Recent research has shown that the agriculture industry makes up about 10% of total United States greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), mostly from enteric fermentation and manure management. The main drivers of these emissions are beef and dairy cattle, making it a buzzing topic amongst these industries. Now more than ever, farmers are making efforts to reduce the agricultural impact of GHG emissions through new pathways.
While manure management and dry matter intake contribute to GHG emissions, both do so in their own unique ways. Methane from manure emissions comes primarily from storage, depending on factors such as manure solid content, anaerobiosis, carbon availability, temperature, wind, and storage time. On the other hand, dry matter intake drives rising methane emissions through feeding.
Studies have demonstrated that the utilization of certain feed additives such as seaweed, fatty acids, and 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) have had the greatest impacts on methane reduction when compared to other additives. In fact, 3-NOP has contributed to about 30% to 35% of methane reduction. Still, there are some questions to be answered. “3-NOP is really consistent when we are thinking about methane reductions, but we still don’t know a lot about the performance of these animals and how the feed additives impact milk production, energy-corrected milk, and some of the other metrics that are important when looking into the business of the farm,” said graduate student Matheus Pupo in a University of Wisconsin-Madison Badger Dairy Insight webinar.
To support Pupo’s production concerns, Chuck Nicholson, an economics professor at UW-Madison, encouraged the use of partial budgeting, noting “It’s important to evaluate the kinds of approaches that a feed additive would represent.” Partial budgeting looks at the economics and financial implications of a change on a dairy farm; in this case, it is the ration. Incorporating the factors that don’t change as a constant allows the farm to formulate an equation to compare and contrast how a feed additive would reduce methane production on their farm. It also allows the farm to identify benefits of a feed additive, such as higher revenues and lower costs, and drawbacks, including increased cost and reduced revenues.
Research explained that the use of 3-NOP has shown no boost in revenue and lower feed intake, presented an additional cost, and lowered butterfat and milk yield. “The financial analysis suggests that those reductions in lower methane emissions would actually be paid for by lower farm profitability,” Nicholson said. However, through the use of support programs such as priced premiums for lower carbon footprints and carbon credits, there is potential for a revenue improvement.
