Second workshop of the Network on ‘Feed and Nutrition in Relation to Greenhouse Gas

Emissions’

FNN Second Workshop, 27 June 2013

Second FNN Network Meeting

Dublin, 27 June 2013

Time Session Speaker(s)/Chair

09.00 Introduction Minutes of the first workshop Mission statement  Members, organization  Linkages to LRG and other working groups of GRA, overlap 

Michael Kreuzer

09.30 Ongoing activities Michael KreuzerFACCE JPI Multipartner Call proposal plus interface to the Rumen Microbial Genomics Network 

Alex Hristov & Adrian Cookson

Data base of FAO Alex Hristov & Benjamin Henderson

Best (management) practices lists to be used for conducting and assessing in vitro and in vivo experiments

David Yáñez‐Ruiz &Christopher Reynolds

11.15 MethodologiesMeasuring methane, experimental set‐up, research aims/type of research questions

Jan Dijkstra

12.15 Lunch

Second FNN Network Meeting

Dublin, 27 June 2013

Time Session Speaker(s)/Chair

13.15 Current research programs in the area of FNN Jan DijkstraIn vitro and in vivo studies completed in the European Union FP7 project ‘SMethane’

David Yáñez‐Ruiz

Focus on ongoing INRA research programs and methodologies related to FNN activities

Maguy Eugène

Improvements in New Zealand’s pasture‐based agriculture system and research on the GHG benefits of these improvements

Garry Waghorn

14.15 Wrap‐up Near future (problems to overcome)  Define current / new activities FNN

o New activities / amendment of current oneso Keeping track of new insights / resultso How to relate to the research programs presentedo Homepage (status, responsibility & maintenance)

Draft of a formal statement of continuation scheme of FNN to be reported to LRG/GRA (incl. action plan) 

Michael Kreuzer

16.00 Closure

Introduction

Dublin, 27 June 2013

Michael Kreuzer

Reasons for founding of FNN• Field of most intensive research & increasing body of evidence for efficiency of feed‐ and nutrition‐based interventions to mitigate GHG emissions from agriculture

• Indicator: contributions to GGAA 4 Conference (2010):‐ 87 on feed and nutrition‐ 7 on breeding and genetics‐ 22 on manure

• Exciting perspective: huge number of dietary intervention options possible, some shown to be very promising, others with potential, tailor‐made methods in the focus

The LRG launches a Network and Database Activityon ‘Feed and Nutrition in Relation to GHG Emissions’

At its meeting on 4‐5 November 2011 in Amsterdam, the LRG launched a Network and Database Activity in the field of ‘Feed and Nutrition in Relation to Greenhouse Gas Emissions’.

LRG Newsletter 12/2011

Participating countries

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

23 out of 33 GRA countries

Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzer-land, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay

Country delegates June 2013

Dublin, 27 June 2013

No Country Representative No Guests 1 Canada Tim McAllister 19 RMG network Adrian Cookson2 Chile Marta Alfaro 20 FAO Benjamin Henderson3 Denmark Peter Lund4 Finland Kevin Shingfield

(excused)5 France Maguy Eugène6 Germany Karl-Heinz Südekum7 Ireland Pádraig O'Kiely8 Italy Giacomo Pirlo9 Japan Tomoyuki Kawashima10 New Zealand Garry Waghorn11 Norway Odd Harstad12 Norway Tonje Storlien13 Spain David Yáñez Ruiz14 the Netherlands Jan Dijkstra15 United Kingdom Christopher Reynolds16 United States Alexander Hristov17 Switzerland Michael Kreuzer18 Switzerland Angela Schwarm

Members and Attendance revised?

Dublin, 27 June 2013

Closed (until now: invitation letter -> country rep-> delegate to FNN)?oropen? (even though being a GRA activity wheredistinct countries are participating)

How to ensure a balanced participation? How to better include developing countries?(GGAA 2013 participant list for ask for interest?)

Mission Statement

Dublin, 27 June 2013

Existing draft for discussion:

The Feed and Nutrition Network (FNN) is an activity of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases which…- summarizes and evaluates the available data on mitigating GHG emissions

of ruminants by nutritional means. - builds on, and utilizes, the huge body of work available on mitigation of

enteric methane (and nitrogen excretion) from ruminants by feed & nutrition- develops sound recommendations for stake-holders- develops recommendations for methods- identifies future research priorities- points out gaps in knowledge- fosters collaboration and helps to avoid duplication in research

Chairing countries

Dublin, 27 June 2013

1st and 2nd workshop:Chairing countries: Switzerland & the Netherlands

Statement 2012

• Long‐term rotational lead (depends also on funding)‐ change yes, but not too frequent‐ should be member of the livestock research group‐mandate until next meeting stays at it is

