Guests: Dr. Frank Mitloehner, University of California, Davis; Dr. Jim Wallace, Dairy Management, Inc.; Dr. Juan Tricarico, Dairy Management, Inc. and Caleb Harper, Dairy Scale for Good In May 2021 the Florida Ruminant Nutrition Conference’s Preconference Symposium titled, “Your Practical Guide to Achieving Net Zero Carbon Emissions” welcomed five speakers and a Q&A session to follow. This was sponsored by Balchem Animal Nutrition & Health. What you’re about to hear is that Q&A session. Full presentations can be found here.
Guests: Dr. Frank Mitloehner, University of California, Davis; Dr. Jim Wallace, Dairy Management, Inc.; Dr. Juan Tricarico, Dairy Management, Inc. and Caleb Harper, Dairy Scale for Good
In May 2021 the Florida Ruminant Nutrition Conference’s Preconference Symposium titled, “Your Practical Guide to Achieving Net Zero Carbon Emissions” welcomed five speakers and a Q&A session to follow. This was sponsored by Balchem Animal Nutrition & Health. What you’re about to hear is that Q&A session. Full presentations can be found here.
Dr. Jim Wallace discussed the decision for the 2050 goal for net zero emissions. He said that the 30-year goal provides an adequate window and runway for more innovations. He also touched upon three ways to reduce emissions within the dairy industry by focusing on manure, energy and feed production. (4:42)
Caleb Harper discussed his background in the greenhouse industry and talked about the similarities he sees with cross ventilated barns and greenhouses. Cross ventilated barns are allowing producers to reduce emissions by using new technologies. (13:10)
Dr. Frank Mitloehner played out a scenario with his students in the classroom by asking about technology in human health first then technology in agriculture second. He claimed that the overwhelming majority were in favor of technology in human health but were against technology in animal agriculture. He also pointed out that there are more patents in a tomato than in a smart phone. (18:16)
Dr. Juan Tricarico discussed his study on byproducts fed in the dairy industry. His study focused on removing those byproducts from the diet to see if they could limit emissions. By removing byproducts from the diet they could reduce emissions but where would those byproducts go if they were not being used by the dairies? The byproducts produce less emissions being digested by the cow than they would in the landfill where the nutrients would also be wasted. (39:22)
Dr. Frank Mitloehner discussed nitrates being high in California water. Some California dairies must purchase drinking water because the nitrates are so high in their water supply. He pressed that there are more components to focus on, besides methane and greenhouse emissions, when it comes to the bigger picture of the environment and sustainability. (58:46)
If you want one of our new Real Science Exchange t-shirts, make sure to screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to anh.marketing@balchem.com. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll get a shirt in the mail to you.
Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to bring more people to join us around the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.
This podcast is sponsored by Balchem Animal Nutrition and Health.
Scott Sorrell (00:00:08):
Good evening everyone. And welcome to the Real Science Exchange, the pub cast where leading scientists and industry professionals meet over a few drinks to discuss the latest ideas and trends in animal nutrition. Sustainability is the heart of animal agriculture. Throughout history, we focused on environmental stewardship and sustainability. Hi, I'm Scott Sorrel, one of your hosts at the Real Science Exchange. Tonight will help move that sustainability vision forward for the entire agricultural community, and bring some practical and executable ideas to the forefront. In May 2021, the Florida Ruminant Nutrition Conference’s pre-conference symposium titled Your Practical Guide to Achieving Net Zero Carbon Emissions welcomed five speakers and a Q&A session to follow. What you're about to hear is that Q&A session. Full presentations can be found on Balchem’s YouTube channel, and the link will be in the show notes. To get us started, I'd like to introduce our guests and my co-hosts for this session, Dr. Frank Mitloehner from the University of California-Davis, Dr. Jim Wallace from Dairy Management, Inc. Dr. Juan Tricarico also from DMI, Caleb Harper, Dairy Scale for Good and my co-host for tonight, Dr. Joseph Santos from the University of Florida. We have a lot of questions to get to today, so we won't be going around the table like we normally do on having everybody share what's in their glass, but let's all toast to a successful event, and to helping farmers feel more confident in sharing how agriculture is part of the carbon solution. Cheers, everyone.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:01:49):
Cheers. I couldn't wait. I already drank it!
Scott Sorrell (00:01:52):
Already started. It's going to make it a lot livelier here, Juan. That's excellent. So to get us started here, I think Frank, we're going to, we're going to toss the first question to you. It appears that the industry has settled on 2050 as the target date to achieve net carbon zero. So why, why 2050? Why not 2025 or 2040? And what are the key obstacles or bottlenecks in our way from getting this done quicker?
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:02:29):
Well, I don't know the answer as to what the deadline is all about, but I think it's really good to have, to have deadlines, you know, to have goals set to really be in a position where you have quantified the impacts your industry has. And then once you have a goal, then you can set milestones as to how you want to reach your goal and what those intervals are. Now, in my personal opinion I am personally more interested in the impact that this industry has on warming than on carbon, but that's just my personal opinion. I call it the NZI, the net zero initiative, but I really call it the net zero one initiative. That's, that's what I'm all about. Because that's what the Paris climate accord is about. They are about limiting our impact on warming to the less than two degrees centigrade.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:03:28):
And I really think that we need to keep that in mind because there are certain parts of the dairy sector, we cannot get to net zero. For example, the belching part- you cannot get cattle to stop belching. And as long as they belch methane, you will not get that to zero. And you can just offset that with, let's say planting trees. That is the reason why I think the focus should be on warming and also that warming… that climate neutrality in my opinion, is achievable much faster, much more aggressively. And in my opinion, that's what it's all about. So I think it's really good that the industry has quantified its impact. I think it's really good that they have an aggressive plan ahead as to how to achieve the goals. I think in addition to looking into carbon impacts, they should also heavily look into warming impacts.
Scott Sorrell (00:04:26):
I think that I’ll throw the same question out to our DMI friends. Gentlemen, take your pick, who wants to answer it? But I think you guys settled on the, on the year 2050, do you know how you came to that date?
