Summary of responses
Updated 26 October 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/methane-suppressing-feed-products-call-for-evidence/outcome/summary-of-responses
Overview
The UK and devolved governments launched a call for evidence exploring the potential opportunities and challenges associated with the use of methane suppressing feed products.
These are defined as natural or synthetic products that can reduce methane emissions from livestock through their addition or inclusion in animal feed. They include a range of products including methanogenesis inhibitors, seaweeds, essential oils, organic acids, probiotics, and antimicrobials.
As this is an emerging technology, the call for evidence considered the potential role methane suppressing feed products could have in delivering emissions savings, the existing awareness and perception of these products, and the current role of feed additives within farming systems.
It sought evidence on the potential barriers that could prevent the introduction of methane suppressing feed products in the near- and long-term future, verification, and the role of government in overcoming those challenges.
We sought views on whether uptake could be best driven by government interventions, industry or voluntary led solutions and what these interventions might involve.
Summary of responses
We received 213 responses in a variety of formats. The majority of stakeholders submitted views either directly via email or in the format of the online survey. We also received a small number of written submissions which have also been considered.
In total we asked 21 questions about methane suppressing feed products and received 4094 answers, along with more general views.
This page contains a summary of responses to each question within the call for evidence. Owing to the confidential nature of the first 3 questions which concerned personal contact details, we have excluded a detailed breakdown of these responses from the summary of responses.
Categorisation
For the purposes of this summary of responses and to help distinguish the views of different sectors within the supply chain we have grouped respondents into 3 categories:
- farmers (those identifying themselves as a farm business)
- organisations (those who identified themselves as industry, non-governmental organisations, or public, trade and academic bodies)
- other individuals (all other individual responses, including farm advisors, independent academics and members of the general public)
| Response | Percentage of respondents (%) |
|---|---|
| Farmers | 52 |
| Organisations | 31 |
| Other individuals | 17 |
About You
1) Would you like your response to be confidential?
We received 205 responses to question 1 which asked respondents to state whether they would like their response to remain confidential.
2) What is your name?
We received 213 responses to question 2 which asked respondents to provide their name
3) What is your email address?
We received 213 responses to question 3 which asked respondents to provide their email address.
4) It would be helpful for our analysis if you could indicate which of these sectors you most align yourself or your organisation with for the purpose of this call for evidence
We received 213 responses to question 4 which asked respondents to identify which sector they most aligned themselves or their organisation with for the purposes of the call for evidence.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (%) |
|---|---|
| Farm business | 52 |
| Farm supply chain | 6 |
| Farm advisor | 6 |
| Retail industry | >1 |
| Manufacturing industry | 7 |
| Public body | 2 |
| Trade body | 6 |
| Academic body | 4 |
| Non-governmental organisation | 5 |
| Member of the general public | 5 |
| Other | 8 |
5) If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, what is its name?
We received 111 responses to question 5 which asked respondents where they are responding on behalf of an organisation to identify this. In addition to traditional organisational responses, we received many responses from farm businesses who provided the registered name for their farm.
6) In which part of the United Kingdom are you based?
The call for evidence was conducted in collaboration between the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the devolved governments. As part of the call for evidence we asked respondents to identify which part or parts of the United Kingdom they were responding from, selecting all options that applied.
In total we received 158 responses from England, 48 responses from Wales, 34 responses from Scotland, and 19 responses from Northern Ireland. We received one response from the Republic of Ireland and one from Australia.
Background and Context
7) Do you currently incorporate feed additives (for example, for nutritional, productivity or health reasons) as part of the usual feeding regime of your farm or supplying farms?
We received 205 responses to question 7 on whether feed additives are currently used on farm. Respondents were asked to select one response.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes always | 13 | 12 | 9 | 12 |
| Yes usually | 18 | 24 | 11 | 19 |
| No not routinely | 28 | 24 | 14 | 24 |
| No never | 40 | 10 | 26 | 29 |
| Don’t know | 2 | 12 | 20 | 8 |
| Prefer not to say | 0 | 19 | 20 | 9 |
We also asked respondents to provide further details of the use of feed additives on their farm and received 75 responses. The majority of respondents named the additives they use, with mineral or vitamin supplements, yeast and garlic most frequently stated. Other products named included fat extracts, sodium bicarbonate, seaweed and essential oils.
