2025 Livestock Emissions Reduction Forum

[0:01:03] Paul Ryan: Hello everyone. We'll make a start. My name's Paul Ryan. I'm the director of the Agriculture and Land team in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Thank you all for joining the Annual Livestock Emissions Reduction Forum. I can see we've got lots of participants. There might be some more who'll join. And I'd like to welcome all participants from within Australia as well as overseas. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Traditional Owners of the Land where I am, the Ngunnawal people. I also acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and recognise their continuing connection to land, waters, and culture, and pay my respects to their Elders past and present.

Here's a summary of the agenda today. Naidu has sent everybody a copy of the full agenda with the invitations, and he's also put it in the chat box. We know it's a fairly full agenda with a fair bit to get through. But we have, to help us get through, allowed a break in the middle as well. On timing for presenters, Naidu will also have emailed you some details on this. We've tried to allow time for two or three minutes for questions for everybody. And so if you've got a 15-minute presentation, at about 12 minutes, we'll signal you with a raised hand to finish in a minute or so, so that there's a couple of minutes for questions. And then similarly for the 20-minute presentations, we'll give you a signal at 16 minutes to finish in a minute and allow a couple of minutes as well. So, hopefully, that will work.

Penny-we've got all the slides in a single deck-Penny will operate that for you. If you want to take control, you can do that by taking control, which you should be able to see at the top left on your screen. And I think Naidu has already put brief bios for speakers in the chat as well. So, I'm going to get started with an update from our department's side on a couple of policy and program updates. After I do, Tiffany and Leann from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, will talk about several of the Government's investments in supporting emissions reductions from agriculture and land. These investments really respond to what the Government heard during consultation on the development of the Ag and Land sector plan. Our departments work together on a lot of these things, and the first item I'm going to talk to you about is one of these. And they will also have some more. Leann will talk about it as well in a bit more detail.

And so the measure that we've got showing on the slides is a commitment by the Government to produce what we're calling 'standards' for agriculture, fisheries, and forestry industries. And so there was a measure in last year's Budget called Improving Greenhouse Gas Accounting at National to Farm Levels. From our side, the Department is leading development of voluntary emissions estimating and reporting standards for agriculture and land. As we've shown there, there's basically two products that will complement each other. A common requirements framework. That's a sort of a general description of it, which will give high level guidelines and principles for developing greenhouse gas inventories. And then alongside that, detailed methodology guidance, which sets out specific equations and emissions factors. It's worth noting that while we call these 'standards,' that's a working term, we're not developing formal standards as such. And so where this work's coming from, the outcomes that the Government's looking for is they include improved quality and consistency of accounting methods and tools, minimise reporting burden on farmers and land managers, and improved accounting at the farm level to support mitigation action and market access. And the principles that are sitting behind what we're doing is, one, is that these standards will be consistent with National Greenhouse Accounts methods that build on existing international and domestic standards and guidance. They'll consider requirements for multiple reporting purposes, provide accurate methods that are appropriate for Australian systems and the environment, and be practical and feasible. There are a few challenges in there, but we're working with the Zero Net Emissions from Agriculture CRC and also Environmental Accounting Services on progressing these standards. We're also working with a reference group that's been established since last year to ensure the standards will meet user needs.

The timing for the work on the standards is that we're aiming for two different consultation rounds starting from late this year on methods for livestock and cropping, and then a second round soon after that, early next year on methods for other industries. And the two parts are just to make the work manageable. And that's leading towards having this work finalised by mid next year, but then there'll be ongoing work. Clearly, these will need to be reviewed and updated annually. Our webpage has got more detail on the development of the standards, including the membership of the Reference Group, and also including communiqués from the Reference Group's meetings. So, if you want to know more about that, that'll help you understand the work that's being done and where it's up to.

The next item I want to update you on, this is a brief high-level update on the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme. So, one aspect of the department's role in the scheme is development of methods for carbon crediting projects. And I know a lot of you will be familiar with this tour of the - sorry, to start with, as some of you will be aware, the independent Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee advises the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy on whether the proposed new methods meet the offsets integrity standards that are legislated. And then the Assistant Minister's responsible for deciding whether to make methods and their legislative instruments. And so the department supports the committee in this work.

So, the two new methods that the department's working on: the new Integrated Farm and Land Management method. So that will be the first method under the scheme that will allow crediting of abatement from multiple activities on the same property. And so these might include native forest regeneration, native plantings, and soil carbon improvements. Where that's up to, the department's established a Stakeholder Reference Group and also a state and territory officials' group to inform development of the method. And the department plans to provide an exposure draft of the method to the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee in December for the committee to consider progressing it.

On savanna fire management, there are already savanna fire management methods and they're being widely used in Northern Australia. And so these projects, they involve early dry season burning to reduce extent and intensity of late dry season fires and that's consistent with traditional indigenous practices, and so they can both reduce emissions and increase carbon storage. The work on the new methods, there are two new methods, one for both sequestration and emissions avoidance. There's an exposure draft for that that's out for consultation now. And then the second one, which is for emissions avoidance only, is on track to be released for consultation in October. That's subject to the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee's consideration.

Another role for the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee is reviewing existing methods and so that's a function that they do periodically. The department's supporting the committee in reviewing the beef cattle herd management method, which we know will be of interest to you, and also the soil carbon method. The committee intends to consider findings of those at an upcoming meeting, and then a next step will be providing advice to the Minister on the reviews. So, they're the two main parts of method development and review.

The Climate Change Authority also regularly reviews the ACCU Scheme and then there have been a number of other reviews of the scheme over the last few years. And the government's coming out of those reviews progressing a range of reforms to make sure the scheme remains trusted and fit for purpose. One of those reforms was to establish process for proponents to submit proposals for new methods. And last year, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy prioritised the four method proposals that are listed on this slide, and the department's working with proponents to progress these four methods so that works are all continuing alongside the other method development and review work. Just to give you an idea of other work going on in ongoing reform and improvement in the scheme.

The Minister also amended the carbon credits rule to improve transparency by requiring more ACCU project data to be published. So that's been in place for a while, and if you go to the project register on the Clean Energy Regulator's website, you can see that information. There are other changes to the scheme under consideration. Some of these will also need legislative amendments and, obviously, there's a process for that. And so that work's ongoing, and it'll be informed by feedback that the department's received from consultation as well.

Okay, just then a couple of slides to lead into today's presentation. So, a general overview of the Methane Emissions Reduction in Livestock program, where it's up to now. So the first two stages of the program, which have been covered in depth in previous forums, Stages 1 and 2, we concluded last year. And the videos and transcripts of the presentations on those projects that were presented last year are all on our website, and Naidu will put the link in the chat if you haven't seen that. And so then today's presentations are on the subsequent stage, Stage 3, Rounds 1 and 2. All the Round 1 projects are due to finish by the end of next year, 2026. And then Round 2 projects are due to finish by June 2027. And all the funding under the program, that's the full $29 million in program funding, is allocated across all of those rounds.

We're preparing to start - I mean, evaluation of the program is ongoing, but preparing to start a more substantial evaluation of the program next year. And the thinking there is while not all projects will be finished by then, the majority will be. And so, it's worth getting started on that, and we'll come out to people for input on the evaluation.

A little bit more detail on an overview of the outcomes that have been seen so far. So, naturally grown, red seaweed Asparagopsis and with its active ingredient, bromoform, has reduced methane emissions by up to 98%, and then 3-NOP by 86% in cattle and sheep under confined conditions. I'm sure most of you are aware of these findings. And then similarly, other feed additives like Polygain, Agolin and probiotics showed methane abatement from 10 to 15%. And the effectiveness of these additives depends on delivering an optimal dose and the frequency of delivery as these additives are completely metabolised within about four hours.

There have been productivity benefits noted in response to some additives, but more studies are needed to confirm this effect. For example, we know one study showed a 6% productivity benefit. On feed delivery, Stage 2 of the program demonstrated that feed additives can be effectively delivered through pellets, loose licks, lick blocks, and drinking water reticulation systems. On safety, you know, we've been aware of interest in this question. No safety concerns have been identified for animal or human health as a result of the use of feed additives. The MERiL projects mainly analysed - sorry, the slides just have a small glitch. They mainly analysed residues from Asparagopsis and found no detectable residues in animal products. Where trace amounts were detected, they were well below safe food consumption limits.

So, in terms of looking ahead, we know 95% of livestock emitting methane are in extensive grazing systems and so making effective delivery of feed additives to animals is a critical aspect. And so this is obviously a challenge and a particular focus for the Stage 3 projects, and so we'll hear more about that today.

Has anybody got any questions? No? I know there has been some comments in the chat. As well as asking any questions in the chat, feel free to also e-mail our team at the email address on the screen. And, you know, if there's answers that can't be readily answered in the chat, we'll follow up with answers. We'll send a general e-mail with answers to any e-mail questions as soon as possible. Otherwise, if there are no questions, I'll hand on to Tiffany Reed Marshall from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

[0:16:53] Tiffany Reed Marshall: Thanks, Paul. Naidu, sorry, did you want to jump in?

[0:17:00] Naidu Bodapati: No, sorry, that was accidental.

[0:17:02] Tiffany Reed Marshall: No worries. Saw the hand raise. Good afternoon everyone, and thanks for the opportunity to speak today. Penny, I understand you've got our slides, but if not, please let me know. I'll pop them up. My colleague, Leann Palmer, who's on the screen as well, and I are going to provide a status update on some of the foundational investments announced in 2024 to support the agriculture sector reduce emissions and store carbon, building on what Paul's already stepped through.

We'll flick to the next slide. Thank you. Just to set a bit of context and suspect, I'm preaching to the choir here, but governments around the world are really tackling this triple challenge of how to reduce agricultural emissions, manage climate risk, and also maintain critical food and fibre production to feed a growing population. These are global issues demanding collaborative effort and stretch across governments and, also, international borders and Australia is not immune. Our agricultural sector and the land sector are already really feeling the effects of climate change.

Next slide. Thank you. In terms of Australia's path to net zero by 2050, as we know, the government's signed up to the Paris Agreement and is committed to emission reduction goals, including to reach net zero by 2050, and to reach those goals, there needs to be significant effort by government and industry. Government's developing a Net Zero Plan, which will be underpinned by six sector emission reduction plans as well, covering major parts of the economy, including agriculture and land, and they'll outline the role of each sector in supporting Australia's path to net zero. We've been working really closely with industry to set the strategic direction for emissions reduction in the agriculture sector. And while the Ag and Land Plan is yet to be finalised, there's widespread agreement that agriculture and land can make a meaningful contribution to Australia's net zero goals.

Next slide. Thank you. We're currently investing $60.8 million to support emissions reduction efforts. And this is made up of those initiatives announced in 2024 and includes $4.4 million over 10 years for DAFF to partner with the Zero Net Emissions from Ag CRC to pursue opportunities on rapid research development and adoption of science and tech-led solutions. And it builds on the $87 million investment from the Commonwealth to establish the CRC. The foundational investments also include $27.8 million over four years to expand the Carbon Farming Outreach Program to accelerate on ground action to reduce agricultural and land emissions. And also, $28.7 million over 10 years to improve greenhouse gas accounting in the agriculture and land sector at the national through to farm level. This is what Paul was referring to before.

These investments build on a range of other Australian Government initiatives that contribute to some of those emissions reduction and carbon storage goals. Most notably the over $300 million through the Climate Smart Agriculture Program in the Natural Heritage Trust, which is supporting farmers and the agriculture sector to adopt climate smart practices that reduce emissions, understand the benefits from participating in carbon and biodiversity markets, and also applying natural resource management practices that improve soil health and protect natural capital and biodiversity. The other notable investment is the Rural Research and Development Corporations who manage approximately $1 billion per annum in industry and government contributions and investments in R&D to address priority issues including climate resilience, adaptation, and mitigation.

I'm going to provide a brief update on that middle dot point there about the Carbon Farming Outreach Program, which my team and I oversee, and then pass to my colleague Leann, who will provide an update on the improving greenhouse gas accounting measure. And you'll shortly hear from Ben Hayes from the CRC for more fulsome update on their activities.

Next slide. Thank you. Beautiful. So, while DAFF was consulting on the Ag and Land Plan development, we heard really widely about the importance of capacity building for trusted advisors and landholders on emissions management. The Carbon Farming Outreach Program, or CFOP for short, is the Australian Government's key outreach initiative to provide information and support for farmers and land managers, including First Nations land managers to embed emissions management in their business practices. As mentioned before, an additional $27.8 million is being invested to expand the program and the existing delivery. And my team's working really closely with DCCEEW on activities where we've got a shared interest. I'll briefly provide update on each of the program components. The phase one grants, which were part of the initial investment, provided $17.5 million in grants to organisations to train a network of trusted and independent advisers to farmers and land managers. The successful grantees and their delivery partners are super busy at the moment, providing carbon farming outreach to support farmers and land managers through till about mid-2026. Workshops have been delivered across Australia, over 240 workshops reaching about 3,600 attendees. We are looking at 5,700 people being engaged through the likes of field days, conferences, et cetera. And just to note that these grants are still being overseen by DCCEEW as well.

The CFOP online training package is available publicly. You can find it on DAFF's website. It's designed to support farmers, land managers and their trusted advisers' understanding of emissions management and carbon farming. And part of the expansion is working with the supplier to revise that training and deliver additional train-the-trainer outreach activities. So just on that, the Zero Net Emissions from Ag CRC was awarded the contract to develop that updated training and deliver those additional training sessions to trusted advisers. And we're currently in the process of working with the CRC on how best to target that initiative and identify priority cohorts to be invited to participate in the training. It's envisaged that the revised training package will support consistent information and advice available and raise the general understanding about emissions management and carbon farming practices.

In addition to the training, DCCEEW is also leading a tranche of work to co-develop tailored training and information for First Nations land managers and have partnered with the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network to do so through till 2028. As part of this work, ICIN is also supporting consultation on the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme with First Nations people. Planning's underway for this package of work, including development of training materials, outreach and consultation sessions. And just, once again, this is being overseen by DCCEEW. In addition to the training, my team's also busy building a knowledge bank, which will be a publicly available hub of verified information and resources, including commodity-specific information on emissions management and carbon farming for farmers, land managers and their trusted advisers. And we are looking for this to be launched in late 2025 with an initial tranche of really core critical information that will then be expanded over the coming years in line with feedback from farmers, land managers and their advisers. To support the development of the knowledge bank, grants have also been awarded to the Rural Research and Development Corporations to determine information gaps related to emissions management, the appropriate information formats to deliver that info and effective delivery channels and also collaboration opportunities. The outcomes of this work will support the development in the long run of commodity specific information that will be integrated into the knowledge bank.