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:04:42):
I can jump in first. So I don't want to say that it was arbitrary, but I think what we did was we looked around, or I think what the leadership who set that goal looked around, at where others in the world were falling on similar programs. And that, that 2050 number represented something that offered a bit of continuity with the balance of the world. So that, that I think was one driver. I think another driver is, is that it's 30 years out and it offers a real runway to engage in adopt and adapt new practices, new technologies, develop new markets. There's a lot of work, there's lot. There are certainly research. There are certainly knowledge gaps that have to be filled between now and then in that third year window, when this was initially adapted in 2020, I think really offered a bit of runway to do that.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:05:37):
And I'd like to just maybe ask Frank, just kind of building on what you said and perhaps asking you a question kind of background wise, and you're thinking about warming versus carbon neutrality. I agree, offsetting the enteric piece. That's going to be well that that's an impossibility, right? We recognize cows are always going to generate methane. But what if, and maybe even before I put the, “what if” out there, if we think about the other three points on the dairy, the manure piece, I think we would all agree we can do a really effective job in offsetting the manure piece. Energy, no problem. Feed production- I think there are some strong cases to be made that we can get to zero and I think we can even make some strong cases to go negative on feed production.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:06:30):
Now that's certainly open to debate. There are a lot of unanswered questions. There are a lot of questions about permanence that I think have to be addressed. So certainly I acknowledge that. So using that as a backdrop, and coming back to the enteric component, what if we are able to successfully adapt and integrate technologies, like what you described, relative to enteric or feed additives. And I heard you use the number of up to 50%. So, thinking about some of the numbers that are out there and now I guess I'll point to the California LCA, which I think, and I'm just speaking off the top of my head puts in tariffs somewhere around 0.44 kilograms CO2E per kilogram of fat and protein corrected milk. Some of the work that we've done as we've built out some of the background work on this suggests that through efficient feeding that we have a path there to maybe reduce that down into, let's say the 0.25 maybe 0.3 kilogram per kilogram range before we apply any sort of a feed additive.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:07:40):
If we were then able to reduce it by 50%, we're now getting down in that range that let's say is 0.12 to 0.15. And I think when we look at the aspirational piece of carbon sequestration, we can make a pretty good case that we can be in the 0.5 to 0.1. Before we even think about crops like genetically modified crops that would increase soil carbon sequestration. So I started to think, is there a path there, is there a possibility given advancements in technology that we may be able to overcome that challenge of enteric methane? So I'll stop there. I’m curious where your head is at on that.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:08:22):
Yeah, so the ones that feed additives that we find to be very effective, unfortunately have the potential to have unintended consequences. For example, one of the more prominent ones that reduces enteric methane quite strongly leads to a situation where when it passes through the cow, it also makes its way into the manure. And once you land apply that manure to the ground or to the field, then that manure generates more nitrous oxide than the control animals manure, offsetting the gains that we made through enteric methane. Oftentimes we don't even know that yet because this has not been researched. We are all looking into what does the enteric emission mitigation look like without looking at the life cycle of what happens, for example, with the manure of those animals treated with these additives. And so now we are finding some of those things in the more effective feed additives.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:09:24):
And we need to make sure that we really know not just the intended, but also the unintended consequences of feeding all of those things. Most of them are still in the experimental phases as you well know. So I do think that a strong reduction of enteric is possible. I do think so. I would think that it will amount to something like 20 to 30%. That is my hope, okay. If we get more, then I'm excited beyond belief but that still leaves a big chunk left on the table. And what I do think that we can offset some of that through other mechanisms that you described. I don't think that we can get to net carbon. So carbon zero, I don't think we can achieve. And most importantly, I don't think we need to achieve because of the uniqueness of methane.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:10:17):
For methane you don't need to go to net zero. As I showed in my slides, what we need to do is we need to reduce methane so much so that it offsets the net contributions of nitrous oxide and CO2 to a point where the reduction of methane will offset the other greenhouse gases and we will reach a point of climate neutrality, meaning that sector will not affect the climate in any negative way. And in my opinion, that is the goal that we should strive for. So if I were in the automobile industry, I would say, no, no, it's all about carbon neutrality, net zero carbon. Because, it takes net zero CO2 to stop the warming. That's why that's important for the fossil fuel sector, and most other sectors, but it's not the same for agriculture. For agriculture, we do not need to get methane to zero. We just need to reduce it enough to offset other gases. So I'm not saying, I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other. I'm saying, if that is your goal, this is a very aggressive goal. And one that's very difficult to achieve. I think one that is in direct relation to the Paris climate accord is that of achieving climate neutrality in the Europeans. They talk about that by the way they are, they are all about climate neutrality. They don't use carbon neutrality over there anymore. They use climate neutrality.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:11:44):
Oh, good. Thank you. Yeah.
Scott Sorrell (00:11:45):
Excellent discussion gentlemen. That's exactly what we're looking for here at the exchange and Dr. Mitloehner. You're a seasoned veteran at this. This is your second trip to the pub. So thank you for that. I have failed to introduce my co-host for today's proceedings, which is Dr. Jose Santos. He's been invited to participate in the discussions today, and he's also going to be throwing some questions out to the team. So Jose, do you have one ready for us?
Dr. Jose Santos (00:12:17):
So I do. So this is for everyone there. So one of the premises of mitigating carbon, or I guess warming is still applied technology. Yeah, so everything that we talked about today here involves application of technology to improve efficiency of production. So how do you reconcile improving efficiency of production with the current movement of society away from technology use? You look at some places in the world in all, they are changing production practices, not necessarily to implement the technology that would increase efficiency. So how do we do this to accommodate the needs of society with the needs of a producer to be less impactful with production practices. And that's for anyone who wants to tackle this question?
Caleb Harper (00:13:10):
Okay, I'll jump in. So you know, it's a big question in my mind because I came out of more or less the greenhouse industry for background, you know, cause a controlled environment ag industry where most of the learning that I was doing was directly applicable to greenhouse. And I look at greenhouses in the Netherlands and I look at the extreme efficiency of which they are able to control gas. You know, they are able to control heat and cooling using things like geothermal sinks. They’re able to control, you know, the sun's effectiveness by filtering for only photosynthetically active radiation into those greenhouses and bouncing off things that are not going to grow new plants. So, you know, I do see the trend that we're working in similar trend line to greenhouse and, you know, as I go across the country and I see the new dairies being built, you know, often times they're being built as cross ventilated barns. And cross ventilated barns really have roots in that greenhouse because they have things like a, you know, a chilling wall and air circulation through the barn, keeping them at constant temperature between the sixties and the seventies, you know, for milk production gains.
Caleb Harper (00:14:23):
So I look at that efficiency as the future. And then I also think that the storytelling is so lacking in that space. And I applaud Frank's mission in life to tell that story about, you know, if you want to feed the world and if you want it to be affordable and if you want it to be available to the most amount of people, and you do not want to only cater for those that can afford a super premium product, which is nutritionally enhanced or also, you know, environmentally enhanced. I think you have to deal with the issue of scale and we have to storytell about it more. And we have to bring in scientists that are reputable with third party kind of halo effect, to come in and talk about the cows health and the cows life and why we do the things the way that we do and that, you know, juxtaposed against a different system that may look more bucolic that may look more friendly.
