Livestock methane feed additives are not folly. A response to Project Drawdown.

There is a path to global livestock methane mitigation that includes grazing animals and the global south.

Project Drawdown’s Eric Toensmeier recently released an article asking the question “Are livestock feed additives the future or folly?” While noting the increased adoption of the chemical 3-NOP in feed operations, and its ability to reduce methane by 30%.¹ Toensmeier asks if feed additives may be part of greenwashing, from his experience at a beef meeting. And certainly, some startups overstate the potential impact of their feed additives, claiming 90% or 100% methane mitigation is possible. I will note in contrast Danone’s pledge to reduce its methane emissions by 30% by 2030. That reads to me as an intention for full adoption of 3-NOP throughout their supply chain. I think that’s a fine example of corporate responsibility and a strong indicator that future proven methane mitigation technology has a path to adoption.

Toensmeier also writes:
”Most [cattle] are roaming around grazing for most of their lifespan. How would feed additives be delivered to these livestock?”

This is the wrong question to ask. Adding a chemical to a feed is one way to deliver a methane mitigation compound to livestock. And it’s a good start, and we need ways to deliver the most potent of those compounds to grazing livestock at a reasonable cost. How would we do that?

One answer is to put the chemical in water given to grazing animals, as Rumin8 is doing, or in a salt lick. Another answer is to formulate these chemicals in ultra-slow-release pills. Companies such as Ruminant Biotech are working to take the active ingredient in the methane-reducing seaweed and deliver them by a bolus.² A bolus is a pill that sits at the bottom of a cow or sheep’s stomach (rumen) and steadily releases a chemical over a period as long as months. It’s a proven decades-old technology used to supply micronutrients or pharmaceuticals to livestock. And it significantly improves the economics of livestock methane mitigation, by reducing the labor costs by a factor of 100x.

An ultra-slow-release pill could be applied once a quarter or even year. That is compatible with basically all grazing livestock operations, which typically run it’s cattle down a shoot and hold them in place to deliver veterinary care. The system to clamp them in place is simple. Here’s a picture of one I took at a ranch in Argentina:

Toensmeier also notes the difficulties in delivering solutions globally. This is true, and it requires dedicated effort. That effort might succeed. As a precedent, India vaccinates ~50% of its buffalo against Foot & Mouth Disease.

He also notes that the finances are more difficult for a farmer in the developing world, who wouldn’t be able to afford the solutions. I think this misses a critical point - the payoff from methane mitigation incentives will be much more meaningful to them. Because incomes in the developing world are so low, a $100³ payment for methane mitigation would be much more meaningful to them. It’s 5% of the annual salary of a person in Kenya, as compared to 0.15% of the annual salary for someone in Denmark. That means a person in Kenya could support themselves by helping only ~100 cattle adopt low-methane solutions.

I agree with Toensmeier that we need to reduce food waste and shift our food consumption to lower-emitting food systems. I just think we also need to reduce the emission intensity of livestock production. Food is a cultural preference. Purchasing meat is a common luxury good pursued by people who rise out of poverty.

The planet may shift to different eating habits eventually, but it will happen at the rate at which culture evolves - generationally. And we don’t have generations to reduce our carbon footprint. I think it will be easier (though not easy) to convince livestock herders in Africa to adopt a low-methane product than to convince their consumers to not want to eat meat.

I favor a portfolio approach to agriculture emission mitigation - reducing emissions of existing farm practices, encouraging demand for lower-emitting food, encouraging more sustainable farming practices, and reducing food waste. Today a very small fraction of climate financing goes to livestock enteric methane, which feed additives are one way to address. The Climate Policy Initiative found that in 2021 only 1% ($20m) of livestock methane financing went to enteric methane. Government funding for research & development toward new solutions is historically quite small - which is why I wrote a policy memo with Charles Brooke of Spark Climate Solutions advocating for a substantial budget increase for this critical area.

With the IPCC calling for an ~33% livestock methane emission reduction by 2050, this requires work beyond feed additives - breeding for lower methane livestock, improved livestock management, as well as moonshot ideas like the CRISPR microbiome treatments of the Innovative Genomics Institute and the anti-methane vaccine work of Arkea Bio. It also requires concerted effort to promote the adoption of these solutions through both incentives and a compassionate understanding of the sociology of farming and food consumption.

There are no silver bullets for the climate emergency and all solutions take time to disseminate globally. Given the scale of the problem, we need to take a portfolio approach. Developing chemicals that suppress methane emissions in cattle, whether as a feed additive, water additive, salt-lick additive, or a bolus, should be part of that portfolio. Deploying the commercially available 3-NOP (marketed as Bovaer) as a feed additive is a practical way to start mitigating livestock enteric methane before 2030.

Thank you for reading this post. If you’d like to read more about climate and livestock methane, please subscribe to this substack and read my previous posts.

1. Toensmeier claims a 10% to 30% reduction, but the metanalysis linked in the text shows an average reduction of 30%, with reductions as high as 80% observed in diets typical to feedlots.

2. This won’t work for every feed additive, including, unfortunately 3-NOP, as the amount of weight you can put in a bolus is limited. The Bromoform in red seaweed is particularly potent per milligram. As we develop new anti-methane chemicals, we should focus on those potent enough for this formulation.

3. Chosen because this is the estimated penalty for methane emissions in Denmark from a new regulation.