Guests: Dr. Bill Weiss, Ohio State University; Dr. Alex Hristov, Penn State University This journal club episode comes to you from the 2024 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference. The paper is “Practical Aspects of Reducing Carbon Footprint by Dairy Farms Through Feeding” from the conference proceedings.
This journal club episode comes to you from the 2024 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference. The paper is “Practical Aspects of Reducing Carbon Footprint by Dairy Farms Through Feeding” from the conference proceedings.
In the U.S., livestock competes with oil and gas for the top source of methane emissions. While “carbon-neutral” agriculture may be easy for modelers to show, Dr. Hristov feels this is misleading and probably impossible in practical dairy farming. However, mitigation can be addressed in several directions, and nutrition can have perhaps the largest impact. Management practices, genetic selection, and manure management can be added to achieve large reductions in total methane from an intensive dairy production system. (2:43)
As forage digestibility increases, methane yield and intensity will decrease. A forage with higher digestibility may gain a 10-15% improvement in methane intensity compared to a lower digestible forage. In addition, starch makes less methane than NDF does. Feedlot cattle produce half the methane of a normal dairy cow due to the increased starch in the feedlot diet. We know fats and lipids can decrease methane, but anything higher than 5-6% in the diet will disturb rumen function and lead to poorer performance. Comparing different forages, corn silage produces the least methane, with alfalfa in second place. (6:41)
Feed additives have the potential to deliver compounds for methane mitigation. One of these is 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), the commercial version of which was developed in Europe. It is approved in Europe and Latin American countries. Australia and New Zealand are also working through the approval process. This compound inhibits the MCR enzyme (methyl coenzyme M reductase) which catalyzes the last step in methanogenesis. Dr. Hristov’s lab has consistently shown a 30% reduction in methane yield when diets containing 3-NOP are fed, with no impact on milk production and a slight increase in milk fat. 3-NOP is quickly metabolized, so it is most useful in a confinement system where it can continuously enter the rumen. The compound is stable in a TMR for up to 24 hours, and the optimum inclusion rate is 60-80 milligrams per kilogram of diet (60-80 ppm). (14:41)
Regarding regulatory approval in the U.S., the FDA has indicated that 3-NOP must be approved as a drug, not as a feed additive. Dr. Hristov has concerns about an adaptation of the cows to the compound. One study in Holland fed 3-NOP for a year, and there was a definite decrease in efficacy over time. Furthermore, efficacy may depend on diet, as 3-NOP is less effective with high NDF diets. It’s unclear if the decrease in efficacy over time is because the microbes break down 3-NOP before it affects methane synthesis or if the microbes shift to a different pathway of methane synthesis. (22:04)
Bromoform, a compound found in red seaweeds, is also a powerful methane mitigator. Dr. Hristov’s lab has observed 60-65% decreases in methane production early in the feeding period, dropping to 20-25% after 200 days. Other issues include the practicality of growing and transporting seaweed, the instability of bromoform, and the fact that bromoform is an ozone-depleting compound and a carcinogen. Seaweed extracts tend to decrease dry matter intake, and thus milk production and milk iodine increase dramatically. (25:54)
In the U.S. dairy system, where manure is usually handled as a liquid, methane emissions from manure and from the cow are equal. Methane digesters and flaring of methane are common mitigation methods. Acidification is another method whereby decreasing pH can decrease methane emissions and ammonia and nitrous oxide losses. Dr. Hristov predicts a lot of additives to decrease methane emissions from manure will eventually be available on the market. (31:16)
3-NOP has little effect on rumen dynamics but may increase butyrate. Dr. Weiss asks if different feed additives have synergistic effects, and Dr. Hristov thinks much more work is needed in this arena. (33:19)
While methane mitigation probably has no silver bullet, many little interventions can add up to a big impact. Looking forward, so many people are working in this area; we will have solutions for methane mitigation. (43:56)
Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.
If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to anh.marketing@balchem.com. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.