Caleb Harper (00:15:23):
Maybe you're, maybe it's not. And, and that's a hard conversation to have for a consumer that hasn't been a part of that. Who has only seen the effects of that to the detriment and not to the positive. And so I think it's programs that let people in. It's programs that do open discussions without fear of retribution. It's how do we cultivate a dialogue for that efficiency? Because you know, when we're a world, which we are, where there is like 20 more 1-million-person cities being built in India in the next five years, you cannot confront that by saying everything's going to look the way you think it should look because it's because it's “nice” in your mind. You have to think about how do we feed those people? How do we feed them affordably and with the nutrition that they need. So it's an, it's a nuanced conversation that is very hard to have without emotion. But I think we have to try.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:16:20):
I can add something- it's also paradoxical because in many instances of our life, every single one of the people that live on earth want to have the best technology available to them. But yet, you know, as it pertains to food, it seems that there's a narrative out there primarily fueled by marketing, you know, that goes against technology. And so it's a perception issue in, in my opinion. And you know, this one is one of the great examples of this divide is when you talk about GMO crops. And you look at the, at the evidence and you see that in fact scientists largely support GMO crops and the public mostly oppose GMO crops. So there's, there's a disconnect and it's a, and it's a perception, you know, narrative driven. It's not an evidence discussion.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:17:25):
Most people are moved by emotions, and not necessarily by science. And that's the challenge that we face, correct.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:17:34):
Scientists also have emotions. And scientists also have values. It's just that for some, I get carried away.
Caleb Harper (00:17:44):
To build on that one, you know, GMO for most people came out of left field and a documentary and they had no idea. And that created fear, and that fear was created by lack of knowledge and lack of knowledge sharing. And that was a very, very tight intellectual property landscape in which this was a monster out of a closet for most people. And I think you cannot approach the food future of food with a tight intellectual property landscape and without telling the story, or you will absolutely be rebuked.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:18:16):
I want to add something to this discussion, which I find very insightful. I don't think that people are anti-technology. In fact, I think that people overall a pro-technology, that's not just these kinds of things here that people are in favor of, but, you know, I teach a class here at UC Davis with 300 undergraduate students. And I asked them a question about health. I asked them. So if you wake up in the morning with a splitting headache, what do you do? They look at me as if I'm an idiot. They a pop a pill. Okay, If you want to prevent pregnancy, what do you do? Pop another pill. What if your dad suffers a severe heart attack and is in need of a pacemaker and defibrillator, would you be in favor or not? Everybody, and they all have their personal response system, they use the clicker, everybody says yes.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:19:02):
So they highly appreciate those technologies that keep them healthy or save their parents or whatever. They highly appreciate that. But the same people who are so open to the use of technology when it comes to their own health are adverse to technology when it comes to food production. And that's really surprising. I mean, tomato today has more patents in it then this thing, okay? So we are talking about a very technology and intellectual property and so on intense food world we live in. And some people seem to have a problem with the one with the food issue around technology, but not with the other health. It's gone to the same body in some respect and sometimes it matters, others it doesn't. And we have to ask ourselves, why is that? Why is it that food versus health is treated so differently by people, even though it's all going to the same body, what is that? What have we done wrong?
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:20:02):
Sorry, I'm just going to take very quickly. You know, I think there's a marketing element associated to that. There's a marketing element, you know of portions of the economy going out there to create business, and they don't have to follow standards. They can actually have websites where they say you can pop a pill to be more alert so that you can study better. I'm not making this up, this is real. And the evidence that they use to market such pills is anecdote. Oh, I felt better. You know, and I there's no measurement objective measurement. So there is an element of, of perception and an element of marketing that contributes these to these paradox out there.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:20:54):
But, but even in the, in the dairy industry itself, yeah. If you go back a few years when California had the marketing campaign, it was a lot more appealing to show two cows on a hill in a pasture than to show what really happens on a dairy farm, because probably the average person out there perceives a cow in a pasture as being more friendly, yeah? Although they don't realize how tough it is on a July day in California or in Florida or in the December day in Wisconsin. Yeah. So, but that's how we sell ideas. And they think that it's always spring time in New Zealand.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:21:33):
You know when I walk my dog in the morning through Davis, California, I always see dairy trucks driving by. So creamery trucks driving by. And what's depicted on those trucks almost always, are some happy California cows on pasture overseeing the ocean and the red barn in the background and so on. And that is a that is an image that the, that the public has started or has, has learned to love. They love that. Okay. They appreciate that. The problem is when they drive by a conventional dairy, that's not what they see. Okay. They don't see cows on pasture. They see cows in freestalls and they say, well, I want this, I don't want that. So what they had telling me and what is reality is not in alignment. And I know from undergraduate students in my classes that they feel they feel that this is..how should we call that?
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:22:27):
You know, false advertisement almost, you know, because we are, we are portraying the industry as if it were pastural when indeed it's not pastural. And we are portraying that, that red barn image as if it were the gold standard. When indeed it's not the gold standard. I mean, think about those goals, those red barn days when the cows were you know, tied toward poles. You know, tie style stalls and hand milked. And the manure went into the next creek and the worker conditions were horrendous. And the financial liability was not, not existed. Was that really a more sustainable time that what we have today? I, I seriously questioned that.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:23:08):
I wish that few people could have been with me that had that opinion last weekend, when I was in west Texas, I got caught in my first haboob, which is what is known as a 60 mile an hour sandstorm on a pasture-based dairy. And I was out there and we headed for the milk tanks and we crawled under the milk tanks and we waited till the haboob passed. You know, there is reality. And then there is fiction and probably for too long, the industry has allowed the fiction to exist because of the consumer preference. And I think you gotta, you got to embrace transparency and it's not going to be easy. You know, it's really not. And how do we get the people to have trust, which is, you know, promoters of things to understand that reality is probably a big gap that we have. And I think we're working towards it is to, you know, what is the version of dirty jobs? You know, I know they've done it in dairy, but what is that, that experience that shows you why everything it is, the way that it is that is trustable. And, and it probably can't come from within the industry, unfortunately.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:24:11):
You know I remember going to visit a farm and I know that everybody here on screen, but also the majority, probably of the people in the attendee list, I went through the attendee list and I know that the majority of those people will relate to what I'm going to say. You've been to a farm and you've walked into a, into a barn where you said, wow, this barn is great. You know, the cows are comfortable, right. And more than a year ago, because, you know, we haven't had in person meetings for quite some time. We walked into such a barn with a big group of people that work in the dairy industry. And one of the, one of the persons next to me said, I made the comment, wow, this barn is great. Look how comfortable it is. You know, I mean, there's quiet.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:24:57):
The cows are just going about their business. You know, most of them are lying, they're ruminating and the person say, yeah, but you know it looks so, it looks so artificial. It looks like a factory setting. And I looked at the person and I said, yeah, probably so does your living room. And yet, you know, you're comfortable sitting in the couch in your living room. So it's, it's exactly the point that you're trying to make, Dylan. We, we almost everything that is done at the dairy farm, if it were explained to the public, like immediately, you know, without some kind of introduction or context, it would sound as foreign as GMO.