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Chairing countries

Dublin, 27 June 2013

1st and 2nd workshop:Chairing countries: Switzerland & the Netherlands

3rd & … workshop:Chairing countries: USA & the Netherlands

Linkages to LRG and other working groups of GRA

Dublin, 27 June 2013

Other Networks:- Rumen Microbial Genomics Network (RMG)*- Animal Selection Genetics and Genomics Network (ASGGN)- Manure Management Network (MMN)- Animal Health & GHG Emission Intensity Network**- Livestock Emissions Abatement Research Network (LEARN)- Grassland Based Production Sytems and GHG Emissions Network***

––––––––––––––––––* Adrian Cookson attends this FNN workshop** No meeting in Dublin*** Scoping Meeting in Dublin (today from 4 p.m. onwards)

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

The origin and objectives of the Rumen Microbial Genomics Network

Adrian CooksonRMG Network Co‐ordinator (to June 2013)

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

Rumen Microbial Genomics Network

• RMG Network is an initiative of the LRG.• Sept 2010: RMG Network identified as a project in LRG work plan.

• Dec 2010: AgResearch obtained funding from NZ Government to hold an exploratory workshop.

• Feb 2011: workshop held and RMG Network formed.

Aim of workshop: To initiate an international scientificeffort to mitigate methane using a rumen microbialgenomics approach by gathering together the mainresearch groups active in methanogen genomics andrumen metagenomics to align international research inthis area.

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

Perceived Network benefits.

• Communication and collaboration between international research groups.

• Lobby/leverage for international funding (larger integrated studies).

• Open access to data – avoid duplication.• Sharing and identification of new molecular genomics tools.• Raise public awareness of present and future research activities.• Generation of comprehensive reference genome and metagenome sequence libraries for relevant microbial communities.

• Exchange of students, staff.

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

Workshop Feb 2011.

International workshop held in Palmerston North with participants from

New Zealand, Australia, Europe, North America, South America and Japan.

Purpose ‐ To initiate support for global collaborative network of researchers,

working with common set of principles and guidelines to underpin the

development of methane mitigation and rumen adaptation technologies

using microbial genomics approaches.

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

• Proposed global network structure universally accepted.

• Network to be initially led and co‐ordinated by New Zealand.

• Endorsement of three collaborative projects (deep sequencing of rumen 

metagenome, catalogue of reference microbial genomes, functional 

genomics).

o Having far‐reaching positive impacts for RMG research community to develop 

GHG mitigation technologies. 

o Aligning well with underpinning ‘global’ rationale of GRA.

o Having clear practical outputs to network aims.

Rumen Microbial Genomics Workshop ‐agreements.

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

Rumen Microbial Genomics Network structure.

• Open and inclusive membership for those willing to contribute in some way.

• Modelled on other international networks e.g. Human Microbiomeproject.

• Subsequent Network leadership through international Working Group (international scientists in RMG science community).

o Establish protocols/guidelines.o Manage IP expectations.o Communication/publicity.

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

Formation of RMG Network.

• Funding received Dec 2011 to administer and run RMG Network to June 

2013.

• RMG Network Structure document in scope.

• Website available containing: 

o Links to partner programs (RuminOmics and SMEthane).

o Further information and links to underpinning projects (H1000 and GRC). 

o Various pipelines, protocols and links.

o News, publications, RMG Network newsletters (Dec 2012, May 2013).

o Member details.

o Members forum.

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

Key RMG Network performance indicators.

• Successful formation of International RMG Network Working Group.• Adoption of agreed and robust RMG Network Implementation Plan.• Co‐ordinated leadership and administration of global Network projects.

• Expansion of international RMG Network members. • Mobilising additional resources:

o Global Partnerships in Livestock Emissions Research – NZ.o Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Filling the Research. Gap ‐ Australia

o FACCE‐JPI – International.• 2nd RMG Network workshop (Clermont‐Ferrand, June 2012).• Succession of NZ leadership and co‐ordination of RMG Network to another Alliance country (2013).

RuminOmics/RMG Network workshop, 22nd June 2013, Dublin, Ireland.

Acknowledgements.

• All RMG Network members, workshop participants and attendees. 

Funded by the New Zealand Government to support the objectives of the LivestockResearch Group of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural GreenhouseGases. The information contained within this poster should not be taken to representthe views of the Alliance as a whole or its Partners.

