6 minute read
Feed additive promises to cut methane emissions
will have worldwide applications for pasture-based agriculture.
“We need to explore the full potential of the approaches for delivery of the inhibitor – because we need to try to come up with ways that are practical and cost-effective where cows are not eating a ration to carry the methane inhibitor.
“And then we must create the right business incentives for farmers to use it in a pasture-based dairy operation.”
The exciting thing for Hill was that once they had cracked the technology of the delivery, there were proprietary rights to the technology that can be sold around the world to other potentially pasturebased farmers, and not just in the dairy space.
“We are excited about the approach, but it’s early days – the research programme has been running since 2018, initially feeding in chambers and now in the field.
“We are confident in the science, and now working on the mechanism.”
Hill wouldn’t be drawn on whether the mechanism would involve a pellet, a slow-release bolus or drench, saying they are using rather novel approaches and researchers would have a good idea of how it is going in two to three months.
HOW DOES 3-NOP WORK?
3-NOP is the abbreviation for 3-Nitrooxypropanol, an organic compound with the formula HOCH₂CH₂CH₂ONO₂. It is the mononitrate ester of 1,3-propanediol. The compound is an inhibitor of the enzyme methyl coenzyme M reductase. MCR catalyses the final step in methanogenesis. (Wikipedia)
Chemical formula: C3H7NO4
The product is composed of a nitrate and an alcohol and by binding to the enzyme MCR, 3-NOP slows down the last step of methane formation by methanogens in the rumen, thus reducing the amount of methane produced. The 3-NOP then breaks down into the natural fragments that it is made of and which are part of normal metabolism of the cow.
Feed level: DSM claims that just a quarter of a teaspoon per day is enough to reduce methane by 30%, but that it needs to be fed every six hours.
Research results into a method of delivery of 3-NOP for pasture-fed free-range cows is getting closer, and are looking exciting, says Agresearch and Fonterra.
CANADIAN TRIALS SUCCESSFUL
The 3-NOP technology was demonstrated in a large-scale trial in Alberta, Canada, run over two years using 15,000 cattle and developing new technology to do the measurements on the live cattle. Rather than measure individual animals in gas chambers, Green Feed Systems technology was employed to use laser grid measurements in pens of 125 animals.
As explained in the Canadian Farm Progress Journal, the air was measured as it entered upwind of the pen and then again downwind, detecting the amount of methane leaving the pen.
Using several measurements of the groups, the total methane for the herd was extrapolated, along with the reduction.
During the trial, measurements showed a 70% average reduction of enteric methane, when the 3-NOP was fed in steam flaked or dry-rolled barley in finishing diets at 125mg/kg of feed drymatter.
In backgrounding (the step before finishing) diets increasing the dosage of the feed additive from 150 to 200mg/kg feed decreased methane yield by 17-25% compared with the control animals. The trial also showed a reduction in methane with no negative impact on animal health or performance.
The value of the GHG reductions over the trial period was worth 1473 equivalent tonnes of CO₂, the same as taking 500 cars off the road for a year. According to Royal DSM VP Mark van Nieuwland, there is interest in Canadian cattle ranchers to become carbon neutral, and in the opportunity to sell the value of the methane reductions into the Canadian carbon market.
DSM has also reported successful trials in the Netherlands, with 2740% reductions in methane in a dairy trial with Wageningen and FrieslandCampina, and a trial is ongoing with Finnish dairy company Valio.
RESEARCH WRAP GENE EDITING
Genetic engineering now editing
Scientists who gathered recently to discuss gene editing shared their frustration at the slow development of the technology in New Zealand. Tom Ward reports.
Recently the NZ Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science (NZIAHS) held a one-day forum at Lincoln University on the subject of gene editing (GE).
The 12 scientists who spoke were all in favour of the need to develop this science in NZ, and without exception showed their frustration at the difficulty and expense of advancing the technology in this country. NZIAHS, a group supporting primary industry science, organised the forum to assist the Royal Society (RS) in promoting a national, science-based, discussion about GE.
The RS is a NZ body promoting knowledge of all sorts. The topic is vast and complicated, with the GE acronym itself being confusing – GE has in the past denoted the term genetic engineering, now we are using it to mean gene editing, and both terms are a part of the wider field of molecular biology. Since the Royal Commission’s report into genetic modification in 2000, there has been no informed public debate and the legislative and regulatory controls, at both local and national government levels, have become, if anything, stricter. However, there have been major developments in the science over the past 20 years. As far as I can deduce, gene editing has taken over the other genetic modification technologies.
A panel, put together by the society, recently completed a three-year review of the science in NZ. The review found that after 20 years very strong views were still held, particularly on transgenesis (between-species gene transfer). It found that young people were more inclined to consider the intricacies of GE technology, and that politicians were aware of GE but uncertain how to respond. It found the legislation is not fit for purpose; for example, some gene technologies are virtually undetectable, and there is no legislation to deal with the international trade in GE.
Maori investment in primary production is growing and they do not have a coordinated view on GE. For example some will want GE out in the environment so they can accelerate manuka improvement for honey production. Others do not want that, but there is a high awareness among Maori of the potential for GE to deal to some of the congenital diseases Polynesian peoples are more susceptible to.
Overall, the generally low level of knowledge about GE in the NZ population needed to be addressed.
Plant biologist Dr Paula Jamieson built some perspective around GE by taking us through a history of plant breeding. Firstly, she defined GE as “taking a gene from one species, and putting it into another with which it could never naturally breed”.
Jamieson pointed to the numerous arguments against GE, i.e. tinkering with nature, Frankenfoods, escape into the wild, farmers cannot save seed, big companies control the food chain, unexpected consequences, and contaminating organic produce.
Could gene editing control clover weevil?
BREEDER TECHNIQUES
In classical plant breeding, within the same species, male and female chromosomes match, and reproduction relies on successful pollination and fertilisation.
With hybridisation the breeder either (1) crosses inbred lines or cultivars of the same species, or (2) does wide crosses between different species (or genera) and the offspring are usually infertile. With the former (1) you get hybrid maize, hybrid broccoli, hybrid pansies and while this generates hybrid vigour, seed cannot be