Scott (00:07):
Good evening everyone, and welcome to the Real Science Exchange, the pubcast we're leading scientists and industry professionals meet over a few drinks to discuss the latest ideas and trends in dairy nutrition. We're back with the next episode of our journal club, but we're doing something a little bit different. This week we are at the Tri-State Nutrition Conference in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and we're actually reviewing proceedings of presentations given here at, at the conference. And we're here with our professor Emeritus Bill Weiss. Bill, welcome. I'd also like to introduce my co-host. I got Dr. Clay Zimmer with me once again today. Thank you for joining me, Clay.
Bill (00:47):
Thanks, Scott.
Scott (00:49):
And the paper we're gonna be reviewing today was written by Alex Hristov from Penn State University. The title is called “Practical Aspects of Reducing Carbon Footprint” by Dairy Farms Through Feeding. So, Bill, why don't you go ahead and lead us into the discussion.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
New research is changing everything we thought we knew about choline impact on the cow and her calf and top scientists have a lot to say about it. They're presenting new research that supports choline as a required nutrient to optimize milk production choline as a required nutrient to support a healthy transition choline as a required nutrient to improve calf health and growth, and choline as a required nutrient to increase colostrum quantity. This new research is solidifying cho's role as a required nutrient for essentially every cow, regardless of health status, milk production level, or body condition score. Learn more about the science that is changing the game and the choline source that is making it happen. Reassure Precision Release Choline from Balchem. Visit balchem.com/scientistssay to learn more.
Bill (02:18):
Well, first, you know, Alex has been doing this work for many, many years, so he is kind of the resident or one of the resident experts in the US. And I guess I'd like to start off with what, most of the, your, your papers on methane mitigation. So how big of a problem is meth animal agriculture, methane, or it's more specifically dairy industry generated methane
Alex (02:43):
For the us, I mean, it's a little different globally, but for us livestock, and that includes synthetic and manure emissions, and these are mostly from cattle, although we have methane emissions from pig manure is the number one source of methane. It competes with oil and gas for first and second place. They're very close, actually. So if anyone is concerned with methane and greenhouse gas emissions livestock will be on top of their list for mitigation.
Bill (03:29):
So how, you know, we're, we're pretty intensive in this country. How, how practically, how low do you think, what percent reduction do you think is, is practically possible? Yeah. If we did everything we know within the economic constraints, what, what do you think is possible?
Alex (03:47):
So, I hear all the time carbon neutral agriculture and carbon neutral livestock or dairy. I think this is not possible. I mean, modelers can easily put numbers together and show carbon neutrality in a practical dairy farm. I don't think this is possible, and I think it's time that you know, we and others write something about it because the public seems to be kind of misled on this carbon neutrality thing. What is possible several things. So, so mitigation can take several directions. Obviously my area is nutrition, so we'll talk more about this and, and I think nutrition actually can have the largest impact. But there are management practices that can be added on top of nutrition. There are genetic selections that people have done that can also add a little bit. And then you have the manure site which is quite attractive for cutting methane down. So when you put all this together I think it's not impossible, but there are many ifs. And if everything works the way we would like it to work, and again, we can talk more about this, you can probably get up to 70% reduction in total methane from an intensive dairy production system.
Bill (05:31):
So substantial.
Alex (05:33):
So it is very substantial. Okay. But this is what I call the best case scenario.
Bill (05:39):
Yeah. Yeah. Probably will never be obtained, but
Alex (05:41):
I, I don't see it, but on paper that's possible. Yeah.
Scott (05:45):
Alex, another term we hear a lot of is net zero. Could you maybe talk about the difference between net zero and, and carbon neutral and, and is that possible?
Alex (05:57):
You, you have to ask the people who throw those terms around what they mean to me, they mean the same thing. Okay. That input and outputs are equal. So you don't have emissions, greenhouse gas emissions or carbon emissions from a production system or a farm. That's, that's what they mean.
Bill (06:20):
If we get back to methane, let's just kind of start at the top of the list on, on concentrate on nutrition right now. On, on carbohydrates. How can, what, what can we do on carbohydrates and what do you, again, within the cost and health, cow health, all these constraints, what kind of reductions are we looking at?