• www.rmgnetwork.org.nz• rmg.network@agresearch.co.nz• adrian.cookson@agresearch.co.nz

Best Practices in vitro

David Yáñez-Ruiz

FAO/IAEA, Makkar and Vercoe, 2007Measuring Methane Production from Ruminants

1. Analysis od CH42. Measuring CH4 by in vitro and in vivo techniques3. The SF6 tracer technique4. Estimation from VFA production5. Measurement of CH4 using isotopic tracers6. Measurement from grazing animals: the tunnel method7. Open circuit chambers. Also LRG manual published in 2012

1. In vitro techniques to study fermentation and CH4 emissions

• Muetzel et al. 2009. Animal Feed Science and Technology 151, 32–43• Martínez et al. 2010. Animal Feed Science and Technlogy. 158: 126–135• Soto et al. 2012. Animal Production Science. 52: 813‐822• Soto et al. 2013 Animal Feed Science and Technology (In press) 

6789

1011

0 24 72

LO

G (c

opie

s/g

fres

h m

atte

r)

Incubation time (h)

BacteriaF. succinogenesR. flavefaciensFungiMethanogensProtozoa

2. The microbial ecosystem sustained by different in vitro tools

3. The study of different factors that influence the reponse of in vitro systems

‐ Animals´diet (F:C, FOR, oils?…)‐ Substrate fermented when testing additives (freeze‐dried, dried..)‐ pH (SMEthane)‐ How an additive should be applied‐ Dosage

‐ (per unit of DM in diet or fermentation volume)..‐ In vitro to in vivo

4. In vitro vs. In vivo

SMEthane

Best Practice – in vivo methods

Chris Reynolds

Best Practice – in vivo methods

• Respiration chambers• SF6• Emerging alternatives

– Green Feed– ‘Sniffer’ approaches– Short term ‘accumulation box’ measurements– Other proxies – milk MIRS/[FA], faecal archeaol, etc.

Best Practice – Respiration Chambers

• ‘Gold Standard’?  Accuracy/precision varies• Open circuit most commonly used

– Varying degrees of complexity• From polytunnels to highly engineered precision

– Environmental control– Need to correct for temperature, pressure, humidity

• Limitations recognized – Throughput, behaviour changes, grazing, etc.

Best Practice – Respiration Chambers

Best Practice – SF6

• In and out of ‘favour’ – best option for grazing• More variable measurements 

– operator effect 

• Labour intensive– Increased replication required– Best practice document in preparation by LRG

Best Practice – SF6

• In and out of ‘favour’ – best option for grazing• More variable measurements 

– operator effect 

• Labour intensive– Increased animal numbers– Best practice document in preparation by LRG

Guidelines for Alternatives?• Greenfeed

– Much interest at present– Automated open head chamber with calibration

• Measures production rate– Deployment, replication, sampling intervals, enticement, data handling, umbilical issues, etc.

• ‘Sniffers’– CH4 concentration of air sample including expired/eructated air used to estimate emission

• CH4 or CH4/CO2– Milking/feeding mangers or laser estimates– Estimates based on limited sample numbers per day

University of Reading - CEDAR

38

University of Reading - CEDAR

39

University of Reading - CEDAR

40

Alternatives - Sniffers Alternatives ‐ Sniffers

Best Practice – in vivo methods

• Respiration chambers• SF6• Emerging alternatives

– Green Feed– ‘Sniffer’ approaches– Short term ‘box’ measurements– Other proxies – milk MIRS/[FA], faecal archeaol, etc.

• Recommendations and guidelines needed, including experimental applications, replication needed, limitations, interpretation, etc.

New Zealand workshop led by Mark Aspin from PGgRc on 19th Feb

‘Developing rapid, low cost methods for identifyinglow emitting dairy cattle phenotypes’. 

Methane measurementsresearch aims, questions, set-up

DDDDr Jan DijkstraAnimal Nutrition GroupWageningen University

Wageningen climate respiration facilities

Historically: energy metabolism O2 utilization, CO2 production CH4 production

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Wageningen climate respiration facilities

Research question Method of feeding Experimental design

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Wageningen climate respiration facilitiesSchematic lay-out / top view

air plenum

air plenum

perforated wall

airlock

gutter

humidifier

cooler

heater

fan

air inflow

air outflow

Gas analyses: O2, CO2, 13CO2, CH4,NH3

Research question

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Does diet X / component X decrease methane? Example: grass silage vs maize silage

Exchange on DM basis may affect other important characteristics (e.g., rumen degradable protein balance)

Correcting protein to equal values?- Farmers will not underfeed protein- No ‘real’ feed characteristic

Research question: grass vs maize silage

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Item (g/kg DM) Grass Maize Concentrate

CP (g/kg DM) 149 81 263

Intake (kg/d) 6.33 5.05 2.14

CP diet (g/kg DM) 178 135

Staerfl et al. 2012

Research question

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Does diet X / component X decrease methane? Example: nitrate vs urea

Usually exchange on N basis gram N/g urea > gram N/g nitrate so cannot simply swap urea-N for nitrate-N

Research question: nitrate and urea

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Item (g/kg DM) Urea Nitrate

Basal ingredients 912 912

Urea 35 –

Nitrate source 88

Wood cellulose 3

CaCO3 51

Nitrate source : 5Ca(NO3)2 NH4NO3 10H2O

Research question

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Does diet X / component X decrease methane? Example: fat

Add fat to diet? Comparison of control vs extra fat Iso-lipidic? Comparison of type of fat Correct for differences in energy content of different

FA?

