I attended the “State of the Science Summit” on May 21-22 co-hosted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, UC Davis CLEAR Center, and Spark Climate. The theme this year was “Feed Strategies to Reduce Enteric Emissions.” The summit drew attendees from within and outside the US, and from various sectors including academia, industry, and government. There was also a rich array of speakers that shared valuable insights into the subject of enteric methane (CH4) emissions in the dairy and beef industries.
One of the highlights for me was the student poster session which was an avenue to present a part of my research via a poster titled “Assessing Bromoform Residue in Milk Produced from Dairy Cows Fed 1% of Dietary Dry Matter as Processed Seaweed (Saccharina latissima)”. This was a preliminary study conducted at Miner Institute and funded by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (more details at www.coastcowconsumer.com). The results showed that the bromoform levels in each of the milk samples collected over a 3-week period were below the limit of detection (<5 μg/L), and the potential for this processed seaweed to reduce enteric CH4 emissions. The results from the study will be used to make informed decisions for an upcoming study on the effects of processed Saccharina latissima on animal productivity, CH4 emissions, and milk quality (bromoform residues).
Robert Bonnie, the USDA Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation, in his presentation on the national perspective on enteric methane stated that the government should create incentives to encourage innovation and investment in climate change initiatives for farmers, supply chains, and the private sector. Also, USDA and FDA need to improve the process of approving CH4 reducing products. In considering ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, there should be no trade-off for productivity and profitability for producers, and small, medium, and large-scale producers should be involved in the creation of these initiatives. During the panel session with Bonnie and Karen Ross, the CDFA secretary, they emphasized the need for consistent measurement and transparency in ongoing emission reductions strategies to establish trust in the products that are being developed. They concluded that product development should not be a competition but a collaboration to save the planet.
On the international perspectives on livestock CH4, representatives from Brazil (Dr. Bruno Brasil), Ireland (Hazel Costigan), and New Zealand (Dr. John Roche) each shared the current policies and efforts that are being adopted in their respective countries to reduce GHG emissions from animal agriculture. Dr. Aimable Uwizeye from the FAO shared some interesting data in his presentation about the pathways to meeting global climate goals. According to Uwizeye, livestock production contributes 12% to GHG emissions globally, 46% of which is enteric CH4. He also stated that about 80% of CH4 emissions occur in low and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries, and called for international collaborations, finance, and technology transfer to aid in meeting global reduction targets.
Dr. Peter Lund (Aarhus University), Dr. Sara Place (Colorado State University), Dr. Joe McFadden (Cornell University), and Dr. Alex Hristov (The Pennysylvania State University) were the panelists in the panel session on feed additives for CH4 reduction. The points they raised included the need to consider the practical on-farm application and the cost implication when creating feed additives. They also emphasized that long-term studies are required to determine the efficacy of feed additives: Even though universities are unable to carry out such long-term studies, commercial farms can be used for that purpose. There was also a panel discussion on breeding and genetics and a presentation on anti-methane vaccines. The highlight from this is that CH4 production is heritable, and a measurable trait, hence it can be used to make genetic predictions. However, genetic strategies and anti-methane vaccines are long-term strategies and would not be immediately available to meet short-term CH4 reduction targets.
I observed from some of the presentations and my personal interactions with some attendees that bromoform is gaining more attention as an active ingredient to reduce enteric CH4. However, the current unknowns are the mode of action in the rumen, the safety for humans and animals, the stability, and the long-term effects on the animal, among other concerns.
My closing thoughts are from the Summit’s opening speech by Karen Ross where she stated that no single entity can help solve the enteric CH4 emissions and climate change problem, so there must be collaborations between all parties involved. Secondly, consumers and their perceptions must be considered in the development and deployment of GHG reducing products. I had a really good time networking with other players in the enteric CH4 reduction space, and my only regret was not going with enough business cards. I look forward to next year’s summit.
— Gift Omoruyi