Comment Log Display
Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 1 for Dairy Subgroup 3 Comment Docket (for research and enteric) (dairysubgrp3-ws) - 1st Workshop.
First Name: Todd
Last Name: Shuman
Email Address: tshublu@yahoo.com
Affiliation: Wasteful Unreasonable Methane Uprising
Subject: Enteric Emissions Research Request and Sub-Group #3
Comment:
To ARB and CDFA, I request that ARB and CDFA explore, fund, and promote (through funding for pilot projects) measures to capture and or reduce enteric methane emissions from livestock. I am resubmitting for the record the most salient section from previous group SLCP RS comments submitted to ARB in January, 2017 concerning this matter so as to inform the Dairy and Livestock Subgroup #3 that is being convened on August 14, 2017. I also request that ARB and CDFA seriously explore and encourage widespread adoption of the red seaweed methane mitigation approach that Dr. Jim Stewart has previously mentioned in oral comments to ARB. Below is an abstract concerning this approach that has been demonstrated in vitro. In vivo demonstration of this approach is reportedly currently under way. Sincerely, Todd Shuman, 2260 Camilar Dr. Camarillo, CA 93010 805.236.1422 http://wumu-wuru.my-free.website/ A: Excerpt from January 17, 2017 Comments to ARB: "We again propose that CA ARB, the legislature, and the Governor explore and consider enacting some or all of the following to reduce enteric emissions in California: measures to promote mandatory livestock herd size reduction; mandates that compel the development of enclosed barns-vented-to-biofilter treatment systems that capture emitted dairy-associated methane before it escapes into the atmosphere **; and requirements that grazing cattle shall wear gas-collecting, plastic-bag-expanding backpack technology that captures emitted enteric methane so it can be burnt rather than belched into the atmosphere. Concerning the latter strategy, we submit for the record the attached Government of Argentina INTA Reports, in Spanish and Google-translated English, as well as again submitting internet links concerning this approach. [Use Google Search to access the following links to see demonstrations of the technology: http://www.fastcoexist.com/.../these-backpacks-for-cows..., http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Now-THATS-wind-power-Cows... , http://grist.org/.../crazy-clip-shows-what-happens.../... See also the video, on YouTube, titled "producción de energía de gases ruminales"] We propose that CA ARB explore the idea of evaluating, replicating, financing, and promoting further development of the biotech gas-collecting cow backpack methane capture concept and technological system to facilitate capture of ruminant-associated methane due to enteric fermentation. We encourage CA ARB to procure a full translation of the full report, and evaluate the experimental results in the context of the SLCP Reduction Strategy CEQA analysis currently underway, and also make an English translation of the report available to the public. We believe that this approach may be one that might potentially meet the requirements of the enteric emissions provision of SB 1383 in the future, though it is possible that more work may need to be done to address the question of economic viability, along with other requirements specified in SB 1383. A more extensive collective infrastructure might (or might not) ultimately be required to make implementation and widespread dissemination of this biotechnological approach a reality. Still, the concept deserves a “good faith” evaluation by CA ARB and an assessment as to what might be needed to establish enhanced viability of this particular biotechnological methane capture approach in the future. [We also note that the technique developed by INTA also captures a substantial amount of rumen-generated carbon dioxide, which could constitute a source gas for future CO2 conversion into ethanol - see http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/greentech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/]." ** I wish to note for the record that the recommendation that ARB investigate the enclosed freestall barn approach for methane capture was first stated (and submitted to ARB) by a large coalition of organizations as far back as June 10, 2015: "By letter dated June 10, 2015, environmental justice and environmental organizations urged the State Board to investigate and include additional control options in the Strategy, including ... (2) enclosed freestall barns and anaerobic digesters vented to biofilter systems to capture and treat methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions without the negative consequence of increased NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. [10] " [10] Letter from Brent Newell, et al. to Ryan McCarthy and Craig Segall, June 10, 2015. {Quote taken from CRPE comments to ARB, late October, 2015} B: http://www.publish.csiro.au/an/AN15576 The red macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis is a potent natural antimethanogenic that reduces methane production during in vitro fermentation with rumen fluid Robert D. Kinley A C , Rocky de Nys B , Matthew J. Vucko B , Lorenna Machado B and Nigel W. Tomkins A A CSIRO Agriculture, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia. B MACRO-Centre for Macroalgal Resources and Biotechnology, College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia. C Corresponding author. Email: rob.kinley@csiro.au Animal Production Science 56(3) 282-289 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15576 Submitted: 14 September 2015 Accepted: 23 November 2015 Published: 9 February 2016 Abstract Livestock feed modification is a viable method for reducing methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Ruminant enteric methane is responsible approximately to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Some species of macroalgae have antimethanogenic activity on in vitro fermentation. This study used in vitro fermentation with rumen inoculum to characterise increasing inclusion rates of the red macroalga Asparagopsis taxiformis on enteric methane production and digestive efficiency throughout 72-h fermentations. At dose levels ≤1% of substrate organic matter there was minimal effect on gas and methane production. However, inclusion ≥2% reduced gas and eliminated methane production in the fermentations indicating a minimum inhibitory dose level. There was no negative impact on substrate digestibility for macroalgae inclusion ≤5%, however, a significant reduction was observed with 10% inclusion. Total volatile fatty acids were not significantly affected with 2% inclusion and the acetate levels were reduced in favour of increased propionate and, to a lesser extent, butyrate which increased linearly with increasing dose levels. A barrier to commercialisation of Asparagopsis is the mass production of this specific macroalgal biomass at a scale to provide supplementation to livestock. Another area requiring characterisation is the most appropriate method for processing (dehydration) and feeding to livestock in systems with variable feed quality and content. The in vitro assessment method used here clearly demonstrated that Asparagopsis can inhibit methanogenesis at very low inclusion levels whereas the effect in vivo has yet to be confirmed.
Attachment:
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2017-08-14 13:46:54
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.