Method

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Feeding regime Frequency? TMR? Ad lib vs restricted

+ Ad lib: express intake potential+ Restricted: less variation in chambers

Feed intake level may affect methane• digestion decline per unit feed intake increase?• decrease pH and decrease Ac / Pr

Method

J. Dijkstra

Reducing methane emissions

Experimental design Latin square or block design? 4x4 Latin square, 21 d, 4 d measurement: 84 d 84 d is equivalent to 16 blocks of 4 animals Individuals differ in microbial set-up (host specific) Indicators in feces or milk benefit from large numbers Longer time: change in DIM ..... ?

SMEthaneTechnological platform to develop nutritional additives to

reduce methane emissions from ruminantsFP7-SME-2010-1 262270

Research for the Benefit of SMEsDic 2010 – Nov 2012

SMEthane

SMEthane

David Yáñez-Ruiz

Restrictions

SMEthane

• need to standardise and report the concentration of active component

• stability of the compounds in practical conditions

• persistence of the effects/adaptation of the rumen ecosystem

• lack of in vivo data over a range of livestock production systems

• effect of extract on the perceived quality of milk products

• a lack of production data on which to base calculations of market prices

Stability (4, 15, 30 ºC)WP 2RTD

IN VITRO (pH and substrate)

IN VIVO

WP 3RTD

WP 4RTD

Short term

7days

Long term

42 days

SMEthane

20

25

21+15

SMEthane

SMEthane

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Meal Pellet

SMEthane

Stability of compounds

Initial4 °C15 °C30 °C

0

20

40

60

80

100

S1a S1b S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S8 S7 S11 S12

Pellet 

Additiv

e remaine

d/initial (%

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

S1a S1b S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S8 S7 S11 S12

Meal

SMEthane

Stability of compounds

SMEthane

In vitro: substrate

Laboratory for Animal Nutrition and Animal Product Quality

http://www.lanupro.UGent.be

Organosulporous compound

3-pH

5.5

3-pH

7.0

4-pH

5.5

4-pH

7.0

5-pH

5.5

5-pH

7.0

6-pH

5.5

6-pH

7.0

Mea

n m

etha

ne re

duct

ion

(%)

-20

0

20

40

60

80

SMEthane

In vitro: pH

0102030405060708090

100

in vitro in vivoRel

ativ

e m

etha

ne (t

o co

ntro

l)

SMEthane

In vitro vs. In vivo

CH4 redu

ction%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

In vitro In vivo 7 d smallruminants

In vivo 42 d cattle

SMEthane

In vitro vs. In vivo

SMEthane

In vivo short vs. Long term

RT: 5.37 - 24.26

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Time (min)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Relative Abu

ndan

ce

20.68

11.4817.7111.11 11.63 15.22 19.187.91 22.375.60 24.196.29 11.958.09 10.78 14.10

NL:2.11E8TIC MS 0,25mlL1Hexane_25042012

RT: 4.97 - 24.51

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Time (min)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Relative Abu

ndan

ce

20.65

24.0420.8919.21 22.3611.607.87 15.625.39 15.7511.796.33 8.02 18.8513.569.63

NL:9.94E6TIC MS vaca6,47_t0

SMEthaneTransfer to milk‐Essential oils‐ no‐Organosulphur ‐ yes Conclusions

• Important issues related to stability• Plant extracts can manipulate rumen fermentation and decrease methane

• Doses required vary depending on diet and are often to high to be economically viable

• Issues of taint in milk variable 

SMEthane

training Workshops

• 1st workshop – Uk ‐ Sept 2011

• 2nd workshop – Spain ‐Mar 2012

• 3rd workshop – France – Oct 2012

• The Importance of Measuring Methane Production from Ruminant Livestock – the reason why we are doing this project.

• Effects of the use of plant extracts on animal productivity in different production systems

• Financial and regulatory barriers to the use of plant extracts in ruminant livestock

• …

SMEthaneSMEthane

Maguy Eugène & Cécile Martin 27th june 2013

Focus on INRA ongoing research programs and methodologies related to FNN activitiesFNN « Feed and Nutrition in relation to GHG emissions »

74

Our Research Units

Doreau MEugène MMartin CMorgavi DNozière P Popova M

PARIS

RENNES

CLERMONT-THEIXGUADELOUPE

Giger-Reverdin SSauvant D

Edouard NFaverdin PHassouna MRobin PVan der Werf HWilfart A

Archimède HBoval M

75

Our methodological approachFrom the microbe to the farm scale

CH4 CH4, N2O, CO2

In vitro

Molecular biology

Meta‐analysisModelling

Microbe

Animal

Herd & FarmLife Cycle 

Assessment(LCA)

In silico

In vivo

76

Database and modelling on CH4

1‐Methane mitigating strategyLipids, temperate and tropical forages, 

additives

2‐Methane  peripheral indicators Milk fatty acids, ... 