Caleb Harper (00:25:44):
But at the same time we live in this world and, you know, I was an advisor to a nonprofit because I believed in their mission in this world of cell ag. And, you know, I believed in the scientific mission of understanding the things. I didn't believe in necessarily the claims, but like that world is moving forward with an amount of venture capital that is almost unimaginable yet, yet. What does a cell eat? A cell eats fetal bovine serum in that world. What creates fetal bovine serum? A cow, what drives the price of heifers in barns? Cell ag. So it's, it's when you talk about factories, and then the future that's being spun. No one's going below the level of the future that's being spun to say, wait a minute. So this is fermentation. Okay. So this is, you know, what are the, what are the cells eating?
Caleb Harper (00:26:29):
Where are those cells coming from? What's the life cycle analysis of keeping a cow as a source of fetal bovine serum. I mean, it's just questions that are not being asked about the “future” version of food that I always very interested in knowing. And then, you know, I come on to this side and I, and I see holy cow, you know, like no one questions that future of ag and what its tale is because it's new. So it's weird that we say that people don't like technology. How is that possible when billions of dollars of venture capital are pouring into these very factory, like exactly factory, like scenarios of the future. And it's just, it just takes discourse like this. And we need to get out of our, our network of influence and into theirs somehow. You know, instead of saying, you know, I'm scared of that, it's like, no, okay, let's talk because maybe there's a future of food that involves cell ag on a dairy. Maybe there's some combination of these things. Maybe there's not, maybe it's never viable, but I think it's, it's the marketing that you pointed to, Juan, and then the reality behind it, that that is yet to come.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:27:39):
So, let's just change gears a little bit in this discussion here. There's lots of topics to discuss here today, but there's one here that probably applies to the debate, which is on additives and reducing methanogens. So one of the comments that were made here are questions- actually there's three or four, is that a reducing methanogenesis seldom improves any more production. There there's some exceptions. And I think it was mentioned at one instance in here. But if you look at the examples of products that target methanogens is specifically such as a 3-nitrooxypropanol. There is no good data showing that there is a benefit to production. So two questions, if those things were to be implemented as technology to reduce the impact of animal production, who should pay for that? The producer, the consumer, or government programs. And then the second point is if methanogens is reduced, what are the consequences in terms of where is those reducing equivalents going? That hydrogen- is that an impact on the environment?
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:28:49):
So maybe this, the second part of the question first, it depends on how strongly you reduce enteric methane as to what happens to the hydrogen. If you reduce methane that say by 20, 30%, then there's no issue around hydrogen. If you use, let's say asparagopsis taxiformis, a form is this red seaweed, which can reduce enteric methane much stronger than there is a buildup of hydrogen and the change of pH. Then you might have an issue. With respect to the first part of the question?
Dr. Jose Santos (00:29:18):
So the issue is for the animal or for the environment, you're thinking?
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:29:22):
Animal. For the animal, because then you will have impacts on performance when you go too far, because you still need to sing for the hydrogen. But lower scenarios, I'm not a problem. There are some feed additives that both reduce methane and improve performance. For example, components in milk, and feed efficiency. I've seen that with my own eyes and there are, and will be additiveshat will be very cost efficient. Okay. Very cost-effective. And I didn't just pick that from the company, but I actually talked to two people, including commercial dairies that have used it and that have shown me what it does financially. And there, there is some, some real good potential in some of those, those additives. So what was the first part again?
Caleb Harper (00:30:15):
Well, I'll launch into the first part because that's what I mentioned in brief on my presentation. Is until we have a carbon credit protocol for an enteric reduction, enteric methane reduction, you know, it has to rely on production gain or else it's just a cost that a dairy farm has to pay, and they're either not going to do it, or they're not going to do it very happily. And, and we got to avoid that future at all costs. So in terms of carbs efforts, and I know Frank supports on that stuff, a lot of folks on this call and folks in our community support on those efforts, you know, a carbon credit protocol that values the reduction of enteric methane related to an additive, assigns then a carbon equivalent unit and an economic value to that reduction.
Caleb Harper (00:31:01):
And with the expectation under this administration to continue to grow the value of carbon per unit, we as a dairy industry, need to be positioned to take advantage of that dollar value. I showed it at $12 a carbon ton, and frankly, all three of these people are way more qualified than me to talk about how much tonnage we could expect from feeding an additive. But I don't care if it's one ton, or half a ton, or three tons. I need it to be valued above, you know, at least the $12. That's kind of middle of the road, voluntary programs in compliance programs today. But we, as a dairy industry need to ride that. And in Europe, they've done it much more successfully than we have. They have a higher price of carbon and they pegged their additive prices and their additive returns to that price of carbon. And the dairy farmer in most cases, doesn't have to pay for that additive at all. Because they do a profit share between the person that makes the additive, the carbon market value, and the dairy farmer. And I think our goal is to make sure the dairy farmers on the winning side of that proposition, you know, in the future, when we expect carbon prices to go higher.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:32:07):
Caleb, I have a question for you. Nestle and Starbucks are interested in, in supporting the use of feed additives and I think are can financially supporting it right to, to the farmers. So to me, to me, that's one potential avenue that's not governmental linked, or not government linked, but industry driven. And I find that I find that approach quite interesting. I could see that also happening in the meat, on the meat side of things where McDonald's or Burger King or so might say if our supply chains are using feed additives, and that reduces our, our greenhouse gas footprint, and that's what we want to do. And so we are incentivizing that financially. I think on the government side, I served on the task force for the California Resources Board to establish offsets for agriculture. And the number one recommendation our test was made was to establish an enteric emission offset protocol. Whether or not that will happen. We don't know yet, but the task force made that very clear that this is urgently needed. And when you look at the finances, some of these feed additives cost something like 4 cents per cow per day. But particularly for those that actually change components, meal components or efficiencies, but at the kickback can be quite a bit above that. And so I think there will be quite some interest in the dairy industry.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:33:31):
Great. So, Frank, you, you talked a little bit about what I assume are kind of the essential oils, as feed additives. Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe not just those. Do you feel….well, maybe I put this a different way. How far away do you believe we are from having minimum levels of evidence to support enteric claims for some of those products, and I won't name the products, but I know, you know, them in such a way that we could create the type of carbon markets that Caleb is talking about and support those with good science.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:34:06):
Yeah. So I think, I think, well, I know one of the additives is commercially available. Others are likely to come online pretty soon. But for some of the new molecules, we have to have more information. When I, when I saw this paper from Canada about the unintended consequence of having more emissions, greenhouse gas emissions resulted from the manure and what we see from enteric. It really dawned on me that we have to make very clear that when we do these studies, that we look at the whole picture. Because we don't want these negative trade-offs, we want to prevent them by all means, because can you imagine we mass rollout something and then later comes out, there is an unintended consequence of major proportions and, you know, there are also, and I also want to mention that there's all this talk about carbon and greenhouse gases and so on, but let's not forget.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:35:04):
Let's not forget. It's not just about carbon. There are other issues as well, like ammonia or nitrates and so on. We cannot reduce carbon emissions, for example, methane, and induce reactive nitrogen emissions. Let's say nitrous oxide or ammonia or nitrates. So we have to really have all of that on our radar screen because otherwise we play you know, otherwise we in a bed in a bad situation. So for all of these additives, and they are not too many, it's half a dozen or so, we actually need to have a comprehensive understanding of what they do, not just to reducing methane, but also what happens beyond that.
