Holy Cow!

Dec 30, 2009

Cow belches contain methane and have been a recognized source of greenhouse gases. With cattle in India estimated at 475 million, bovines may be contributing more to emissions than cars! Feed additives hold a key to solving this problem.

Carbon dioxide gets more press, but methane is also a serious contributor to global warming, estimates of its precise share of responsibility vary. While in the atmosphere, it has 21 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2, trapping much more heat than the same quantity of carbon dioxide. Reducing methane emissions is a good way to slow global warming in the near future, because the gas breaks down in 12 years compared to CO2’s 120.

The U.S. has known for over 100 years ago that cows and other ruminant livestock belches contain methane emissions. In the 1980s the EPA recognized this as a greenhouse gas problem, creating the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program to research solution. They realized that the greatest potential for reducing animal methane production is in developing countries like India where a large percentage of calories consumed go into methane gas instead of providing energy for the animals to grow and produce milk.[1]

India may be contributing more to global warming with enteric (intestinal) emissions than car emissions. It has the world’s largest population of livestock at 485 million and 75% of the population is in rural areas.[2] A recent comprehensive census and statistical analysis of Indian livestock estimated that the animals were emitting a total of 11.75 metric tons of methane per year in 2003, up from 9 metric tons in 1997.[3] (The U.N. had previously calculated 12.9 megatons/yr, a number Indian scientists disputed).[4] The main culprits are cattle, who produce nearly 90% of the gas; buffalo are responsible for about 4%.[5] The contributions vary significantly by region and by animal breed.[6] Only about 3.5% of India’s land is pasture, so cattle eat a high-methane-emissions diet of crop residues and low-quality grasses.

The Main Lines of Livestock Methane Research
Three major lines of research have been identified.

1) Design methods to assess and calculate methane emissions.
This has led to the IPCC methane emissions guidelines.[7]

2) Develop technologies and methods to reduce global intestinal methane emissions.
In addition to techniques for directly reduce methanogenesis (methane production) in livestock guts, this includes efforts to increase milk productivity (milk produced per cow per year), milk production efficiency (milk produced per unit feed consumed). Some methods of enhancing productivity increase the methane produced per animal or per calorie consume. However, if fewer cows can produce the same amount of milk/meat, total methane emissions will fall, so long as total milk/meat demand does not shoot up too rapidly.[8]

Three broad categories of tactics have been explored: adjustments to the composition of cattle fodder and feeding practices; feed supplements or additives; and livestock management practices.[9]

3) Create technology transfer and farmer education programs to implement and evaluate these methods in developing countries.

In 1991, the NGO EnterpriseWorks Worldwide conducted studies in India, Brazil, and Bangladesh to assess the feasibility of such transfers. This was followed by the India Dairy Project in 1994 [10]

(The rest of this article will focus on 2 and 3.)

Cows in Indian Society: Special Considerations
Indian policy choices regarding cow emissions must take into account the unique role of the cow in the Indian society and economy. Sirohi et. al.(2007; final form written 2005) suggests that methods which increase cow milk productivity but also increase methane production per cow might not be an effective way to reduce methane production in India, because Indian cow-owners would not necessarily respond by reducing the cow population. Religious laws against killing commercially unviable cows would make it hard for the population to take a quick downturn. More importantly, in rural India, cows do not function as milk-producing commodities. The majority of India’s cows are on farms with under 3 cows, with only 3.4% on farms with over 5.[11] They often provide milk for subsistence, not sale, and many also serve as beasts of burden, or a way of storing wealth. If productivity increases, farmers with a couple of cows will probably enjoy the surplus milk, not keep fewer cows. In addition, the exploding commercial market demand for animal products as India develops will drive a growing cow population.[12] The country might end up with more milk—a worthy goal—but not reduce GHGs. To combat global warming, India needs methods that reduce each cow’s methane production.

However, these methods will only be adopted if they also enhance productivity and production efficiency. Farmers living on the edge of subsistence in remote areas don’t know about global warming, and are in no position to make sacrifices for a large abstract cause. They will only pay attention to new livestock feeding techniques that demand little financial risk, and increase their net income or put milk on the table.[13] Spreading new farming techniques among far-flung rural farms will require networks of local organizations to persuade participation and distribute knowledge and necessary materials.[14]

Cost and Technology Hurdles
Most productivity-enhancing livestock management practices are geared to wealthier commercial farms managing a larger herd.[15] K.K. Singhal, head of dairy cattle nutrition at the National Dairy Research Institute in northern India argues that Indian small farmers cannot afford to improve livestock feed quality (although recommends oilseed cakes in ruminant diets on India’s wealthier farms). He considers dietary supplements more financially feasible.[16]