3‐PredictionMeta‐analysis

Animal & Feed

Mechanistic modellingThermodynamic & stoechiometry

Database Modelling

Ongoing EAAP 2013Revision of the French Feeding System forRuminants

Literature

In vivo

Ongoing programs

Private partnersConsortium of public & private partners (under

construction)

National programsSystali : renewing feeding systemsNational inventories

European Programs MultiswardAnimal Change

CH4

Microbe

Animal

Herd & Farm

77 78

Research programs related to FNN Facce – JPI call

Validation of markers of enteric methanogenesis for use in CH4 mitigation strategies in ruminants

Prediction by meta‐analysis

Methane measurement methods to be used in field assays Greenfeed (n=2) vs. Open chambers (n=8) & SF6 tracer technique

INRA experimental unit & farmconditions with different methanemeasurement methods

Methane mitigating strategyMethane  peripheral indicators

to create a commonDadatbase with all partners: update, expand & analyse

Thank You

Improvements in feeding, nutrition and effects on GHG emissions from pastoral grazing in New Zealand

Garry WaghornDairyNZ, Hamilton, New Zealand

My Talk• Overview of our pastoral system• Funded nutrition research• Examples of improved nutrition• Value of improved nutrition and management

– For Emissions intensityWe work together as much as possible; within New Zealand and overseas

– Genetics, microbiology

New Zealand - what are we?• 100 000 sq miles; flat/rolling, hills, mountains• Livestock

– Dairy cattle 6.0 m (4.5 m milking cows)– Beef cattle 4.5 m, Sheep 40 m, Deer 1.6 m

• People 4.5 m• Most ruminant products are exported

– Agriculture is more than 50% of exports; and includes 30% of international dairy trade

• New Zealand has a significant investment in agricultural GHG mitigation– Mainly methane and nitrous oxides– AgResearch is a major supplier of research

Important things about farming in New Zealand

• Climate is temperate– No snow on the ground

• Farming is mainly pasture (ryegrass)– Minimal concentrates; some silage

• Farming is intensive; 2000 sheep/person; 350 dairy cows/farm (2-3 persons)

• Farming is big business– Accounts for nearly half our GHG– Agricultural emissions are 2/3 methane 1/3 N2O– A good income and significant investment, enabling

change/improvement Intensive pastoral beef

Sheep on hilly terrain

Pastoral dairy farmingDifferent systems in temperate climates

Some Intensive indoor dairying

New Zealand Research• Manipulating inputs

– Diet; low methane feeds; modelling fermentation, GHG from brassicas, maize silage, high sugar grasses

– Animal; genomic selection, identifying low emitting genotypes

• Microbial communities – lots; vaccines, methanogen inhibitors, microflora

• Measurement/inventory– ; prediction of emissions, testing GreenFeed, SF6

and chamber technical manuals

My interests concern efficiency - Wasted energy and pollution

CH4 from each cow 70-110 kg/yearAbout 9% of metabolisable energy (ME) intakeor 6.5% of the gross energy of feed

Methane from one dairy cow in one year could run a car for 1000 km

Increasing growth rate to reduce CH4emissions intensity (Ei) from sheep.

Diet quality (MJ ME/kg DM)

Forage Daily gain (g)

Methane yield

(g/kg DMI)

Feedefficiency (kg DM/kg

gain)

Ei(g CH4/kg

gain)

10.0 Ryegrass 100 24.0 13.6 330

11.0 Ryegrass 150 22.0 9.4 210

12.0 Ryegrass 200 21.0 7.5 160

11.5 Lucerne 250 20.0 6.7 130

12.0 Sulla 300 17.5? 6.2 110

Declining methane yield as intakes increaseFeed quality affects efficiency of energy use for gain

Good management to improve production

Weaning rate Growth rate (kg/day)

65%

85%

65%

85%

0.3

0.3

0.6

0.6

Ei(kg CH4/kg meat)

1.6

1.5

1.3

1.1

Hunter & Neithe 2009

Tropical beef - Australia Emissions (CH4 and N2O) associated with production of human-edible food

CO2-e /product

/kg product /edible MJ /kg edible protein

Cows milk 1.0 0.37 28.6

Broilers 3.5 0.40 18.4

pigs 4.7 0.30 34.2

beef 14.7 1.40 93.5

Sheep 15.8 1.51 92.9

Wheat 0.2-0.8 0.01-0.04 0.1-0.4

Peas 0.1 0.005 0.04

Based on European data; Gill et al.(2010)

Main drivers of reducedemissions intensity

Over the past 20 years:

Sheep • Lambing rates increased from <1 to approx 1.25• Earlier breeding • Lamb carcass weights increased from 13kg – 17kg• Ewe numbers decreased by 20 million without

resulting in major reduction in overall productionDairy Cattle • Milk yield per cow increased by 30%• Heavier, more productive animals

Overall increase in animal productive health status

NZ progress in reducing sheep emissions intensity

Major reduction in absolute emissions almost constant output

Production of sheep

meat (Tonnes)

CH4Emissions Mt/annum/kg CO2-eq

CH4Emissions kg/animal/y

ear

Emissions/unit productkg CO2-eq/

kg meat

1990 543,000 11.2 9.3 21

2005 541,000 9.2 11.1 17

% Change -0.4 -18.2 +16.2 -17.5

NZ progress in reducing Dairy cattle emissions intensity

Significant long term reductions in Ei

Improved farming efficiency reduces Ei• Increase use of feed for production, reduced

feed used for maintenance– Breeding at a young age; good fertility– Twins in sheep– Long lactation/ more lactations– Survival and longevity– Good health

• Efficient use of energy– Efficient animals (less feed/production);– improved genetics (low RFI)

Growing and maintenance are non-productive periods of a lifecycle in a dairy cow

An unwanted consequence of intensification- annual N input and leaching losses

19 41 32 44 67113

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Lowinput

Control Standoff LowSupp.

Mod.Supp.

HighSupp.

N inputsN leached

Nitr

ogen

inpu

t/lea

ched

(kg/

ha)

N inputs = N fixation + N fertiliser + N in purchased feedLedgard et al

Selection for low emitters??

Chamber CH4 emissions from 339 sheep fed at 2.2 x maintenance (lucerne pellet diet)

Data courtesy of Cesar Pinares-Patiño

CH4 mitigation options in NZ• Monensin doesn’t reduce emissions or improve

production from ruminants fed pasture• Most forages result in a similar CH4 yield

– Some opportunities with brassicas; – Forages with condensed tannins are not economic

• Oils and grains are impractical and uneconomic• High producing animals will lower Ei

– Most gains are from improving animal and farm efficiency– Make every animal productive

• There is no CH4 from manure deposited on pasture• Efficiency is profitable and will be adopted by

farmers

Thank you

Wrap-up

Dublin, 27 June 2013

Michael Kreuzer

Decisions made in 2012

Decisions

1. Change name to: Network on Feed and Nutrition in relation to methane emissions (FNN) (“greenhouse gas” instead of “methane” remained)

‐ database is only one form of activity‐ nitrogen emissions will only be considered in relation to methane mitigation measures

2. Focus activities first on main stakeholder (governments)3. Take general use among us of professional network (discussion 

round like you have it otherwise only in conference coffees)4. Very few governments covered cost of participation in FNN 

workshop: according statement from us in report; positive that many scientists were so interested to come nevertheless

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Decisions

Short term actions (1):• (Website with) ‐ convincing statements for value for governments/country reps (not too scientific)‐ key papers and best management strategies (with realistic assessments)

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Homepage (at fnnnetwork.wordpress.com)

• Set up in 2012 by Switzerland (Johanna Zeitz & Tiziana Lanzini)

• Linked with the Homepage of the Global Research Alliance (at www.globalresearchalliance.org/research/livestock/activities/networks-and-databases/#Feed)

• No response by nobody so far

Homepage (Title page)

FNN Networkan international network focused on ruminant feed and nutrition issues in relation to greenhouse gases

The Network on ‘Feed and Nutrition in Relation to Greenhouse Gas Emissions’an activity of the Livestock Research Group (LRG) within the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases

Timeline:•2010, Banff, Canada: Switzerland suggests creating a network in the field of feed and nutrition•2011, Amsterdam: FNN approved as LRG activity•2012, Sept 1‐3, Zurich: start‐up workshop. Scope & goals developed. Agreement on action plan.•2013, June, Dublin: next FNN meeting (satellite meeting to GGAA 2013)

Homepage (at fnnnetwork.wordpress.com)

• Shall this homepage be further developed? (responsibility: new chairs)

• New elements for the future according to decisions: ‐ convincing statements for value for governments/country reps ‐minutes (password protected part)‐ key papers and best management strategies with realistic assessments (password protected part?)

Decisions

Short term actions (2):• new FAO database: mandate to Alex Hristov to approach FAO ‐ about their plans for update, ‐ if FAO/the authors agree that FNN works/updates the existing database, ‐ if FAO is willing to give FNN even a mandate/fund to do this; ‐ input of FNN member countries; grey/non‐English? ‐ include new variables (e.g milk fatty acids)?‐ who takes the lead? (other) funds?

(FAO is an official partner of GRA; use their contacts to invite experts also from non‐GRA countries)

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Decisions

Short term actions (2):• new FAO database:‐ invite experts esp. from key developing countries (FAO funds their participation?)

