Adopting Tools and Technology to Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Farm

Summary

The speaker, an investor and pragmatist, poses several critical questions related to methane reduction, feed additives, genetic improvements, and the real-world applicability of agricultural technologies. They explore the efficacy of strategies to reduce methane emissions in ruminants, the potential for genetic improvements in livestock, and the impact of feed additives. They also discuss the economic and social challenges associated with these technologies, questioning the true effectiveness of current solutions and the long-term financial incentives for farmers. With a mix of practical concerns and industry insights, the speaker advocates for clearer, more actionable advice to guide real-time decisions in agricultural investments.

Takeaways

• 😀 Discrepancies in methane suppression effectiveness (5% vs. 15%) raise concerns about the real-world impact of methane-reducing strategies in livestock.
• 😀 Clarification needed on whether genetic gain in livestock (1% to 1.5%) is measured before or after culling high methane emitters.
• 😀 The response to feed additives in low methane-producing ruminants may differ compared to a more diverse population, which could affect investment decisions.
• 😀 There is a potential correlation between low methane animals and higher productivity traits, suggesting that reducing methane emissions could have additional benefits.
• 😀 The debate between using GWP20 vs GWP100 for methane's global warming potential highlights the difference in economic incentives for farmers in the short vs long term.
• 😀 Farmers are driven by clear economic incentives, and if they are compensated properly for implementing methane reduction technologies, they will participate enthusiastically.
• 😀 Bromatophore compounds have shown promising methane reduction potential but have faced challenges in testing and commercialization, highlighting the complexities in bringing such solutions to market.
• 😀 A new technology—a real-time dynamic artificial rumen—is expected to help measure and reduce methane emissions more accurately, with commercialization slated for July.
• 😀 There are concerns over the representativeness of data when feeding additives are tested on virgin populations of animals, suggesting that the real-world response may differ.
• 😀 The global agricultural community must be aware of the broader social and economic impacts when implementing methane reduction technologies, particularly in developing regions.
• 😀 Competitive pressures in the industry are intensifying, with large consulting firms and vested interests potentially complicating collaboration and innovation in methane reduction technologies.

Q & A

What is the key issue regarding the accuracy of methane suppression data presented in investment pitches?

The key issue is the significant variation in reported effectiveness of methane suppression strategies, with some sources citing 10-15% gains in animal efficiency and others like the University of Nebraska reporting much lower figures of 5%. The question is whether 5% or 15% is more realistic and applicable in real-world investment decisions.

Why does the difference between a 5% and a 15% gain in methane suppression matter in practical investment terms?

The difference matters because even a modest 5% reduction could be considered negligible in the grand scheme of methane suppression, whereas a 15% gain would have much more significant impact, justifying larger investments and changes in farming practices.

What is the practical concern about genetic gains of 1-1.5% per annum in improving methane efficiency in livestock?

The concern is whether these genetic gains are calculated before or after culling the most inefficient animals, which could significantly impact the perceived effectiveness of genetic improvement. The question revolves around how to interpret these genetic gains in the context of a selective breeding program.

How does the variability in methane emissions among ruminants affect the effectiveness of feed additives?

High variability in methane emissions (up to 70%) among ruminants complicates the understanding of how feed additives will perform across different populations. The concern is that if feed additives are tested on populations with little inherent variability, the results may not translate effectively to real-world, more variable populations.

What does the speaker imply about the practicality of using genetic strategies to reduce methane emissions?

The speaker implies that genetic strategies can potentially be effective, but there are concerns about whether selective breeding can genuinely improve methane suppression in practical farming situations, especially when it comes to economically significant traits such as productivity.

How do low-methane animals compare to high-performing animals in terms of other productivity traits?

The speaker suggests that low-methane animals tend to show high productivity traits, although this is based on observed data and not confirmed through a detailed scientific study. Therefore, there is a positive association between low methane emissions and productivity.

What is the concern regarding the use of different GWP (Global Warming Potential) measures, such as GWP20 and GWP100?

The concern is that the economic incentives for farmers are largely based on GWP100, which does not adequately reflect the short-term impacts of methane. The speaker advocates for considering GWP20, which would recognize methane's greater potency in the short-term, potentially leading to more practical solutions and incentives for farmers.

What is the speaker's stance on the approach of paying farmers for carbon sequestration through land use changes?

The speaker is critical of paying farmers to change land use for carbon sequestration, pointing out that the internal rate of return (15%) for such changes does not reflect the true value of methane reduction. They argue that farmers should be better compensated for reducing methane, which has a much higher short-term impact.

How does the speaker suggest farmers can be incentivized to participate in methane reduction programs?

The speaker suggests that farmers will respond well to financial incentives that offer a substantial return on investment, such as 3X or 4X the money they put up for participating in methane reduction programs. The key is that these incentives must be understandable, realistic, and beneficial to the farmers.

What role do competitive advantages and barriers to entry play in the agricultural technology sector according to the speaker?

The speaker highlights the importance of competitive advantages and barriers to entry in the agricultural technology sector, noting that large, well-funded companies often use these strategies to dominate the market. This can result in smaller companies facing legal challenges and increased difficulty in bringing effective solutions to market.