Cargill, Danone, C-Lock and CRV outline how to engage farmers on methane reduction

Linda Midgley, vice president of sustainability at Cargill Animal Nutrition and Health, spoke on how the agriculture sector can leverage investments to scale methane reduction strategies efficiently.

"Investment is essential, but perhaps not in the way we might traditionally think," she noted.

Cargill’s engagement with startups has evolved over recent years. Previously, its efforts were largely focused on supporting trials to validate new technologies and move them from the lab to practical applications. Now, however, many methane reduction technologies are more advanced and attract significant investment, with some offering reductions as high as 70–90%, far beyond earlier expectations.

“Today, companies approach us differently, asking, ‘How can Cargill help bring these technologies to market and scale them?’” said Midgley. “Previously, the bottleneck was investment in supply. Now, we focus on stimulating demand.”

While past discussions correctly emphasized starting with the farmer and ensuring benefits along the value chain, Midgley believes that moving beyond a “zero-sum” game mindset is essential.

Early adoption and pilots can benefit from cost-sharing across the value chain, but lasting change will require generating new value within the system, which will happen in stages.

The industry, she suggested, must aim to enhance productivity while reducing methane emissions—a direct benefit for farmers, making this approach both feasible and beneficial. Providing longer-term agreements could enhance financial stability, foster investment, and add more certainty.

“I’ve observed a very transactional, short-term approach in animal nutrition contracts, even with long-time partners. Shifting towards longer commitments would bring certainty and create value across the system. We’re exploring different business models. Although no single approach will fit all, prioritizing value creation and redistribution within the chain is crucial—that’s where investment should be directed.”

Farmer engagement ​

Cees Jan Hollander, global farming expertise manager at Danone, discussed key barriers to farmer adoption of methane reduction tools and how industry collaboration could enhance uptake:

"Addressing barriers to methane reduction adoption by farmers is complex; The main challenge lies in reaching the farmer directly. Various players, including those here today, have roles in supporting and doing business with farmers. If we all collaborate and communicate a unified message, we can make a greater impact.”

Currently, multiple suppliers engage with farmers, each offering advice and guidance—sometimes contradictory, he said. “This leaves farmers uncertain, faced with different directions from multiple partners. While the farmer decides, as they are business-minded entrepreneurs, we can help streamline their choices.”

Danone’s industry-wide 'Partner for Growth' program exemplifies this collaborative approach, explained Hollander.

Through joint business development plans, the company coordinates with upstream suppliers and service providers, particularly in agriculture, to unify efforts and provide clear, consistent guidance, he said.

While increasing milk yield remains important, Danone also aims to shift the farming status quo. “Building on what Linda mentioned, we seek to help farmers become more productive and improve farm performance. In the dairy sector, for example, it is common to accept a 40–50% replacement rate. However, Holstein cows, if managed optimally, can remain productive through the fifth and sixth lactations. Allowing cows to live just one lactation longer can reduce costs for farmers—less need for feed and fewer emissions from raising new animals. It is a challenging goal, but one worth pursuing where it makes sense.”

Collaboration is crucial for improving farm outcomes and reducing methane emissions. By uniting efforts and communicating clearly with farmers, industry can make measurable progress toward both goals, he added.

The promise of genetics ​

Sander de Roos, global director of strategic innovation at the Netherlands-based genetics company, CRV, explained how low-methane genetics are integrated into farming practices and their potential impact:

“At CRV, we are involved in multiple sustainability collaborations. One notable partnership with Agrifirm, a Dutch feed cooperative, aims to bridge the nutrition and genetics sectors. Though we sell different products, we recognize that a unified message to farmers is essential. This collaboration also deepens our understanding of how nutrition and genetics interact at the animal level, benefiting farmers.”

Another collaboration with FrieslandCampina, a major dairy processor, and Wageningen University has led to measuring methane emissions in approximately 10,000 cows over recent years. This research, supporting a PhD thesis, highlights the significant potential of genetics in reducing methane emissions, he continued.

Methane output varies widely between cows, from 300 to 600 grams daily, and this variation is not necessarily linked to productivity or feed intake, noted de Roos.

Such differences are often determined by genetics. “With DNA testing, we can now identify low-emission traits for selective breeding—like methods that have proven successful for other traits.”