Caleb Harper (00:35:52):
I can't speak on the water quality, the water quality piece, Frank, you know, that's where I was saying that I couldn't cover it very quickly, or I did cover it too quickly on the water quality crediting schemes that are coming about. You know, in terms of being able to view a dairy as a phosphorus removal, or a nitrogen removal system, there are one-off deals spread around the country between upstream contributors and downstream dairies that are beginning to value dairies like a municipal water treatment plant. If they can quantify the exact amount of phosphorous or nitrogen that they did not apply you can actually have an upstream, you know, let's say a small city that's able to expand. Because municipal treatment facilities are very, very expensive per pound of phosphorus removal, for example, whereas on a dairy, some of the technologies that we were just discussing, you know, especially the evaporative systems can actually quantify, to the gram, how much of these things did not go further to impact water quality.
Caleb Harper (00:36:55):
And so Nutrient has this grant with the EPA right now to set up a water quality credit trading system in Wisconsin as a kind of a marketplace where buyers are on one side, those are cities or upstream entities, and sellers are on one side and they can just put the credit in and get market value instead of these kind of one-off deals that have been going on. But I see a huge future for dairy in being recognized as an ecosystem service that we can quantify what we did not put out there, that we can find value from it, that it will be more efficient than the way that they do it with municipal systems. And that could have, just to your point, an equal impact, the actual ecology, you know, of our environment as doing the work that we're doing on gasses.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:37:49):
So one of the things that people often ask, you know, like we, and I think in the video that Frank mentioned that he just did with YouTube, you talk about cattle consuming fiber. Non-edible products for humans. But obviously in modern production, if we want to apply technology there in beef cattle in a lot of potentially edible products such as corn, yeah? Corn, soybean. One of the questions that people sent here is what about the, the environmental impact of that, of consuming animal products. But I'm going to piggyback on that and just tie it up two other things so we can cover three questions in one. So assuming that yes, cattle eat, not just forage, or not just grass in general, do the calculations of carbon use in dairies consider the consumption of non-edible products that is transforming edible products for humans, such as milk and meat. So lots of byproducts that humans would never consume going to cattle diets. And lastly, the same way there's been assessment of greenhouse gasses emission for production of animal products, has there been the same sort of assessment for production of this vegan products or these replacements for dairy and meat products?
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:39:22):
I would like address some aspects of that question, Jose. So we're currently sitting on that on our scientific paper that's under review at the moment that quantified by product use across dairy farms across the entire United States. So I'm going to share one of the highlights from that paper. Basically, on average, dairy cows consume 8.2 kilograms of gray matter in the form of by-products. So it's a substantial amount of by products that the dairy industry utilizes. When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the thing that's a little bit more complicated because in terms of accounting for emissions, the minute that the farmer purchases those byproducts, they are raw material. So they also come with a burden of emissions, you know, just as a crop would. You know that it's, that it's cultivated exclusively for the consumption of the cow, like a corn plant that goes into corn silage.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:40:27):
So from that perspective, by products are also a source of emissions. In this particular paper, what we did is we ran a scenario where we also examined what the emissions would be from a diet that doesn't contain by products. You know, so if you were to feed cows for that same level of productivity, but with, without any byproducts whatsoever, you know, you'd have to replace those with, with crops. Like I said, like corn silage as an example, and there are some, some circumstances where that turns out to be positive, you know, in some, in some other regions in the country, there's actually a benefit in terms of a reduction in emissions with inclusion of byproducts. And in some instances that's not the case, you know, the, the direction is the opposite.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:41:14):
But if those byproducts were not to be used, it would become an even greater burden to dispose of that.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:41:20):
Yeah. So we also, we also had another scenario where we looked at different fates for byproducts. So if you, if you combust, let's say you burn those byproducts, you extract energy from them, you lose all the nutrients, right? And you also generate some emissions, you know, very little, if you put them in a composting file, sorry, pile, you compost them. You can recycle some of the nutrients because eventually that goes into the soil a bit, but you also have emissions. You have a few fold, more emissions than if the cows eat them. And then finally, if they're going to a landfill, you have way more emissions. So I don't have the numbers in front of me. I'd have to open another one in the files here, but I hope to see this paper get accepted soon, crossing my fingers here so that we can actually start talking about it and put some, some numbers out there for people to react to.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:42:28):
Any other takers on this subject.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:42:31):
But I think that your first part of the question dealt with what about crops that are imported onto the dairy, and are those accounted for? And I think that's a pretty simple answer, yeah. That they are accounted for in terms of how we think about boundaries around farms and LZA analysis. So that would be picked up in the overall assessment of the farm environmental footprint of question.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:42:56):
And what about the replacement, like the fermentation products for dairy and the non-animal meat products? Has there been an assessment of what would have happened if we move to that type of diet in terms of impact?