We can move to the next slide and I'll pass to my colleague, Leann, to provide an update on the improving greenhouse gas emissions accounting measure and to close as well. Thanks.

[0:26:05] Leann Palmer: Thanks, Tiff. Yeah, I'll just take a few minutes. I'm conscious of time and there might be some questions for either Tiff or I on what we've presented on, but I just have the one slide, so I shouldn't be long. So, my team is responsible for delivering the Improving Consistency of On-Farm Emissions Estimates Program. This is one component of that foundational suite of measures that the government announced in 2024. And it's also closely related to those standards that Paul mentioned, the voluntary standards that DCCEEW are developing. Genesis of this program, as Paul mentioned, is based on some of the consultations that we undertook as a part of developing the Ag and Land Plan. Pretty clear messaging coming through that consultation around concerns around the consistency of the calculations that farmers increasingly are needing in their businesses. So, stakeholders were pretty clear in their calls for stronger government assurances in this space, and that's where we've landed with this package of measures with the standards being developed by DCCEEW and the program that we're delivering.

The aim of the program, which is covered on these couple of points here, a sort of link back to that overarching concerns that we had and some of the points that Paul alluded to, basically, we're looking to try and make it easier for calculator providers to adapt to a nationally consistent approach to farm level greenhouse accounting. We want to build producers trust and confidence in the emissions that they're getting from calculators for their businesses. And, of course, we want to help producers know and understand their emissions. Something that we hear often is helping producers to know their number is the first step in understanding what to do to manage their number. So, they're the key principles underpinning the program.

For those in the know, our Minister announced the successful grantee for the program yesterday, and that is Agricultural Innovation Australia. They're going to be partnering with the CRC that Ben is here to represent and who will be talking shortly. That's an important partnership in delivering what is quite a significant body of work over the next three years to help support this ongoing push for greater consistency for producers and other users of calculator tools for emissions accounting. Many of you will be aware of Agricultural Innovation Australia's (AIA) environmental accounting platform (EAP) and that's the basis for where this work is going to be happening with the grant. So, some of the key things AIA will be doing with the grant is firstly ensuring that their backend calculation engine for the EAP is going to be consistent with the standards that DCCEEW are currently developing. So that's the foundational work and then, of course, in terms of building that consistency for calculators and tools, they'll be providing free access to that calculator engine for calculator tools and providers. And, of course, that calculator engine will be consistent with the standards once they become available and the GAF tools in the meantime.

The mechanism for that connection to make it easier and free access is using an application program interface to help those tools and providers connect into the EAP calculator engine. And, of course, as a part of the grant, AIA will also be helping to support those calculator providers to access using that API to the calculator engine and also to understand and look at the open source code that underpins that as well because, of course, it's not an insignificant amount of money and we want to maximise the uptake of this and make sure it's improving over time. So really happy to now have this grant announced and to be working with AIA and the CRC as their partners to commence this work over the next three years. That's pretty much all I had to say about the accounting grant, and that pretty much wraps it up for the DAFF update.

Thank you. I guess we might have a few minutes, although I might be corrected if there are any other questions. Otherwise, there's more information on the DAFF website on these initiatives. And, as a part of that, there's also some e-mail addresses that you can get in contact with us as well via the website. Okay, that's it. Over to you, Paul, unless there are questions.

[0:31:04] Paul Ryan: Thanks, Leann. Any questions for Leann or Tiffany? No? If you come up with any later, put them in the chat. Otherwise, I'll hand over to Ben Hayes, Research Director from the CRC.

[0:31:38] Penny Reyenga: Is Ben there?

[0:31:39] Paul Ryan: Ben, have we got you? Just a reminder, people, to mute. We may not have Ben.

[0:31:56] Ben Hayes: I'm here. Hello.

[0:31:59] Paul Ryan: Oh. Okay. Great.

[0:32:00] Ben Hayes: Sorry, I just jumped on.

[0:32:03] Paul Ryan: Thanks, Ben, over to you.

[0:32:04] Penny Reyenga: Are you happy to take control of the slides, Ben?

[0:32:07] Ben Hayes: Yes, I think I can do that.

[0:32:09] Penny Reyenga: All right. Thanks.

[0:32:11] Ben Hayes: Okay. Hi everybody. Good to be with you on this forum, and the purpose of this presentation is just a really quick update on Zero Net Emissions Agriculture CRC (ZNE-Ag CRC) activities. So just a quick reminder, the ZNE-Ag CRC is a very large partnership with 76 partners including industry, state governments, universities, research partners. And our partners go right across the supply chain from, for example, pastoral companies, right through to supermarkets and banks.

We're organised into six areas, really, six research programs, which are lower emissions plant solutions towards methane-free cattle and sheep. So, a livestock program, whole farm and mixed enterprise systems analysis, which is carbon accounting and then another program, which is delivering for value from net zero. So, looking for opportunities to capitalise on this journey to net zero. Then we have a large education and training program. There are about 50 PhDs anticipated to be trained under that program. It also includes industry training, micro-credentials, and we're co-designing an Indigenous Academy with our Indigenous partners. A unique part of the CRC is our network of producer demonstration sites. These will be 25 sites around the country representing all the agro-ecological zones where we'll validate and demonstrate technologies that reduce emissions working on farm. So, by way of an update, I thought I'd just give you a quick run through of the projects that we've recently launched in each of these research programs, and give you a minute or two description of each of those.

So, program one, the low emissions plant program. This really has two points of focus. One is developing new pasture species that when consumed by cattle and sheep reduce methane. The other component of it is reducing emissions from fertiliser, both from nitrous oxide emissions when the fertiliser is supplied and in the manufacture of that fertiliser. So, the projects we now have up and running are a pretty exciting list. Our northern feed base project, this really aims to go systematically through pasture species and potential pasture species for Northern Australia to screen those species for anti-methanogenic compounds. And that's a large project. It's led by DAF in Queensland, but there's participants from all over the country and a number of industry partners in there as well and they're already up and running with their early stage assays. In the south, as you know, MERiL has done quite a bit of work in investigating low methane pastures. We're going to build on that work and really take some of those most promising species through to agronomic packages.

So, just as an example, we've just got this Project 1021, which is looking at multi-species swards for higher productivity and lower emissions, particularly in the high rainfall zone. Project 1030 moves up from the species level and up above the breeding level actually to look at this gene editing opportunity. Is there an opportunity to gene edit some of our forages so that when consumed by cattle and sheep, it reduces methane? So that project has launched as well. That's a pretty exciting one. Then in the fertiliser space, which is perhaps less interesting to this group, we have a project which is about systematically putting together emission efficiency factors for different fertiliser products. So, evaluating their nitrous oxide emissions at the same time as analysing their productivity. And then Project 1060 is about using waste streams to derive highly efficient fertilisers that have a low carbon footprint.

Moving on to Program 2, so this is low methane cattle and sheep. We've got a few projects launched here. The first challenge, and you'll know about this if you've heard me speak before, is actually measuring methane from individual cattle and sheep at scale is currently very expensive. So, we've launched a project to look at alternatives for doing that, that should be able to measure cattle and sheep for their methane emissions at a much lower cost. And that's wavelength modulation spectroscopy, and for beef and sheep and in dairy cattle, mid-infrared spectroscopy from milk samples as proxies for methane emissions. If that project succeeds, it'll be terrific because we'll be able to - if it really succeeds - we'd be able to measure on even individual farms what their emissions profile actually is. But let's see how far we get with that. Project 2020 is building on the CN30 projects that MLA ran to build these reference populations to enable us to select for more methane efficient cattle and sheep. So, screening larger numbers of cattle and sheep for methane, at the same time, genotyping those animals so we can come up with DNA tests for methane emissions. And part of that project is about taking this to the stud industry too, so bull and ram breeders can start actually breeding for this trait. Project 2030 is a really interesting one as well. It's using a biodegradable biopolymer which embeds anti-methanogenic substances for slow release to reduce methane emissions in particularly northern cattle, really, is the target of that project.

Okay, just finally Programs 3 and 4. So Program 3 is very much about the carbon accounting, and this is working at multiple levels refining GAF tools and so on and refining those to be the input into some of the on-farm tools people are using. So, guidance for on-farm greenhouse gas accounting is Project 3010. 3020 takes that a step further and starts to integrate some of these emissions reduction technologies that we're developing, and others have developed, to take those into account into the carbon accounting. Program 4, there's one project up there, which is pretty interesting as well. It's agrivoltaics about integrating profitable agricultural production and renewable energy production generation. So, how can you marry those two up so that both get co-benefits there.

And just finally, our network of producer demonstration sites, we've launched our pilot. There's about nine sites selected spanning the states and different agro-ecological zones. The first task there is really to baseline those sites for both using carbon accounting tools and to look at the sources and sinks using, for example, flux towers and greenfield devices to measure those sources and sinks really precisely so that when we overlay some new technologies on those sites, we can really see the impact of those. This part of the CRC is going to ramp up over the coming years to 25 sites. And so, thank you, there's been a lot of activity. I think we're off to a flying start and a few more really exciting projects to come. So, thank you.

[0:41:12] Paul Ryan: Thanks, Ben, for that rapid update. There is a lot of activity there, so well done. Has anyone got a quick question or two for Ben? No? If not, again, if you think of something later feel free to put it in the chat or e-mail. Otherwise, I'll pass over to Naidu now to take us through the first part of the MERiL project updates.

[0:41:43] Naidu Bodapati: Hi, everybody. I'll be chairing four of the presentations, one from the MERiL Stage 1 and three from the MERiL Stage 3 and Round 1. The first one is by Ed Charmley and others, particularly in collaboration or it's actual grantee was Agrimix. So, it's a very interesting project and we have to appreciate Ed for coming back while he was on the long service leave. So, yeah, Ed, thank you very much. And I put a brief bio of Ed on the chat. Ed. it's over to you. You can take the control if you like.

[0:42:32] Ed Charmley: Thanks, Naidu. Yeah, I'll share my screen. You can see the screen?

[0:42:42] Naidu Bodapati: Yes.

[0:42:43] Ed Charmley: Great. Okay, I'll dive right in. This is a long time coming, so just to state at the beginning, a large number of people have been involved in this from over a number of years, and thank you all very much for your contribution to this project. So, just by way of introduction the project was conducted on a commercial property, Cungelella, run by NAPCo in Central Queensland. We're based up in Townsville. And the challenges of working offsite were one of the reasons why this has taken a bit longer to conclude. So, just to outline the measurements, we were looking at really the production of methane and the performance of commercial cattle and the commercial grazing situations. We ran through from 2023 to 2025. We had two wet seasons and a dry season. During this time cattle weights were recorded. The characteristics of the pasture in terms of botanical composition and nutritive value were assessed. Faecal sampling for faecal NMR analysis for diet quality, methane measurements using the GreenFeed, the GEM unit, GreenFeed emissions. Gas emissions monitoring units or GreenFeeds started in February 2024 and concluded in 2025, back in April. And we also deployed collars to a number of cattle to look at the animal activity at that time. At the end of the trials, cattle were slaughtered. All cattle were slaughtered about a month after the conclusion of the studies.

This is just a map of the setup. There were four paddocks, each paddock around 300 hectares. Each paddock had a GreenFeed system where cattle could access feed supplement, and we could measure methane at that point. And that was co-located with water points to attract them to that. Sampling, the red lines represent the samples of forages taken from the paddocks on various intervals between about six months intervals. And the grey dots are where we did Botanical analysis. So, fairly complete analysis of the sward as well as the animals and the methane.

So, just the effect of Desmanthus inclusion and the pasture on the animal performance and the measurements of pasture. So, overall, there was no major - not a big difference in animal productivity, but in the first wet season, there was a significantly higher rate of gain for the cattle on the Desmanthus versus control, but not in the dry season. And although there was a difference in the wet season, it didn't quite make significance. Biomass was always higher in the control paddocks than the Desmanthus paddocks. And there was a quite a marked seasonal effect, obviously with lower biomass in the dry season. And then the second wet season was somewhat lower again. The Desmanthus contribution and the first wet season was about 30% of the pasture. And the dry season, there was no - it dropped down to about 17%. And the second wet season was about 15% of the biomass of the pasture.

The overall animal performance over the entire 16-month trial, the live weight gain in kilograms was significantly higher. An extra 20-odd kilos on the Desmanthus cattle. So, the average daily gain went up to about 0.66 from 0.63. So, these are grass-fed heifers, no supplementation at all during this period. And there was quite a big difference in hot half carcass weights at the end. So, a small benefit in animal performance is probably less than we were hoping for. It was very much more evident in the first we season than later. Just a little bit on explaining that with these large paddocks and fairly low stocking rates, you do get quite a bit of variability in pasture biomass, which affects how the animals interact with their pasture, and you can see in March, quite a bit more biomass in the later dry season in October. Same thing with the Desmanthus, quite a bit of variation in where Desmanthus was found in the paddocks. And of course, again, this then affects the ability of cattle to select their diets based on what's available and where it is in the paddock and what time of year we're dealing with.

This is just a quick overview of where cattle were found in the paddocks. And interestingly, with these larger paddocks, there are some areas where cattle just never visited, and other areas where there was a high concentration of livestock. These are often camps where cattle will camp, for example, near the water points or under a tree cover or wherever. So, a lot of heterogeneity in terms of where the biomass is in terms of seasonal change and spatial change, similarly with the Desmanthus and then how cattle interact with that. So there's a high degree of selection possible under this type of grazing scenario. And I think one of the things going forward is it is the grazing management that's going to have a big impact on how much of a reduction in methane we're going to see from anti-methanogenic legumes.