Alex (06:41):
So if you talk about nutrition, again the list would start with the typical dietary interventions, which is not going to gain us much simply because, I mean, we know what we are doing. It's not that we are somewhere where we don't have quality feeds or don't have access to feeds. There are maybe still some opportunities there. For example, we compare forages and forage digestibility. We do know that as forage digestibility increases what we call a methane yield, or methane intensity, which is either on a dry methane intake basis or on a milk production basis, will decrease. So when you feed a 60% forage diet
Alex (07:39):
And you are having higher digestibility forages versus
Alex (08:40):
There is some opportunity there. Of course, we are all concerned with fat. But starch will increase, milk production will decrease fat, probably not as drastically as we think. And total energy corrected milk may actually be increased. So once you have that kinda situation, you will have less methane, not just as total methane, but also as in methane intensity. And we have shown this with a study where we had up to 40% starch diets. Other feed manipulations are gonna be very difficult. Of course, we know lipids and oil can decrease methane. Now, there you have to be careful with, again, with fat and upsetting room function microbial synthesis and this kind of thing. So I don't think fat is gonna be a practical tool because normally we already feed enough fat, and if you exceed 6%, five, 6%, then you are getting in that gray zone.
Alex (09:52):
For this disturbed room function, we did have a project. We still have that project screening feeds for their methane mitigation potential, what we call it. That started with quite a bit of interest in with us and, and with the funders. After we screened, I think probably over 70 or 80 different feeds that we normally feed. And then we compared diets reconstituted diets based on this emissions versus what we have measured in the animal. We found that this may not be such a great idea and doesn't, doesn't really reflect the animal emissions. And on top of that, there is really not a lot of difference between individual feeds. The one that stood out was whole cotton seed because of the oil and whole soybeans. But when those are put in a normal diet at five, 7% of dry matter, they really don't make that much difference on the emissions. So the last thing we have is feed additives. Okay. And, and that's a large topic. It'll take two podcasts to
Bill (11:10):
Be glad to have you back. Okay. I guess before we switch to additives, which we're gonna go to, but, you know, forage makes up the biggest component. Is there much difference, say between almost all, all from the forage, all corn silage, all alfalfa, all grass, where, you know, you're talking maybe 50, 60% of the diet. Does that
Alex (11:30):
Make a difference? So, a good point, bill. I was gonna get to that, but skipped it. So, corn silage, definitely because again, of the s produces less methane compared to, compared to all forages, all other forages, alpha, alpha grass silage. We went, we had a project a couple of years ago, what we call alternative forages. We went through six or seven different forages that are not completely foreign to the dairy producers in the Northeast. None of them actually made less methane than corn silage. And in fact, some of them produced more methane. Alpha, alpha is the second after corn silage in terms of methane because of the protein. And also war actually overall two digestibility of fiber. So corn silage will be number one. Okay. The difference is not great. Probably, again, we are talking about 10 to 15%. There are some data also about BMR corn silage that produces less methane than traditional corn silage. But of course, you have to put all this in a bigger equation with all other consequences of feeding BMR.
Clay (12:58):
So, Alex, did you do any work with small grain silages?
Alex (13:02):
Yes. small grain silages. We did work at wheat silage but of course pretty much no one in the northeast or in Pennsylvania makes wheat silage, so nobody knew how to make it
Bill (14:09):
We kind of switch to additives, I guess. Mm-Hmm.
Alex (14:31):
Now. Yes, sure, sure. So three NLPs, three ni Roxy propanol, NO p's easier.
Bill (14:36):
Yeah.
Alex (14:41):
It's actually the commercial name is Bove. It has been approved in Europe. I know it's approved in Latin American countries, I think Australia and New Zealand. It's either approved or they're approving it now. It was developed by DSM in Europe. We at Penn State have done all the animal dairy work in North America. Most of the beef work was done in lead bridge by Karen Boin. So the mode of action, it's a very simple molecule, small molecule, which has advantages. Actually. One of the advantages, it attacks the enzyme of methane synthesis. All the, which are the methanogens in the rumen have that this is the, what we call it, hydrogen atrophic pathway of methane synthesis. The MCR enzyme is very important. It's found in our cure. So it actually attacks that last step of methane synthesis that blocks that enzyme. We know that our data show, and I'm gonna talk about this later this afternoon, our data show about a 29-30% reduction in, in all these metrics that we talk about, total methane emissions on a dry methane yield or on milk production.