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:43:11):
So maybe I say a few words to that. So in the dairy industry here in California, for example, feeds almost 50% co-products from other crop production, that without the dairy sector would have a very different fate, a fate of probably rotting under the sky or, you know, whatever going into landfill. So, so with respect to the alternatives, have alternatives to meat and milk been compared to the original. And what are the environmental footprints? I've seen a study, for example, that was done at UCLA that compared the environmental footprint of dairy milk versus let's say, almond juice and what they have found. And that was using GWP 100, what they found was that, that the real milk had a 10 times larger carbon footprint, but as 17 times, one seven, 17 times lower water footprint. So you know, all this discussion around carbon and greenhouse gases is part of the overall, okay.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:44:17):
So if you reduce, let's say greenhouse gases from one product over the other, but induce a much stronger water consumption in a place like California, well, then you have a problem. Okay. So it is very important for us to consider trade offs as I said before. It's not all about greenhouse gases, and take that from a person who spends a lot of time on greenhouse gases, but it's not all about greenhouse gases. It's also about all the other things that we need to take into consideration. And that's not even just limited to the environmental stuff. It's also including other sustainability areas like animal welfare, animal health, worker issues, and so on. We have to look at sustainability in holistic way.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:45:03):
So since you mentioned, Frank, that you actually measure greenhouse gases, somebody mentioned here, how accurate are those measurements? And obviously cattle don't belch only methane, are those measurements taken to account total carbon, such as CO2 that may be released as well?
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:45:27):
The CO2 that's respired is not really counted as a net emissions of greenhouse gases. And the reason for that is that what the cow eats, the plants the cow eats, they had assimilated CO2 during their lifetime, right? So when the plant grows, it assimilates CO2 and traps it in its, in its tissues. When the cow then eats the plant, it releases that same CO2. That's why it's considered a “wash”. That's why respiration is not considered net emissions of greenhouse gases. So how precise, how accurate and precise measurements of greenhouse gases from livestock? Well, that can be very accurate and precise. We, for example, we use a head chambers then that really snuck around the animal's head and we measure basically everything going in into that animal and coming out of this animal at least the front end. But we also have environmental chambers, small and large that measure everything going in and coming out. And last, not least there are of course also ways of measuring things on a farm, but that's much less accurate and precise because they are, you know, have issues such as meteorology that is, that is messing with your instrumentation changes in wind speed, direction and so on… temperature.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:47:00):
I want to shift a little bit gears here, and there were several questions about what about farm size, all this technology, how does it apply to not everybody has a 3000 cow dairy and in many industries, farm sizes, even the U S industry, they probably the average farm size in the us. If we want to think of averages, if they mean anything, it's probably 300 and some cows today. So how do you apply all these tools, particularly in the pulse feed in the cow? Yeah, like handling nutrients when you're dealing with farms that don't have the, the sheer size that was discussed and shown here in the presentations.
Caleb Harper (00:47:38):
So I'll kick it off. Cause a lot of that was me, I suppose. So first off I would say that the enteric proposition is scale less. The feed production proposition is scale less and on the manure side you know, you've seen digesters evolve for 20 years. Their ups, their downs, their goods, their bads, their uglies. Now we are at the point where they're viable digesters at 500 cow dairy scale that took a lot of innovation and it mostly took a lot of market building. You know, you wouldn't have that proposition at the 500 to 1000 cow scale, if it weren't for the LCFS credit value, the RIN credit value stacked together with the value of that conventional natural gas. So when I think about what brings our scale down, I think about market building. And on nutrient recovery, those products, the water quality credits, even the CO2 credits attached, but let alone the new manure based products that Jim was discussing.
Caleb Harper (00:48:57):
And I was discussing. Those markets are being built hopefully right now and hopefully as a result of our work. And that's what, one of the other things that Nestle and Starbucks are trying to de-risk. Because they know to scale this, we need a market value proposition where at early days of this technology, you know, why is that a scale, some of the bigger ones at a scale of 3000 cows, because they were designed for small cities. They're coming out of municipal wastewater treatment. You know, the fundamental physics of these technologies are not limited to that. One of these companies designs a toilet, a single person toilet with the same sort of, you know, it's obviously changed a little bit, but with the same sort of underlying technology for very specific use case. So, you know, and recently I've had one of the technologies in the evaporative space approached me, one of the companies, the vendors, and say they can do it at 800 cows scale.
Caleb Harper (00:49:51):
Well, that was lightning fast progress compared to digesters for scalability. And I really think it's going to start like this. The technologies that exist today at the scale at which they exist, you know, are primarily towards a municipal scale. That's going to happen probably very quickly then followed quickly behind that is community use. So we're seeing, you know, look at Cal bio in California. You know, you have networks of farms in which they all put their gas into one central and upgrading gas cleaning and upgrading facility today. And they're building out clusters across the state of California. Those dairy men have a chance at equity in that model. And those dairy men have the chance obviously, of, of getting paid for the gas that they produce on their farm. In Wisconsin, they're currently building a $60 million 16 digester community use model where it's either being piped or it's being trucked to this facility.
Caleb Harper (00:50:47):
So we're breaking down the barriers that way. I think that will happen for nutrient recovery because it's essentially, you know, in some cases, a bolt-on to those digesters that are going up all over the place, there is actually one of these systems at the larger scale on just straight, raw manure in the state of Indiana running every day. So I think, you know, you'll follow the model of where were they designed for, why? You know, that's municipal, okay that's where we are. It's a risky market. We need de-risking on those products. We need product partners. Our ag input partners are crucial to providing value in that space. They are not legislated to have renewable fertilizers, maybe someday, like what California did for fuels. You'll see something like that for fertilizer to incentivize a market building, but they aren't today. So it has to be voluntary.
Caleb Harper (00:51:36):
Then community use, community asset, to defray costs. Then getting to the scale of a single dairy in the, you know, 300 to 500 cow range is, is what I would think is most logical to happen. But given that, that I've been researching this for a year, looking at everyone's technologies that they have out there. And that just two weeks ago, a new one came on the scene and said, I can do it at 800 to 1000 cows. Now I haven't seen it yet. I can't, you know, talk with, with confidence about it. But, you know, given that the first one of these nutrient recovery technologies came on the scene maybe two years ago, there is an obvious, you know, attempt and a belief that the market is coming for this. And so I think that's kind of my answer to the scale question. And of course being part of the US dairy industry, you know, all of our work is balanced against dairies of all sizes, but it's also balanced against market building and proof and demonstration. And that's really to Frank's point where some of the supply chain partners have been willing to put dollars in.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:52:42):
So a dairy of a hundred cows would be equivalent to a municipality of how many people? Can you give us some parallel?