Just a slide summarising the composition of the pasture. So these are the cut samples and the diet. These are the faecal NMR samples. Obviously, the animals are selecting a much higher quality diet than what's available across the swards almost doubling nitrogen content. In terms of the diet, which we'll focus on, there was a significant treatment effect where in the wet seasons, the diet quality in terms of nitrogen was higher for the control limit than the Desmanthus as was the dry matter digestibility. In the dry season, there really wasn't too much of a difference. Again, in the second wet season, we're seeing a similar slightly higher in the control than the Desmanthus.

Interestingly, the faecal N levels were quite a bit higher in the Desmanthus faecal samples. And this we attribute to potentially the tannin content of the Desmanthus affecting the site of the breakdown of nitrogen in the tract with more coming out in the faeces and potentially more dietary Nitrogen escaping rumen and, and rumen break down and being absorbed directly with dietary N. The non-grass in the diet, this is based on the C3 to C4 ratio, very much higher in the Desmanthus in the wet season. And so particularly Wet Season 1, not quite - so, again, higher in Wet Season 2, but not quite as marked. But in the dry season, there's really no difference. And what we see is that in the wet season, the Desmanthus is green and actively growing and cattle will graze it. In the dry seasons, they do not graze it because it's basically lost its leaf and it's not conducive to consumption.

So, looking at the methane production so this is the graph on the left just shows the methane in grams per day. And then on the right it's just the live weight, because I think one thing, on a 16-month study like this, the animals obviously almost doubled their live weight over that time. So one would expect methane emissions in grams per day to go up, and they do indeed do that. In the first wet season, there's lower emissions in the Desmanthus cattle. In the dry season, the emissions tended to be higher or were higher in the Desmanthus cattle. And then in the second wet season there a clear trend for lower emissions again. And so this corresponds to the availability, I think, of the Desmanthus in the diet. So, there's a link here between, you know, the reduction in emissions and the amount of Desmanthus in the diet. Interestingly, in the dry season, even though the animals were gaining about 100 kilos, the grams per day emissions didn't change very much. And this is probably because intakes were declining as the quality of the diet declined over that dry season.

Just in terms of summarising the methane in terms of methane production, overall, it wasn't quite significant, but there was a bit of a treatment times season interaction. But when you look at methane yields, this is in grams per kilogram of intake, estimated dry matter intake we saw a reduction in methane emissions. And similarly, with intensity that was just methane intensity per kilogram of live weight, again, we saw a marked reduction. So here are the same sort of thing, because somewhat higher live weight in the Desmanthus cattle, and that offsets any reduction. So your methane in grams per day, it's not reduced as much as one would hope because the animals are heavier. But in terms of intensity and yield, we're seeing some potential benefits there as well.

This is a bit of a busy slide, but it's just an attempt to try and look at the potential for something like Desmanthus in a production system. The baseline column is simply a control cross pasture in Central Queensland, in other words, our control treatment. We estimate there's about 100,000 hectares that Desmanthus currently in the Northern Australia, but a modest scenario, we could see an increase of that up to about a million hectares, and you could aspirationally or long term even larger. So, the potential is there based on the soil type and climate conditions. And if we assume a 20% increase in stocking rate could be expected, and there's lots of evidence to show that that would be reasonable when you add a legume to a grass-based diet. And similarly, an increase in live weight gain is often larger than we saw. So again, put those two factors in there and we can see that methane production in terms of grams per day currently would be about 148 in a typical grass-fed system. And the modest scenario, that stays about the same because animals are heavier. So even though you're getting a reduction per unit of intake, you're actually increasing intake. So, overall, you get quite a modest reduction, about a 4% reduction in emissions by improving performance, improving stocking rate, and having an anti-methanogenic compound in supplement species in the diet. But if we can increase methane, the percent of yield when the Desmanthus is in the diet, right now it's only, you know, 50% of the yield, but if we could increase that to 75% with either through genetics or agronomic change or management systems and increase the proportion of that Desmanthus in the diet from say 30 to 50%, then you can see that reduction in emissions can be up to 11%. Now, this is not, you know, the 80% we're here with 3-NOP or whatever, but when you consider the potential area of 3,500,000 hectares where we could potentially have this, it begins to become quite a useful contribution to reusing methane from grazing cattle. And I think I'll stop there while my voice holds out. Thank you very much.

Oh, sorry. Few conclusions. Yeah, I've been on long service leave a bit too long. So long term grazing studies are essential. I think we've got to look at it over a longer period of time. We need to focus on on-farm research because that's where the rubber hits the road. Methane response is highly dependent on the nutrient value of the companion forage. If you have a high-quality forage like buffel grass, you won't see the same sort of reduction when you put a legume in there. The inhibition is related to the Desmanthus, which depends on season and proportion in the pasture and selected grazing by the animal. The inclusion of Desmanthus will improve animal gain, and we definitely see an improvement in the value of the slaughtered animal about a $70 per animal gain in terms of value of the slaughtered animal compared to the control. There's always a trade-off between methane production, which may increase if animals are heavier, and intensity, which will go down. Methane yield in the field, you have to really base it on an estimate of intake, and there's a serious need to have a better way of estimating intake in the grazing animal. I think future research for Desmanthus should look at things like stocking rate, rotational grazing, pure standards of the Desmanthus to really optimise Desmanthus intake throughout the year. And any future studies would be beneficial if they could also include data on soil carbon change in conjunction with methane emissions. And my voice is giving out now, so I will stop. Thank you very much.

[0:56:47] Naidu Bodapati: Thank you very much, Ed. Thanks for being ahead of time - I mean, you still have two more minutes if you wanted, but there are two questions in the chat box by Richard Eckard. Do you see them? And would you like to answer them?

[0:57:06] Ed Charmley: No, I don't. Hang on, let me just pull my chat box up. Yes, lightweight gain per hectare. Well, yes, that's a good question, Richard. There was a stocking rate where in the actual trial it was set. And because we were on a commercial farm, there were some commercial decisions that affected the number of animals that was actually there. So, even though we weren't really able to modify the stocking rate based on the performance of the pastures or anything like that, I think that's one of the key drivers here. I think if we had stocked at a higher rate, we would've seen a greater impact of the Desmanthus on reducing emissions, because even in the dry season, there was still three or four tonnes of biomass per hectare, which is really a pretty conservative level of stocking rate. But, I guess, this is one of the challenges with working with commercial partners. We have to acknowledge that they've got production issues and management issues that override sometimes the ideal option. Yes, the higher faecal nitrogen could have been bound. I acknowledge that. And there is obviously a trade-off there between protecting some of the feed protein from digestion in the rumen where you've got an inefficient microbial process and having those amino acids directly absorbed from the diet in the lower tract but then countering that you've got increased losses of nitrogen in the faeces. So, yeah, it certainly probably explains perhaps why we didn't see a bigger reduction, bigger improvement in performance. But I should add that the quality of the buffel grass diet was very good. You know, even 55 to 65% digestibility, it's pretty impressive for this type of trial and representative of Central Queensland. I think if you were in Western Queensland where we'd have probably controlled diet would be of a poorer quality, you'd probably see a bigger response to the legume in those conditions. [0:59:40] Naidu Bodapati: Thanks, Ed. Ed has one more minute. If anybody else has got a question, I'm sure he'll be happy to take. If not, thank you very much, Ed. That was a fantastic presentation. And we'll switch the gears now from natural pasture to the additives, feed additives. These three presentations are from the MERiL Stage Three, Round One. The first speaker is Mariana Caetano, and I will post her bio in the chat. Mariana, it's all yours. And would you like to take the control of the slide changing?

[1:00:37] Mariana Caetano: Yes. Do you want me to share my screen or do you want to -

[1:00:42] Penny Reyenga: Can you just - can you see at the top left-hand side you can see a button saying Take Control?

[1:00:48] Mariana Caetano: Let me just, again - oh, yes.

[1:00:57] Penny Reyenga: So, if you hit that, you'll be able to drive.

[1:01:00] Mariana Caetano: Okay.

[1:01:01] Penny Reyenga: And you should be able to see it in the notes. There you go.

[1:01:09] Mariana Caetano: Yeah. So, is that working?

[1:01:14] Penny Reyenga: Yes, you're right to go.

[1:01:17] Mariana Caetano: Okay. Beautiful. Thank you very much, Naidu, for the invite to share our findings. So, this project, I will present part of what we found so far. It's just like lots of findings. And we were trying to bring some information that can be shared with the people, but also it can add some value. Just as a way to start, like when we look the overall, we have like one 1.57 billion heads of cattle worldwide. And the breeder herd makes a significant portion of the cattle population representing literally 79% of the number of beef cattle in Australia. And then the methane produced by ruminants is responsible for 30% of the increase of the global temperatures. And when we go across the livestock species, beef cattle, it is the major contributor to the methane emissions as we can see, mainly when we look like Australia. So, the amount of methane produced for each kilo of protein produced by these animals is much higher compared to the dairy, pigs, chickens, small ruminants and so on. So, to address that in the last decades, like more than six decades, people have been investigating anti-methanogenic feeds and supplements to mitigate methane. And, lately, we can hear different ways to deliver not only through a feed, but also using boluses or even through water to try to reduce the methane emissions by these microorganisms. And the microorganism that we often will target is the archaea, right? They are the ones that will be utilising the carbon dioxide with hydrogen to produce more methane. So, when we look at that and we think about the breeder herd, often it comes to our mind like how these changes in the microorganisms of like the pregnant cows can be translated to the progeny. And when we look at some evidence of some essential bacteria for mature rumen function, they're already detected in neonatal calves like 24 hours post-birth. And considering the importance of these microorganisms, not only for the nutritional status of neonatal calves, but also for metabolism and also including the animal health performance and wellbeing, we got quite interested into that field, right?

And previous research, when they were looking at how much is the contribution coming from the dams, they could detect that 39% of the faecal microbiota of the neonatal calves was coming from the oral microbiota of the dams. Twenty-four percent was from vaginal microbiota and 15% of the faecal microbiota. So, then there is a huge contribution coming from the oral microbiota that it would be a good representation of what is happening in the rumen.

So, considering that and all the options that we have available at the moment, we obviously got interested into like the one of the most powerful molecules that are available at the moment that is coming from this red seaweed, and that is the bromoform, the bioactive compound. So then by looking at the bromoform and looking at all the amazing results that a lot of researchers and colleagues were getting, that this compound was able to reduce by 70 to 90% of that methane emissions. It was just outstanding, and we were more interested to understanding how these chains in the microbial population could be transferred to the neonatal calves.

So, to start them with that and answer a few questions, we just conducted a pilot study and through recommendations with our collaborators, like some producer groups in the Southern Australia, it was recommended that we would conduct it here so we would have like a better control of what is happening. So, we then allocated 21 pregnant cows for each group where one was fed a supplement containing canola oil plain. And the other group was fed a supplement containing canola oil with the bromoform. Those used was 508 milligrams of bromoform per day, equivalent to 0.7 milligrams of bromoform per kilo of live weight.

To measure the greenhouse gas emissions, we used the tube ring feeding units and we collected rumen fluid and faecal samples from the dams up to 24 hours per post birth to analyse the microbes using the whole genome sequencing. And from the progeny, we also collect faecal samples within that time within up to 24 hours post-birth to also run the whole genome sequencing. And then, in addition, we were also weighing these animals, so collecting the live weight at birth, five months and seven months of age. And then when we were looking at the maternal supplementation, once we started the supplementation with bromoform, we can see that the baseline was pretty much the same across the two groups. And then as we moved in the first week, we got like a reduction by 45% followed by a 70% reduction in the second week, and then a 77% reduction in weeks three and four. And that was remaining quite low. And then the diurnal pattern of the methane over 24 hours, we were just interested to have a better understanding what was happening. And with all the data collection, we could detect that the levels were kept quite low within the 24 hours once the bromoform supplementation started.

When we were looking then like the microbial population of the dams using rumen fluid and faeces you can see that there is like two distinct clusters when we were using the faecal samples. And the rumen fluid as well, we have like two distinct clusters with a little bit of overlapping, but we can see that it's modifying the microbial population. So then, when we look at that and we could detect that the archaea population was changed once we start supplementing bromoform. We were trying to understand the populations that had similar pattern, not only when we were using rumen fluid, but also like with the faecal samples.

And the ones that that we detected was like these three microorganisms, the three archaea that was Sulfolobus acidocaldarius, the Methanobrevibacter millerae, and the Methanobrevibacter sp YE315. And as you can see, the Sulfolobus acidocaldarius was increased in the bromoform-fed compared to the control group and opposite way for the Methanobrevibacter, it was like both archaea, they were reduced in the bromoform-fed compared to the control group. So, when we look at the faeces, like the same pattern happened and with the same three archaea that we identified. Other archaea have been identified as well to be changed overall, but these were the three consistent across the two sample types used. Then when we were looking, the bacteria, we just identified one bacterium that was the Xylanibacter ruminicola that was increased in the bromoform-fed group. And this bacterium is related to the fibre degradation, mainly like the hemicellulose and the pectin portion.

When we were looking at them at the functional analysis, I don't go into the details of that, but what we can see is that we identify in rumen fluid samples that we have 311 functional differences, right, between them. And when we were looking at the faecal samples, we could identify 107 functional differences as well between the two groups.

So then when we went and looked in the progeny in terms of performance that was pretty much the same between the two treatment groups at birth, five months of age and seven months of age at weaning, and then the methane emissions as well between the two groups, they were exactly the same at weaning. So, just as a highlight, these animals were kept separate up to five months of age, so they had no contact between the two groups. And still, we could identify that at weaning at five months, they have like the same microbial population with no differences and the same happened at seven months as expected them, right? So, then what we can highlight is that the change that were caused and created during the bromoform supplementation on the dams did not affect the progeny later in life. So, some questions are always raised about what if these animals had different microbial population at birth, and even though because we were collecting within 24 hours post-birth, majority of animals were still sterile at that age and that is why even though we run the microbial sequencing analysis, we could not identify enough for DNA that could give us information about the microbial population. So, then the key message from these findings that pretty much the bromoform fed late gestation reduced the methane emissions in pregnant cows. They were very effective.