Alex (16:15):
We struggled quite a bit to find where that energy goes if there is energy savings from methane. And in theory, there are our meta-analysis of our own data show increase of about small increase 0.2% units increase in milk fat. We didn't see any effect on milk yield. Dry met intake in some cases may drop down a little bit, statistically in our case, wasn't affected. But they show particularly in beef cattle that there may be some decrease in dry met intake. And typically, Bill, when you have a small increase in dry met intake and no effect on milk production, you improve efficiency, feed efficiency is improved not in our data again, only milk factor was, was increased. So DSM has done tons of work in terms of where is that compound going?
Alex (17:21):
What is the metabolism of it? They did isotope work, for example, and 85% of it is going into CO2. So it's very quickly metabolized. In fact when we did this studies we worked at dural pattern of methane mitigation, and we feed once a day, and the compound is mixed with the feed. So after feeding in the morning, obviously, when the cows come back from milking, they eat a lot. So the mitigation effect goes up to 40%. Then over the day, by, by the next morning before feeding, they almost don't eat anything. The mitigation effect is gone. So the compound is so rapidly metabolized that if it doesn't enter the rumen continuously doesn't have any effect. And that is applicable to pasture systems, for example where cows, you know, don't get it. They, there is no mechanism of feeding, feeding that compound. So really if, if you are looking at an effect, it's gonna be for confined systems where the cows will have access to feed with the compound all the time. Is
Bill (18:42):
It, is it stable and the TMR then over a day or
Alex (18:45):
Yeah, we didn't see any differences in terms of the compound sitting 24 hours. With the feed, we had some concerns about volatility. We did a study and palatability because of the drain tank effect. So we did a study where we looked at palatability and volatility, and we didn't find it surprising to me, actually, because when you enter that barn, you can smell it, but it wasn't enough to detect any differences. And I think they made some changes to, to the premix the commercial product and, and that addresses this, this problem.
Bill (19:29):
What, what kind of feeding rates do you look at typically?
Alex (19:32):
Oh inclusion rate. Yeah. Yeah. So, again, we did dose response studies up to 200 milligrams, PPM milligrams per kilogram inclusion from 40 to 200. The optimum was around 60 to 80. I think what DSM is recommending now is 60 but anywhere between 60 and 80, you will have the effect, it will slightly increase over up to a hundred, 150, but it won't justify adding that much compound anymore.
Bill (20:12):
So we're only talking a gram or two a day of actual feeding
Alex (20:15):
A about that. So yeah, for a typical cow, yeah. Okay. Gram to two grams. Up to two grams, yeah.
Bill (20:23):
Yes. I'm more interested in energy than a lot of people, but, you know, you're only talking it's a big reduction in methane, but it's probably only about two or 3% more me from the de stage. So is that even measurable, or do we just have to believe the thermodynamics and say, we know it's more efficient, but we can't prove it.
Alex (20:44):
Yeah. Don't forget these thermodynamics are all in vitro stuff. Yeah. The STO geometry is an in vitro protocol that at least in our case, has been proven to be wrong. We could not account for, in, in all of these studies, we could not account up to, for up to 60% of the hydrogen. Okay. When you do the STO geometry of the v FFAs and methane and, and all that bill, in one case, actually, the first study that was in publishing PNAS we had increased body weight of the cows. Again, these are continuous design trials. So we thought maybe, you know, they getting, gaining more body weight, but that never repeated. So across all the studies, the only thing that we have seen statistically is the milk fat, milk fat in some cases was a statistical, but was a trend or a numerical difference. But of course, when you put all this together in the metaanalysis it showed up and, and even, you know, that small increase in milk fat cannot account for the energy. No, no. That supposedly is saved. Yeah.
