methane mitigating feed-additives The report takes 3-4 pages to address proof of efficacy as well as co-benefits, constraints and other thins such g as whether there are LCA data available, for Each additive Now I said it is not a scientific review, but it is heavily referenced. There are perhaps 200+ references cited, so it is well referenced for credibility but it does not hit you in the face & is not in high science language. Wherever possible we have based our assessment on meta analyses or reviews rather than relying on individual research studies And we are just concluding a survey to find whether the additive, feed and feeding industries are ahead, behind or right in step with the science of developing and using feed additives YOU MAY NOT WANT TO MENTION THIS LINI
- We also tried to pull all we learned into a single page graphic that I just show you the top corner of here. Let me just step you through it . So we have 10 rows, 1 row per additive as listed on the left. We then summarise what we know about efficacy in reducing methane emissions in the big red box we ascribe a mitigation rating ~ you can see 3NOP and red algae in the top 2 rows are both very high being over 25% we note the number of animal-based papers contributing to that then based on the numbnerof paers and the variability intheir finds we provide a confidenc rating from 5 to support that efficacy estimate. So we note for example that 3NOP & Asparagopsis seaweed both have a very high efficacy, but our confidence in 3NOP is very high but is low for asparagopsis, due to few and variable studies We also work across the table and note any potential animal and food safety concerns and any cobenefits such as extra growth or milk production that may have a big effect on the economic merit of the additive So let me just pick up with 3NOP and Asparagopsis as examples (next slide) to close
- We also tried to pull all we learned into a single page graphic that I just show you the top corner of here. Let me just step you through it . So we have 10 rows, 1 row per additive as listed on the left. We then summarise what we know about efficacy in reducing methane emissions in the big red box we ascribe a mitigation rating ~ you can see 3NOP and red algae in the top 2 rows are both very high being over 25% we note the number of animal-based papers contributing to that then based on the numbnerof paers and the variability intheir finds we provide a confidenc rating from 5 to support that efficacy estimate. So we note for example that 3NOP & Asparagopsis seaweed both have a very high efficacy, but our confidence in 3NOP is very high but is low for asparagopsis, due to few and variable studies We also work across the table and note any potential animal and food safety concerns and any cobenefits such as extra growth or milk production that may have a big effect on the economic merit of the additive So let me just pick up with 3NOP and Asparagopsis as examples (next slide) to close
- We also tried to pull all we learned into a single page graphic that I just show you the top corner of here. Let me just step you through it . So we have 10 rows, 1 row per additive as listed on the left. We then summarise what we know about efficacy in reducing methane emissions in the big red box we ascribe a mitigation rating ~ you can see 3NOP and red algae in the top 2 rows are both very high being over 25% we note the number of animal-based papers contributing to that then based on the numbnerof paers and the variability intheir finds we provide a confidenc rating from 5 to support that efficacy estimate. So we note for example that 3NOP & Asparagopsis seaweed both have a very high efficacy, but our confidence in 3NOP is very high but is low for asparagopsis, due to few and variable studies We also work across the table and note any potential animal and food safety concerns and any cobenefits such as extra growth or milk production that may have a big effect on the economic merit of the additive So let me just pick up with 3NOP and Asparagopsis as examples (next slide) to close
- From the literature 3NOP and Asparagopsis both show very high mitigation potential, GREAT !!! but almost everything we know about those 2 additives has been found out using total mixed ration diets ~ where the additive is in every mouthful. Unfortunately feedlot type rations are only responsible for 2% of global livestock emissions, so we know almost NOTHING about how well these additives work on the other 98% of livestock enteric emissions. So we need work on how these products work as supplements. The other thing is that NONE of the 10 additives show productivity co-benefits even remotely near 10%. They are all much less!!!! SO scientists in white coats are not doing the sort of large scale studies needed to statistically detect the 2,3, 4 % productivity gain - and we need to be doing those studies so industry can know where the payback for these products is going to come from and so what the value proposition is. And to close, having found only 3 products capable of supporting even 20% mitigation in TMR, let me encourage you to think that the time for new ideas and blue sky investment has not passed. We have a very weak tool kit at this time to tackle emission from the diversity of global livestock systems, and that is something we really should be preparing for now as a foundation in risk management Thankyou