Colin Ley: View from Europe

view From europe

By Colin Ley

ghg emissions take centre stage

The restoration of climate change sanity to the presidential office of the USA and the approach of COP26 at the end of this year have combined to raise the stakes for those battling to control agriculture’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

It is an issue which directly impacts compound feed producers, with methane emissions from dairy and beef cows, in particular, attracting regular ‘ban them’ headlines around the world. While many consumers appear desperate to once again be allowed to book their annual holiday flights to the sun, the same people seem more than ready to voice their condemnation of belching cows. This is a frustrating but sadly irrelevant part of the emissions story.

Thankfully, animal feed producers are getting on with the task of finding solutions to agriculture’s emissions challenge, leaving aside the inequalities of the overall debate.

Although well short of being the worst GHG offenders, farming is responsible for about 10% of total emissions, with livestock production playing a major part in the process. That 10% figure is an average for Europe as a whole, of course. Some individual countries, with a large and vibrant livestock industry, account for much more on a localised basis. Irish farming, for example, renowned for its wonderful grass-led beef and dairy herds, is estimated to account for 30% of the country’s total GHG emissions. Scotland, which is another rich source of quality beef is maybe a little lower in the emissions league but still sits at around 24% in terms of its farming impact on GHG totals.

While there are counter arguments to be made about the need for fairer calculations to be applied to the GHG impact of livestock farming, taking a broader account of grassland’s ability to capture and store carbon, the more farmers and feed suppliers can do to reduce methane emissions the better.

livestock reduction battle

What definitely needs to be avoided is a cave-in to calls for any reduction of livestock numbers in order to meet future emission reduction targets. Returning to our Irish farming example, it has been suggested that 400,000 cattle would have to be taken out of production to achieve a 10% reduction in methane.

Similarly in Scotland, where the devolved government is committed to achieving net-zero GHG emissions by 2045, a livestock cut of 300,000 cows is said to already have been discussed by the country’s leaders.

Multiply those livestock reduction numbers across Europe and the implications for food, farming and the feed industry are enormous.

For the moment, however, a major reduction programme does not appear to be on the cards, certainly not according to Asger Christensen, EP rapporteur for the European Commission’s methane reduction strategy. He told a recent FEFAC webinar that a “number of solutions exist to reduce the environmental impact of the livestock sector,” before adding: “We cannot accept that a reduction of the number of animals (being farmed) is the way forward.”

The best that can be drawn from such a comment, nevertheless, is that farmers and their suppliers have a little time left to convert the current number of potential solutions into one or two genuine answers.

dutch feed additive trials

In that context, it is encouraging to see the progress being made by researchers at the Wageningen University & Research (WUR) innovation centre in Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, concerning methane emissions and the feeding of a novel feed additive to dairy cows.

Headline emission reductions vary from 27% to 40% of methane per cow, depending on the diets being used and the amount of Bovaer methane inhibitor included in the feed.

The WUR trial was designed to deliver methane reduction results from three different ratios of grass silage and maize silage, alongside two different dosages of Bovaer. Sixty-four Holstein-Friesian cows in mid-lactation were enrolled in the study.

“The results are certainly promising,” said researcher Dr André Bannink, adding that Bovaer effectively inhibits the formation of methane.

Precisely how effectively depends on the diet the cows are given. The 27% methane reduction result was achieved when Bovaer was fed at 60 mg/kg Dry Matter (DM) as a supplement to a diet without maize silage in the roughage. The reduction rose to 35% when a low dose of the inhibitor was added to a diet containing 80% maize silage. When the cows were given a medium dose of Bovaer (80 mg/kg DM), the methane reduction percentage ranged from 29% to 40%.

“Just a quarter of a teaspoon of Bovaer per cow per day reduces enteric methane emission by approximately 30%,” commented WUR. “The feed additive therefore contributes to a significant and immediate reduction of the environmental footprint of meat, milk and dairy products.”

The trial was backed by a broadly-based research/industry consortium, including the product’s developers, Royal DSM, WUR, FrieslandCampina, Royal Agrifirm Group, De Heus Animal Nutrition and ForFarmers.

research partners needed

Royal DSM have been working on Bovaer for the past 10 years, by the way, a fact which highlights the challenge being faced by farmers and feed companies, especially with net-zero targets to meet in less than 25 years’ time in some cases.

The Bovaer trial is just part of WUR’s contribution to this issue, with the Dutch centre being constantly on the look-out for new research partners to help them meet their current GHG reduction targets: • Less greenhouse gases from livestock • Less greenhouse gases from manure • Smarter use of land and peat soils • Emission-reducing animal feed • Energy transition in the agrifood chain

An impressive list and vital areas of research for all our futures.

Sustainability and innovation

Staying with a Dutch farm business theme, I thought it was worth quoting a few recent sustainability and innovation comments from Rabobank,

headquartered in The Netherlands but very much a global power in farming and farm business terms.

“The availability of enough, healthy and affordable food to feed the world population is, after the climate challenge, one of the most pressing and complex challenges the world faces,” said the bank in its recent ‘Our impact in 2020’ report.