Bill (21:56):
Another additive. You talk a lot, and I don't know if this is allowed or not or if it needs regulatory approval, but that's the algae and the bromo farm.
Alex (22:04):
Oh, yeah. I should talk about regulatory approval. So in the US I'm not sure what is right now, but the FDA told them it has to be approved as a drug, not as a feed additive.
Bill (22:17):
You were talking about NOP
Alex (22:18):
About to still three NOP now Avanco is dealing with three NOP in the us and we keep talking with them for a number of reasons. Last time I talked to them was probably February, and they said in few months. So next time I talk to them, it'll be a few months. Again, but it's coming. I, I don't see, you know again, there, there is nothing standing in the, in the way of the approval for this compound. We have thrown the milk, dumped the milk from all the studies. Unfortunately, over the years,
Bill (22:53):
I've done a few of those too, where you throw it away.
Alex (22:56):
I have to say something else about three NOP. We do have some concerns about adaptation. It's in our papers and probably in this paper as well. We have seen in this long term, 10, 15 week studies. Again, this is not a very long term, but that's what we can do. We can throw milk from a full lactation of so many cows. We have seen some decrease of the efficacy over time. There was a paper at that I'm gonna show today from Holland wagon Indian that fed three NOP for a full year. And they there was a definite decrease in the efficacy in one of the stages. Wasn't completely clear, whether it's the changing in the diet. So, for example, that's another thing with all these feed additives. Efficacy may depend on diet. NDF versus starch three NOP definitely is less effective on higher NDF diets. So the more forage you feed, there'll be less effective. So they, if you look at their data, there is definitely some indication of adaptation but can be interpreted in different ways. So that's, that's a concern, not just with this, with all feed additives.
Scott (24:27):
Can you quantify that, Alex?
Alex (24:29):
Well, the rumen, as you know, has evolved over millions of years with the microbiome. And we know that many feed additives that are active or do something in vitro when we feed them to the animal, either the effect is too small or over time it just disappears because the microbes adapt to it. Again, there are three different pathways of methane synthesis in the rumen. Whether the microbes adapt to break this compound before it affects methane synthesis, or there is a shift to a different pathway of methane synthesis that's not clear at this point.
Clay (25:09):
So would you feed it during the dry period? And would that create a adaptation back or
Alex (25:16):
Well adapt if there is adaptation, the more, the longer you feed it, there will be, you know, clear, more clear adaptation. Now, if there is adaptation, there may be some things you can do to either avoid it or minimize this effect. You can have a schedule of feeding this compound certain period breakups and periods of time where you don't feed it and then feed it again. Or you feed different feed additives you switch them. So that's still to be studied. Okay.
Alex (25:54):
About the proform, of course, that's, that's the other thing that really works. It started with the red seaweeds. There are two of them, two species. We have done, again, quite a bit of work with this. Unfortunately, apart from the practicality of the thing growing the seaweed, transporting it, including it in the diet stability, proform is, is not stable, apart from the environmental issues like proform is ozone depleting compound, or in fact, it's a casino gen as well. With this one, clearly we can see adaptation. Right now we have a one year well full tation study with the as Opsis, and we are at about 200 days. And I'm gonna show again, this data that, that's a fresh date just coming from from the study. And the effects started at about 60, 65%.
Alex (27:03):
We never get the 90 or 80% that people are talking about. And now it's down to about 20, 25% dry meth intake has been reduced. And as a problem with this. Now, I mean, of course they're talking about extracts. There are in fact there are some there, there's some work of feeding proform by itself through a sw release devices in the rumen, particularly for partial systems that may prevent the drt intake effect if it's a palatability issue which probably is at the end of the day. But we have definitely seen with as farsis drop in DRT intake. And of course, milk production drops down. We didn't see any changes in components. But adaptation is the biggest problem. And then on top of that milk iodine increases quite dramatically. My next question. Yeah, bromide also, although bromides doesn't seem to be a compound that is on the screen radar but iodine definitely is controlled. So there are a lot more issues with this done with three NOP.
