For years, methane-reducing feed additives lived largely in trial pens and press releases. Last week, one of them got a commercial test big enough to matter.

Teys Australia, the country’s second-largest beef processor, signed a distribution agreement with Tasmanian manufacturer Sea Forest for its SeaFeed additive, potentially expanding the use from roughly 131,000 cattle today to more than 540,000 by June 2027.

The science isn’t the interesting part anymore. We’ve known for several years that certain feed additives can reduce methane emissions.

The interesting question is economic: Can anyone make money doing it?

This week’s story looks at the first large-scale methane additive deal, what the published feedlot data actually shows, and the one question producers should ask before signing any low-carbon cattle contract: Who owns the credit?

First time reading? Sign up for free here

Methane additives are feed ingredients designed to reduce the methane cattle produce during digestion.

In this case, the product is SeaFeed, a canola oil carrier containing bromoform, the naturally occurring compound found it red seaweed. Sea Forest also manufactures a synthetic version of the compound.

The idea is straightforward:

The difficult part is determining whether the economics work.

Research has shown meaningful methane reductions are possible. The challenge is figuring out whether those reductions create enough value to cover the cost of the product.

That’s what makes the Teys agreement important. For the first time, a large processor is betting that somebody, somewhere in the beef supply chain, is willing to pay for lower methane emissions.

The best publicly available evidence comes from a 200-day commercial feedlot trial published in Translational Animal Science. Researchers fed SeaFeed to 160 Angus steers on a commercial-type finishing ration. The results were impressive.

Across the entire feeding period, methane production dropped by roughly 52%. That's a meaningful reduction.

It's also worth noting that the effect weakened over time. The researchers specifically reported that methane reductions declined as days on feed increased.

That's an important distinction because additive companies often highlight peak reductions. Producers should focus on whole-period results.

The treated cattle finished about 19.7 kilograms (43 pounds) heavier than the control cattle and gained approximately 0.09 kilograms (0.20 pounds) more per day.

Importantly, feed intake did not change. The cattle appeared to gain more weight while eating essentially the same amount of feed.

Hot carcass weight increased by about 6.9 kilograms (15 pounds), but the result did not reach conventional statistical significance.

For ranchers and feeders, that's a critical distinction. Live weight is interesting, but carcass weight is what ultimately gets sold.

Neither Teys nor Sea Forest disclosed a commercial price. That's the biggest missing piece.

Beef Central cited industry estimates suggesting methane additives may cost approximately A$1 or more per head per day. That's not SeaFeed's reported price. It's simply a reasonable figure for stress-testing the economics.

At that level:

Even with substantial methane reductions, the cost per tonne remains far higher than typical carbon-credit markets have historically supported. That doesn't mean the deal won't work, it simply means somebody has to contribute additional value.

Looking from the outside, there are only a few possibilities.

The reported A$1-per-day figure may be too high, but a lower product cost dramatically changes the math.

If commercial feedyards consistently capture more gain, better feed efficiency, or heavier carcasses than the published trial, some of the additive cost can be recovered through production.

This is the scenario that seems to interest the industry most.

The processor could market low-carbon beef. Retailers could pay for a verified methane reduction claim. Or carbon credits could be sold to outside buyers.

That's where the economics become a business story rather than a nutrition story.

If carbon credits become part of the equation, producers need to understand something before signing any agreement: Who owns the credit?

If your cattle generate the reduction and someone else sells the environmental claim, you need to know how that value is being shared.

That's true whether the buyer is a feedyard, a packer, a branded-beef program, or an outside carbon market participant.

At the moment, that question matters more than whether methane falls by 40%, 50%, or 80%.

The science is getting clearer. The revenue model is not.

Before participating in any methane-reduction program, ask:

Those answers will tell you more than the marketing brochure.

Smart tools help producers manage everything from water to weather | lohud
New ranch-management platforms are increasingly combining weather data, water monitoring, and livestock information into a single dashboard. The goal is to help producers make quicker decisions and reduce the time spent checking infrastructure in the field.

Livestock management software adapts to higher cattle values | The Country
As cattle prices remain strong, producers are looking for better ways to track inventory, performance, and financial risk. Go Stock highlights how digital tools are becoming a more important part of day-to-day livestock management.

Kuwait launches a national livestock platform | Kuwait Times
Kuwait has unveiled a digital livestock platform designed to improve livestock recordkeeping and management. The project reflects a growing global trend toward centralized digital animal records and traceability systems.

Startup targets methane with new feed additive | The Cattle Site
A biotech startup is developing a feed additive aimed at reducing methane emissions from cattle. Interest in methane-reduction technologies continues to grow as researchers explore alternatives to seaweed additives, vaccines, and genetic approaches.

Agscent expands internationally as drought drives demand | Ag Navigator
Australian livestock-monitoring company Agscent is launching in the UK as producers look for tools that can improve decision-making during drought and variable weather conditions. The move highlights growing demand for remote livestock monitoring technologies.

Nebraska digital agriculture hub aims to accelerate innovation | RFD TV
Nebraska's Digital Agriculture Hub is bringing together researchers, industry, and producers to advance farm and ranch technologies. The initiative underscores the continued investment going into digital agriculture infrastructure in major livestock-producing regions.

AI and beef production continue to intersect | Ag Info
Artificial intelligence is increasingly being explored for applications ranging from herd monitoring and management recommendations to productivity tracking. While adoption remains early, AI is quickly becoming part of the livestock technology conversation.

New Zealand ag-tech firm raises millions for livestock emissions tools | Quantum
A New Zealand agricultural technology company secured new funding to accelerate technologies aimed at reducing livestock greenhouse gas emissions. The investment reflects continued interest in solutions that can address emissions without major disruptions to producers' operations.

AI-powered livestock connectivity platform launches next-generation system | Yahoo Finance
Acceleronix, iBOI, and Quectel are rolling out a new platform focused on connecting livestock-monitoring devices and agricultural data systems. The technology aims to improve the flow of data from animals and equipment to producers.

The Teys agreement doesn't prove methane additives work economically. It does prove that a major processor believes somebody is willing to pay for lower-methane beef. Over the next year, we'll learn whether that buyer actually exists. Until then, don't get distracted by the methane number.

Watch the money. Who pays, who gets paid, and who owns the credit will determine whether methane additives become a niche product or a permanent part of beef production.

BeefTech.News – Keeping you ahead of the herd.

P.S. Was this useful? Have ideas on what we should publish next? Tap the poll or respond to this email. We read every response.