The microbial gene functions needed to be explored for the cattle industry, and also how to evaluate the dose of these anti-methanogenic feeds, and that the maternal bromoform supplementation did not affect the progeny performance neither like the methane and microbiota later in life. So then next steps are probably to extend now the supplementation with bromoform, not only to the calves, but it's actually extending during early lactation to see how that can be translated to the progeny and what are the other impacts as well that we may have. So, then we are just analysing now of more results about the whole genome sequencing for a trial that was investigating the maternal supplementation during lactation. And also the effect on microbiota of calves early and late in life where we are evaluating the colostrum milk samples, some blood parameters, the microbiome, growth performance of the progeny, and the carcass traits as well once the progeny has been finished under different production systems. Combined with that, we are also likely using the opportunity to combine several supplements with the bromoform to evaluate the effect of that in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions, but also with animal health and animal performance.

So, I would like to acknowledge my research group and here, just to highlight mainly Yohannes Messele and Kellie Wenham because they're the ones conducting the trials on farms, but also to all our collaborators there throughout our monthly meetings can share their knowledge and also give some guidance in terms of how we can proceed with this project to add more value, not only for scientific community, but also for our industry. Thank you for having me, and I'm open for questions.

[1:15:17] Naidu Bodapati: Thank you, Mariana. Very good presentation. And any questions there for Mariana? There is a question in the chat, Mariana.

[1:15:30] Mariana Caetano: Okay.

[1:15:32] Naidu Bodapati: Was this with stabilised bromoform that would probably carry over in the faeces and milk?

[1:15:49] Mariana Caetano: I'm not entirely sure what the person, Zoey, what do you mean by stabilised bromoform? The bromoform that we used was the SeaFeed that is produced by Sea Forest and is present like in canola oil. So that is what we used in the trial.

[1:16:09] Zoey Durmic: Yeah. Sorry, can you hear me?

[1:16:12] Mariana Caetano: Yes, I can hear you.

[1:16:13] Zoey Durmic: Yeah. So, I was just going to suggest because, yeah, it has a very short life, the bromoform, and it might not be carried over in the faeces and in the milk. As I understand, your next phase will be looking into that, and the colonisation might come from those sources. So we have been working with another with Rumin8, so they are working and they have stabilised formulations of pure bromoform, so maybe it's worth thinking - if you're going in that direction, maybe it's worth thinking.

[1:16:50] Mariana Caetano: Definitely. No, I agree. Yeah, that's the thing, I think the information that we are all sharing and also compiling over the years, it is important to take consideration what are the products that we are using, the dose. And, also, once we have different delivery methods or stabilised molecules or different, you know, synthetic molecules, the action can be changed and the results can be different. So, I think it's important then to highlight. Yeah

[1:17:28] Zoey Durmic: Because you will need that sustained effect, not necessarily carry over bromoform itself, but you need a sustained effect on the microbiome that is like with bromoform, it happens within first half an hour of administration and then it gets degraded, and then after that you have hours of nothing in the rumen. That's my understanding.

[1:17:54] Mariana Caetano: Zoey, these animals were fed once daily and they were individually fed because we were trying to monitor the dose as well to see potential side effects. So, we were literally bringing them once a day, feeding them individually and let them go, right? They had like ad libitum access to hay during that time because here was like summer, so no pasture available, but that was the consistency in terms of like the methane mitigation. And animals had free access to the GreenFeed machines where we were swapping the units on a weekly basis. And that was the consistency that we got. So even though they were fed once daily, the methane mitigation was still quite consistent over the 24 hours. And the graph that I presented about the pattern, that is over the first four weeks, so including the first week as well.

[1:18:57] Zoey Durmic: Great. Thank you very much. We can talk offline so we don't hog the meeting, but interesting finding. Thank you. [1:19:04] Mariana Caetano: Thank you.

[1:19:05] Naidu Bodapati: Thank you, both. Mariana, there's another question, two questions, in fact okay. First David Pacheco about bromoform.

[1:19:16] Mariana Caetano: Yeah?

[1:19:22] David Pacheco: Yeah. Hi, Mariana. Bromoform causes an effect because it interferes with enzymes that are involved in methanogenesis. My question is why would you expect a long-term effect on, particularly in the progeny? Once you remove that pressure on the methanogens, wouldn't you need to do some imprinting of the microbiome that produced the hydrogen that are used by the methanogens, rather than using a compound like bromoform to try to create a - it creates a very specific and temporary pressure on the methanogens, but once you take it away, my question is what is the mechanism that you expect creates an imprinting in the progeny?

[1:20:22] Mariana Caetano: Yep. Thank you. That's a really good question, David. Ideally, that was like most people were saying like I have it tested and hasn't changed much, and why that would be expected. And my answer was always that it is a symbiotic relationship that we have. And these microorganisms, often you're depending on what are the substrates available in the rumen, you can actually impair like other populations. And it's very hard to manipulate these populations once you introduce like other new or once you inhibit some populations, it is expected that they will reorganise themselves based on what is available. And for us, it was more like, it's such a powerful molecule that it can reduce by 90%. We would be expecting that these change in the substrates and the products produced would cause modifications in the populations that we have there. And that's just like why we observed that It is literally like into the archaea. Majority of the findings and differences that we observed was in the archaea population. The bacterium, it was just one that was statistically significant. But as I said, because we had a chance to run, like my PhD student, Kellie Wenham, she conducted her research already, we are already analysing the data in terms of the microbial sequencing. And now, we are like looking as a repetition for the first trial conducted, what are the consistency that we got from the previous trial and what are the things that more related to all the factors that was out of our control. So, the understanding on that will give us more guidance in terms of saying what is related to the changes specifically of the bromoform supplementation rather than potential other factors that we could not control when we were conducting these results, right? And it seems to be consistent with the three that I'm presenting here.

[1:22:31] David Pacheco: Yeah. I no doubt that there would be consistent response to bromoform, but I just wonder whether we need to re-examine the concept of imprinting. Yeah, we can follow up outside.

[1:22:42] Mariana Caetano: Yeah, the functional gene analysis as well, I think it needs to be better explored and that's why where we are going to push a lot of time as well to understand that better because it is a lot into that space. Mainly, when we combine the two trials to have understanding.

[1:23:06] Naidu Bodapati: Thank you very much, David and Mariana. In the interest of time, can we please move on to the next speaker? Mariana, there are few more questions and comments in the chat box. If you wouldn't mind answering afterwards, please, it will be very much appreciated.

[1:23:22] Mariana Caetano: Sure, I will do that. Thank you.

[1:23:27] Naidu Bodapati: That's alright. Next speaker is Greg Aylward from GrainCorp. I will be putting his bio in the chat box. And Greg, the slides are for you to operate or if you want us to operate, we can do that.

[1:23:52] Greg Aylward: I've just grabbed control. Thanks very much, Naidu. I appreciate it. Good afternoon, everyone. Today, I'm pleased to share an update of what GrainCorp has been doing with regard to methane-reducing feeds development. We've been working on this for around five years to date. Our ultimate aim is to be able to be in a position to deliver methane-reducing feeds on a commercial basis through our existing supply chain. We've carried out thousands and thousands of lab tests testing our first-generation feeds. This has largely been possible through developing in-house test methods to test the key components and ensure that they are stable throughout the whole process.

We've based our strategy in this area on two main key pillars. Firstly, around feed safety. This involves safety in processing animal health and in human health perspectives, and to ensure that any residues are either undetectable or in safe levels. Secondly, it's around efficacy of the product. We need to ensure that what we develop actually gets fed to the animal. There are some real complexities that we've sort of endured or discovered through our feed development process around the additives. At times, they can react with other ingredients and in storage conditions. And, also, we want to ensure with the efficacy that we are feeding the correct amount. We've taken - underpinning this, we're building what we believe is a world class database and some of this has been enabled by the being successful with the MERiL 3 grant. As I said, with this, we've done extensive lab tests, we've carried out multiple large-scale trials, and we've done some really rigorous residue testing. A lot of our trials, our approach there has been to align ourselves with some of Australia's best research institutions and probably some of the best in the world. The key sort of callouts there, it's enabled us to get access to some exceptional experts in this field. And, also, the university facilities to be able to run complex trials independently and utilise some really good assets.

Today, I'll walk you through some of the outcomes from our three long duration pasture trials. We're quite excited with the results we were getting. The first trial was a full lactation trial at AVS using a liquid with a loose dry feed. The second is beef grower trial at UNE where we used our pellets. And thirdly, our trial was at UQ using liquid feed that we developed.

So, a little bit more about the dairy trial. It was 239 or 240-day full lactation trial at AVS. As far as we are aware, there's hasn't been a full lactation dairy trial anywhere in the world that we're aware of. This trial was led by Dr Joe Jacobs and his team in Victoria. It was conducted at the SmartFarm in Ellinbank, and we utilised three form feed formulations, one control and two that contained bromoform. So, a little bit more around the trial. There were three groups of 30 cows. It was, as I said, a control and two that contained bromoform. The animals were given the feed twice a day during milking time. All the animals actually grazed together all in one herd. We targeted originally to target 300 milligrams of bromoform per animal. As I said, the duration was 239 days and we carried out three methane measurement periods. The experimental period, a little bit more detail around that. The covariate period was one to three days. The transition 4 to 18, there was an adaptation period from 19 to 34. And then we did three methane measurements at day 35, at day 102, and at day 235. And then there was a washout period at the end of that.

So, what do we actually measure for all of this? Foremost, we made daily measurements of milk yield. We measured the fat and the protein composition in the milk on the monthly basis. During the methane measurement period, we measured the fatty acids, the functionality, and the residues contained in the milk. The methane was measured through the SF6 technology. It allowed a highly accurate estimation of the methane emissions, and it enabled the cows to graze in a normal basis without too much interference. We also measured ruminal fluid, the fermentation parameters, the blood, the biochemistry, the residues, and also the faeces and urine.

So, what were the results? We reduced methane over the full lactation from 422 to 600 kilograms of methane. And that equated to around 20%, which is in line with what we were hoping. From a residue perspective, feeding our methane reducing formulations for the whole 240 days, there wasn't any residues of significance. It's interesting to look at this graph. I believe the World Health Organisation has limits or suggested maximums of bromoform in water at 100 micro g/L on the left-hand scale. So, you can see we were very comfortable where the residues were sitting. And also, after ceasing feeding it for three days, it was non-detectable above the control in the milk.

The next trial we did was at UNE. This trial was headed up by Fran Cowley and Jamie Barwick. It involved 72 Angus cross steers. These were aged 15 to 18 months. The live weight was around 320 kg. The paddocks were a number four paddocks that were assigned with oat and ryegrass. Each paddock was around 10 hectares. There was a supplement station established that was 30m x 30m. This supplement station had five zones for internal, one external. All this, we utilised electronic devices. There was a UHF feeder to deliver the pellet supplement in the correct amounts. We utilised a three-way auto walkover weighing drafter that had a twin purpose of weighing the animal and directing them to the pen that had their particular feed that we wanted to give them. We had GreenFeed ongoing to measure the methane. We also used Eartag Accelerometer to monitor the behaviour. And all of this was supported by a Wi-Fi connection. So, it was a really well set up thing, and absolute credit to Fran and her team.

So, that's a little bit more how it looked like. You see up the top there. The three blue in the top three pens, that's where the three different feeds were delivered. There's a water trough on the left and a GreenFeeder on the right. And then along the bottom, it's just the walkover weighing autodrafter, the Advantage Feeder that fed the pellets and the GreenFeeder, which I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with. So, our UNE weaner trial went for 143 days. We actually had about 70 days beforehand where we had a larger number of animals, and we just weaned them out to make sure the ones that are most suitable are primarily from a behavioural aspect to ensure that we get the best results we can. The first trial was on really high-quality pasture. It was sort of between your knee and your hip, was just absolutely lush pasture. And then we had a wash out period of 14 days. And then the second trial was a little bit further on where the pastures had matured a bit and they didn't have the quality that they had in the trial one. So, Trial 1 had 72 steers split into four groups of 18, and then each group of 18 was assigned to the three treatments, i.e, the control in the two methane-reducing feeds.

Trial 2, the herds were re-randomised among the four paddocks. The groups within each herd were re-randomised among the treatments. So, yeah, a little bit more about the pellet provision. We delivered it through an Advantage Feeder. The first trial we targeted 1.0 kg per head. The second trial, we increased that to 1.7. And, also, there were strategic times where we used the SF6 technology to sort of cross calculate our results.

So, what sort of results did we get? We're really pleased with both the first and the second part of this trial The first part where the pasture was exceptional, a lot of it we achieved around a 20% reduction in methane. And then moving into the second trial, we got sort of a 70 to 75% reduction when we managed to increase the intake. And, yeah, the animals were taking in, obviously, more bromoform. Just jumping back there. Underpinning that, we had no residue issues of concern that were identified. Yeah, so that was really positive.

Our next trial was held at UQ. It was overseen by Karen Eyre. It was conduct conducted at UQ in Gatton, and it took nine months. It involved 55 pregnant crossbred Angus cows. The cows were grazing with free choice access to the liquid supplements, as you can see on the bottom right there. And, also, it got up to 40 degrees there, so our feeds remain stable through even high temperatures. And, again, we fed a control with two formulations. To measure the methane, we used the optimised the measurements through SF6 technology. We took five physiological stage samples there. We also collect milk and serum samples from the cows. So, the results we got up to sort of 70 to 75% methane reduction, which was super encouraging.

Next, measuring the residue in the milk from the Angus cross cow, there was either below 2 μg/L or non-detectable. So that was, again, really promising. So sort of closing remarks. All our trials we thought were really successful. We were super happy. There's obviously been a lot of trials done in feedlot and contained farming systems. There's not many longer dated trials that have gone through multiple seasons, which we've managed to achieve through this. We haven't identified any residues of concern. These trials really demonstrate that the feeds that we have developed have a high level of efficacy and safety. And it kind of encourages us to continue on the commercialisation pathway. Yeah, as I say this, and probably a special call out CPC too for their support around the animals for the beef trials. Thank you.

[1:38:14] Naidu Bodapati: Thank you very much, Greg. That's very fascinating. All those three large trials. We have a couple of minutes for question and answers. Has anybody got a question or two for Greg? I might take the opportunity of asking a question, Greg, if that's all right. The SF6 technique that you used all throughout your studies, what's the experience? How easy it is? I know it's a continuous measurement compared to Greenfeeders. Would you want to talk about it, the pros and cons of the two techniques.