Most respondents also reported the reasons they used feed additives, for example for health to manage deficiencies and for productivity enhancement. Many respondents also provided detail on the feeding strategies they adopted, which varied between respondents, or the additives used.
8) Were you previously aware of methane suppressing feed products?
We received 205 responses to question 8 on the awareness of methane suppressing feed products. Respondents were asked to select one response.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 76 | 93 | 69 | 79 |
| No | 23 | 3 | 23 | 18 |
| Don’t know | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Prefer not to say | 1 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
9) If yes, which of the following methane suppressing feed products are you are aware of?
We received 177 responses to question 9 on the awareness of specific methane suppressing feed products. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methanogenesis inhibitors (for example, 3-NOP, nitrate) | 32 | 79 | 59 | 51 |
| Probiotics | 45 | 63 | 45 | 51 |
| Plant secondary metabolites (for example, essential oils, tannins, saponins) | 38 | 72 | 52 | 51 |
| Propionate precursors (for example, fumaric acid, malate, aspartate) | 20 | 49 | 31 | 31 |
| Seaweeds (for example, asparagopsis) | 77 | 88 | 72 | 80 |
| Antimicrobials or Ionophores | 24 | 65 | 45 | 41 |
| None of the above | 11 | 5 | 14 | 10 |
| Other (please state) | 9 | 25 | 3 | 13 |
45 respondents provided further information with the majority providing examples of additional feed products including novel species of grass and legume (or changes in sward composition), biochar, fatty acids and branded products.
10) Are you planning to or already trialling the use of any of methane suppressing feed products on your farm or within your supply chain?
We received 205 responses to question 10 on whether businesses have, or plan to trial, the use of methane suppressing feed products on their farm or within their supply chain. Respondents were asked to select one response.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, have previously trialled | 3 | 17 | 0 | 6 |
| Yes, currently trialling | 9 | 20 | 3 | 11 |
| Yes, planning to trial | 8 | 12 | 11 | 10 |
| Not planning to trial | 74 | 31 | 46 | 57 |
| Don’t know | 5 | 10 | 14 | 8 |
| Prefer not to say | 1 | 10 | 26 | 8 |
We also asked respondents to expand on factors relevant to trialling products and received 58 responses. Most respondents provided details on the trials they had undertaken including the products trialled, and their experiences.
Several respondents outlined a wish to trial methane suppressing feed products, however, some identified barriers such as having incompatible farm practices, the need for research on economic benefit, and cost which have so far prevented them from undertaking trials.
11) How would you describe your current perception of using methane suppressing feed products in livestock diets?
We received 206 responses to question 11 on the current perception of methane suppressing feed products. Respondents were asked to select one response.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very positive | 8 | 15 | 14 | 11 |
| Mainly positive | 17 | 38 | 20 | 24 |
| Neither positive nor negative | 25 | 35 | 17 | 27 |
| Mainly negative | 15 | 0 | 14 | 11 |
| Very negative | 26 | 2 | 20 | 18 |
| Don’t know | 7 | 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Prefer not to say | 1 | 5 | 6 | 3 |
We asked respondents to provide reasons for their response and received 160 responses. Where respondents had a positive view of using these products, they frequently cited the climate benefits of reducing methane (or greenhouse gas emissions).
Those with a negative view cited the necessity of these products and the need to address livestock GHG emissions, as well as their cost, naturalness, and potential impact of these products on animal welfare.
Several respondents had a mixed perspective. They typically expressed caveats (for example, ‘assuming it works’), called for additional research, or proposed a different or ‘holistic’ approach to addressing livestock emissions.
12) Which of the following attributes are important to you when considering methane suppressing feed products?