Caleb Harper (00:52:50):
So does anyone know the gallons of human waste per day? We could do it on a, you know, 12 gallons per cow. I don't know how many gallons you guys produce. I'm eating a lot less lately. So you know, I would think that in that model, the first thing is, you know, potential for community use. And how close are the clusters, because it's all going to be about logistics. You know, manure contains a lot of water. Shipping water never really works economically. So it's gotta be, you know, that's gotta be figured out. But again, everything can be figured out if those products have a good market value, fill a niche for organic products or fill a niche for renewable products as an alternative to pit mining phosphorous, and using the Haber-Bosch process to create nitrogen, which burns natural gas. So as we quantify those emissions related to our conventional sources, I believe that market begins to build on our renewable sources, just like it did for fuel.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:53:54):
That was pretty thorough. So, so there is a question here and then maybe something that's more philosophical, and maybe we cannot dictate much of that. So the question is, do you think incorporating grazing practices into traditional confinement systems would be in a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of dairy production and gain carbon credits? And I, I'm just going to link to that this, I guess more philosophical is as the dairy industry consolidates, probably every aspect yeah. From the farm to the retail store. In general, I guess the point that was made here by the person who asked efficiency increases, or at least economic viability improves. However, the local footprint is much larger locally a 5,000 cow dairy impacts more than a 50 cow dairy, although preventative products less. So is that the right direction to reduce the footprint of animal agriculture?
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:54:53):
So just to make sure I'm connecting both of those questions together maybe the grazing one first,
Dr. Jose Santos (00:55:00):
Well grazing is usually never very large. Yeah. So usually it's reduced its size.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:55:05):
Yeah. And I think that, you know, think of the grazing piece there's some kind of compelling evidence that a perennial systems when they're, when they're, well, grazed can increase carbon sequestration and ecosystem services. So you know, things like water filtration and water quality. So I think there is some evidence out there that is, you know, it's interesting. I, I think because of the nature of our confined systems in the U S, and certainly when we think about larger dairy operations, there are logistical challenges to engaging in grazing. But there may be some, there may be some interesting possibilities there to do some sort of, you know, intensive rotational grazing, so things like that that may offer some benefits on that carbon sequestration run. We're going to do some work in our feed production research program that I, that I talked about earlier.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:56:05):
And I talked about the task one, where we're looking at better understanding opportunities as it relates to soil health. And we will be serving some dairies that have grazing as one of those advanced soil health management practices. So I hope we can capture some additional insights there to, to sort of add to that existing body of knowledge. And maybe there are some interesting opportunities that heretofore we haven't really given a lot of consideration to. So I'll stop there with that piece of it. But the other part of your question, I think, was getting at, can we be environmentally efficient at larger scale? Is that fair?
Dr. Jose Santos (00:56:48):
I think the question that was asked is that the right direction as an industry, yeah? Obviously we, you know, we don't dictate- that's economics, but as an industry, is that the right direction to in theory, 9 million cows, 3000 farms of 3000 cows, I guess that's probably how people were thinking or spread the wealth across, you know, more producers type of approach.
Dr. Jim Wallace (00:57:14):
Yeah. I agree with you. I don't think we can dictate that. So I, I think it's difficult to sort of weigh in with what, you know, I personally think should happen because I, I don't have a position on that. We are in the business of responding to and supporting dairy farmers of all sizes, as Caleb pointed out. But I, but I certainly think you can make a case either way. I think you can make a case that large dairy operations generate additional revenues. They have economies of scale that creates perhaps greater opportunity for the adoption of technologies and the integration of practices at scales that sometimes are difficult for smaller dairies. So I don't necessarily think “big” equates to “bad”. I just absolutely don't think that whatsoever from an environmental perspective, but again, I just, I'm not going to weigh in on how I think that the industry should or could evolve.
Dr. Jose Santos (00:58:11):
Yeah. Well, one thing that's important to remember is that we always think of this as this bucolic vision of grace in that, but if you go to New Zealand, there's major problems with nitrates in water. So it's not always a free pass. Everybody has an impact.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (00:58:28):
Well, I can tell you, we have significant challenges with nitrates in the San Joaquin valley of California. There are now communities, oftentimes minority type communities that have nitrate levels that are so high that the surrounding dairies, or that the dairies have to purchase drinking water to surrounding communities. And that's pretty drastic if you think about it, but that's already happening. So there are locations within the United States that suffer from high nitrate levels. And we do have to think about that. That's what I meant when I said earlier, let's not just think that the environmental sustainability picture is, is just methane or greenhouse gases. It is also other components that are very important to keep an eye on.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (00:59:36):
I think it's also important to think about some of these questions that are being posted for what they truly are. They are false dichotomies. They're not either/or questions, you know, but yet we, a lot of, a lot of people seem to just gravitate towards what is better, this or that. And every single one of those systems has you know, good aspects and also limitations, advantages and limitations. It's, it's, it's a very specific piece. You're kind of like choose your poison type of type of reality.
Dr. Jose Santos (01:00:00):
So Scott… Still there?
Scott Sorrell (01:00:22):
Yep. I'm still here. Yeah. So we'll, we'll call that as last call then, Jose. We're getting close to the top of the hour here and with that I'd like to ask one final question of the panel and have each of you answer it. And that is what's one key takeaway that the audience should take away with them from these discussions. And then, what's one or two steps that the audience can begin to take immediately as we progress toward a 2050. And why don't we start with… I'm going to start with Caleb since you're first in line on my screen there. Caleb?
Caleb Harper (01:00:53):
The easiest job I get to go first. So big takeaway, you know, getting to net zero, or getting to climate neutral, or whatever we want to call it, doing better on the emission side does not mean that you are going to go broke going there. It does not mean that it's a threat to the existence of dairy, at least as far as all the people on this call are concerned. And as far as the US dairy system, that's behind you. No one here, conceives of these propositions without a corresponding economic value. And we're working very hard to build that value. I think that's one of the biggest anxieties of the entire program is, here comes one more thing I have to do that's going to cut into my already thin profit margin for operating. So to Jim's point from earlier, that's why the program was set out at a distance.
Caleb Harper (01:02:11):
You know, that's one of the reasons we're responding to consumer demand that has trickled into our food brand demand that trickled and, and goals that they've set that has trickled into our ag commodity groups and goals that they've set. You know, we're all working towards the economic viability of this proposition and it goes hand in hand with science. So as far as something that you could do, you know, shoot, I bet you that Jim's better at answering this than me because he comes from nutrient and they have all kinds of tools that they've developed, and MPF has all kinds of tools that they've developed, but I don't want to speak incorrectly. So I'm going to pass that buck to Jim on that topic. But I will say that, you know, becoming more aware of, of the practices that we've described doing a little bit of research into them, yourself, as much as you feel compelled to do.
