1 of 11

May 2022

Evaluating the evidence for efficacy, and applicability of methane inhibiting additives fed to livestock

2 of 11

Target / Objective

Provide a concise summary of the evidence for efficacy, constraints and practical issues regarding feed additives under consideration for enteric methane mitigation

For Policy Makers and players in the commercial pipeline (manufacturers, feed industry, livestock managers)

3 of 11

Context

Lots of headlines

Lots of concern

Is today’s headline really the solution?

A reasoned synthesis bridging from science to Government & industry

4 of 11

Product

Assesses 10 main additives
Covers proof of efficacy, co-benefits, availability & applicability
Solidly referenced
Largely based on meta-analyses
Industry interviews

What we have come up with, and this has just been submitted today, is an assessment oF the 10 most considered methane mitigating feed-additives

The report takes 3-4 pages to address proof of efficacy as well as co-benefits, constraints and other thins such g as whether there are LCA data available, for Each additive

Now I said it is not a scientific review, but it is heavily referenced. There are perhaps 200+ references cited, so it is well referenced for credibility but it does not hit you in the face & is not in high science language.

Wherever possible we have based our assessment on meta analyses or reviews rather than relying on individual research studies

And we are just concluding a survey to find whether the additive, feed and feeding industries are ahead, behind or right in step with the science of developing and using feed additives YOU MAY NOT WANT TO MENTION THIS LINI

5 of 11

Summary Table

CONFIDENCE in efficacy = the product of level of evidence and level of agreement

We also tried to pull all we learned into a single page graphic that I just show you the top corner of here.

Let me just step you through it .

So we have 10 rows, 1 row per additive as listed on the left.

We then summarise what we know about efficacy in reducing methane emissions in the big red box

we ascribe a mitigation rating ~ you can see 3NOP and red algae in the top 2 rows are both very high being over 25%
we note the number of animal-based papers contributing to that
then based on the numbnerof paers and the variability intheir finds we provide a confidenc rating from 5 to support that efficacy estimate.

So we note for example that 3NOP & Asparagopsis seaweed both have a very high efficacy, but our confidence in 3NOP is very high but is low for asparagopsis, due to few and variable studies

We also work across the table and note any potential animal and food safety concerns and any cobenefits such as extra growth or milk production that may have a big effect on the economic merit of the additive

So let me just pick up with 3NOP and Asparagopsis as examples (next slide) to close

6 of 11

What we know:

Efficacy	Additives
Very High (>25% mitigation)	3-Nitrooxypropanol (Bovaer), Asparagopsis (dried)
High (>15% - 25% mit.)	Calcium nitrate
	Monensin (5), Essential oils (2) Direct Fed Microbials (1-2) Saponins (1), Tannins (1), Biochar (1), Microalgae (1)

What about MY product!!!!!!

We also tried to pull all we learned into a single page graphic that I just show you the top corner of here.

Let me just step you through it .

So we have 10 rows, 1 row per additive as listed on the left.

We then summarise what we know about efficacy in reducing methane emissions in the big red box

we ascribe a mitigation rating ~ you can see 3NOP and red algae in the top 2 rows are both very high being over 25%
we note the number of animal-based papers contributing to that
then based on the numbnerof paers and the variability intheir finds we provide a confidenc rating from 5 to support that efficacy estimate.

So we note for example that 3NOP & Asparagopsis seaweed both have a very high efficacy, but our confidence in 3NOP is very high but is low for asparagopsis, due to few and variable studies

We also work across the table and note any potential animal and food safety concerns and any cobenefits such as extra growth or milk production that may have a big effect on the economic merit of the additive

So let me just pick up with 3NOP and Asparagopsis as examples (next slide) to close

7 of 11

General Concern?

Almost all results to date have had the additive included in the basal ration, NOT provided as a separate supplement that is given at intervals

Little evidence that suppressing methane by feed additive increases animal performance.

We also tried to pull all we learned into a single page graphic that I just show you the top corner of here.

Let me just step you through it .

So we have 10 rows, 1 row per additive as listed on the left.

We then summarise what we know about efficacy in reducing methane emissions in the big red box

we ascribe a mitigation rating ~ you can see 3NOP and red algae in the top 2 rows are both very high being over 25%
we note the number of animal-based papers contributing to that
then based on the numbnerof paers and the variability intheir finds we provide a confidenc rating from 5 to support that efficacy estimate.

So we note for example that 3NOP & Asparagopsis seaweed both have a very high efficacy, but our confidence in 3NOP is very high but is low for asparagopsis, due to few and variable studies

We also work across the table and note any potential animal and food safety concerns and any cobenefits such as extra growth or milk production that may have a big effect on the economic merit of the additive

So let me just pick up with 3NOP and Asparagopsis as examples (next slide) to close

8 of 11

Implications ?

Develop delivery of additives in supplements, not in Total Mixed Ration

Large scale productivity trials detecting small productivity changes

New additives

Development needs

From the literature 3NOP and Asparagopsis both show very high mitigation potential, GREAT !!!

but almost everything we know about those 2 additives has been found out using total mixed ration diets ~ where the additive is in every mouthful. Unfortunately feedlot type rations are only responsible for 2% of global livestock emissions, so we know almost NOTHING about how well these additives work on the other 98% of livestock enteric emissions.

So we need work on how these products work as supplements.

The other thing is that NONE of the 10 additives show productivity co-benefits even remotely near 10%. They are all much less!!!! SO scientists in white coats are not doing the sort of large scale studies needed to statistically detect the 2,3, 4 % productivity gain - and we need to be doing those studies so industry can know where the payback for these products is going to come from and so what the value proposition is.

And to close, having found only 3 products capable of supporting even 20% mitigation in TMR, let me encourage you to think that the time for new ideas and blue sky investment has not passed. We have a very weak tool kit at this time to tackle emission from the diversity of global livestock systems, and that is something we really should be preparing for now as a foundation in risk management

Thankyou

9 of 11

Additive manufacturers

SURVEY FINDINGS

10 of 11

Feed manufacturers

11 of 11

Cattle managers