We received 208 responses to question 12 on the attributes that are important when considering methane suppressing feed products. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The efficacy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming | 51 | 84 | 51 | 61 |
| Wider environmental impact | 40 | 79 | 63 | 55 |
| Animal health and welfare | 72 | 85 | 74 | 76 |
| Livestock productivity | 45 | 76 | 34 | 52 |
| Food safety and consumer protection | 42 | 77 | 60 | 56 |
| Consumer perception | 30 | 55 | 31 | 38 |
| Certification | 19 | 52 | 23 | 29 |
| Naturalness | 39 | 40 | 26 | 37 |
| Cost | 50 | 76 | 37 | 56 |
| Ease of use | 43 | 73 | 31 | 50 |
| Other (please state) | 6 | 13 | 11 | 9 |
| None of the above | 17 | 3 | 9 | 12 |
We also asked respondents to provide reasons for their selections and received 100 responses. Many respondents stated concerns about the potential negative implications to health and welfare (for example, rumen health) or concerns around pricing and whether the products will be supported through financial incentives.
Several flagged the need for further scientific evidence, with a few wishing for guaranteed long term efficacy across varying farm systems. Other comments included consideration of unintended consequences, adequate cost-benefit comparisons, and the need for a holistic approach to reducing emissions from livestock farming.
13) If given the choice, would you have any preference for natural or synthetic methane suppressing feed products?
We received 205 responses to question 13 on whether, if given the choice, respondents preferred natural or synthetic methane suppressing feed products. Respondents were asked to select one response.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural | 57 | 46 | 46 | 52 |
| Synthetic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Either or no preference | 13 | 46 | 31 | 25 |
| Neither | 30 | 2 | 23 | 21 |
| Don’t know | 1 | 7 | 0 | 2 |
The online survey only provided a multiple choice question, however, a small number of written response stated that whilst they would expect natural products to be more readily accepted, provided safety and efficacy could be assured, they did not expect the distinction between natural and synthetic to be a barrier.
14) Do you think consumers would be willing to purchase meat or dairy products produced by cattle and sheep which are regularly fed methane suppressing feed products?
We received 205 responses to question 14 on whether consumers would be willing to purchase meat or dairy products produced by cattle and sheep regularly fed methane suppressing feed products. Respondents were asked to select one response.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes definitely | 19 | 42 | 26 | 27 |
| Maybe | 25 | 27 | 20 | 25 |
| Uncertain | 18 | 14 | 11 | 16 |
| Not likely | 17 | 5 | 9 | 12 |
| Definitely not | 9 | 0 | 20 | 8 |
| Don’t know | 11 | 8 | 11 | 10 |
| Prefer not to say | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
We asked respondents to provide reasons for their selection and received 135 responses. Many respondents stated that consumers’ willingness to purchase these products would be influenced by other factors, namely price, whether these met regulatory standards, and effective marketing and labelling.
Some believed that the positive environmental story would encourage consumers, whilst other felt consumers already held a negative view of feed additives and this could be perceived as ‘unnatural’ or ‘meddling with nature’.
Application and use
15) How would you describe the current feeding regime on your farm or in your supplying farms?
We received 191 responses to question 15 on the current feeding regime adopted. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outdoor all year round | 28 | 43 | 30 | 32 |
| Grazed with silage-based winter ration | 53 | 51 | 37 | 50 |
| Grazed with buffer feeding and silage-based winter ration | 18 | 59 | 27 | 30 |
| Housed all year | 8 | 49 | 20 | 21 |
| Some yard or barn finishing | 9 | 41 | 17 | 19 |
| All yard or barn finishing | 1 | 35 | 7 | 11 |
| Other (please state) | 9 | 35 | 33 | 20 |
Where required we asked respondents to provide additional detail on the feeding regimes adopted on their farm(s) and received 58 responses. Many stated that they used a combination, or all the systems outlined above, whilst some clarified that their feeding regime is often determined by weather, seasonally or impacted by broader factors.
16) In order to introduce methane suppressing feed products to your farm, or supplying farm did you (if adopted already) or would you (if not already) need to make changes to your feeding regime?