[1:38:59] Greg Aylward: Probably, whereas the Greenfeeder was every day for a number of days, and the SF6 gave us a continued 24-hour measurement for maybe a shorter period when they had the harnesses on for up to a week. That's where we really leaned on these research organisations who are absolutely well versed in this field, and we're quite grateful that they were able to manage that whole methane measurement space. And for us, having their independence was invaluable. We weren't marking our own homework. [1:39:39] Naidu Bodapati: So, it is practical, you think?

[1:39:41] Greg Aylward: For probably, I think we got - for me, yeah, it is practical. There's, probably pros and cons, and I think you could get arguments on both sides, but when you end up using both, I think from my understanding, it's probably going to be the best results you're going to get.

[1:40:04] Naidu Bodapati: That's what I would've expected. Thank you very much. There is a question in the chat box. Andrew Fletcher, he's asking when the full season trials will be published?

[1:40:18] Greg Aylward: We are going through probably the dairy trials will be the first that that will be published and, yeah, we're just working through that to double and triple check and all our cleansing, all of our data, to make sure that everything's as accurate as it possibly can be.

[1:40:38] Naidu Bodapati: And there's a comment by Zoey, she's saying methane in SF6 is cumulative, not continuous. Thanks for that clarity. Alright, any other questions? We have one more minute, otherwise, we'll save that minute and go to the next presenter. Okay. Next presenter is Professor Julius Van der Werf from University of New England, Armidale. And it's a national project and maybe Julius will call on his collaborators from time to time during his presentation? I'm not sure. But I'll put Julius's bio in the chat box. Julius?

[1:41:31] Julius Van der Werf: Thanks to you, Naidu.

[1:41:32] Naidu Bodapati: It's all yours.

[1:41:34] Julius Van der Werf: I would just - I can take control. How do I do full screen? Do I do that? Maybe this one.

[1:41:41] Naidu Bodapati: Yeah, just press Take Control.

[1:41:44] Penny Reyenga: It looks like someone already had taken control. Hang on. I've taken control now. Can you see the button?

[1:41:49] Julius Van der Werf: I can see the Take Control button, but we didn't have full screen, so there was -

[1:41:55] Penny Reyenga: So, would you like me to run it, Julius, or did you want take control?

[1:41:57] Julius Van der Werf: No, that's fine. Yeah, you can do if you want.

[1:42:00] Penny Reyenga: Yep. Okay.

[1:42:01] Julius Van der Werf: Yeah, it's going to be a bit complex because I will have collaborators presenting as well. Just introducing the team first. So, the funders of this work, besides MERiL, is AWI, the wool RDC, who is doing significant funding as well as feed works. There are some funding, and the collaborators are South Australia's SARDI and University of Western Australia and UNE in New South Wales. And we also have the Department of Primary Industries and Rural Development in New South Wales, although they're not part of this project, but they will be part of the next. So together, we call ourselves the National Sheep Methane Project.

Next slide, please. So, this project is really looking at long-term effects of providing feed additives to grazing sheep. So, basically, we were trying to measure two production cycles. We couldn't start always straight away, depends a bit on the phase of the cycle in the season in the area. But we want to look at least two production cycles. We measured the effect on productivity and methane mitigation, and as you can see, we did that twice. And we also worked with demonstration farms that was only for one production cycle to see what a commercial farmer, what kind of experiences they would have in trying to feed those additives. So, we were trying to measure liveweight wool and meat production, as well as reproductive performance. And we did some animal health in blood, and we measured methane. So that's in the next slide.

But first, I want to point out again, sorry, back to the previous. So, the three sites that we are reporting on here is UNE that measured as Asparagopsis. And Daniel will present that. Then we have University of Western Australia, and they used Agolin, and Zoey will present that. And then we have PIRSA or SARDI in South Australia, and they used Bovaer, and Ellis will we'll talk about that. So, next slide please. So, again, what we're measuring is the animal health parameters. So, we look at blood cell counts and liver and kidney function parameters. We measure liveweight changes, although we had use or a mature use, its body condition score is probably more important. We looked at fertility and lamb survival methane emissions. So, methane was measured not continuously, but in bits because we had to alter those GreenFeeds across the different treatment groups. But basically, every treatment group got measured quite a few times. Wool and fleece yield and again growth parameters of the lambs of that use. And those lambs are slaughtered, and we looked at eating quality and carcass yield. So, for eating quality, we looked at shear force and intramuscular effect. So that's a common thing across all sites. All sites provided one of those three additives measured methane effect. They didn't all provide additives the whole year round. Sometimes it depended a bit on the season, like, typically, producers would only feed Merino ewes just before mating and just before lambing. But some sites provided those additives the whole year round. So, there's a bit of variation there. And I'll let each site lead to talk about their results briefly. So, we start with UNE and Daniel as the next.

[1:45:45] Daniel Sitienei: Thank you, Julius. So, for UNE, it's already mentioned we were feeding sheep Asparagopsis. So, what the product we're using is the seaweed extracted and infused in canola oil. This product produced by Sea Forest. So, with the SeaFeed, we were incorporating this into pellets at the production stage, and we were doing cold press to try minimise losses of bromoform in the pellets that we are producing. Next slide, please. So, for UNE, we monitored Merino ewes over two production cycles. We started up with 200 ewes divided into four groups. The first group were the control. The second group, we were aiming to feed them 10 milligrams of bromoform per day, second group 20, and the third group 30 milligrams per day. The sheep were grazed on either natural or improved pastures. And these were, in addition, getting supplements every day of 300 grams per day. The project started in January 2024, and we are ending it in the next two months.

Next slide please. So, some of the preliminary results we've gathered so far is, so we are seeing quite a linear reduction in methane emissions with the increasing bromoform in the pellets that we are feeding the animals. I guess the variation here that we are seeing is that there is quite a variation in the amount of bromoform in the pellets that the sheep are getting, especially related to bromoform losses in storage. So, we are producing our pellets every six weeks, and by the end of six weeks, we are realising that we have lost actually up to 70% of bromoform. So, there's still quite a huge loss of bromoform in the pellets that we are producing. Other than the methane inhibition, the other positive result that we have seen is possible increase in fertility rates. So, if you look at the graph on my left, we are seeing expected lambing increasing from about 131% for the control to about 145% on the animals that are receiving bromoform, and this is more closely related to twinning. So, if you see the control group, the twinning proportion is about 35%, but on the other groups, it's well over 45. For the other parameters that we have mentioned, that is the growth rate wool production. We are not seeing effect of Bromoform. We are yet to analyse the data from animal health and meat quality from the study. Next slide please. So, in summary, from UNE, we are seeing a dose dependent methane inhibition. But, again, as I've mentioned, this is highly variable depending on the amount of bromoform in the pellets that the sheep are getting. And, also, we are seeing possible effect on fertility of use. Thank you.

[1:49:16] Zoey Durmic: Thanks guys. Okay. So, I hope it's me now? [1:49:20] Julius van der Werf: Yes, it is you. Zoey, you will present.

[1:49:23] Zoey Durmic: Yeah. Okay. So can you see the whole…

[1:49:27] Julius van der Werf: Yes, all good.

[1:49:28] Zoey Durmic: Okay. So, our group was looking into Agolin ruminant, which is a rumen modified as methane mitigating additive for grazing sheep. So, this commercial feed additive is essential-oil based additive that has been used globally for many years. Originally developed to improve animal production, but it has been also certified by The Carbon Trust for reducing methane emissions in ruminants. And previous studies have shown that it's reducing between 19% and 30% reduction in methane. Sorry, I can't really see the slides. Can I actually -

[1:50:26] Julius van der Werf: So just ask for next slide then.

[1:50:29] Zoey Durmic: Yeah, but I can't - Yeah. Can you see this?

[1:50:35] Naidu Bodapati: Yeah.

[1:50:36] Zoey Durmic: Okay. Oh, sorry. So, I have to go back. Sorry about this. So quickly so our methodology, our trial went for 18 months. We had 225 grazing ewes replicated across nine paddocks. We had three treatment groups, two doses of Agolin ruminant. So, one was the commercial recommended dose. Oh, sorry. Yeah, there is one slide missing. Anyway, so there was a commercial dose of a 100 milligrams per head per day. And then three times more, which was 300 milligrams per head per day, plus a control. This was delivered via pellets in lickfeeders. And then methane was measured in GreenFeed units. So, we also had the producer demonstration site in the south of Western Australia. It was a small farming operation with dual purpose Merinos. In there we had 200 Merino wethers. It ran for eight weeks. And we had the control and Agolin in pellets, so two groups cycling pellets delivered via lickfeeders, and we were measuring liveweight and body condition score.

And so here are the results from the experimental part of the trial. There was successful delivery via lickfeeders, and this is intake per head per day. As you can see, the high Agolin group seems to have the greatest intake between the groups. There was some treatment effects, but we're still analysing this across the whole trial. And the next one, in terms of methane, we have seen this moderate reduction in methane as expected about 15 to 30% reduction. There were some dose responses with the high Agolin having the highest effect, but we are still conducting final analysis and some other factors into account. And so, in summary, Agolin ruminant can be successfully delivered to grazing sheep, yes, methane mitigating effect, likely about 15 to 30% reduction, no major effects on health and productivity. But we are still analysing some results and successful producer demonstration site, delivering lickfeeders and some of the results are still pending. I think that's all for me.

[1:53:50] Julius van der Werf: So Alice, we'll do the next one.

[1:53:52] Alice Weaver: Yep. I'll be next.

[1:53:57] Julius van der Werf: Back to the slides, please.

[1:53:59] Alice Weaver: Yeah, next slide. I'll just go off my other screen 'cause I can't see the slides either.

[1:54:05] Penny Reyenga: Sorry. They got taken off before I got to take control again. I'll put them back up. Sorry, Alice.

[1:54:11] Alice Weaver: Thanks, Penny.

[1:54:15] Penny Reyenga: This will just take me a second. All right.

[1:54:21] Julius van der Werf: Okay. We need number 85, I think.

[1:54:25] Alice Weaver: I just got a black screen. Is that what everyone is seeing?

[1:54:32] Julius van der Werf: No, we can now see your slide. Now, we can see your slides. Yeah.

[1:54:36] Alice Weaver: Okay. I've got a black screen, but that's okay. I'll go off my other screen. So, I am Alice Weaver. I work for PIRSA-SARDI based here in the Barossa Valley. And this update is provided on behalf of myself, but also Alyce Lowe and Jamee Daley, who have been working on this project. They've pretty much been running the project for SARDI. So, we looked at 3-Nitrooxypropanol, otherwise known as Bovaer, for our experiment. And this this additive has been very heavily studied across the world. It's been subjected to rigorous scientific studies. It's probably the most studied additive that's been looked at so far. And all the studies have been conducted across a large number of different countries, lots of peer reviewed studies. So, the benefits of Bovaer are pretty clear. On average, Bovaer reduces emissions by about 30% in dairy cows and 45% in beef cattle. And Bovaer is currently authorised and available for use fairly worldwide so it's quite easy to access. Bovaer works by temporarily inactivating one of the enzymes that converts hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane, which results in lower methane production.

So, you can push the next button, Penny. So here at SARDI we were looking at can 3-NOP be delivered successfully to grazing sheep via the feed? We wanted to know specifically, does feeding frequency affect methane production in grazing sheep? And we also were interested in any effect or determining any effect of 3-NOP on animal productivity and health. So, we're working quite closely with DSM, particularly for formulating diets and dose rates.

Next slide. So, as Julius mentioned, this is a long-term grazing study. So over two years in capturing two breeding seasons, we used 250 breeding ewes and their lambs that they produced and, as mentioned, we were really interested in looking at the frequency of feeding the 3-NOP. So, we had four dietary treatments control group, which received a control pellet with no 3-NOP. Treatment 2 received their entire 3-NOP delivery once a day, so in the morning. Treatment group 3 looked at a split dose of 3-NOP, so it was fed in the morning, and then in the afternoon at about four o'clock. And then Treatment 4, we split the 3-NOP pellet into three different delivery time points. So, the 3-NOP was incorporated into a pellet that was milled at a commercial feedmill in Victoria. It's important to note, we did deliver the same total volume of feed to the animals over each day, but just the volume of pellet was split. So, they either received their full ration in the morning for Treatment 2, or that ration was split over three feeds for Treatment group 4. And we started off hand feeding into feed trays, but we've since purchased those automatic sheep feeders that you can see there on the screen. These have been really handy. You're able to program feed to be dropped at certain times of the day, and we can control how much feed is dropped. So, the sheep were transitioned onto those feeders really quickly and, yeah, they run up, they can hear the feeders running, so they do run up to the feeder and eat their ration straight straightaway.

Next slide. So, these are just some very preliminary results that I'm presenting. If we just look at methane production, the result that jumps out there is a big reduction in methane from the treatment group that were fed their ration twice per day. It's important to note that these are preliminary results. We do really want to tease out the difference in when the animals visited the GreenFeed relative to when they received their pellet with the additive in it. In terms of the high frequency of feeding, so 3-NOP three times a day, because I was receiving the same volume of the additive in a day, we thought perhaps that the amount of active ingredient, because it was a lot lower when we fed it three times a day, perhaps it wasn't reaching that threshold where it was actually reducing methane. But we definitely do need to tease this data out a little bit more.

Next slide. So, in summary can 3-NOP be delivered to grazing sheep via feed? Yes, it can. It was quite a relatively stable in the pellet over a long period of time. We have seen some differences in methane production in those grazing animals. And in terms of any effect of 3-NOP on animal productivity and health, there are still some results we still need to analyse. So blood and rumen fluid and also rumen pathology. And we still need to follow the lambs through to slaughter and collect the meat quality data. But we didn't see any differences in lamb data or lamb survival. Important to note, it's a really tough year here in South Australia. So very little feed on offer in the paddocks, very little rain, and so we did see overall lower survival across all of our treatment groups. We didn't see any effect on any fleece or wool parameters. We saw some slight differences in treatment groups around ewe liveweight and condition score, and also some slight difference in lamb weights. Thank you.