• new FAO database: what do we want from it?‐ right to use and obligation to deliver, ‐ translate to end users (“Reader’s digest)

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Decisions

Short term actions (3):• Approach Harry Clarke on how FNN could be involved in the next assessment report of IPCC (Jan Dijkstra)

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

DecisionsMedium‐long term actions (concept ready for next meeting) (1):• Best (management) practices list to be used for conducting and assessing in vitro (1) and in vivo (2) methods‐ Step 1 to ‘measure enteric methane’(build on Makkar edited book – David Yanez‐Ruiz sends pdf to group)   (also helpful to decide about quality of grey/non‐English literature)‐ Step 2: how to best interpret in vitro data‐ Step 3: extend by creating clarity about wider aspects of ‘feed/ nutrition in relation to methane’ experiments (intake, analysis…) ‐ responsibility/lead: Spain (in vitro) & UK (in vivo)(circulate to FNN group) 

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Decisions

Long term actions/vision:• recommendations how feeds shall be assessed with respect to their expected methane emissions potential

• extend FAO database on feeds with more detail to be able to assess expected methane (nitrogen) emissions (problem: associative effects)

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Decisions

Next meeting:• 5th GGAA 23‐26 June 2013: local responsibility: IrelandInvited speakers from developing countries/partial scholarships? FNN gives Padraig O’Kiely the mandate to contact organisationcommittee about that.Please provide info on which other satellite meetings happen and when:‐ Livestock Research group when?‐ AnimalCHANGE: when?Is it an exclusive club (upon invitation): MK clarifies with Harry about permission to do so: country reps plus invited experts

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Statements

• Involve industry? Discuss in next meeting

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

To do list from 2012

Closed Session of the FNN Startup Workshop, 3 September 2012

Tasks

• MK draft ½ page with convincing statements about value of FNN for governments/country reps (not too scientific) ‐> call in backup from governments (travel funding) – mk to draft (1/2 page) done

• MK: update country rep list FNN and LRG done• MK: clarify with Harry Clark about permission to invite country reps plus selected experts at next meeting at GGAA (selection procedure) done

• MK: compose ppt files to one pdf done• JZ: take minutes done

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Tasks

• Alex Hristov: approach FAO about their plans for update new database, if FAO/the authors agree that FNN works/updates the existing database, if FAO is willing to give FNN even a mandate/fund to do this done

• Jan Dijkstra: approach Harry Clarke on how FNN could be involved in the next assessment report of IPCC (Jan Dijkstra)

• David Yanez‐Ruiz: send pdf of Makkar edited book  to group done• Best (management) practices list‐ David Yanez‐Ruiz (Spain): in vitro‐ Chris Reynolds (UK): in vivostarted (cf. in previous presentations)

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Tasks

• Padraig O’Kiely: contact organising committee of 5th GGAA 23‐26 June 2013: ‐ about possibility to strategically invited speakers from developing countries realised for GGAA‐ about giving partial scholarships for selected participants from developing countries realised for GGAA‐ information on which other satellite meetings happen (esp. Livestock Research Group and AnimalCHANGE) done‐ suggestion when the best time for FNN meeting would be done

• Padraig O’Kiely (Ireland): local responsibility for next FNN meetingdone

FNN Startup Workshop, 1 - 3 September 2012

Approval of (revised) action plan

Action Plan

From a draft action plan to an approved action plan

→ to be presented by Michael Kreuzer on 28 June 2013 to the Livestock Research Group

Action Planas decided on 27 June 2013

Short- and medium-term:• establish a FNN homepage with background information on the network (statement

on importance of FNN, review papers, suggestions of best management strategies with realistic assessment for stake-holders)

• Database activity (updating and extension of existing FAO database focusing on enteric methane emissions)

• Production of best (management) practices documents to be used for conducting and assessing in vitro (list 1) and in vivo (list 2) experiments.

• Obtain funding from FACCE-JPI

Long-term:• Extend FAO database by feed characterization and nitrogen excretion data• Critical review on interpretation of in vitro work & inclusion of recommendations on

feed characterization

Governance and Funding (prepared for LRG meeting)• Current lead of FNN:

1st and 2nd workshop: Switzerland & the Netherlands • 3rd & … workshop: USA & the Netherlands• Decisions made in the member group at FNN meetings

by mutual agreement• Membership is now open (call for interest)

27 June workshop: 31 people from 22 countries (incl. 4 from developing/transient countries) attending

•

• FNN has no own fundsTravel & accommodation costs of FNN delegates should at least become partly covered by governments to allow delegates to attend FNN network meetings

Global network for the development and maintenance of nutrition-related strategies for mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from ruminant livestock

Multi-partner Call on AgriculturalGreenhouse Gas Research:

Nucleus of FNN in case it getsfunded?