We received 185 responses to question 16 on the extent of changes required to introduce methane suppressing feed products on farm. Respondents were asked to select one response.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, substantial changes | 24 | 13 | 29 | 22 |
| Yes, some changes | 25 | 19 | 10 | 21 |
| No major changes | 31 | 40 | 19 | 31 |
| Already use | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Don’t know | 13 | 15 | 26 | 16 |
| Prefer not to say | 4 | 15 | 16 | 9 |
We asked respondents to provide reasons for their selection and received 98 responses. Many respondents highlighted barriers to introducing these products to existing systems, with grazing systems providing a particular challenge. A small number of respondents cited the need for additional investment to enable introduction.
17) Do you envisage any of the following presenting a barrier to introducing methane suppressing feed products on your farm, or supplying farms? (Please tick all that apply)
We received 202 responses to question 17 on the barriers to introducing methane suppressing feed products on farm including 195 responses to the first part of the question which asked respondents to select all that apply.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current farm practice of feeding regime (for example, organic) | 46 | 58 | 50 | 50 |
| Price | 69 | 78 | 53 | 69 |
| Consumer perception | 41 | 38 | 44 | 41 |
| No method for monitoring or measuring efficacy | 59 | 62 | 47 | 58 |
| Other (please state) | 23 | 27 | 6 | 22 |
| None of the above | 3 | 9 | 19 | 7 |
We also asked respondents to provide a reason for their selection and received 113 responses. Many respondents discussed the economic viability of these products noting rising input costs. Several respondents questioned whether financial support would be available whilst others signalled preference to products providing co-benefits (for example, productivity improvements).
Many respondents also noted the difficulties in currently feeding methane suppressing feed products to animals at pasture, and the restrictions of using some of these products within organic systems. Additional barriers to uptake included farmer reluctance, the need for further information and animal welfare concerns were raised.
Governance and policy
18) Which of the following options do you believe would be effective at increasing the use of methane suppressing feed products?
We received 206 responses to question 18 on the options that would be effective at increasing the use of methane suppressing feed products. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial incentives | 63 | 90 | 63 | 71 |
| Regulatory requirements | 30 | 62 | 46 | 42 |
| Supplier contracts | 25 | 50 | 34 | 34 |
| Standards, accreditations and certifications (for example, Red Tractor) | 27 | 63 | 43 | 40 |
| Voluntary commitments (for example, industry led targets or roadmaps) | 19 | 37 | 20 | 24 |
| Independent advice (for example, consultants, feed advisors) | 20 | 50 | 34 | 31 |
| Do nothing | 12 | 3 | 17 | 10 |
| Other (please state) | 16 | 13 | 17 | 16 |
We received additional views from 125 respondents provided with many respondents sharing views on the use of financial incentives. Typically, these highlighted existing financial burdens and the need for additional costs to be recouped via the supply chain or through government support.
Views on regulatory requirements were mixed: whilst several respondents believed that these would achieve the fastest uptake, many cited the burden of regulation on farms and believed that these should be a last resort and would only work when paired with financial incentives.
Several respondents raised the need for additional research, whilst some advocated for alternative options such as improved education and communication.
Verification
19) Which of the following options would help to assure you of the efficacy of methane suppressing feed products?
We received 206 responses to question 19 on options to assure the efficacy of methane suppressing feed products. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mandatory verification of product claims | 54 | 67 | 57 | 58 |
| Independent standards for product efficacy | 49 | 73 | 43 | 55 |
| On-pack labels backed by trade description legislation | 28 | 45 | 40 | 35 |
| Other (please state) | 29 | 18 | 23 | 25 |
We asked respondents to provide reasons for their selection and received 84 responses. A general concern expressed was that to adequately assure efficacy, the agreed approach would need to reflect robust scientific evidence, be externally or independently conducted and cover a broad range of farm types and systems.
Several respondents cited the Food Standards Agency or wider government as the route to deliver this, whilst a few suggested alternatives options, for example, a feed industry code of practice or veterinary advice.
20) Who do you feel is best placed to verify the efficacy of these products?
We received 206 unique responses to question 20 on who is best placed to verify the efficacy of methane suppressing feed products, including 205 responses to the first part of the question. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.