[2:00:34] Julius van der Werf: Okay, so we don't have an overall summary slide, but I was just going to summarise a bit. So, I think we see that all products reduced methane but it's still a challenge to provide it all year round and, also, it's a challenge to provide it in pasture. So, those high mitigation rates we see in pen studies are usually not achieved in grazing studies and commercial properties. So, that's one. I think we didn't see much effect on productivity if they are probably small and our experience might have been too small to really detect them properly but, overall, small effects on productivity, I think. Thank you, Naidu. That's our summary.

[2:01:20] Naidu Bodapati: Thank you very much, Julius, Daniel, Zoey, and Alice for your presentation. And maybe there is one minute for a quick question. There is some interesting discussion happening in the chat box. I would like you to take a look, but is there any one burning question for Julius and the team? If not, I thank you very much for sticking to the times and we are only four minutes over time altogether. So, we've done very well. And now is the time for our well-earned break to stretch your legs and have a cup of tea or whatever. And can we please assemble back at 3:15? That is in 11 minutes, please?

[2:02:16] Penny Reyenga: Welcome back, everyone. Hopefully, everyone's on the line and back from their breaks. So, my name's Penny Reyenga. I'm going to be chairing this last session of this afternoon on the MERiL 3.2 updates. So first up, we've got Julius, again, from UNE to talk about their validating and delivering market ready feed additive solutions for sheep. Did you want me to do your slides again, Julius, or did you want to take -

[2:02:40] Julius Van der Werf: Yeah, it's probably easiest, Penny, because we have a team presentation.

[2:02:42] Penny Reyenga: No worries. Thank you.

[2:02:45] Julius Van der Werf: So, the first slide shows again our team and we have one extra member that will present. We have four presentations here. And next slide, Penny, please.

So this project started basically at the beginning of this year. It's MERiL 3.2, and it's aiming to get something market ready. And basically there's two problems with feed additives in sheep. One is do they work and are they cost effective? And our aim was to look and to improve not just methane mitigation, but also productivity, because somehow that energy that you do not lose by not spitting out methane can maybe be captured and turned into more productivity. And that's important because that's a big incentive, of course, for people to use those additives and, otherwise, you have to force them to use it. So, part of the aim is to improve productivity. The other part is to have an easier delivery system. We've played around, there's lots of systems, but they tend to be still quite expensive like feed delivery, electronic feeders and all that. So, we also focused a lot on how you can effectively deliver those feeds and how well does it work. So, of the four partners here, two focus mostly on the products, and we're looking at the effects of stacking different products. So, for example, if you have one additive and you add something else that can capture energy, you might improve productivity or you might have two combinations that together work better than one. So, those groups are UNE and University of Western Australia, and they focus mostly in vitro or on pen studies to look at the effect of combined products. And they use each one grazing study to validate that in pasture. The other two groups focus more on the cost and practicality of using and supplying those additives. So, that's South Australia and Alice will talk about that and DPI New South Wales. And so they, for example, look at delivery via water or lickfeeders and look at frequency and how big is the group and what is an efficient system of delivery. So those are the strategies overall in this project that we aim to bring those products closer to market readiness. And the next is Daniel, who will talk about the UNE project what we've done so far.

[2:05:19] Daniel Sitienei: Thank you again, Julius. So, at UNE, we are testing the effect of combining different feed or enteric methane reduction technologies on, again, methane inhibition and animal productivity. This is the team that we are working together with UNE with many others who are not listed here. We are partnering in this project with DLF and Gilmac from Western Australia.

Next slide, please. So, the plan in 3.2 for us is to first conduct two pen studies, which would be more of screening, then from those two pen studies, we select the best methane inhibition combinations, and we will test these in grazing conditions over six months. So, the first pen study, which we have already completed, here we were testing the effect of combining bromoform analogue. In this case, we tested Tribromoethanol in combination with either nitrate alone, or in combination with nitrate and vitamin B12. These combinations were fed to sheep, maintain on a chaff diet. That's an oaten chaff diet or a brassica diet. The second pen study, which we are planning to start in the next few weeks is we'll be testing the effect of combining again, Bovaer and Agolin. And this again will be testing over a high and a low-quality diet. The low quality here will consist of 20% lucerne chaff, and 80% oaten chaff. And the high quality will be the opposite. So, we'll have 80% lucerne and 20% oaten chaff on that diet. And as I've already said, we will then select the three best combinations from the pen studies, and we'll test these increasing studies.

I'll show you some of the preliminary results in the next slide. And from our first pen study, we are seeing that when we combine Tribromoethanol, that's a bromoform analogue. If you see T2, T3 and T4, there seems to be an additive effect actually when you combine Tribromoethanol and nitrate. So that's combination number three. That's T3. And in this study, we didn't have a nitrate alone because we already had so many treatments and we wanted to increase the sample size, so we eliminated that treatment, but we can see an increment from T2 to T3 by about 15 or 13%, which is just about what you expect when we run nitrate alone. So, there seems to be a clear additive effect for the chaff diet, that's T2 to T3. Interesting enough in this study, again, if you see the brassica diet, that is T5, this was actually Mainstar forage rape, and we see an inhibition on the brassica alone by about 43%. When we added Tribromoethanol to that, that is T6, we see pretty much not much increment in methane inhibition suggesting no combination between this improved forage and Tribromoethanol. But again, when we added nitrate to that is T7. We see again, that increment from about 44 to 60%. On the right graph, I have some weight gain from the experiment, and we see that actually the brassica diet, which you expected to have higher animal productivity, did not perform as you expected. And especially with T7 and T8, these two treatments had nitrate in them, and what you noted is that actually the additional nitrate suppressed feed intake, which could explain the, the lower weight gain that we, we see in T7 and T8. So, in summary, we are seeing an additive effect between bromoform analogue and nitrate, but no additive effect between improved forage and methane inhibitor. That is it from me.

[2:09:56] Julius van der Werf: Okay, next is Zoey.

[2:10:00] Zoey Durmic: Okay, I'll let you drive this. So, our work was also around stacking. We then progressed Agolin ruminant with some other -

[2:10:14] Penny Reyenga: Can I just ask people to check that they're on mute? Thank you. Sorry, off you go.

[2:10:30] Zoey Durmic: Yeah. And sorry, it looks like has some automatic progression, so maybe just pause it or if you have to. So, our work was on stacking. So, as we say, so you can click now. So we have this set of commercial feed additives that are low to moderately antimethanogenic, but that they tend to support rumen. Like we heard earlier, this Agolin ruminant improved intake, liveweight gain causing about 20 to 30% reduction in methane. Can you click on the other? There is also something that is called Acid Buf, which is used as a buffer. We have found in some preliminary screening that it's causing about 20% reduction in methane in vitro, and it regulates PH and it's a hydrogen acceptor. On the other side, you have these novel, highly antimethanogenic feed additives or compounds that can cause about 90% reduction in methane, but they are very potent, and they can affect rumen fermentation, like this one that we worked on, which is Linalool pure essential oil compound similar to your bromoform or others. It reduces 90% of methane but affects rumen.

Next. Sorry, so our objective is, so in theory if we combine these two categories of feed additives, can we then offset those negative effects of the potent ones but also boost the antimethanogenic effect of the gentler ones. So, our objective was to examine combinations of commercial or novel feed additive to achieve that greater effect on methane while supporting animal production and health. Next, so we are having two parts of this study. So, the first part is in vitro. So in the lab test these combinations in the batch fermentations and in the artificial rumen, in the Rusitec. So Agolin plus Linalool or Acid Buf plus Linalool, or all three together, Agolin, Acid Buf and Linalool. And then from those, we'll select combinations that can progress in vivo. We'll conduct a 12 month sheep grazing trial. These feed additive combinations will be provided again in the pellet in the lickfeeders, methane measured in GreenFeed and take the standard parameters of productivity and health. Next. So, I'll just present, we completed the vitro screening. And so, these are the preliminary, again, results of that screening. So, when we combined Agolin in Linalool, so in green, on these lines, you will see in green is effect on methane and - So, green is methane and grey is overall gas, which is indicative of the rumen fermentation and health. So, as you can see some combinations with Agolin and Linalool in particular, that medium dose, improve the effect on the methane mitigation while then offsetting those negative effects on rumen microbial function gas. So next, and then when we combine all three of them, so Agolin, Acid Buf and Linalool, again, we saw some combinations. For example, Agolin, Acid Buf and Linalool, this time at low dose, actually improved effect on methane mitigation while offsetting negative effects on rumen microbial function. So, these two were in the batch of 24-hour batch culture. And then we did also the Rusitec, the next slide.

So, I'll just present the methane data. So we have shown that all combinations that now progress to Rusitec, all combination tested maintain this reduced methane over two weeks. And we saw further reduction between 40-45% with different combinations and this was company only with small effect on Rumen fermentation, less than 10% of microbial gas reduction. So next.

So, in summary, we can combine some moderately antimethanogenic commercial feed additives with potent antimethanogenic essential oil compound, Linalool, which resulted in a more potent effect on methane while supporting rumen fermentation. So, selecting combination will now progress to in vivo testing starting in November this year. Thank you.

[2:16:01] Julius Van der Werf: Thanks. So, Forough will be next.

[2:16:04] Forough Ataollahi: Hello, everyone. My name is Forough Ataollahi. I'm presenting these slides on behalf of our research team in New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. In MERiL 2 and 3, our focus is sheep and using of common delivery mechanisms such as grain, pellet, lickfeeders, loose-lick feeders delivering minerals and lick block feeders. So, we see these methods as potential delivery mechanisms for antimethanogenic supplements. And there is large variation of supplement intake in extensive grazing system. And we are using RFID technology like low frequency and ultra-high frequency to record variation and duration of each visit. There are different parameters impacting the feed intake variation. And in MERiL 3, impact of the mob size is our focus. To deliver that, we developed three trials to deliver grain loose mineral licks and lick blocks, and we used different mob size from 40 to 160 lambs and ewes.

Next slide, please. The idea of the mob size came from the experiment we conducted last year as part of MERiL 2, where 90 animals had access to pellets with Agolin through the feeder equipped with low-frequency technology. When we divided the animals into three groups based on time at the feeder and the number of the visits, we realise that there are different number of the variations between the animals within each group and between the groups.

Next slide, please. To be able to conduct all of these exciting experiments we need to refine and test our technology. So, we put lots of the effort to understand the technology and how it records visitation and duration, and we are validating the technology through a manual validation setup. Next slide, please. So, the results that we obtained showing that both technology low-frequency and ultra-high frequency are capturing pretty much the same trend of the information, but more importantly that there is a strong correlation between time at the feeder and the number of the visits. We're also looking for exploring it further to look at impact of the animal behaviour, which is in this case, it's mob size on feed intake variation. Also assessing individuals to measure how much they consume at each feeding visit and the correlation between the amount they consumed with the number of the visits and also the time at the feeder. Next slide, please. And this is the last slide. This is a sort of example of preliminary results of prior testing in readiness of mob-based work. Thank you.

[2:19:20] Julius Van der Werf: Okay, thanks Forough. So, Alice, we'll do the last few minutes on South Australian work.

[2:19:26] Alice Weaver: Yep. Thanks Julius. So, our component of this project is looking at delivery of antimethanogenic additives to grazing sheep via either drinking water or loose lick. And, again, it's myself, Alyce Lowe and Jamee Daley who are leading this. Next slide.

We're also looking at different additives and combinations of additives. So, for this experiment, we're looking again at Bovaer, we're also looking at Agolin ruminant and nitrates as well. And I guess the important thing to point out here is they all have different modes of action, so looking at them individually and in combination will be quite interesting to see how they reduce or affect methane production. Next slide. So, this is a two-year study and we're running two experiments that will run for 12 months each. In year one, we'll focus on looking at delivery of additives via a loose lick to grazing ewes. We have four treatment groups, the control, which we'll just get a sort of a blank loose lick. We'll have a loose lick that's supplemented with Agolin ruminant another with calcium nitrate in it. And the fourth treatment group will be a combination of Agolin ruminant and calcium nitrate. We have 250 ewes that are due to lamb in seven weeks. We haven't started this yet, so this is just more of an update on what we are planning. But we have animals allocated to groups and lambing paddocks. We're working through the formulation of the loose licks very carefully with our ruminant nutritionist and they should arrive in the next few weeks. Following on from New South Wales DPIRD, we'll also be looking at visitation to the loose licks by installing some that should say low frequency EID readers, which will be fitted to the loose lick delivery systems. And then, in year two, we'll focus on delivery of additives via the drinking water. So, it's building on what we looked at in MERiL 2. We'll look at a control, so no additive delivered. We'll look at Agolin ruminant, which is what we also looked at in MERiL 2. We'll put Bovaer through the water delivery system. And then we'll also look at a combination of Agolin ruminant and Bovaer. And we've just been working through the design of this and sort of the intricacies of the delivery, but we've been working very closely with DSM on how best to deliver it through the water. And we'll also work with Dosatron for the water delivery component. Next slide.

So, our main research questions for this project is how do the additives Agolin ruminant, Bovaer and calcium nitrate, either alone or in combination, affect methane production in grazing sheep. So, this will be measured by a couple of GreenFeeds that will be rotated through the paddocks. We're also interested in how ewe visitation to the water trough and also the loose lick varies within the flock and how it changes over the seasons over 12 months. We'll also have EID readers fitted over the water troughs as well to track this. And we are also very interested in animal health and productivity. So, again, we'll be looking at blood and rumen fluid analysis tracking the ewes liveweight and body condition scores following any impacts on wool and fleece characteristics. We're also really interested in how these impacts or doesn't impact the fertility, fecundity and the lambing outcomes of the ewes. We'll look at rumen pathology and we'll also try and collect some milk samples from the ewes during lactation to look at milk quality as well. Just there, the pictures you can see, so that water delivery system you can see there on the right, that's got an EID panel reader fitted over the top of the trough, which is what we used in MERiL 2. We'll probably do something similar in this project. You can see the farm guys there assembling the loose lickfeeders for us and then up the top is our GreenFeed unit here at Turretfield. And that's it.

[2:23:37] Penny Reyenga: All right, thank you very much, Alice. So, we're pretty much at time, so I'll just open the floor if there's maybe just one question, if anyone had a burning question? There's bit going on in the chat, but I'll let you guys have a look and answer those unless someone wants to put their hand up and ask a question. If not, we might then move on to our next speaker who is Surinder Chauhan from the University of Melbourne to talk about producer and consumer tested solutions for emissions reduction in livestock.