Bill (28:26):
Yeah. Yes. And this is more of a philosophical question, not a scientific, you know, these additives are gonna cost money. They may or may not improve energetic efficiency. So the farmer's buying who, who pays for this
Alex (28:42):
Good question. That has to be resolved that, I mean, farm the farmer is not gonna pay for it. Exactly. And shouldn't pay for it. Yeah. So if we are so concerned with the greenhouse gases and the climate change, we should pay at least part of it. The companies, they want to recover their reinvestment, obviously. What I hear about three NOP is that's gonna be Lanco hasn't said anything officially, but what is in Europe, the situation in Europe, it's about the cost of one ki of milk. Okay? So whatever, you know, costs milk prices that's about where it's gonna be, which is quite significant. There are examples how this can work. Carbon markets is of course, one of them, I'm, I'm not into that kind of stuff, so I don't know much about it.
Alex (29:39):
I know that a lot of people will make a lot of money on the way there.
So how's this gonna help farmers and consumers, I'm not quite sure, but ACO already has an example with Roman in that they claimed carbon credits down in Texas Dairy Farm by reducing emissions by something like 5%, which is extremely strange to me. But in fact, you know, if there is somebody to pay for that, yeah. Why not? I think a major driver will be the consumer. If we want to pay a little more for low carbon dairy or meat I mean, that should compensate using those compounds. Yeah.
Bill (30:31):
Yes. Another thing, you know, a lot of these farmers now have bio digesters, but these additives carry over to reduce methane yield from manure, or do they, are they done being active by the time they're secreted or excreted by the
Alex (30:44):
Cattle? Yeah. That question has been asked, and there is data that show that they, they don't, no effect come in manure. Okay. So there is no effect on methane from digesters. Okay. That particular compound is completely gone and digested very quickly. Yeah.
Scott (31:01):
Are there other compounds that people are looking at to maybe incorporate into the manure
Alex (31:08):
To decrease methane?
Scott (31:09):
Yes. During the di to digester,
Alex (31:12):
No, you actually want
Scott (31:13):
To, you wanna keep it,
Bill (31:14):
But if you don't have a digester, is
Scott (31:15):
There added
Alex (31:16):
Right. If you don't have a digester? Yeah. there are, there are methods or processes that you can decrease methane from manure. And again, that's a in, in our dairy system, it's about 50 50. When you handle manure as a liquid, the, the way we do typically there is as much methane emitted from manure as from the animal. So digesters is one way, obviously you capture that methane and you use it for something else cover covering the manure and either directing that methane to, to, for some other purposes or flaring it. So you turn it into CO2, which is a Wawa global warming potential gas. And acidification is a actually very practical wave, and they do it in Europe. If you bring the pH down you'll decrease methane emissions quite significantly. And also ammonia and nitrous oxide losses. Other feed additives, I'm not aware, but I'm, I'm sure people, oh, actually, yes, there is a fatality from Ireland that we tested, unfortunately didn't show the results that they were claiming in our system, but I, I guarantee you that there will be a lot more additives for manure decreasing at methane emissions from manure.
Bill (32:48):
And you said it's about half the, half the total methane from dairy
Alex (32:52):
Farms? From dairy farms, yeah. In beef systems, it's very small. Yeah. 80% or 90% are coming from the animal. Yeah.
Bill (33:02):
I guess another question, I'm not a microbiologist. Yeah. But, you know, we're, if we reduce methane, we're changing stuff. Does this affect, like microbial protein synthesis, fiber digestion, all these other things? Again, maybe not a lot, but a little bit for the negative or, or, or
Alex (33:19):
Positive. So we have not seen that not NDF digestibility, total digestibility, not just NDF or other nutrients haven't changed. Now, in theory, when you inhibit methane, VFA profile will change. For example, there'll be more propionate. And, and that's energetically, of course, that's, that's good for the animal. We have not seen it. The thing that we typically see is actually butyrate increasing. We have talked about this in our papers and the mechanisms and so on, but there seem to be slight increase in butyrate with all these inhibited methane studies, including three NOP and proform. And we have done other ones too. So unless dry met intake is, is changed or affected, that the changes in room fermentation are not that drastic or dramatic to, to change anything in the animal. I should have mentioned you didn't ask me, but there is a whole bunch of other feed additives that are not inhibitors plant extracts and this kind of things that none of them really has proven. Even the claims that the companies have, we have done a bunch of these trials very disappointing for the manufacturers obviously. But I don't think they will be a game changer or they were going to have any, at least at this point, have any effect on the carbon footprint of milk. Yeah.