Caleb Harper (01:03:03):
And then, you know, considering where does your milk go in to what products? I know a lot of it goes through a co-op and it's sometimes hard to know, but it's those that end of the rainbow group, that's making these commitments because of consumer demand and to Frank's point, that's the groups we need to reach and say, okay, you want to meet your goal. You can't meet your goal without us. We are your supply chain. So let's work together. And so far that's been a very successful approach. And you know, I would just consider how to reach that audience or how to talk to your co-op about reaching that audience, what programs they might be thinking of. Yeah. And that's it. Thank you.
Scott Sorrell (01:03:30):
Let's see. I think Caleb passed the ball to you, so why don't we just continue on with that?
Dr. Jim Wallace (01:03:33):
No, that's that sounds great. So as far as key takeaways, from my perspective. As we are on this journey to 2050, I guess net zero, or if we talk about carbon neutrality either, or it puts me in a place that is very hopeful. I guess that's one of my key takeaways. I'm very optimistic. I think that we are absolutely as an industry on a trajectory to significantly impact through technology, through the adoption of practices to impact in a meaningful way that production of both methane and N2O, I think, at the field level. So again, I guess my key takeaway is, is I'm optimistic. And as far as sort of you know, things that all farms could do there, there are so many things that all farms can do. And I won't touch on the, the enteric piece.
Dr. Jim Wallace (01:04:29):
That’s Juan and Frank’s space, but certainly on the feed production side, we are thinking about things as I described minimal disturbance tillage and cover cropping. Those are spaces that many dairies already engage in. Certainly there are opportunities for those who aren't to think about and do evaluate. And as we learn more in the coming two to five years on both the science piece of that, as well as the economic piece, I think we can help to really facilitate and support a rationale for adoption that space. And then perhaps a final point I'll make again, staying with the theme of feed production is that I think as an industry considering feed shrink as a real opportunity for impacting our environmental footprint is real. We haven't given a lot of thought to it. We haven't done a lot of work in, in sort of thinking through and quantifying what it actually is. But that's something that I think everybody will hear more about. It's something that as a group DMI, that we are going to be advancing some of the thinking on that. And so I'll stop there. Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity again, very much. Appreciate it.
Scott Sorrell (01:04:44):
I'm gonna leave our keynote speaker to last. So Juan wants to go ahead and give us your ideas.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (01:05:50):
Yup, mine are very quick. The first highlight is that we know in which direction we need to go in terms of in enteric methane emissions, we know we need to reduce it. So we have clarity on that, which you know, is, is great. The second element is that I am also hopeful, like, like Jim said before, because there's a number, there are a number of, at least in the feed additive category, of potential elements there that could, that could bring quite substantial reductions, which is something that a few years ago, not too many years ago, it was just simply not even available. So, so that's, so that's great in terms of what, what all of you can do on the other side here, the screen you have to be a responsible user of information and consumer of information.
Dr. Juan Tricarico (01:06:43):
So please let's agree on which ones are the questions we need to ask these people that are putting this potential solutions out there, you know, and let's ask those questions because these are important questions. The end of the day, the burden of proof is on their side. You know, if somebody comes in and says, Hey, you know, you need to do extra wire or practicing your farm. The burden of proof is on them. You know, show me that it reduces, show me how much it reduces. I need to see the variability, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You know, I put, I put some considerations out there, you know, that's a, that's a, that's to get us talking about it, you know. But we, we need to agree on those questions and we need to use them. We need to ask them because the burden of proof is there. We can't wait for, you know, the government to approve, or, you know, like in some of the written up comments, the question came up, you know, this is moving, you know, those Nestle's and Starbucks and bunch of other companies out there that are, have made commitments, they need to deliver, you know, which is need to be responsible users and consumers of information and ask the tough questions
Scott Sorrell (01:07:54):
Well said, Dr. Mitloehner final words, please.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (01:07:57):
Well, well, first of all, thanks again for having me. I really appreciate it, this discussion. I think that in this carbon discussion, this greenhouse gas discussion, I'm also very optimistic because the industry has done some incredibly important moves over the last few decades. We have drastically reduced the impact that we have on climate, drastically. And we have quantified where we are currently, what the impacts are on, let's say greenhouse gases, and we have set goals for the future. And we have defined milestones to reach these goals. Concurrently science is developing new techniques, technologies to help farmers fill their toolbox, the toolbox needed to make these reductions possible. And I think what's also really positive is that that country companies like Nestle or Starbucks and others are not saying we don't leave our farmers alone with that, but we want to support them.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner (01:08:54):
We want to support them because we're in this together. And you know, I want everybody to understand this is not some kind of green-washing. This is not some kind of creative accounting. This is real, this is quantifiable verifiable reductions of greenhouse gases. Our farmers can be part of a solution. And I think it's so important that the sector understands that. That for example, methane reductions will have a real positive climate impact, immediate, positive climate impact. We can have that impact. We need to brag about that impact. And, and be happy that the environmental side, this is really a situation that can be a win-win not just an environmental win, but also an economic win. So I'm, I'm bullish about this topic and I think a lot can, can be done and has already been done.
Scott Sorrell (01:09:50):
Yeah. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, it's been a real honor to share the screen with you today. You're all very knowledgeable and I appreciate your passion for the industry. And I want to thank you for everything that you do for the industry. Again, if you want to watch the full recordings from the Florida Ruminant Nutrition’s symposium session, Your Practical Guide to Achieving Net Zero Carbon Emissions, visit Balchem’s YouTube channel. You'll find the recordings for all five speakers there. These presentations were very insightful. So bring your notebook, thank you to all of our loyal listeners for stopping by the exchange once again, to sit with us awhile, and hopefully you learn something each time you come.
Scott Sorrell (01:10:27):
If you like what you've heard, please remember to drop us a five star rating on your way out, and don't forget to request your Real Science Exchange T-Shirt. You just need the like or subscribed to the Real Science Exchange, and send us a screenshot along with your address and shirt size to anhmarketing@balchem.com. Our Real Science Lecture Series of webinars continues with the ruminant focused topics on the first Tuesday of every month, visit balchem.com/RealScience to see upcoming events and past topics. We hope to see you next time here to Real Science Exchange, where it's always happy hour, and you're always among friends.