[2:24:10] Surinder Chauhan: Thank you, Penny.

[2:24:12] Penny Reyenga: Did you want to take control?

[2:24:13] Surinder Chauhan: Yep.

[2:24:14] Penny Reyenga: Good. Well done. There you go.

[2:24:19] Surinder Chauhan: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. So, this project builds on the successful completion of project MERiL 2 where we demonstrated with Polygain feeding 20 to 34% reduction in methane emissions. Similarly, with betaine in sheep, we saw 20 to 22% reductions in methane emissions. So, following on that, these experiments were small-scale experiments, so it was reasonable to validate these emission reductions on commercial dairy and sheep farms. So, the objective for this project is to validate delivery systems for Polygain on commercial dairy and sheep farm. And the second one is also to investigate the intergenerational reduction in methane emissions via early life programming. And the third was to validate combined effects. As Zoey mentioned a little earlier, we are also looking at combination of Polygain and Agolin.

And also we are looking at the consumer response, especially in terms of meat quality. So, the sheep study, we will also be looking at not only the objective meat quality, but also we'll be looking at eating quality including a consumer panel. And then, of course, will be finally an LCA on pre-farm embedded emissions and benefit cost of using Polygain and Agolin. So I don't think I need to say much about Agolin, Zoey has done a great job already. So, for Polygain it is a polyphenol-rich product. It is a sugar cane extract, and originally known for its anti-inflammatory effects and, also, for improving the gut health. But more recently, as I mentioned, we have seen and others have also seen the methane emission reduction with Polygain. So, we are focusing on Polygain and Agolin in this project.

So, for our dairy study, we are working with Hermitage Dairy, which is based in Kergunyah South, which is actually a half an hour drive from Wodonga, which is Victoria, New South Wales border region. And Stuart and Sarah Crosthwaite, who owns the dairy, they have a 1500 acres dairy farm, milking 550 cows with the automate strict calving. And they do have an automated feeding system, which was pretty handy to deliver the Polygain, which we are delivering at 50 gram per head per day. And that has been applied as a liquid coating to the corn that they feed and that we have done with counterpoint stock feeds.

And in terms of the design, so we have recruited 120 cows to this experiment, so 60 cows in each group. Control group, 60 cows, that were receiving the plain corn, and then 60 cows that are receiving the Polygain enriched corn. And as I said, we are also looking at the early life programming and also our life intervention. So, our goal is also to utilise the calves for the second study. So, in the second study, which is linked to this one, the calves from each group of cows will be allocated further to two groups where a group will not receive any Polygain, and the second group of calves will receive Polygain. So we will have four groups of calves in this study, and we will be able to answer some of the questions around whether there is a bigger role or effect of Polygain on early life programming and, also, because we plan to supplement these calves, we are starting soon after the birth to see whether early life intervention has a role to play as well.

So, in terms of what we have done so far, as I said, we have already selected the 120 pregnant cows and we started supplementation at the early stage of pregnancy. And we have blocked these animals that we have selected. They have been blocked by their days in milk production, the parity, we have also looked at the block by body weights and the milk yield. And obviously the treatment cows are receiving 50 grams of Polygain per animal per day. And we are going to supplement these cows until the calving.

In terms of sample collection, we are collecting blood samples, we are collecting milk samples, we are also collecting rumen fluid and faecal samples as well. And we are timing these three collections with the three-methane collections - methane measurement campaigns and for rumen fluid, we are doing a subset of 10 cows per group. So, in terms of methane measurement for the cows, we are using open-path lasers and inverse dispersion technique. Dr Mei Bai, who is the co-investigator and expert on open-path laser is on the call and also acknowledging Professor Richard Eckard, one of the co-investigators and Ian Sawyer on the call as well, if you have any more questions. And then for calves, we will be using GreenFeed units. We have two GreenFeed units, and which will be used during the three to six months of age. And, again, because we are going to follow these progenies for one and a half years of age, so I had one year and one and a half year of age around that time, we'll be using again, open-path lasers. In terms of methane measurements in cows, we have planned three campaigns, and the first campaign was a baseline data, which we have completed, and we'll be able to show some results on that. And the second campaign was to see the efficacy of Polygain, which we have just commenced and partially completed. And then the third campaign, we plan after the washout period, basically to understand are there any persistence of effects after we stop Polygain supplementation.

So, this is just showing the setup for open-path lasers at the Hermitage Dairy where we had both the groups in the different set of paddocks. And then, also, showing the weather station, the cross calibration of the lasers during the first campaign, which is the baseline data that we have collected. So, this is the baseline methane measurements that we had before we actually started the supplementation. So these are the two groups which is the groups we are using. And as you can see in the two groups, the average methane production of 550 grams per day. And then also, as I said, we are also collecting because we are looking at the performance productivity gains as well.

So, during the baseline methane measurements, we also collected these the performance data in terms of, we also looked at animal live weights, body condition scores, milk yield, protein percentage, fat percentage, and solids. As you can see, the two groups they look very much balanced, but this is before commencing the supplementation. And also, of course to be able to calculate the estimated dry matter intake. We are also collecting the pasture samples.

And then as I mentioned, the second campaign, which was after three months of Polygain supplementation, we have recommenced this campaign. And unfortunately, after 12 days of - sorry, after we were hoping to go for 12 days, but after six days of campaign, we had to stop the campaign because of more rains and the paddocks were quite muddy and there was a risk for animal welfare concerns, so we had to stop the campaign. So, we are looking at the data and depending upon the data, we have put in ethics amendment, we may need another campaign after this. So, in terms of dairy study, it's ongoing. So, we have just commenced calving as well.

So, these calves, we have got two-day, 34 calves are born and these calves, we are housing them. So, Stuart, they have a sister farm nearby, so the calves are being located to that new farm. And we have commenced the supplementation in calves as well. And we are now also progressing with our second study, which is the sheep study, which we are doing in partnership with FeedWorks. And we are working with a commercial farmer in in Northeast Victoria again. And the objective for this study is to validate combined effects of Polygain and Agolin on enteric methane emission productivity and also the sheep meat quality, as I said. So, in terms of meat quality, Professor Robin Warner will be looking at the objective meat quality, but also the consumer panel analysis. And we are also hoping to do a survey where we will be asking the consumer the questions on whether, how prepared they are to pay for a more sustainable and low greenhouse gas emission meat product. So, this is the farm that we are working with Homewood Farm, which is 1100 acres farm, and they are joining 3,000 ewes nearly producing 4,000 lambs and located near Benalla. And we have the lambs available now for selection and we are just waiting on the final ethics approval. The meeting is on 30th of this month, and we are pretty much ready to commence this study.

So, the design for this sheep study. We will be recruiting 200 lambs for this study, and they will be allocated to four groups. Of course, the control, and then we'll have a group on Agolin. We will be using 200 milligrams. Zoey, in this study as compared to what you have done, 100 and 300 milligrams. In group three, we will have Polygain, and then we have a combined fourth group where we will be stacking up Polygain and Agolin together.

And in terms of measurements, of course we'll be looking at the body weight. We will be also looking at the wool quality and also collecting blood samples. And, of course, we'll be doing methane measurements using GreenFeed. So, this is a six-month study and at the end of the study, we will be harvesting 80 lambs. And so, 20 lambs from each group which will be slaughtered, and we will collect both carcass quality traits, but we are looking at carcass quality, but also meat quality, which will be followed by sample collection that we will be taking to our facility in Melbourne. And looking at both objective and sensory analysis of meat quality. So, I already mentioned this, we'll be collecting the body weights and also collecting the methane measurements and then of course looking for meat quality. So, I don't have any data at this stage to share, but overall, we are progressing. We are on track. And only the challenge we had with the second campaign which we had to stop in between and then we have to go for an amendment to run another campaign. Thank you, Penny, back to you.

[2:37:10] Penny Reyenga: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Surinder? No questions. Everyone's keen to move on. Alright, again, if you find you have a question later, please add it to the chat. So next up we have George Reeves from Ruminant BioTech, they're going to present on their inhibiting bolus. So, George, are you willing to take control?

[2:37:43] George Reeves: Yep, I will. Thanks, Penny. Hi, everyone, I'm George Reeves, the commercial director at Ruminant BioTech. We're a New Zealand based company that's been working on a slow-release methane inhibitor bolus that's been in process for the last four years. We've done over 20 pilot and pre-pivotal studies in New Zealand. Thought I'd give you all a little bit of an overview of the technology platform, sure that's of interest to the audience and then I'll talk about the MERiL program. So here it goes. Just see if I can actually control the slide. Yep. Here we go. Right.

So, the bolus itself has got four component parts where it's got a case made out of biodegradable polymers enclosed, and that's a formulation that's got excipients and synthetic bromoform, which we've chosen for its scalability and its high purity, relatively low cost to utilise versus naturally derived bromoform from something such as Asparagopsis. Then we have a ballast bolus is, if you don't know anything about the technology retained through two mechanisms, either variable geometry, something like wings or weight. And in the case of ours, our first-generation product is retained through weight or density. And finally, we have RFID and that enables detection in animal. It's a great research tool, but it also enables high standard verification that a product's been applied to an animal if you're generating something like voluntary carbon market credits.

I'm not getting a response on my keyboard here. Penny, could you try to help me out?

[2:40:03] Penny Reyenga: I can take control if you like.

[2:40:07] George Reeves: Yep, thanks.

[2:40:10] Penny Reyenga: There you go.

[2:40:11] George Reeves: Okay. Thank you. So, does it work? Yes, in New Zealand we've had very good demonstration of the efficacy. So what you can see here is we dose on a set day and then we get inhibition coming back to the control animals at around about a time point of around about 140 days. The total level of efficacy during its peak of effectiveness is in the range of 70 to 90% efficacy. This study was done on R2 heifers, and we had 10 control and 10 treated. So relatively small numbers, but you can see highly effective.

So, next slide please, Penny. What our proposal for the Stage 3 Round 2 of MERiL was to take that solid demonstration of efficacy in New Zealand and validate and demonstrate in Australia that the product works similarly, targeting Australian Bos Taurus beef cattle and conducting a total of five trials, four of which would be based in commercial farm settings, so pasture-based settings, and one of which we would be looking at productivity and safety in a pen-based study. And the proposal was to move the bolus technology readiness level from 5 to 7 during the course of the period from August last year to March '27. The scale of the commercial farm demonstration trials will get larger over time. So, we're starting with a smaller number, taking learnings and expanding to larger trials over time. So, a total of five, we're primarily focused in South-Eastern Australia, where you find those traditional English cattle breeds. So, Hereford, Angus, Shorthorn and crosses of those animals will be involved over the period of the next couple of years.

Next slide please, Penny. So we've completed two trials, but I don't have the results to share today, unfortunately. I'm looking forward to sharing them with the forum. But basically, the first two trials are the pen-based efficacy, safety, and productivity study, which we conducted at University of Sydney in conjunction with Professor Luciano Gonzales and his team there. And in the facility they have, we had 60 Hereford steers, two steers split 30 control and treated. And we commenced that study quite soon after our approval to start. The program commenced around the 14th of October, and we concluded it as planned mid-January. And the second small grazing beef trial was set in Orange, New South Wales. It was overseen by a company you might not be familiar with, but an organisation that conducts independent research in New Zealand and it's expanded to Australia, EpiVets Australia, and that involved 50 Angus heifers in the 13-14. So R2's again months of age, 25 control and 25 treated, and we started that in September. And again, finished that in January. We're looking forward to sharing results from those studies with you in due course.

What we did extensively at Sydney was looked at safety parameters, all the standard things you would expect, safety indicators, rumen fluids, and bloods and biochemistry there. And efficacy's being measured in both studies with GreenFeed. So, in Sydney, it was a fixed GreenFeed unit. We have three mobile units in Australia, which been utilised for the first grazing beef efficacy trial. We are also going to be deploying Agscent Optiweigh mobile units alongside GreenFeeds and that will hopefully enable further validation of that emerging technology as this program progresses.

Next slide, please, Penny. So, I've talked about the reporting, we're in final stages of reporting and we'll share and disseminate the information as soon as possible. We're expecting that that will be early quarter four availability this year. So, I've got some nice pictures there to fill in for not having a lot of data this year. Both of the Sydney facility and the mobile GreenFeeds. We've got a custom mobile unit. We purchase units from C-Lock and put them onto a customised trailer with backup generators, solar panels and there's a picture of somebody bolusing an animal at the Orange site.

Next slide, please, Penny. So, coming up, we've got another larger, slightly larger grazing beef trial. It was supposed to start and be finished by now, but it was on a site in Gippsland in Victoria, and unfortunately, due to drought, we postponed and then subsequently had to cancel when there was no drought relief. And we found a new site near Tamworth in New South Wales, and we've already started that second grazing beef trial up there with Angus crossed steers that are in the age range of 10 to 15 months. So, it's similar to the sizes a few slightly younger animals that are still just the R1, at the top end of an R1, they've been habituated, and dosing will be mid-September. So, we've just commenced that. And third and fourth trials are going to be in the numbers of 100 to 200 animals per trial. And we are looking at sites across New South Wales and Victoria. The third trial is expected to start in quarter one next year.

And next slide, Penny. I just wanted to acknowledge everybody that supported us in the journey to date, especially the Australian Government for the funding to conduct the program of research, but also other partners, the University of Sydney and EpiVets Australia. Very important partners for us in this program. So, thank you. And I'll happily take any questions.

[2:47:25] Penny Reyenga: Any questions there for George?

[2:47:30] George Reeves: I think our audience is dwindling, Penny.

[2:47:35] Penny Reyenga: It's always like you never want to be last in the day. Any questions? I mean, obviously George, we look forward to hearing your results probably at the next forum when you'll have more to say. So, interesting work. Thank you.

[2:47:46] George Reeves: Thank you.

[2:47:48] Penny Reyenga: All right. We'll move on to our last presentation for the day. We've got Cameron Best from Mort & Co to talk about their large-scale grazing trials. Cameron, did you want to take control?

[2:47:59] Cameron Best: Yeah no, you, if you could just go through the slides Penny.

[2:48:00] Penny Reyenga: Yeah, I could do that.