Clay (35:01):
So, so Alex, the, the increase in, in butyrate production, is that, is that why you think that you're seeing the increase in milk fat
Alex (35:11):
Obviously butyrate is a precursor of of milk fat, and that's one of the explanations we have. Yes. why is butyrate? Because butyrate, in fact, butyrate synthesis produces less hydrogen than acetate of obviously more than propane. Propane doesn't produce any hydrogen. So I think the rumen adapts to the, to that situation. And that's why pumps out less hydrogen because that hydrogen is not gonna go into meth methane, and eventually we know that if there is too much hydrogen in the room, and that is going to inhibit fermentation. So I think this is an adaptation mechanism to this compounds that inhibit methane.
Bill (35:54):
Yeah. Do you think there's any either positive or negative synergy among additives? Like if you added in, I'm just as an example, NOP and Broma Form. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And that's just an example.
Alex (36:06):
That's a, you open a can of worms bill That's, that's something that needs to be studied a lot more because the, the data that are out there are pretty controversial. In some cases, you will have an additive effect that I talk about in my papers, when you are trying to calculate all these things. Obviously, you know, farmers can use more than one feed additive. And in some cases they show synergism. So we don't, we don't have a clear picture. Obviously, you want to combine compounds that have different mode of action. So they don't act in one way to complement each other, but we need a lot more studies to, to know whether this compounds really work together or, or there is no no effect no further improvement. Yeah.
Clay (37:02):
What, what about with monin?
Alex (37:06):
Monin monin doesn't really affect methane. The only way ine decreases methane is through dec decreasing dry intake and shifting a little bit the fermentation towards propagate. But the true effect is feed efficiency and dry meth intake and feed deficiency, dry intake and feed deficiency. So the 5% that I mentioned here, that's not coming from direct inhibition of methane production, but just the whole picture of the animal. Yeah.
Scott (37:39):
Based on your understanding of the rumen dynamics in biology, can you hypothesize or at least conceive of other compounds that have yet to be discovered or created that might work?
Alex (37:50):
I tell, I can tell you, everyone who is into the methane business in the world is working on that right now. including our lab everyone I know
Scott (38:44):
You had mentioned early on in your talk that you believe that there's like a 70% reduction that's possible, and that with three NOP could maybe get 30%. If you were to draw a pie chart, where's the other 40% coming from?
Alex (38:59):
Okay. Yeah. So I mean, I talk about this in, in the paper. Let's say you have, I, I have a best case scenario and worst case scenario. So the best case scenario, you can manipulate the diet forages, starch, and get maybe 10, 15% maximum reduction. Then you add on top of that maybe 30% reduction by inhibitors, and then you add a second compound that is also effective, and there is a synergism or adaptivity of the effect. So that brings maybe another 10, 10% or so. So we are now at 50 or so percent. And then on top of that, you can add some maybe genetic manipulation of or selection for war emitting animals, which is not a dramatic thing. People understand now that the effect is not gonna be more than 10% or maximum, but even if you add that you maybe have some management strategies let's say longer productive life of the animal, that's, that's one actually key or improving milk production, for example, or increasing components. So an intensity basis, you are adding again, this this reduction. And then if we put on top of that manure, then you can get 70 or even higher than 70% reduction.
Scott (40:37):
Got it.
Alex (40:38):
And the worst case scenario, let me finish this. The worst case scenario is diet manipulation. 5%, let's say, or no zero. Then you have an additive that there is adaptation of the microbes over time. So the effect decreases. You don't have synergism or relativity of the second additive, and you have no other tools to, to reduce this emission. So you are working at the maximum of 20, 25%, maybe reduction.
