When I read about the effects of methane-reducing additives such as 3-NOP, the reduction rate is often the first thing I notice. But I recommend looking at the trial conditions written alongside it, too. Chapter 6 of Technology and Solutions for Demonstrating Carbon Reduction examines the livestock species, feed systems, and feeding conditions under which results were obtained. Before carrying a number over to another setting, let’s check whether the conditions match.
What the book suggests distinguishing first
When you review a product, it may help to put the approved conditions of use alongside the actual farm feeding plan. If the dose or target animal differs, the evidence needed may differ as well. You should also look separately at confirmation of permitted use and the eligibility requirements for compensation under a program. Research descriptions of an effect also depend on a comparison period and measurement method. Checking those conditions can help you understand why results for the same product may look different. Read the conditions before the number.
3-NOP is a feed-additive approach that inhibits an enzymatic reaction involved in methane production. We should distinguish explaining its mode of action from confirming its effects under actual feeding conditions. Results can vary with dose, feed composition, intake, and production stage, so read the trial conditions along with the results. Check permitted conditions of use and safety and productivity data before deciding the scope of application.
Controlled trials and subsequent meta-analyses have reported that an approach inhibiting the final step of enteric methane production can produce statistically significant reductions under various ruminant conditions. However, the average effect varies with dose, dry matter intake, fiber level, and production stage.
Do not apply the conditions in an approval document as they are to a different livestock species or dose. To broaden the scope, check separate scientific evidence and the procedures of the relevant jurisdiction. In Chapter 13, we take another look at differences among 3-NOP documents.
The methane-reduction effect on an individual animal’s emissions cannot be quantified from the concentration at a single point in a barn alone. Respiration chambers, GreenFeed, the SF tracer-gas method, and other methods each have distinct measurement principles (6) and operating conditions. A method that is scientifically usable must be distinguished from one accepted under domestic recognition procedures. When applying, check the equipment and trial requirements in the latest recognition criteria.
Verra’s VM0041 and the Gold Standard methodology for feed additives in beef cattle set out conditions for quantifying feed-additive-based enteric fermentation reductions under each program. Even if you are not planning to issue credits, you can learn what evidence is needed to support a reduction claim by comparing their scopes, trial data, and monitoring requirements. However, do not interpret the methodology of an individual program as a common obligation across all systems.
Records for feed-additive-based mitigation should connect purchasing and delivery with mixing and actual administration. It should be possible to verify which product was used, for which herd, when, and during any periods when use stopped. Confirmation of actual administration and the evidence supporting the mitigation factor are different types of information and should be managed separately. The fact that records were kept does not by itself establish a quantified reduction for that farm.
What to look at in the field
Imagine that you want to apply the results of a dairy-cow trial in another country to a Korean beef cattle farm. Even with the same additive, the growth stage, feed consumed, and feeding period may differ. You also need to check the product’s permitted conditions of use separately. A study that may be useful for reference is not the same as evidence that establishes the result for your farm.
A study analyzing income over feed cost for 3-NOP feeding under U.S. dairy conditions concluded that, even when there was a mitigation effect, returns after feed costs could decrease, so a separate incentive might be needed.
Introducing low-methane feed and additives may create additional purchase costs, labor for feeding and recordkeeping, and management costs. But additional expenditure and net cost are different. Only by calculating changes in productivity, costs saved, and payments under the contract together can we tell whether a farm’s net benefit is positive or negative.
Even if less energy is lost as methane, that does not mean the same amount is immediately converted into weight gain or feed-cost savings. We need to observe fermentation pathways and hydrogen use, along with changes in intake and productivity. Improved feed efficiency is a candidate benefit to confirm under specific conditions; it cannot be calculated by substituting the additive’s methane-reduction rate.
Changes in feed efficiency and productivity can affect a farm’s profitability. Results from Korean beef-cattle studies should also be interpreted within their livestock type, growth stage, trial period, and feed conditions. Do not use the value from one trial as every farm’s annual benefit; calculate returns even when the effect is small or absent.
Questions to ask during investment review
When reviewing a company, distinguish the product’s general potential from the evidence for the specific project. Ask under what conditions it was demonstrated and how health and productivity were monitored during long-term feeding. It is important that the company explain how far research results can be generalized for business use.
Registration of a national factor is one form of usable evidence, but it is not by itself sufficient to justify replacing public expenditure. Check how the technical effect and rollout and feeding data are reflected in the applicable accounting system, and which expenditures they can actually reduce. While these conditions remain unconfirmed, design support for additional costs and the demonstration budget separately, and do not count avoided expenditure as a confirmed benefit.
Feed efficiency can affect farm profitability, but it is not the dominant factor on every farm. For sample farms, record feed conversion ratio, weight gain, days on feed, feed costs, management labor, carcass performance, and other relevant measures together; distinguish treatment effects from the effects of price and husbandry changes. Set priorities for measurement items based on their sensitivity in the profitability analysis and the cost of obtaining the data.
Questions to leave with before closing the book
Reading a good study does not mean choosing only the largest effect. Write down the target, period, dose, and comparison conditions together. Knowing the applicable scope also shows what trial or field data will be needed next.
About the author
Bongjun Lee graduated from the Graduate School of Management of Technology (MOT) at Sogang University. He spent seven years at Infitron Co., Ltd. and 20 years at Honeywell, working for a total of 27 years in gas measurement in service engineering, technical sales, and channel management. He is now the founder of AI Safety Korea Co., Ltd., where he is researching livestock methane monitoring and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems using sensors, AI, and data analytics.