Results are shown as a percentage of respondents (%).
| Response | Farmer (%) | Organisation (%) | Other individuals (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government and government agencies (for example, Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland) | 39 | 63 | 48 | 47 |
| Independent research university or college farms | 59 | 59 | 74 | 61 |
| Independent consultants | 11 | 14 | 9 | 11 |
| Industry body or trade associations | 12 | 27 | 14 | 17 |
| Farm assurance schemes (for example, Red Tractor) | 13 | 14 | 20 | 14 |
| Other (please state) | 25 | 14 | 11 | 20 |
We asked respondents to provide reasons for their selection and received 71 responses. As with question 19, responses highlighted that independence and the ability to either undertake or scrutinise scientific research or tests and trials on these products were essential requirements. The Food Standards Agency was again named as an existing and trusted body, whilst others highlighted the need for universities or college farms to undertake independent research.
Additional Information
We received 145 responses to question 21, which asked respondents to provide any additional information they wished to share as part of the call for evidence.
Most respondents took the opportunity to reiterate or expand on their answer to the earlier questions in the call for evidence. This included the need to consider different farm systems, options for funding and incentives, and an approach to verification as part of future policy development. Others reiterated concerns around animal welfare, efficacy and unintended consequences or recommended that further research was required.
Many respondents advocated for alternative strategies to reduce emissions including refocusing efforts to other sectors of the economy, the promotion of regenerative farming practices for carbon sequestration reduction in meat and dairy consumption or improvements in livestock genetics and productivity.
Finally, many respondents used this question to query the need for methane suppressing feed products or criticised the premise of the call for evidence. The respondents typically expressed views that livestock were not the problem, that methane emissions formed part of a natural cycle, and that greater focus should be placed on fossil fuels.
Other sources and evidence
22 respondents provided additional sources or evidence on the topic of methane suppressing feed products as part of their submission to the call for evidence.
For example, as part of their submission, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Tesco submitted a comprehensive report on existing and near to market, methane reducing feed additives and technologies. The report presented evidence of the efficacy of a range of these products and explored a series of regulatory pathways to market or mechanisms to incentivise adoption.
Other examples included reports produced by the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB), Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock (CIEL), Ruminant Health & Welfare, Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Fund (SAI) Platform.
Additionally, a few respondents shared independent scientific articles, reports, webpages and new articles on this topic.
Government response and next steps
We would like to thank all individuals and organisations who took the time to respond. The submissions have been valuable in helping to better understand the possible role that methane suppressing feed products could play in delivering net zero for the agriculture sector.
The findings will be used by the UK government, Welsh government, Scottish government, and the Northern Ireland Executive as we further consider policy in this area, including the role of government policy to encourage uptake of these products.
England
Defra considers that methane suppressing feed products are an essential tool to decarbonise the agricultural sector. We are committed to working with industry to stimulate the market and encourage uptake of these products.
In England, we plan to incentivise the uptake of high efficacy products with proven safety once suitable products enter the market (expected to be from 2025). We will work closely with industry to explore the best approach to introduce incentives, which could, for instance, include advice, guidance and support for the development and use of products on farms through our farming schemes such as through the Farming Innovation Programme, the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway, our Environmental Land Management schemes, or a new bespoke scheme.
Our ambition remains to develop a mature market and mandate the use of safe and effective products in suitable cattle systems in England as soon as feasible and at the very latest by 2030.
Scotland
The Scottish government is continuing to monitor the development, regulation and production of methane supressing feed products. There is significant potential for these products to assist the Scottish agriculture sector in reducing emissions. In February 2023 the Scottish government published its Draft Agricultural Reform List of Measures outlining the intention to develop future agricultural support conditionality options which can recognise appropriate uptake of methane suppressing feed products by farmers.
Wales
The Welsh government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by working with farmers and the industry to adapt to low carbon farming technologies, including the potential role of methane suppressing products. We will continue working in collaboration with the other administrations and monitor the research and development of these products.
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, low carbon emission farming practices, including the use of feed additives to reduce enteric methane emissions, nitrogen and phosphorus outputs are to be progressed by collaborative industry research through a research challenge fund.