Feed Additives and Other Technologies to Lower Livestock Emissions

Back technologies that cut emissions from livestock and crops production

Overview

Livestock account for almost 15% of greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities, of which nearly two-thirds stem from enteric fermentation. This is a natural part of the digestive process of ruminant animals such as cattle, sheep and goats. During digestion, microbes in the digestive tract break down food and produce methane as a by-product. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. It has a shorter half-life than carbon dioxide, but traps 84 times more heat than CO2 in the first two decades after it is released.

Global emissions from livestock management – the largest contributor to the agriculture sector’s greenhouse-gas output – rose 15% over 2000-2017. This growth was primarily driven by increased enteric fermentation in middle-income countries (notably China), with this process accounting for nearly two-thirds of global livestock emissions. Wealth and population growth have boosted demand for animal products, helping to raise enteric emissions in non-Annex I parties by 23% over that period. This compares with a 12% reduction in Annex I countries where demand for beef has stalled and production efficiency has been improved.

The quality a of livestock feed is an important driver of emissions, with lower-quality feed leading to higher enteric methane emissions. A number of companies and academic institutions are therefore developing novel feed additives that achieve significant reductions in greenhouse-gas output.

Impact

For example, several recent studies have found that mixing asparagopsis taxiformis (a red seaweed) into feed could reduce methane emissions by 80% or more. The first licenses were granted in April 2021 to establish a commercial seaweed farm in South Australia to aquaculture company CH4 Global in partnership with Narungga Nation Aboriginal Corporation. This was followed in June 2021 by what’s believed to be the first red-seaweed-offtake agreement: aquaculture company CH4 Global will initially provide Pirie Meats with enough asparagopsis seaweed supplement for up to 10,000 heads of cattle.

Other companies are devising wearable devices that change methane into CO2 and water. For example, U.K. startup Zelp has created a mask-like accessory which it claims can more than halve methane emissions. Agriculture producer Cargill announced in June 2021 that it would start selling the devices to European dairy farmers in 2022.

A key barrier will be cost, although farmers may be able to recoup some of the expense by selling carbon offsets. A price for the device has yet to be announced by Zelp has said that an annual subscription fee may start at $80 a cow. For reference, in 2020 there were just over 23 million dairy cows in the EU and U.K., meaning an annual bill of $18.5 billion.

In addition, academic institutions and companies are investigating new technologies to cut emissions from manure. For example, lab tests to add tannic acid and fluoride to pig manure reduced ammonia emissions by up to 95% and methane up to 99%, according to researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Aarhus University. Their plan was to develop a granulate that farmers can add to manure but the technology costs must be reduced before roll-out.

Opportunity

The most common type of policy support in this area is research and development funding: a number of governments offer grants and loans for projects on technologies to cut livestock and crops pollution – from research on new technologies to on-the-ground trials, working with producers to collect data and verify impact on emissions. For example, more research is needed to examine the long-term effects of the asparagopsis seaweed on animal health and reproduction, milk and meat quality, as well as questions about the stability of the active ingredients (bromoforms).

To be used at scale, the seaweed would need to be cultivated in aquaculture operations. However, as with renewable energy, it can be difficult for project developers in such circumstances to obtain low-cost financing and sign offtake deals due to revenue uncertainty. Policy makers could therefore devise mechanisms – eg, a contract-for-difference or feed-in premium system – between providers of new technologies or products, and livestock producers. This could promote offtake agreements like the CH4 Global-Pirie Meat deal outlined above.

Regulation could also be used to create demand for these products: for example, feed producers could be required to include additives that reduce methane emissions from livestock. However, this would only be an effective strategy for markets where a sizeable share of animals are confined to a given area and feed is brought to them, as tends to be more common in certain parts of North America, Europe and East Asia. Government could therefore support further research for solutions where livestock graze or seek food in open pasture.

Source