Next venue / new members

Chairing countries

Perspective:→ next workshop may take place on xxx at xxx?

Members and Attendance revised?

Dublin, 27 June 2013

How to ensure balanced participation in future? (GGAA 2013 participant list for ask for interest?)

Create an online subscriber list?(RMG and ASGGN have more than 200 members eachand also only some 20 participants here)

Network on ‘Feed and Nutrition in Relation to Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ (FNN; fnnnetwork.wordpress.com)

Michael Kreuzer, Switzerlandprepared together with

Jan Dijkstra/André Bannink, the Netherlands

Presentation to the Livestock Research Group 28 June 2013 in Dublin

on behalf of the network

Founding of FNN and first two meetings• 2011, Amsterdam: FNN approved 

as LRG activity• 2012, Sept 1‐3, Zurich, 

Switzerland: Start‐up workshop. Participation of delegates from 14 out of 23 FNN member countries.  ‐ Scope & goals defined. ‐Agreement on action plan.

• 2013, June 27: Second workshopin Dublin

Current FNN member countries: 23 Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay

Scope of the network:Build on, and utilize, the huge body of work available on mitigation of enteric 

methane (and nitrogen excretion) from ruminants by feed and nutrition to develop sound recommendations for stake‐holders & identify future research priorities

Network goals• Summarizing and evaluating the available data on mitigating GHG 

emissions of ruminants by nutritional means• Developing sound recommendations for stakeholders on CH4 mitigation 

by nutrition• Identifying gaps in knowledge, avoid duplication in research & focus 

research on priority issues

Expected from LRG: • Feedback & comments on goals & action plan of FNN• Support of FNN delegates to call in funding of travel & accommodation 

costs from governments to allow delegates to attend FNN meetings • Bringing LRG networks closer together

Rumen MicrobialGenomics Network

Feed and Nutrition is also important in other networks

Animal Selection Geneticsand Genomics Network

Manure Management Network

Animal Health & GHG Emission Intensity Network

Grassland Based Production Systemsand GHG Emissions Network

Linkages between networks?

→ Common session part(s)  and not only meeting of LRG chairs with network chairs?

(Additional constraint: Network chairs are not necessarily LRG members)

Action Planas decided upon on 27 June 2013

Short‐ and medium‐term:• extend existing FNN homepage with background information on the network (statement on 

importance of FNN, review papers, suggestions of best management strategies with realistic assessment for stake‐holders)

• database activity (updating and extension of existing FAO database focusing on enteric methane emissions; agreement of FAO and FAO’s interest in collaboration given on 27 June)

• production of best (management) practices documents to be used for conducting and assessing in vitro (list 1) and in vivo (list 2) experiments  (first screening performed by Spain and UK).

• obtain funding through FACCE‐JPI project to be submitted in full in 9/2013

Global network for the development and maintenance of nutrition‐related strategies for mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from ruminant livestock

• Project coordinator:Alex Hristov (USA)• Participating countries eligible to funding:‐ Canada‐ France ‐ Finland‐ Germany‐ Ireland ‐ Spain‐ United Kingdom‐ USA

• Countries willing to contribute in kind:‐ the Netherlands‐ Switzerland

Multi‐partner Call on Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research

Action Planas decided on 27 June 2013

Short‐ and medium‐term:• extend existing FNN homepage with background information on the network (statement on 

importance of FNN, review papers, suggestions of best management strategies with realistic assessment for stake‐holders)

• database activity (updating and extension of existing FAO database focusing on enteric methane emissions; agreement of FAO and FAO’s interest in collaboration given on 27 June)

• production of best (management) practices documents to be used for conducting and assessing in vitro (list 1) and in vivo (list 2) experiments  (first screening performed by Spain and UK).

• obtain funding through FACCE‐JPI project to be submitted in full in 9/2013

Long‐term:• Extend FAO database by feed characterization and nitrogen excretion data• Critical review on interpretation of in vitro work & inclusion of recommendations on feed 

characterization

Opportunities

• Key outputFNN offers the opportunity to make the highest possible use of research results in CH4 mitigation & to transfer recommendations to stake‐holders

• End users:‐ policy‐makers‐ researchers‐ farmers‐ industry?

• Lessons being learned:‐ interest in the network seems to be substantial‐members: constructive group purely composed of researchers‐ difficulties to see how to best include industry

Governance and funding• Lead of FNN:

1st and 2nd workshop: Switzerland & the Netherlands• 3rd & … workshop: USA & the Netherlands

• Decisionsmade in the member group at FNN meetings by mutual agreement

• Membership is now open (call for interest)27 June workshop: 31 attendants from 22 countries (incl. 4 from developing/transient countries) 

•

• FNN has no own fundsTravel & accommodation costs of FNN delegates should at least become partly covered by governments to allow delegates to attend FNN network meetings. Improvement when FACCE‐JPI project would get funded.