FEED ADDITIVES IN INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL FACTORIES:VALUABLE METHANE REDUCTION TACTIC OR A FALSE SOLUTION?

Inspired by Drawdown.org article, Aug. 2024

THE CONTEXT: METHANE AND ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

Cattle, goats, and sheep are known as ruminants: their digestive system is composed of multiple chambers, assimilating food in a process known as “enteric” fermentation. This type of digesting creates a substantial amount of methane — a potent greenhouse gas with a higher near-term global warming potential than carbon dioxide — mostly from belching (and a small portion from the other end).When we consider that there are over 4–5 billion ruminant livestock on Earth right now, the effects of livestock farming can be alarming: about a third of global annual methane emissions come from the livestock industry with about 21% coming from enteric fermentation alone.

Why is this important? As mentioned above, methane has a powerful short-term warming effect: Over a 20-year timeframe (brief compared to the hundreds to thousands of years CO2 can persist in the atmosphere) methane is 80 times more potent at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. This means that if methane emissions are reduced significantly, we can make serious progress towards limiting short-term global warming while we scramble to reduce long-term emissions. 

THE MEAT AND DAIRY INDUSTRY’S STRATEGY

A logical way to reduce methane emissions from enteric fermentation would be to reduce the number of ruminants raised especially in industrial animal agriculture, also known as factory farms. However, this industry has come up with a creative idea to reduce methane emissions while maintaining or even increasing the number of animals: feed additives. 

As reported by Drawdown.org in 2024, over a hundred additives have been put forward as possible reducers of methane emissions linked to enteric fermentation (including plant-based oils, seaweeds, phytochemicals, essential oils, and others). Only a few have been studied well enough to have predictable outcomes and data-driven dose recommendations, and even fewer are actually in use by farmers, ranchers, or pastoralists.

THE UNDERSTUDIED EFFICACY OF FEED ADDITIVES

According to the UN IPCC, a total 38% reduction in methane emissions from enteric fermentation is theoretically possible, however only about a quarter of that is economically achievable, and that percentage includes other tactics like breeding for lower emissions and using feed concentrates. All in all, about 10% of enteric methane could be reduced, and feed additives would only account for part of that. 

Other barriers pose challenges as well: unclear efficacy and dosages (more time-consuming and expensive research is needed); health questions surrounding possible side effects (in both ruminants and humans); impacts on productivity; regulatory hurdles; maladaptation to grazing settings (feed is predominantly used in factory farms); cost barriers in low-income regions, and more. 

Do we have time to pursue this tactic while the planet continues to warm? Feed additives may prove to be a small part of the long-term puzzle, but for now, that argument is too-little-too-late and should give way to real methane mitigation by reducing industrial animal numbers, especially beef and dairy.

LAND, LAND, LAND: ANIMAL AGRICULTURE’S IMPACT ON CLIMATE, DEFORESTATION AND BIODIVERSITY:

Even if methane emissions could be reduced by ruminant feed additives more significantly than outlined above, we must still consider the “cow in the room”: industrial-based animal foods result in a multitude of negative outcomes. 

Consider nature: The amount of land used in animal agriculture is staggering. Of all the Earth’s habitable land, about half is dedicated to agricultural use and about 80% of agricultural land is used for grazing or growing animal feed crops (vs crops for direct human consumption).

Also important to note is that ruminants require more land than any other food to produce an equivalent amount of protein. 

Further, with land conversion comes impacts: most deforestation and land-related biodiversity loss are associated with food systems. At least 75% of world deforestation is estimated to be attributed to agriculture, with 45% to cattle alone. Some estimates are even higher: the FAO, from a global remote sensing survey in 2021, reported that “agricultural expansion drives almost 90 percent of global deforestation” with livestock grazing responsible for almost 40 percent of forest loss. Some regions are particularly impacted, for example in South America almost three-quarters of deforestation is due to livestock grazing. ​​ 

Freeing up some of that land currently in animal agricultural use could help us in a multitude of ways: we could repurpose some land to grow human food crops, create mixed agroecological farms, or where not arable, return land to the wild.

CONCLUSION

Feed additives in industrial animal farms are not the answer to reducing methane emissions but rather a “false solution” or even a smokescreen by industry to continue business as usual. Some corporations are even increasing production and acquiring green energy subsidies by producing biofuels from manure in factory farms, arguing that these farms should become larger and more intensive.  

Methane is one component of the wide array of negative impacts ingrained in the industrial model of animal agriculture (more on those in another blog). 

We advocate for agroecology and reducing industrial-based animal foods, and we are not alone.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE: We support agroecology, along with local pastoral and small-scale animal and fish farming, and artisanal fishing, where these are essential in providing baseline local nutrition. 

Moving towards more plant-based foods and alternative proteins in high-consuming countries is an essential tactic in our fight against environmental and climate crises, as well as food equity and health crises. Using feed additives in animal factory farms is at the very least a distraction, and at worst pushes us in the wrong direction, away from just and healthy food systems.

Let us know your opinions by contacting us at info@realfoodsystems.org