This genetic approach offers exciting new possibilities, he said.

“Increasing productivity and longevity in cows will enhance efficiency and bring immediate economic benefits to farmers. However, methane reduction requires precise measurement of emissions, as cows with similar production and lifespan can have quite different methane outputs due to metabolic differences, which are partially genetic. We can leverage this with genomics and selection.”

Support and incentives from the industry will be crucial to make genetic methane reduction a widespread practice. FrieslandCampina, for instance, already provides financial benefits to farmers that have lower CO2 equivalence per kilogram of milk. “Theirs is a bold, early step that others will likely follow.”

Additional data-sharing initiatives and methane calculators are needed to track reductions accurately, ensuring incentives reach the right participants and motivate necessary investments, according to de Roos. Stronger collaboration across the supply chain will be key, he stressed.

In April next year, CRV will introduce new breeding values for bulls, classifying the animals based on their methane output. This will challenge some farmers to transition from long-used bulls to lower-emission options, he acknowledged.

At present, he noted, there’s limited incentive to shift to low-emission genetics, as reducing emissions through genetics yields no financial benefit. However, with robust economic incentives in place, such as payments for methane reduction, farmers would adapt readily, just as they have bred for fat and protein percentages for decades, he believes.

“If the financial drivers are there, farmers will act quickly.”

On-farm measurements ​

C-Lock has created GreenFeed, a system that measures methane and metabolic carbon dioxide emissions from ruminants such as cattle to provide farmers with real-time data to document improvements in feed efficiency and lower methane emission losses.

Meredith Harrison, CSO at C-Lock, highlighted the importance of accurate on-farm measurement tools and how combining this technology with predictive models can create reliable benchmarks.

She stated: “While it would be ideal to see every farm equipped with a GreenFeed system, that’s not a realistic expectation. Accurate, empirical measurements are essential for establishing meaningful predictions and benchmarks, especially as farms adopt various interventions like improved genetics, methane inhibitors, or modified feeding strategies. Understanding their baseline is crucial for effectively implementing these strategies.”

Harrison noted regional disparities in methane awareness, mentioning that many producers in Europe are familiar with methane metrics, while the emphasis in the U.S. is less pronounced. In Australia, on-farm measurement tools are highly valued. “When I engage with US farmers, I often frame the conversation around efficiency, as this tends to resonate better.”

By presenting methane reduction as a pathway to improved efficiency, farmers are more inclined to participate, she remarked. To truly engage farmers, the focus should shift from methane alone to discussing feed costs, which typically account for over 70% of their operational expenses. “It is vital to include farmers in these discussions."

Some organizations suggest that significant reductions in methane emissions cannot be achieved without decreasing cattle numbers. However, she argued, “Given the need to feed a growing global population, this solution is not feasible.”

Harrison reiterated the importance of addressing methane intensity. “Over the past 40 years, we have made significant improvements in this area. This metric measures methane emissions per unit of production, such as energy-corrected milk in dairy farming or hot carcass weight in the feedlot sector. Additionally, on-farm measurement tools can quantify CO2 emissions, which serve as a valuable proxy for various production metrics.”

To assist farmers in establishing these metrics, C-Lock has launched an equipment grant program, awarding four GreenFeed units to two US producers, with another grant opportunity scheduled for 2025.

Harrison acknowledged that achieving perfection in on-farm measurement is unrealistic: “Perfection is the enemy of progress.”

She emphasized the need to balance accuracy with broad-scale data collection: “While accurate measurements are critical, there is a trade-off between precision and the number of animals evaluated. The longer we take to measure a specific animal for a perfectly accurate methane phenotype, the fewer animals we can assess overall. Therefore, perfect numbers are not necessary. Instead, we should enhance data sharing and incorporate relevant metadata, such as the animal's stage of lactation, parity, breed type, and the metabolizable energy of the feed, as all these factors influence methane emissions calculations.”

She called for increased collaboration in the industry regarding data sharing. “Previous discussions indicated that farmers are willing to share their data, but we must clarify how it will be used and assure them of its benefits. Addressing their concerns is crucial.”

While striving for accuracy is essential, Harrison believes in the power of collective data: “Establishing robust empirical measurements on farms is vital for effectively informing these models.”