On May 28, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that Bovaer met its safety and efficacy requirements for use in dairy cattle. This is a watershed moment, as this approval is the first of its kind and is likely to be the first of many as methane-mitigating feed additives continue to receive investment, research and development from a variety of public and private organizations.
This commercial product contains the active ingredient 3-Nitrooxypropanol (3NOP), a synthetic molecule and potent methane mitigator. The molecule reduces enteric methane production by blocking the last step in methane creation in the rumen. The 3NOP in the feed additive binds to the enzyme and oxidizes it, which blocks the reaction from occurring and thus reduces methane emissions from dairy cows.
The feed additive is expected to have an associated carbon credit, which will be paid to cooperating farmers through a carbon market platform called Athian.
How effective is the feed additive at reducing methane?
The first question we should all have as new products reach the market is, “Does it do what they say it will do?” In the case of this feed additive, we have ample data to answer that question. Feeding approximately 1.5 grams per head of 3NOP, the active ingredient in the feed additive, reduces enteric methane emissions by about 30%. Two independent meta-analyses (meta-analyses are studies that group many experiments into one larger analysis) concur in this finding:
- A recent meta-analysis conducted at Pennsylvania State University observed that the feed additive reduces enteric methane emissions by 123 grams per day or 28%. They also observed that it did not affect feed intake or milk yield. Interestingly, they observed that the feed additive tends to increase milkfat yield by 0.2 pound per day.
- A meta-analysis from the University of California – Davis observed a 33% reduction in enteric methane emissions when supplementing the feed additive. The intriguing finding of this study was that the efficacy of Bovaer was reduced as the concentration of fiber in the diet increased. For every 1-unit increase in neutral detergent fiber (NDF), the methane-reducing efficiency was diminished by 0.9%. Also, reducing dietary fat increased the efficacy of the feed additive. A 1-unit decrease in dietary fat enhanced the efficacy of it by 3.1%. These results are important, as the diet fed at a farm will change the estimated methane mitigation when using the feed additive, which will change the economics of feeding it to your cows.
Long-term feeding of the feed additive?
Currently, one experiment conducted in Europe supplemented the feed additive to cows for an entire lactation. They observed that methane production was reduced by 21% without affecting feed intake. This suggests that the rumen may adapt to it and that it loses some of its methane-mitigating potential over time.
Interestingly, they observed a 6.5% increase in energy-corrected milk yield from cows supplemented with the feed additive. Full-lactation experiments under conditions mirroring U.S. production and management systems are necessary to build confidence in the response observed in this investigation.
Will it pay?
Carbon markets and methane-mitigating feed additives add an additional layer of economic complexity when feeding dairy cows. Feeding it to your cows will be a decision like any other feed additive – does it bring an economic return to your operation?
Using our dairy carbon return calculator, I did a simplified break-even cost of feeding the feed additive. I made the following assumptions:
- Carbon price of $30 per ton
- Milk price of $20 per hundredweight (cwt)
- Ration cost of 15 cents per pound of dry matter
In the first scenario, I assumed that a farm could expect the average changes in milk production (+3%) and feed intake (+1.6%) when the feed additive is fed. Under this scenario, the breakeven cost for feeding it is 47 to 52 cents per head per day. If the cost of feeding it is less than the breakeven, it is a profitable choice. If it is more than that, it is not. The important consideration in this simulation is that I assumed the average response. This means half of the farmers would get less change in feed intake, milk or methane, while half would get more. When doing budgeting, plan for a range of responses to determine whether it is a worthwhile investment.
If I assume no change in milk production or feed intake, the break-even cost of feeding it drops dramatically to 10 to 14 cents per head per day. These break-even estimates will continue to change based on the carbon credit price, milk price and feed costs. Also, the decision of whether to feed it, or any methane mitigation strategy, will depend on your milk purchaser and any policies they may have in place.
Bottom line
The FDA’s support of this feed additive is the first of its class and, surely, there will be more to follow in its footsteps. It reliably reduces enteric methane from dairy cattle, but it must be economically viable for a farm, which depends on a host of factors. To make a long story short – do your homework.
References omitted but are available upon request by sending an email to the editor.