Focused on how the year of Covid-19 played out for food and farming interests, the report goes on to ask if it is possible to produce food sustainably with respect for people, animals, and nature, and still remain economically viable.

“We think it is,” said Rabobank, perhaps reminding us all that we should think much more of our industry as a source of vital solutions for the world rather than as the focus of waste and destruction, which is how some portray us.

“Rabobank was created 125 years ago when a group of inventive farmers came together. They faced major problems which they were unable to solve as individuals. The farmers discovered that working together brought results. Now we are doing exactly the same, standing with customers and partners to make food production and consumption more sustainable.”

Sustainable food, the report continues, is food that is produced within the planet’s own limits. What this means in practice is that we use our knowledge, networks, and financial products to give our customers fresh perspectives and help them move forward.

As for innovation, Rabobank added: “We believe in the innovative power of our customers to produce more with less.”

patience

Just as Royal DSM has taken 10 years to get its new feed additive through to being ready for dairy cow trials in The Netherlands, so other developers and innovators have committed time, money, and effort to secure the end results we all crave.

I was struck, for example, by a recent announcement from ForFarmers that the company’s Nutrition Innovation Centre (NIC) works on approximately 50 projects a year. The figure highlights the scale of potential which exists within our industry and the level of investment and commitment needed to progress the best of those 50-a-year projects through to commercial use.

Talking of the need for patience, I recently came across an April 2021 update to a five-year UK-based review which is tackling the question of how to improve beef cattle feeding guidelines.

The review was launched two years ago with the comment that existing beef feeding guidance underestimates nutritional requirements in a number of areas. CIEL (Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock), AHDB Beef & Lamb, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) duly started work on the issue.

“It is 25 years since the last major update was published and both animal genetics and feeding systems have changed a lot since the underpinning data was recorded in the 1980s,” it was stated in 2019. “Changes in market specifications, with major meat processors seeking younger animals with lighter carcases but with similar fat cover, is another key reason to update nutritional guidelines.”

I’m sure I wrote about the launch at the time, but the truth is that it hasn’t on my radar since, until I stumbled on last month’s progress report.

“Over the last two years,” the April update revealed, “the ‘Feed into Beef’ team have been reviewing current beef feed guidelines in detail and have now released the first set of equations for trial.

“AFBI and SRUC have reviewed hundreds of datasets across the UK and Europe and updated prediction models to better predict animal performance and feed requirements. Newly updated equations for feed intake, growth and energy requirements are being shared with the project’s industry member group for trial. These will continue to be revised and honed before final completion.”

No doubt trial group members are continuing to drive this work forward. As for me, I’ll make sure it stays on my radar in future.

brexit trade report

Finally, time for a brief Brexit trade update, although official statistics on what is actually happening tend to flow almost as slowly as the goods themselves.

AHDB senior policy analyst, Tom Forshaw, asked the Brexit import/ export question which I’m sure we’re all trying to work out, namely: “Teething problems or permanent toothache?”

His following analysis of the latest UK agri-food trade data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) is somewhat restricted, however, due to the fact that such data only exists to the end of February 2021. Within that limited timeframe, the clearest evidence from the first two months of post-Brexit traffic is that additional paperwork and higher transportation costs remain the biggest challenges facing UK importers and exports.

On top of this, the ONS has stated that “other issues still persist” making it hard to “precisely quantify the impacts of EU Exit so far”. The Office also commented that trade patterns are likely to reflect the impacts of the unwinding of stocks, COVID-19 restrictions, and lower demand due to the UK and global economic recession.

“It is too soon to be able to assess to what extent recent trading patterns are short-term or reflect more lasting structural changes,’’ concluded ONS.

Further analysis by Mr Forshaw, focusing on trade for the agriculture sector, shows some improvement from the historic lows recorded in January 2021. Even so, trade has remained relatively depressed for the first two months of the year, and significantly lower in February 2021 than in the same month last year.

As such, for the first two months of 2021, UK exports of food and live animals were down on the year by around 31%, equivalent to £713m of reduced business. Exports of meat and meat preparations to the EU were particularly affected, falling by 52% on the year, equivalent to a loss of £126m in sales. Admittedly, exports of meat preparations to the rest of world rose in February, climbing by 55% on the year, worth an extra £23m in value terms. That still leaves a net £100m downturn in trading value for the category, however, so the books certainly aren’t balancing at the moment.

39% fall in uK exports of feeding stuffs

Exports of animal feeding stuffs from the UK into the EU fell by 39% over the first two months of the year, partially offset by a 20% rise in exports to the rest of the world.

At the same time, imports of animal feeding stuffs from the EU into the UK rose by 8% during January and February, with imports from the rest of the world climbing by 26%, compared to 2020 figures.

Nevertheless, with more border checks and regulations due to be phased in on October 1 2021, January 1 2022 and March 2022, the post-Brexit learning curve for exporters and importers seems set to continue for a while yet.