Scott (41:09):
You know, you mentioned genetic manipulation of the cow. I'm kind of curious. Selection. Yeah. Selection could, could we manipulate the microbes genetically
Alex (41:19):
Absolutely. People are working at that. No one has successfully done it yet. Who knows? Now that there is so much money into it, people who are outside of animal science and outside of human microbiology are getting into it. And, you know, they may have expertises that we don't have. Exactly. So there, there may be some progress there. But no one in the history of rumen microbiology has been able to manipulate the rumen except one case down in Australia where I forget Bill with that plant that they introduced, oh, Mike, you know what I'm talking about? Yeah, I know what you're talking about. Yeah. So that's the only case, but this is a native microbe from the same geographic area, just transferred from one animal to another. Mm.
Clay (42:05):
Interesting. So, so Alex, at the beginning of the discussion, you also mentioned that there are management practices that could reduce carbon footprint. What would some of those be?
Alex (42:15):
Some of those would be, for example, as I said, IM improving lifetime productivity of the animal instead of, you know, having grown five, five heifers for the same amount of milk production. You, you may have one cow that is not milking for two lactations only, but milking for 10 lactations so that that can affect these emissions. Having healthier animals. We have shown for example, mastitis, if, if you control mastitis and reduce mastitis, that affects again the, the intensity of the emissions because you have a healthier animal that produces more milk. All this kind of interventions can have an effect on the overall, overall picture. Yeah.
Clay (43:04):
Yeah.
Scott (43:06):
Well, Dr. Hristrov, this has been a fascinating discussion. Yeah. Good. And I'm sure, and I'm sure there's gonna be many discussions going forward. And so I really appreciate you joining us today. What I'd like to do is, you know, we've covered a lot of territory, maybe pick out one aspect that you'd like the audience to just kind of take away from this conversation, and I'll ask all three of you to do that. And, but I'll start with my co-host Dr. Zimmerman, if you might do that for us.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
Tonight's last call question is brought to you by Nitro Precision Release Nitrogen NitroShure delivers a complete TMR for the rumen microbiome, helping you feed the microbes that feed your cows. To learn more about maximizing microbial protein output while reducing your carbon footprint, visit balchem.com/nitroshure.
Clay (43:56):
Yeah. So I, you know, I think for the audience today, you know, the, the even though it's minor, you know, these dietary manipulations, I, I, I think there's a little bit there, what we can do to improve things as nutritionists.
Scott (44:11):
Yeah, good point. Bill, any thoughts?
Bill (44:14):
There's a, in this paper, there's a lot of things in the toolbox that we can use. It's not gonna be one thing fixes everything, but there's just a lot of, like Clay said, a lot of little things. You may be able to do that when you add 'em all up, have a big impact.
Scott (44:27):
Yeah. Dr. Soff gonna give you the final word.
Alex (44:31):
Yeah. again we, with so many people working in this area, I think we'll have solutions. My biggest concern is adaptation. Maybe we'll have a way around it with different regimen feeding and supplementing and so on. But at this point that's my biggest concern. We'll see how that goes. Yeah.
Scott (44:58):
Very well. Well, again, it was a very fascinating discussion. I want to thank you for joining us today. It's been awesome. To our loyal listeners, thank you for joining us once again. We hope you learned something. I hope you had some fun, and I hope to see you next time here at the Real Science Exchange, where it's always happy hour and you're always among friends.
Speaker 3 (45:17):
We'd love to hear your comments or ideas for topics and guests. So please reach out via email to anh.marketing@balchem.com with any suggestions, and we'll work hard to add them to the schedule. Don't forget to leave a five star rating on your way out. You can request your Real Science Exchange t-shirt in just a few easy steps, just like or subscribe to the Real Science Exchange. And send us a screenshot along with your address and t-shirt size to anh.marketing@balchem.com. Balchems Real science lecture series of webinars continues with ruminant focused topics on the first Tuesday of every month. Monogastric focused topics on the second Tuesday of each month, and quarterly topics for the companion animal segment. Visit balchem.com/realscience to see the latest schedule and to register for upcoming webinars.