Dairy Continued from Page 3
discoveries related to methane emis- sions in recent years has been in genetics. Scientists now understand that methane is a heritable trait, and there are tests that can show whether a cow is a high or low methane producer. This was not known five years ago, Mitloehner pointed out. The revelation has put focus on selective breeding as a cost-effective and long-term strategy for reducing enteric methane. Producers could potentially bolster meth- ane reductions by combining the use of
genetics and feed additives, Brooke said. “I think we have that capability and the possibility, especially here in the U.S.,” he added. Vaccination is another area getting at- tention. Scientists continue to evaluate the possibility of administering a vaccine that can allow an animal to mount an immune response against methanogens, or meth- ane-producing bacteria. Researchers also continue to explore
probiotics and their ability to shift the energy flow within the rumen away from methane and toward meat and milk. “That has been a prime goal of ruminant microbiologists everywhere for the past 60 years: How do we get that efficiency into meat and milk?” Brooke said. “It still is top of mind for most of us looking at solutions because that’s going to help with cost, and that’s going to help with adoption.” (Ching Lee is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at clee@cfbf.com.)
for several years. Use of natural extracts such as essential oils and tannins can change the microbial composition in the rumen and may reduce methane by about 10%, Mitloehner said. More effective are so-called methane inhibitors, which suppress the enzymatic formation of methane in the rumen. Such feed additives have been able to cut emis- sions by upwards of 30%, Mitloehner said. Though he’s “quite bullish” about the effectiveness of some of the additives, Mitloehner said he’s also very cautious, as they have not been studied extensively and companies trying to commercialize the products lack data on the feeds’ impact on cattle health. He advised dairy farmers to “look for real evidence before you buy something and feed it to your cows,” add- ing that they should consider not just how well the feed reduces methane but also impact to milk, meat and animal welfare. “Any kind of performance issues are nonstarters,” Mitloehner said. Without authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, feed man- ufacturers cannot label their product with claims that it can reduce methane. The approval process remains slow, said Mark van Nieuwland, vice president of DSM- Firmenich, which makes Bovaer, a feed supplement the company says can reduce methane emissions in dairy cows by 30%. Van Nieuwland said there needs to be more investment in research. Getting a new feed ingredient on the market requires tolerance studies to show the product is safe. There are few facilities globally that can do this type of work, and they have a long wait, he added. Changing legislation can help, said John Tauzel, senior director of global agriculture methane at the Environmental Defense Fund. He pointed to Senate Bill 1842, the Innovative FEED Act, which aims to streamline approval of feed additives. “Right now, any product that hopes to have an enteric reduction claim is consid- ered a new drug,” he said. “That’s a sev- en-year, multimillion-dollar pathway.” Even after a feed product is approved, van Nieuwland said barriers remain in getting enough farmers to use it due to the cost. He said there needs to be a way for producers to show the benefits of what they’re doing, so they can earn incentives to help pay for their efforts. Another feed ingredient scientists have studied is a certain red seaweed, which has shown enteric methane reductions of up to 90% in some situations, said Charles Brooke, an expert in enteric methane at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. More research is needed to understand its safety, he said, as the seaweed produc- es bromoform, which can be toxic at high levels. Feeding the seaweed to cows has shown bromoform residue in the milk. Understanding what the safe limit is re- mains a barrier to commercializing the product, he added. “I haven’t seen a lot of great efforts in directly addressing those barriers,” Brooke said. Beyond feed, one of the more notable
PUBLISHED NOTICE CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
If you purchased Super S Super Trac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, CAM2 Promax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or CAM2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil in California between December 1, 2013, and December 31, 2021, you may be a member of a class action that has been certified by a Federal Judge. A Federal District Court has certified this case to proceed as a class action on behalf of all purchasers of Super S Super Trac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, CAM2 Promax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or CAM2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil (“Smitty’s/CAM2 303”) in California who meet the class definition. The lawsuit is part of a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) that is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The MDL is captioned: In Re: Smitty’s/CAM2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability Litigation , MDL No. 2936, Case No. 4:20-MD-02936-SRB (U.S. Dist. Court, W.D. Mo.). You are a member of the California Class if you purchased Smitty’s/CAM2 303 in California between December 1, 2013, and December 31, 2021 (“California Class Period”). The Court’s Order also created a California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Sub-Class. You are a member of the CLRA Sub- Class only if you purchased Smitty’s/CAM2 303 in California for personal, family, or household purposes during the California Class Period. For certain exceptions to class membership, see the California Long Form Notice at www.cam2supers303tractorhydraulicfluidclassaction.com. The California Class Plaintiffs have sued Smitty’s Supply, Inc., and CAM2 International, LLC, (“Manufacturer Defendants”), alleging that they were negligent, breached express warranties, were unjustly enriched, and violated the California Unfair Competition Law, California False and Misleading Advertising, and the CLRA. Manufacturer Defendants have denied the allegations and all claims of wrongdoing. A jury has not yet decided which side will prevail. A California Long Form Notice, as well as more information on the lawsuit, the class definition, and your options are available at www.cam2supers303tractorhydraulicfluidclassaction.com or by calling (866) 742-4955. You do not need to do anything to remain in the California Class or Subclass.
Anyone wanting to exclude oneself must take action and mail in an exclusion request by July 1, 2024. For an exclusion form and details on how to exclude yourself, see www.cam2supers303tractorhydraulicfluidclassaction.com or the California Long Form Notice. You may request a California Long Form Notice be mailed to you by calling (866) 742-4955.
April 3, 2024 Ag Alert 17
Powered by FlippingBook