[2:48:02] Cameron Best: I think that would be the most practical. So yeah, so this is obviously a MERiL 3 project. And Penny, if you could just go to the next slide, please. And today I'll just talk about the three activities in the project. There is obviously a fourth one with communications. The first one is generating DMD continuums, and what they are is dry matter digestibility continuums, which is a 12-month data set of energy values of the pasture that feeds into our diagnostic platform. The second area of activity is building on MERiL 2, where we just distributing a nitrate block as if it's a straight commercial block. And the third area is testing other abatement additives inside that block as an addition to the nitrate.

So DMD continuums -Penny, if you go to the next slide. So, Mort & Co has a faecal laboratory, and the process is a bit different to what's probably the main area of testing pasture value. It's what we call a faecal wash through, and the process is pretty basic and simple. We start with a wash through which is exactly what it says. You just get faecal matter, you wash the endogenous matter away and dry it. And you can see on the left-hand side there, you actually get a real good picture of what the actual grass was. And a few people have said, well, why don't you take DNA of that to see what the species are. Because we have to understand it in the rangelands, it's a supermarket out there, you know, there's a lot of native forbs, legumes, lot of grass, and you see it all come through when you get the faecal wash through at that dry what we call a puck stage, as in a, what do you call a ice hockey puck. And because fibrous material progresses through the digestive tract of the rumen at different rates, we break that up and then we put it through a sieving apparatus and we basically are aiming to get a constant, and the constant is all the particle sizes below one millimetre. And you can see as the separation process there in the middle picture. And then we take that constant and we measure the bulk density. So, it's a direct physical measurement. And as energy constitutes 86% of the intake, we are actually directly measuring the energy intake of the animal and we infer the crude protein and phosphorus, and we will be adding NIR to do that at some near point in the future. But when you look at the process, understand it is essentially a mirror of acid detergent fibre process, but you are using the animal to be the first the alkaline post process and then the neutral - I mean the neutral detergent process and the acid detergent process. But in essence, we've got botanical truth, right? So that's our laboratory process from which we generate these DMD continuums and our area of activity.

If you can do the next slide, please, Penny. At the moment, obviously, we are Queensland based, and you can see we are fairly active across the southern states, the Southern part of Queensland. The yellow dots is where we have DMD continuums in progress. The green dots are where we are in negotiation. We've completed five already and there's about 25 in progress. When we started the project, we thought we could do denser sampling like weekly, which we've done a few sites like that. But it's just a bit hard to do on a geographical spread basis. So, we are going to what we call a D class - I should say that should be a C class DMD continuum of monthly sampling, and that feeds into our Predictor Plus platform. So, if you can just go to the next slide please, Penny.

And why you would do this in a methane or a greenhouse gas space? There are many reasons to build DMD continuums and feed them into Predictor Plus. But one of the main reasons is to get really accurate sheep-beef greenhouse gas framework inputs. So, Predictor Plus produces monthly information on the grower side. It's more granular, and then we can aggregate that monthly information into quarterly and to provide very accurate inputs into the sheep-beef greenhouse gas accounting framework. And you can see here on this slide; you've got two sort of tables. The top one is a typical breeder, her weight range. And the key point there is that to get accuracy, you've got to have be able to put negative figures in certain quarters into the sheep and beef greenhouse gas accounting framework. And that's what DMD continuums and putting it into a metabolic model like Predictor Plus enables you to do. The other area where it improves accuracy is around calf growth. And, again, this Predictor Plus can generate the inputs into the sheep and beef greenhouse gas accounting framework.

So look, just to give you an overview of the testing we've done in these, MERiL 2 MERiL 3 project. If you can go to the next slide, Penny. Yep. So, you can see we've been at this now since 2023 and '24 and '25. And what you see on that graph there is just all the tests we've done over those two- and three-quarter years. The red being 2023, the green being last year, and then the blue, you can see how it's trending this year. And that black line is the sheep and beef inventory defaults for Queensland for dry matter digestibility. So, obviously it's used different in the sheep and beef greenhouse gas accounting framework than how Predictor Plus use it, so it's just there for reference purposes at this point. We've had a peak-there's just some stats on what we've tested so far-we've had a peak of 75% dry matter digestibility. We've had a lower 46, and that was a case where when I rang up and said, what the heck happened here? They were using cows to crash graze leucaena. So, the poor cows are essentially eating wood, so you can see that type of thing happens, and we've got a mean of 61.5% dry matter digestibility. And the key point here is that you can see the good season that northern Australia is having being above the Queensland border to traditional seasons.

If you move to the next slide, Penny, where will just drill down into individual properties, this is a central Queensland location, and you can see they were active in 2024. We had a bit of a slip in the first few months of this year. On the X-axis here, we've got day of the year, we've got the black line representing the Queensland defaults. The blue line is just the mean of the plotted data. So, you can see what we can see here is that even though this year we're even having a better year than last year, our DMD values are lower. So, it's more important how the rain falls and the management of those events, right, is really what drives the energy supply in a grazing situation.

So, in the next slide, Penny, we move a bit 200 or 300 kilometres south on the Darling Downs, and again, you can see the 2024 results, the 2025 results. And to the left you can see the rainfall patterns for 2024 and 2025. And this year, it's considerably, or not considerably less, probably a hundred mills less. But yeah, it's not tracking, it's not behaving like the central Queensland situation, which is obviously to be expected. So, in here, we've got less rainfall, and we've got, I should say, less energy supply, but if we want accuracy in this greenhouse accounting space, effectively we've got to go and ask the cow what's going down her neck and that's what DMD continuums provide. And so we'll continue this activity over the next year and hopefully, we could have upwards of over 30 DMD continuums. We will aim to get 50, but whether we can keep people testing each month is the key thing across this broad footprint.

So, Penny, if we can go now to the next activity. It's the N, or our nitrate, distribution. At the moment we've got in front of about 600, and as of last week, it's probably closer to about 900 head and there should be now a dot round Charleville. So, again, we are getting a bit of a distribution out there. We are facing a bit of a headwind because it's such a good season, because we are just distributing this as if it was a commercial - if nitrate was just part of the commercial offering, right? And that nitrate dispensing is getting done just as a commercial practice. So, we're trying to fit into their current practice, their current budget, and we sort of start a bit late. So, we're a bit behind the eight ball in terms of getting it in front of producers because it took us a bit to mid-year to get our productive capacity right. So, but look, as of today it's probably closer to 900 head that are consuming a nitrate block in the southern half of Queensland. And we are looking with our broader dialogue with the DMD continuums, we are looking to sort of extend that a bit further.

If you go to the next slide, this is some of the continuation of the work from MERiL 2 into MERiL 3. We've got one site where we had these instruments made to record the presence of the cow and then the weight of the block, the hardness of the block because, yeah, we want to be very confident about the intakes. And what you see here is the table of information. And so, a couple of - if you can look at the second column, you can see that because this is a mother and father operation, you can see that the dispensing days are not sort of regular. And this is what happens in a regular commercial operation. You're just not going to get regular, like in a scientific environment, you can see one day there was 14 days difference between dispensing and, yeah, you've got to go away and pick up kids from school and that type of thing, and they get back, it's empty, right? So, but on average we average 191 grams a day intake, and it's probably a fraction of a bit higher, that more like 230 when you take the days that there was nothing there due to whatever the labour circumstances was on the operation. So, I think a key point about in the R&D side, in going into commercial, you're going to have to deal with variation both in the human management side but also on the animal side.

So, if you can now, Penny, go to the next slide. So, we went to Optiweigh, and I said, "Can you put a set of scales on the actual feeder bin," right? So, they built some instruments, and we've got this paddock at the feedlot, which has got called the rejects paddocks. And animals are out there, there's always 5, 10, 15 out there for certain reasons. And so we were testing the instrument for Optiweigh, and they wanted to replace the load cells, and they're doing that now so you can see the nitrate through the block. But I just want to draw to your attention to the data that the Optiweigh is producing. And you can see grams per visit, total grams consumed, grams per day, the weight of the animal. And, again, you can see some odd variation going in there. That one animal in particular must sit there and just, you know, get his dose and then go. Where the others keep coming back, which is the way we sort of have experienced it up in the Springsure setting up in Central Queensland. And I think what this poses then is that okay, in distributing the additional additives, whether be via Agolin or bromoform, okay, with blocks that is, is that the stability is on the edge because if they're only taking, 20, 30-odd grams or most animals, they're just taking the edge off and doesn't stay stable on that outer side. So, yeah, so that's a question probably, you know, for these additional additives. So just one more slide.

Penny, if you keep going next slide. Part of the project was actually to test additional additives. Now, Brad Robertson, Mort & Co's sustainability manager is sort of leading this space for me. We've contacted a few, but we've got sort of appetite from three potential additives. We've got this Surf'N'Turf product from Provectus. We've made blocks and sent it Provectus for stability testing. And look, it made a good-looking block, I must tell you, it looked very - yeah, it actually improved the block making process. So, on the physics side, it looked good, but obviously that's only one part of the whole equation. Obviously, the testing and stability has to come back with - you know. From our Bovaer relationship from MERiL 2, we got the Bovaer and mixed it with the raw materials prior to going into blocks and then the iron sulphate content of the premix seemed to react. And so now we've just got a second mix with no iron sulphate and we're just waiting DSM's okay to send it two of them for further stability testing. And Agolin is the third one we aim to test. And we're just getting documents in place before we make the blocks because the blocks have to go to the USA for testing. So just taking this a bit further.

And the next slide please, Penny. Just looking at the cost of all this, and bear in mind now nitrate when we put in the block was $4,000 a tonne and it shouldn't be, it's coming back down another $1,000. And before COVID and before the volatility around the globe, it was trading around $1,200 a tonne. So, we expect it to come down to that price, but it's not at the moment. So, when we are formulating a rangeland block, we're trying to formulate for a rumen degradable protein dose, right? And the standard Mort block is around 210 grams intake. We are trying to get this 160, 170 grams of rumen degradable protein intake a day, right? We put a bit of nitrate in because we take urea out, put nitrate in. Yeah, we have to sort of adjust a few things in bitterness to hardness, to in increase the intake a bit. And then when we go to the Surf'N'Turf, we have to increase the intake a bit more. And then obviously the Agolin intake is much the same. Now that's the pricing as it's been communicated to us for a 137-day program, or four and a half months through the dry season. Now, the caveat is I understand that pricing is a bit fluid, so just take that as caveat emptor. And whatever the price moves, they're all a bit fluid at the moment. So yeah, but the nitrate, it has started reducing price, but not back to his historic relationship of only being maybe $200 to $300 above urea. But, at this point, I think large scale distribution of methane atoms is possible. Obviously, nitrate, we are seeing that evidence and it depends on the stability of those other products, whether that distribution capability extends to there. So, yeah, I'll leave it at that, Penny, and I'll close if anybody's got any questions.

[3:04:55] Penny Reyenga: Thank you very much. Cameron, any questions for Cameron? If not, I will - oh, no, I can see one. Richard?

[3:05:10] Richard Eckard: It is just, Cameron, how does your nitrate block differ from what we came up with almost a decade ago? If you remember, you invented one way back in the dark ages.

[3:05:20] Cameron Best: The theory of formulation is still the same. I just don't have the same raw materials, Richard, right. As what I had back then. Right? But the theory is still the same and getting to this dose, this 160 grams, it's aimed at feeding the bugs, right? Not the animal directly. It's aimed at feeding the microbes. So, the raw materials are different, the theory is the same. And that's how it differs. Yeah. So, we have vegetable protein and an amino acids and stuff like that in there, sort of, but yeah, it is a bit different to what we had before, but the theory is the same. The specification almost looks the same, but the formulation of getting there is a bit different, Richard.

[3:06:06] Richard Eckard: And would you use the sulphate as well, because sulphate would do similar to nitrate, so it could be another option?

[3:06:13] Cameron Best: Yeah, well, we actually use lysine sulphate in there, so whether that's acts the same or not. I'll leave it to the experts to comment. So, we actually do have a sulphate in there in the form of lysine sulphate.

[3:06:33] Richard Ecard: Steals hydrogen.

[3:06:36] Cameron Best: Yeah, well, that's in there at good levels because obviously we want sulphur in there. So yeah, it's actually a nitrate and a sulphur block if you want the technical, you know, specification there, Richard.

[3:06:52] Penny Reyenga: All right, thanks, Cameron. One last question for anybody, otherwise we'll wrap up.

[3:06:59] Cameron Best: Okay.

[3:07:00] Penny Reyenga: Thanks, Cameron.

[3:07:01] Cameron Best: Thank you.

[3:07:03] Penny Reyenga: All right, I'm going to hand back to Paul Ryan now. Thank you.

[3:07:08] Paul Ryan: Thanks Penny. Aside from any questions to Cameron, did anyone have any other more general questions, comments, reflections, or anything before I wrap up? No? Okay, if not. First, thank you to all the presenters for your excellent presentations. A large amount of information was presented. It's great to see all the progress that we've seen. We look forward to seeing more results over the next year or two years. Clearly, lots of promising results, as well as plenty of new questions. Thanks. While we are here also to everyone running projects for working with us and Business Grants Hub, we know there's a lot you need to do in complying with all the requirements, but thanks for working with them and with Naidu as well. There was a question during the discussion, and I mentioned it earlier, we'll publish a video of the forum as well as summaries of the presentations. They'll go up on our website soon. Thanks again to the presenters for providing the summaries as well. That's the presentations on the projects. Thanks. Going back to, also, to Tiffany and Leann from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and also Ben from the CRC for your presentations. Aside from that, thanks everyone for participating and for all the discussion. As Penny said, there's a lot in the chat there both answering the questions, but also the broader information exchange. I'm not sure whether there's any other separate questions to the department that haven't been answered, but if there are, we'll definitely come back to you on them as soon as possible. My last point, thanks to Naidu for organising the forum as well as managing the program for us. That was it for me for wrapping up, but I want to check with Naidu or Penny whether there's anything else before we close that I've neglected to mention.

[3:09:20] Naidu Bodapati: No, I think you summed it up very well, Paul.

[3:09:26] Paul Ryan: Alright, in that case, thanks very much everybody. I hope you found it useful. We'll close there. Thank you.