Scientists have lab-tested everything from nutritional supplements to indigenous medicinal herbs to antibiotics to minimize the growth of methanogenic bacteria in the cow gut. Most higher-tech supplements and additives remain unproven, and a technical challenge to produce. Most established methanogenic antibiotics produced commercially in the West, such as the monensin, are currently too expensive for widespread use in India. [17]

India’s National Dairy Research Institute and the National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology are researching additives that would be affordable and accessible for poor rural farmers. Indigenous herbs could be cost effective and locally producible, but many have negative effects on productivity or cow health.[18] One more promising option is urea-molasses-mineral blocks (called MUPs, molasses-urea products), which reduce methane emissions by around 20%, and provide increased milk yields and quality.[19]

MUPs have been field-tested in India. The first attempt, in the India Dairy Project taught some important lessons about implementing lab-tested solutions in the real world of Indian subsistence farming. Farmers found that the blocks made animals sick if they consumed large chunks, which understandably made them unwilling to use the additives. Eventually they found a way to break it up and mix it with the feed, and began to notice improvements to cow productivity. The MUPs started to catch on when researchers wisely changed their protocols to promote the farmers’ method.[20]

Based on the India field-test experiences and an assessment of the prohibitive costs and technological hurdles, Siroha and Michaelowa (2005) recommend (for dairy cows and buffalo) molasses-urea products for dietary supplementation; and antibiotic ionophore additives. They observed that Rumensin, a monensin premix product, is vastly cheaper than pure monensin, and consider it plausible that the improved productivity (and hence income) from these techniques would outweigh the monetary costs. Increasing the percentage of concentrate (a higher quality feed) in ruminant diet would be too expensive, despite its effectiveness in an Indian field-test: 5.4% decrease in methane, vs. 3.96% for MUPs.[21]

Covering the Initial Costs
Even if a methane mitigation method creates a net income increase, most farmers lack cash to lay out at the start. Microlending is one funding option.[22] The development mechanism system (CDM) in the Kyoto protocols is another. CDMs allow developed countries, which have precise emissions reduction targets under Kyoto, to get emissions credits by funding projects in developing countries which combine carbon mitigation and sustainable developiment.[23] Proving that a project properly qualifies for CDM is complicated, but Sirohi and Michaelowa are optimistic that MUPs and ionophore antibiotics could both qualify and succeed.

References
1. Christina Wood and Callie K. Knipmeyer, “Reducing Methane Emissions Through Increased Productivity,” in Global Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship by Ruminant Livestock Producers--an applied environmental studies student reference commissioned by the USEPA (National Council for Agricultural Education, 1998). 8. Click here.
2. Seema Singh, “Livestock emissions higher than earlier estimates,” livemint.com, online version of Indian business newspaper Mint, March 15, 2009. Click here.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Abha Chhabra, K.R. Manjunath, Sushma Panigrahy, and J.S. Parihar,“Spatial pattern of methane emissions from Indian livestock,” RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 96, NO. 5, 10: (MARCH 20090, 683 and 687. Click here.
6. Ibid.
7. “History of Ruminant Methane Work”, RuMeth International (2001). Click here.
8. Christina Wood and Callie K. Knipmeyer, “Reducing Methane Emissions Through Increased Productivity,” in Global Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship by Ruminant Livestock Producers--an applied environmental studies student reference commissioned by the USEPA (National Council for Agricultural Education, 1998), 15.
9. Bert Metz, Ed., Climate Change 2007: mitigation of climate change: contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press (2007), 510. Click here.
10. “History of Ruminant Methane Work”, RuMeth International (2001); Sirohiand Michaelowa (2005), 45. Click here.
11. Smita Sirohi and Axel Michaelowa, “CDM Potential of Dairy Sector in India,” HWWA Discussion Paper 273, Hamburg Institute of International Economics: Hamburg (2004),, 39 and 53.
12. Singh (2009).
13. Madhur Singh, “Cows With Gas: India’s Global-Warming Problem,” Time Magazine: New Delhi (April 11, 2009). Click here.
14. Smita and Sirohi, 53. Click here
15. Wood and Knipmeyer, “Reducing Methane Emissions Through Increased Productivity” (1998).
16. Singh, “Cows With Gas,” (2009).
17. Ibid.
18. Bert Metz, Ed., Climate Change 2007 (2007), 510.
19. Singh, “Cows With Gas,” (2009).
20. Sirohi and Michaelowa, 53.
21. Sirohi and Michaelowa, 45-52.
22. Ibid., 55.
23. Ibid., 23.